Mapping Presentation English


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Large increase in teams of social workers (teams and absolute numbers – WHAT ARE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS)
  • Significant increases in beneficiaries: social workers, shelters, street children, small group homes, day care centres(DO WE KNOW TOTAL NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES INCREASED 2006-2008???)
  • Increase in central govt – due to social work teams and foster care – institutions decreasedCauses decrease in % share of other providers (municipality number of services has stayed almost same at 18/19)Small decrease in number of NGO services (SOS counted as 2)Increase in patriarchate services (5 to 8)
  • Mapping Presentation English

    1. 1. Mapping of Child Care Services in GeorgiaNovember 2008<br />
    2. 2. Objectives of the Report:<br />To update report from October 2006 – number, range, geographical distribution of services for vulnerable children and young people and estimate of number of users<br />Benchmark at point of transfer from MoES to MoLHSA<br />Identify trends in service development <br />
    3. 3. Methodology:<br />During the research the following respondents were interwieved: <br />30 social workers<br />74 staff of education recourses centres in Tbilisi and regions<br />53 staff of local and Georgia based international non-profit organisations<br />19 staff of services managed by local authorities<br />6 Georgian Orthodox Church servants<br />Total:182 respondents<br />
    4. 4. <ul><li>The database created includes name of service; location; type, contact details; number of beneficiaries as of November 2008; number of new beneficiaries accepted during 2008; services capacity.
    5. 5. Information about the beneficiaries includes type, age, region of origin, frequency of use of services, length of stay in services.
    6. 6. The collected data was distributed by types; geographical location; management authorities and sources of funding
    7. 7. A map of services was created
    8. 8. 2008 data were analysed
    9. 9. 2008 data were compared to 2006 data; new trends in services were highlighted; a narrative report was created
    10. 10. The results and findings were presented in electronic and printed documents</li></li></ul><li>Main Findings<br />
    11. 11. 60<br />53<br />50<br />40<br />34<br />33<br />30<br />27<br />26<br />30<br />22<br />2008<br />20<br />11<br />8<br />7<br />7<br />2006 <br />10<br />4<br />3<br />2<br />2<br />1<br />0<br />Orphanages and<br />Shelters<br />Residential<br />Schools<br /> Small Group <br /> Homes<br />Day Centers<br /> Children’s <br />Teams of SW<br />Outreach Services <br />for “street children”<br />Residential Care<br />Centers<br />Villages<br /><ul><li>The number of orphanages and residential care centres and residential schools decreased while other child care services increased(excl. children’s villages)</li></li></ul><li>3500<br />3156<br />3000<br />2371<br />2285<br />2500<br />2097<br />1848<br />2000<br />1592<br />1367<br />1500<br />2008<br />1000<br />700<br />2006<br />407<br />304<br />500<br />165<br />152<br />158<br />101<br />58<br />40<br />0<br />Outreach for “street children”<br />Orphanagesand<br />Residential Care<br />Centers <br />Day <br />Teams of SW<br />Children’s <br />Centers<br />Villages<br /><ul><li>The number of beneficiaries in orphanages and residential care centres and residential schools decreased while in other child care services increased(excl. children’s villages)</li></ul>Small Group <br /> Homes<br />Shelters<br />Residential<br />Schools <br />
    12. 12. 5<br />4%<br />8; 4%<br />Central Government <br />52<br />53; 29%<br />39%<br />Local Government<br />Local Government<br />NGOs<br />56<br />NGOs<br />43%<br />105; 57%<br />Church<br />Church<br />19; 10%<br />18<br />14%<br /><ul><li>The growth of number of new social workers and foster care families reflected in increasing of number of services managed by the Central Government</li></ul>Central Government <br />
    13. 13. During 2006 - 2008<br /><ul><li>The number of teams of social workers increased from 7 to 53 while covered regional centres and rayons
    14. 14. The number of small group homes increased from 7 to 11
    15. 15. The number of day centres increased form 22 to 34
    16. 16. The number of beneficiaries received SW services increased from 700 to 2097
    17. 17. The number of children in small group homes increased by 74 %
    18. 18. The number of children in day centres increased by 73 %</li></li></ul><li>During 2006 - 2008<br /><ul><li>The number of Orphanages and Residential Care Centers decreased from 33 to 27
    19. 19. The number of Residential Schools decreased form 30 to 26
    20. 20. The number of beneficiaries in Orphanages and Residential Care Centers decreasedby 14 %
    21. 21. The number of beneficiaries in Residential Schools decreased by 28 %</li></li></ul><li>Challenges<br /><ul><li>The number of beneficiaries in services delivered by Church shown upward trend</li></ul>Possible reasons: <br />- Low public awarness (especially in rural areas) about the child care facilities, measures provided by the State<br /><ul><li> Increasing of the active role of Church in taking in trying to solve social problems
    22. 22. The number of “street children” increased almost 4 times, the number of beneficiaries of shelters almost doubled; </li></ul>the number of children in day centres increased notably<br />Possible reasons: <br /><ul><li>Deterioration of social – economic conditions</li></li></ul><li>Thank you for your attention <br />