Final Evaluation Report - UNICEF · 2019-11-22 · Final Evaluation Report Evaluation of Mitigating...

This project is funded This project is implemented by UNICEF

by the European Union

1

Final Evaluation Report

Evaluation of Mitigating Social Consequences of the Labour Migration

and Maximizing the Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development Project

(LRFP-2016-9126254)

Type of evaluation Final evaluation

Timeframe of the

evaluation

Country

December 2012 – September 2016

Republic of Armenia

Geographical scope

of the evaluation

4 project affected regions (Gegharkunik, Lori, Tavush and

Shirak) of the Republic of Armenia

Organization

commissioning the

evaluation

UNICEF Armenia

Independent

Evaluation Team

VISTAA Plus LLC (Armenia)

December 2016



2

Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION, OBJECT AND CONTEXT .......... 13

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 13

1.2 Background of the Action and Context ................................................................................. 13

1.3 Object of the Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 16

1.4 Logic of Intervention ............................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER II. EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ................................... 19

CHAPTER III. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 20

3.1. Qualitative Data Collection: Approach and Implementation ..................................................... 21

3.2. Quantitative Data Collection: Approach and Implementation ................................................... 22

3.3. Major Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 24

3.4. Ethical Considerations, Human Rights and Gender ................................................................... 26

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSES AND FINDINGS ................................................................................ 27

4.1. Baseline and End Survey Results Compared ............................................................................. 27

4.2. Relevance ................................................................................................................................... 28

4.3. Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 37

4.4. Efficiency ................................................................................................................................... 45

4.5. Sustainability.............................................................................................................................. 49

4.6. Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 51

4.7. Cross-cutting topics ................................................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 54

5.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 54

5.2. Lessons Learnt ........................................................................................................................... 57

5.3. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 57

ANNEXES 60

Annex 1. Statement of Work and terms of Reference .................................................................... 60

Annex 2. Desk Review and Background Documents ....................................................................... 76

Annex 3: List of Stakeholders Interviewed ...................................................................................... 78

Annex 4. Detailed Methodology ...................................................................................................... 81

Annex 5: Interview Guides and Survey Instrument ........................................................................ 90



3

Annex 6: Information of Evaluation Team .................................................................................... 112

Annex 7: Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................................ 114

Annex 8: Logical framework matrix ............................................................................................... 121

Annex 9. Selected Output Tables ................................................................................................... 138

Annex 10. Detailed Project Context .............................................................................................. 149

Annex 11. Detailed Comparison of Baseline and Final Surveys ................................................... 152

Annex 12: Achievement of project indicators ............................................................................... 157

Annex 13: Validation meeting of the EU Migration project ......................................................... 164

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Logical Framework ........................................................................................... 17

Table 2: Evaluation questions .............................................................................................................. 19

Table 3: Key Informants by Project Component and Qualitative Data Collection Method ................ 22

Table 4: Distribution of the sample by marzes (regions) and the Social Services Centers .................. 23

Table 5: Sample distribution by Urban and Rural Areas ..................................................................... 23

Table 6: Comparison between Baseline and Final Survey Designs ..................................................... 24

Table 7: Assessment of Beneficiary Socio-Economic Conditions ....................................................... 30

Table 8: Community Issues that Need Urgent Solutions ..................................................................... 31

Table 9: Ways of Case Manager Involvement with Beneficiary Family (shows the first six answers

with highest percentage) ....................................................................................................................... 36

Table 10: Case managers' capacity gaps - comparison of assessments ................................................ 39

Table 11: Local Social Projects by Beneficiary Group ........................................................................ 41

Table 12: Implementing Partners, their Roles and Activities .............................................................. 45

Table 13: Reconciliation of Planned and Actual Spending under the Project (as of April 2016) ........ 47

Table 14: Comparison of UNICEF's Regular Resources and other (including EU) Contribution to the

System (in USD) ................................................................................................................................... 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Management Structure ............................................................................................. 15

Figure 2 Perception of Negative Consequences of Migration by Respondents ................................... 30

Figure 3: Breakdown of Managed cases by Marzes and Years ............................................................. 38

Figure 4: Changes in Social Services in the past three years ................................................................ 52

Figure 5: Satisfaction with TOSS compared .......................................................................................... 52



4

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGBU Armenian General Benevolent Union

AIDS Acquired immune deficiency syndrome

CFOA Communities Finance Officers Association

CM Case Management

CSO Civil Society Organization

EU European Union

FAR Fund for Armenian Relief

FG Focus Group

FWCPU Family, Women and Child Protection Units of Regional Administrations

GoA Government of Armenia

HIV Human immunodeficiency virus

HSSD Health and Social Security Departments of Regional Administrations

IC Institution Cooperation

ICHD International Center for Human Development

IOM International Organization for Migration

ISC Integrated Social Center

ISS Integrated Social Services

IT Information Technology

LSP Local Social Planning

MEA Mission East Armenia

MOES Ministry of Education and Science

MOH Ministry of Health

MoLSA Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of Armenia

MoTAD Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NCAP National Center for Aids Prevention

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NILSR National Institute for Labour and Social Research

NSS National Statistical Service of Armenia

OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PCA Programme Cooperation Agreement

PCM Programme Coordination Meeting within UNICEF in Armenia

PMT Project Management Team

PRIP Pension Reform Implementation Project

RFP Request for Proposal

RSP Regional Social Plan

SC Steering Committee

SME DNC Small and Medium Entrepreneurship Development National Center

SOU Statement of Understanding

SoW Scope of Work



5

STD Sexually transmitted diseases

ToR Terms of Reference

TOSS Territorial Office of Social Services

ToT Training of Trainers

TSP Territorial Social Planning

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

UNICEF RO UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and

Commonwealth of Independent States



6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This evaluation report is the result of a collective effort of an evaluation team, each member of which

contributed considerably to the final product. However, the evaluation process itself was significantly

supported by a number of structures and individuals that include UNICEF Armenia, Ministry of Labour and

Social Affairs, National Institute of Labour and Social Research, Ministry of Territorial Administration and

Development and marz administration units and others. The evaluation team would like to recognize all the

support it received in understanding the task, organizing the logistics of the fieldwork, elaborating a report

outline and other aspects of the assignment.

Furthermore, special appreciation is given to around 350 individuals, who provided their feedback, opinions

and positions on the Project through participation in the quantitative survey, focus group discussions and

individual interviews.



7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

From December 2012 to September 2016, UNICEF in Armenia has been implementing the European Union-

funded “Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in

Local Development” project (hereinafter the Project) in four target marzes (regions) of Armenia - Lori,

Tavush, Shirak and Gagharkunik. The purpose of the project was reducing the social vulnerability of labour

migrants' families and communities through provision of tailored social services and best use of migrants’

resources in the development of their communities of origin/return. The project was designed as a three year

intervention with 5 interrelated components and a budget of 1,103,160 Euros (80% of which was contributed

by the EU, while the rest was covered through UNICEF contribution). Five key components of the project

included Case management1 (CM); Territorial/Local Social Planning (TSP/LSP), Institution Cooperation (IC),

Parental Care, and Diaspora Engagement. The first three project components built up on UNICEF in

Armenia’s previous efforts to support policy setting and reform agenda with respect to case management,

local social planning and institutional cooperation, and as such were designed to ensure “the practical

application of the ongoing reform of Integrated Social Services (ISS) in the context of migrants’ families”.2

The purpose of this summative evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and

sustainability of interventions under the EU-funded “Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and

maximising migrants’ involvement in local development” project (2012-2016)”.3 Social services responding

to the needs of socially vulnerable and migrant families in Armenia are the object of the Evaluation as

specified by UNICEF in Armenia. Broader programme components, such as Diaspora Engagement and

Parental Care were also within the special focus of the Evaluation.

The specific objectives of the Evaluation include: assessing whether the Project has successfully achieved its

key outputs and outcomes (established in its Action Plan and the Logical Framework) with respect to their

coherence and suitability to addressing the social costs of migration; assessing the level of project

sustainability with respect to changes in policies and practice, and assessing project achievements for migrant

families within the overall ISS reform and UNICEF’s work in this regard as well as migration and

development nexus.

The intended audience for this evaluation is primarily the EU and UNICEF in Armenia management and

programme staff, Regional Office and Headquarters Divisions as well as other involved government and

development partners such as Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA), Ministry of Territorial

Administration and Development (MoTAD), National Institute of Labour and Social Research (NILSR),

Ministry of Diaspora (MoD), regional and local administrations in target regions, AGBU, IOM, WB and

others.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation report was prepared based on the analysis and triangulation of data collected through mixed

method4 approach. This included: identification and mapping of key stakeholders; mapping of situation and

contextual analysis; in-depth documentary review and structured desk analysis; analysis of policy documents;

review of Project implementation documents, including the logical framework; as well as initial meetings with

key stakeholders including the Project Expert Group5. The data collection approach is summarized below.

in depth interviews and focus group interviews with over 90 key informants and stakeholders including 50

case managers involved in the Project, national, regional and local level decision makers, Project partners,

1 See Section 2.1, Main Areas of Intervention for more detailed description of each component. 2 FULL APPLICATION FORM; (EuropeAid/131-088/C/ACT/Multi-2 ) Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximizing migrants’ involvement in local development 3 Request for Proposals-LRFP-2016-9126254 4 See Chapter I, Section 1.2 Evaluation Methodology and Annex 4 for the details. 5 The Project Evaluation Expert Group comprised representatives from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development, Armenian General Benevolent Union, European Union Delegation to Armenia and UNICEF Armenia.



8

experts and staff and others. In total, 55 key informants were reached out through 9 Focus groups, 9 key

informants were reached out through 3 group interviews, and 26 key informants were reached out through

individual interviews

survey of 294 Project beneficiaries, i.e. labour migrants’ family members, which was a representative

sample selected from the database of around 2500 beneficiaries.

The feedback, opinions and positions of respondents and key informants were analysed and triangulated with

the information received from the desk review of materials6 to feed into the findings, conclusions and

recommendations by applying the standard evaluation criteria analysis (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,

impact and sustainability) in combination with Human Rights-Based Approach and Results-Based

|Management. Thus, the evaluation was conducted in three phases: inception phase which included the review

of key documentation and development of data collection and evaluation tools; data review and collection

phase from key stakeholders and synthesis phase.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The comparative analysis of the Baseline and End of Project Beneficiary Survey data sets an overall context

for the rationale underlying the Project and its implementation. Triangulation with the data received through

desk review, in-depth interviews, focus groups and observations results in a number of conclusions and

findings that are grouped below by main evaluation criteria, i.e. relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact

and sustainability.

Relevance

Through the implementation of the Project UNICEF in Armenia directed its ongoing efforts in support of

social protection services reform in Armenia to addressing the social consequences of migration for the

families of labour migrants. Project interventions emphasized practical applications and testing of ISS

reform elements such as case management, local social planning and institutional cooperation (each aspect

of the reform being a separate Project Component) in the context of social support to a specific vulnerable

group, i.e. families of labour migrants.

Results of the Project Baseline study and the final Beneficiary Survey as well as the feedback from case

managers provide sufficient evidence to claim that labour migrants’ families are one of the most vulnerable

social groups in Armenia and that there are several factors compounding their social vulnerability, on top of

the absence of its migrant member. As such the Project interventions were aligned with the individual and

collective needs and priorities of this beneficiary group. They also targeted capacity building of case managers,

social service providers and governmental/community officials, while contributing to the Government’s

reform agenda with respect to reforming the existing social protection system.

However, one of the challenges with respect to focusing on a particular socially vulnerable group (in response

to the EU priorities) has been that in some instances case managers somewhat neglected other groups or, in

other cases, attempted involving non-eligible beneficiaries to resolve their issues through the Project to ensure

opening and processing the required number of cases. The implementers struggled to point out that

involvement in the Project should not be a detriment to conducting their work responsibilities, but rather an

opportunity to perform those professionally and with the best interest of beneficiaries in mind.

Inclusion of additional intervention areas such as Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement provided a further

impetus to serving the beneficiaries specifically and improving their social situation generally, though to a

varying degree. Given the indirect linkages between these two components and the other program

interventions related to social services and systems, they were not explicitly perceived as part of a holistic

intervention and were somewhat isolated from the rest of the Project interventions.

6 See Annex 2 for detailed list of Desk Review and Background Materials.



9

Effectiveness

Generally, the Project has been effectively implemented and met most of its targeted results, including:

training of 50 case managers, opening and processing of around 2500 social cases in support of labour

migrants’ families with use of case management methodology, developing four Local Social Plans for the

targeted regions as well as implementing 10 local social projects, training 370 members of labour migrants on

HIV/AIDs awareness and prevention, creating of the online Together4Armenia platform and others.

However, the achievement of numeric results translated into longer term systemic or institutionalized

changes to a varying degree due to a number of objective or subjective factors.

The existing systemic challenges have somewhat limited the system’s ability to effectively address all

dimensions of social consequences of migration. These factors included both lack of strong incentives for case

managers to perform their responsibilities to the fullest, as well as lack of financial, material and non-material

resources at their disposal (e.g. availability of services at the local level) to give solutions to the multiple issues

faced by the migrant families.

Still, feedback from NILSR, case managers themselves and beneficiary perceptions point out to better

performance by the involved case managers due to more trainings compared to their peers from other regions

(3-5 compared to 1-2 as reported by NILSR experts), handling more cases with support from NILSR experts

and having more operational resources available to perform their responsibilities.

Interventions under Parental Care (smaller scale training of medical professionals and members of labour

migrant families, and a larger scale awareness campaign through the interactive theater performances) were

well organized and delivered. However, they were short-term (October-December 2014) and one time in

nature and did not have a profound impact on the end beneficiaries

If the Diaspora Engagement component was somewhat questionable at the outset of the project, due to its

dynamics and innovative approach, Together4Armenia grew in importance and slowly occupied the place of

a very trusted and meaningful way of engagement of diaspora professionals into the community life, as

evidenced by AGBU’s interest in further cooperation.

And finally, while the project did not focus on one critical need in terms of preventing migration, i.e.

creation of job opportunities, the Project provided other types of social support to families of labour migrants

both on individual and collective level. Perceptions of usefulness of these interventions may not surface

immediately and easily, but the needs and gaps were there (health issues, weakened family ties, care of elderly

and children, others) and the Project helped addressing those, as per its original design.

Efficiency

The Project investment of around 1,103,160 EUR (80% provided by the EU and the rest being UNICEF in

Armenia and partner contributions) has been effective in terms of reaching its key outputs. Successful and

efficient implementation of the Project also depended on a number of factors, including: 1) effective

coordination and management of the complex Project implementation structure; 2) utilization of existing

partnerships (such as with MoLSA and MoTAD) and building of new ones (e.g. with AGBU), and 3)

leveraging UNICEF Armenia’s prior investment into the reforms of the social protection system and building

up on the previous efforts and interventions to ensure continuity of efforts.

Implementation modalities, governance and management structure were carefully selected and consistently

applied with considerable coordination efforts invested to ensure effective use of financial, technical and

human resources. Where possible the Project successfully leveraged opportunities for additional institutional

and individual contributions (both financial and non-financial) to relevant Project activities.

By September 2016, when the Project neared its completion date, UNICEF had successfully met its

commitments both with respect to Project deliverables and financial spending.Generally, the Project

effectively explored all opportunities for leveraging resources ranging from contributions from the

implementing partners (such as ME, CFOA, NILSR, NCAP) to use of volunteer resources and capitalizing on



10

the other interventions by UNICEF or its partners. While all these complex implementation and management

patterns worked relatively well most of the time, it was sometimes hard to ensure meaningful and working

linkages between the three Project components directly linked to ISS and the other two, i.e. Parental Care and

Diaspora Engagement.

Sustainability

One of the inherent strengths of the Project was inclusion of integral sustainability mechanisms such as

intensive capacity building of project beneficiaries (case managers), partners (Mission East and regional

NGOs) and stakeholders (regional and local authorities), continued efforts to promote legislative reforms,

requirement for the co-funding for the implementation of the local social projects, creation of the web platform

for Diaspora engagement, and others. Most of the envisioned interventions were successfully implemented

providing such foundations for furthering Project objectives as 1) trained case managers who form the

professional cadre for the social work and services, 2) legislative foundations for improved social work and

3) innovative modalities for transfer of knowledge and ultimately improved individual/collective social

situation for beneficiaries. However, full sustainability of Project activities relies also on a number of objective

and subjective challenges, some of which are outside UNICEF in Armenia’s control.

Thus, while the State’s commitment to ISS reform agenda is rather strong and enduring, furthering the reform

is challenged by lack of adequate funding and very much depends on additional donor funding secured from

the World Bank, USAID or other sources. Whenever such funding is non-available, there seems to be a hold

on the reform process thus minimizing the effects from previous efforts.

To illustrate, while provision of operation and logistic expenses in support of case management duties proved

to be effective in the short-term perspective ensuring Project outcomes, it will not be sustained to the same

level by the state in the long-run due to budgetary constraints. Similarly, while co-funding matching

requirement was met by all communities implementing the 10 local social projects, the future of such projects

is uncertain due to no state budget backed funding for their implementation.

Despite inclusion of several provisions related to CM, LSP and IC in the new Law on Social Assistance

(adopted December 2014), their enforcement is yet to be ensured given the above noted budgetary limitations.

Sustainability of Diaspora Engagement component is fully ensured from the implementation perspective by

transferring the platform to AGBU, the most active and influential Diaspora network organization in Armenia.

However, sustainability of the skills transfer models piloted through this component should be further tested

and analyzed.

Impact

The Project has made considerable contributions to the overall social protection system with longer lasting

ramifications for vulnerable social groups generally and migrant families specifically. Several tools and

approaches tested through the Project had contributed to practical implementation of the reform. Data from

the final survey case managers’ own self-assessment provide evidence about better understanding and more

confidence in the application of case management practices that address the needs and issues of end

beneficiaries. Over 42% of respondents believe that, in the past three years, social services improved either

significantly or to some extent. In addition, utilization of ISS offices has increased by almost 10%, With

respect to satisfaction with services, over 90 % of respondents indicated that they very either fully or mostly

satisfied with territorial social services or integrated social services.

It should be noted that measuring the impact of the Project has been somewhat challenging given the

impossibility of well-matched comparisons between the Baseline Survey and the final Beneficiary Survey due

to differences in survey design and sample as discussed throughout this report. In addition, tracing impact was

more feasible in case of case management aspect of the Project and less so with respect to other components.



11

LESSONS LEARNT

A number of key lessons emerge from this evaluation that are related both to Project interventions and Project

implementation modalities.

1) Utilization of external donor funding in support of UNICEF Armenia’s ongoing reforms could be a good

strategy to leverage financial resources and continue supporting both policy reform and its practical

application. However, this should be done carefully so as to ensure both continuity of efforts and

ownership at different levels by local authorities since oftentimes discrete projects are viewed outside of

overall reform agenda.

2) Addressing migration is directly linked to creation of job opportunities in the minds of both socially

vulnerable groups affected by migration, their communities and the larger public. Social protection

systems are perceived as secondary to creation of jobs, income generation and self-sufficiency, especially

when they are unable to provide adequate level of support with this regard. In the future, similar projects

should include a stronger awareness building component about the benefits and importance of the social

protection system for target beneficiaries in the context of overall economic growth, job-creation and

poverty reduction.

3) While effective execution of such a multi-component and complex Project can be ensured only through

involvement of various implementing entities/partners representing different sectors and stakeholders,

additional efforts and coordination are needed to ensure stronger inter-linkages between components. For

example, it could have logically linked other project components around one central one (NILSR and the

case management component in this case) so as the Project was designed and implemented as one holistic

intervention.

4) Introduction of an innovative component such as Diaspora Engagement required more time and effort

because it was a new and uncertain ground for UNICEF Armenia. Its inclusion in the Project activities

alongside with traditional areas of UNICEF Armenia support (such as social protection systems) should

have been designed to yield closer synergies with other Project components. Thus, with correct timing

and sequencing, Diaspora Engagement could have been mobilized to complement local social projects

resulting in better planning and sustainability of those due to professional capacity of involved experts.

5) Sustainability guarantees should be built into the design of the Project and should be firmly adhered to.

While capacity building, legal reforms and use of technology to ensure sustainability of key project

outcomes are critical inputs for sustainability, financial incentives are equally important. Government

commitment to ensuring financial foundations of reform areas supported by Project interventions should

be secured prior to interventions so as their future sustainability is not questioned.

6) With respect to Project impact, as discussed throughout this report, a more thought through approach to

the Baseline Survey and the end of Project beneficiary Survey could have resulted in more precise

estimates about the impact of the Project.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since this is a final Project evaluation, recommendations presented below are meant to feed into further

sustainability of the Project interventions and provide some feedback to UNICEF in Armenia and the EU with

respect to implementation of similar projects in the future. The recommendations are developed based on the

analyses of findings, conclusions and lessons learnt that generally reflect the perceptions and positions of key

Project stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Policy level recommendations

1. Both the EU and UNICEF in Armenia should continue their efforts in support of families of labour

migrants with a focus on providing social response to the negative consequences of labour migration. As both

the Baseline Survey and the final Beneficiary Survey indicated, families of labour migrants’ and migrant

dominated communities face both individual and collective challenges related to the care of children and

elderly, health of family members, access to education and many others. These are in no way secondary to

the more pressing needs for family sustenance and employment, and need special skills and resources to be

addressed by relevant service providers. Numerous mentions by beneficiaries and stakeholders about families

and children being affected the most by negative consequences of migration provide a sound rationale for



12

UNICEF in Armenia’s involvement in similar initiatives. While UNICEF could do this through continuous

targeting of migrant families as a vulnerable group through its work with ISS/case managers and local social

planning, the EU could incorporate migrant family issues in its different calls/funding opportunities,

especially those that target local economic development.

2. UNICEF in Armenia should continue its support to social services reforms (and its different aspects)

in Armenia based on the following considerations relevant to Project goals and objectives. Labour migrants’

families are one of the most socially vulnerable groups in Armenia that require multi-faceted support in terms

of social services on top of provision of cash benefits. As such, they will benefit from the improvements to

the system once it is better able to address their multiple and overlapping vulnerabilities. Migrant-dominated

communities in Armenia are suffering from gaps in service provision locally and implementation of local

social projects will help alleviate their problems, alongside other vulnerable groups.

Enhanced legislative framework in support of social services reform through the new Law on Social

Assistance has created the needed foundation for enforcing case management, LSP and IC concepts, while

the Project implementation has provided the needed practical application. With respect to case management,

UNICEF in Armenia should continue its cooperation with MoLSA to build case manager capacity and ensure

availability of tools for developing and implementing individual social plans as well as closer cooperation and

coordination between case managers and the players involved in development and implementation of the LSP

plans and projects. With respect to LSP, UNICEF in Armenia and the EU should continue lobbying the

government for allocating findings for local social plans. UNICEF in Armenia should have at least some

allocation of its regular funds to the most critical aspects of case management and LSP developed and

introduced through its intensive support. Meanwhile, both agencies can include support to such projects in

their relevant ongoing programs or new initiatives, when possible.

Project level recommendations

3. Sustainability of the Diaspora Engagement component generally and the Toghether4Armenia

platform specifically should emphasize its demand/supply model and capitalize on relevant experiences and

capabilities of potential partners’. Thus, given that the web platform attracted the interest of such a reputable

Diaspora organization as AGBU and UNICEF’s own interest to remain involved, each partner should

contribute within its area of expertise. To illustrate, while AGBU could be the liaison and supplier of the

Diaspora experts, UNICEF together with the Mission East and the knowledge Hubs could work on the demand

side of the equation, i.e. identifying and documenting the needs of local communities, institutions and

individuals. The matching of demand and supply should follow a collaborative process.

4. Eventually, the interventions built around the Together4Armenia platform should roll out to the

other regions of Armenia through exploring partnership opportunities with locally based NGOs and other

stakeholders. Once the effective implementation mechanisms of engaging Diaspora groups and migrant

networks are tested and finalized, the identification of community needs should roll out to all regions of

Armenia to ensure equal opportunities for local development. While the four target regions of the Project are

assessed to face severe migration, Armenia’s remaining 6 regions are also challenged by both poverty and

migration and could benefit from this innovative approach. Moreover, the platform in its present form, has

moved beyond the topic of migration and has rather focused on the effective utilization of skills of professional

of Armenian origin abroad, thus becoming a flexible and scalable tool for engagement. Involvement of locally

functioning international and local NGOs/CSOs as well as community administration and activists will

facilitate both needs identification and the organizational aspects of response to community needs.

5. In implementing Projects of this scope and complexity, UNICEF in Armenia should build and

implement stronger cross-sectoral linkages and coordination between the project components. As discussed

throughout the report, despite the effective mechanisms of project implementation and management, there

were still gaps in this respect. When designing and implementing similar Projects/interventions UNICEF in

Armenia could consider a more targeted design with fewer but better linked components.



13

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION, OBJECT AND CONTEXT

1.1 Introduction

From December 2012 to September 2016, UNICEF in Armenia has been implementing the European Union-

funded “Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in

Local Development” project (hereinafter the Project) in four target marzes (regions) of Armenia including

Lori, Tavush, Shirak and Gegharkunik. The purpose of the project was reducing the social vulnerability of

labour migrants' families and communities in four target regions through the provision of tailored social

services and best use of migrants’ resources (financial and intellectual) in the development of their

communities of origin/return.

The project was designed as a three-year intervention with 5 interrelated components and a budget of 1,103,

160 Euros, 80% of which was contributed by the EU. The Project was implemented by UNICEF in Armenia

in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA) and Ministry of Territorial

Administration and Development (MoTAD) as well as other partners and key stakeholders. Initially scheduled

to end in December 2015, the project was extended through September 2016 following a nine month no-cost

extension granted by the EU to UNICEF in Armenia.

In summer 2016, UNICEF in Armenia issued a Request for Proposals (LRFP-2016-9126254) to conduct the

final summative evaluation of the Mitigating Social Consequences of the Labour Migration and Maximising

Migrant’s Involvement in Local Development Project. Based on a competitive selection, the contract for the

evaluation was awarded to Armenia-based VISTAA Plus LLC, which conducted the assignment in

September-December 2016.

This report is the final outcome of the project evaluation, which presents the object and purpose of the

evaluation, the methodology used, summarizes its findings, conclusions and lessons learnt, and provides a

number of recommendations, mostly with respect to further sustainability of the project activities and

interventions.

The report structure followed the ToR requirements for the key components to be included in the report and

as such, this Report has 4 main chapters:

Chapter I: Introduction to the Evaluation, Object and Methodology

Chapter II. Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Scope

Chapter III. Evaluation Methodology

Chapter IV. Analyses and Findings

Chapter V. Conclusions, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations

Additional report parts include several annexes, such as list of key informants, list of materials reviewed, data

collection guides, ToR, output tables based on quantitative data as well as the Logical Framework of the

Project.

1.2 Background of the Action and Context

Alongside with economic and social hardships that Armenia suffered since gaining independence in 1991,

migration has been one of the key problems faced by the country. Job seeking outside Armenia (mainly in

Russia) has been one of the major reasons for migration. According to Social Snapshot and Poverty In

Armenia, 2015 report7, “among household members aged 15 and above who were involved in migration

processes over the period of 2011-2014, some 65.4% (around 171 thousand persons) were still absent from

the household as of 2014 and resided either in other regions of the country, in Yerevan, in other communities

within their region, or in other countries… Among household members of aged 15 and above, who left the

place of their permanent residence during 2011-2014 and did not return as of 2014, 14.3% were absent for 3

months or less, 51.1% for 4-12 months, and 34.6% – for one year and more.”

7 http://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=81&id=1718

http://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=81&id=1718



14

While labour migration has been long considered a coping mechanism that allows families overcome

economic challenges posed by unemployment in Armenia, its rather serious social consequences have become

more apparently visible throughout the years. Those include weakened family ties and increased rate of

divorces, lack of adequate parental care and subsequent psychological problems, threat of sexually transmitted

diseases and several others that affect the overall family in general, and children in particular.8 Thus, the

Mitigating Social Consequences of Labor Migration and Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in Local

Development project has been designed to reduce the social vulnerability of labour migrants' families and

communities in Lori, Tavush, Gegharkunik and Shirak regions (marzes) of Armenia that are rated to have the

highest levels of labour migration and poverty (including child poverty) in the country. While the project has

had a focus on migration, it has been closely tied to UNICEF-supported reform agenda for advocating for

a more effective social protection system through the implementation of a model of integrated social

services (ISS) and related improvements to local social planning efforts, including institutional cooperation.

Thus, while building up on UNICEF’s previous interventions, this project has been designed to further

enhance case managers’ capacity to respond to the needs of migrants’ families as well as set up community

and inter-community based social projects that address the collective needs of migrant families. In

addition, the project included components on awareness-raising and improvement of skills in parental

care among doctors and migrants families as well as engaging migrants and diaspora representatives in the

development of their communities of origin. Developing policy recommendations and legislative amendments

has been envisioned as a cross-cutting aspect of the project to help institutionalize the best practices introduced

or enhanced through the project.

Consequently, as noted above, the interventions under the Project occurred in five main directions, i.e.

components that included Case management (CM); Territorial/Local Social Planning (TSP/LSP), Institutional

Cooperation (IC), Parental Care, and Diaspora Engagement. Inclusion of each component in the project had

its logic and rationale with respect to its contribution to improved social conditions of migrant families (for

details of areas of intervention see Annex 10. Detailed Project Context).

Management and Governance Structure and Partnerships

With the understanding of the complexity of the Project, its multi-sectorial aspects and geographical reach,

UNICEF in Armenia has initially proposed a Project Management/Governance Structure to ensure its effective

and coordinated implementation, which was essentially maintained throughout the Project. The structure

represented in Graph 1 (source: Project Application) also reflected some of the underlying principles of the

Project, i.e. national ownership, building on the ongoing reform of Integrated Social Services as well as best

use of local and international expertise.

8 These assumptions were later confirmed both by the Baseline Survey conducted in the initial stages of the Project and the final Beneficiary Survey. Supporting outcomes are discussed throughout the findings of this report.



15

Thus, partnerships with the two

key Ministries, i.e. Ministry of

Territorial Administration and

Development and Ministry of

Labor and Social Affairs were

emphasized given their role in

designing and implementing an

ISS reform agenda and the fact that

three of the Project’s Strategic

Objectives targeted the practical

application of reform concepts in

context of the migrant families. In

early 2013, a Project steering

committee was established. The

Committee was a consultative

body with a total of eight members

representing the partner line

ministries as well as the local

community development organizations, including Armenian General Benevolent Union, Fund for Armenian

Relief, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Center NGO and RVVZ Foundation. These other

members of the steering committee were key stakeholders with respect to both diaspora engagement and local

development aspects of the Project.

As stated in the project proposal “a considerable number of the project actions will be outsourced to local and

international professionals and specialized agencies. In some of the project actions a combination of both will

be utilized.” In compliance with this approach, the implementation of each of the activities was assigned to an

agency/organization with proven experience and qualifications to carry out relevant activities (such as NILSR,

CFOA, MEA, Diaspora Matters and others).

The Project management team with its four regional coordinators from Governor’s Offices has played a central

role in effective Project implementation by ensuring the linkages among all diverse partners and stakeholders

involved in the project, supervising and monitoring Project activities, making adjustments and amendments,

when needed.

In addition, the implementation of this complex Project required involvement of multiple partners and

stakeholders. As noted above, some of these key partners were formally involved in the Project management

through the Steering Committee as in case with the MoLSA and MoTAD, AGBU, RVVZ foundation and

others. However, the Project also worked with several other partners both on the national and regional level

given their role in the effective implementation of the Project. These included:

Partnership with the Ministry of Diaspora with respect to international aspects of the Diaspora Engagement

Component;

Partnership with the regional/marz administrations given the need for regional level coordination with

respect to all components of the Project, some of which (i.e. TSP and Institutional Cooperation) related

directly to regional administration functions;

Partnership with the World Bank with respect to the continued enforcement of the ISS reforms, to which

the WB is a key contributor;

Partnerships with institutions and networks targeting migration management in Armenia such as IOM,

People in Need, GIZ, OECD and others.

Last but not the least, UNICEF in Armenia has partnered with print and broadcast media to increase both

visibility of the project and awareness of its specific interventions.

Project steering committee

Project

management

team (PMT)

Staff of the central

unit of PMT

Project manager;

coordinator; assistant;

driver

MoTD; Community

social projects

component

coordinator

MoLSA;

Case management

component

coordinator; 4

Regional

coordinator

Tavush

Regional

coordinator

Lori

Regional

coordinator

Gegharqunik

Regional

coordinator

Shirak

Project coordination and monitoring

instrument

Figure 1: Project Management Structure



16

1.3 Object of the Evaluation

Available data analyses indicated that migrant families belonged to the social group with multidimensional

and interrelated needs with respect to employment and economic activity, health, education, social exclusion,

child protection, and others. Thus, the project was designed to tackle migration from the social protection

perspective in the country of origin, i.e. Armenia, and target the most vulnerable families and children

affected by migration. The emphasis of the project has been on addressing social consequences of labor

migration and reducing the social vulnerability of families of labor migrants and affected communities in

the four target regions (marzes), i.e. Lori, Shirak, Tavush and Gegharkunik.

Five key components of the project include Case management9 (CM); Territorial/Local Social Planning

(TSP/LSP), Institution Cooperation (IC), Parental Care, and Diaspora Engagement. The first three project

components built up on UNICEF Armenia’s previous efforts to support policy setting and reform agenda with

respect to case management, local social planning and institutional cooperation, and as such were designed to

ensure “the practical application of the ongoing reform of Integrated Social Services in the context of

migrants’ families”.10

The project capitalized on UNICEF in Armenia’s strengths with respect to social response to vulnerability (in

this case resulting from having a labour migrant in the family) and emphasizes the following interventions:

• Engaging case managers (respective staff of state-run social services) in responding to the needs of

migrants’ families in the four target regions;

• Setting up and managing community and inter-community social projects that address the collective

needs of the population affected by migration in the four target regions;

• Engaging social service providers in the four target regions in institutional cooperation on migrants'

related information exchange and referral procedures.

However, in addition to efforts to continue and enhance its capacity building efforts in CM and LSP areas

while focusing on the needs of migrant families, UNICEF in Armenia has also introduced two new

components to the project, namely Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement. These two project components

aimed to:

• Parental Care: To raise the awareness of and improve skills in parental care among doctors and migrants'

families in the four target regions;

• Diaspora Engagement: To engage migrants and diaspora representatives in the development of their

communities of origin.

Developing policy recommendations with respect to all key areas of these interventions has been a cross-

cutting objective of the project.

In commissioning this evaluation, UNICEF in Armenia’s goal was to assess “the relevance, effectiveness,

efficiency, impact and sustainability of interventions under the EU-funded “Mitigating Social Consequences

of Labour Migration and Maximising Migrant’s Involvement in Local Development Project” (2012-2016)”11,

i.e. the Object of the Evaluation. While the RFP emphasizes the social services responding to the needs of

socially vulnerable and migrant families in Armenia as the special focus of the Evaluation due to the design

of the project, the Diaspora Engagement and Parental Care components of the project were also addressed

through this evaluation.

1.4 Logic of Intervention

In line with the Project objectives and the above identified areas of interventions, a Project Logical

Framework has been developed setting up its overall objective and the specific objectives with measurable

9 See Section 2.1, Main Areas of Intervention for more detailed description of each component. 10 FULL APPLICATION FORM; (EuropeAid/131-088/C/ACT/Multi-2 ) Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximizing migrants’ involvement in local development 11 Request for Proposals-LRFP-2016-9126254



17

indicators of achievements as well as expected results (outputs) at the activity level. This logical framework

represents the theory of change of the Project assuming that social vulnerability of labor migrant families

will be reduced as a result of interventions that emphasize the following aspects of social support to target

beneficiaries and achievement of related results:

Case Management: Case managers from the four target regions have the required capacities and resources

to identify, assess and respond to the needs of migrant families, through the development and

implementation of individual social projects (responses).

LSP: Representatives from regional and local authorities have the necessary capacities to design and

implement community and inter-community social projects in response to the collective social needs of

migrants’ families, whose vulnerability is addressed through their implementation.

IC: Social service providers in the four target regions have the required capacities to design and implement

protocols of cooperation on information exchange and referral procedures related to migrants' families

through an institutionalized network.

Parental Care: The parental skills of doctors and migrants’ families in the four target regions are enhanced

through a targeted training programme for families and doctors, as well as an awareness raising campaign.

Diaspora Engagement: Regional knowledge hubs are fully operational with staff members capable of

developing and reinforcing networks with diaspora organisations, while representatives of diaspora and

migrant networks contribute to the development of the four target regions by transferring soft and hard

resources.

Policy: The best practices of the project are scaled-up countrywide through the development and adoption

of policy recommendations and legislative amendments by the Government.

Table 1 below summarizes the hierarchy of higher level objectives of the Project and the related indicators.

Table 1: Summary of Logical Framework12

Objective Definition Indicator

Overall

Objective

To reduce the social vulnerability of labour

migrants' families and communities in four

target regions through the provision of

tailored social services and best use of

migrants’ resources (financial and

intellectual) in the development of their

communities of origin/return.

At least 30% increase in satisfaction with

social services among migrants' families in

four target regions before and after the

project. At least

20% reduction of cases of divorces, out of

school children, and sexually transmitted

diseases among migrants' families in four

target regions before and after the project.

Specific

Objective

A

To engage social services case managers in

responding to the needs of migrants’ families

in the four target regions;

At least 20% of all cases handled by case

managers during the project are directly

related to migrant's families.

Specific

Objective B

To set up and manage community and inter-

community based social projects that address

the collective needs of the population

affected by migration in the four target

regions

At least a 20% reduction in the prioritised

collective social needs of population

affected by migration. At least 20% of

community social projects are financed from

local and regional budgets.

Specific

Objective C

To engage social service providers in the

four target regions in institutional

cooperation on migrant-related information

exchange and referral procedures

At least 20% of the developed protocols of

cooperation among social services are

successfully implemented.

12 For the details of lower level activities, indicators, external factors and risks see the full LogFrame attached as Annex 8.



18

Specific

Objective

D

To raise the awareness of and improve skills

in parental care among doctors and migrants'

families in the four target regions

At least a 10% increase in parental skills of

migrants' families and at least a 30%

increase in the positive attitude and

behaviour in respect of parental care before

and after the action.

Specific

Objective E

To engage migrants and diaspora

representatives in the development of their

communities of origin

Number of migrants and diaspora

representatives’ initiatives in four target

regions compared with other regions.

30% of community social projects are

financed through diaspora and migrants

Specific

Objective F

To develop policy recommendations and

propose legislative amendments that will

enable the successful regional initiatives to

be scaled-up to the national level.

Number of policy recommendations and

legislative amendments officially accepted

by the Government

Most of the external factors required for the effective implementation of the Project as identified during the

design of the Project have been in place thus ensuring it progressed as planned and reached its goals. This

included case managers’ authorization to work with labour migrants’ families, case managers’ reporting

regularly on the cases managed and their nature, approval of community plans by relevant authorities,

involvement of Diaspora and labour migrants networks in local development initiatives. The alignment of

policy recommendations and legislative amendments proposed by the Project with the short, mid and long-

term priorities of the Government was a key factor in place allowing for some of the Project tested concepts

and practices to be integrated into the new Law on Social Assistance. More specifically, the legal requirement

for creating support networks around state statutory social services resulted in a conducive development for

the project, i.e. legally authorization to engage in institutional cooperation related to information exchange

and referral procedures. Thus, the Protocols of Cooperation initially proposed were eventually replaced by

establishment of support networks, which promoted and institutionalized the idea of Institutional cooperation

and as such were also supported by the Project.

With respect to the potential risks envisioned at the beginning of the Project, one that proved to be very realistic

was related to resource limitation at the municipal/regional level for funding the migration-related community

and inter-community social projects. However, this limitation did not have a direct impact on the 10 local

social projects implemented under the Project, for which the involved communities secured from 10 to 90

percent of co-funding. It has a more far-fetched implication for beyond Project sustainability of the local social

projects thus confirming another estimated risk, i.e. proposed policy recommendations and legislative

amendments may lead to high costs budgetary implications. This has been the case for the LSP related

provision in the Law, which while included, would be resource intensive and are not so far supported from

legally designated sources. One of the risks not considered by the Project was that Diaspora Engagement was

a new area for UNICEF in Armenia and as such may require additional time and effort for implementation.

However, as later analyses indicates, the Project was able to overcome this hurdle and proceed with all planned

activities.

Overall, the logical framework established for the Project proved to be rather strong, with different external

factors and risks well assessed and thought through. The most visible downside of the proposed framework

was inclusion of impact level indicator of beneficiary satisfaction without due consideration for comparability

of pre- and post-Project data to feed into that indicator (as discussed in the Limitations and Findings sections).

The key stakeholders are: the EU, WB, IOM and other development partners, the Government of Armenia,

particularly Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA), Ministry of Territorial Administration and

Development (MoTAD), National Institute of Labour and Social Research (NILSR), Ministry of Diaspora

(MoD), regional and local administrations in target regions, AGBU and others.



19

CHAPTER II. EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The RFP for this evaluation defines its purpose as assessing “the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact

and sustainability of interventions under the EU-funded “Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour

Migration and Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development Project” (2012-2016)”.13 The RFP

emphasizes the social services responding to the needs of socially vulnerable and migrant families in Armenia

as the special focus of the Evaluation due to the design of the project.

The specific objectives of the Evaluation include:

Assessing whether the Project has successfully achieved its key outputs and outcomes (established in its

Action Plan and the Log Frame) with respect to their coherence and suitability to addressing the social

costs of migration;

Assessing the level of project sustainability with respect to changes in policies and practice, and

Assessing project achievements for migrant families within the overall ISS reform and UNICEF’s work

in this regard as well as migration and development nexus.

To analyze the project interventions and achievements against the main evaluation criteria, the RFP has

formulated specific evaluation questions to be answered with respect to each of them as presented in Table 2:

Table 2: Evaluation questions

Relevance

1. Were the projects social protection interventions relevant to responding to the needs of

migrants’ families and children and reducing their vulnerability?

2. To what extent were the interventions informed by the needs and interests of diverse

groups of stakeholders with a particular focus on gender equity and equality?

3. What are the beneficiaries’ views about the services provided? What are their views

about improving services (if there is a need to improve)?

Effectiveness 4. To what extent have the expected project results been achieved and are there differences

from region to region, and from beneficiary group to beneficiary group (disaggregated

by gender, minority groups, urban/rural divide, income quintile).

5. How effective were the capacity building efforts of beneficiaries, particularly case

management, local social planning, institutional cooperation and to which extent were

they in line with actual needs?

6. How effective was the project in identifying migrants’ families and children? Where

there any challenges?

7. How well did the diaspora engagement efforts resonate to the rest of the project

interventions? What are the key implementation lessons?

Efficiency 8. To what extent has UNICEF made good use of the human, financial and technical

resources, and has used an appropriate combination of tools and approaches to pursue

the achievement of project results in a cost-effective manner?

9. Was there a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities of key actors involved,

including staff, implementing partners and governmental partners towards the

achievement of the project objectives?

10. To what extent did UNICEF capitalize on other complementary initiatives to the project

to reinforce the results of the EU supported migration project?

Impact 11. Has the project contributed to or is likely to contribute to long-term social changes for

vulnerable and migrants# families and children? What difference has it made, including

policy changes?

12. Has the project increased the satisfaction with social services of vulnerable and

migrants’ families.

13 Request for Proposals-LRFP-2016-9126254



20

Sustainability

13. To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the development of

capacities and establishment of relevant mechanisms by various stakeholders to ensure

ownership and durability of project results after the end of the project?

14. To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the ISS reform and its

rollout? Particularly, what are the sustainability elements and preconditions for

community social projects? And how can the diaspora contribute to these?

15. Are the knowledge hubs viable as structures for connecting the diaspora with local

communities? Is the web platform a sustainable tool for continuing their responsibilities

in the future? What are the key recommendations for sustainable, durable and

meaningful engagement with the diaspora for children and local development?

The scope of the evaluation is defined by the following elements (as specified in the TOR): Since the project

targets 4 marzes (regions) of Armenia, i.e. Lori, Shirak, Tavush and Gegharkunik (that were assessed to have

the largest number of labour migrant families and being affected by high poverty rates, including child

poverty), the geographical scope of the evaluation also encompasses these four marzes. Time wise, the

evaluation covers the period of December 2012-September 2016, i.e. the three planned years of the project

and its nine-month non-cost extension. The focus is on socially vulnerable and migrant families with children.

The RFP and the associated Scope of Work (SoW) also specify that to address these objectives and answer

the evaluation questions mixed methods should be used for data collection from key informants and

respondents thus setting the approach and scope for the evaluation methodology, which is presented in detail

in the next section.

The primary intended users of the evaluation are the EU Delegation to Armenia, UNICEF (Country Office,

Regional Office, Headquarter divisions) and government counterparts in Armenia, primarily MoLSA and

MoTD. Other national and international partners, primarily those involved in the implementation of similar

EU-funded projects in the field of migration in Armenia, or organizations engaged in migration issues in the

region are also seen as part of the audience of the report and key stakeholders. The report will also be

disseminated to partners supporting the social services reforms in Armenia, particularly the World Bank, IMF,

USAID and others. Moreover, the report will be directed towards the Armenian Diaspora, diaspora-led or -

established organizations, the Ministry of Diaspora and related line Ministries, AGBU, Mission East and

others for their future programming and implementation, as well as continuity of actions. In addition, other

UN agencies working in Armenia may use evaluation findings for their strategic planning and/or review

processes. Evaluation report will be disseminated and validated among the abovementioned above-mentioned

audience and be made available for further consideration in better responding to the needs of vulnerable

migrants’ families and children and better use of migrants’ and diaspora skills for the development of Armenia.

CHAPTER III. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation methodology used for the purpose of this assignment followed the requirement for mixed

quantitative and qualitative data collection set by UNICEF in Armenia in the ToR. Identification and

mapping of key stakeholders for this assignment was done based on the evaluation ToR, desk review of

materials provided by UNICEF, desk analysis of policy documents as well as initial meeting with such key

stakeholders as UNICEF project manager, Director and staff on National Institute of Labour and Social

Research (NILSR), representative of Community Finance Officers Association. Having identified the key

stakeholder groups and following the review of primary Project documents, the evaluation team proposed and

then implemented a data collection approach, which is summarized below. The evaluation methodology was

validated and approved with the Expert group for project evaluation comprising representatives from the

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development, Armenian

General Benevolent Union (AGBU), the European Union and UNICEF. The evaluation was carried out in

three main phases – inception, data collection and synthesis.



21

Evaluation Framework: All standard OECD/DAC evaluation criteria set in the ToR, were endorsed by the

evaluation team and appropriately geared to the purpose and objectives of this evaluation.

Relevance The extent to which the Project is aligned to country priorities and needs of

targeted stakeholders and beneficiaries

Effectiveness A measure of the extent to which the objectives and results intended by the

Project have been realized and whether a contribution to intended results have

been plausibly demonstrated.

Efficiency Resource allocations for services supported relative to the results generated,

including value for money, management and timeliness of interventions

Impact Positive and negative changes produced by the Project interventions on the life

of migrant families in the target regions, including children and women

(directly or indirectly).

Sustainability Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of the Project

are likely to continue by national stakeholders after donor funding has been

withdrawn or beyond the intervention cycle.

Evaluation Design: The design of the evaluation was based on careful selection of data sources, data collection

methods and data analysis methods. For each evaluation question in the Evaluation Matrix (Annex 7), specific

data sources were identified and included in the evaluation matrix selection of which is based on the following

considerations:

- Relevant for informing the analysis of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability;

- Capable to increase accuracy of information and close the data gaps;

- Appropriate for including different perspectives in the analysis.

3.1. Qualitative Data Collection: Approach and Implementation

While the ToR stipulated a quantitative survey of the case managers benefiting from Project interventions, it

was proposed to use focus groups (FGs) for data collection from this major beneficiary group. Overall, about

50 case managers are involved in the project in the 4 marzes and this approach would allow reaching out to

over half of them (25 case managers). Alongside with the experts involved in the CM component around 35

CM capacity building beneficiaries would be involved in the evaluation. The rationale for such approach was

determined by two key factors: 1) case managers and labour migrants being two different groups for inclusion

in the quantitative survey, and 2) availability of quantitative data on case managers collected through the

census of case managers conducted by VISTAA as part of the evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support

Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms. The census analysis had disaggregated all key

data categories by the case managers involved in the EU Project and not involved in it to assess how UNICEF’s

additional capacity building efforts have contributed to improved skills and competencies among this group.

As such, focus groups were considered a more appropriate tool for receiving in-depth feedback from case

managers.

With respect to all other informant groups, initially 3-5 in-depth interviews were planned per each key

stakeholder sub-category identified for the remaining 4 components of the Project, i.e. LSP, IC, Parental Care

and Diaspora Engagement. These numbers depended on the area of intervention, intensity of intervention,

local and national ramifications of interventions and other criteria. Where possible and necessary, it was

proposed to conduct group interviews, focus groups and observations as additional data collection tools.

In compliance with the proposed approach, fieldwork for qualitative data collection was conducted from

September 14 to October 30, 2016. In total, 55 key informants were reached through 9 Focus groups, 9 key



22

informants were reached out through 3 group interviews, and 26 key informants were reached out through

individual interviews bringing the total number of key informants to ninety (90) as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Key Informants by Project Component and Qualitative Data Collection Method

Project Component Data Collection Method # of key informants reached

Case management Focus groups-6 38 (case managers and 10 NILSR experts)

Case management In-depth interviews 2 (MoLSA and NILSR)

LSP Focus Groups-3 17 (social project beneficiaries)

LSP/IC In-depth interviews 15 (including component implementers,

community members involved in the

project implementation)

Parental Care In-depth interviews 1 project implementer 14

Diaspora engagement In-depth interviews 7 (including component implementers, Hub

representatives and Diaspora experts)

Diaspora engagement Group interviews (2) 6 (Hub staff)*

Other/cross-cutting In-depth interviews 1 (project manager)

Other/cross-cutting Group interview -1 3 (regional coordinators)

In addition, following the initial methodology approach (see Annex 4), an observation of skills transfer by a

number of Diaspora experts was conducted in Gyumri (Shirak) in September 2016.

3.2. Quantitative Data Collection: Approach and Implementation

Following the ToR requirement, a quantitative beneficiary survey was proposed for collecting end beneficiary

(members of labour migrant’s families) opinions and perceptions on labour migration generally and the Project

interventions specifically. Since a Baseline Project Survey was conducted in the initial stages of the Project,

the ToR required an adaptation of the Project Baseline Survey methodology for the final evaluation including

the instrument domains and the sampling approach. While it was mostly possible to keep the key sections of

the instrument (with slight revisions to reflect the Project implementation related topics), a somewhat different

approach was proposed to the sampling based on the following factors:

The Baseline Survey was a general socio-economic pre-intervention survey among the overall vulnerable

population of the 5 target marzes15 where no specific interventions had yet happened and its overall sample

was designed from the general population rather than the population of project beneficiaries as required by

the ToR. The intent of the Beneficiary Survey was different, as it should focus on the beneficiaries of the case

management interventions of the Project, around 2500 families of labour migrants.

With this consideration in mind, an initial sampling approach was proposed, which was then refined based on

follow-on discussions with project implementers.

With 2500 being the total number of project beneficiaries that received case management related interventions

to improve their social situation, the following sample size formula for infinite population was applied to

arrive at a representative number of respondents when population estimate is known16 (with 5% error margin

and 95% confidence interval.):

14 The Beneficiary Survey included questions about this component. 15 The marz/region of Syunik was also included in the baseline sample in addition to four Project target regions. 16 Godden, 2004



23

Where:

n is the sampling conglomerate; P and Q are constant values and

are equal to 0.5 (availability or lack of any parameter),

N is the size of the general conglomerate; (2500*); T equals to 1,96

in case when it’s necessary to ensure 95% of reliability of results;

and d is the value of statistical error which makes up ±5% (0.05)

The representative sample calculated with the use of the above formula equals 295 FSUs, i.e. beneficiary

families. In the next step, the general sample was proportionally distributed among four target regions/marzes

based on the data provided by the NILSR. Finally, once the number of social service centers in a target marz

and their capture population (project beneficiaries) were identified, the sample was distributed by the centers

(See Table 4 below).

Table 4: Distribution of the sample by marzes (regions) and the Social Services Centers

Marz/regions and #

of Social Services

Centers

# of interviews per

center

Marz/regions and # of

Social Services

# of interviews per

center

Shirak -7 Gyumri 1-25

Gyumri 2-22

Maralik-11

Artik-11

Amasya-6

Asocq-6

Akhuryan-9

Gegharkunik-5 Martuni-24

Gavar-20

Vardenis-12

Sevan-12

Chambarak-7

Lori-5 Vanadzor-36

Spitak-13

Tumanyan-11

Stepanavan-10

Tashir-4

Tavush -4 Dilijan-7

Ijevan-15

Noyemberyan-16

Berd-17

TOTAL- 4 marzes, 21 Centers and 294 families

Beneficiary families were then selected randomly from the lists provided by the Centers. By dividing the total

number of Center beneficiaries to the number selected into the sample the nth number to be interviewed from

the list was determined. To illustrate, if the Noyemberyan Territorial Social Service Office serves 64

beneficiaries, this number was divided by the sample number, i.e. 16 to determine that every fourth person on

the list was selected for conducting an interview17. This approach allowed to ensure random distribution of

the respondents by rural and urban areas, which is presented below in Table 5.

Table 5: Sample distribution by Urban and Rural Areas

Type of the Settlement Number of interviews %

Urban 195 66.3%

Rural 99 33.7%

Total 294 100.0%

The Beneficiary Survey started with testing the survey instrument18 on September 15 and 23 that allowed

finalizing the questionnaire (attached to this report as Annex 2) and developing an approach to field work

17 In some cases this lists were reviewed together with the respective case managers in case there were some inconsistencies and duplications. 18 The instruments for the quantitative and qualitative data collection are attached as Annex 5.



24

logistics. Field work for data collection occurred on October 7-25 and was conducted in accordance with the

filed work schedule submitted to UNICEF Armenia. Data entry was done with use of SPSS.

Data Analyses and Reporting

All data received through the desk review and qualitative and quantitative data collection methods has been

triangulated and synthesized to feed into the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this report.

Analysis was done across the analytical fields drawn from the Evaluation Matrix by taking into consideration

different pathways of contribution at different levels of results tracked, as well as other internal and external

factors. Impartiality was ensured by the evaluation methodology which was based on cross-section of

information sources and a blended methodological approach (qualitative and quantitative).

The detailed methodology with stakeholder mapping, approaches to qualitative and quantitative data

collection and other key aspects is included as Annex 4.

3.3. Major Limitations

Main data limitations with respect to this assignment were related to two aspects of the quantitative

Beneficiary Survey:

Its comparability with the Baseline Survey, and

Development of the final survey sample due to inconsistences in the lists provided.

With respect to Baseline Survey, as noted above it was a general socio-economic survey of the socially

vulnerable population among 1046 families (out of a sample of 55,584 families) that were recipients of social

family benefits at the moment of the evaluation. Meanwhile, the final Beneficiary Survey has been conducted

among 294 labour migrants’ families out of the 2500 that were targeted by the Project interventions, mainly

under its Case Management Component. Since labour migrants’ families are one of the socially vulnerable

groups eligible for family benefits, they were randomly selected into the sample of the Baseline survey

alongside with other socially vulnerable groups, while the final survey targeted this group specifically. And

finally, the instrument utilized by the Baseline Survey had more and deeper questions about migration

situation and factors, while with respect to social protection and services the Baseline Survey included more

general questions. By comparison, the final Beneficiary Survey, while asking questions about migration and

its impact, focused more on understanding the Project impact on beneficiary perceptions and assessment of

social services. Table 6 below summarizes the differences and similarities between the designs of the two

surveys.

Table 6: Comparison between Baseline and Final Survey Designs

Baseline Survey Final Beneficiary Survey

Sample General Sample 55,584 2,500

Confidence level 95% 95

Statistical error 3% 5%

Sample size 1.046 294

Sample distribution

by regions

Proportionally, by share of

recipients of social benefits

and by keeping the

rural/urban balance

Proportionally, by share of Project

beneficiaries in regions

and by their share among the total

beneficiaries of the Social Services

Survey

Implemen

tation

Instrument Semi standard questionnaire Semi standard questionnaire

Interview method Face to face interviews Face to face interviews

Analysis Data entry and

analysis

MS Excel SPSS



25

Instrument Question Domains Family profile

Family living conditions

Family and labour

migration

Social issues of the family

Awareness of social

services

Use of social protection

systems and social services

Satisfaction with social

services

Awareness of and

expectations from ISS

General information on the family

Children issues, health and

education


Family and labour migration

Family and community social

issues

Satisfaction from improvements

to social assistance and social

services

Due to these differences in the sample sizes, respondent groups and some areas of inquiry between the two

surveys, there was a concern about comparability of key survey outcomes. However, once the data for the

final survey was received and general beneficiary and family characteristics were defined, they appeared very

similar to those from Baseline Survey. This was mainly because social vulnerability was a common area of

focus and it has similar consequences for vulnerable families, despite some distinct differences in case of

labout migrants’ families. Such homogeneity of main respondent characteristics of the two groups alongside

with the similarities in main question domains allowed comparisons between some resulting survey outcomes

(see Section 3.1 of the Report). However, as discussed in the Findings section of the report, there remained

several differences in the surveys’ design that did not allow for meaningful comparisons between key

indicators such as decreased divorce rate or satisfaction with social services. The data from both surveys and

some compared outcomes were mostly used for setting a contextual background for the Project

implementation.

With respect to the constructing the sample of the Beneficiary Survey, as noted above, the initial approach to

sample development was based on the assumption that the lists of around 2500 beneficiaries targeted by the

Case Management Component of the Program are available and will be provided by the National Institute of

Labour and Social Research. However, the number of beneficiaries provided by NILSR as of September 2016

did not exceed 1792. In addition, while around 500 cases were reported for 2014, the lists with the names of

beneficiaries were missing since sound reporting and database maintenance requirements were set later in the

Project, as well as there was a change in the coordination team of NILSR. There were also duplications and

even triplications on the list and in certain cases some non-migrant beneficiaries on the lists (though from

vulnerable families). Consequently, once all these issues were addressed, the general sample from which the

respondents were selected included only 1302 beneficiaries. However, since the reapplication of the formula

for determining the representative number of the respondents from this general sample resulted in only small

reduction of beneficiaries, it was decided to still survey 294 respondents, i.e. the number that the formula

application generated initially.

Medical professionals trained under the Parental Care component of the project were not interviewed for the

purposes of this evaluation given the following considerations: 1) the ToR emphasized the social service

aspects of the Project as the object of the evaluation; 2) Pre-Post training tests provided sufficient insights into

how the Project affected this group, and finally 3) it was assumed (also based on the indicators of the project

logframe) that the ultimate beneficiaries of this intervention are the vulnerable migrant groups targeted by the

Project whose opinions on the subject were collected through the quantitative survey.

And finally, while Project progress was tracked rather rigorously and consistently through monitoring visits,

reports, coordination meetings and other tools, there was no M&E plan in place based on the Logical

Framework and no requirement for the partners to submit regularly data on relevant indicators, leaving it to

the final stages of the Project to collect all needed data. This somewhat limited the evaluation’s rigor in cross

analyzing the achievements of planned targets and the evaluation findings.



26

3.4. Ethical Considerations, Human Rights and Gender

The design of the evaluation methodology combined Results-Based Management with Human Rights Based

approach (HRBA) to programming and evaluation guided by achievement of planned results through key

processes to realize human rights, particularly child rights. The HRBA applied by the evaluation embeds five

core principles: normativity, participation, non-discrimination, accountability and transparency (UNEG,

2003). The evaluation assessed the extent to which the interventions were informed by the needs and interests

of diverse groups of stakeholders with a particular focus on gender equity and equality. The evaluation used

to the extent possible disaggregated data by age, gender, region and income quintile. During data collection

attention was paid to ensuring that the evaluation process was ethical and that participation in the process

could openly express their opinions, protecting the confidentiality of their answers.

Ethical Standards: Ethical dimensions were taken into consideration by the evaluation team, particularly with

respect to beneficiary families (families that have a labour migrant) included in the sample of the survey as

well as all key informants involved in the in-depth interviews and focus groups. Prior to conducting interviews

and focus group discussions, the evaluators presented the purpose of the assignment, solicited respondent/key

informed consent to contribute to the evaluation and explained confidentiality and data aggregation principles.

The evaluation team protected the anonymity and confidentiality of individuals and observed ethical

guidelines as set out by United Nations (UN) Evaluation Group in its standards and norms19. These standards

are based on the following principles taken into due consideration:

Hold in confidence all information given to the evaluation team by the Client;

Explain the rationale, objectives and the methodology used to institutions and /or individuals taking part

in the evaluation;

Listen and value all participants’ views during interviews and focus groups;

Respect the values of the Client for whom the evaluation is undertaken;

Reflect on own bias due to previous experience, education background, gender, ethnicity and other

factors;

Respect the anonymity of individuals when analysing data;

Cross-check and triangulate all results, wherever feasible;

Feedback on the research results to the participating institutions or individuals, where the Client

approves;

Prohibit use of the research data for other studies without Client and participants’ permission.

Human Rights and Gender Considerations: Human rights based approaches to development and gender

mainstreaming are considered as foundational normative principles for UNICEF. Therefore, the extent to

which these principles have been realized by UNICEF in Armenia in the Project, they were integrated across

the evaluation. This emphasized how UNICEF in Armenia has contributed to influencing its partners’

consideration of human rights based approach and gender and to system changes that produce equitable

impacts on women’s and children’s lives and realization of their rights. The migration of an economically

active family member places a heavier burden on those who stay behind – mostly women and children - who

must make up for the lost employment and spend more time on household. As a result, migrants’ families

belong to social groups that have multi-dimensional and inter-related needs (i.e. related to health, education,

exclusion, child protection, economic activity, gender), often leading to a situation where children and family

members left behind by migrant workers become even more vulnerable and deprived, not being able to fulfil

their basic rights. These families are mostly headed by women who are the ones to be left behind and to carry

19 http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4 http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp http://www.unEvaluation.org/ethicalguidelines

http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4



27

the burden of family responsibilities in the absence of the male family member. At the same time, they become

vulnerable to a number of health issues, including transmission of HIV/AIDS and STDs from male migrant

workers. In case of children, their right to education and healthcare and positive family environment, as

prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is also violated because of the changed family

circumstances.

Moreover, the Project targeted the most vulnerable and the poorest areas of Armenia, which suffer from high

labor migration rates, but also the highest poverty and child poverty rates, thus placing the equity principle at

heart of project interventions. The Project has worked to address these issues, whenever possible, and the

respective interventions/findings are reflected in the report.

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSES AND FINDINGS

This Chapter of the report opens with a comparative analysis of the Baseline and End of Project Beneficiary

Survey data, which sets an overall context for the rationale underlying the Project and its implementation. It

is then followed by 12 findings (with sub-findings) grouped by main evaluation criteria, i.e. relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. These findings are derived from analyzing and

triangulating data received from three main sources: 1) Desk review of Project documents, 2) In-depth focus

groups and interviews with main Project stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries, and 3) final Beneficiary

Survey and, where possible, its comparison with the Baseline Survey.

4.1. Baseline and End Survey Results Compared

As discussed throughout this report, back in 2013 a Baseline Survey20 was conducted under the Project to

help understand the labour migration situation in the four targeted marzes, as well socio-economic assessment

of socially vulnerable families in the target regions alongside with their awareness and utilization of social

services. The ToR for this final Project evaluation stipulated that a Project Beneficiary Survey be conducted

with a focus on Project beneficiary perceptions and assessments of changes in social services resulting from

Project implementation. As noted in the Methodology and Data Limitation sections of this report, in terms of

their design these two surveys had both similar and differing aspects. However, due to their focus on socially

vulnerable beneficiaries in target marzes, the respondents shared several common characteristics in terms of

family structures and vulnerability factors that allowed drawing some comparisons between the two groups.

Thus, the average size of the families in both samples is almost the same, i.e. 4.3 and 4.5 people in Baseline

and Beneficiary surveys respectively. Gender distribution is also very similar with female family members

constituting 55% in the Baseline Survey and 53.2 % in the final survey. Age-wise, under 18 family members

comprise 40% and 38% of the family respectively. With respect to migrant family members, there were labour

migrants in 252 families involved in the Baseline Survey (a total of 281 people) at the moment of the survey,

which is close to the number of the families with labour migrants in the final Beneficiary Survey, i.e. 261

families and 294 migrant members (176 during 2014-2016)21. Respectively 97% and 92% of labour migrants

are male in both surveys, though the share of women migrants is slightly higher in the final survey.

With these common characteristics in mind, a comparison has been done of those survey outcomes that could

give a sense of how beneficiary perceptions and assessment of migration, its impact on their families and the

availability of social protection responses has changed in the past 3 years: This included:

Family Status (divorce rate),

Socio-economic conditions of the family (i.e. changes in income and sources of income);

Consequences of migration, and

Satisfaction with social services.

20 Baseline Survey on the Effectiveness of Social Services Delivery and its Impact on the Socio-Economic Situation in Vulnerable families (focusing on migrants) in Armenia, UNICEF 2013 21 As noted in the Data Limitations part of the Report, despite the efforts of the evaluation team, a few respondents selected in the sample did not come from families with labour migrants, though still belonged to socially vulnerable groups, i.e. with disabilities.



28

While the findings discussed below also reflect certain comparisons between the baseline and final surveys,

detailed data analysis is presented in Annex 11.

4.2. Relevance

Evaluation of relevance was based on the following evaluation questions:

Relevance

Were the projects social protection interventions relevant to responding to the needs

of migrants’ families and children and reducing their vulnerability?

To what extent were the interventions informed by the needs and interests of diverse

groups of stakeholders with a particular focus on gender equity and equality?

What are the beneficiaries’ views about the services provided? What are their views

about improving services (if there is a need to improve)?

1. Three of the five Project components (case management (CM), local social planning (LSP) and

institutional cooperation (IC)) supported continued improvements to social protection systems that to

varying degree addressed consequences of labour migration at individual or collective level.

Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local

Development Project (the Project) was implemented under the umbrella of EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership

launched in March 2013. While the Partnership emphasized migration management through support to return

and reintegration of migrants, addressing challenges posed by irregular migration and strengthening the

impact of migration on Armenia's development were also prioritized22. In its Full Application for the Project

under evaluation, UNICEF in Armenia outlined how the proposed priorities of the Project complied with EU

objectives by stating, “the actions proposed build on and are in line with the on-going reform towards a better

integration of social services (ISS). As such, it aims at fostering the links between migration and local

development, focusing on the specific social consequences for migrants’ families”.23

Since 2010 UNICEF in Armenia has provided comprehensive support to Government of Armenia’s (GoA)

reforms in the area of social protection (including child protection) focused on introduction of Integrated

Social Services (ISS). UNICEF in Armenia’s interventions have emphasized the two pillars of ISS- Individual

integration through Case Management and Collective (service/project) level integration through Local Social

Planning. Enhanced Institutional Cooperation (among and beyond relevant agencies and non-state actors) is

another area of UNICEF in Armenia’s interventions that ensures critical partnerships needed for effective

social protection and service provision are in place. The interdependence of these elements of the integrated

system has been perceived as key for its effective functioning and therefore has been addressed in parallel.

UNICEF in Armenia’s interest in these reforms is determined by a number of key considerations that are

important factors with respect to improved protection of vulnerable children and their families. UNICEF’s

analysis24 of social and child protection systems functioning in Armenia in the past two decades has indicated

that a focus on cash family benefits provided to poor and vulnerable families is not sufficient as a response to

family vulnerability. Social needs of people are a combination of interlinked factors that should be also

addressed on top to providing cash benefits. As such, ISS is a model of services based on individual needs and

entitlements that allows better orientation for resources and professional capacities toward the needs of most

vulnerable families-eventually increasing social protection coverage. In addition, Local Social Planning and

Institutional Components of ISS reform ensure that collective needs of communities are also addressed

through provision of missing services, referral and information exchange and that the overall system operates

through coordinated efforts of all involved agencies and institutions.

22 http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/armenia/press_corner/speeches/2013_03_22_en.htm 23 FULL APPLICATION FORM; (EuropeAid/131-088/C/ACT/Multi-2 ) Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximizing migrants’ involvement in local development 24 Derived from different documents including: UNICEF Armenia (2011). Towards the improvement of the child protection system in Armenia: Position paper. Yerevan, Armenia; Draft theory of change document and UNICEF Armenia Annual reports (2010-2013).



29

Believing that strengthening all the aspects of the ISS reform are instrumental for improved social protection

and services for all vulnerable groups, including migrants’ families, the Project emphasized building up on

UNICEF in Armenia’s efforts with respect to case management and local social planning to ensure the

practical application of the ongoing reform of Integrated Social Services in the context of migrants’ families.

To this end, three of the five Project Components targeted interventions in these areas, including25:

• Training of 50 case managers from the target regions on improved case management practices allowing

them to identify vulnerable migrant families, assess their needs and develop individual social plans for

these families. With over 2400 families assessed and some 1700 individual social projects initiated

benefits for migrant families included referral/provision of free health care to beneficiaries, inclusion of

children reduction in tuition fees, paperwork support, arrangements for child care and many others.

• Planning and implementation of 10 local social projects at community level (in the four targeted regions)

that addressed such gaps in social services as vocational training, employment opportunities, elderly care

and food provision, day care and pre-school education, infrastructure improvements to kindergartens, and

others that benefited vulnerable families and children, including migrants.

• Roundtables, workshops, regional visits and discussions targeted improving institutional cooperation

among services and reached out to hundreds of professionals both at the central government, regional and

local administrations at the four target regions, police, health and education authorities, NGOs and other

players.

• Key elements of case management, local social planning and institutional cooperation are embedded in the

new Law on Social Assistance (adopted December 2014) their full enforcement will eventually further the

ISS reform and ensure better social protection for socially vulnerable groups, including migrants.

• Thus, the Project has provided a unique opportunity for UNICEF in Armenia to continue and enhance

capacity building efforts in CM, LSP and institutional cooperation, while ensuring its focus on a specific

socially vulnerable group, i.e. labour migrants. It has served as a great impetus to strengthen case

management practices in support of migrant beneficiary families. The Project has also achieved several

milestones with respect to integrating LSP and advancing institutional cooperation.

2. Interventions undertaken under these three components have been mostly in response to the existing

gaps in services and needs of target groups, including end beneficiaries and different involved

professionals and stakeholders. As such they occurred on different levels – national (legislative and

policy support), regional (capacity building of relevant professionals), local (social projects in support

of community needs) and individual (management of cases of migrant family members and trainings

for them)

Project Relevance for Individual End Beneficiary Needs: Prevention of migration has been consistently

linked to lack of job opportunities and poverty in migrant dominated communities specifically and in Armenia

generally. However, labour migration is also sometimes seen as the only way for income generation for

vulnerable families, engaging mostly men, who predominantly travel to Russia for job-seeking purposes.

Having this in mind, the Project has approached the issue from the perspective of addressing the social

consequences of migration on families and children left behind. As indicated by the Project Baseline study

(see Section 3.1 of the report) and confirmed by the Beneficiary Survey conducted for the purposes of this

evaluation, multi-layer and interconnected issues emerge in families affected by labour migration. Their

accumulation amounts to extremely difficult conditions for beneficiaries both economically, socially and

psychologically.

As the Beneficiary Survey results show, the average beneficiary of the Project (representing a migrant family)

comes from a very disadvantageous socio-economic background with none of the respondents indicating

sufficient means for acquiring both food, clothing and other items, while their overwhelming majority having

either insufficient or barely sufficient means for meeting food needs only (54.1% and 38.8 respectively).

25 The summary of these activities and actions is drawn from UNICEF Armenia’s annual reports to the EU.



30

Table 7: Assessment of Beneficiary Socio-Economic Conditions

Assessment of Socio Economic Conditions %

Insufficient means to buy food 54.1

Sufficient means to buy food only 38.8

Sufficient means for both food and clothing 7.1

Sufficient means for both food, clothing and other items 0.0

Total 100.0

Thus, while 45.3% of respondents believe that migration can help solve socio-economic hardships of the

family, they also point out to several negative factors that it has for the family. As Graph 2 below shows, over

50 % of respondents point out that upbringing of children, family member interactions and care of elderly

have suffered most because of having a labour migrant in the family, while other key concerns include health

deterioration, alienation among family members and others.

Figure 2 Perception of Negative Consequences of Migration by Respondents

When asked about the impact of Migration on families, over 42% of respondents consider that migration has

a negative impact on families, while over 27 % see neither a positive nor negative impact. When combining

these numbers, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of respondents, i.e. around 70 % assess migration as

having either a negative or a non-positive influence on the family that creates additional issues with respect to

family dynamics, upbringing of children, health and other factors.

22.2%

22.2%

18.5%

12.0%

6.9%

6.9%

4.0%3.3% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.4%

Child upbringing

Family relationships (between spouses, parents and children)

Migrant’s health

Health of the family member staying behind and handling all problems suffers

Care of elderly and the sick

Alienation

Family planning

Missing the migrant family member

More debts

Documentation related issues (registration and others)

No male presence in the family

Sexually transmitted diseases in the family



31

The case managers involved in the project and working closely with beneficiary migrant families also confirm

this feedback from beneficiaries. While they acknowledge that migration occasionally has some positive

consequences for the family’s economic situation (in case the migrant member of the family is able to find

good employment abroad), they emphasize the non-positive economic and social impact of migration. It is

apparent in the families they work with and is compounded by several multi-layer socio-psychological issues

that emerge in these families thus increasing the risks caused by migration. The instances of non-material

vulnerability noted by the case managers are in many cases fully consistent with those listed by beneficiary

families and include: weakened family ties, changes in social roles in the family and impact on children (who

are oftentimes neglected due to the pressures the remaining adult family member faces), need for child and

women family members to involve in hard menial work and its impact on their health, abandoning elderly

members of the family and other similar issues.

Summary of survey findings and the feedback from case managers provides sufficient evidence to claim that

labour migrant families are one of the most vulnerable social groups in Armenia and that there are several

factors compounding this vulnerability, on top of the absence of its migrant member. As such, the emphasis

of the Project on tackling the social consequences of migration has been justified, especially within the context

of current ISS reforms that prioritizes a social protection system, which assesses and addresses social needs

of beneficiaries beyond the provision of cash benefits and in a more holistic manner.

Project Relevance for Migrant Collective Needs at Local Level: In addition to speaking about the individual

needs of their families, respondents of the Beneficiary Survey have also pointed out to several issues at the

community level. These issues are a mix of different social problems and concerns, with the need for jobs

ranking highest among them. While Table 8 below summarizes the top problems that need addressing

(according to the beneficiaries), which were largely related to jobs and infrastructure, there were several others

on the list also considered important such as lack of kindergartens, lack of public transportation and others.

Table 8: Community Issues that Need Urgent Solutions

Community Issues that Need Urgent Solutions %

Lack of jobs 40.3%

Bad road conditions 22.1%

Inadequate conditions for persons with disabilities 8.2%

Lack of Child Care or development centers 5.0%

Lack of drinking water 3.9%

Lack of psycho-social services 3.4%

As a key element of the ISS reform, local social planning is a tool designed to address the lack of social

services that could locally meet the collective needs of vulnerable groups, including migrants. As such, social

projects targeting a specific local social need form the basis of LSPs and ideally could be financed either from

the State Budget and/or other sources not prohibited by the RA legislation. While the introduction of the LSP

in government’s reform agenda started as early as 2010 and its components were included in the new Law on

“…the family model is falling apart. No matter how much money the husband sends, he is with his family for one

month in the year, infidelity and adultery become widespread. The case with X community... the husband had sent

money and expected to buy 100 sacks of flour when he returned in autumn. When he came back, he found nothing…

He gave his wife a heavy beating, she was taken to hospital, where we visited her… She was without hope.

…we speak a lot about children, , their parents what about the elderly … the young people of the family leave, then

often take their own families with them, leaving the elderly alone, with no care givers (around)

…there should be more facilities for elderly care

.. If the father is gone, the mother has to work, even if doing cleaning, who is then going to care for the child? I had

a case, the child’s father was missing, the child was disabled. Together with X we managed to place the child in

Aregak Day Center, to be under their care when the mother is not home.”

Interviewed Case Managers



32

Social Assistance in 2014, it was only through the Project funding that UNICEF first piloted projects to fill in

the gap between the social needs of the population in selected communities and existing social services. Ten

community social projects developed as part of LSPs in Lori, Tavush, Gegharkunik and Shirak were selected

competitively taking into consideration their geographical distribution and prioritization of needs. Their final

selection was preceded by consultations at working group (comprising of the head of communities,

representatives of schools and health providers, case managers and other related structured) set up to conduct

the social needs assessment and propose relevant projects. At every community (5 out of 10) visited for the

purposes of this evaluation, both project implementers, community authorities and end beneficiaries

emphasized that community level discussions (either informally or through the Council of Elderly) had been

held to identify the most pressing need for the socially vulnerable groups, including migrant families. Without

visible exceptions, project beneficiaries spoke highly of the projects and acknowledged the role they played

in meeting a specific social need in the community. While the projects in questions were not targeting migrant

families exclusively, they were implemented in communities with high level of migration (such as Chambarak

(Gegharkunik), Sarnaghbyur, Pemzashen and Akhuryan (Shirak) and others) and as such provided

opportunities for migrant families and children to access the service in question.

Project Relevance with respect to Capacity Building and Policy Making Needs at Different Levels of Service

Provision and Government: Identifying, assessing and addressing individual and social needs of vulnerable

groups (including migrant families) at individual and collective level, requires professional skills and

resources, cooperation among key institutions and players, legislative mandate as well as laws and regulations

in place. With this understanding, UNICEF in Armenia included interventions in the Project that addressed

the needs of all key stakeholders involved in the different aspects of the reform process to ensure their effective

and coordinated efforts in support of social protection of migrant families. This included:

Training and provision of critical resources (such as computers and operational/logistical compensation)

to case managers involved in the Project and working with migrant families;

Workshops, discussions and consultations for all key players (around 200) involved in developing Local

Social Plans and planning and implementing local social projects that emphasized the need for institutional

cooperation. The stakeholders involved in this process included heads of communities and heads of

regional administration departments, education and health authorities, police, NGOs, case managers and

social workers and many others.

Support to MoLSA and MTD experts in the drafting of the new Law on Social Assistance and the

Government Decree on Institutional Cooperation.

To summarize, the Project interventions under its three components discussed above were designed and

implemented in response to beneficiary and stakeholder needs as identified and verified though the

consultative process during the Project design and findings of the Baseline Survey (conducted during the

inception stage of the Project). They were confirmed through the analysis of the data collected for the purposes

of this evaluation (both Beneficiary Survey and key informant interviews).

“…Not every year is successful for labour migrants and there are families in the community that cannot provide

enough food for their children. This project helped these children to at least come and spend their days in a nice

and warm place, as well as have food three times a day for 10 months. We consider this as a type of social

assistance.”

“…It was highly important to bring the pre-school into a good condition, so that it could operate for more than

6 months per year. The project allowed to regulate the operations of the pre-school, which is now working for

10 months per year. This means education, food and socializing conditions for children for 10 months,

employment for the staff for 10 months and happiness of the parents that their children are attending the pre-

school on a regular basis.”



33

3. With the understanding of the intensity and complexity of the challenges faced by migrant families and

migrant dominated communities that cannot be addressed solely by the improvements of the social

protection system and services, UNICEF in Armenia introduced two more components to the Project.

Thus, within their particular focus, the Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement components were designed

to complement the comprehensive and interrelated interventions targeting improvements of the social

protection and social services systems. While the first one was intended to overcome a specific health

consequence of labour migration, the second one attempted to mobilize various resources at the disposal of

migrant and diaspora groups in support of local individuals, institutions and communities. The Sub-findings

that follow discuss how these two components tackled the issue of labour migration from a different

perspective.

Sub-Finding 3.1. Initially designed to respond to the needs of labour migrants’ families with respect to

broader parenting skills, the Parental Care component eventually focused on awareness and prevention of

HIV/AIDs:

Specific Objective D of the Project was defined as raising “the awareness of and improve skills in parental

care among doctors and migrants' families in the four target regions” based on the evidence that “one of the

typical problems facing labour migrants’ families is lack of adequate parental care, which occurs as a result

of the lengthy absence of one family member”26. More evidence to support this assumption was received later

on from the Baseline Survey conducted by UNICEF at the initial stages of the Project. Respondents

(representing socially vulnerable groups in the target regions, including migrants) considered worsening of

family relations, impact on child’s upbringing, worsening of migrant health, (including exposure to HIV/AIDS

and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as well as issues with family planning among the primary negative

consequences of migration (at 49, 45, 17 and 7 percent respectively)27. Such convergence of beneficiary

opinions and initial Project assumptions on the impact of migration on family dynamics, care of children,

health and other related issues was the foundation on which UNICEF rationalized the inclusion of the Parental

Care component in the Project. Parental Care itself, however, was initially defined as a broader concept

focusing on overall awareness and knowledge of migrant families “about the importance, value and practical

application of effective parental care”28.

Taking into consideration that migrants are the primary group for the transmission of HIV/AIDS and STDs,

the focus of the component was somewhat narrowed in the scope, focusing primarily on awareness and

prevention of HIV/AIDs through training of medical professionals and beneficiaries and performances of the

Theater for Changes. As the pre-training evaluations of the 375 members of migrant families participating in

the training course indicated, their level of awareness of HIV/AIDS related risks and prevention methods was

rather low. It ranged from 0% (in Ijevan, Tavush) and slightly over 42 % (in Vardenis, Gegharkunik) with the

average pre-test level being between 20-25%29 pointing out to a clear need for these interventions. While the

beneficiary group involved in the training represented only a fraction of the 2500 migrant families identified

as Project beneficiaries by the social services, the training of the medical personnel (working at the hospitals

in the target regions) was used as a strategy to reach out to a broader group. The doctors and nurses involved

work with much larger population and as such they were equipped with knowledge and skills to proactively

engage with the members of migrant families on HIV/AIDs related risks and advocacy for use of prevention

methods. Additionally, the forum theater type performances of the Theater of Change in 19 locations involved

around 150030 people in HIV/AIDs and STD awareness building through this innovative format with follow

on discussion.

26 FULL APPLICATION FORM; (EuropeAid/131-088/C/ACT/Multi-2 ) Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximising migrants’ involvement in local development 27 Baseline Survey on the Effectiveness of Social Services Delivery and its Impact on the Socio-Economic Situation in Vulnerable families (focusing on migrants) in Armenia, UNICEF 2013 28 UNICEF Interim Report to EU covering the period of December 2013-December 2014. 29 Source: NCAP provided statistics on pre and post training evaluation. 30 Numbers are derived from progress reports of Theater of Change for the period of August-December 2014.



34

It should be noted, however, that the divergence between the name of the Component and its actual

interventions was somewhat confusing raising questions about their relevance for parental care. While several

interviewed people (such as NCAP experts, regional coordinators, UNICEF staff) pointed out to the fact that

improved parental health is beneficial for the children generally, there was still some ambiguity as to why this

particular need was prioritized over others such as nutrition/breastfeeding, psychological counseling, family

planning, etc. Two viable explanation with this respect include:

Inclusion of parenting skills into core UNICEF interventions and offering the parents a number of trainings

in the locations targeted by the Project primarily focusing on nutrition and care of 0-5children. Since the

parents were all from vulnerable families, including migrants’ families, the initial nutrition and

breastfeeding focus of the Project was put aside to avoid duplications.

Existence of readymade effective solutions and formats (such as the training and the theater) to address the

revealed need for HIV/AIDs awareness and prevention.

The one way in which this Component addressed the larger issues of impact of migration on youth and

families, including parental care, was through TV programs on Armenia and Armnews TVs with a viewership

of tens of thousands people. However, with the exception of the two interviews by UNICEF leadership and

Project management on HIV/AIDs aspects of the Project and migration generally31, these programs mostly

covered the services in support of parental care established and functioning under the local social projects

(e.g. Chambarak there were self-help groups for parents). With respect to other Project components, it should

be noted that several issues related to parental care were also addressed individually through case management.

Sub-Finding 3.2. Diaspora Engagement Component of the Project was designed and implemented to

capitalize on the positive aspect of migration, i.e. formation of Diaspora and Migrant Networks and their

potential contributions to communities of origin.

By introducing this Project Component UNICEF in Armenia attempted to underscore the positive implications

that migration can have through formation of a Diaspora that eventually can become an asset for the home

country, or the so called “Diaspora Capital”. As defined by the Diaspora Matters32, Diaspora Capital is

“overseas resources available to a country, region, city, place or organization and is made up of flow of

people, knowledge and finance33”. A small country like Armenia (with a population of over 3 million people)

has a considerable worldwide Diaspora of around 8 million people, which can be grouped into “old” and

“new” Diasporas. The former one has been established in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide of the 20th

century, while the so called “new” Diaspora wave followed from labour migration (predominantly to Russia)

due to Armenia’s economic downfall in the post-Soviet Union era.

The Project saw certain untapped potential in terms of utilizing the intellectual and professional capacity,

networking opportunities, and, to a certain extent, financial resources of these two groups for developing local

communities, benefiting the overall population generally and vulnerable families and children specifically.

This approach has been envisioned as an alternative to the conventional requests for financial support from

community authorities/members to wealthy migrants to address occasional crisis or to contribute to some

ongoing project. Similarly, it attempted to overcome the limitations of traditional Diaspora assistance, which

is based on organizational agenda and at times prioritizes charity focus over development focus. A UNICEF-

commissioned study on Opportunities for Using Material and Non-Material Resources of the Diaspora and

Migrants for Developing Communities and Tackling Consequences of Migration also points out to some

additional issues with respect to effective engagement of Diaspora and migrant groups, including:

• While Armenia is among 20 countries with highest rate of remittances, these are mostly individual transfers

that are not managed in any way and do not serve local community development purposes;

• Diaspora and migrant contributions to a community are not institutionalized in any way and are mostly

reliant on the personality and initiative –taking of the head of the community. There is no long-term vision

31 To NewMag and AR TV respectively. 32 An Ireland based consultancy organization involved in the Project. 33 Deliverable 3. Report on Diaspora Matters Work with Armenia.



35

for community development (as well as respective plans) and no proactive approaches to reaching out to

relevant diaspora/migrant groups. The proposed projects usually have an ad hoc nature and do not always

reflect the priorities of community development or the existing needs/gaps.

• Lack of transparency and accountability limits business investments into a community.

• The state does not have targeted strategies and approaches that would promote support to local

development, including business investments, by Diaspora and migrant groups.34

All these considerations and issues prompted the Project to undertake its interventions in two directions:

1) Macro level interventions helping Armenia (as a host country) to develop capacities and strategies for

effectively engaging its worldwide Diaspora and migrant groups into different development initiatives.

These included several research studies, a study trip of a diverse group of participants to Ireland (a country

known for its utilization of Diaspora potential), a follow on visit and conference in Armenia, meeting at

Central Bank on remittances and others.

2) Micro level interventions through which local community needs were identified and then addressed

through engaging individuals and groups from Diaspora as well as migrants. Efforts by Mission East

Armenia and the established regional Knowledge Hubs to identify local needs and recruit Diaspora experts

to help address those are to be acknowledged in this respect.

These resulted in a new approach not only within UNICEF, but also for example within Mission East and the

hubs, but also within AGBU (rethinking of the strategy of the organization, using the knowledge by the

experts).

To summarize, both Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement Components brought an additional dimension

to how the Project responded to consequences of labour migration in the targeted regions. However, if the

first one addressed a specific need through a set of specific activities, the second one has been broader in

nature, explorative and experimental. It piloted ways of Diaspora/migrant group involvement into local

communities through transfer of soft resources such as expertise and knowledge, introduced a new approach

that made involved organizations (such as ME and AGBU) rethink their strategy for Diaspora engagement.

While these interventions did not necessarily target labour migrants directly, as several interviewed

individuals noted (Knowledge Hub representatives, Diaspora experts, beneficiaries) prevention of migration

is equally important and can be achieved by improving the overall community environment and it prospects.

They believed the Diaspora Engagement component did exactly that by bringing together the communities

and the Diaspora experts, exposing the local professionals to most recent trends in their area of expertise,

creating opportunities for further capacity building, networking and others.

4. End beneficiary awareness and assessment of Project interventions and related services targeting their

individual/collective needs or community improvements varied depending mostly on the type of

intervention.

The primary source for end beneficiary (i.e. labour migrant families) opinions and perceptions on how the

Project interventions affected their situation were collected mainly through the Beneficiary Survey and

complemented by some qualitative interviews. While the Beneficiary Survey primarily focused on the impact

of the Case Management Component on the beneficiaries, it also included questions about their awareness

and assessment of local social projects and parental care related interventions.

With respect to Case Management, respondents demonstrated high level of awareness of the role played by

the case managers, interventions and services provided by them in support to addressing issues of labour

migrant families. Thus, 94.6% of respondents noted that the case manager works closely with their family and

indicated the ways in which the case manager is involved with the family (see Table 9 below).

34 Summarized from: Executive Summary: Study on Opportunities for Using Material and Non-Material Resources of the Diaspora and Migrants for Developing Communities and Tackling Consequences of Migration.



36

Table 9: Ways of Case Manager Involvement with Beneficiary Family (shows the first six answers with

highest percentage)

Analysis of this data allows assuming that case managers apply the main elements of case management

methodology in their work with labour migrants (such as needs assessment, home visits, institutional

cooperation, individual social plans) and do it rather effectively since the beneficiaries are well aware of case

manager efforts in support of their families. Over 78% of respondents indicated that their issue was either

fully or partially resolved by the case manager (27.7 and 50.7 per cent respectively).

Beneficiary awareness of local social projects implemented in their communities (8 of 10 Project communities

that were selected into the sample) was assessed among 93 respondents representing respective communities.

According to survey results, awareness level varied from community to community and intervention to

intervention. Understandably, awareness levels were higher in smaller communities compared to relatively

bigger ones (such as Vanadzor or Ijevan). Additionally, higher levels of awareness are associated with the

projects targeting job creation (Spitak-54.5%), infrastructure (Sarnaghbyur-50%) and childcare (Chambarak-

42.9%), related projects, while certain services such as psychological, legal and social service provision are

understandably less visible.

Thirty eight percent (38%) of these respondents answered positively the question about their or their family’s

participation in these projects, of which 75% assessed them highly useful and 25% as somewhat useful. These

results of the survey are fully confirmed by the findings of the in-depth interviews and focus groups, during

which the beneficiaries shared their positive opinions on the projects as reflected in the quotations below.

And finally, with respect to awareness and participation in trainings or other events on parenting skills and

health, 98.9 % of respondents said that neither they nor their family member attended such events. Some

possible explanations for this result could be the small number of HIV/AIDs training participants (370) and

their low representation in the sample, as well as not perceiving the performances of the Theater for Changes

as awareness building events with respect to the issues in question.

As to the beneficiaries of the Diaspora Engagement Component, due to the specific nature of its intervention

that did not directly address the issues of labour migrant families, they were not included in the Beneficiary

Survey. However, some of these beneficiaries were present at the final events that were held simultaneously

in all four target regions and spoke very highly about how they were empowered through the skill transfer

from Diaspora experts. To illustrate, a local psychologist and speech therapist from Shirak spoke about how

she learnt practical tools from her colleague from the U.S. Another beneficiary from Lori said that because

How does the case manager work with family? Yes No Dif.to answer

2. Tries to find solutions to our issues 95.7 3.6 0.7

1. Assesses our issues 86.0 5.4 8.6

7. To a certain degree helps address our family issues 79.5 15.8 4.7

3. Periodically visits us and is interested in our issues 77.0 23.0 0.0

5. Develops a plan to address our issues 59.4 18.0 22.7

6. Contacts other entities to find solutions to our issues 39.2 32.7 28.1

“…no question that we will bring the children to the pre-school- to teach some discipline, so that they get used to

“collective work/classes” when they go to school. We are even ready to borrow money to bring the kids to pre-school,

or would somehow find the money.”

“… One of my daughters in law learnt hairdressing, and she is very good at that… the other one was enrolled in a

cooking class and she is now preparing pizzas and other things for her kids. I see how there is progress.”

“…the Municipality is providing assistance to these people this way or the other. But when we have projects of this

kind, that allows saving some money from the budget of the municipality and direct that to another little project.”

Beneficiaries of local social projects



37

of her involvement in the Project she learnt skills that allowed her finding a volunteer job first and a permanent

one later, making her change here initial plans for migration.

4.3. Effectiveness

Evaluation of effectiveness was based on the following evaluation questions.

Effectiveness To what extent have the expected project results been achieved and are there

differences from region to region, and from beneficiary group to beneficiary group?

How effective were the capacity building efforts of beneficiaries, particularly case

management, local social planning, institutional cooperation and to which extent

were they in line with actual needs?

How effective was the project in identifying migrants’ families and children? Where

there any challenges?

How well did the diaspora engagement efforts resonate to the rest of the project

interventions? What are the key implementation lessons?

5. With very few exceptions (attributable to certain legislative changes or other objective factors) all

output level commitments of the Project have been met with respect to its three interrelated Components

targeting improvements of the social protection system and services (CM, LSP and IC). However, the

achievement of numeric results translated into longer term systemic or institutionalized changes to a

varying degree due to a number of objective or subjective factors.

The Project proposal has set a number of outputs to be produced for each Component as a foundation for

achieving the higher level objectives of the Project. The Project activities, implementation modalities and

partners were carefully selected to ensure timely and effective achievement of these results. The following

sub-findings provide by Component recounting of both major accomplishments as well as any limitations that

represented certain challenges to their achievement. A detailed comparison of achievement of project

indicators can be found in Annex 12.

Sub-Finding 5.1: Case Management: Self-assessment of case managers as well as feedback from experts and

beneficiaries points out to better understanding and increased confidence in implementing the key elements

of case management resulting from Project interventions. However, there are still gaps in skills and knowledge

alongside with the lack of a fully conducive environment needed for effective case management.

Two key interconnected output results targeted under this Component were almost fully achieved. These

included:

1. A cadre of at least 50 professional social services case managers from the four target regions

are equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities required to identify, assess and

respond to the individual needs of migrants’ families.

2. A minimum of 2500 individual social projects are developed and implemented in response to

the individual needs of migrants’ families from four target regions.

Throughout 2014-2016, the National Institute of Labor and Social Research (UNICEF’s partner for this

component) has supported the 50 case managers involved in the Project with classroom and on-job training,

facilitated use of adjusted tools and methods such as needs assessment forms and individual social plans, home

visits, provision of computers and skills to work with developed data bases, introduction to relevant legislative

changes and other interventions35. Additionally, regular analysis of cases handled by the case managers,

35 Based on data from project reports, FGs with case managers and beneficiary survey.



38

consultancy on how to address emerging issues, methodology advice and other type of support was provided

by NLSR experts to case managers. Under the Project, each case manager was required to work with a

minimum of three migrant families per month through identifying these families, assessing their needs,

developing individual social plans and providing assistance in response to their specific need. As a result of

these interventions the case managers opened and processed 242236 (some 78 cases less than planned) for

identified families that had labour migrants. The share of cases was largest in Shirak marz (30.4% or 737

cases) followed by Lori (26.2% or 635 cases), Gegharkunik (25.2% or 611 cases) and Tavush (18.1% or 439

cases). Figure 3 below presents the breakdown of cases per marzes and by years.

Figure 3: Breakdown of Managed cases by Marzes and Years

Source: NILSR Final report

Furthermore, case managers and NILSR experts had undertaken several measures to address beneficiary issues

including provision of cash benefits and documentation, referral to medical institutions, out of school children

referral to elderly care facilities, attempts to facilitate job placement, enrollment of children in extracurricular

clubs and many others. While some of these interventions have run smoothly, without any visible issues,

implementing others was somewhat problematic due to such factors as absence of job opportunities, lack of

resources for paid health services, weakly developed NGO sector and network of services in some of the

localities, limited resources at the regional administration or community level and other (as reported by

NLSR).

While assessing their own capacities, the case managers involved in the focus group discussions indicated that

generally they felt confident about using case management as a methodology for responding to beneficiary

needs. They mostly believed that they had sufficient understanding of the elements of case management and

when dealing with a case they can competently diagnose migrant family needs, outline possible types of

assistance and, when possible, implement interventions. Case managers perceive significant improvements in

the way they work with vulnerable groups, including migrants and they fully attribute this to the trainings and

other capacity building activities under the Project, which were highly appreciated by all FG participants.

NILSR experts/program coordinators also confirmed that they had observed significant improvements in the

capacities of case managers and in the way they perceive their job before and after their involvement in the

Project. However, the case managers themselves and the experts working with them expressed certain

reservations about case manager competencies in some specific areas.

Thus, NILSR experts generally believe that the capacities of trained case managers are significantly different.

While some of the case managers have fully embraced case management as a concept, others find it difficult

to transition from their roles of benefit administrators. Level of motivation is also different depending on

personality and commitment to work. Both case managers and NILSR experts pointed out to areas of case

36 While this number is slightly below Project target of 2500 beneficiaries, some additional cases (around 40) were included in the IC related pilot projects on identification of children at risk of placement as a result of migration.

150220

180 200175

285

408

279

114 130 149 132

439

635

737

611

Tavush Lori Shirak Gegharkunik2014 2015 2016 Total



39

managers’ work where some of them still see a need for improvement. Interestingly, their assessments with

respect to some gaps in knowledge and skills coincided. Table 10 below summarizes case manager and NILSR

expert assessments about areas of improvement with the matching ones highlighted in italics.

Table 10: Case managers' capacity gaps - comparison of assessments

Gaps Identified by Case Managers Gaps Identified by NILSR Experts

Insufficient skills to work with databases Low level of computer skills

Insufficient skills for assessing beneficiary

needs and working on the development of the

individual plans.

Challenges faced in developing individual social plans and

proposing systemic rather than situational solutions to the

issues at hand.

Low awareness of organizations and

support networks available in the region and

the communities.

Limited number of accessible assistance/service

opportunities and lack of information about resources

available locally.

Comparison of these limitations shows that currently the weakest aspect of case managers’ job is related to

developing individual social plans and mobilizing resources for their implementation. Additional concerns

voiced by the case managers included: being employed as a cash benefit administrator and not being paid for

additional case management functions (other than through the operational support received through the

Project), lack of financial, material and other resources (such as food/clothing to provide to beneficiaries,

social services to offer, transportation to get to the villages and many others) that is needed to ensure their full

and effective involvement with the beneficiaries, low level of cooperation between all interested stakeholders

that should be mobilized to address the issue and some others.

Under the Project the case managers were paid 10,000 drams

for logistical expenses (telephone, transport, etc.) in the

execution of their respective duties which was an

unprecedented operational support especially compared to

meagre amounts they are entitled to from the budget (200-500

AMD per trip – depending on the type of trip).

However, despite these favorable conditions (compared to

other case managers around Armenia not involved in the

Project) they claimed the amount was not sufficient to cover

home visit transportation costs and telephone fees. In several

instances they also had to tap into their own personal means or turn to administrative resources (such as cash

benefits) to assist the vulnerable families, including the migrants. As they pointed out, in these conditions the

type of support they provided was ad hoc in nature, depending on the resources at hand at that particular

moment.

The results of the Beneficiary Survey come to confirm such assessment of pros and cons of the current state

of case management. Over 48% of respondents say that when encountering a social issue they go with it either

to the territorial social service office generally or the case manager/social worker specifically (12.9 and 35.3

percent respectively). However, when it comes to specifying the nature of assistance provided by the case

manager, over 65% of beneficiaries point out to support in enrolling for cash benefits, provision of decoders

(a most recent initiative of the state in view of transitions to digital broadcasting) and in-kind provision of

food (33.2, 21.9 and 14.2% of respondents respectively). When it comes to facilitation with job search, referral

to a community-based service or enrollment in vocational/other training, case manager contribution is

significantly lower (7.0, 4.4 and 2.0 percent respectively). This situation is not surprising given that case

managers themselves agree that they continue working mostly as benefit administrators and do not have

sufficient resources and authority to address the multiple needs faced by beneficiaries.

“ ... Well, I was handling a case and they

blamed us because they had to leave the

country, we did not offer them a job…They

asked us a concrete question, “Ok, let us say

we do not leave here, what do you suggest we

do?” We could not offer them a job, we

referred them to the Employment Center but

the best the Center does is providing cattle...”

A case manager



40

Thus, while the Project interventions have equipped the case managers with skills, tools and, at times resources

to respond to the individual needs of their beneficiaries37, the existing systemic challenges have somewhat

limited their ability to effectively address all dimensions of social consequences of migration.

These systemic factors included both lack of strong incentives for case managers to perform their

responsibilities to the fullest,

as well as lack of financial,

material and non-material

resources at their disposal to

give solutions to the multiple

issues faced by the migrant families. The most disappointing aspect of their job in this respect has been the

sense of hopelessness when it came to providing job opportunities to the beneficiaries, the one type of support

that mattered most for their future and wellbeing, but was well beyond their control.

Sub-Finding 5.2: Local Social Planning and Institutional Cooperation: The Project provided a strong

impetus for reinforcing LSP and IC aspects of the ISS reform through development of Local Social Plans,

piloting of 10 social projects, engaging all relevant stakeholders in capacity building activities as well as

targeting legislative improvements. While the Project also contributed to institutionalizing these concepts

through the Law on Social Assistance, their practical application needs continuous efforts.

As part of the Project, 4 regional Territorial Social Plans (TSP) were reviewed38 and developed with 22

corresponding community and inter-community projects included in the plans as a proposed response to cover

a critical social service gap in the communities for certain vulnerable groups39. The development of both TSPs

and the social projects followed a rigorous and intensive series of workshops, regional consultations, working

group meetings that engaged the relevant stakeholders in the process simultaneously building their capacity

to design and implement both TSPs and local social projects. The overall concept of local social planning and

social projects was introduced to over 25 key players during a workshop in December 2013. The workshop

was then followed by visits and seminars to the four targeted marzes to train representatives of regional and

local authorities on relevant concepts. A higher than expected turnout (96 versus 60 planned) of participants

(including the respective staff of regional and community administrations, staff of territorial offices of social

services, police, NGOs and others) indicated their interest and expectations from the LSP planning and

implementation.

Once the TSPs were finalized and approved, the Project proceeded with selecting ten pilot social projects for

implementation (out of the 22 proposed). To this end a Committee consisting of Deputy Minister of Territorial

Administration, Deputy regional governors of the four regions, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,

UNICEF officials and CFOA experts was established, with the EU as observer. With consideration of the size

of the marz (3 projects for bigger marzes like Lori and Shirak and 2 for Gegarqunik and Tavush) as well as

feedback from regional discussions on the best project from regional perspective, 10 local social projects were

selected for implementation co-funded by UNICEF (EU) and the communities themselves. Multilateral

Memorandum of Understanding (between MoLSA, MoTAD, UNICEF and the implementer of the project)

was signed on the implementation and financing of community social projects. By September 2016, all of the

10 projects have been completed benefiting around 500 socially vulnerable community members (including

migrant families) and successfully responding to outstanding social needs faced by the community or the

regions. As Table 11 below indicates, seven out of the 10 implemented projects targeted children and the

elderly, the two groups that suffer significantly from the weakened family bonds due to migration.

37 As the evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms (2015) indicated, the case managers involved in the Project were much better off in this respect. 38 The TSP for Lori and Tavush were developed prior to the Project, as part of UNICEF interventions. 39 All the numerical and factual information presented under this finding is based on UNICEF reports to EU and CFOA Progress Narrative Reports to UNICEF Armenia.

“…You know what this can be compared to? When you teach someone playing

football, but do not give them the ball. So how can you assess if they play well,

without the ball there. We teach them over and over that this is how football is

played, theoretically… but the tools are missing…” NILSR expert



41

Table 11: Local Social Projects by Beneficiary Group

Beneficiary Group Project

Children: migrant,

socially vulnerable,

with disabilities,

parentless

Sarnaghbyur (Shirak): Improvement of pre-school education conditions

Pemzashen and Lernakert (Shirak): Educational and performance support to

children from migrants’ and socially vulnerable families

Chambarak (Gegharkunik): Development of a family support day care centre

for migrants’ families and children

Vardenis (Gegharkunik): Day care centre for socially vulnerable and migrant

children

Noyemberyan (Tavush): Provision of home-based social support to migrants’

families

Alaverdi: Provision of home-based social support

Vanadzor (Lori): Development of TOSS capacities, psychological and legal

service provision

Elderly affected by

migration

Alaverdi (Lori): Provision of home-based social support

Ijevan (Tavush): Provision of home-based social support to persons affected

by migration


families

Women and girls Akhuryan (Shirak): provision of handicraft skills to women and girls from

socially vulnerable and migrants’ families to increase income generation

opportunities

Persons with

disabilities

Spitak (Lori): Development of livelihood opportunities for persons with

disabilities through their engagement in greenhouse production


families

All the projects were implemented by either municipalities or local NGOs with regular monitoring visits from

UNICEF and its experts, as well as MoTAD. While Finding 3 reflects positive beneficiary opinions about the

need and relevance of the projects, it should be noted that implementation-wise as well they were effectively

executed ensuring that goals and targets were met. Additionally, implementers were given an opportunity to

learn and practice such new skills as project design and management, budgeting and reporting, and others. As

an interviewed project implementer noted, the project built up some capacities for the relevant staff allowing

them to apply for a next, EU-funded project and implementing it in cooperation with other organizations.

For all community heads involved in the implementation of the projects their most valuable aspect was

UNICEF (EU) co-funding that allowed them address a vital need faced by the community members.

And finally and most importantly, these initiatives implemented by the Project were essential to advocating

for inclusion of the LSP concept and methodology (including the social projects) in the new Law on Social

Assistance in December 2014.

With respect to Institutional Cooperation, the Project also met several of its planned milestones, including

development of the IC concept, which eventually became the respective legal provision included in the Law.

The expert group (including MoLSA, MoH, MoES, CFOA representatives) working on these documents held

several meetings to draft the document followed by regional workshops to introduce the concept and solicit

stakeholder feedback. Thus, four regional round tables were organized to discuss the paper on institutional

cooperation with a total of around 100 participants (heads of departments of marz administration, school

representatives, doctor, social services staff, police and NGO representatives). These discussions allowed

understanding the current practices of and challenges to cooperation as well as hearing out the stakeholder

positions and ideas about the proposed model. Such proactive solicitation of opinions from the players of

cooperation helped to tighten the concept and make it more applicable to the Armenian reality.



42

To showcase the practical application of institutional cooperation, the Project also intended developing and

signing 19 protocols of cooperation (in 19 sub-regions where territorial offices of social services function)

among social services with the intention to implement at least five of them. However, while the concept was

tested in all four regions, by the end of the Project only one such protocol was signed and implemented in

Vanadzor to prevent the placement of children in residential care institutions in Vanadzor, with a focus on

migrants families. The need for such protocols was less required, even though possible, once the Law and

respective Government Decree was passed, making cooperation mandatory in a number of areas and requiring

that the so-called support networks be established around territorial offices of social services to make the

cooperation operational and institutional. To support the process, the Project experts continued having regional

meetings explaining the Law and Decree to the staff of Social Services in these 19 sub-regions. In addition,

a methodological guidebook on IC was developed both for use by practitioners (such as case managers, social

workers and others) and by NILSR in their future training of case managers and social workers40 .

Thus, with respect to both LSP and IC the Project achieved three major results:

Developing the respective concepts with active engagement from regional and local stakeholders;

Piloting certain aspects of these concepts such as local social plans and to some extent the protocols of

cooperation with a special focus on vulnerable groups, including families with labour migrants;

Ensuring their institutionalization through inclusion of both LSP and IC related provisions in the Law on

Social Assistance and respective Government Decree on Cooperation.

However, experts and stakeholders involved in the implementation of these components believe there is still

a long way to go for fully launching LSP and IC as integral practices of the overall social service provision.

With respect to IC, despite the

legal requirements, there is a

strong lack of cooperation culture

that needs to be overcome for its

successful implementation, With

respect to LSP, the plans are

currently being integrated into the five-year regional and community development plans and should include

the social projects identified for meeting the gaps in services for particular vulnerable groups. While LSP is

seen as a tool with no alternative in this respect, the absence of allocated funding needed for its implementation

raises questions about the future of such projects.

It should be also noted that both in terms of case management and local social planning efforts, the Project

yielded some unintended positive results. Thus, in case of the former (CM), the Project contributed to

improved case management database and case manager performance assessment given NILSR’s hands on

involvement in the Project that resulted in better understanding of existing issues and gaps. In case of LSP,

the communities involved in planning and implementing social plans pointed out to acquiring such skills as

proposal and report writing, understanding the funding opportunities by different donors, and others.

6. A specific skills set, knowledge gap and behavioral pattern among three target beneficiary groups

(medical professionals, migrant family members and the general public) was addressed by the Parental

Care component. While well designed and implemented, it was short term in nature with one time

interventions per each type of activity and per locality, with no direct linkages to the other Project

components.

With an aim to increase awareness of and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDs and Sexually Transmitted Diseases

(STD), the Parental Care component utilized two integrated strategies, i.e. smaller scale training of medical

professionals and members of labour migrant families (implemented by the National Centre for AIDs

Prevention), and a larger scale awareness campaign through the performances conducted by the interactive

Theatre for Changes, as well as engagement with the media.

40 The manual was developed by CFOA in cooperation with MoLSA and validated by NILSR and UNICEF sectoral staff.

“If a kid does’t go to school because she has no shoes, we cannot address

this through our formal educational or social sectors. Or the parents

cannot leave the children after school to go to work. We cannot create a

separate Ministry to address such issues.” An LSP and IP expert



43

190 medical professionals and 375 beneficiaries from 19 localities (mostly towns) of the four targeted regions

participated in one time training sessions covering such topics as the impact of migration on the proliferation

of these diseases, symptoms and channels of transmit, vulnerability of migrants and their partners, treatment

and prevention, and others. As the pre and post training assessment results indicated, medical professionals

increased their knowledge of the subject by almost 40% on average, while for the beneficiaries this indicator

ranged from an average of 27% to as high as over 80%.

The Theatre for Change performances in the same 19 locations (with over 70 participants in each place)

provided an innovative and interactive format to sensitize the public about the topic. The “Who could imagine”

play performed by the theatre featured a typical story about a migrant returning home and infecting the partner

and possibly the child. Each performance ended with a facilitated discussion and role-play as well as expert

analysis given by NCAP representative. Informative brochures on HIV/AIDS prevention were also distributed

among the participants.

However, it should be noted here that despite their integrated nature, these interventions were short-term

(October-December 2014) and one time in nature. While they were well organized and delivered harnessing

good level of cooperation between the two partners and the Project regional coordinators (to identify and

involve migrants), they did not leave a profound impact on the end beneficiaries. As discussed in Finding 3,

the overwhelming majority of the Beneficiary survey respondents did not recall any awareness raising events

or events on the topic. In addition, despite the significant increase in the knowledge level of training

participants, the post-training assessment shows that at least in case of six locations, participant knowledge

was still considerably low, ranging from 55 to 71%. These results are an evidence of a persisting knowledge

gap that was not fully covered by the Project activities.

And finally, while there is some evidence indicating that these activities were coordinated with the work done

under other Project components (awareness raising on TV, involvement of case managers by the regional

coordinators in charge of the work, a diaspora expert on HIV/AIDs), the interconnections were somewhat ad

hoc. While five of the training participants were reported to be representatives of regional administration or

social services, this number is not comparable to 50 case managers involved in the Project, who could have

benefited from knowledge on this subject.

7. Diaspora Engagement component of the Project successfully piloted innovative formats and new

modalities for Diaspora/migrant group engagement in local communities with a focus on local demand

driven initiatives that contributed to the improvement of the overall community environment/context.

Though some major interventions under this Component occurred late in the Project, they inspired a

significant positive response both from the Diaspora members and the local communities.

From the very beginning implementation of this Component emphasized unconventional approaches to

Diaspora engagement and their contribution to the local communities by focusing on non-financial ways of

engagement through transfer of skills and knowledge. To ensure close ties between the needs of local

communities and Diaspora response to those, Knowledge Hubs (KH) were established in the four target

regions. These Hubs are affiliated with active CSOs/NGOs in the regions that are either supported or work in

partnership with the Mission East (ME), the organization engaged for the implementation of this Component.

Once trained and ready to act, the Knowledge Hubs played an instrumental role with respect to different

aspects of Diaspora Engagement, including:

Informing and educating the key stakeholders regionally and locally about how the proposed modalities of

Diaspora engagement will benefit the local communities, institutions and individuals;

Supporting the needs assessment for soft skills transfer by Diaspora organizations/representatives for local

development and formulating projects around the identified needs.

Engaging directly with diaspora representatives and migrants to help them see how their intellectual

resources and experiences could benefit the local communities.

Contributing their vision and experiences to the development of the web platform for exchanges between

Diaspora and local communities.



44

Following the needs assessment and even before the creation of the web-platform, the KHs launched an

intensive search for potential Diaspora partners to work with the communities, individuals and institutions

that have required support in their area of expertise. Initially these efforts were focused on using personal

connections or existing Diaspora organizations (such as AGBU, Armenian Volunteer Corps or Birthright) to

bring over people. In 2015 there were 3-4 cases of prominent Diaspora representatives from Russia, China

and the U.S. visiting the four target regions. However, by autumn 2016 over 20 individuals became engaged

in the Project connecting to the Hubs both through their personal ties and through the newly established web-

platform Together4Armenia (www.together4armenia.am). These interactions culminated in a final skills

transfer fair in September 2016 that was held simultaneously in all 4 regions. During this forum 17 Diaspora

representatives from Russia, Canada, Lebanon, Italy and France had an unprecedented opportunity to share

their professional skills and experiences with local communities in a number of areas such as architectural

design, IT use in library work, museum management, textile technologies and others.

The evaluation team had the opportunity to observe this final event and its different activities, getting first

hand feedback from implementers, Diaspora experts, beneficiaries. There was much excitement about what

was happening and participants agreed that the most prominent feature making the exchange a success was

the emphasis on skills transfer rather than the traditional requests for monetary support. Both givers and

receivers stressed the profound sense of connection and reward that they had through the experience. In

addition, all those involved pointed out to some other important considerations that made the specific event

and the overall experience a success increasing the trust in the future of such exchanges:

Demand-supply approach to the skills transfer that enhanced the utilization of the Diaspora resources;

Apparent transparency and full visibility of all activities with no needs for worrying about misuse of funds,

which has allegedly been the case for so long.

Emergence of potential networking opportunities between the Diaspora and local partners to continue

remaining engaged and working on the issue at hand.

Undoubtedly, the development and launch (in July 2016) of the Together4Armenia web platform

(www.together4armenia.am) has been the most innovative initiative under this Component designed to

facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills between Diaspora and the local communities. Publicity on the

launch of the platform, joint launch with the AGBU, MEA, UNICEF and the EU, and the generally positive

feedback has increased the interest toward the overall Diaspora Engagement approach. Some of the regional

projects posted on the web-platform have recently found supporters from Diaspora, who expressed interest to

get involved and are in regular contacts with KHs to explore further collaboration. Different Diaspora

representatives and international NGOs that have shown interest in the initiative are willing to volunteer and

support the KHs. However, since these development occurred late in the project cycle, their future

implementation is very much dependent on the sustained utilization of the platform and all related initiatives

by UNICEF to another interested and involved stakeholders.

“…For example, in Ijevan we have two projects-photojournalism and ecotourism. They seem to be small and short

term, but eventually the young people involved can learn a vocation and find a job.” KH representative

“…the response we saw during these two days was indeed short-term, but it made people think about establishing

connections and using them.” KH representative

“…I will definitely stay in touch with the Gavar University and I saw their interest to stay in touch, to continue working

together.” Diaspora expert

“…I saw the advertisement on the AGBU-Yerevan page and that link directed me to the web-platform through which

I came here. I think this was more of an introductory thing, (it)happened during one hour, but I tried to use a case that

gave them better understanding of project management. There is definitely a lot more to be done. This type of transfer

is very important, (I) will recommend to others and it will show them how life is outside Yerevan.” Diaspora expert

http://www.together4armenia.am/

http://www.together4armenia.am/



45

4.4. Efficiency

Evaluation of efficiency was based on the following evaluation questions.

Efficiency To what extent has UNICEF made good use of the human, financial and technical

resources, and has used an appropriate combination of tools and approaches to pursue

the achievement of project results in a cost-effective manner?

Was there a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities of key actors involved,

including staff, implementing partners and governmental partners towards the

achievement of the project objectives?

To what extent did UNICEF capitalize on other complementary initiatives to the

project to reinforce the results of the EU supported migration project?

8. Implementation modalities, governance and management structure were carefully selected and

consistently applied with considerable coordination efforts invested to ensure good use of financial,

technical and human resources. While this approach resulted in committed involvement of all key

stakeholders and partners, meaningful and working linkages between some Project components were

at times missing.

The regional spread of the Project, the complexity of it interrelated interventions, the need to work on all levels

of government (from national to regional to local) and interact with formal and informal partners made it

imperative to identify and apply implementation and management modalities that would facilitate and expedite

Project execution. To this end, UNICEF in Armenia emphasized the need for selecting the most qualified

implementation partners, creation of regional coordination units, involvement of all key stakeholders and

players, maintaining a regular dialogue with the relevant ministries and agencies as well as applying concerted

management and coordination efforts to ensure effective and efficient implementation of each Project

Component and the entire Project.

The choice of implementing entities was based on their previous experience and competencies in the area

targeted by the specific Project Component, ability to involve with the main state and non-state players as well

as reputation for effective project implementation and management. Table 12 below outlines the rationale for

the selection of these implementing partners and how their choice determined the nature of interventions, to

some extent.

Table 12: Implementing Partners, their Roles and Activities

Main

Implementing

Entity for a

Project

Component

Previous Experience Reach out to key

stakeholders

Activities

implemented

NILSR: Case

Management

Key MoLSA agency for

training and capacity building

of relevant staff; development

of training modules,

methodology and materials

based on research

As such NLSR has direct

links to both MoLSA and

territorial offices of social

services, possesses a cadre

of experts and trainers, is

involved in different

capacity building projects

Training and expert

advice to case

managers,

development of case

management tools,

databases and other

required resources

CFOA: Local

Social Planning and

Institutional

cooperation

An NGO involved in

community and regional

development projects, since

2011 partnered with UNICEF

Experience of working

with both MoLSA and

MTAD, regional

administrations and local

communities, experience

Drafting of LSP and

IC concepts,

development of 4

LSPs and local social

plans, mobilizing all



46

on LSP and IC introduction to

Armenia

in drafting and

implementing local

development policies and

plans, legislation drafting

relevant stakeholders

around LSP and IC

related capacity

building

NCAP and Theatre

For Change:

Parental Care

Key MoH agency on all

HIV/AIDS related issues and

in providing methodological

support and technical

assistance to health care

institutions countrywide.

Theatre for Changes is an

established theatre with

innovative approaches to

voicing social issues in an

interactive manner.

Experience with training

and links to MoH, giving

access to all medical

professionals in the

regions.

Training and

awareness building on

HIV/AIDs

Mission East:

Diaspora

Engagement

Experience working with

local organizations on

social integration and

inclusion, including the

migrant

population

Regional presence in the

targeted regions and

existence of local partner

CSOs/NGOs established

by ME.

Establishment of

Knowledge Hubs and

training of the staff,

needs assessment,

identification and

recruitment of

Diaspora partners,

development of the

Web platform

Each of these implementing agencies worked closely with UNICEF in Armenia and several other

partners/stakeholders involved in the implementation of the activities of the specific component. Thus, while

NILSR’s main partners were the Territorial Offices of Social Services and MoLSA, CFOA worked with both

MoLSA and MTAD, different regional and local level partners involved in the planning and implementation

of LSPs and social projects. In its turn, ME collaborated with NGOs, regional and local authorities, diaspora

organizations and experts. In all their activities on regional and local level, these organizations were supported

by the four regional coordinators, who represented one of the key departments of regional (marz)

administration. This setup has been very favorable for the Project implementation allowing for a number of

advantages, including:

• Easy access to regional authorities and regular information flows between them and the Project;

• Improved capacities of regional authorities to understand social protection and local development

• Closer interactions with the socially vulnerable groups, including labour migrants and their families and

better understanding of their issues and needs.

Two more important layers contributing to the Project implementation on the two extreme ends of the

continuum were the partner ministries (MoLSA and MoTAD) and the local municipalities and NGOs involved

in the implementation of the community social projects. While the close coordination with the ministries

followed UNICEF in Armenia’s “business as usual” practice of engaging government partners, three-lateral

partnerships between UNICEF, MoTAD and local project implementers were something new. Through that

arrangement UNICEF had to manage 10 additional sub-grantees (both local municipalities and NGOs) who

were not entirely competent in project management and implementation. At the same time, for UNICEF it

was something new to transfer funds through the Treasury system, which were resolved and resulted in more

ownership of the projects by the communities.

However, joint monitoring with MoTAD and establishing a reporting routine allowed overcoming these

challenges.

And finally, in a relatively new area of involvement for UNICEF in Armenia, i.e. Diaspora engagement,

internationally acclaimed partners were brought on board to support the implementation of relevant activities



47

and bring in international experience and practice (Ireland based Diaspora Matters and U.S. based Migration

Policy Institute).

While all these complex implementation and management patterns worked relatively well most of the time, it

was sometimes hard to ensure meaningful and working linkages between Project components. This was mostly

visible in low awareness of case managers of the local social plans implemented in the communities under

their service area, inadequate understanding of the concept of supportive networks or lack of their involvement

in Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement components. While overall the Case Management Component

included very intensive capacity building activities and as such added a lot to the case manager’s workload,

as the central unit of service provision to vulnerable groups, the Project will still benefited from their improved

awareness of and involvement in those aspects of the Project that had implications for their job and

professional experience.

9. UNICEF Armenia’s active, hands on management of the Project and tight coordination with all parties

involved allowed for an effective use of Project resources and timely response to all emerging issues.

Where possible the Project successfully leveraged opportunities for additional institutional and

individual contributions (both financial and non-financial) to relevant Project activities.

The implementation and management mechanisms discussed above ensured that the Project management team

was on top of all aspects of the Project implementation including effective and efficient spending of financial

allocations and use of other resources. Regular and close coordination with the partners, streamlined reporting

processes and systematic monitoring visits helped flag and address any emerging issues, also in line with

UNICEF’s strict rules and regulations on various financial transactions (e.g. Harmonized Approach to Cash

Transfers, selection and payments to institutional contractors etc.). Thus, UNICEF in Armenia requested (and

was granted by the EU) two no-cost extensions in 2015 and 2016 to address a number of implementation

issues, including41:

Need for further institutionalization of case management practices by introducing the requirements of the

new Law on Social Assistance (passed in December 2014, but related regulations emerged only later in

2015) to case managers, as well as continuing working on their technology use skills;

Need for analyzing the results of local social projects (nearing completion) and reviewing the opportunities

of sustainable funding for these initiatives to be proposed to the government.

With most of Diaspora Engagement related activities delayed to autumn 2015, more time was needed to

capitalize on the achievements and explore further sustainability opportunities for the web-platform and

other interventions.

Utilization of savings due to the efficient use of funds.

By September 2016, when the Project neared its completion date, UNICEF had successfully met its

commitments both with respect to Project deliverables and financial spending. Final closing events were held

under each Component followed with submission of narrative and financial reports. A reconciliation of

planned and actual spending under the Project as of April 201642 indicates that over 77 % of the Projects funds

had been expended five months prior the end of the Project (see Table 13 below). The savings on some lines

incurred as a result of efficient utilization of funds and leveraging of partner contributions allowed for

overspending in some others, but within the allowable threshold of 15% set by the Contract.

Table 13: Reconciliation of Planned and Actual Spending under the Project (as of April 2016)

Project Component Planned (EUR) Spent by April 2016 (EUR)

Case management 223,020.00 173,230.00

41 Extension Request Letter from UNICEF Armenia to the EU (August 2015) and Extension Request Report from UNICEF Armenia to the EU (April, 2016) 42 Final financial report is due in Jan-Feb 2017.



48

Local social planning 149,185.00 131,164.00

Institutional cooperation 23,085.00 18,498.00

Parental care 60,300.00 46,973.00

Diaspora engagement 235,147.00 168,455.00

Project management (staff, travel) and

regional coordinators

229,620.00 249,893.00

M&E, policy recommendations 58,790.00 15,392.00

Visibility 12,190.00 6,398.00

TOTAL 991,337.00 810,003.00

It should be noted that this Project funded by the EU has been contributing to UNICEF Armenia’s overall

efforts in support to improving Armenia’s social protection (especially child protection) systems and as such

other resources were directed by UNICEF to the achievement of same goals. While it is difficult to conduct a

comparative analysis of all the interventions under the Project vis a vis other similar ones, as there was no

similar multi-component project, it is possible to illustrate the Project’s contribution to the reform of the ISS

system (see Table 14).

Table 14: Comparison of UNICEF's Regular Resources and other (including EU) Contribution to the System (in USD)

Child Rights Monitoring and Social Policy, 2010-2011



Child Focused Local Action, 2010-2011



Regular resources

o 30,000 30,000 105,000 105,000

105,000

Other resources

220000 (thematic funds)

60,000 (thematic) 100,000 (EU)

130,000 (EU) 50,000 (EU) 65,000 (EU)

In the context of the multi-million ISS reform (only WB support through SPAP I and II will total to over 30

million USD) UNICEF Armenia’s investment has been modest. However, it has yielded considerable results

with respect to defining the ISS model and its key components, i.e. case management and local social planning,

as well as building case manager capacity to implement the requirements of the reform and such additional

areas as visibility of the reform and inclusion of committed financial resources in the Medium-term

Expenditure Framework. The Project funded by the EU built on UNICEF Armenian’s previous efforts with

respect to case management and local social planning, particularly in the context of vulnerable migrant’s

families.43

With respect to some of Project interventions such as local social plans or case management, more activities

were implemented and higher results achieved due to both effective use of Project resources as well as partner

contributions. To illustrate, the NILSR developed and implemented a case management informational system

allowing entry of beneficiary assessment forms (the so-called passports) and individual plans as well

conducted focus group discussions and surveys among the case managers to get their feedback on key aspects

of the case management methodology.

43 Evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms (2015)



49

As reported by implementers of some local social projects (such as Alaverdi

and Akhuryan), they organized project activities in a way to reach out to

more beneficiaries than planned initially. Thus, twice as many elderly were

involved in the home-based care component in Alaverdi (45-50 instead of

20-25), while in Akhuryan the setup and sequencing of the classes was

designed to include significantly more trainees (over 200 instead of the 60

planned as claimed by the organizers). It should be noted that the co-funding

requirement for local social projects was an effective tool to ensure the

ownership of local partners and increase their involvement in project implementation. While the share or co-

funding ranged from around 10% to 24% to over 90% (in case of Spitak

greenhouse) of the total project costs, the local communities came up

with different ways of extending their contribution to ensure more

benefits for the vulnerable community members.

Generally, the Project effectively explored all opportunities for

leveraging resources ranging from contributions from the implementing

partners (such as ME, CFOA, NILSR, NCAP) to use of volunteer

resources and capitalizing on the other interventions by UNICEF or its

partners. A few illustrations include:

Several of the Diaspora experts involved in the Project either fully or partially covered their travel or other

costs;

The one Protocol of Cooperation implemented in Vanadzor/Lori targeted children at risk of placement in

sync with UNICEF supported deinstitutionalization reform and project.

Support to Suitcase competition for journalists covering migration issues in partnership with People in

Need, Caritas and REPAT Armenia.

4.5. Sustainability

Evaluation of sustainability was based on the following evaluation questions.

Sustainability To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the development of

capacities and establishment of relevant mechanisms by various stakeholders to

ensure ownership and durability of project results after the end of the project?

To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the ISS reform and its

rollout? Particularly, what are the sustainability elements and preconditions for

community social projects? And how can the diaspora contribute to these?

Are the knowledge hubs viable as structures for connecting the diaspora with local

communities? Is the web platform a sustainable tool for continuing their

responsibilities in the future? What are the key recommendations for sustainable,

durable and meaningful engagement with the diaspora for children and local

development?

10. Sustainability of Project interventions has been inbuilt into its initial design by emphasizing relevant

policy/legislative reforms, capacity building of involved professionals, partnerships building and

complementary of activities.

Since policy advocacy, capacity development and working through partnerships are an underlying modus

operandi for UNICEF in Armenia generally and its efforts directed to reforming social protections systems

specifically, they constituted the foundation on which the Project activities were built.

Sustainability through legislation: As discussed throughout this report, several approaches, tools and

concepts tested and implemented under the Project with respect to case management, LSP and IC, eventually

found their way into the Law on Social Assistance adopted in December 2014. It should be noted that

“…there was some amount in

the budget to buy

equipment…We provided it

ourselves, but instead added

one month of classes”

Local Social Project

organizer

“As much as possible we

collaborated with our partner

organizations. For example,

recently we worked with GIZ on

publicizing our Diaspora related

efforts.” UNICEF representative



50

throughout 2015-2016 the Government put in place the regulations that institutionalized case management

practices including the requirements for referral and information exchange and support network establishment

between various social service providers (Government Decree of September 2015) to facilitate provision of

comprehensive services to vulnerable groups, including migrants. The Manual on Cooperation among the

Social Service Providers developed and published (500 copies) by UNICEF under the Project will help the

case managers and other social providers with the practical application of the principles laid out by the Decree

with respect to institutional cooperation, and be used by NILSR in future trainings.

With respect to TSP and local social projects it should be noted that while the new Law on Social Assistance

includes provisions related to institutionalization of TSP by making them part of regional socio-economic

development plans, provisions for financial resources in support of social projects are still ambiguous.

According to article 37 of the Law, they can be funded through the community budgets, funds provided by

legal and physical entities, paid social service proceeds and other sources. The state budget as a source of

funding is not included. As one of the TSP implementers noted, the sustainability of IC efforts is expected to

be better ensured since it does not require additional funds allocations from state or community budgets. The

future of TSPs and local social plans, however, will for the time being rely on efforts of supporters of the

concept such as UNICEF. In this respect, the implementation of the 10 local social projects under the TSP

component allowed UNICEF and its partners to test and showcase how community based initiatives could fill

in the gaps for the social services locally.

Summarizing all Project interventions related to ISS reform, it could be said with confidence that while they

targeted migrants’ families, which is just one of the socially vulnerable groups, all lessons learnt received

through them fed into the ongoing reform of ISS with some being included in the Law on Social Assistance.

UNICEF in Armenia played an important role in this process by providing policy advice and recommendations

coming from the field experiences of the Project as well as by means of employing its longstanding

partnerships with relevant Ministries to push for these reforms.

Sustainability through development: Capacity building interventions constituted a significant portion of the

Project interventions targeting different groups whose empowerment was considered key to further

sustainability of Project interventions (including project implementers, regional and local level stakeholders

and partners, service providers, and others). Intensity and formats of capacity building interventions were

different depending on the targeted group, its needs and level of involvement in the project. In total, well over

500 beneficiaries and stakeholders were involved in some kind of capacity building as summarized below:

50 Case managers involved in the project received a series of trainings in 2014-2016 through workshops,

on job consultancy, participation in seminars and other formats. Topics covered included general concept

of case management, use of relevant templates, awareness of employment issues, use of the informational

system of case management, legislative reforms and others.

Over 200 representatives of regional and local authorities, representatives of schools, hospitals and police,

NGOs and service providers were involved in workshops, round table discussions and working groups on

LSP and IC related concepts and developments.

Local social project implementers (3-5 per project) received training on planning and implementing the

projects, as well as practical skills during the actual project implementation.

Under the Diaspora Engagement Component Knowledge hubs staff (2 per hub) were trained on project

management, networking as well as on strategies for Diaspora engagement. Additionally, a study tour to

Ireland followed by a conference in Armenia targeted a specific group of government officials (including

Office of President, National Assembly, Ministry of Diaspora and other Ministries, regional authorities

and others) and development partners in an attempt to ensure broader commitment to comprehensive and

effective Diaspora Engagement strategies.

Medical doctors (190) received training on HIV/AIDs risks and prevention.

While each of these groups has benefited from capacity building efforts at a varying level (depending on the

depth, frequency, relevance of the interventions and other factors), they have all undoubtedly emerged from

these interventions better equipped to carry out their respective professional responsibilities and contribute to

improvements in the areas targeted by the Projects.



51

11. The newly introduced Diaspora Engagement component through its Together4Armenia

(www.toghether4armenia.am) web platform has shown great potential for further sustainability due to

its innovative approach thus making take over by interested partners and/or continued UNICEF

involvement a possibility.

The development of the Together4Armenia (www.toghether4armenia.am) web platform and its successful

testing during the last phases of the Project created a lot of interest toward the platform itself and its role in

Diaspora engagement. As discussed throughout this report, the emphasis on skills transfer rather than on

monetary assistance proved to be a very attractive concept for representatives of Diaspora and migrant groups.

Availability of a technology based platform to initiate and maintain virtual connections between Armenia’s

regions and Diaspora/migrant groups around the world showed how engagement could be facilitated through:

Online matching of local community needs and Diaspora resources;

Overcoming the distance hurdle;

Overcoming the mistrust hurdle through open and transparent communication;

Keeping in touch after the actual skills transfer happens, and

Spreading the word, creating and sustaining networks as well other opportunities provided by the platform.

Launch of the platform in summer 2016 (in Yerevan and in the regions) and the skills transfer fair that

followed in September demonstrated the advantages of this approach to communities, the Diaspora

representatives and the organizations interested in maintaining the Platform. Furthermore, AGBU has

communicated its interest to take over the platform and is currently exploring the best way forward both in

terms of implementation modalities and funding. UNICEF in Armenia and Mission East are also interested in

continuous involvement with the platform and related activities44. Consequently, consideration is given to

potential partnership arrangement with AGBU that will ensure most effective utilization of already existing

Knowledge Hubs in the four regions as well as future roll out of the concept. All parties involved agree that

any follow to the Diaspora Engagement component should emphasize meaningful channeling of the skills and

knowledge of the diaspora towards the needs of local communities. Eventually, it is expected that such

intimate engagement of Diaspora will result in better understanding of social needs at the local level and it

will be possible to refocus efforts toward the social issues.

4.6. Impact

Evaluation of impact considered the following evaluation questions, to the extent possible.

Impact Has the project contributed to or is likely to contribute to long-term social changes

for vulnerable and migrants families and children? What difference has it made,

including policy changes?

Has the project increased the satisfaction with social services of vulnerable and

migrants’ families?

12. The Project has made considerable contributions to the overall social protection system with longer

lasting ramifications for vulnerable social groups generally and migrant families specifically.

The Project has contributed significantly to furthering UNICEF-supported ISS reform and its three elements

critical for improved social protection - case management, TSP and institutional cooperation. As discussed

44 It became known to the evaluation team that recently UNICEF in Armenia had signed a 10 month agreement with Mission East to carry on the work on the platform and with the Knowledge Hubs.

“…The Diaspora Component has gained pace toward the end of the Project and I hope it will be one of the

most sustainable, since we have a great partner as AGBU, and UNICEF and Mission East are also interested

to carry on.” UNICEF Armenia representative

“… AGBU’s goal, if it were to take over the platform, will be development of regions, establishing the

connection between regions and the Diaspora that is still missing.” AGBU representative

http://www.toghether4armenia.am/

http://www.toghether4armenia.am/



52

throughout this report, several tools and approaches tested through the Project provided invaluable foundation

for practical implementation of the reform. With respect to case management key accomplishments included:

Migrant family needs assessment and development of individual social plans by using adapted and

simplified templates that case managers proposed based on their hands on experiences;

Creation of an electronic case management information system allowing entry of needs assessment and the

individual plans and providing case managers with online listing of all possible interventions that they

could offer to the beneficiaries.

Introduction of the IC concept and the legislative requirement for establishing support networks for

addressing multiple needs of socially vulnerable beneficiaries, including migrant families.

These and other interventions of the Project enhanced the case managers’ practice/al skills for providing an

effective and adequate response to the needs of socially vulnerable beneficiaries. As noted earlier in the report,

case managers’ own self-assessment and expert opinions expressed during the focus groups provided evidence

about better understanding and more confidence in the application of case management tools while also noting

areas for improvement. To a certain extent, the opinions of surveyed Project beneficiaries about the changes

in social services confirm that while in the past three years there has been notable progress in this respect,

there remains room for improvement. Over 42% of respondents believe that, in the past three years, social

services improved either significantly or to some extent (see Figure 4 below), which is still lower compared

to 49% of respondents who do not perceive any changes in the social services.

Figure 4: Changes in Social Services in the past three years

Despite the more or less positive assessment of the dynamics in the performance of social services, the absolute

satisfaction with TOSS among beneficiaries of the final survey is only around 9% higher compared to the

baseline survey (Figure 5). While this number is lower than the 30% increase in satisfaction targeted by the

Project, the differences in respondent groups should be factored in. It is expected that the satisfaction rate

would have been much higher if it were possible to track it among the same homogenous group, i.e. the Labour

Migrants’ families targeted by the Project.

Figure 5: Satisfaction with TOSS compared

18.4%24.8%

49.0%

2.0% 1.0%4.8%

Improvedsignificantly

Improved tosome extent

Remained thesame

Deteriorated tosome extent

Deterioratedsignificantly

Difficult toanswer

60

33

5 2

68.8

24.3

3.8 3.1

Very satisfied More or lesssatisfied

Somewhatunsatisfied

Veryunsatisfied

Baseline survey Final Survey



53

4.7. Cross-cutting topics

Three recurrent cross-cutting aspects of the Project included its visibility, monitoring and partnerships built

and explored to ensure the Project is effectively implemented.

The Project visibility was ensured throughout its implementation by developing and putting into action a

Communication and Visibility Strategy to “build awareness among the target audiences about the activities

and achievements of the project...”45 In compliance with its undertakings, UNICEF in Armenia ensured

publicity of main Project events and milestones such as the Project launch in 2013 and the press conference

at the beginning of 2014 to launch the Baseline Survey, wrap up the activities of the previous year and inform

about the upcoming Project activities. In 2014-2015, Project visibility emphasized the parental care related

interventions through coverage on broadcast and print/electronic media as well as the official signing of the

MOU on Financing and Implementation of the community social projects. In 2015-2016, the Project visibility

highlights were around the Diaspora Component, focusing on the launch of the Together4Armenia web

platform, the study trip to Ireland and the skills fair in Sept under the Diaspora Engagement Component, and

others. Additionally, UNICEF in Armenia used other opportunities for ensuring the Project visibility such as

EU Day celebrations three years in a row (2014-2016) showcasing various promotional materials on the

Project and participation in the Suitcase 2015 journalist award on migration by instituting a special award on

the social consequences of migration. Moreover, UNICEF in Armenia presented the project at various

meetings and conferences organized by key partners. UNICEF in Armenia has employed several strategies to

ensure Project visibility, such as press conferences and press releases, public events, posts on UNICEF in

Armenia’s and EU’s web pages, social media channels, TV coverage and others. A dedicated project banner

was showcased at all main events, also those organized by implementing partners. Project visibility activities

were in line with EU visibility requirements and cleared through the ICCT online tool for EU-funded projects.

Project monitoring utilized such tools as daily communication, site visits and monitoring visits, coordination

meetings and implementer reports. Monitoring was part of the complex management mechanism that was

discussed above and was used to flag issues and respond to them. The Baseline Survey at the beginning of the

Project and the final Beneficiary Survey as part of this evaluation also provided certain monitoring data with

respect to setting project targets and assessing their achievement.

And finally, as emphasized throughout this report, partnerships constituted an important implementation tool

for ensuring the effectiveness of the Project. These partnerships evolved in different ways and different

directions capitalizing on existing relations and partner resources for the Project benefit. While the

partnerships with sectoral ministries were key to implementing the project and advancing the related reform

agenda, Partnerships with Diaspora organizations functioning in Armenia allowed ensuring the sustainability

of its achievements (the platform and the pool of experts), Complementarity with other initiatives of UNICEF

in Armenia and its partners was another advantage of these partnerships. They emphasized collaboration with

the World Bank on the ISS reform, and the organizations involved in migration management in Armenia such

as IOM, People in Need, OECD and others. Some specific cases of interesting partnerships supporting the

Project interventions and reinforcing its impact included:

Collaboration with Gyumri Information Technology Center to develop an e-learning module on case

management and territory social planning methodologies;

Collaboration with the Migration Policy Institute to study the models for diaspora engagement with a

focus on children;

Mobilization of resources and contributions from other partners, including the Spitak municipality, UNDP,

Save the Children, Ministry of Energy of Armenia, Spitak Farmer NGO, for one of the local social projects

initiated under the Project (Spitak greenhouse);

Collaboration with the Armenian Volunteer Corps and Birthright Armenia in attracting diaspora experts

and channelling their expertise to specific needs in the regions of Armenia.

45 Communication and Visibility Strategy: Social Response to Labour Migration Project



54

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions

General conclusion

Through the implementation of the EU-funded “Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and

Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development” project (the Project) UNICEF in Armenia

directed its ongoing efforts in support of social protection services reform in Armenia to addressing the

social consequences of migration for the families of labour migrants. Project interventions emphasized

practical applications and testing of ISS reform elements such as case management, local social planning

and institutional cooperation (each aspect of the reform being a separate Project Component) in the context

of social support to a specific vulnerable group, i.e. families of labour migrants. As such, the Project served

a number of important purposes:

Utilizing non-regular UNICEF funds to maintain UNICEF Armenia’s support to Government’s

reform agenda with respect to social protection systems at a critical junction of the reform process.

Establishing a legislative framework, enhancing specific procedures and building relevant capacity

for practical application of the three elements of ISS reform, and finally

Improving the social services provided to a specific vulnerable groups, i.e. labour migrants’ families

and ultimately putting in place a system that would serve better all socially vulnerable groups.

Labour migration and its social consequences being a complex and multi-aspect phenomenon requiring

response on different levels, the Project included two additional components. Thus, Parental Care focused on

HIV/AIDs training for members of labour migrants’ families and medical professionals, while the Diaspora

Engagement component that emphasized the positive aspect of migration, i.e. formation of Diaspora and

migrant networks that can be a useful resource for developing their communities of origin.

Relevance

As indicated by the Baseline Survey on the Effectiveness of Social Services Delivery and its Impact on the

Socio-Economic Situation in Vulnerable families (focusing on migrants) in Armenia conducted under the

Project in 2013 and reiterated by the final Beneficiary Survey (part of this evaluation) the focus on social

consequences of labour migrations was justified given a number of factors:

Labour migrants’ families are one of the most vulnerable social groups in Armenia with 54.1% of surveyed

Project beneficiaries having insufficient means to obtain food and 38.8%- anything other than food.

In addition to economic hardships, surveyed beneficiaries have pointed out to such negative consequences

of migration as weakened family ties, its effect on child upbringing and care of the elderly, health and

psychological problems, and others.

As such the Project interventions were aligned with the individual and collective needs and priorities of the

beneficiary groups, including case managers, social service providers and governmental/community officials,

while also contributing to the Government’s reform agenda with respect to reforming the existing social

protection system.

However, one of the challenges with respect to focusing on a particular socially vulnerable group (in response

to the EU priorities) has been that in some instances case managers somewhat neglected other groups or, in

other cases, attempted involving non-eligible beneficiaries to resolve their issues through the Project to ensure

opening and processing the required number of cases. The implementers struggled to point out that

involvement in the Project should not be a detriment to conducting their work responsibilities, but rather an

opportunity to perform those professionally and with the best interest of beneficiaries in mind.

Inclusion of additional intervention areas such as Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement provided a further

impetus to serving the beneficiaries specifically and improving their social situation generally, though to a

varying degree. Given the indirect linkages between these two components and the other program



55

interventions related to social services and systems, they were not perceived as part of a holistic intervention

and were somewhat isolated from the rest of the Project interventions.

In turn, the modality of cooperation chosen under the Diaspora Engagement component, which included

matching of skills and needs, as well as a participatory approach to the development of training programmes,

ensured that all skill transfer workshops were relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries.

Effectiveness

Generally, the Project has been effectively implemented and met most of its goals and objectives. It

contributed to advancement of the ISS reform on the one hand and practical application of its elements with

focus on labour migrants’ families (especially women and children), on the other. While it did not focus on

one critical need in terms of preventing migration, i.e. creation of job opportunities, it provided other types

of social support to families of labour migrants both on individual and collective level, as originally planned.

Perceptions of usefulness of these interventions may not surface immediately and easily, but the needs and

gaps were there (health issues, weakened family ties, care of elderly and children, others) and the Project

helped addressing those.

Generally, feedback from NILSR, case managers themselves and beneficiary perceptions point out to better

performance by the case managers involved in the Project in four target marzes. Through the Project the case

managers had an opportunity to have more trainings compared to their peers from other regions (3-5 compared

to 1-2 as reported by NILSR experts), to handle more cases with support from NILSR experts and have more

operational resources available to perform their responsibilities. These pre-conditions resulted in improved

practical skills and capacity and is directly reflected in higher awareness about and positive feedback by their

beneficiaries, i.e. socially vulnerable migrant families (final survey results) about case manager work and its

utility.

If the Diaspora Engagement component was somewhat questionable at the outset of the project, due to its

dynamism and innovative approach, Together4Armenia grew in importance and slowly occupied the place of

a very trusted and meaningful way of engagement of diaspora professionals into the community life, as

evidenced by AGBU’s interest in further cooperation.

Thus, the Project produced a number of its intended outputs, including: training of 50 case managers, opening

and processing of around 2500 social cases in support of labour migrants’ families with use of case

management methodology, developing four Local Social Plans for the targeted regions as well as

implementing 10 local social projects, training 370 members of labour migrants on HIV/AIDs awareness and

prevention, creating of the online Together4Armenia platform and others.

While these interventions did not fully address the needs identified by the beneficiaries, they allowed building

an understanding of existing issues, utilizing available resources to address those where possible, as well as

sending a clear message to the beneficiaries that they are not alone in their specific situation and that the social

protection system is prepared to support them and stand by them.

Efficiency

The Project investment of around 1,103,160 EUR (80% provided by the EU and the rest being UNICEF in

Armenia and partner contributions) has been effective in terms of reaching its key outputs. Successful and

efficient implementation of the Project also depended on a number of other factors, including:

Effective coordination and management of the complex Project implementation structure;

Utilization of existing partnerships (such as with MoLSA and MoTAD) and building of new ones (e.g.

with AGBU).

Leveraging UNICEF Armenia’s prior investment into the reforms of the social protection system and

building up on the previous efforts and interventions to ensure continuity of efforts.



56

Sustainability

One of the inherent strengths of the Project was inclusion of integral sustainability mechanisms such as

intensive capacity building of project beneficiaries (case managers), partners (Mission East and regional

NGOs) and stakeholders (regional and local authorities), continued efforts to promote legislative reforms,

requirement for the co-funding for the implementation of the local social projects, creation of the web platform

for Diaspora engagement, and others. Most of the envisioned interventions were successfully implemented

providing such foundations for furthering Project objectives as 1) trained case managers who form the

professional cadre for the social work and services, 2) legislative foundations for improved social work and

3) innovative modalities for transfer of knowledge and ultimately improved individual/collective social

situation for beneficiaries. However, full sustainability of Project activities relies also on a number of objective

and subjective challenges, some of which are outside UNICEF in Armenia’s control.

Thus, while the Project has equipped the case managers with skills, tools and, at times resources to respond

to the individual needs of their beneficiaries, their ability to effectively address all dimensions of social

consequences of migration is somewhat limited. Existing systemic challenges (such as low case manager

salaries, insufficient coverage of operational costs, lack of financial, material and non-material resources at

their disposal to give solutions to the multiple issues faced by the migrant families) are among the key factors

impeding full application of case management principles and tools for the benefit of families of labour

migrants. While provision of operation and logistic expenses in support of case management duties proved to

be effective in the short-term perspective ensuring Project outcomes, it will not be sustained to the same level

by the state in the long-run due to budgetary constraints. Similarly, while co-funding matching requirement

was met by all communities implementing the 10 local social projects, the future of such projects is uncertain

due to no state budget backed funding for their implementation.

Despite inclusion of several provisions related to CM, LSP and IC in the new Law on Social Assistance

(adopted December 2014), their enforcement is yet to be ensured. While steps have been taken in terms of

establishing support networks around state statutory social services, more efforts and time is needed for

practical utilization of the networks. With respect to Local Social Plans, they will be integrated into five year

regional development plans, but implementation of local social projects is questionable due to the lack of

designated resources from the state budget.

Sustainability of Diaspora Engagement component is fully ensured from the implementation perspective by

transferring the platform to AGBU, the most active and influential Diaspora network organization in Armenia.

However, sustainability of the skills transfer models piloted through this component should be further tested

and analyzed.

Generally, while the State’s commitment to ISS reform agenda is rather strong and enduring, furthering the

reform is challenged by lack of adequate funding and very much depends on additional donor funding secured

from the World Bank, USAID or other sources. Whenever such funding is non-available, there seems to be a

hold on the reform process thus minimizing the effects from previous efforts.

Impact

The Project has made considerable contributions to the overall social protection system with longer lasting

ramifications for vulnerable social groups generally and migrant families specifically. Several tools and

approaches tested through the Project had contributed to practical implementation of the reform. Data from

the final survey case managers’ own self-assessment provide evidence about better understanding and more

confidence in the application of case management practices that address the needs and issues of end

beneficiaries. Over 42% of respondents believe that, in the past three years, social services improved either

significantly or to some extent. In addition, utilization of ISS offices has increased by almost 10%, With

respect to satisfaction with services, over 90 % of respondents indicated that they very either fully or mostly

satisfied with territorial social services or integrated social services.



57

It should be noted that measuring the impact of the Project has been somewhat challenging given the

impossibility of well-matched comparisons between the Baseline Survey and the final Beneficiary Survey due

to differences in survey design and sample as discussed throughout this report.

5.2. Lessons Learnt

A number of key lessons emerge from this evaluation that are related both to Project interventions and Project

implementation modalities.

1) Utilization of external donor funding in support of UNICEF Armenia’s ongoing reforms could be a good

strategy to leverage regular resources and continue supporting both policy reform and its practical

application. Matching UNICEF Armenia’s priorities with those of donor funded areas for intervention

should be done carefully so as to ensure both continuity of efforts and ownership at different levels by

local authorities since oftentimes discrete projects are viewed outside of overall reform agenda.

2) Addressing migration is directly linked to creation of job opportunities in the minds of both socially

vulnerable groups affected by migration, their communities and the larger public. Social protection

systems are perceived as secondary to creation of jobs, income generation and self-sufficiency, especially

when they are unable to provide adequate level of support with this regard. In the future, similar projects

should include a stronger awareness building component about the benefits and importance of the social

protection system for target beneficiaries in the context of overall economic growth, job-creation and

poverty reduction.

3) While effective execution of such a multi-component and complex Project can be ensured only through

involvement of various implementing entities/partners representing different sectors and stakeholders,

additional efforts and coordination are needed to ensure stronger inter-linkages between components. The

Project could have benefited from tighter synergies, namely targeting one of its components (NILSR and

the case management component in this case) as the Project foci and building logical links of all remaining

components around this one so as the Project was designed and implemented as one holistic intervention.

4) Introduction of an innovative component such as Diaspora Engagement required more time and effort

because it was a new and uncertain ground for UNICEF Armenia. Its inclusion in the Project activities

alongside with traditional areas of UNICEF Armenia support (such as social protection systems) should

have been designed to yield closer synergies with other Project components. Thus, with correct timing

and sequencing, Diaspora Engagement could have been mobilized to complement local social projects

resulting in better planning and sustainability of those due to professional capacity of involved experts.

5) Sustainability guarantees should be built into the design of the Project and should be firmly adhered to.

While capacity building, legal reforms and use of technology to ensure sustainability of key project

outcomes are critical inputs for sustainability, financial incentives are equally important. Government

commitment to ensuring financial foundations of reform areas supported by Project interventions should

be secured prior to interventions so as their future sustainability is not questioned.

6) With respect to Project impact, as discussed throughout this report, a more thought through approach to

the Baseline Survey and the end of Project beneficiary Survey could have resulted in more precise

estimates about the impact of the Project.

5.3. Recommendations

Since this is the final evaluation of the Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximising

Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development” project, recommendations presented below are meant to feed

into further sustainability of the Project interventions and provide some feedback to UNICEF in Armenia with

respect to implementation of similar projects in the future. The recommendations are developed based on the

analyses of findings, conclusions and lessons learnt that generally reflect the perceptions and positions of key

Project stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Policy level recommendations

1. Both the EU and UNICEF in Armenia should continue their efforts in support of families of labour

migrants with a focus on providing social response to the negative consequences of labour migration. As

both the Baseline Survey and the final Beneficiary Survey indicated, families of labour migrants’ and



58

migrant dominated communities face both individual and collective challenges related to the care of

children and elderly, health of family members, access to education and many other. These are in no way

secondary to the more pressing needs for family sustenance and employment, and need special skills and

resources to be addressed by relevant service providers. Numerous mentions by beneficiaries and

stakeholders about families and children being affected the most by negative consequences of migration

provide a sound rationale for UNICEF in Armenia’s involvement in similar initiatives. While UNICEF

could do this through continuous targeting of migrant families as a vulnerable group through its work

with ISS/case managers and local social planning, the EU could incorporate migrant family issues in its

different calls/funding opportunities, especially those that target local economic development.

2. UNICEF in Armenia should continue its support to social services reforms (and its different aspects)

in Armenia based on the following considerations relevant to Project goals and objectives:

Labour migrants’ families are one of the most socially vulnerable groups in Armenia that require multi-

faceted support in terms of social services on top of provision of cash benefits. As such, they will benefit

from the improvements to the system once it is better able to address their multiple and overlapping

vulnerabilities.

Migrant dominated communities in Armenia are suffering from gaps in service provision locally and

implementation of local social projects will help alleviate their problems, alongside with other vulnerable

groups.

Enhanced legislative framework in support of social services reform through the new Law on Social

Assistance has created the needed foundation for enforcing case management, LSP and IC concepts, while

the Project implementation has provided the needed practical application;

With respect to case management, UNICEF in Armenia should continue its cooperation with MoLSA to build

case manager capacity and ensure availability of tools for developing and implementing individual social plans

as well as closer cooperation and coordination between case managers and the players involved in

development and implementation of the LSP plans and projects. With respect to LSP, UNICEF in Armenia

and the EU should continue lobbying the government for allocating findings for local social plans. UNICEF

in Armenia should have at least some allocation of its regular funds to the most critical aspects of case

management and LSP developed and introduced through its intensive support. Meanwhile, both agencies can

include support to such projects in their relevant ongoing programs or new initiatives, when possible.

Project level recommendations

3. Sustainability of the Diaspora Engagement component generally and the Toghether4Armenia

platform specifically should emphasize its demand/supply model and capitalize on relevant experiences and

capabilities of potential partners’. Thus, given that the web platform attracted the interest of such a reputable

Diaspora organization as AGBU and UNICEF’s own interest to remain involved, each partner should

contribute within its area of expertise. To illustrate, while AGBU could be the liaison and supplier of the

Diaspora experts, UNICEF together with the Mission East and the knowledge Hubs could work on the demand

side of the equation, i.e. identifying and documenting the needs of local communities, institutions and

individuals. The matching of demand and supply should follow a collaborative process.

4. Eventually, the interventions built around the Together4Armenia platform should roll out to the

other regions of Armenia through exploring partnership opportunities with locally based NGOs and other

stakeholders. Once the effective implementation mechanisms of engaging Diaspora groups and migrant

networks are tested and finalized, the identification of community needs should roll out to all regions of

Armenia to ensure equal opportunities for local development. While the four regions targeted by the current

Project are assessed to face severe migration, Armenia’s remaining 6 regions are also challenged by both

poverty and migration issues and could benefit from this innovative approach. Moreover, the platform in its

present form, has moved beyond the topic of migration and has rather focused on the effective utilization of

skills of professional of Armenian origin abroad, thus becoming a flexible and scalable tool for engagement.



59

Involvement of locally functioning international and local NGOs/CSOs as well as community administration

and activists will facilitate both needs identification and the organizational aspects of response to community

needs.

5. In implementing Projects of this scope and complexity, UNICEF in Armenia should build and

implement stronger cross-sectoral linkages and coordination between the project components. As discussed

throughout the report, despite the effective mechanisms of project implementation and management, there

were still gaps in this respect. To illustrate, while the Parental Care and the Diaspora Engagement components

were important standalone interventions, they were not directly linked to the other three components. With

respect to ISS reform components, case management and LSP coordination still remains a weak link as

indicated by stakeholders at different levels. When designing and implementing similar Projects/interventions

UNICEF in Armenia could consider a more targeted design with fewer but better linked components.



60

ANNEXES

Annex 1. Statement of Work and terms of Reference

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND in Armenia

Terms of Reference for Contractors

Final Evaluation of the EU-funded “Mitigating social consequences of labor

migration and maximizing migrants’ involvement in local development” project

1. Program information:

Program (Outcome WBS & Name): Disadvantaged Families (0260/A0/05/882)

Project (Output WBS & Name): ISS and PF4C (0260/A0/05/882/001)

Activity (Activity WBS & Name): Social Protection for Children (0260/A0/05/882/001/002)

UNICEF is mandated by the United Nations General Assembly to advocate for the protection of children's

rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential. The

UNICEF staff and experts/consultants should act in accordance with the UN Code of Conduct and UNICEF

Mission.

2. Background and Context:

UNICEF promotes the rights and well-being of every child. Together with its partners, UNICEF works in 190

countries and territories to translate that commitment into practical action, focusing special effort on

reaching the most vulnerable and excluded children, to the benefit of all children, everywhere.

Migrants and families with migrant members comprise a very vulnerable segment of the population in

Armenia. According to the 2014 Report on Household Survey on Migration in Armenia by the International

Organization on Migration, in the period of 2007-2013, an average of 35,000 people emigrated annually from

Armenia. Of those emigrants, 82% wee male and 18% female, and children of 0-14 constituted 5.2% of the

total of migrants in the same time period. The main country of destination for labor migrants is Russia (app.



61

90%). Despite the positivity of remittances, which generally ease the socio-economic burden of migration and

contribute to short-term poverty reduction by answering to the basic needs of these families, labor migration

leads to several vulnerability factors affecting family members, particularly children.

Having these considerations in mind, since December 2012, UNICEF in Armenia in partnership with the

Ministries of Labor and Social Affairs (MoLSA) and Territorial Administration and Development (MoTD) has

been implementing the “Mitigating social consequences of labor migration and maximizing migrants’

involvement in local development” project, funded by the European Union. The project was implemented in

Lori, Tavush, Shirak and Gegharkunik regions of Armenia, as those having some of the highest rates of

migration and poverty, including child poverty. As evidenced by a 2013 UNICEF Baseline Survey conducted at

the beginning of the project among socially vulnerable and migrants’ families in the 4 target regions: 49%

pointed out weakening family and social cohesion; 45% referred to lack of adequate parental care for children,

with the increased likelihood of psychosocial problems, and 17% noted worsening of migrant’s health and

higher exposure to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The migration of an economically active family

member places a heavier burden on those who stay behind – mostly women and children - who must make

up for the lost employment and spend more time on household. As a result, migrants’ families belong to social

groups that have multi-dimensional and inter-related needs (i.e. related to health, education, exclusion, child

protection, economic activity, gender), often leading to a situation where children and family members left

behind by migrant workers become even more vulnerable and deprived, not being able to fulfil their basic

rights, such as the right to education or social protection (prescribed by the Convention on the Rights of the

Child).

Thus, the project intervention logic did not tackle migration management and policies per se, but put

emphasis on addressing the social consequences of labor migration and reducing the social vulnerability of

labor migrants' families and communities in four target regions through the provision of tailored social

services and best use of migrants’ resources (financial and intellectual) in the development of their

communities of origin/return. According to the project logframe, the project comprised five inter-linked

components broadly defined as: 1) case management; 2) local social planning; 3) institutional cooperation

among social services; 4) parental care; 5) diaspora engagement.

The first three components envisaged a series of social protection interventions within the broader context

of the Integrated Social Services (ISS) reform, which focuses on the provision of social services to the most

vulnerable families and groups of the population through proper identification of their social needs and

strengthening of their autonomy, self-reliance and coping capacities. The ISS reform was initiated by the

Government of Armenia in 2010, with the official reform package being approved in 2012. UNICEF in Armenia

together with the World Bank have been active supporters of the process. Even though many of the

interventions undertaken within the EU migration project focused on migrants’ families and children, they all

contributed to the overall reform process within ISS, with most of policy recommendations, primarily related

to case management, local social planning and institutional cooperation, being reflected in the Law on Social

Assistance of the Republic of Armenia adopted in December 2014 and related by-laws, primarily the

Government Decree on cooperation among social services. Some of the key interventions included: 1)

capacity development of case managers from the target regions in assessing and identifying the needs of



62

vulnerable families and children; 2) implementation of social projects providing community based services for

full-fledged functioning of case managers and venues for referral; 3) development and implementation of

protocols on cooperation, based on the provision of the Decree and lessons learnt by UNICEF through the

implementation of similar protocols for out of school children in Lori region.

Considering that labor migrants are one of the main target groups for HIV/AIDS and STD transmission in

Armenia (app. 58%), primary focus in parental care activities was put on STD and HIV/AIDS prevention, with

focus on medical staff and migrants’ families and use of innovative and interactive ways of engagement, i.e.

theatre plays, talks shows, printed materials etc.

The last pillar of the project focused on diaspora engagement for local development and children. The

assumption was that while Armenia’s numerous worldwide diaspora has played a key role in the country’s

socio-economic development, the support has mainly taken the form of remittances and philanthropy and

less emphasis was put on the development of social sectors of Armenia, particularly those that are child-

oriented and include fight against child poverty. Moreover, the transfer of skills from the diaspora and

migrants has received less attention, as opposed to purely financial contributions and aid. Therefore, four

knowledge hubs were established in the 4 target regions, which identified local needs with particular focus

on innovation and skills and developed projects to be placed on a dedicated networking web platform. The

targeted engagement of the diaspora for child-oriented reforms, complementary to state endeavors,

particularly through cooperation with the Ministry of Diaspora, has proven to be rather innovative also in the

context of UNICEF’s work worldwide.

Throughout project implementation, UNICEF in Armenia has cooperated with national, regional and local

governmental partners, civil society organizations, international organizations, as well as consultancy firms

and think tanks from abroad (i.e. Ireland, USA) with an aim to ensure ownership, capacity development and

transfer of knowledge and expertise. Moreover, while the project did not address migration management as

such, its representatives always participated at various migration coordination meetings, particularly the

Monitoring Working Group for the Action Plan for Implementation of the Policy Concept for the State

Regulation of Migration in Armenia in 2012-2016. This was particularly important in the context of shifting

towards a migration and development agenda in Armenia through the preparation of the new RA Action

Plan/Strategy on migration.

In this context, social services responding to the needs of socially vulnerable and migrants’ families in Armenia

will be the object of this evaluation. The evaluation will inform both the EU and UNICEF, and other

stakeholders, on further actions in the areas of social protection in the framework of migration specifically,

as well as further engagement with the diaspora for local development and child oriented reforms in the

country.

The primary users of the evaluation are the EU Delegation to Armenia, UNICEF (Country Office, Regional

Office, Headquarter divisions) and government counterparts in Armenia, primarily MoLSA and MoTD. Other



63

national and international partners, primarily those involved in the implementation of similar EU-funded

projects in the field of migration in Armenia, or organizations engaged in migration issues in the region are

also seen as part of the audience of the report and key stakeholders. Moreover, the report will be directed

towards the Armenian Diaspora, diaspora-led or –established organizations, the Ministry of Diaspora and

related line Ministries. Evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations will be made available for the

use of above-mentioned audience for further consideration of better responding to the needs of vulnerable

migrants’ families and children and better use of migrants’ and diaspora skills for the development of

Armenia. In addition, other UN agencies working in Armenia may use evaluation findings for their strategic

planning and/or review processes.

3. Purpose and Objective

The purpose of this summative evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and

sustainability of interventions under the EU-funded “Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and

maximising migrants’ involvement in local development” project with a focus on social services responding to

the needs of socially vulnerable and migrants’ families in Armenia.

The specific objectives of the evaluation (as indicated in the Project Document) aim to assess:

a) whether the project has been successful in achieving its key outputs and outcomes established in the

project action plan and logical framework, primarily related to their coherence and suitability in

addressing the “social costs” of migration;

b) how far the project has been able to address the issues of sustainability of the interventions, including

changes in policy and practice;

c) project achievements for migrants’ families within the context of overall reform of Integrated Social

Services and UNICEF’s work in this regard, as well as migration and development nexus.

The final project evaluation is a donor requirement, and its findings will inform both the EU and UNICEF, as

well as governmental, non-governmental and international partners on various aspects of social protection in

the context of labour migration and development.

4. The Scope of the Evaluation and Limitations

The evaluation will cover the period of December 2012 to June 2016 with the geographical coverage of 4

regions (Lori, Tavush, Shirak and Gegharkunik), 10 communities, as well as Yerevan for wider policy changes.

The evaluation will primarily focus on the beneficiaries of various project interventions starting from socially

vulnerable and migrants’ families to case managers and local, regional and national authorities.

The main guiding document for the evaluation will be the project logframe, which states the logic of

interventions with clearly set objectives, results, activities and corresponding indicators on output and

outcome levels, means of verification, risks and assumptions. These will be thoroughly reviewed in the

inception phase in terms of their validity and limitations. The limitations of the indicators come from the fact



64

that some of them need to be viewed together with the identified risks and external conditions, as identified

in the logframe.

The evaluation will use the data and questionnaires from the Baseline Survey conducted at the beginning of

the project to ensure comparison of data sets received through the planned end-survey.

Some limitations in conduct of the survey include the need to ensure appropriate quality and comparability

of data, including disaggregation by urban/rural communities, gender etc. The recommendations from the

Baseline Survey will be taken into consideration when preparing the end survey and close cooperation will be

established with MoLSA during the whole process.

Also, the evaluation questions cover the evaluation criterion on impact, however, it will be assessed in the

context of social protection interventions and their impact on migrants’ families specifically and vulnerable

families in general. It would be difficult to assess the sole impact of the project due to the variety of other

actors working in the field of migration, including with EU support, and social protection. The evaluation will

try to assess such impact, to the extent possible.

The evaluation will be conducted by a team of independent evaluators (an organization) in close cooperation

and coordination with UNICEF in Armenia, EU, as well as relevant Ministries and Regional Governors’ Offices.

5. Evaluation Questions

Core evaluation criteria such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact (to the extent

possible) will be analyzed. Key evaluation questions will include but are not limited to the following:

Relevance

- Were the project’s social protection interventions relevant to responding to the needs of migrants’ families

and children and reducing their vulnerability?

- To what extent were the interventions informed by the needs and interests of diverse groups of stakeholders

with a particular focus on gender equity and equality?

- What are the beneficiaries’ views about the services provided? What are their views about improving

services (if there is a need to improve)?

Effectiveness

- To what extent have the expected project results been achieved and are there differences from region to

region, and from beneficiary group to beneficiary group (disaggregated by gender, minority groups,

urban/rural divide, income quintile).



65

- How effective were the capacity building efforts of beneficiaries, particularly case management, local social

planning, institutional cooperation and to which extent were they in line with actual needs?

- How effective was the project in identifying migrants’ families and children? Where there any challenges?

- How well did the diaspora engagement efforts resonate to the rest of project interventions? What are the

key implementation lessons?

Efficiency

- To what extent has UNICEF made good use of the human, financial and technical resources, and has used an

appropriate combination of tools and approaches to pursue the achievement of project results in a cost-

effective manner?

- Was there a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities of key actors involved, including staff,

implementing partners and governmental partners towards the achievement of project objectives?

- To what extent did UNICEF capitalize on other complementary initiatives to the project to reinforce the

results of the EU supported migration project?

Impact

- Has the project contributed to or is likely to contribute to long-term social changes for vulnerable and

migrants’ families and children? What difference has it made, including policy changes?

- Has the project increased the satisfaction with social services of vulnerable and migrants’ families?

Sustainability

- To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the development of capacities and

establishment of relevant mechanisms by various stakeholders to ensure ownership and durability of project

results after the end of the project?

- To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the ISS reform and its rollout? Particularly,

what are the sustainability elements and preconditions for community social projects? And how can the

diaspora contribute to these?

- Are the knowledge hubs viable as structures for connecting the diaspora with local communities? Is the web

platform a sustainable tool for continuing their responsibilities in the future? What are the key

recommendations for sustainable, durable and meaningful engagement with the diaspora for children and

local development?



66

The evaluation questions will be refined and finalized during the inception phase, also with a notion of

exploring other aspects, such as general coordination and cooperation, including adherence to Joint visibility

guidelines for EC-UN actions.

6. Duty station: Yerevan, Armenia

7. Supervisor:

The consultant/contractor will be supervised and report to the UNICEF Social Protection Officer with regular

de-briefing with UNICEF M&E, Child Rights Systems Monitoring Specialist, UNICEF Deputy Representative and

UNICEF Representative about the progress of the consultancy. The EU Delegation to Armenia will also be duly

informed about the progress of the consultancy.

The consultant/contractor will work on daily basis with UNICEF Social Protection and M&E teams through e-

mail correspondence, phone, face-to-face briefings and consultations, as well as provide support whenever

needed.

8. Evaluation Methodology

In this evaluation mixed method approach will be applied by combining qualitative and quantitative

components to ensure complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses. Quantitative methods

will include the conduct of a survey for the target vulnerable population of the regions, with similar

methodology and approach as in the baseline study for comparative results. The survey will be conducted

within the direct beneficiaries of the project – case managers, beneficiaries of community projects and

protocols on cooperation, as well as families affected by migration. In-depth qualitative interviews will be

conducted with implementing governmental and non-governmental partners, including international/donor

organisations. The analysis will be built on triangulating information collected from different stakeholders

through different methods including secondary data and documentation review. It should critically examine

the information gathered from the various sources, and synthesize the information in an objective manner. If

contradictory information is obtained from different stakeholders, an effort should be made to understand

the reasons for such information, including any gender-based differences.

Moreover, the findings of the evaluation will be cross-checked with the findings from the evaluation of Family

Support Services and Stakeholders’ Contribution to Related Services/Systems commissioned by UNICEF in

Armenia in 2015, and touching upon the EU migration project as well.



67

Wherever monitoring systems will not be able to bring enough evidence (lacking equity focus and higher level

of disaggregation), the assessment will be based on stakeholders’ perceptions. The evaluation results will be

validated with national partners and key stakeholders.

During the report writing phase, the evaluation team should pay close attention to formulating good

recommendations, clearly prioritizing 5-10 recommendations for concrete action. The following are most

likely to lead to good recommendations:

- Key stakeholders are consulted during the development of recommendations, which heightens

programmatic and technical relevance.

- An appropriate sequencing in the implementation of recommendations is noted, especially when one

part of the response is contingent upon a prior action being completed.

- The recommendations clarify where change is needed to solve problems and also where positive

aspects should be continued or enlarged.

- Recommendations are referenced at the point where the finding evidence and analysis is made, to

show the logical connection. The full recommendations can be fully presented in a concluding

chapter, but referencing them within the document is helpful.

- The specific organisations that the recommendation is directed to should be noted, so there is no

mistake about who should respond.

The evaluation approach and data collection and analysis methods should also focus on gender and rights

aspects, be responsive and appropriate for analyzing the gender equality, human rights issues including child

rights identified in the scope. Gender, equity and human rights considerations will be further elaborated by

the evaluation team during the inception phase and addressed across the final report.

To the extent possible data will be disaggregated by gender, age, minority and socially excluded groups, as

well as urban/rural divide will be provided particularly during the conduct of the survey, similar to the

methodology used in the Baseline Study of the Project, with some refinements and adjustments, if necessary.

8.1 Evaluation approach, data collection methods and instruments

The Independent Evaluator will identify key stakeholders/informants (including but not limited to project

implementers, decision makers, direct and indirect beneficiaries, migration and social protection national and

international stakeholders, diaspora organisations, etc.), and appropriate data collection methods for each

informant category (such as semi-structured or in-depth interviews, expert interviews, focus groups). A

combination of these methods should be proposed by the Evaluator in the Implementation Plan and

Methodology, and revised, if necessary, during the fieldwork preparation.



68

In cooperation with UNICEF programme and M&E teams, the independent evaluator will also be responsible

for the development of appropriate instruments, including questionnaires, interview and focus group guides,

observation check-lists for each of the methods selected, in Armenian and English. All materials should be

gender-competent in language and presentation, as well as take into consideration human rights and equity

angles, if possible. While there may be overlaps in the topics and items covered for the different informant

categories, the guides/protocols should be customized appropriate to each informant category to be able to

extract the relevant information from each group, and address the key process questions listed earlier.

Interviewers/facilitators utilized by the independent evaluator must have relevant qualifications and be

adequately trained/consulted prior to fieldwork (including gender-competency knowledge). Prior to fieldwork

the independent evaluator will be responsible for an interviewer training and pre-testing of the instruments

to be utilized.

Ethical dimensions will be taken into consideration by the research team, particularly when working with

migrant families. Prior to conducting interviews and focus group discussions, the respondents’ informed

consent will be ensured. The anonymity and confidentiality of individual data will be protected and ethical

guidelines will be followed as set out by United Nations (UN) Evaluation Group in its standards and norms.

8.2 Fieldwork Approach

UNICEF Armenia requires the Independent Evaluator to propose a fieldwork schedule and approach that will

ensure the accuracy and reliability of information gathered through the effective use of methods, staff, funds

and time. The Independent Evaluator will develop a preliminary fieldwork plan for coordinating the evaluation

efforts. This plan should focus on the following:

- Draft Schedule of fieldwork activities; - Draft Schedule and approach to conducting an end-survey assessing the level of access to, use of

and satisfaction with social services delivery among vulnerable groups, socially vulnerable families and children, including migrant families, as well as the impact of social service delivery on the socio-economic situation of these families (mainly those benefitting from case management work throughout project duration);

- Number of interviews/qualitative and quantitative/ in each target group/region/community, criteria for selecting interview respondents;

- Number of Focus Group (FG) Discussions in each target group/region/community, criteria for selecting FG participants;

- Approach to the site-visit/interview/focus group protocols and transcripts.

It is envisioned that evaluation fieldwork will cover different stakeholder groups, including decision makers,

those who are implementing and overseeing the implementation (respective ministries, implementing

partners, regional and local authorities) and those who are supposed to benefit from it (i.e. vulnerable



69

migrants’ families and children, as well as case managers and sub-national authorities). The evaluation will

also involve some other major players/stakeholders, such as development partners or diaspora-led or –

established organisations.

8.3 Key Data Sources

Below are some key data sources for evaluation:

1. Baseline Survey on the Effectiveness of Social Services Delivery and its Impact on the Socio-Economic

Situation in Vulnerable families (focusing on migrants) in Armenia, UNICEF 2013;

2. Primary data derived from an end-survey comparable to the data sets of the baseline survey;

3. Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in Local

Development project document and related progress reports and documentation, UNICEF

4. Memorandum of Understanding on the Financing and implementation of community social projects

in Lori, Tavush, Shirak and Gegharkunik regions of Armenia and related Annexes;

5. Report on Enhancing Diaspora and Migrants Assistance to the Development of Armenian Children:

Reforming and Transforming Youth Development Institutions in Armenia: Mechanisms and

Instruments of Diaspora Engagement, UNICEF, October 2015;

6. Report on Remittances and Child Well-Being in Armenia, UNICEF, March 2016;

7. Report on Household Survey on Migration in Armenia, IOM, NSS 2014.

8. Evaluation of Family support services and stakeholders contribution to related services/systems,

UNICEF Armenia, 2015

9. Evaluation of integrated social services centres: Findings and recommendations for improvement in

services, USAID

10. Training package for case managers, UNICEF

11. Territorial Social Planning Methodology, UNICEF

12. ISS Reform: Progress Report, UNICEF

13. ISS and migration related laws, legal acts, decrees and action plans, Government of Armenia.

14. Evaluations of other EU-funded projects on migration funded within the same time-period and within

the EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership;

15. Relevant international and national instruments in the field of human rights and gender equality (e.g.

CRC, CEDAW, CPRD etc.);

16. Other programmatic documents, reports, assessments.

9. Major tasks to be accomplished:

The evaluation process will consist of 4 key phases.

Major tasks RESPONSIB

LE

COORDINATI

ON

DEADLINE



70

De

sign

ph

ase

Desk review of reference material

- UNICEF respective team will support to compile

a list of most important background material,

documents, and reports.

- The project logframe will be reviewed by the

evaluation team together with other documents.

Stakeholder mapping

- The evaluation team will prepare a mapping of

stakeholders relevant to the evaluation. The

mapping will include ministries, regional and local

authorities, implementing partners, service

providers, direct and indirect beneficiaries,

development partners.

Implementation plan and methodology

- Evaluation matrix will be developed based on

mixed method design.

- Questionnaires (qualitative and quantitative) for

interviewing socially vulnerable families (including

migrants), with all the key indicators required for

a full picture of the situation of these families will

be developed;

- The set of evaluation questions will be finalized.

- Field work schedule and approach/methodology

will be presented.

Evaluation

team

UNICEF Social

Protection

Section; M&E

Specialist,

MoLSA,

MoTD-

including 4

target

Governor’s

Offices, EU

Delegation to

Armenia

End of July

2016

Fie

ld p

has

e

Data collection and analysis

- Collection of evaluation data (primary and

secondary) will be carried out through different

techniques, including survey, desk-reviews, in-

depth, informal and semi-structured interviews,

focus group discussions and observations.

- Survey instrument will be pretested based on

the methodology developed by the evaluation

team.

Evaluation

team

UNICEF Social

Protection

Section; M&E

Specialist,

MoLSA,

MoTD-

including 4

target

Governor’s

Offices, EU

August/Sept

ember 2016



71

- Data collection report will be submitted covering

the following pieces: documentation of survey

implementation, quality control, survey findings,

survey final instrument, dataset, users’ manual for

dataset, evaluation guides and summary of

protocols.

- The analysis will be based on detailed

protocols/transcripts of interviews, focus groups

and survey results.

Debriefing

- Debriefing meeting will be organized for UNICEF

and EU management on the preliminary findings,

testing elements of conclusions and tentative

recommendations.

Delegation to

Armenia

Re

po

rtin

g p

has

e

Evaluation report

- Drafting the evaluation report (first draft),

validation of the data used in the report

- Consolidated comments by UNICEF Armenia, EU

Delegation to Armenia, ministries and

implementing partners.

- Development of the second draft final report

- Consolidated comments by UNICEF and other key

stakeholders (government and development

partners) – validation of findings by key

stakeholders

- Submission of the Final Report (including all

comments by stakeholders and UNICEF Quality

Assurance)46.

Evaluation

team

UNICEF Social

Protection

Section; M&E

Specialist,

MoLSA,

MoTD-

including 4

target

Governor’s

Offices, EU

Delegation to

Armenia

October/No

vember

2016

Dis

sem

inat

ion

and

Fo

llow

-up

Presentation

- Presentation of the final/quality-assured report

and key findings of the evaluation to UNICEF

Armenia team and the EU Delegation to Armenia,

major stakeholders and government partners.

Evaluation

team,

UNICEF

manageme

nt

UNICEF team

(CO), EU

Delegation to

Armenia, key

stakeholders

December

2016

46 The consultant is required to consult UNICEF Evaluation Report Standards and GEROS Quality Assessment

System when developing the report at http://www.unicef.org/evaluation/files/UNICEF-

Adapted_UNEG_EvaluationReportsStandards_2010.pdf;

http://www.unicef.org/evaluation/files/UNICEF_Global_Evaluation___Report_Oversight_System_aFinal.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/evaluation/files/UNICEF-Adapted_UNEG_EvaluationReportsStandards_2010.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/evaluation/files/UNICEF-Adapted_UNEG_EvaluationReportsStandards_2010.pdf



72

Dissemination

- Dissemination of evaluation report (to

stakeholders, development partners, and Regional

Office).

Follow-up

- Preparation of the management response

The evaluation will follow the principles of the UN Evaluation Group’s norms and standards in particular with

regard to independence, objectiveness, impartiality and inclusiveness and will be guided by the UN ethics

guidance as guiding principle to ensure quality of evaluation process, especially apropos conflict of interest,

confidentiality of individual informants, sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs, discrimination and gender

equality, to address issues of vulnerable population, particularly families with children that are disadvantaged

and excluded.47

10. Deliverables:

The evaluation team is expected to produce and submit the following deliverables:

a) Implementation plan and methodology including but not limited to: a) work plan; b) a stakeholder

map; c) the evaluation matrix (including the final set of evaluation questions listed by domains

and indicators), d) survey instrument (questionnaire) with pretest methodology, e) the overall

evaluation design with a detailed description of the data collection plan for the field phase; - End

of July 2016

b) Data collection report, including documentation of survey implementation, quality control,

survey findings (variable aggregation and descriptive report), survey final instrument, dataset,

evaluation protocols. – August/September 2016;

c) Debriefing document (two-three pages overview/PPP handouts) synthesizing the main

preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation, to be presented and

discussed with UNICEF Armenia management and EU Delegation to Armenia during the debriefing

meeting planned at the end of the field work phase; - September, 2016

d) First and second draft (final) evaluation reports; - October, 2016

e) Final report developed with all the comments addressed (the report with the Executive Summary

should be maximum 60 pages, excluding annexes); - October/Noveber 2016;

f) Presentation of evaluation findings for key stakeholders (Power Point presentation). – October; -

December 2016.

g) Management Response to the Evaluation is drafted – December 2016;

47 http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/102



73

The Evaluation Report is proposed to have the following structure, to be reviewed once the contractor is

selected:

Opening pages

Executive Summary Chapter I Background, Object and Methodology

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Object of the Evaluation

1.3. Purpose, Objectives and Scope of the Evaluation

1.4. Evaluation Methodology

1.5. Major Limitations

1.6. Ethical considerations, Human Rights and Gender

Chapter II Overview of the Action and Context

2.1 Main areas of intervention

2.2 Logic of intervention (ToC)

2.3 Management and Governance Structure

2.4 Partnerships

2.5 Migration and development – focus on social protection

Chapter III Analysis and Findings

3.1 Overall context

3.2 Baseline and end-survey results

3.3 Relevance

3.4 Effectiveness

3.5 Efficiency

3.6 Sustainability

3.7 Impact

3.8 Cross-cutting topics

Chapter IV Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusions and Lessons Learned

4.2. Recommendations

Chapter V ANNEXES

1. Terms of Reference

2. Desk Review and Background Documents

3. List of Stakeholders Interviewed

4. Detailed Methodology

5. Interview Guides and Survey Instrument

6. Information on Evaluation team



74

7. Evaluation matrix

8. Results framework

9. Output tables

The Evaluation Report should also incorporate other appropriate data by consulting reports on this subject

submitted by the government and development agencies, as well as other relevant information.

All deliverables will be drafted in English. All reports should follow the structure and detailed outlines

discussed and agreed with UNICEF in Armenia. The final report will be translated into Armenian.

UNICEF reserves the right to withhold all or a portion of payment if performance is unsatisfactory, if

work/outputs is incomplete, not delivered or for failure to meet deadlines (fees reduced due to late

submission: 20 days - 10%; 1 month-20%; 2 months-50%; more 2 months – payment withhold). All materials

developed will remain the copyright of UNICEF and that UNICEF will be free to adapt and modify them in the

future. This ToR is an integral part of the contract (SSA) signed with the consultant.

11. Time-Frame:

The evaluation is expected to take place during the period of July – December 2016.

The selected consultant/evaluation team will work for the period of 70 work days within 5-6 months (July–

December 2016).

It is envisaged that the evaluation will cover the capital city of Yerevan and 4 target regions including 15-19

communities. The exact schedule of the activities will be agreed with the consultant/institution based on the

consultancy implementation progress.

12. Qualifications or specialized knowledge/experience required:

Team Leader to act as an independent evaluation coordinator and to work with UNICEF Armenia:

Required Qualifications:

Advanced university degree and/or academic background in Sociology, Economics or a

related field;

At least 10 years of proven record in managing project/program evaluations in social

sectors and/or migration or other related fields;



75

Extensive experience in designing evaluations and household surveys, conducting

qualitative analysis and surveys, data analysis and report writing;

Proven very good knowledge of child protection and integrated social services reform

processes in Armenia;

Ability to work within the international and multicultural environment;

Very good communication and presentation skills with government and community

members;

High analytical and conceptual skills and ability;

Good knowledge of computer applications;

Fluency in written and spoken English.

Evaluation team (up to 3 experts with specific qualifications in quantitative and qualitative

methods) to participate in design and pretests of evaluation instruments, conduct interviews and focus

groups as appropriate, as well as contribute to the analysis/report writing. To facilitate gender-

balanced focus group discussions, evaluation team gender balance is required.

Required Qualifications:

Advanced university degree and/or academic background in Sociology, Economics or a related field;

At least 5 years of experience in program evaluation, particularly in conducting qualitative

analysis in social protection, migration and/or other related fields;

Good knowledge of integrated social services and migration reform processes in Armenia

an advantage.

Experience in data collection and conducting (household) surveys;

Demonstrated ability to prepare interview protocols and working with databases;

Previous experience in evaluation report writing;

Demonstrated ability to work in multicultural teams;

Demonstrated gender competency;

Excellent communication skills;

Fluency in written and spoken Armenian and English.

13. Procedures and logistics:

UNICEF will cover the international and national travel costs and DSA for the period spent in the country and

in the regions (the associated costs should be clearly stated in the financial proposal). UNICEF does not

provide or arrange health insurance coverage for the organisation.



76

Annex 2. Desk Review and Background Documents List of Reviewed Documents

1. AM Partners Consulting Company for UNICEF Armenia (2013). Baseline Survey on the Effectiveness of Social Services Delivery and its Impact on the Socio-Economic Situation in Vulnerable Families (Focusing on Migrants) in Armenia.

2. CFOA to UNICEF Armenia (2013, 2014). Territorial Social Planning and Institutional cooperation among services in Armenia: Response to Migration through Local Development. First Narrative Report.

3. Diaspora Matters (2015). Armenian Delegation Learns about Diaspora Engagement Strategies for Children and Local Development in Ireland. Press Release.

4. Diaspora Matters (2016). Report on Diaspora Matters Work with Armenia. 5. Extension Request Letter from UNICEF Armenia to the EU (August 2015). 6. Extension Request Report from UNICEF Armenia to the EU (April, 2016). 7. Fact Sheet: Local Social Projects (Alaverdi, Akhuryan, Ijevan, Noyemberyan, Sarnaghbyur,

Pemzashen, Spitak, Tchambarak, Vanadzor, Vardenis). 8. Migration Policy Institute (2015). Consultancy on Enhancing Diaspora and Migrants Assistance

to the Development of Armenian Children. Desk Review Report. 9. Migration Policy Institute (2015). Report on Enhancing Diaspora and Migrants Assistance to

the Development of Armenian Children. Volume 2-Main Report. 10. Migration Policy Institute (2015). Report on Enhancing Diaspora and Migrants Assistance to

the Development of Armenian Children. Volume 1 - Executive Summary. 11. Migration Policy Institute (2016). Report on Remittances and Child Well-Being in Armenia. 12. Mission East (2014). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing

Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Programme Document-PCA/ARM. 13. Mission East Report to UNICEF Armenia (2014, 2015 (February, July, December), 2016 (April,

June)). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Progress Report.

14. Mission East Report to UNICEF Armenia (2015). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Study Report.

15. National Center for AIDS Prevention Report to UNICEF Armenia (2014, 2015). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Progress Report.

16. NILSR Report to UNICEF Armenia (2013).

Հայաստանի Հանրապետությունում երեխաների իրավունքների պաշտպանության համակարգի բարեփոխումների ծրագրի շրջանակներում ձևավորված փորձագիտական խմբի 2013թ. կատարած աշխատանքների մասին :

17. NILSR Report to UNICEF Armenia (2013, 2014, 2015 (February, June, November), 2016 (April,

June)). ՄԱԿ-ի մանկական հիմնադրամի աջակցությամբ իրականացվող

ծրագրերի շրջանակներում կատարված աշխատանքների վերաբերյալ. 18. Opportunities for Using Material and Non-Material Resources of the Diaspora and Migrants

for Developing Communities and Tackling Consequences of Migration. Study Report. 19. Project Communication and Visibility Strategy 20. Project Logical Framework. 21. Theater of Change. Progress Reports for the period of August-December 2014. 22. UNICEF Armenia (2011). Towards the improvement of the child protection system in Armenia:

Position paper. Yerevan, Armenia; Draft theory of change document and UNICEF Armenia Annual reports (2010-2013).



77

23. UNICEF Armenia (2015). Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms.

24. UNICEF Armenia Report to the EU (2013). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Progress Report. Summary of Accomplishments.

25. UNICEF Armenia Report to the EU (2013, 2014). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Interim Report.

26. UNICEF Armenia Report to the EU (2015). Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and Maximizing Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development. Progress Report.

Online Sources

1. http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/armenia/press_corner/speeches/2013_03_22_en.htm

2. http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp

3. http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4 4. http://www.unEvaluation.org/ethicalguidelines 5. http://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=81&id=1718 (National Statistical Service (2011). Social

Snapshot and Poverty in Armenia).

http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/armenia/press_corner/speeches/2013_03_22_en.htm

http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/armenia/press_corner/speeches/2013_03_22_en.htm

http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp

http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4

http://www.unevaluation.org/ethicalguidelines

http://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=81&id=1718



78

Annex 3: List of Stakeholders Interviewed List of Stakeholders Interviewed

Name Position Data collection method

1. Amalya Tumasyan Representative of Shirak Knowledge Hub

Individual interview

2. Anush Aslaynyan Representative of Lori Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

3. Aren Manukyan Representative of Lori Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

4. Arpine Arevshatyan Representative of Gegharkunik Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

5. Olya Baghdasaryan Representative of Gegharkunik Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

6. Armine Nersissayn Representative of Tavush Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

7. Tatevik Grigoryan Representative of Tavush Knowledge Hub

Group Interview

8. Mariana Petrosyan Diaspora Expert from Italy Individual interview

9. Arine Kazarian Diaspora Expert from Lebanon Individual interview

10. David Mkrtchyan Diaspora Expert from Russia Individual interview

11. Sona Ter-Yeghishyan Diaspora Expert from Canada Individual interview

12. Angelina Aslananova Diaspora Expert from Russia Individual interview

13. Anush Manukyan Beneficiary of Diaspora Engagement Component


14. Nona Galstyan Mission East, Diaspora Engagement Component Coordinator


15. Talar Kazanjian AGBU Executive director Individual interview

16. Nona Sargsyan NCAP, Project Coordinator Individual interview

17. Astghik Minasyan, Head of Social Support Department, MOLSA


18. Armine Hovakimyan Project coordinator, UNICEF in Armenia


19. Harutyun Kocharyan Head of Tavush FWCPU; project regional coordinator

Group interview

20. Ruben Harutyunyan Shirak Local Government unit head, regional coordinator

Group Interview

21. Mamikon Galoyan Head of Gegharkunik FWCPU, regional coordinator

Group Interview

22. Emma Yayloyan Accountant of Pemzashen Municipality

Individual In-depth Interview

23. Arkadi Tadevosyan Pemzashen Community Mayor Individual interview

24. Manik Amiraghyan Director of the Pre-school of Pemzashen Community

In-depth interview

25. Nellie Salanyan Parent of the child-beneficiary of the project, Pemzashen Community

Focus group discussion

26. Lilit Melikyan Parent of the child-beneficiary of the project, Pemzashen Community


27. Sophie Barseghyan

Parent of the child-beneficiary of the project, Pemzashen Community


28. Melanya Margaryan Parent of the child-beneficiary of the project, Pemzashen Community


29. Alvard Shaboyan Director of the Pre-school of Sarnaghbyur Community

In-depth interview



79

30. Derenik Vardanyan Accountant of Sarnaghbyur Municipality and Coordinator of the Project

In-depth interview

31. Mariam Stamboltsyan

Staff of Akhuryan Municipality and Coordinator of the Project

In-depth interview

32. Marine Khachatryan Staff of Akhuryan Municipality and Coordinator of the Project

In-depth interview

33. Gohar Ghazaryan Direct beneficiary of the project, Akhuryan Community


34. Heriqnaz Harutyunyan Direct beneficiaryy of the project, Akhuryan Community


35. Noushik Avagyan Direct beneficiary of the project, Akhuryan Community


36. Lousineh Aleksanyan Direct beneficiary of the project, Akhuryan Community


37. Astghik Chakhoyan Direct beneficiary of the project, Akhuryan Community


38. Araksya Shahverdyan Direct beneficiaries of the project, Akhuryan Community


39. Artsruni Igityan Mayor of Akhuryan In-depth interview

40. Lilit Ghaloumyan Head of The Youth and Sports, Ijevan

In-depth interview

41. Vardan Ghalumyan The Mayor of Ijevan In-depth interview

42. Abraham Artasheyan Coordinator at CFOA, Yerevan Interview

43. Hayk Galstyan Head of Department of Territorial Management and development, Ministry of Territorial Administration, Yerevan

Interview

44. Aida Israyelyan Tashir TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

45. Gayane Isoyan Tumanyan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

46. Ashot Nalbandyan Spitak TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

47. Ara Torosyan Spitak TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

48. Grigor Mkrtchyan Vanadzor TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

49. Hrach Stepanavan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

50. Armen Avetyan Vanadzor TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

51. Robert Ohanyan Tchambarak TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

52. Gor Tchambarak TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

53. Levon Kolotyan Vardenis TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

54. Ara Melikyan Martuni TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

55. Arayik Khachatryan Martuni TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

56. Gagik Hareyan Martuni TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

57. Anik Sargsyan Gavar TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

58. Manyak Sargsyan Gavar TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

59. Avetik Nazaryan Maralik TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

60. Artur Mkrtchyan Artik TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

61. Gayane Avetisyan Amasia TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

62. Gayane Hovhannisyan Akhuryan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

63. Lamara Abrahamyan Gyumri 1 TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

64. Armenuhi Khachatryan Gyumri 2 TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

65. Armen Tomikyan Gyumri 2 TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

66. Tigran Aslanyan Gyumri 1 TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

67. Artur Petrosyan Gyumri 2 TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

68. Hripsime Gishlyan Noyemberyan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion



80

69. Lusine Grigoryan Berd TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

70. Vardush Zakaryan Noyemberyan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

71. Samvel Sarhatlyan Ijevan TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

72. Armenak Melikyan Berd TOSS Case Manager Focus group discussion

73. Rita Hovhannisyan Tchambarak TOSS Director In-depth Interview

74. Robert Ohanyan Tchambarak TOSS Case Manager In-depth Interview

75. Ruzan Mkhitaryan Tchambarak TOSS Case Manager In-depth Interview

76. Flora Sargsyan Day Care Support Center for Families of Migrants and Former Refugees

In-depth Interview

77. Ani Aslanyan National Institute, Coordinator, Gegharkunik Marz


78. Suren National Institute, Assistant of Coordinator, Gegharkunik Marz


79. Armine Mkhitaryan National Institute, Coordinator, Lori Marz


80. Ashkhen National Institute, Assistant of Coordinator, Lori Marz


81. Lilit Simonyan National Institute, Assistant of Coordinator, Shirak Marz


82. Armine Khachatryan National Institute, Assistant of Coordinator, Tavush Marz


83. Garnik Nalbandyan Deputy Director- Program Coordinator, Yerevan


84. Lianna Sargsyan IT Specialist In-depth Interview

85. Varditer Avushyan IT Specialist In-depth Interview



81

Annex 4. Detailed Methodology

Evaluation Methodology and Implementation Approach

Purpose, Objectives, Scope and Geographic Coverage of the Assignment

The RFP for this evaluation defined its purpose as assessing “the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of interventions under the EU-funded “Mitigating Social Consequences of the Labour Migration and Maximizing the Migrant Involvement in Local Development Project” (2012-2016)”.48 The RFP also emphasized the social services responding to the needs of socially vulnerable and migrant families in Armenia as the special focus of the Evaluation. The specific objectives of the Evaluation included:

Assessing whether the Project has successfully achieved its key outputs and outcomes (established in its Action Plan and the Log Frame) with respect to their coherence and suitability to addressing the social costs of migration;

Assessing the level of project sustainability with respect to changes in policies and practice, and

Assessing project achievements for migrant families within the overall ISS reform and UNICEF’s work in this regard as well as migration and development nexus. The RFP and the associated SoE also specified that to address these objectives and answer the evaluation questions mixed methods should be used for data collection from key informants and respondents. In response to these requirements and information included in the SoE as well as with consideration of information derived from the Baseline Survey and VISTAA’s own previous experiences with evaluations of similar scope, an evaluation methodology was proposed that consists of the following sections: 1. Stakeholder Mapping and Approach to Designing the Evaluation Sample 2. Data Collection Methods, including

Desk Review

Qualitative Methods

Quantitative Methods 3. Data Analysis and Reporting Stakeholder Mapping and Approach to Designing the Evaluation Sample

Stakeholder Mapping:

Understanding project and evaluation stakeholders is a critical part of developing an evaluation methodology to understand a) the approach to the evaluation sample and b) to choose the most effective data collection methods with respect to each group. Identification and mapping of key stakeholders for this assignment was done based on the evaluation ToR, desk review of materials provided by UNICEF, as well as initial meeting with such key stakeholders as UNICEF project manager, Director and staff on National Institute of Labor and Social Research (NILSR), representative of Community Finance Officer’s Association. The stakeholder groups and sub-groups identified for this assignment are summarized in Table 1 below.

48 Request for Proposals-LRFP-2016-9126254



82

Table 1. Stakeholder Mapping

Project

beneficiaries

Migrant families in four target marzes benefiting from the interventions of Integrated Social Services

Migrant families in four target marzes benefiting from the community projects resulting from local social planning efforts

Case managers (i.e. staff of Integrated Services) benefiting from capacity building efforts of the project

To a smaller extent, beneficiaries of the parental care and diaspora support components of the Project.

Case Management: National, regional and local Level Stakeholders

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, relevant staff

National Institute of Labor and Social Research, relevant staff

Regional coordinators

Other, if any

Territorial Social Planning: National, regional and local Level Stakeholders

Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development, relevant staff

Regional administration officials involved in local social planning efforts (i.e. heads and staff of relevant administration units such as Marz units on Family, Women and Child Protection (FWCPU), Social Panning and others)

Local community actors including mayors, others (e.g. Social workers, heads of educational and health institutions, GTCs)

Diaspora Component: National, regional and local Level Stakeholders

Ministry of Diaspora, relevant staff

Mission East and AGBU, relevant staff

Four Regional Diaspora Hubs, relevant staff

Other, if any

International level Stakeholders

UNICEF, EU and other international stakeholders involved in the project

Other Stakeholders Stakeholders involved in parental component

Other, if any

General Approach to Designing the Evaluation Sample

Based on the above stakeholder mapping and the RFP requirements, it was proposed to use quantitative data collection methods with respect to beneficiary families, and qualitative data collection in case of all other stakeholders and informants, including case managers. While the SoE recommended conducting a survey among all direct beneficiaries of the Project, an alternative approach was proposed given the following considerations:



83

Case managers and beneficiary families are two distinctly different beneficiary groups, which means that two separate surveys should be designed and conducted as part of this assignment. While this is possible logistically and methodologically, VISTAA evaluation team considered such approach somewhat duplicative given the very recent census of case managers conducted by VISTAA as part of the evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms. The analyses of the quantitative data received through this census disaggregated all key data categories by the case managers involved in the EU Project and not involved in it to assess how UNICEF’s additional capacity building efforts have contributed to improved skills and competencies among this group. Thus, it was proposed conducting focus groups and/or small group discussions among this key informant group that will rely on the results and analysis of the census data, and further explore all relevant information revealed through it on top to the information required by the RFP. As noted above, to ensure data comparability, the RFP required adaptation of the Project Baseline Survey methodology, which, most importantly, included the sampling approach. With respect to its quantitative sample, the Baseline Survey had designed a three level sample into which target communities from 5 target marzes49 (with urban and rural distribution) and respondent families were selected. 11 urban and 28 rural communities (after replacement 32 rural communities were involved) were selected into this sample based on such criteria as representation of different sub-regions, proximity to bigger cities and possible inclusion of borderline communities. Respondents were selected from the list of vulnerable families in each of the regions with use of statistics and available data (over 1000 respondents were selected into the sample). With respect to qualitative data collection, the Baseline Survey had conducted 6 in-depth interviews in each of the 5 target marzes (3 in rural and 3 in urban communities), 30 in total. VISTAA’s proposed approach to the sampling of the final evaluation could not fully overlap with the Baseline Survey’s approach given the following key considerations:

Baseline Survey was conducted in 5 target marzes (Sisian sub-region of Syunik marz as well, whereas the RFP limits the interventions to 4 target marzes50.

Baseline Survey was a general socio-economic pre-intervention survey among the vulnerable population of the 5 target marzes where no specific interventions had yet happened and its overall sample was designed from the general population rather than the population of project beneficiaries as required by this RFP.

Case managers as a key beneficiary group (unit for sampling) were not included into this baseline survey given its focus on socio-economic assessment.

With respect to qualitative data as well, the baseline did not, understandably, reach out to a diverse group of national, regional, international and other stakeholders/key informants that have by now become involved in the project and concentrated only on a small number of informants in each marz. With all these factors in mind, VISTAA proposed a slightly different (from RFP requirments) approach to evaluation sample for this assignment, which is summarized below. Sampling Approach to the Quantitative Survey and Implementation through Fieldwork While adaptation of the final Beneficiary Survey to the Baseline Survey was possible in term of keeping the key sections of the instrument (with slight revisions to reflect the Project implementation related topics), a somewhat different approach was proposed to the sampling based on the following factors:

49 All numbers cited in this document with respect to Baseline Survey include the Marz of Syunik that was also included into the survey

sample for consistency purposes, but they will be excluded while constructing the general sample for the survey under this assignment. 50 Request for Proposals-LRFP-2016-9126254 (page 4)



84

Baseline Survey was a general socio-economic pre-intervention survey among the overall vulnerable population of the 5 target marzes51 where no specific interventions had yet happened and its overall sample was designed from the general population rather than the population of project beneficiaries as required by the ToR.

The intent of the Beneficiary Survey was different, as it should focus on the beneficiaries of the case management interventions of the Project, around 2500 families of labour migrants. With this consideration in mind an initial sampling approach was proposed, which was then refined based on follow-on discussions with project implementers. With 2500 being the total number of project beneficiaries that received case management related interventions to improve their social situation, the following sample size formula for infinite population was applied to arrive at a representative number of respondents when population estimate is known52 (with 5% error margin and 95% confidence interval.):

Where: n is the sampling conglomerate; P and Q are constant values and are equal to 0.5 (availability or lack of any parameter), N is the size of the general conglomerate; (2500*); T equals to 1,96 in case when it’s necessary to ensure 95% of reliability of results; and d is the value of statistical error which makes up ±5% (0.05)

Thus, the proposed survey sample included 294 sampling units for a population of 2422 beneficiaries (95% confidence interval and 0.05 margin of error). The general sample was proportionally distributed among four target regions/marzes based on the data provided by the NILSR.

Target Marz Number of beneficiary families Share of beneficiary families

Shirak 737 30.5%

Lori 635 26.2%

Gegharkunik 611 25.2%

Tavush 439 18.1%

Total 2422 100.0%

However, during the field work implementation these proportions have been slightly changed given some inconsistences in the NILSR-provided lists and some duplications.

Target Marz Number of beneficiary families Share of beneficiary families

Sample distribution in target marzes Sample share in target marzes

Shirak 90 30.6%

Lori 74 25.2%

51 The marz/region of Syuniks was also included in the baseline sample in addition to four Project target regions. 52 Godden, 2004



85

Gegharkunik 75 25.5%

Tavush 55 18.7%

Total 294 100.0%

Finally, once the number of social service centers in a target marz and their capture population (project beneficiaries) was identified-, the sample was distributed by the centers.

Marz Number of Social Service Centers

Center # of interviews

Shirak 7 Gyumri 1 25

Gyumri 2 22

Maralik 11

Artik 11

Amasya 6

Asocq 6

Akhuryan 9

Lori 5 Vanadzor 36

Spitak 13

Tumanyan 11

Stepanavan 10

Tashir 4

Gegharkunik 5 Martuni 24

Gavar 20

Vardenis 12

Sevan 12

Jambarak 7

Tavush 4 Dilijan 7

Ijevan 15

Noyemberyan 16

Berd 17

Total 21 Total 294

These steps were followed by the selection of beneficiaries, which was done randomly from the list of each Center. The total number of Center beneficiaries was divided by the sample number estimated for the Center to determine the step. A corresponding number of respondents was then selected from the list provided by the NILSR. To illustrate, if the Noyemberyan Territorial Social Support Agency serves 64 beneficiaries, this number was divided by the sample number, i.e. 16 and resulted in determining the step, which in this case was 4. Thus, every fourth person on the list was selected for conducting an interview53. This approach allowed to ensure random distribution of the respondents by rural and urban areas, which is presented below.

Type of the Settlement Number of interviews %

Urban 195 66.3%

53 In some cases this lists were reviewed together with the respective case managers in case there were some

inconsistencies and duplications.



86

Rural 99 33.7%

Total 294 100.0%

The Beneficiary Survey started with testing the survey instrument54 on September 15 and 23 that allowed finalizing the questionnaire (attached to this report as Annex 5). As much as possible the instrument for the proposed survey of beneficiary families tried to collect follow on data on the first three categories, however reducing the number of the questions and the variables included. Instead, the semi-structured questionnaire added question domains soliciting data on project interventions (perceptions and assessment of beneficiaries) with respect to both local social planning interventions and ISS services as well as more detailed questions related to children. The main domains for inquiry for the Beneficiary Survey included:

General information on the family

Children issues, health and education


Family and labour migration

Family and community social issues

Satisfaction from improvements to social assistance and social services Field work for data collection occurred on October 7-25 and was conducted in accordance with the filed work schedule submitted to UNICEF Armenia. Data entry was done with use of SPSS. It should be noted that several issues emerged with respect to the lists that are summarized below and were reflected in the Data Limitation section of the Report. 1. The total list of beneficiaries provided by the NILSR did not exceed 1792, of which by years: 2014-490, 2015-1085, and 2016-217. There were no lists for 2014, the first year of the Project and thus the final list included only 1302 beneficiaries. 2. There were duplications and even triplications on the list. 3. In certain cases the small number of cases in 2016 was compensated at the expense of cases from the previous year. 4. There were some non-migrant, non-vulnerable and dislocated beneficiaries on the lists. Quality control of the collected data was performed by the Field Supervisor & Quality Coordinator under the overall supervision and guidance of the Quantitative Expert, who was responsible for all the stages and aspects of the quantitative survey. All semi-structured questionnaires had been checked by Field Supervisor & Quality coordinator, by reviewing the questionnaires. Data collection reports have been produced and submitted to UNICEF covering documentation of survey implementation, quality control, final instrument’s and other inputs as required by the RFP.55 Approach to Qualitative Data Collection, Sampling and Its Implementation through Field Work

As noted above, all key informants with the exception of beneficiary families were to be targeted for qualitative data collection, including case managers. Overall, about 50 case managers are involved in the project in the 4 marzes and it was proposed that r half of them (25 case managers) be reached out through focus groups/small group discussions primarily (7-8 in each marz). CM component related experts were also included for interviewing through focus groups. With respect to all other informant groups, it was proposed conducting a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 in-depth interviews will be conducted per each key stakeholder sub-category identified in table 1, i.e. 15

54 The instruments for the quantitative and qualitative data collection are attached as Annex 5. 55Survey findings will be incorporated into the report once the analyses are conducted.



87

minimum and 30 maximum, depending on area of intervention, intensity of intervention, local and national ramifications of interventions and other criteria. Additional data collection with use of qualitative methods included meetings and discussions with all key stakeholders, as well as observation on the project sites. The rational for choosing each of the methods is provided below:

Meetings and discussions with the UNICEF/project implementation staff were used to finalize the evaluation approach and complete the understanding of the project and the assignment.

In depth interviews with key informants that entailed asking questions, listening to and recording the answers, and then posing additional questions to clarify or expand on a particular issue. Questions were open-ended and respondents have always been encouraged to express their own perceptions in their own words. In-depth interviewing aimed at understanding the stakeholders/beneficiaries view of a program, their terminology and judgments. In-depth interviews were used to collect data from all international, national and local level stakeholders, NGOs and INGOs, other players involved in all four components of the project. As mentioned above, it was planned to implement a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 30 interviews for the purposed of the assignment. ). The final total number of in-depth interviews with key informants appeared to be 26.

Focus groups/small group discussions allowed focusing participant/informant attention on issues and perceptions related to their activities and services. The interviews were mostly organized in the form of discussion and the applied techniques (such as involving questions, listing, laddering) enabled to obtain comprehensive and in-depth information from a group of people who had been involved in a similar activity. Thus, case managers were involved in 4focus groups reaching out to minimum 25 informants. Two additional focus groups have been conducted with the NILSR experts. In total 9 focus groups and 3 small group discussions/interviews have been fulfilled during the implementation period.

Observation: Observation in 2-3 project sites (local social planning projects/diaspora skill transfer events) e were utilized as an additional tool to observe the utilization rate and the nature of the service offered, the type of the beneficiaries accessing the service, the quality of service (where possible). Detailed data collection instruments/guides were developed during the initial stages of the assignment once full project data became available. With respect to qualitative data collection the questionnaires followed a certain logic presented below.

Establishing a contact/introduction Introducing the purpose of the evaluation, emphasizing anonymity, data aggregation principle

A. General information about the informant

A1. General information on the specific respondent

Relevant questions

B. Relevance

B1. Perception of project/integrated social services/local social planning with respect to migrant families and capacity building efforts (diaspora and parental components to lesser extent)

Relevant questions

C. Effectiveness

C1. Performance of project/integrated social services/local social planning with respect to migrant families and capacity building efforts (diaspora

Relevant questions



88

and parental components to lesser extent)

C2. Selection and working with migrant families/providing services to migrant families

Relevant questions

D. Efficiency

D1. Assessment of interventions/ approaches/ resources used by the project to achieve its goals/results

Relevant questions

E. Sustainability and Impact

E1. Polices and institutions introduced/enhanced E2. Lessons learnt and recommendations

Relevant questions

The filed work for qualitative data collection was conducted from September 14 to October 30. In-depth interviews, group discussions and focus groups were conducted for all five Project components, i.e. Case Management, Local/Territorial Social Planning, Institutional Cooperation, Parental Care and Diaspora Engagement. Focus groups were mostly used for data collection on the Case Management component, while observations happened at the sites of local social projects. For the majority of the other key informants in-depth interviews were utilized as the main method of data collection. Table 2 below presents qualitative data collection methods by component and the number of key informants reached.

Table 2. Qualitative Data Collection by Component and Number of Key Informants

Project Component Data Collection Method # of key informants reached

Case management Focus groups-6 38 (case managers and 10 NILSR experts)

Case management In-depth interviews 2 (MoLSA and NILSR)

TSP Focus Groups-3 17 (social project beneficiaries

TSP/IC In-depth interviews 15 (including component implementers, community members involved in the project implementation)

Parental Care In-depth interviews 1 project implementer 56

Diaspora engagement In-depth interviews 7 (including component implementers, Hub representatives and Diaspora experts)

Diaspora engagement Group interviews (2) 6 (Hub staff)

Other/cross-cutting In-depth interviews 1 (project manager)

Other/cross-cutting Group interview -1 3 (regional coordinators)

In total, 55 key informants were reached out through 9 Focus groups, 9 key informants were reached out through 3 group interviews, and 26 key informants were reached out through individual interviews bringing the total number of key informants to 90. Data Analysis and Reporting

56 The Beneficiary Survey included questions about this component.



89

In addition to data received from qualitative and quantitative data collection, the analysis and triangulation of the entire body of information for this evaluation drew from a thorough Desk Review of all materials provided by the UNICEF Armenia office including the project Action Plan, Logical Framework, reports to EU and implementer reports to UNICEF, evaluations, policy and reform packages relevant to the target areas of the project such as migration, social service reform and local social planning have been implemented by the team. All data received through desk review, interviews and the survey has been transcribed, analyzed and systemized to feed into the findings and recommendations of the report. Thus, feedback, opinions and positions of respondents and key informants were triangulated with the information received from the desk review of materials to feed into the findings, conclusions and recommendations included in this report. The Report has 5 main chapters: Introduction to the Evaluation, Object and Methodology; Background of the Action and Context; Analyses and Findings; Conclusions and Lessons Learnt, and Recommendations.



90

Annex 5: Interview Guides and Survey Instrument 1. Proposed Instruments for Qualitative Data Collection Including In-Depth Interviews and

Focus Group Discussions The following data collection instruments have been included in this Annex:

Focus Group Discussions with case managers

Focus Group Discussions with expert groups of NILSR

In depth interviews with regional coordinators

In-depth Interviews with stakeholders involved in Territorial Social Planning and Institutional Cooperation (a sample to be adapted for each particular key informant group)

In depth interviews with stakeholders involved in the Diaspora component (a sample to be adapted for each particular key informant group)

Questionnaire for the focus group with case managers

Making primary contact Introduction of the principles of anonymity, data summary, and evaluation

objectives by the moderator

Self-introduction of participants (city, region, area in service, case management experience)

A. Relevance

A1. Perceptions of the case manager pertaining to the relevance of the methodology of case management with families of migrants

1. What do you generally think of the idea of case management? Why? 2. How effective is the application of the case management approach when working

with families of migrants? How? 3. Overall, how would you describe families with migrants as a social group? How do

migrants with families differ? Are there special needs that do not exist in other vulnerable families? If yes, what are those?

4. If compared to other social groups you’ve been working with, are the families of migrants more vulnerable or less? What does this have to do with?

A2. Participation in the UNICEF course on case management

5. You have all taken part in the case management trainings organized by UNICEF and NILSR (2013-2015). How would you rate those trainings?

6. Rate the following: a. necessity/relevance of the topic b. informative content c. level of preparedness of trainers d. duration (whether or not it was enough) e. usefulness and applicability, relevance to the Armenian reality

7. Have you been able to apply the knowledge acquired during the training? 8. Do you think your current knowledge and skills are enough to conduct effective case

management? If not, why? What additional knowledge/skills do you believe you need to acquire?

B. Effectiveness

Identification of families of migrants and evaluation of needs 9. Do you have a monthly/annual plan for case management with families that

have migrants? How realistic is that plan? 10. How do you identify migrant families in need of support? What obstacles

do you have when trying to identify such families? 11. Please describe how you carry out needs assessment and conclude that the

given family is in need of support. How do you determine whether or not you need to apply the method of case management with the family?

Formation of community social safety nets



91

B1. Process of case management with migrant families

12. Have you been able to develop small support groups/networks in communities? If yes, how? Please describe the process. Who are involved in that group? How effective is the group? If you have not been able to develop such a network, please list the reasons.

Development and implementation of individual social plans 13. How do you develop the individual social plan for supporting a migrant

family? How are the various types of support recommended by you for migrant families different from the plans for other vulnerable groups?

14. How is the implementation of an individual plan for a family carried out? How are other structures involved in dealing with the family’s problems? How willing are these structures to help?

Monitoring of individual social plan 15. Do you monitor the implementation of the individual social plans? How? 16. What sorts of useful information do you obtain as a result of monitoring? 17. Do you exchange information related to the support of the vulnerable

group? How?

B2. Expected effectiveness for case management with migrant families

18. To what extent does the case management support families with migrants? What kind of problems are being solved and what problems are not possible to solve?

19. How much are you able to mitigate their vulnerability in terms of short-term and long-term periods?

20. The support you provide is more effective for what types of families, and why?

21. What sorts of problems/obstacles are you faced with in general when working with families with migrants? How do you overcome these obstacles?

22. What would help you to make the support for migrant families more effective?

B3. Case management for families with children

23. Have you ever worked with a migrant family that had a problem related to children? If yes, please elaborate. What kind of support was provided for this family? What were the outcomes?

24. Are the problems of migrant families with children different from those without children? If yes, how? You encounter more obstacles when dealing with which group? Why?

C. Efficiency

C1. Assessment of conditions required for case

management

25. How well equipped were you with both financial and technical means (telephone communication, transport) for conducting effective case management with migrant families?

26. Do you think that the resources available to you and the workload you have make it possible to effectively respond to the needs of migrant families and provide efficient solutions? If yes, please elaborate. If no, please list what are needed for working with families more effectively.

D. Sustainability

D1. Perceptions about project viability

27. In your opinion, how effective is the case management support deemed by the given vulnerable group? What feedbacks do you receive?

28. How do you personally rate the impact of your activities? 29. In your opinion, how does the Mitigation of the Social impact of Migration

project affect the communities in general? 30. To what extent does the implementation of the individual social plan make

sure the beneficiaries are more satisfied with social services? Why? 31. How viable are the small community groups established by you? What do

you think is the chance they will continue to function and take part in the process of providing support? Why do you think so?



92

Questionnaire for focus group with members of the expert group of the National Institute

Making primary contact Introduction of the principles of anonymity, data summary, and evaluation objectives by the moderator


A. Relevance

A1. Perceptions of the case manager pertaining to the relevance of the methodology of case management with families of migrants

1. What do you generally think of the idea of case management? Why? 2. How effective is the application of the case management approach when

working with families of migrants? How? 3. Overall, how would you describe families with migrants as a social group?

How do migrants with families differ? Are there special needs that do not exist in other vulnerable families? If yes, what are those?

4. If compared to other social groups you’ve been working with, are the families of migrants more vulnerable or less? What does this have to do with?

B. Effectiveness

B1. Implementation of the case management component

5. How was the “Guideline for providing support to the member of the family at risk of migration in order to reduce that risk” developed? What was the process of selection of the list of data to be included in the guideline?

6. What factors stemming from our reality have been considered while developing the guideline? What are the sources of information regarding these?

7. How is the update of the agenda of trainings for case managers carried out? What amendments are made to the contents of the course? What do they have to do with?

8. How are the trainings implemented? How interested are the case managers? What sorts of questions are asked?

9. How would you rate the qualification of the case managers currently working with migrant families? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What sorts of capacity building do you think is needed?

10. How is the identification and mapping process of vulnerable families done? What kind of difficulties do you encounter when doing these?

11. How is the case management with target families done? With what time schedule and frequency?

12. What kind of ways of overcoming vulnerability are pointed out in the Individual social plans? How are these defined?

13. What kind of questions do the case managers ask during the project implementation process? What kind of solutions do you provide?

14. What are the key discoveries you have during the monitoring of cases? How are the deviations from the project plans and objectives corrected?

15. In your opinion, how effective are the methods applied for getting feedback from case managers? Why?

16. What obstacles and restrictions do the case managers face when working with families of migrants? What ways do you see for overcoming these obstacles or reducing their impact?



93

B2. Case management of families with children

17. How different are the problems of families with children from those without any children? You encounter more issues when working with which group of families? Why?

18. How would you rate the capacities of case managers in terms of providing support for cases related to children?

C. Efficiency

C1. Assessment of conditions required for case management

19. How well are the case managers equipped with the necessary material and technical resources? What resources are lacking?

D. Sustainability

D1. Perceptions about project viability

20. What are the short-term and long-term outcomes of the support provided to migrant families? What are the changes generated by the project in general, and for the vulnerable families in particular?

21. How do you think the Mitigation of the Social Impact of Migration project has facilitated the development of integrated social services and overall reforms?

22. What would you suggest to boost the effectiveness of the project? 23. How do you think the sustainability of the project could be ensured?

Questionnaire for in-depth interview of local social planning/institutional cooperation, for those

who draft and implement LSP/ to be adapted for each group/



A. Relevance

A1. Relevance of the process of local social planning/methodology to the needs of vulnerable groups, including those of migrant families

1. What do you think in general? Local or regional social planning? Why? 2. Which factors do you think are important in the development and implementation

of social plans? Why? 3. How effective is the application of local social planning in working with vulnerable

families, including families with migrants? Why? 4. How has the process of local social planning (LSP) responded to the issues of

migrant families? What kind of problems have been possible to solve, and what problems have not been possible to tackle? How have these families been involved in the LSP processes /if involved at all/?

A2. Involvement in capacity building/trainings

5. How did you learn about the LSP idea and methodology? 6. Did you take part in LSP-related trainings, consultations, and discussions? If yes,

please elaborate. 7. How would you rate the following areas of those events and trainings?

a. Relevance/necessity of the topic b. Usefulness and applicability, relevance to the Armenian reality

8. Have you applied the knowledge acquired in the frames of these events? How and where?

9. Do you think your current knowledge and skills are sufficient for effectively conducting the LSP process in the future? If not, why? What additional knowledge/skills do you still believe you need to acquire?

B. Effectiveness

Links between regional/local social plans and implemented social projects 10. During the LSP planning process, how have specific social projects been included in

the regional program? How have the urgency and priority of programs/services been identified?



94

B1. LSP process, social cooperation support networks and social programs

Institutional cooperation and development of social cooperation support networks -

11. Which main institutions have been involved in the LSP process, as well as in the selection and implementation of social programs? What were their roles in the processes of planning, selection and implementation of social programs?

12. Have you managed to form social cooperation support networks in communities for LSP or the implementation of social programs? If yes, how? Please describe the process. Who are involved in this group? How frequently do you meet? How effective is the group? If no such network has been established, please list the reasons.

Monitoring of regional LSP plans and social programs 13. Is current and final monitoring of regional and community LSP programs? How? 14. What sorts of useful date do you receive during monitoring?

B2. Perceptions about the effectiveness of LSP process/social cooperation support networks and social programs

15. To what extent does LSP/specific social programs stemming from LSP mitigate social vulnerability /including that of migrants/ in the short-term and long-term perspective?

16. What problems/obstacles are you faced with when carrying out and implementing LSP? How do you tackle these?

17. What would help to make LSP and programs stemming from LSP more effective? 18. What role does the social cooperation support network play in the effective

implementation of LSP? What are the main issues?

C.Efficiency

C1. Assessment of conditions

necessary for LSP/Social cooperation support

networks/social programs

19. In your opinion, how well equipped were you with resources (human, financial, networking, other) necessary for LSP planning and implementation?

20. Who were the main role players and what were their corresponding roles in the process of LSP planning and implementation?

21. Do all the necessary conditions for social cooperation exist /legal, intergovernmental coordination, etc/? If not, what are the main issues?

D. Sustainability

E1. Perceptions about LSP/Social cooperation support network/Project viability

22. To what extent do you think the support in LSP format contributes to the effective solution and improvement of living conditions of community and vulnerable groups?

23. Can the application of LSP lead to long-term social changes /in your region, community/? If not, why?

24. What role did LSP play in terms of local capacity building? 25. Do you think LSP and processes of social cooperation have a future in Armenia in

terms of identifying and providing solutions to social problems? 26. In your opinion, how does the project of Mitigation of the Social Impact of

Migration generally affect the communities and migrant families?

In-depth interview questionnaire related to the component of Diaspora involvement /to be

adapted for each group – four regional units, facilitator, Ministry of Diaspora/



A. Relevance

A1. Relevance of the involvement of the Ministry

1. How would you rate, in general, the role of the diaspora/diaspora institutions in tackling social issues /especially issues of children/? Why?



95

of Diaspora in the issue of overcoming social vulnerability /including for migrant families/

2. What active mechanisms are available for ensuring the involvement of the diaspora in tackling social vulnerability /on the national, regional and local levels/? If no such mechanisms exist, what are the reasons for it?

3. Are investments by the diaspora /financial, professional, etc/ used to address regional, community social needs /particularly the problems of migrant families and children/? If yes, how? If not, why?

A2. Involvement in capacity building/trainings

4. How have you learned about different approaches for the involvement of the diaspora and how have you learned to apply them?

5. Did you take part in such trainings, consultations, and discussions? If yes, please elaborate.

6. How would you rate the following areas of those events and trainings? a. Relevance/necessity of the topic b. Usefulness and applicability, relevance to the Armenian reality

7. Have you applied the knowledge acquired in the frames of these events? How and where?

8. Do you think your current knowledge and skills are sufficient for effectively continuing to maintain the involvement of the diaspora in the process in the future? If not, why? What additional knowledge/skills do you still believe you need to acquire?

B. Effectiveness

B1. Process of involvement of the diaspora/diaspora institutions, cooperation opportunities

9. How are the diaspora/diaspora institutions currently involved in addressing the social vulnerability of your region/community? How are contacts made with them? How does the cooperation take place?

10. What main diaspora institutions/individuals are involved in addressing social vulnerability?

11. Have you managed to create links between the main structures of social assistance of the region/community (i.e. integrated centers, relevant regional departments, small groups /nets/ of social assistance) and key players in the diaspora that are ready to support the process of addressing social vulnerability? If yes, how? If not, why?

B2. Perception about the effectiveness of the involvement of the diaspora in addressing social vulnerability

12. Which are the most effective current or potential methods/approaches for cooperation/involvement with the diaspora?

13. What are the main obstacles/issues in this case?

C. Efficiency

C1. Assessment of necessary

conditions for the involvement of the diaspora/effective

cooperation

14. In your opinion, to what extent were the necessary resources made available for the involvement of the diaspora (human, knowledge and skills, financial, networking, other).

15. Who were the main role players and what were their corresponding roles in the process of involving the diaspora?

16. Do all the necessary conditions for cooperation with the diaspora exist /in terms of the platform, legal, intergovernmental coordination, cultural, language barrier issues, etc/? If not, what were the main issues?

D. Sustainability

D1. Perceptions about the viability of the involvement of the diaspora

17. In your opinion, how effectively is it possible to use the potential of the diaspora in mitigating social vulnerability /including for migrants, children/ in the short-term and long-term perspective? Could that lead to long-term social changes /in your region, community/? If yes, how. If not, why?

18. What formats of involvement of the diaspora do you consider the most sustainable?



96

19. How do you think the project of Mitigation of the Social Impact of Migration affects communities and migrant families, also in terms of the diaspora involvement?

Next three questionnaires must be elaborated upon receiving additional information about the functions of the given specialist/group

Questionnaire for the focus group with the data system support group of the National Institute



A1. Databases for case management

1. What databases are currently used by case managers in works with families of vulnerable groups? What types of data do they summarize?

2. What databases were used previously? 3. How are those databases different? What changes have been made and what

were they due to? 4. How compatible is the data in the previous and current versions of the

database? 5. How have the changes in the database boosted the effectiveness of work of

case managers? 6. What sorts of feedback do you receive from case managers regarding the

effectiveness of the databases? 7. Have you received recommendations for changes? How realistic are they in

the technical and financial sense?

Questionnaire for in-depth interview with the regional expert of the National Institute



Peculiarities of case management/migration in the given region

1. Main directions and objectives of support provided by you for the case managers. Consequences of the lack of such support.

2. How would you rate the progress of case management in your region? 3. What factors would you highlight for the further development of the institute of

case management? 4. How does case management contribute to the reduction of social vulnerability,

particularly in the case of migrant families? 5. Following the completion of the project, who is going to carry out your functions? 6. How do you think the implementation of the project has affected migrant families

in the region? 7. Main challenges and lessons. What recommendations do you have for increasing

the effectiveness of case management, particularly with regards to the works with migrant families?

Questionnaire for an in-depth interview with the regional coordinator of the project



97



Peculiarities of case management/migration in the given region

1. Which components of the project have been carried out in your region? Which ones were carried out more intensively? Why?

2. What structures have you been cooperating with in the frames of the project? What are their roles in the effective implementation of the project?

3. Do you think the project has reached its main objectives in the region /i.e. improvement of the social situation of migrant families, strengthening of capacities of case managers, involvement of diaspora institutions, etc/?

4. What do you think are the main achievements of the project in the region? Why? 5. What do you think are the main problems of the project in the region that need

constant attention? Why? 6. What factors do you think are important in tackling social vulnerability of migrant

families? 7. Main challenges and lesson. What recommendations do you have for boosting the

effectiveness of case management, particularly when working with migrant families?



98

2. Questionnaire for Quantitative Interviews with Families of Migrants

FORM N __________

Region Community Interviewer

Name Code Name Code First name, last name Code

Community type

1. Urban 2. Rural

When was the interview conducted? Time of interview

Day Month Year Hour Minutes

Hi, I am ________________________ from VISTAA Plus. We have been commissioned by UNICEF to conduct an opinion poll regarding the accessibility and use of social services and your level of satisfaction with them. The survey is anonymous and all data will be generalized for presentation. Your participation in the survey is voluntary, and your sincere answers will greatly help us and contribute to the improvement of social services.

A. Name of case manager (confirmed before entrance to the community and/or contacted) ________________________________________________________________________

B. Is the case manager …? (clarified with the case manager beforehand) 1. An employee of the mayor’s office 2. An employee of the regional governor’s office 3. An employee of the regional office of social services 4. An employee of the center of integrated social services 5. Other

C. Is there consent? 1. Yes (Thank you for consenting and proceed to the main part of the questionnaire) 2. No (Stop the interview and look for the next respondent)

D. Clarify once again whether or not that family has or had a migrant (if the migrant has not

returned and is no longer considered a family member /a divorce was filed or there’s no news from him/ but is still registered at that house, then proceed with the interview).

1. Yes 2. No (Stop the interview, mark it in the itinerary sheet and find the next respondent)

E. Find out if the target respondent is at home 1. Yes 2. No (Make an arrangement for a future meeting. If not feasible, then stop the interview and

find the next respondent)



99

1. General information about the family

Table 1

N

1. Please list your family members, starting with you

2. Relation to the respondent

1 - Respondent 2- Spouse 3- Parents, parents-in-law, uncle, aunt 4-Grandmother, grandfather, grandparents of partner… 5- Son, daughter 6- Grandchild 7- Brother, sister 8- Son-in law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law 9- Cousin 10- Other relative

3. Gender 1-Male 2- Female

4. Age (specific number)

If under 18, move on to the next member (line) If the child is not yet a year old, then mark “0”

5. Marital status 1-Single, unmarried 2- Married 3-Civil partners 4- Divorced or separated (if not legally married previously) 5- Widowed

6. Level of education

1-Elementary 2-Some secondary (8, 9 years of school) 3-Secondary (10-12 years) 4-Secondary professional (vocational education) 5-Some graduate 6-Graduate 7-Post graduate (scientific degree)

7. Main occupation status during last 4 weeks

1- Employed (registered) 2- Employed (not registered) 3- Self-employed (in own household, agriculture) 4- Looking for employment/unemployed 5- Waiting for the working season, migrant worker 6- Student 7- Pensioner 8-Disabled 9-Housewife 10-Other

8. Was a migrant worker at least once during the last 3 years

1- Yes and is currently abroad on the job 2 – Yes, but is now at home 3- No

1 1.

2

3

4

5

6



100

7

8

9

10

11

12

13



101

Ask questions 5.1.-5.3. if the marital status of any member of the family is marked 4. Divoriced or separated 5.1. How many children under his/her care ______________/if none, then put 0/ 5.2. When did the divorice happen? /Year / ______________________ 5.3. Was or is the spouse currently a migrant worker or residing outside of Armenia?

1. Yes 2. No 98. Hard to answer (Do not read)

9. I will now read a list of diseases, and you please mention if anyone from your family was

diagnosed with these by a doctor.

Disease

Members of household (Number from table 1)

- If no one has it, write 0:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Anemia 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2. Hypertonia 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

3. STDs (HIV, AIDS) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4. Goitre (thyroid swelling) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2. Issues of children, health, education

If the respondent has noted that there are children in the family from the age of 0 to 17, then … 10. Please list what types of issues you have related to children.

Yes No N/A

1. Children are malnourished or have obesity 1 2 99

2. Children have health issues, and there are no sufficient funds for addressing these problems

1 2 99

3. Children have psychological issues/interact with difficulty, etc. 1 2 99

4. Children don’t have enough clothes, shoes 1 2 99

5. We cannot afford to provide the children with the necessary stationery and books

1 2 99

6. Children need extracurricular lessons but we don’t have the means for it 1 2 99

7. Children have the talent and the desire for extracurricular activities (music, dance, sports, arts) but there are none to attend

1 2 99

8. The community does not have opportunities for cultural events and entertainment for children

1 2 99

9. Childre don’t have guardians that would watch them until the family member returns from work

1 2 99

10. Children do well in school but there are no means for going on to study at university level

1 2 99

11. Other



102

11. (If any question under point 10 was answered “Yes” to, then …) How do you address each

of the issues you mentioned? (List up to 3 answers) 0. Problems remain unsolved (Do not read) 1. With the help of relatives, neighbors or friends 2. With the help of the mayor’s office 3. With the help of the kindergarten or school 4. With the support of the medical institution (Outpatient clinic, polyclinic, hospital) 5. With support from international organizations 6. With the help of state social services (“PAROS”, “Single window” or other) 7. Other/please elaborate/ _____________________________________________________________ 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

N

12. How would you rate the health of the child/children?

1. Good

2. Average 3. Poor (gets sick

frequently)

4. The child has mental or physical disability

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

If the respondent has mentioned about children of 3-17 ages in the household, then fill out the following table:

N

13. Does the child go to an educational institution (kindergarten, school, university)?

1- Yes

(→Q:15) 2- No 3- Irregula

rly

14. If not, why? (show Card 1, mark up to 3 answers)

1-

The

re is

no

kin

de

rgar

ten

/sch

oo

l/ o

r

hig

h s

cho

ol i

n t

he

co

mm

un

ity

2-

The

ed

uca

tio

nal

inst

itu

tio

n d

oe

s n

ot

hav

e t

he

co

rre

spo

nd

ing

pro

fess

ion

al

staf

f

3-

The

ed

uca

tio

nal

inst

itu

tio

n d

oe

s n

ot

hav

e t

he

re

leva

nt

faci

litie

s

4-

The

ed

uca

tio

nal

inst

itu

tio

n is

rat

he

r

far

fro

m o

ur

ho

use

, th

ere

is n

o m

ean

s o

f

tran

spo

rtat

ion

fo

r ge

ttin

g th

ere

5-

Ro

ads

lead

ing

to t

he

ed

uca

tio

nal

inst

itu

tio

ns

are

in v

ery

bad

sh

ape

6-

We

can

no

t af

ford

an

d s

ho

es

for

the

child

7-

We

can

no

t af

ford

sta

tio

ne

ry f

or

the

child

8-

In c

ert

ain

mo

nth

s o

f th

e y

ear

, th

ere

are

no

min

imal

co

nd

itio

ns

at t

he

ed

uca

tio

nal

inst

itu

tio

n (

he

atin

g, w

ate

r

sup

ply

)

9-

Oth

er

___

___

____

____

___/

ple

ase

ela

bo

rate

/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



103

3. Family welfare

15. How would you describe the social and economic situation of your family?

1. The money is not enough for food 2. The money is enough only for food 3. The money is enough for food and clothes 4. The money is enough for food, clothes and other products

16. How has the income of your family changed compared to that from 2 years ago?

1. Significantly increased 2. A little increased 3. Remained the same 4. Slightly decreased 5. Significantly decreased

17. Does your family have …?

Answers Yes No

1. Credits received from organizations, banks, pawnshops 1 2

2. Debt with interests from private lenders, relatives, friends 1 2

3. Debts for products, services (food, clothes, etc) 1 2

4. Debts for utilities (electricity, natural gas, trash, etc) 1 2

5. Taxation debts, land tax, property tax 1 2

6. Irrigation water debt 1 2

7. Fines and penalties for violations and failure to meet commitments 1 2

8. Apartment/area rental debt 1 2

18. What are the sources of income of your family?

Source of income Yes No

1. Salary /permanent salary/ 1 2

2. Salary /seasonal, irregular, i.e. for carrying out harvesting, land cultivation and other works in different households/

1 2

3. Self-employment (trade, craftsmanship and son on, including private entrepreneurship) 1 2

4. Sale of self-grown agricultural products 1 2

5. Sale of private property and possessions (i.e. jewelry, furniture, car, etc) 1 2

6. Pension 1 2

7. Disability pension 1 2

8. Educational allowance 1 2

9. Benefits and financial aid by the government 1 2

10. Alimony 1 2

11. Financial aid from charitable organizations 1 2

12. Financial aid from private individuals, people 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



104

13. Monetary transfers from abroad from family member migrant worker 1 2

14. Monetary transfers (aid) from relatives, friends 1 2

15. Income from interests 1 2

16. Income from property rent (apartment, house, car, land given for rent) 1 2

17. Other/Please elaborate/ 1 2

19. (If the respondent has replied “Yes” to point 13 in the previous section, then …) What part

of your family’s income is the money received from labor migration? 1. Most of it (75-100%) 2. A lot of it (50-74%) 3. A small part of it (25-49%) 4. A very small part of it (1-24%)

4. Family and labor migration

20. In what year did the family member/s leave for labor migration? (1. If they left several times, then write down the date of the last time; 2. If they left and have not come back, then put down the year they left)

22. How has the absence of the family member from Armenia and/or departure for labor migration affected your family?

1. Positively (→Q 23) 2. Not positively, not negatively (no impact) (→Q 25) 3. Both positively and negatively (→Q 23, 24) 4. Negatively (→Q 24) 98. I find it hard to answer (→Q 23, 24)

23. What are the positive consequences of labor migrations for your family? (Accept up to 2 answers, →Q 25)

1. Social economic issues of the family are dealt with 2. The issue of needed income is addressed 3. The issue of employment of able-bodied family members 4. The family receives an opportunity for building a better future abroad 5. The family receives social connections abroad 6. Other ______________________________________________ 7. Other ______________________________________________ 8. Other ______________________________________________

N Year of departure

21. Is that family member an actual member of the household or is he just registered at the address?

1. Both registered and resides at the house 2. Registered at the house but not a resident 3. Not registered but a resident 4. Not registered and not a resident at the house

_______________

_________________

_________________



105

24. What are the negative consequences of labor migrations for your family? (Accept up to 2

answers) 1. Affects the process of children’s upbringing 2. Affects family relations in the family (husband-wife, parent-child) 3. Affects the issue of providing proper care for the elderly and the sick 4. Affects the health of the person going abroad for labor 5. Affects the health of the family member undertaking the obligations of the person leaving for labor 6. Loss of touch with native surroundings, sense of alienation 7. Affects family planning 8. STDs emerge in the family 9. Problems with documents (regarding the person registered at the house but no longer having connections with the family) 10. Other_________________________________________ 11. Other ______________________________________________ 12. Other ______________________________________________

25. Has the member of your family who leaves home for labor participatedd in health,

educational, parenting trainings and explanatory awarness activities (If the given person is currently in Armenia and it’s possible to talk to him, ask him this and the following question)?

1. Yes 2. No (→ Q 27) 99. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

26. What changes have you noticed in his behavior? (Do not read the options for answers)

1. He’s become more patient 2. He pays more attention to his hygiene and health 3. He is more loving to his partner 4. He is more loving towards his children 5. He spends more time on the upbringing of the children 6. He is more friendly to the people around him 7. Nothing has changed 8. Other _____________________________________ 9. Other _____________________________________ 10. Other _____________________________________ 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

27. Has any member of your family (or you) ever taken part in such a training course?

1. Yes 2. No 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

5. Social issues of the community and the family Now let’s chat a little about social problems and means for their solution

28. What are the primary problems of your community (Read options for answers starting



106

from the next one each time; note up to 3 answers)?

1. Absence of social and psychological services 2. Absence of a center for child care and/or preparing for classes 3. Impossibility to receive professional skills or new professions 4. Bad shape of roads 5. Lack/absence of irrigation water 6. Lack/absence of drinking water 7. Partial provision with natural gas 8. Absence of kindergartens, improper conditions, problem with heating 9. Absence of general schools, improper conditions, problem with heating 10. Absence of high schools, improper conditions, problem with heating 11. Absence of inter-city transportation on certain days 12. Inadequate conditions for people with disabilities 13. Absence of employment 14. Other____________________________________________ 15. Other ____________________________________________

29. Did you know that the following projects were carried out in your community (Note only those communities where projects were implemented)?

Community Measures undertaken Yes No

Chambarak Establishment of a day center for supporting families of migrants and former refugees

1 2

Chambarak? Support service for children, Partez Foundation 1 2

Sarnaghbyur Improvement of conditions and expansion of pre-school education through the installation of the local heating system for the pre-school building

1 2

Akhuryan

Improvement of opportunities for income for socially vulnerable families through training of women and girls for vocational and handicraft skills

1 2

Pemzashen, Lernakert

Preparation for school of 4 to 6 year old children of socially vulnerable, migrant and large families through the provision of new social services

1 2

Spitak Improvement of living conditions of people with disabilities through employment in greenhouse gardening

1 2

Communities of Vanadzor and Gugark regions

Development of capacities of the Vanadzor regional unit of social services, provision of psychological and legal services 1 2

Alaverdi Provision of social services at home 1 2

Ijevan Provision of Social support at home 1 2

Noyemberyan Provision of social support at home for families subjected to temporary migration

1 2

30. (Ask these questions only in the communities mentioned in the table above) Have you or

any member of your family taken part in that project? 1. Yes



107

2. No (→ Q 32) 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

31. Please describe how useful it was for you 1. Very useful 2. Somewhat useful 3. Not so useful 4. Not useful at all 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

32. Do you think there is a need to continue that project or have something similar implemented in your community?

1. Yes 2. No 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

6. Social services and support

33. I will now list a number of social issues. Please note which one of these is present in your family.

Answers Yes No

1. Extremely insufficient funds 1 2

2. No employment 1 2

3. No home 1 2

4. Poor residential conditions 1 2

5. Not enough food for family 1 2

6. We cannot afford clothes or other primarily necessary things 1 2

7. Problems related to health of family members 1 2

8. One or several members of the family have disabilities (also unregistered) 1 2

9. Problems in the relationship of spouses 1 2

10. Problems in relationships of parents with children 1 2

11. Domestic violence 1 2

12. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in the family 1 2

13. Problems with law-enforcement agencies 1 2

14. The family is socially isolated and does not interact with other people 1 2

34. Who or where do you usually go to when faced with a social issue in the family? (Accept

all answers) 1. Community mayor’s office 2. Corresponding department of regional authorities 3. Social service office (no specific person) 4. Social worker, case manager, PAROS inspector (you could put down the name of the case manager) 5. Neighbors, relatives 6. Other _______________________________________________________________

35. I will list types of social protection and support, please note which one of these have you

or your family received during the last two years? (If no option is applicable, then write 2. No,



108

i.e. they have no child, etc).

Types of social protection and support Yes No

1. Pension 1 2

2. Disability pension or support 1 2

3. Family benefits 1 2

4. Urgent financial aid from social services (one-time payment or during the course of several months) 1 2

5. Financial aid from the mayor’s office or regional authorities 1 2

6. A one-time benefit for the birth of the child or benefits for the care of a child below 2 years of age 1 2

7. One-time financial aid for the child at the start of 1st grade in elementary school 1 2

8. Unemployment benefits or temporary disability benefits 1 2

9. Support in seeking employment, including introduction to employer, information on vacancies and employment programs, support in training issues, etc

1 2

10. Material support or support in day-care centers (food, primary healthcare, social and psychological assistance, legal counsel)

1 2

11. Care at home or in social protection institutions (orphanage, elderly home, etc) 1 2

12. Free or partially free medical care provided by the government or provision of supplementary rehabilitation means (hearing aid, wheelchair)

1 2



109

What institution from the ones below did you interact with for receiving relevant social services and how satisfied are you with them?

36.Interacti

on

37. Satisfaction 38.I will now read some statements, and you please say which one you agree with (If agrees, then mark 1, if not,

then mark 2)

1.

Inte

ract

ed

2.

Did

no

t in

tera

ct (

→ →

Ne

xt li

ne

)

1.

V

ery

sat

isfi

ed

2.

M

ore

or

less

sat

isfi

ed

3.

S

om

ew

hat

un

sati

sfie

d

4.

V

ery

un

sati

sfie

d

1. T

he

sta

ff is

ve

ry c

om

pe

ten

t

2. T

he

sta

ff is

po

lite

an

d f

rie

nd

ly

3. S

erv

ice

s ar

e p

rovi

de

d o

n t

ime

wit

ho

ut

has

sle

4. I

ssu

es

are

de

alt

wit

h w

ith

ou

t b

rib

es

and

oth

er

exp

en

ses,

acc

ord

ing

to s

et

pro

ced

ure

s

5. I

ssu

es

are

de

alt

wit

h w

ith

ou

t h

avin

g to

go

to

th

e h

ead

of

the

de

par

tme

nt,

wit

h t

he

he

lp o

f ju

st o

ne

em

plo

yee

6. S

oci

al s

erv

ice

s o

ffic

e is

loca

ted

ve

ry c

lose

to

ou

r h

om

e

wh

ich

mak

es

it c

on

ven

ien

t to

use

th

eir

se

rvic

es

7.O

ur

issu

e w

as p

rop

erl

y ad

dre

sse

d (

We

re

ceiv

ed

as

mu

ch m

on

ey

as w

e h

ad e

xpec

ted

; w

e r

ece

ive

d t

he

sup

po

rt w

e h

ad e

xpe

cted

)

1. Community mayor’s office 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

2. Regional division for the protection of family, women and children 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

3. Regional office of social services (Paros) 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

4. Guardianship and trusteeship unit (commission) 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

5. Center for integrated social services/Reception of “Single Window” social services 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2



110

39. During the last 3 years, how do you think social services have changed (Paros, social workers, etc)?

1. Significantly improved 2. Somewhat improved 3. Stayed the same 4. Somewhat worsened 5. Very bad 98. I find it hard to answer (Do not read)

40. Does ___________________________________ (mention name of case manager) work with your family to address your social problems?

1. Yes 2. No (→ Q 48)

41. If yes, please mention who he/she is (Accept all answers) 1. Employee of mayor’s office 2. Employee of regional governor’s office 3. PAROS inspector 4. Case manager of the office of regional social services 5. Case manager of the center of integrated social services 6. Community social worker 7. Other ____________________________________

42. I will now list a number of activities, and you please mention which one of these is carried

out by the case manager:

Activity Yes

No

HA

1. He/she carries out assessment of our problems 1 2 98

2. Tries to find solutions to our problems 1 2 98

3. Regularly visits us and asks about our issues 1 2 98

4. He/she keeps in touch with us only by phone 1 2 98

5. He/she forms a plan for the solution of our problems 1 2 98

6. He/she has applied to other institutions seeking solutions to our problems 1 2 98

7. With his/her help some of our problems have been dealt with 1 2 98

8. He has petitioned for us but our problem is impossible to solve (please note why)

1 2 98

9. He/she is indifferent towards our family 1 2 98

10. He/she lives/works far from us and is not able to pay enough attention to us

1 2 98

11. I am embarrassed/feel uncomfortable when talking to him/her 1 2 98

12. He/she is not competent and does not know what to do in different situations

1 2 98

13. Other_________________________________________________ 1 2 98

14. Other _________________________________________________

1 2 98

43. Which problems of yours has he attempted to find solutions to?



111

1. _________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ 98. I find it hard to answer

44. What has he/she done for your family?

1. Helped us receive benefits 2. Issued us aid for groceries (food, oil, etc) 3. Petitioned for us to receive medical care 4. Petitioned for us to get a place of residence 5. Petitioned for us to receive clothing 6. Petitioned for our family to receive services provided in the community 7. Helped us find employment 8. Helped to enroll us in a training course 9. Helped us to receive a TV antenna 10. _______________________________________________________________ 11. ________________________________________________________________

45. To what extent was your problem solved?

1. Completely 2. Partially 3. Still in process 4. Problem not solved (→ Q 47)

46. Would have managed to solve that problem on your own, had that person not intervened? 1. Yes 2. No 98. I find it hard to answer

47. If faced with a similar issue, how would you deal with it?

1. I’ll go to the employee of social services 2. I’ll go to other institutions 3. I’ll try to solve it on my own 4. Other ___________________________________ 98. I find it hard to answer

48. If a relative of yours has a similar problem, would you recommend them to go to the social

services or the case manager? 1. Yes 2. No 98. I find it hard to answer

End of survey

Hour Minutes

Telephone ______________________________________________________

THANK YOU Address (do not fill out in the presence of the respondent)

_____________________________________________________________________



112

Annex 6: Information of Evaluation Team

1. CONSULTANT ORGANIZATION

This proposal is submitted by VISAA Plus, which is one of Armenia’s very first and longest serving post-independence business service providers specializing in consultancy on institutional development, policy planning, strategy design, M&E and legal framework development in both private and public sectors. VISTAA’s pool of local consultants is currently in excess of 170 and they are involved in different consultancy and technical assistance assignments in areas ranging from agriculture and environment and water resource management to vocational training, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation. VISTAA has collaborated with many international and local organizations both as an implementer of mid to large scale interventions/projects and a consultant involved in policy development, monitoring and evaluation. VISTAA has conducted number of sociological surveys and marketing research for UN FAO, Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation – Armenia, AEAI, European Commission Delegation (ECD), CARD, USDA MAP, ACH Armenia, ACDI/VOCA Armenia, UMCOR, UMCOR Aregak, World Bank projects in collaboration with number US and European companies. Some highlights of VISTAA past assignments are presented in the order of the relevance to the project:

In January-November 2015, VISTA together with the U.S. based Mathematic Policy Research (MPR) conducted the evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to Related Reforms. The general objective of the assignment included assessing UNICEF support to selected state statutory services since 2010, including case management, local social planning, de-institutionalization, violence against children. The report was developed and submitted to UNICEF and the results were publicly disseminated in November 2016.

In 2009-2010 VISTAA together with Berenschot International (Holland) within ECD Framework Contract has implemented a project named “Situation Analysis of Children of Armenia”. The general objective of the assignment was to conduct a comprehensive research and in-depth Situation Analysis of Children in Armenia including major issues and factors affecting the situation of children.

In 2004-2005 VISTAA in partnership with Arcadis Euroconsult, Holland (currently Euroconsult Mott MacDonald) has implemented «Support to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for the Introduction and Development of Policy Alternatives to Institutionalized Childcare in Armenia» project. The overall objective of this project was to strengthen strategy development and management capacity in the MLSA and the office of the Supervisor of Orphanages.

VISTAA has implemented several other long-term projects funded by different donor organizations, which included sociological surveys and different kinds of research for the specific tasks of the given projects (for detailed list of some significant VISTAA’s assignments please see Annex 4.)

VISTAA has assembled a complementary, highly skilled team of Armenian professionals to lead the design and implementation of this assignment. Evaluation Team proposed by VISTAA has a combined extensive experience in designing and implementing quantitative and qualitative evaluations, sociological studies, managing M&E efforts at Armenia’s key donor agencies (detailed CVs are attached as Annex 3).



113

2. TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

Name Position

Ms. Ester Hakobyan,

Team Leader

A development professional involved in design, management and monitoring of

development Programs (including development of long term strategies, coordination

with government and donor partners, program design and implementation,

accountability and reporting) with a focus on Monitoring and Evaluation.

Independent Evaluator involved in evaluation of projects implemented by UNICEF,

World Vision, USAID and other organizations.

Ms. Liana Balyan,

Quantitative Research

Expert

A sociologist, with over 10 years experience in working with international organizations

such as FAO (UN), Oxfam, Mott MacDonald, VISTAA, etc. Independent consultant in

such areas as social and gender analysis, needs assessment, and monitoring and

evaluation.

Ms. Diana Ghazaryan,

Qualitative Research

Expert

A sociologist specialized in quantitative and qualitative research. Leads her own

Research and Consultancy company and is extensively involved in evaluation and

survey implementation also as an independent expert.

Ms. Makrita Avjyan,

M&E Specialist

M&E and Learning consultant with focus on institutional capacity building, disability

and children, agriculture. Extensive experience of partnering with internal and

external evaluators in the capacity of co-evaluator and/or program manager.



114

Annex 7: Evaluation Matrix Evaluation

Criteria Key Evaluation Questions57 Source of Data How To Measure 58

Relevance

1. Were the projects social protection interventions relevant to

responding to the needs of migrants’ families and children and

reducing their vulnerability?

2. To what extent were the interventions informed by the needs

and interests of diverse groups of stakeholders with a particular

focus on gender equity and equality?

3. Where are the beneficiaries’ views about the services provided?

What are their views about improving services (if there is a need

to improve)?

1. Project design documents and reports,

qualitative data from in-depth interviews,

discussions with donor and implementers.

2. Qualitative data from in-depth interviews,

discussions with donor and implementers

3. Quantitative data, i.e. Survey of project

beneficiaries

1. Analysis of secondary data:

Analysis of interviews and FG data,

triangulation

2. Analysis of secondary data:

Analysis of interviews and FG data.

3. Analyses of quantitative data

Effectiveness

1. To what extent have the expected project results been achieved

and are there differences from region to region, and from

beneficiary group to beneficiary group (disaggregated by gender,

minority groups, urban/rural divide, and income quintile).

2. How effective were the capacity building efforts of beneficiaries,

particularly case management, local social planning, institutional

cooperation and to which extent were they in line with actual

needs?

1. Project design documents (LogFrame) and

reports, quantitative and qualitative data

2. Data collected through in-depth interviews

and focus groups with case managers, LSP and

IC stakeholders as well as beneficiary feedback

through the survey

3. Data collected through in-depth interviews

and focus groups with case managers, LSP and

1. Analyses of secondary data,

analyses of quantitative and

qualitative data, triangulation of

data

2. Analyses and triangulation of

quantitative and qualitative data


quantitative and qualitative data

57 As noted in the RFP for this assignment, evaluations questions should be refined during the design stage. Once they are finalized, the instruments will include specific questions to contribute

to the evaluation questions. 58 Since the LogFrame and the M&E plan are not available at this point, the “how to measure” category does not include specific references to indicators, targets and baselines.



115

Evaluation


3. How effective was the project in identifying migrants’ families

and children? Where there any challenges?

4. How well did the diaspora engagement efforts resonate to the

rest of the project interventions? What are the key

implementation lessons?

IC stakeholders as well as beneficiary feedback

through the survey

4. Data collected from interviews with

international, national, regional and local level

stakeholders involved in the diaspora

component

4. Analyses of interview data with

relevant stakeholders

Efficiency

1. To what extent has UNICEF made good use of the human,

financial and technical resources, and has used an appropriate

combination of tools and approaches to pursue the achievement

of project results in a cost-effective manner?

2. Was there a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities of key

actors involved, including staff, implementing partners and

governmental partners towards the achievement of the project

objectives?

3. To what extent did UNICEF capitalize on other complementary

initiatives to the project to reinforce the results of the EU

supported migration project?

1. Project design documents, project reports

(including some financial data), interviews with

international, national, regional and local level

stakeholders

2. Discussions with the donor and UNICEF,

project reports, interviews with international,

national, regional and local level stakeholders

3. Discussions with the donor and UNICEF,

project reports, interviews with international,

national, regional and local level stakeholders

1. Analyses of project documents and

qualitative data received from

relevant stakeholders.







Impact and

Sustainability

1. Has the project contributed to or is likely to contribute to long-

term social changes for vulnerable and migrants’ families and

children? What difference has it made, including policy changes?

1. Project design documents, project reports ,

interviews with international, national,

regional and local level stakeholders, FGs with

case managers, beneficiary survey


secondary documents, quantitative

and qualitative data



116

Evaluation


2. Has the project increased the satisfaction with social services of

vulnerable and migrants’ families.

3. To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the

development of capacities and establishment of relevant

mechanisms by various stakeholders to ensure ownership and

durability of project results after the end of the project?

4. To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the

ISS reform and its rollout? Particularly, what are the

sustainability elements and preconditions for community social

projects? And how can the diaspora contribute to these?

5. Are the knowledge hubs viable as structures for connecting the

diaspora with local communities? Is the web platform a

sustainable tool for continuing their responsibilities in the

future? What are the key recommendations for sustainable,

durable and meaningful engagement with the diaspora for

children and local development?

2. Beneficiary Survey

3. Interviews with LSP and IC stakeholders, FGs

with case managers, interviews with national

and regional stakeholders, beneficiary

feedback on case manager capacity through

the survey

4. Interviews with international, national,

regional and local stakeholders

5. Interviews with international, national,

regional and local stakeholders

2. Analyses of beneficiary survey, as

much as possible comparison with

the baseline data

3. Analyses of qualitative data from

relevant stakeholders and the

relevant quantitative data,

triangulation

4. Analyses of qualitative data

5. Analyses of qualitative data



117

1. Stratified Sampling Approach to the Quantitative Survey

VISTAA is proposing the following initial approach to evaluation sample for this assignment59:

Sampling approach to Qualitative Data Collection

All key informants with the exception of beneficiary families will be targeted for qualitative data collection, including case managers. Overall, about 50 case managers are involved in the project in the 4 marzes and half of them (25 case managers) will be reached out through focus groups/small group discussions primarily (5-6 in each marz) and additional in-depth interviews. Focus groups will be conducted in bigger cities with case managers from close by services invited to attend (transportation and other logistics taken care of by VISTAA). With respect to all other informant groups, a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 in-depth interviews will be conducted per each stakeholder sub-category, i.e. 20 minimum and 40 maximum, depending on area of intervention, intensity of intervention, local and national ramifications of interventions and other criteria that will be defined following the detailed desk review.

Sampling Approach to Quantitative Data Collection

The communities selected into the baseline sample will constitute the general sample for this evaluation. Two other groups of communities will then be overlain with this group: 1) 10 communities where local social planning projects were implemented and 2) all other communities where ISS related interventions occurred. Once the duplications are filtered and the unaffected communities removed, the remaining ones will be selected into the survey sample. On the next level of the sampling approach VISTAA will require UNICEF to provide the lists of Project beneficiary families in these communities, of which the respondents will be selected into the final sample with use of simple random sampling method.

The 32 communities selected into the baseline sample will constitute the general sample for this evaluation.

Two other groups of communities will then be overlain with this group: 1) 10 communities where local social

planning projects were implemented and 2) all other communities where ISS related interventions occurred.

Once the duplications are filtered and the unaffected communities removed, the remaining ones will be

selected into the survey sample. On the next level of the sampling approach VISTAA will require UNICEF to

provide the lists of Project beneficiary families in these communities, of which the respondents will be

selected into the final sample with use of simple random sampling method.

The stratified probability proportionate to size sampling (PPS) technique will be applied to ensure the

diversity of the sampled Project beneficiaries. The main group of beneficiary households will be stratified in

accordance with the location in Project beneficiary areas. All four target marzes will be involved in the survey

and considered as strata. The suggested four strata will be as follows:

Stratum 1. Lori

Stratum 2. Tavush

Stratum 3. Gegharkunik

Stratum 4. Shirak

59 A more detailed sampling approach is presented in Annex 4.



118

Considering the need for having a representational picture in each intervention region/marz, the sampling

technique aims to obtain a representative sample of beneficiaries for each first level stratum.

At the same time, each stratum will undergo a second level of stratification: urban and rural, in order to

obtain the urban-rural proportions of the beneficiaries in each first level stratum.

The stratified sampling approach will keep the selection criteria applied during Baseline survey, such as the

proportionate representation of urban and rural communities, the proximity to bigger cities and possible

inclusion of border line communities.

The proportionate stratification means that: a) the total number of beneficiaries in each first level stratum

in the sample will be proportional to the general distribution of the beneficiary households (in the sample

frame) by first level strata, b) the urban-rural proportions of the households in each first level stratum in the

sample will be proportional to the general distribution of the beneficiary households by this criterion in the

given stratum, c) the proportions of beneficiary households in each community in each first level stratum in

the sample will be proportional to the general distribution of the beneficiary households by the communities

in the given stratum.

In each community of each stratum the beneficiary household will be selected from the general list of

“Mitigating Social Consequences of the Labour Migration and Maximizing the Migrant Involvement in Local

Development Project” beneficiaries through simple random sampling.

In each selected beneficiary household the respondent family member (h/h member aged 18+) will be

considered the final sampling unit (FSU). The FSUs (i.e. survey respondents) will be selected on the basis of

their knowledge about the questions included in the SoE.

The initial sample size will be determined with 5% error margin and 95% confidence interval.

The following sample size formula for infinite population is used to arrive at a representative number of

respondents when population estimate is known (Godden, 2004):

𝑛 =𝑍2 × 𝑝(1 − 𝑝)

𝑀2

Where:

n = Sample Size for infinite population

Z = Z value (1.96 for 95% confidence level)

P = population proportion (expressed as decimal) (0.5 (50%)

M = Margin of Error at 5% (0.05)

The final sample size will be determined based on the General Population size.



119

2. Approach to Developing the Data Collection Instruments

Detailed data collection instruments/guides will be developed during the initial stages of the assignment

once full project data is available. However, with respect to qualitative data collection the questionnaires

will follow the logic presented below (mostly in case of focus groups with case managers, local social planning

working groups and other direct beneficiaries):

Establishing a contact/introduction Introducing the purpose of the evaluation, emphasizing

anonymity, data aggregation principle

A. General information about the informant

A1. General information on the specific

respondent

relevant questions

B. (Relevance)

B1. Perception of project/integrated social

services/local social planning with respect to

migrant families and capacity building

efforts (diaspora and parental components

to lesser extent)

relevant questions

E. Effectiveness

C1. Performance of project/integrated social

services/local social planning with respect to

migrant families and capacity building

efforts (diaspora and parental components

to lesser extent)

Re relevant questions

C2. Selection and working with migrant

families/providing services to migrant

families


F. Efficiency

D1. Assessment of interventions/

approaches/ resources used by the project

to achieve its goals/results


G. Sustainability60

E1. Polices and institutions

introduced/enhanced

E2. Lessons learnt and recommendations

relevant questions

A different approach will be used to interview top level national stakeholders and donors, where the

questions will focus on exploring the broader reform/intervention context, major progress milestones, main

challenges faced as well as lessons learnt and plans for future.

60 As noted in the RFP, one of the data limitation is the difficulty to assess the impact of the project on migration given the

variety of actors involved in migration management. However, both the quantitative and qualitative data received from the

survey, interviews and focus groups will be analyzed to assess the social protection interventions and their impact on

beneficiary/migrant families.



120

Quantitative Data Collection will be used to collect beneficiary family opinions and assessments of the

services provided by the projects and the improvements needed, the level of satisfaction with social services

and other relevant question. In this respect, it should be noted once again that the questionnaire used for

the baseline purposes predominantly targeted collection of general migration and socio-economic data (as

judged from the analysis provided in the report in the absence of access to the questionnaire) with one set

of questions addressing social services. This included: questions to gather demographic data; migration

data; socio-economic data and data on social services. As much as possible the instrument for the proposed

survey of beneficiary families will collect follow on data on the first three categories, however reducing the

number of the questions and the variables included. Instead, the semi-structured questionnaire will add

question domains soliciting data on project interventions (perceptions and assessment of beneficiaries) with

respect to both local social planning interventions and ISS services. In addition, the project will further

explore some findings that derive from the in-depth interviews conducted by VISTAA with this group of

beneficiaries as part of the evaluation of UNICEF’s Family Support Services and Stakeholders Contribution to

Related Reforms. This include but are not limited to: most wide spread social issues faced by families, social

services received from ISS, awareness of entitlement to the services, self-support/family/network support

mechanisms utilized by beneficiaries, collaboration with case managers and other related issues.



121

Annex 8: Logical framework matrix

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROJECT

Overall objectives

Intervention logic Objectively verifiable

indicators of achievement Sources and means of verification Assumptions

To reduce the social vulnerability of labour migrants' families and communities in four target regions through the provision of tailored social services and best use of migrants’ resources (financial and intellectual) in the development of their communities of origin/return.

At least 30% increase in satisfaction with social services among migrants' families in four target regions before and after the project. At least 20% reduction of cases of divorces, out of school children, and sexually transmitted diseases among migrants' families in four target regions before and after the project.

Results of the survey measuring access and satisfaction with the social services; the level of divorces, out of school children; sexually transmitted diseases; parental skills of migrants families conducted at the beginning (baseline) and the end of the project.

The level of satisfaction with social services, as well as the number of cases of divorces, out of school children, and sexually transmitted diseases among migrants' families is almost the same in all regions.



122

Specific objective

Specific Objective A. To engage case managers in responding to the needs of migrants’ families in four target regions

At least 20% of all cases handled by case managers during the project are directly related to migrant's families.

Annual reports of case managers. Annual reports by MoLSI & MoTA.

External condition: Case managers should be legally authorised to approach migrants' families. External condition: Case managers are required to report on annual basis and share the reports with project team. Risk: Some families of migrants may not be willing in to engage with case managers.

Specific Objective B. To set up and manage community and inter-community based social projects that address the collective needs of the population affected by migration in four target regions

At least a 20% reduction in the prioritised collective social needs of population affected by migration. At least 20% of community social projects are financed from local and regional budgets.

Results of the analysis of collective social needs of population affected by migration conducted at the beginning and the end of the community based projects. Local and regional budgets -www.region.am

External condition: Community and inter-community social projects addressing the needs of migrants are approved at local (decision of local council) and regional (decision of the governor) level. Risk: Municipalities and regions receive less revenues through state transfers and taxes which will limit the opportunities for allocating resources to migration-related community and inter-community social projects.



123

Specific Objective C. To engage social service providers in four target regions in the institutional cooperation (through protocols of cooperation) on migrants' related information exchange and referral procedures

At least 20% of the developed protocols of cooperation among social services are successfully implemented.

Minutes of meetings among social service providers. Copies of the signed protocols of cooperation. Reports of service providers on the implementation of the protocols of cooperation

External condition. Social service providers are legally authorised by their supervisors to engage in institutional cooperation related to information exchange and referral procedures. Risk: Social services are not willing to cooperate around the issues of migrants' families. Risk: The protocols of cooperation may lead to some additional costs for social service providers.

Specific Objective D. To raise the awareness of and improve skills on parental care among doctors and migrants' families in four target regions

At least a 10% increase in parental skills of migrants' families and at least a 30% increase in the positive attitude and behaviour in respect of parental care before and after the action.

Results of the UNICEF survey among migrants' families and communities conducted at the beginning and end of the project intervention.

External condition: Economic conditions allow family members of migrants to devote more time to their families. Risk: Migrants' families are not interested in increasing their parental skills Risk: The awareness-raising campaign delivers unclear messages and creates confusion.

Specific Objective E. To engage migrants and diaspora representatives in the development of their communities of origin

Number of migrants and diaspora representatives initiatives in four target regions compared with other regions. 30% of community social projects are financed through diaspora and migrants

UNICEF Annual Report on the performance of the regional knowledge hubs.

External condition: Diaspora representatives and migrants' networks are aware of and committed to supporting local development initiatives. Risk: Migrants and diaspora representatives don’t fully trust the public administration system of the country.



124

Specific Objective F. To develop policy recommendations and propose legislative amendments that will enable the successful regional initiatives to be scaled-up to the national level

Number of policy recommendations and legislative amendments officially accepted by the Government

Minutes of the Government meeting; legislative database - www.arlis.am official web site of the Government- www.gov.am

External condition: The proposed policy recommendations and legislative amendments correspond to the short, mid and long-term priorities of the Government. Risk: The proposed policy recommendations and legislative amendments may lead to high costs budgetary implications.

Expected results

A1. Case managers from four target regions have relevant capacities and resources to identify, assess and respond to the needs of migrant families.

A1. 50 staff members of Territorial Offices of Social Protection have successfully passed the certified training on case management, out of which 10 have been successfully trained as trainers.

A1. Training assessment report of the National Institute of Labour and Social Research of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues.

A1. Case managers actively participate in and are motivated to learn during the training on case management.

A2. The social needs of migrants' families from four target regions are reduced through the development of individual social projects.

A2.2 2500 individual social projects are developed and implemented.

A2. Evaluation report of the National Labour and Social Research Institute.

A2. Migrants' families, members of the community, and service providers follow the activities envisaged by the individual development plans.

B 1. Representatives from regional and local authorities have relevant capacities to design and implement community and inter-community social projects in response to the collective social needs of migrants' families

B1. 40 representatives from regional and local authorities have successfully passed the certified training on territorial social planning, out of which 20 have been successfully trained as trainers.

B1. Training assessment report by UNICEF.

B1. Representatives from regional and local authorities actively participate in and are motivated to learn during the training on territorial social planning.



125

B2. The vulnerability of migrants' families in four target regions is reduced through implemented community social initiatives

B2. At least 500 migrants' families in four target regions benefit from 19 new community social services initiatives.

B2. Service entry sheets and annual reports of the newly established services.

B2. Migrants' families are actively approaching and accessing the facilities of the new social services.

C 1. Social service providers in four target regions have relevant capacities to design and implement protocols of cooperation on information exchange and referral procedures related to migrants' families

C1. 120 representatives of social services (schools, hospitals, NGOs, etc.) have actively participated in regional and sub-regional workshops aimed at development of protocols of cooperation.

C1. Evaluation reports of the regional and sub-regional workshops on protocols of cooperation.

C1. Social service providers assign authorised representatives to participate in the regional and sub-regional workshops on protocols of cooperation.

C2. The cooperation among social services in four target regions on information exchange and referral procedures related to migrants' families is institutionalised

C2. At least one protocol of cooperation in each sub-region is signed (19 protocols), out of which five are successfully implemented.

C2. Copies of the signed and implemented protocols of cooperation. Service entry sheets of the newly established social services.

C2. Current legislation provides for the exchange of information and referral among social services.



126

D1. The skills and awareness of doctors and migrants' families on parental care in four target regions are enhanced

D1. At least 190 doctors from four target regions have improved their abilities to provide quality consultation on parental care. At least 1140 members of migrants’ families from four target regions have improved their abilities on parental care and at least 2000 members of migrants’ families with positively changed behaviour and attitude towards parental care.

D1. Parental skills training assessment reports of UNICEF. Local media surveys conducted after the broadcast of the programmes on parental care. Evaluation reports conducted before and after the theatre performances on parental care.

D1. Doctors are actively participating in and motivated to learn during the training on parental skills. Local mass media is interested in the topic of parental skills of migrants' families.

E1. Regional knowledge hubs are fully operational with staff members capable to reinforce the networks with diaspora organisations

E1. Technical equipment is installed in 4 regional hubs and 12 staff members have successfully passed the certified training.

E1. Equipment installation reports. Training assessment report of UNICEF.

E1. Staff of the knowledge hubs actively participate in and are motivated to learn during the training.

E2. Representatives of diaspora and migrant networks contribute to the development of the four target regions by transferring soft and hard resources.

E2. At least 60 individual arrangements are signed between the diaspora representatives and organisations in local communities.

E2. UNICEF reports on the performance of knowledge hubs. Copies of the individual agreements between the diaspora representatives and organisations in local communities.

E2. Both domestic and international (country of the diaspora representative) regulations allow transfer of soft resources specified in the individual arrangements;. Local organisations from four target regions are willing and ready to accept the support from diaspora.



127

F1. The best practices of the project are scaled-up countrywide through the development and adoption of policy recommendations and legislative amendments by the Government

F1. Number of related policy recommendations and legislative amendments adopted by the Government.

F1. Minutes of the Government meeting; legislative database www.arlis.am

F1. The Government is committed to adopt legislative amendments in the sector.

Activities

A1.1. Development capacities of case managers and technical support

A1.1 Two five-day modules of training on case management for the staff of Territorial Offices of Social Protection (50 participants) and one five-day trainer training module for up to 10 case managers. - Case management component coordinator appointed. - 4 local trainers/case management support facility established. - 50 computers and 19 printers. - 1 laptop.

A1.1 Progress report of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. UNICEF progress reports. - €1000 Case management component coordinator; - € 3600 fee for local trainers fees, - € 960 transportation costs of specialists of support facility; - € 22400 costs related to the organisation of training e.g. facility rental, coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials; - € 67200 procurement and installation of 50 computers, 19 printers, and laptop.

A1.1. Nomination of the staff of Territorial Offices of Social Protection to act as case managers within the project. The job descriptions of case managers have to be amended.



128

A2.1. Mapping and identification of vulnerable migrants’ families

A2.1 - case managers (50) - support facility (4 specialists-one for each target region) to respond to day-to-day queries of case managers - Case management component coordinator - IT company to develop a software on early detection of the identified migrants - Server

A2.1 Progress reports of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. - € 1000 Case management component coordinator; - € 6000 fee for 4 specialists of support facility; - € 2000 transportation costs of specialists of support facility; - € 5000 travel costs associated with outreaching migrant families; - € 8000 IT sub-contractor; - € 12000 server.

A2.1 Public services share the information about migrant's families.

A2.2. Assessment of the social needs of migrant's families

A2.1 - case managers (50) - support facility (4 specialists-one for each target region) to respond to day-to-day queries of case managers - Case management component coordinator - - IT company (two programmers to develop database of migrants and software on early detection)

A2.2 Progress reports of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. - 3000 Case management component coordinator; - 8000 fee for 4 specialists of support facility; - 2000 transportation costs of specialists of support facility; - 10000 travel costs associated with outreaching migrant families; - 30000 IT subcontract; installation in the regions.

A2.2. Families of migrants are willing to undergone the process of the needs assessment.



129

A2.3. Mobilization of community social networks

A2.1 Support facility (4 specialists-one for each target region) to respond to day-to-day queries of case managers

A2.3 Progress reports of the National Institute of Labour and Social Research of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. - 5000 Case management component coordinator; - 8000 fee for 4 specialists of support facility; - 2000 transportation costs of specialists of support facility; - 10000 travel costs associated with outreaching migrant families.

A2.3 The members of community social networks (both formal and informal) are meaningfully engaged in the individual projects for migrant's families.

A2.4 . Design, implementation and monitoring of the individual projects for migrants’ families

A2.1 - Support facility (4 specialists-one for each target region) to respond to day-to-day queries of case managers

A2.4 Progress reports of the National Institute of Labour and Social Research of the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. - € 4000 Case management component coordinator; - € 8000 fee for 4 specialists of support facility; - € 2000 transportation costs of specialists of support facility; - €10000 travel costs associated with outreaching migrant families.

A2.4 Commitment of migrants' families to sign individual projects and follow the actions of the individual projects.

A2.5. Evaluation of outcomes of the performance of case managers

A2.5: - international consultant (1 one-week mission )

A2.5 - € 2800-consultant fee; - € 750 travel costs; - € 1050 -per diem.

A2.5 Selection of the international consultants; Reports of case managers are available for the evaluation



130

B1.1 Development the capacities of sub-national authorities on territorial social planning

B1.1 Two five day modules of trainings for sub-national authorities (40 participants) and one five day ToT module for up to 20 participants. - 4 local trainers

B1.1 Progress report of consultants - € 1500 fee for 4 national trainers; - € 1800 transportation costs for local trainers and participants; - € 14000 costs related to the organization of trainings e.g. hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials

B1.1 Representatives of sub-national authorities actively participate and motivated to learn during the trainings on territorial social planning

B2.1. Analysis of the collective social needs of migrant’s families and mapping of the available resources

B2.1 - desk research-disaggregation of the data from case managers - 20 focus group discussions - 8 in-depth interviews;

B2.1 Progress reports of consultants. - €1200 national consultant; - € 1000 transportation costs for the consultant

B2.1 Creation of the regional task forces by the decrees of the Governors

B.2.2. Participatory discussions and determination of priority issues of migrant's families.

B2.1 - 4 one-day local fora in each region (4 local fora in total 30 participants in each); - 4-national consultants-one for each target region

B2.1 Progress reports of consultants - € 2500 fee for 4 national consultants; - 2000 transportation costs for consultants; - € 2000 reimbursement of travel costs of participants; - € 4800 costs related to the organization of local fora e.g. hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials

B2.1 Participants of the local fora are mandated by their organizations to vote on the priority issues



131

B2.3. Development of the collective community social projects in response to the prioritized issues of migrant's families.

B2.2 - day to day support to the teams responsible for the development of community social projects - 4-national consultants-one for each target region

B2.1 Progress reports of consultants. - € 4000 fee for 4 national consultants; - € 2000 transportation costs for consultants

B2.2 The managers of the projects are nominated by the task forces and approved by the Governors.

B.2.4. Implementation of the collective community social projects in response to the prioritized issues of migrant's families.

B2.4. - Community social projects component coordinator - Infrastructure, staff, basic supply, training (depending on the selected for funding projects)

B2.4 Progress reports of the managers of social projects. - € 12000 salary of the component coordinator; - € 100000 ten sub-grants for community social projects infrastructure, staff, basic supply, training, depending on the selected project

B2.4 Regions and communities co-finance at least 20% of the developed social projects and committed to sustain all the costs after the completion of the EC funded project.

C1.1. Development capacities of social services on migrants' families related protocols of cooperation

C1.1 - 4 one-day regional trainings on protocols of cooperation (30 participants in each) - 2-national trainers

C1.1 Progress reports of the sub-contractor-to be selected - € 1500 fee for 4 national consultants; - € 2000 transportation costs for consultants and reimbursement of travel costs of participants; - € 2400 costs related to trainings e.g. hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials )

C1.1 Social service providers actively participate and motivated to learn during the trainings on protocols of cooperation.



132

C2.1 Development and application of the migrants' families related protocols of cooperation among social services

C2.1 - 2 rounds of small workshops (one day each) on protocols of cooperation in each sub-region (38 small workshops in total); - 4-national consultants

C2.1 Progress reports of consultants. - € 3500 fee for 4 national consultants; - € 2000 transportation costs for consultants and participants; - € 3800 costs related to the organization of the workshops e.g., hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials

C2.1 Social service providers identify and prioritize common areas of cooperation related to migrant's families

C2.2 Development and approval of the manual on cooperation among social services

C2.2 - 1 local consultant

C2.2 Copy of the manual. - € 2400 fee for local consultant; - € 1500 translation; - € 4600 publication.

C2.2 The Government is committed to approve the manual on cooperation among social services

D1.1 Development parental skills of doctors and migrant's families in four target regions

D1.1 - 19 one-day trainings for doctors on parental care (190 doctors) 19 one day trainings for migrant's families on parental care (380 migrant family members) - 4 national trainers

D1.1 Progress reports of the trainers - € 3800 fee for 2 national consultants; - € 11400 reimbursement of travel costs of participants; - € 15200 costs related to trainings organization e.g. hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials

D1.1 Members of migrants' families actively participate and motivated to learn during the trainings on parental care



133

D2.1. Conducting media Programmmes on Parental Care

D1.2 3 programmes on national TV

D1.2 Records of the media programmes. - € 9000 fee for TV companies

D1.2 Migrant families are aware about and view TV programmes on Parental care

D2.2. Organization of theatre performances on "Parental care in families of migrants" in four target regions

D1.3 - 19 theatre performances (100 viewers in each; one in each sub-region - from 4 to 6 theatre actors

D1.3 Records of the theatre performances - € 20900 contract with the theatre

D1.3 Migrants' families are willing to attend theatre performances on "Parental care in families of migrants"



134

E1.1 Development of capacities of staff of the regional knowledge hubs on networking with diaspora organizations

E1.1. - 2 rounds of 3-day trainings on networking with diaspora for the staff of knowledge hubs (12 staff members); -1 study visit for the staff of the knowledge hubs to one of the most developed Diaspora networks (e.g. Scotland-Globalscot; Northern Ireland-The Ireland Funds; Switzerland-The Organization of the Swiss Abroad);14 participants); - 8 computers (one for each staff member of the knowledge hub) and four printers (one for each hub); furniture for 4 hubs - 1 international trainers to conduct trainings for the staff of the knowledge hubs - 1 international diaspora organizations/sub-contractors to host the study tours - costs associate with running the hubs

E1.1 Progress reports of the international trainer; evaluation reports of the international diaspora organizations/sub-contractors on the results of the study tours; UNICEF report on procurements an installation of computers and printers: - € 1000 fee for international trainer; - € 1400 transportation costs of the international trainer; - € 1040 per diem for international trainer; - € 600 transportation costs of participants; - € 5040 costs related to trainings organization; - € 3300 translation during the trainings; - € 46680 one week study tour including transportation, per diem for 18 participants, - € 8960 translation and fees of organizers; - € 1340 procurement and installation of 12 computers,4 printers and furniture; - € 12960 costs associate with running the hubs for 24 months

E.1.1 - Staff members of the regional knowledge hubs actively participate and motivated to learn during the trainings and study tours on networking with diaspora - International diaspora organization is willing to cooperate with the project and host the study tours



135

E 2.1 Conducting of soft skill transfer needs assessment of local business, NGOs and educational institutions in for target regions

E2.1. - Contract with local company; - staff of the knowledge hubs (12 members)

E2.1 Progress reports of knowledge hubs; progress reports of local company - € 15000 contract with local company; - € 3000 translation costs

E2.1 Local business, NGOs and educational institutions are willing to participate in the needs assessment and without any prejudice share all relevant information with consultants.

E.2.2. Identification of interested (those who can potentially respond to the needs of local organizations) diaspora representatives and organization of kick-off visits to local business and educational institutions of the four target regions

E2.2. - 10 two day person/visits of diaspora representatives; - staff of the 4 knowledge hubs (12 members);

E2.2 Progress reports of knowledge hubs. - € 8000 transportation costs of diaspora representatives; - € 2600 per diem; - € 2000 translation costs; - € 1000 costs of local travel

E2.2 A decent number (at least 50) of diaspora representatives whose experience match with the needs of local organizations; they are willing and available to support local organizations; at least half of them agree to cover the costs of their participation.

E2..3 Organization of one-day local knowledge fares between diaspora representatives and local organizations (200 participants in each whereas 50 from diaspora and 150 from local organizations) for four target regions

E.2.3 - 25 two day person visits staff of the 4 knowledge hubs (12 members);

E2.3 Progress reports of knowledge hubs; minutes and photos of the local knowledge fair. - € 20000 transportation costs of diaspora representatives; - € 13000 per diem; - € 4000 costs related to knowledge fair; - € 550 translation.

E2.3 Both local organizations and diaspora representatives are willing to participate in and properly prepared to (enough information about their current and potential activities, assets, future plans) local knowledge fare. At least half of the diaspora representatives agree to cover the costs of their participation.



136

E2.4 Development and running of the diaspora soft skills transfer web-based platform

E.2.4 - IT company to develop web-site - Server -domain - hosting - staff of the 4 knowledge hubs (12 members);

E2.4 Progress report of knowledge hubs; link of the web site. - € 12000 contact of IT company including registration of the domain and hosting for 3 years; - € 12000 procurement and installation of the server

E2.4 Both local organizations and diaspora representatives have no objections to share the information on their cooperation on the web-site

E2.5. Development and implementation of the detailed action plan between diaspora representatives and local organizations

E.2.5 - staff of the 4 knowledge hubs (12 members);

E2.5 Progress reports of knowledge hubs; - costs are reflected in the running costs of he knowledge hub see E1.1)

E2.5 Mutual commitment of diaspora representatives and local organizations to be engaged in and allocate enough resources and time to individual cooperation arrangements.

F1.1. Documenting the best practices of the project and formulating draft policy recommendations

F1.1 - three local consultants (7 days each,

F1.1 Progress reports of the consultants. - € 2000 fee for local consultants; - € 750 transportation costs; - € 480 per diem; - € 3000 translation; - € 2100-publication.

F1.1 The Government is committed to officially agree the proposed policy recommendations.



137

F1.2. Consultations around draft policy recommendations with line ministries and other stakeholders

F1.2 - three local consultants (6 days each,- 2 round tables (20-25 participants in each);

F1.2 Progress reports of the consultants; minutes of the consultations. - € 2000 fee for local consultants; - € 1200 costs related to round tables e.g. translation, hall rent; coffee breaks, lunch, printing materials.

F1.2 Line ministries assign proper representatives to participate in the consultations and raise the official position and comments of their ministries.

F1.3. Development of draft legislative amendments and further submission to the Government, based on the agreed policy recommendations

F1.3 - three local consultants (7 days each)

F1.3 Progress reports of consultants; copies of the policy legislative amendments. - € 2000 fee of local consultants; - € 3000 translation; - € 2100-publication.

F1.3 The Government is committed to officially acknowledge the proposed legislative amendments.



138

Annex 9. Selected Output Tables The number of people surveyed was 294, 13.9 of which were men, and 86.1% were women. The total number of family members of the surveyed population was 1339, of which 626 were males and 713 were females. The average family size was 4.55 people. The number of children below 18 was 521 and the number of people above 18 was 818. There were children (below 18) in 229 families. Health assessments were made for 521 children, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Health situation of children

How would you rate the child’s health? Number %

Good 297 57.0%

Average 137 26.4%

Poor 60 11.4%

The child has mental or physical disabilities 27 5.1%

Total 521 100.0%

In 229 families with children, the following issues were identified:

Table 2. What kind of issues do you have related to children? Yes No Not applicable

1. Children are malnourished or have obesity 18.8% 80.8% 0.4%

2. Children have health issues, but there are no sufficient means to address them 49.8% 50.2% 0.0%

3. Children have psychological issues/find it difficult to socialize, etc.

17.0% 83.0% 0.0%

4. Children do not have necessary clothes, shoes 51.5% 48.5% 0.0%

5. We can’t afford to provide the children with required stationery and books 45.0% 47.6% 7.4%

6. Children need extracurricular activities but we can’t afford it

55.9% 33.2% 10.9%

7. Children have the desire and talents for extracurricular activities (sports, arts, singing, dancing) but there is nowhere to go to. 38.9% 56.3% 4.8%

8. There are no opportunities for leisure or cultural events for children in the community. 47.2% 48.0% 4.8%

9. Children do not have anyone to look after them until the family member returns from work. 28.8% 60.7% 10.5%

10. The child studies well at school but there are opportunities for proceeding to a higher educational institution. 27.9% 23.1% 48.9%

Table 12 shows the answers to the question about how issues related to children are solved:

Table 12. How do you deal with the issues of children?

With the help of state social services (PAROS, “single window service” or other) 39.0%

With the help of relatives, neighbors and acquaintances 37.8%

With the help of the municipality 6.9%

With the help of a health care institution (dispensary, clinic, hospital) 6.2%

With the help of kindergartens or schools 4.2%



139

With the help of international organizations 3.9%

Difficult to answer 0.8%

With the help of the Pentecostal church 0.4%

Children visit Orran NGO 0.4%

World Vision 0.4%

Total 100.0%

Only 5 out of 229 families had children under the age of 3. The total number of children below 3 years of age in all surveyed families was 42, while the number of children between the ages of 3 and 17 was 479. Data has been collected regarding their school attendance.

Table 13. Whether or not the child attends school Number %

Yes 404 84.3%

No 63 13.2%

Attends irregularly 12 2.5%

Total 479 100.0%

In the cases when the respondents noted that the child did not attend any educational institution (kindergarten, school, high school or college), we found out the reasons.

Table 14. Reasons for not attending educational institutions %

Cannot afford to provide the child with clothes and footwear 26.0%

Cannot afford tuition 15.4%

Cannot afford stationery for the child 8.7%

The educational institution is quite far and there is no transportation to get there 7.7%

Bad health 8.7%

Roads to educational institution are in awful shape 6.7%

We don’t want to 6.7%

There is no kindergarten /school/, high school in the community 4.8%

Due to employment 3.8%

The educational institution does not have relevant professional staff 2.9%

The educational institution does not have the necessary furniture 2.9%

During some seasons no minimal conditions are provided at the educational institution (no heat, water)

1.9%

The child gets sick after attending the educational institution 1.9%

Takes care of another member of the family 1.0%

There are issues with paperwork 1.0%

The marital status for 818 adults is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Marital status

Marital status Number %

Single, unmarried 128 15.6%

Married 498 60.9%

Civil union 22 2.7%

Divorced/separated 81 9.9%

Widow 89 10.9%

Total 818 100.0%



140

The spouses of 46 out of the 81 divorced were migrants. Those who are divorced usually have on average 2 children under their care. 8.8% of 818 adults has gone abroad for work at least once during the last three years, 19.8% are currently migrant workers, while 71.4% have not left in the last three years. 261 families have at least 1 migrant, from which 158 families had members turning to migrant labor in 2014-2016. Data has been collected regarding the formal registration or residency for all 294 migrants.

Table 4. Migrant’s relation to family

Relation Number %

Registered at the house and resides there 148 51.3

Registered at the house but does not reside there 81 25.3

Not registered at the house but resides there 13 5.0

Not registered and does not reside at the house 52 18.4

Total 294 100.0

The impact of migration or migrant labor for the families with migrants (261) has been estimated in the following way:

Table 5. Impact of migration on family Number %

Positive 26 10.0

Neither positive nor negative 72 27.6

Both positive and negative 51 19.5

Negative 111 42.5

Difficult to answer 1 0.4

Total 261 100.0

խ Respondents who have given the answers “positive” and “both positive and negative” have given up to 2 answers.

Table 6. Positive impact of migration Number %

Social economic problems of the family are solved 53 45.3%

The issue of much needed income is solved 35 29.9%

The issue of employment for able-bodied family members is solved 26 22.2%

The family gets an opportunity to build a better future abroad 2 1.7%

Improvement of family atmosphere, lack of quarrels 1 0.9%

Total 117 100.0%

Respondents giving answers like “negative, “both negative and positive,” and “”difficult to answer,” also gave up to two answers to detail their opinions.

Table 6. Negative impacts of migrations Number %

Upbringing of children has suffered 61 22.2%

Family relations (between spouses, and child vs parent) have suffered 61 22.2%

The issue of providing necessary care for the sick and elderly has suffered 19 6.9%

The health of the migrant worker has suffered 51 18.5%

The health of the family member making up for the work the migrant worker left behind has suffered

33 12.0%

Link with family weakened, feeling of detachment 19 6.9%

Family planning has suffered 11 4.0%



141

STDs in the family 1 .4%

Problems with paperwork (related to a family member registered at the house but having no contacts with them)

3 1.1%

More debts 4 1.5%

Longing to see family member 9 3.3%

Absence of man of the family 3 1.1%

Total 275 100.0%

The survey has also touched upon the issue of welfare of families. The answers to the question about their social and economic situation are presented below:

Table 7. Assessment of social and economic situation Number %

Money not sufficient for food 159 54.1

Money sufficient only for food 114 38.8

Money is enough for food and clothing 21 7.1

Money enough for food, clothing and other good 0 0.0

Total 294 100.0

According to the respondents, the social economic problems of the community are as follows (up to 3 answers were possible):

Table 8. Community problems in need of urgent solution Number %

Lack of social and psychological services 22 3.4%

Lack of child care center and/or center for school preparation of children 32 5.0%

Impossibility to obtain professional skills or acquire a new profession 12 1.9%

Bad roads 142 22.1%

Lack/absence of irrigation water 15 2.3%

Lack/absence of drinking water 25 3.9%

Natural gas partially available 18 2.8%

No kindergarten, inadequate conditions, problem with heating 14 2.2%

No public school, inadequate conditions, problem with heating 5 .8%

No high school, inadequate conditions, problem with heating 7 1.1%

Absence of transportation between communities at certain hours 15 2.3%

Inadequate conditions for people with disabilities 53 8.2%

Lack of employment opportunities 259 40.3%

Poor condition of roofs of residential buildings 1 .2%

Inadequate condition of health care center 1 .2%

Problem of housing 5 .8%

Absence of garbage cans 3 .5%

Absence of playgrounds 4 .6%

Absence of places for leisure 2 .3%

No lighting at night 3 .5%

Lack of specialists at medical institutions 2 .3%

Problems with roofs 1 .2%

Difficult to answer 2 .3%

Total 643 100.0%



142

Problems in families

Table 9. Problems existent in families Yes % No %

1. Severe insufficiency of finances 93.2 6.8

2. No employment 92.9 7.1

3. No housing 28.9 71.1

4. Housing conditions are inadequate 73.8 26.2

5. Food is not enough for family 63.6 36.4

6. Clothes and other primary needs cannot be afforded 84.7 15.3

7. Health issues for some family members 81.0 19.0

8. One or several members of family with disabilities (unregistered as such) 42.5 57.5

9. Problems in relations between spouses 14.3 85.7

10. Problems in relations between parents and children 7.8 92.2

11. Domestic violence 2.0 98.0

12. Alcohol/drug abuse in family 3.1 96.9

13. Problems with law-enforcement authorities 2.4 97.6

14. Family is socially isolated, does not socialize with other people 5.4 94.6

Answers to question about where they apply to in cases of problems in families:

Table 10. Where do you turn to in case of a social problem? %

Municipality 14.9%

Relevant department of regional authorities 5.4%

Department of social services (not a specific person) 12.9%

Social worker, case manager, PAROS inspector 35.3%

Neighbors, relatives 24.5%

No one 6.8%

World Vision 0.2%

Total 100.0%

According to the respondents, the changes in social services during the last three years are as follows:

Table 11. Changes in activities of social services during the last 3 years Number %

Significantly improved 54 18.4

Somewhat improved 73 24.8

Same 144 49.0

Somewhat worse 6 2.0

Much worse 3 1.0

Difficult to answer 14 4.8

Total 294 100.0

Issues related to health In 136 (46.3%) of the families surveyed at least one member had hypertonia, in 64 (21.8%) families a member suffered from goiter, 24 (8.2%) families had a member with anemia and 1 family (husband and wife) had STDs (Kirants, due to migration).



143

Participation in project 261 with migrants have been asked the following question: “Has your migrant family member taken part in training courses in Armenia on health, education, parenting or attended awareness raising and explanatory activities?” The answers are as follows:

Table 14. Participation in projects Number %

Yes 2 0.8

No 258 98.9

Difficult to answer 1 .4

Total 261 100.0

Those giving positive answers also replied to the question on whether or not the training had changed their behavior. Such answers were received: “He pays more attention to the upbringing of children now,” and “He is more patient now.” We also tried to find out if any other member of the family took part in such projects. Eight people replied “yes” (2.7%). Family welfare Table 7 (mentioned above)

Table 15. How have the incomes of your family changed during the last 2 years? Number %

Significantly increased 0 0

Slightly increased 19 6.5

Stayed the same 137 46.6

Slightly decreased 50 17.0

Significantly decreased 88 29.9

Total 294 100.0

Table 15. Does your family have…? Yes No

Debts for purchased goods and services (food, clothes, etc.) 69.0% 31.0%

Loans received from credit companies, banks, pawnshops 53.4% 46.6%

Loans without interests from relatives, acquaintances 44.2% 55.4%

Debts for utilities (electricity, gas, waste removal, etc.) 26.2% 73.8%

Taxation debts, land tax, property tax 24.5% 75.5%

Debts for irrigation water 14.6% 85.4%

Loans with interests lent by certain individuals giving credits with interest, relatives, acquaintances

12.9% 87.1%

Fines and penalties for violations and failure to meet obligations 8.2% 91.8%

Debts for apartment rent 5.8% 94.2%

Table 16. Sources of income Yes NO

Benefits and financial assistance provided by the state 91.2% 8.8%

Financial remittances from abroad sent by the migrant family member 38.8% 61.2%

Disability benefits 35.7% 64.3%

Pension 28.6% 71.4%

Seasonal salary (irregular work, i.e. takes part in harvest, land cultivation, canning of food, etc., for another community member)

27.2% 72.8%

Salary from permanent job 11.9% 88.1%

Sale of self-grown agricultural products 8.5% 91.5%

Financial remittances (aid) from abroad by relatives, acquaintances 8.2% 91.8%

Financial aid from private individuals 6.1% 93.9%

Self-employed (trade, craftsmanship, including private entrepreneurship) 5.4% 94.6%



144

Sale of personal property and belongings (i.e. jewelry, home furniture, car, etc.) 4.8% 95.2%

Financial aid from charitable organizations 3.4% 96.6%

Pension 2.4% 97.6%

Alimony 1.7% 98.3%

Income from interests 0.0% 100.0%

Incomed from leased property (apartment/house, car, land) 0.0% 100.0%

Respondents who mentioned receiving financial aid from abroad also answered the question about what part of the family’s general income that aid is.

Table 17. What part of the family’s income is the financial assistance received from a relative living abroad?

%

Significant part 11.5

Most part 9.7

Small part 27.4

Very small part 51.3

Total 100.0

Social issues of the family and community Tables 8, 9, 10 (above) Projects implemented in community Number of survey participants in communities with implemented projects was 93.

Table 18. Awareness about projects

Community Measures taken Yes No

Chambarak

Establishment of a Day-Care Center for Supporting Families of Migrants and Former Refugees 42.9% 57.1%

Chambarak Assistance for Children Service provided by Partez Foundation 57.1% 42.9%

Sarnaghbyur

Improvement and enhancement of pre-school conditions through the installation of a local heating system 50.0% 50.0%

Spitak

Improvement of living conditions of people with disabilities through the creation of new employment opportunities at greenhouses 54.5% 45.5%

Communities in Vanadzor and Gugark areas

Capacity building of the Vanadzor Regional Department of Social Services, provision of psychological and legal services

5.3% 94.7%

Alaverdi Provision of social services at home 20.0% 80.0%

Ijevan

Provision of social assistance at home

0.0% 100.0%

Noyemberyan

Provision of social assistance for families subjected to temporary migration

31.3% 68.8%

To the question on whether or not the participants or their families took part in those projects, 38.1% answered “Yes.” All participants spoke positively of the projects, with 75% saying it was “very helpful,” 25% rating it as “somewhat helpful.” In the communities where these projects were implemented, it was asked if there was a need for continuing those projects or implement other similar ones, to which 55.8% answered positively, 36% found it difficult to answer (as they were unaware), and 8.1% did not have an opinion on the matter at all. Social services and assistance The types of social protection and assistance received by survey participants are presented below:



145

Table 19. Types of social protection and assistance Yes No

3. Family benefit 90.5% 9.5%

2. Disability benefit or other assistance 35.4% 64.6%

12. State-sponsored (free or with partial payment) medical assistance or provision of supplementary rehabilitation means (hearing aide, wheelchair).

35.4% 64.6%

1. Pension 29.6% 70.4%

7. One-time benefit for elementary school 20.4% 79.6%

10. In kind assistance at daycare centers (food, primary health care, social and psychological assistance, legal counsel)

17.7% 82.3%

5. Financial assistance from municipality or regional authorities 11.9% 88.1%

9. Assistance with finding employment, including recommending to an employer, information on vacancies, assistance in training, etc.

10.2% 89.8%

6. One-time benefit for childbirth or 2-year child care benefit 9.9% 90.1%

4. Emergency financial assistance from social services (one-time payment or in the duration of several months)

9.5% 90.5%

8. Unemployment benefit or temporary disability benefit 3.1% 96.9%

11. Care at home or at social institutions (orphanage, home for elderly, etc.) 2.0% 98.0%

Table 11 (above)



146

Which one of these institutions did you contact when trying to receive social services and how satisfied are you with the level services they provided?

Table 20. 36. Contact 37. Level of satisfaction 38. I will now read a couple of comments. Please say which one you agree with and which one you do not (if you agree, put 1, if not, then mark 2).

1.

Ye

s

2.

No

(→

→ N

ext

lin

e)

1.

F

ully

sat

isfi

ed

2.

S

om

ew

hat

sat

isfi

ed

3.

S

om

ew

hat

dis

sati

sfie

d

4.

N

ot

sati

sfie

d a

t al

l

1. T

he

sta

ff k

no

w t

he

ir jo

bs

very

we

ll

2. T

he

sta

ff a

re f

rie

nd

ly a

nd

po

lite

3. S

erv

ice

s ar

e p

rovi

de

d in

a q

uic

k m

ann

er

wit

ho

ut

any

has

sle

4. I

ssu

es

are

de

alt

wit

h w

ith

in t

he

fram

ew

ork

s o

f se

t p

roce

du

res,

wit

ho

ut

any

bri

be

s o

r o

the

r e

xpen

ses

5. I

ssu

es

are

re

solv

ed

wit

h t

he

he

lp o

f o

ne

em

plo

yee

, wit

ho

ut

hav

ing

to g

o t

o t

he

man

age

r

6. S

oci

al s

erv

ice

s ce

nte

r is

clo

se t

o m

y p

lace

of

resi

de

nce

, wh

ich

mak

es

it v

ery

co

nve

nie

nt

for

me

to

use

th

e s

erv

ice

s

7. O

ur

issu

es

has

be

en

pro

per

ly d

eal

t w

ith

(we

re

ceiv

ed

th

e a

mo

un

t w

e h

ad e

xpe

cte

d,

we

re

ceiv

ed

th

e s

up

po

rt w

e h

ad e

xpe

cte

d)

1. Municipality 36.0 66.0 30.0 26.0 7.0 37.0 84.0 16.0 81.0 19.0 76.0 24.0 90.0 10.0 48.0 52.0 57.0 43.0 51.0 49.0

2. Department for Family, Women and Children Issues of regional government 9.5 90.5 21.4 25.0 0.0 53.6 89.3 10.7 78.6 21.4 78.6 21.4 89.3 10.7 67.9 32.1 28.6 71.4 35.7 64.3

3. Regional Office for Social Services (Paros) 89.5 10.5 68.8 24.3 3.8 3.0 97.3 2.7 98.9 1.1 96.2 3.8 92.0 8.0 86.3 13.7 47.5 52.5 88.6 11.4

4. Guardianship and Trusteeship Authority (Commission) 0.3 99.7

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

5. Integrated Social Services Center/ Reception at “Single Window” social services 10.5 89.5 64.5 29.0 3.2 3.2 96.8 3.2 96.8 3.2 96.8 3.2 87.1 12.9 87.1 12.9 58.1 41.9 93.5 6.5



147

Case Management Table 10 94% of the respondents noted that the case manager worked with their families. Table 21 reflects how this is done:

Table 21. How the case manager works with the family Yes No DA

2. Tries to offer solutions to our problems 95.7 3.6 0.7

1. Makes an assessment of our problems 86.0 5.4 8.6

7. Some of our family problems have been solved with the case manager’s help 79.5 15.8 4.7

3. He/she visits us regularly and asks about our problems 77.0 23.0 0.0

5. He/she makes a plan for the solution of our problems 59.4 18.0 22.7

6. He/she has applied to other institutions to try give solutions to our problems 39.2 32.7 28.1

8. He/she has made petitions for us but our problem is impossible to solve 19.1 68.3 12.6

4. He/she keeps contact with us only by phone 16.2 83.1 0.7

10. He/she lives/works far from us and is not able to pay adequate attention to us 15.8 80.9 3.2

11. I feel embarrassed/uncomfortable when talking with the case manager 9.7 89.9 0.4

9. He/she is indifferent to our family 3.2 94.2 2.5

12. He has no clue about his job and does not know how to proceed in case of problems 2.2 96 1.8

Table 22. What the case manager has done for the family

Answers

Number %

Helped to receive benefits 251 33.2%

Petitioned for a TV antenna 165 21.9%

Filed for in kind assistance (food, oil, etc.) 107 14.2%

Helped to get medical help 97 12.8%

Helped to find employment 53 7.0%

Petitioned for the family to use services provided in the community 33 4.4%

Helped to get clothing 18 2.4%

Helped to participate in a training 15 2.0%

Helped to get a place of dwelling 8 1.1%

Petitioned for a tuition fee discount 3 .4%

Helped to receive quarterly or one-time payments 2 .3%

Helped with the roof, windows 1 .1%

Petitioned to have our roof repaired 1 .1%

Only came and saw that we live in poor conditions. That was it. 1 .1%

Total 755 100.0%

Table 23. To what extent was your problem solved? %

Completely solved 27.7

Somewhat solved 50.7

Still in process 14.4

The problem has not been solved 7.2

Total 100.0

Respondents noting that the case managers worked with their families also answered to the question on what they would do in case of a similar problem. 89.2% said they would apply to social services



148

again, 4.3% said they would try to deal with on their own, and 2.5% said they would go to other institutions. 81.1% of them said that their problems would not have been solved without the assistance of the case manager.



149

Annex 10. Detailed Project Context The detailed Project context is presented below:

Case Management

UNICEF in Armenia’s longstanding support to reforming social protection services in Armenia through introduction of the ISS model emphasized the need for introduction of the case management institute and the position of a professional case manager. Since 2011 UNICEF Armenia supported capacity development of a critical mass of professionals ( i.e. case managers employed by Territorial Offices of Social Services) to be able to use case management methodology to detect and assess the social needs of socially vulnerable families, and then develop individual social interventions to address them. The Project continued empowerment of case managers by focusing on capacity building efforts that enhance case managers’ ability to identify, assess and support migrant families. This was to be accomplished through a combination of classroom and on-job training, targeted reach out to migrant families, improved hands-on application of tools and methods.

Territorial/Local Social Planning

Shortage of alternative social services on regional and local level due to lack of funding, inefficient structure of local governments, by-sector planning and weak institutional cooperation has been identified by UNICEF as another major impediment to effective social protection. Thus, UNICEF support to ISS reform has emphasized Local/Territorial Social Planning (LSP/TSP) as an effective means of identification of social needs, improved access to social services, integrated and comprehensive service provision, creating a socially stable environment and support to vulnerable families, including migrants. LSPs go beyond sectors and focus on the interlinked needs of specific vulnerable groups. These are designed to fill in the sectoral gaps in services which are not covered by formal education, health and social protection services, and help define and develop projects that fill in those gaps. To achieve this, UNICEF supported development of 2 Local Social Plans (Tavush and Lori in 2011 and 2012) prior to the launch of the Project. As part of the Project, Gegharkunik and Shirak LSPs were developed in 2013-2014 in addition to piloting of 10 local social projects on the community and inter-community level in response to the collective needs of migrants’ families from the four target regions.

Institutional Cooperation

Since both effective case management and local social planning rely heavily on a developed social network comprising of formal and non-formal institutions, service providers, and individuals, Institutional or inter-agency cooperation becomes a precondition for addressing multiple and overlapping causes of beneficiary vulnerability. This is especially true in case of migrant families that belong to the typical social groups that have multi-dimensional and inter-related needs (i.e. related to health, education, exclusion, child protection, economic activity, among others).

Lack of effective institutional cooperation among social service providers for joint planning and interventions, information exchange, and referral for addressing social issues at both regional and local level result is unresolved or even undetected issues for beneficiaries both generally and specifically in relation to migrants’ families.



150

This is why, as part of the Project, UNICEF emphasized continued promotion of the concept of institutional cooperation in two key directions: developing the concept and the methodology of institutional cooperation and their reflection in the Law on Social Assistance (Chapter 7) as well implementing pilot projects on testing the protocols of cooperation in the four target regions.

Additionally, the Project planned building the capacities of representatives of various social services through training on development and application of protocols of cooperation as well as development of a manual on cooperation among social service providers.

Parental Care

Review of the myriad of social issues faced by the migrants conducted both during the proposal development and the initial stages of the project indicated that migration has a profound impact on the separated families through a shift in gender roles and parental care. Thus, according to commissioned recent Household survey on migration in Armenia commissioned by IOM and the National Statistical Service in 2014, the overwhelming majority of Armenian labour migrants (82.1%61) are married men between 21 and 50 years of age seeking jobs in Russia, who occasionally (at least once a year) visit their families. The fact that they neither relocate their families nor return to Armenia permanently strains family relations considerably. According to the 2013 Project Baseline Survey conducted by UNICEF in the four target regions, worsening of family relations (49 per cent) is ranked first among the negative consequences of migration followed by suffering of children’s upbringing (45 per cent), worsening of migrant’s health (including exposure to HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) – 17 per cent), as well as worsening of family planning (7 per cent)62.

Consequently, focusing on comprehensive training and awareness raising designed to increase the overall awareness and knowledge of migrant families with children in relation to the importance, value and practical application of effective parental care has been determined a key aspect of the Project interventions under the Parental Care component. Recognizing that labour migrants are the primary carriers of HIV/AIDS and STDs, they focus of these interventions has been on a campaign to help prevent HIV/AIDS and STDs through trainings for medical staff and migrant families as well as broader reach out on the issue through local theatre performances and programmes on national TV.

Diaspora Engagement

While traditional Armenian Diaspora organizations such as Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) or Fund for Armenian Relief (FAR) and others have been present in Armenia for the last two decades, there still remain several Diaspora groups and migrant networks as well as individuals whose potential to support Armenia’s development is underexplored. This is especially true about the newest Diaspora that is formed mostly in Russia and a segment of which is gaining both economic and political prominence. This group has closer ties to Armenia and their own local communities and as such a keener interest to

61 Report on Household survey on migration in Armenia, IOM, NSS, 2014, http://un.am/up/library/Household_survey_eng.pdf . 62 UNICEF Interim Report to the EU, December 21, 2013 – December 20, 2014

http://un.am/up/library/Household_survey_eng.pdf



151

contribute to local development. Tapping into the intellectual potential of Diaspora and migrant networks versus emphasizing investment of financial resources is another area where Diaspora contributions could be enhanced. And finally, Diaspora and migrant networks while engaged in charity work and humanitarian aid to Armenia and its vulnerable residents, have been to a more modest degree involved in supporting the systemic improvements to the country’s social protection institutions. With these in mind, the Project included a Diaspora engagement component to engage migrants and diaspora representatives in the development of their communities of origin. To this end, 4 knowledge hubs were established in the 4 targeted regions to explore local needs and to involve Diaspora players in addressing those. An innovative web platform to facilitate this two-way cooperation has been developed as part of this component.



152

Annex 11. Detailed Comparison of Baseline and Final Surveys Family Status/Divorce Rate: The comparison of the divorce rates among Baseline and Beneficiary survey respondents was done (see Table 1 below) to assess the achievement of the Project target of “at least 20% reduction of cases of divorces” based on the assumption that social support to the families should result in the decreased rate of divorces. However, due to differences in the samples, the meaningful comparison between the outcomes of the two groups is not possible.

Table 1. Marital Status and Divorce Rate Compared

Distribution of Marital Status

Marital status Baseline survey Final Survey

Single 13.0% 15.6%

Married/civic marriage 65.0% 63.6%

Divorced/separated 6.0% 9.9%

Widowed 16.0% 10.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

The data shows that divorce rate is higher in case of the final survey, which does not necessarily indicate an increase over the Baseline survey. The Project itself provided targeted support to labour migrants’ families, assuming that it will result in family reunification and less divorces as a consequence of a better family environment. In addition social support was provided to the divorcees whose situation is more challenging given both absence of the labour migrant family member and their divorced status. Thus, assumedly, it is not that the number of divorces increased per se, it is that more divorced families were targeted by the Project. Of eighty one divorced beneficiaries involved in the final survey, 70 are women, and in 39 cases their former husbands are labour migrants.

Socio-economic Conditions of the Family. When asked to describe their socio-economic conditions in one word, around 46% of Baseline Survey respondents have self-assessed the family as being extremely poor or poor. This is slightly less than 54.1% of final survey respondents saying they did not have sufficient means to buy food (the difference is also due to the formulation of the question, the latter one being more subtle in addressing this sensitive issue). With respect to the changes in incomes during the last 2 years, both groups of respondents did not observe any significant increases, while the Beneficiary survey group points out to higher income reductions, which is most probably due to two factors:

- targeting an extremely vulnerable group (see Table 2 below), and - the income of targeted migrant families decreased significantly due to drastic currency fluctuations and

the crisis in Russia in 2015, factors beyond the Project control

Table 2. Perception of Changes in Incomes Compared

How did the family income change in the last 2 years? Baseline Survey Final Survey

Increased significantly 0.1% 0.0%

Increased slightly 5.0% 6.5%

Remained the same 54.9% 46.6%

Decreased slightly 24.0% 17.0%

Decreased significantly 16.0% 29.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



153

With respect to main sources of income and major social issues faced by the respondents, their key characteristics are also rather similar as visualized by graphs 1 and 2 below.

Graph 1. Main Income Sources Compared

It should be noted that around 39% of sources of income for Project beneficiaries are transfers from abroad compared to 16% of baseline. Such difference is mainly due to the fact that the end-survey targeted specifically migrants families, while the baseline focused on the vulnerable population in general.

Graph 2. Family Social Issues Compared

1%

0%

1%

0%

2%

2%

6%

2%

7%

20%

8%

16%

16%

67%

99%

0%

0%

2%

2%

3%

5%

5%

6%

8%

9%

12%

27%

39%

64%

91%

Income from interests

Income from property rent (apartment, house, car, land givenfor rent)

Alimony

Educational allowance

Financial aid from charitable organizations

Sale of private property and possessions (i.e. jewelry, furniture,car, etc)

Self-employment

Financial aid from private individuals, people

Monetary transfers (aid) from relatives, friends

Sale of self-grown agricultural products

Salary /permanent salary/

Salary /seasonal, irregular/

Monetary transfers from abroad from family member migrantworker

Pension, Disability pension

Benefits and financial aid by the government

Final Survey Baseline survey



154

Consequences of Migration:: Respondent assessment of the impact of labour migration on families was more negative among the Project beneficiaries involved in the final survey (see Table 3 below), which is understandable since this is the group suffering directly from its consequences, while they comprise only one of socially vulnerable groups involved in the Baseline Survey.

Table 3. Assessment of Migration Impact on Families Compared

Baseline Survey Final Survey

Positive 6.0% 10.0%

Neither positive nor negative NA 27.6%

Both positive and negative 76.0% 19.5%

Negative 18.% 42.5%

Difficult to answer 0.0% 0.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

When asked to outline the specific positive consequences of labour migration, both groups prioritized two factors, i.e. addressing socio-economic issues of the family (71.2 and 45.3% respectively) and earning some income for the family (22.9 and 29.9% respectively). Similarly, with respect to negative consequences, both groups agreed that the most disturbing negative effects of migration are those on child upbringing (52.8% and 22.2% respectively), on general family dynamics (12.8 and 22.2%) as well as on elderly care (29.4 and 6.9%). While there are differences in response rates attributable to the differences in the samples, prioritization of these issues was the same in both groups.

Satisfaction with Social Services: Analysis of respondent satisfaction with social services first looked at which services respondents in both groups utilized. Ninety nine percent of Baseline survey respondents and ninety percent of final survey respondents mentioned that they have used the services of Territorial Offices of Social Services (TOSS). Utilization of other entities such as the Guardianship and Trusteeship Committees was

0.5%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

23%

40%

55%

71%

70%

60%

85%

96%

2%

2.4%

3.1%

5.4%

7.8%

14.3%

28.9%

42.5%

63.6%

73.8%

81.0%

84.7%

92.9%

93.2%

Domestic violence

Problems with law-enforcement agencies

Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in the family

The family is socially isolated and does not interact with…

Problems in relationships of parents with children

Problems in the relationship of spouses

No home

One or several members of the family have disabilities (also…

Not enough food for family

Poor residential conditions

Problems related to health of family members

We cannot afford clothes or other primarily necessary things

No employment

Extremely insufficient funds

Final Survey Baseline survey



155

rather low, i.e. 0.3% in case of both surveys. However, with respect to Integrated Social Services, there has been a notable increase in utilization rates, i.e. from 0,4% in case of the Baseline Survey to 10.5% in case of the final survey.

Since the TOSS are most highly utilized service and also given the targeted capacity building of TOSS affiliated case managers under the Project, satisfaction rates with TOSS services have been compared. As Graph 3 below shows, absolute satisfaction with TOSS among beneficiaries of the final survey is around 9% higher compared to the baseline survey. It should be noted that the final survey also asked the respondents to assess the changes in the social services in the past 3 years and over 42% of respondents believe that, in the specified timeframe, social services improved either significantly or to some extent.

Graph 3. Satisfaction with TOSS compared

And finally, the Beneficiary Survey conducted for the purposes of this evaluation had a stronger focus on the situation of children of labour migrants’ families and included more questions about them. Thus, in 77.9% of surveyed families (229 in total) there were a total of 521 children. With respect to these children several questions were asked about their health, education, social issues and others. Health wise, the responding adults noted children’s good health in 57.0% of cases, average-11.4% and poor - 5.1% respectively. Education wise, in 84.3% of cases children are enrolled in formal education. Among the reasons of non-accessibility of education (among those who responded negatively to the question (13.2%)), the three top reasons included unavailability of clothing -26.0%, inability to pay tuition- 15.4% and inability to provide stationary-8.7%.

In the 229 families with children, questions were asked about the main issues faced by children. In addition to health and education related issues noted above, the respondents prioritized their concerns with respect to developmental opportunities, leisure and others (see Table 4 below).

Table 4. Child-Related Issues

What are the issues related to children Yes No Non

applicable

Children need extracurricular activities, which are lacking 55.9% 33.2% 10.9%

60

33

52

68.8

24.3

3.8 3.1

Very satisfied More or less satisfied Somewhat unsatisfied Very unsatisfied

Baseline survey Final Survey



156

Children do not have sufficient clothing 51.5% 48.5% 0.0%

Children face health issues that require financial means 49.8% 50.2% 0.0%

No leisure or culture opportunities for children in the community 47.2% 48.0% 4.8%

Inability to provide children with needed stationery/textbooks 45.0% 47.6% 7.4%

No additional clubs (dance, sports, etc) for children 38.9% 56.3% 4.8%

No care giver to be with children while the adults are away 28.8% 60.7% 10.5%

Children performance at school is good but University is out of reach 27.9% 23.1% 48.9%

Children are underfed or stunted 18.8% 80.8% 0.4%

Children have psychological problems 17.0% 83.0% 0.0%

As to how these issues related to children are addressed, the two top responses were almost equally distributed among two options. Thirty nine percent of respondents said that the state social services come to their assistance, while 37.8% emphasized their reliance on the extended family and the social circle.



157

Annex 12: Achievement of project indicators

Overall objectives

Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicators of achievement

Value of achieved indicators Status

Comments

To reduce the social vulnerability of labour migrants' families and communities in four target regions through the provision of tailored social services and best use of migrants’ resources (financial and intellectual) in the development of their communities of origin/return.

At least 30% increase in satisfaction with social services among migrants' families in four target regions before and after the project.

8.8% increase in satisfaction with Territorial Offices of Social Services 10.1% increase in the utilization rate of Integrated Social Centres 42% of respondents notice improvement of social services in the past 3 years (project related)

Partially achieved

Data limitations in the Baseline and Final survey. Impact level indicators beyond only Project’s control.

At least 20% reduction of cases of divorces, out of school children, and sexually transmitted diseases among migrants' families in four target regions before and after the project.

3.9% higher rate of divorces 13.7% higher rate of children not or irregularly attending school

Not measurable

Due to differences in the samples, meaningful comparison between the outcomes of the two groups is not possible. E.g. figures/percentages are higher in case of the final survey, which does not necessarily indicate an increase over the Baseline survey. The Project itself provided targeted support to labour migrants’ families, assuming that it will result in family reunification and less divorces as a consequence of a better family environment. In addition social support was provided to the divorcees whose situation is more challenging given both absence of the labour migrant family member and their divorced status. Thus, assumedly, it is not that the number of divorces increased per se, it is that more divorced families were targeted by the Project.



158

Specific objectives

Specific Objective A. To engage case managers in responding to the needs of migrants’ families in four target regions

At least 20% of all cases handled by case managers during the project are directly related to migrant's families.

100% of cases handled by case managers were related directly to families with migrant members

Achieved The cases concerned both adult members of families affected by migration, as well as children.

Specific Objective B. To set up and manage community and inter-community based social projects that address the collective needs of the population affected by migration in four target regions

At least a 20% reduction in the prioritised collective social needs of population affected by migration.

38% of these respondents answered positively the question about their or their family’s participation in these projects, of which 75% assessed them highly useful and 25% as somewhat useful

Achieved

At least 20% of community social projects are financed from local and regional budgets.

100% of selected community social projects had co-financing from the local budget or organization (ranging from 10% to 24% and 91% contribution)

Over achieved

Specific Objective C. To engage social service providers in four target regions in the institutional cooperation (through protocols of cooperation) on migrants' related information exchange and referral procedures

At least 20% of the developed protocols of cooperation among social services are successfully implemented.

Government Decree on cooperation adopted institutionalizing cooperation among social service providers The protocol on cooperation in Lori region was 100% implemented

Over achieved

The need for protocols on cooperation was redundant due to overachievement of the objective in terms of legal and policy changes – Law on Social Assistance, Decree on Cooperation.



159

Specific Objective D. To raise the awareness of and improve skills on parental care among doctors and migrants' families in four target regions

At least a 10% increase in parental skills of migrants' families and at least a 30% increase in the positive attitude and behaviour in respect of parental care before and after the action.

Average increase of 61% in knowledge on HiV/AIDS prevention in migrants’ families

Partially achieved

Comparison of Baseline and End Survey data not possible on increase in attitude, as this would imply a survey on attitudes, going beyond the activities of the action.

Specific Objective E. To engage migrants and diaspora representatives in the development of their communities of origin

Number of migrants and diaspora representatives initiatives in four target regions compared with other regions 30% of community social projects are financed through diaspora and migrants

A minimum of 31 diaspora skill transfer initiatives in the target regions

Achieved

Initiatives include skill transfer workshops, no other region was included in the Together4Armenia initiative.

n/a

Not realistic indicator from the start – no reportable progress

Specific Objective F. To develop policy recommendations and propose legislative amendments that will enable the successful regional initiatives to be scaled-up to the national level

Number of policy recommendations and legislative amendments officially accepted by the Government

3 policy recommendations included in 2 legislative amendments

Achieved Law on Social Assistance (case management, TSP/LSP, institutional cooperation), Government Decree on Cooperation



160

Expected results

A1. Case managers from four target regions have relevant capacities and resources to identify, assess and respond to the needs of migrant families.

A1. 50 staff members of Territorial Offices of Social Protection have successfully passed the certified training on case management, out of which 10 have been successfully trained as trainers.

A1. 50 staff appointed from TOSS as case managers and passed training on case management 10 most active case managers acting as trainers/resource persons

Achieved

A2. The social needs of migrants' families from four target regions are reduced through the development of individual social projects.

A2.2 2500 individual social projects are developed and implemented.

A2. 2422 cases for migrants’ families managed, 66 cases managed for vulnerable families with children at risk of placement

Achieved

B 1. Representatives from regional and local authorities have the necessary capacities to design and implement community and inter-community social projects in response to the collective social needs of migrants' families

B1. 40 representatives from regional and local authorities have successfully passed the certified training on territorial social planning, out of which 20 have been successfully trained as trainers.

B1. 95 representatives from regional and local authorities trained on TSP 27 representatives trained as trainers

Over achieved



161

B2. The vulnerability of migrants' families in four target regions is reduced through implemented community-based social initiatives

B2. At least 500 migrants' families in four target regions benefit from 19 new community-based social services initiatives.

B2. Over 500 migrants’ families in four regions benefitted from 11 new community-based social services selected on a competitive basis

Over achieved

C 1. Social service providers in four target regions have the required capacities to design and implement protocols of cooperation on information exchange and referral procedures related to migrants' families

C1. 120 representatives of social services (schools, hospitals, NGOs etc.) have actively participated in regional and sub-regional workshops aimed at development of protocols of cooperation.

C1. Over 450 representatives of social services took part in regional and sub-regional workshops on cooperation

Over

achieved

C2. The cooperation among social services in the four target regions on information exchange and referral procedures related to migrants' families is institutionalized

C2. At least one protocol of cooperation in each sub-region is signed (19 protocols), out of which five are successfully implemented.

C2. One protocol signed and implemented in Lori region, the need for other surpassed by overachievement in terms of legislative changes in the form of a Government Decree on cooperation. Cooperation modalities were implemented and tested in 3 regions through management of cases.

Partially achieved

The Government Decree on cooperation became a much stronger legal document and achievement than the piloting of protocols on cooperation, therefore, the institutionalization of cooperation continued through awareness raising and development of a dedicated manual on cooperation.

D1. The parental skills of doctors and migrants' families in the four target regions are

D1. At least 190 doctors from the four target regions have improved

D1. 190 medical staff improved abilities on HIV/AIDS

Achieved



162

enhanced through a targeted training programme for families and doctors, as well as an awareness raising campaign

their abilities to provide quality consultation on parental care. At least 1140 members of migrants’ families from the four target regions have improved their abilities on parental care and at least 2000 members of migrants’ families with positively changed behaviour and attitude towards parental care.

prevention for migrants’ families More than 1900 members of migrants’ families improved their abilities in HIV/AIDS prevention as an aspect of parental care

And a large audience – comprising migrant and non-migrant families – involved in viewership of three dedicated TV programmes (Armenia TV and ArmNews) on various aspects of migration through the parenting lens. Post training survey results of 380 participants of trainings indicated 61% of average increase in knowledge. If applied to entire families (4 family members on average), over 1500 indirect beneficiates were affected in addition to 1500 spectators of interactive theater performances. While behavior change surveys have not been conducted, results of knowledge tests allow assuming that eventually behavior/attitude changes will follow.

E1. Regional knowledge hubs are fully operational with staff members capable of developing and reinforcing networks with diaspora organisations

E1. Technical equipment is installed in 4 regional hubs and 12 staff members have successfully passed the certified training.

E1. Equipment installed 4 knowledge hubs established 8 knowledge hub staff and 7 dedicated staff from supporting organisations, as well as 14 governmental and non-governmental delegates passed training on diaspora networking

Achieved

E2. Representatives of diaspora and migrant networks contribute to the development of the four target regions by transferring soft and hard resources.

E2. At least 60 individual arrangements are signed between the diaspora representatives and organisations in local communities.

E2. At least 65 individual skill transfer arrangements implemented with agreed agendas between diaspora representatives and organisations in local communities

Over achieved

Skill transfer workshops with agreed agendas – within and outside of the Together4Armenia web platform on diaspora skill transfer.



163

F1. The best practices of the project are scaled-up countrywide through the development and adoption of policy recommendations and legislative amendments by the Government

F1. Number of related policy recommendations and legislative amendments adopted by the Government.

F1. 3 policy recommendations included in 2 legislative amendments

Achieved



164

Annex 13: Validation meeting of the EU Migration project

Evaluation of the “Mitigating Social Consequences of Labour Migration and

Maximising Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development” Project

Validation Meeting with Key Stakeholders

On April 26, 2017 the presentation of evaluation findings of the EU-funded and UNICEF-

implemented “Mitigating Social Consequences of the Labour Migration and Maximizing the

Migrants’ Involvement in Local Development” project took place in Yerevan. The goal of the

meeting was the validation of the independent evaluation findings by stakeholders/partners

representing:

1. Government of Armenia (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Territorial

Administration and Development, State Migration Service, Ministry of Diaspora,

Regional Administrations of Lori, Tavush, Shirak, Gegharkunik marzes),

2. Implementing partners (National Institute of Labour and Social Research, Communities

Finance Officers’ Association, Mission East Armenia, National Center for AIDS

Prevention, Theatre for Changes),

3. Development partners (USAID, WB),

4. International and local NGOs (Save the Children, World Vision, Armenian General

Benevolent Union, others).

During the event the team leader of the independent evaluation team of VISTAA Plus company

(a) gave an overview of the object, scope, purpose and objectives of the evaluation; (b)

described methodology, including evaluation framework and limitations; (c) presented key

considerations taken into account during the evaluation (ethical, gender, human rights, equity);

(d) as well as introduced evaluation findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons that

the evaluators brought forth within the scope of this assignment.

Before the validation meeting the draft evaluation report was firstly circulated among the

Expert Group for the evaluation comprising MoLSA, MoTAD, AGBU and the EU, the also

shared with key partners and stakeholders for their comments and feedback. The report was

reviewed by RA Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and National Institute of Labour and

Social Research who assessed positively the analysis and findings of the evaluation through a

written note. As it was stated in the shared note, the findings are valuable for both decision

makers and researchers for further analysis. As for the issue raised in the evaluation report in

regards with documentation and reporting of the cases during the first year of the Project, the

Ministry gave feedback that the case management institute was in the formation stage at that

time and the issue was due to lack of case managers’ experience and objective challenges in

terms of methodological perceptions. The issue of duplications of the lists of beneficiaries,

according to the Ministry, could be explained with the fact that there were beneficiaries with

two or more not interlinked cases. Another reason for this issue were the methodological

shortcomings by the case managers at the initial stage which were hopefully reduced after case

management trainings and consultations.



165

During the presentation participants highlighted the usefulness of the evaluation throughout the

discussion. This was particularly highlighted by the Deputy Minister of Territorial

Administration and Development, who gave opening remarks at the validation meeting and

who emphasized the need to take into consideration the results of the evaluation in the ongoing

decentralization and local governance reforms in the country, as well as in the continuation of

the reform of integrated social services. Participants found the evaluation findings and

recommendations constructive, objective and applicable/usable. Particularly, as noted by the

representative of the State Migration Service, in March 2017 RA Migration Policy Strategy for

2017-2021 was adopted by the Government and the evaluation findings can be a good baseline

for tracking the achievement of targets set by the strategy. During the discussion a

question/suggestion was raised about the definition of diaspora which had been included in the

evaluation report, i.e. no distinction was being made between “old” and “new” diaspora, as the

concept of the Together4Armenia platform is all-encompassing.

MoLSA representative asked for clarification about the evaluation findings related to limited

IT capacities of case managers, whether it was about technical knowledge or lack of hardware.

The evaluator responded that all 50 case managers were given laptops for ease of operation and

execution of their case management responsibilities and that the limitation was more about the

limited knowledge of IT software and programmes.

During the presentation future steps ensuring the sustainability of the project were also

discussed, particularly the question of information dissemination about Together4Armenia

web-platform was deliberated and possible involvement of Ministry of Diaspora was discussed.

The independent evaluation team also noted that already some of their recommendations

regarding the sustainability of diaspora engagement efforts were visible through the

cooperation and partnership between UNICEF and the AGBU, which was a positive

development.

Taking into account the validation discussion and the feedbacks of the key actors of the field

particularly Government during the whole process of the evaluation and report development it

could be truly stated that the product is a result of collaborative efforts.

Final Evaluation Report - UNICEF · 2019-11-22 · Final Evaluation Report Evaluation of Mitigating...

Documents

Transcript of Final Evaluation Report - UNICEF · 2019-11-22 · Final Evaluation Report Evaluation of Mitigating...