Perceptions of Parents/Guardians About the Effectiveness of Future Families Orphans and Vulnerable Children Programme in Olievenhoutbosch, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The people with the greatest stake in Orphan and Vulnerable Children (OVC) interventions are the children and their parents/guardians. Unfortunately, most OVC programmes are predesigned and implemented without considering beneficiaries’ perceptions when developing solutions (ALI 2007:15). The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the perceptions of orphans and vulnerable children’s parents/guardians about the effectiveness of Future Families’ children programme in Olievenhoutbosch as a way to explore how much they are involved in the process of designing the programme activities and if they perceive the programme as effective in responding to their family needs.. This study used a qualitative, explorative and descriptive design. Thirteen (13) parents/guardians of children registered with the Future Families were interviewed on the effectiveness of the Future Families programme using a semi-structure interview guide. The study results suggested that parents/guardians were happy with Future Families’ services and believed the programme is effective in responding to their families’ needs. However, the researcher questioned the meaning of that happiness and established that beneficiaries were not involved in the program key planning activities including programme resource management and could not appreciate the value of the service that is provided to them against the funding value. The researcher also established that beneficiaries perceived the programme interventions as if it was a favour from the implementing organisation. That perception conditioned beneficiaries’ attitude to be thankful to the programme instead of having open criticism toward the program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".