| Indicator ID | R&E16 |
|---|---|
| Indicator full statement | % of protection services supported by Tdh demonstrating improvement in quality standards. |
Purpose
This indicator aims to measure Tdh and partners’ efforts in supporting a quality approach in social action, which is a systematic and ongoing process to improve services provided to users. The quality approach seeks to produce knowledge and analysis within services, to support decision making and improvement.
Through its production of knowledge and analysis, it contributes to cooperation between professionals, service managers, civil society partners and public authorities, and it aims to bring about change in collective skills and not to control individual practices.
Definition
Protection services refer to the following:
National and deconcentrated government services / Child Protection (CP) services mandated by the state/ community services.
Central and deconcentrated state services framework of the CP mission.
CP services mandated or authorized by the state: specific CP centres and services (relay point, emergency reception centre etc.), whether these are supported by a public or private law entity.
Community CP services: groups and associations acting not based on a mandate but of a mission of solidarity and which are sufficiently organized and coordinated to use a quality approach.
Quality standards refer to a common base of good practices which are based on regulatory documents (international convention, CP policies, national public politics orientations, experts’ knowledge, etc). The standards describe an expectation in terms of quality of the service, and there are generally subdivided in different criteria.
How to collect & analyse the data
| What do we count? | Through this indicator we count services reinforced, which use the " quality of services" self-evaluation tool and which demonstrate a progress in the notation of the standard criteria’s after Tdh’s support. |
|---|---|
| How to calculate the indicator's value |
|
| Data sources | Self-evaluation reports. |
| Data collection methods and tools | Self-evaluation and interviews with services supported. Tdh “CP Quality of services Evaluation” Package; which includes self-evaluation grid and measures 4 areas of evaluation 1/Guaranteeing the rights of the person, the child, the young person, the parent (including the participation of children), 2/Relations between the service and its environment, 3/ The quality of the services delivered to users in response to the service's mission and to the needs of its public. 4/ The quality of internal processes (management, coordination, governance etc.). Detailed guidance is provided in the package on how to use the methodology. The service will be counted if the evaluation shows an improvement in selected standards, with at least one of the standards comprising of child participation. |
| Example of survey questions | |
| Disaggregation | By types of services (government services, mandated services, community services). |
| Important considerations | Remember that these tools need contextualization, and the assessment should be a process of engaging in a collaborative discussion to move towards improvement. If you have questions, please contact your child protection advisor at regional or global level. Three phases to contextualize a reference framework:
|
Limitations and precautions
Reflection by a service on its own work must have repercussions on the care of users, the practices of professionals and the future of the service. The quality approach is not an autonomous process but is part of the overall logic of the service. Thus, setting up a quality approach must be considered as an investment in information, training and management that enables change to be produced by ensuring that it is planned and supported. This means that the quality approach, in order to produce positive effects, requires a well-planned methodology, knowledge of the method, and a strong commitment from the services.
Potential issues leading to ethical dilemma:
Absence of strong commitment from a service,
Lack of trust (Tdh vs the service or within the services),
No room allowed for learning and improvement, Focus on the quantitative scoring rather than the analytical process,
Misuse of feedback of service users.
If conditions are not there for a genuine process, then it could raise expectations we cannot follow, lead to disenchantment, blaming and shaming and contribute to bad consequences on the functioning of the services and people, including service users if they are involved.
It is of paramount that a climate of trust is established prior to the assessment exercise.
What further analysis are we interested in?
What criteria are stronger than others, why is it the case? What does it mean – how can we explain the tendencies?
What criteria are most difficult to understand and analyse from the point of view of the service providers and the users? Why?
Are there contradictions between actors (Direction – workers, services users?) Why and what do mean those contradictions? To the contrary: Are there strong consensus?
What are the most urgent issues that the service recognizes to be worked on and how?
What resistance to change do we see and how could they be addressed?
Additional guidance
Case Management Quality Assessment Framework (only to evaluate CM services) – revised version to be published before end of 2024.