Educare 2-2-2010.indb EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 185 Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House in Bandung City, Indonesia Didin Saripudin ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate resocialization programme of street children at open houses in Bandung city, Indonesia. Research design in this study was programme evaluation design using both quantitative and qualitative methods. This study used CIPP evaluation model suggested by D.L. Stufflebeam et al. (1971) by focusing on three of four components of CIPP evaluation model, which were input, process and product. Systematic random sampling was used to select respondents from 16 open houses in Bandung. The sample of this study was 522 people consisted of 36 administrators/managers, 132 facilitators and 354 street children. The questionnaires data was analyzed using descriptive analysis and inference such as frequency, percentage, min, ANOVA and multiple-regression using SPSS for Windows version 12. Interview and observation data were analyzed using R.C. Bogdan and S.K. Biklen’s analysis (1992). This study found that resocialization programme of street children at open houses in Bandung, from the aspect of input, process and product, generally in the medium level, still had some weaknesses that should be handled. Therefore, in the effort to reach the goal of street children’ resocialization programme at open houses, the improvement effort should be taken integratedly by all responsible ones. KEY WORDS: programme evaluation, resocialization, street children, open house in Bandung, and live normally as other children. Introduction Due to economic crisis that hit Indonesia in the early 1997, the population of street children increased rapidly. The number increased year by year, the latest number recorded from census conducted was 150,000 of street children in all big cities around Indonesia Republic (Suara Karya, 27.11.2006). In Bandung itself, there were about 4,626 street children (Dinsos Kota Bandung, 2006). The result of observation conducted by Depsos RI – ADB or Ministry of Social Affairs the Republic of Indonesia – Asian Development Bank (1999), the factors causing street children phenomenon could be found out, as described in Table 1. Due to life needs and poverty pressure, most of street children had bear a responsibility to work and earn for their pocket money in their young age and they were frequently exploited by certain groups that gave them low wage. According Didin Saripudin, M.Si. is a Lecturer at the Department of History Education, Faculty of Social Studies Education UPI (Indonesia University of Education), Jalan Dr. Setiabudhi No.229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia. He can be reached at: saripudinupi@yahoo.com DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 186 to E.A.S. Dewi (2004), the money earned was usually for their own needs or to lighten their family burden or to assemble with their friends. Table 1: The Causes of Street Children Phenomenon Num The Causes Percentage 1. Help their parents to work 49.9 2. Earn their pocket money 14.8 3. Cannot continue their study 11.4 4. Isolated from their family 5.1 5. Keciciran and no place to work 4.9 6. Search for new experience 2.6 7. Want freedom 2.6 8. Other causes: Forced by their family; Oppressed by their parents’ at- titude; and Search for some friends 8.7 In slum area occupied by low-economic status people, this phenomenon usually increased and created a new culture in a society, added with the condition of its surrounding. A group of children who did not study, isolated, and were not taken care by their parents would lead to the increase of their number in public places such as bus station, mall, public parks, cinema and other public places to assemble and have fun doing their activities together (Horton & Hunt, 1984). Accordingly, Didin Saripudin (2005) stated that the group of street children usually involved in social deviation and criminality such as stealing, fighting, free-sex, homosexual, destroying, violating the law, creating noise and other disturbing behavior that disturbed public tranquility and violated the courtesy values. Their behavior was done together with their friends who had similar fate and usually came from poor family (Ertanto, 2003). According to T.L. Silva (1996), supported also by UNDP and Depsos RI or United Nations for Development Programme and Ministry of Social Affairs the Republic of Indonesia (1997), the street children should be recovered and given perfect protection in order to make them return to their right way, live normally as other children did, and enjoyed their rights as children through resocialization program. Improvement and protection programs, as E.A.S. Dewi (2004) stated, should be supported by knowledge, self-awareness and self-power in order to be able to face all challenge and obstacles in their daily lives. In Indonesia Republic, a transit house, commonly called rumah singgah or “open house”, had been built as the effort to handle and take care the street children. Moreover, such open house model had been used in other countries (Silva, 1996). According to UNDP and Depsos RI (1997), M. Ishak (2000), and E.A.S. Dewi (2004), the excellence of open house is assumed to be able to do the previous model. Open house was a place of street children to assemble, to be together in happiness and sorrow, to tell story, to seek their fortune and to get affection from the street EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 187 educators. Because the position of open houses is in the central of City, the street children could be trained to adapt and live with the current development in the city and became the rest of urban people, beside sleeping, having meals and living there. At open houses, they are taught to accept and understand others, became big family and manage all their own needs with societal norm and values (Silva, 1996; and Soetarso, 2001). The purposes of open houses development were to help street children in dealing with their problems and to get the best choice to fulfill their life needs (UNDP & Depsos RI, 1997:3). The specific purpose of street children resocialization programme was to make street children have good and positive life philosophy and behavior, to perform social behavior in line with societal values, to have ability of self-regulating and handle life obstacles. The Aim and Problem of Study This study aimed to evaluate the resocialization programme of street children at open houses in Bandung, Indonesia from its input, process and product aspects, based on CIPP evaluation model by D.L. Stufflebeam et al. (1971). The input evaluation included resocialization curriculum, facilitator ability, street children facilities and infrastructure, and learning media aspects. The process evaluation included guiding and learning, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and public (NGO, Non Governmental Organization), and programme monitoring aspects. Meanwhile, the product evaluation involved the aspect of street children having good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, having the ability of self-regulating and the ability to deal with life obstacles. These evaluations were seen from two aspects. The first was how relevant the programme for the street children’s needs. The second was to evaluate how far the programme reached its goal. The evaluation of resocialization programme among street children at open houses would try to answer the following questions of study: (1) How far the relevance of input for the implementation of street children resocialization programme at open houses than administrator, facilitator and street children perspectives?; (2) How far the process of street children resocialization programme implementation at open houses than administrator, facilitator and street children perspectives?; (3) How far the street children resocialization programme at open houses reached its goal than administrator, facilitator and street children perspectives?; (4) What were the factors contributing the process implementation and the output of street children resocialization programme at open houses?;and (5) Were there any problems faced and what recommendation was suggested to deal with those problems in street children resocialization programme at open houses? The Method of Study This study used CIPP evaluation model stated by D.L. Stufflebeam et al. (1971) by focusing on three of four CIPP evaluation model components such as input, process DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 188 and product. Systematic random sampling was used to select respondents from 16 open houses in Bandung City. The sample of this study was 522 respondents consisting of 36 administrators, 132 facilitators and 354 street children. The instruments used in this study were questionnaire, interview format and observation list. Three sets of questionnaire were provided in which Set 1 was for administrators, Set 2 for facilitators, and Set 3 for street children. The index of Alpha Cronbach reliability for those three sets of questionnaire was between 0.70 to 0.87. The data of questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive and inference analysis such as frequency, percentage, min, ANOVA and multiple regression using SPSS for Windows version 12. The data of interview and observation was analyzed using R.C. Bogdan and S.K. Biklen analysis (1992). The Finding of Study The finding of study is able to elaborate as follows: First, the Relevance of Input for Street Children Resocialization Programme Implementation at Open Houses. Curriculum, facilitator, street children facility accessibility and learning media were the variable of input components in this study. Table 2 showed entire min score for curriculum, facilitator, street children facility accessibility and learning media. Generally administrator, facilitator and street children had positive score, in its basic level, on curriculum, facilitator, street children facility accessibility and learning media. Table 2: Entire Min Score of Street Children Resocialization Programme Input Relevance Variable Min Score Standar Deviant Interpretation Curriculum Facilitator Street children Facility accessibility Learning media 3.22 3.46 3.24 2.73 3.18 0.60 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.94 Average Average Average Average Average Street children had more positive perception than facilitator and administrator. ANOVA was used to explain the difference of administrators’, facilitators’ and street children’ perspectives on curriculum, facilitator, street children facility accessibility and learning media. It was found that there was significant difference among the perceptions of administrators, facilitators and street children on street children resocialization programme input relevance. Second, the Process of Street Children Resocialization Prog ramme Implementation at Open Houses. Guiding and learning, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and public (NGO), and programme monitoring were the variables of process components in this study. Table 3 below showed entire min score for guiding and learning, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and NGO, and programme monitoring. Generally EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 189 administrators, facilitators and street children had positive score, in higher level, on the involvement of parents and NGO, and programme monitoring; while in basic level on guiding and learning, and the involvement of administrators. Table 3: Entire Min Score of Street Children Resocialization Programme Process at Open Houses Variable Min Score Standar Deviant Interpretation Guiding and learning The involvement of administrators The involvement of parents and NGO Program monitoring 3.48 3.33 3.73 3.82 0.65 0.78 0.81 0.68 Average Average High High Street children had more positive perception than facilitator and administrator. ANOVA was used to explain the difference of administrators’, facilitators’ and street children’ perspectives on guiding and learning, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and NGO, and programme monitoring. It was found that there was significant difference among the perceptions of administrators, facilitators and street children on the process of street children resocialization programme. Third, the Product of Street Children Resocialization Programme at Open Houses. The good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles were the variables included in the components of this study product. Table 4 below showed entire min score for the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles. Entirely, administrators, facilitators and street children had positive score in higher level on performing social behavior in line with societal values; while in its basic level was on the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles. Table 4: Entire Min Score of Street Children Resocialization Programme Product at Open Houses Variable Min Score Standar Deviant Interpretation The good attitude and life philosophy. Performing social behavior in line with societal values. The ability of self-regulating. The ability to deal with life obstacles. 3.29 3.71 3.23 3.27 0.60 0.58 0.68 0.77 Average High Average Average Street children had more positive perception than facilitator and administrator. ANOVA was used to explain the difference of perspectives on the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles. It was found that there was significant difference among the perceptions of administrators, DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 190 facilitators and street children on the product of street children resocialization programme. Fourth, the Factors Contributing the Process of Implementation and the Product of Street Children Resocialization Programme at Open Houses. The multiple regression analysis was used to determine the significance of independent variabel correlation and contribution on standard variable. In determining independent variable contributing the process of programme implementation, the independent variable consisted of curriculum, facilitators, street children facility accessibility and learning media. The variables of programme implementation included in dependent variable were guiding and learning, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and NGO and programme monitoring. Independent variables such as curriculum, facilitators, street children facility accessibility and learning media were the contributing factors with the precision by 34% (0.34) on guiding and learning, precision by 27% (0.27) on the involvement of administrators, precision by 21% (0.21) on the involvement of parents and NGO, precision by 37% (0.37) on programme monitoring. In determining independent variables contributing the product of programme, independent variables consisted of curriculum, facilitators, street children, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and public, and programme monitoring. The variables of program product included in dependent variables consisted of the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles. Independent variables such as curriculum, facilitators, street children, the involvement of administrators, the involvement of parents and NGO, and programme monitoring were the contributing factors with the precision by 58.40% (0.584) on the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, precision by 43% (0.43) on performing social behavior in line with societal values, precision by 55.50% (0.555) on the ability of self-regulating, precision by 38% (0.38) on the ability to deal with life obstacles. Interview Analysis: A. The Problems of Street Children Resocialization Programme From the problems faced in implementing the street children resocialization programme at open houses, the respondents of interview gave quite different perspectives. The answer stated by administrator 1 was following here: The main problem we faced in this street children resocialization programme was the environment of street children that was less conducive and supporting, the internal factor of their family which was underprivileged and the lack of tutor to guide the street children. EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 191 The example of answer stated by facilitator 2 was following here: The main problem we faced in this street children resocialization programme was the limited learning facility accessibility, the low interest of programme participants in following the activities at open houses and the lack of tutor. The example of answer stated by street children 1 in interview was following here: Sometimes it was boring and stressful so we still followed our friends to walk around or hang out while drinking alcohol, sometimes our older friends forced us to earn money by singing at the street. B. Recommendation of Street Children Resocialization Programme Improvement The respondents of interview gave quite different recommendation to deal with the problems in street children resocialization programme. The answer stated by administrator 1 in the interview was following here: First, developing parents or other family guardian, such as giving the capital for business or giving training of various necessary skills, so that they might have business and got out of the poverty. Second, increasing the cooperation among various parties, especially university and social department to add more tutor. The example of answer stated by facilitator 2 was following here: First was the increase of cooperation with responsible parties in the problem of street children service. Second was the activities at open houses should be more activated and improved, and also more varied with recreation and art creativity activities. Third was guiding and learning were done based on the condition of street children, did not do learning at the time that was impossible for the street children. The example of answer stated by street children 2 was following here: “The activities should be more interesting and varied and based on our needs”. Table 5 showed the observation result about facilities and infrastructure. All open houses (100%) had activity room, bedroom, kitchen, toilet and cloth-drying area. Three (60%) open houses had room for saving the goods of street children and playground. From the basic furniture aspect, five open houses (100%) had adequate chair, table and cupboard. From the basic supporting instruments, five open houses (100%) had kitchen utensils, cleaning devices, four open houses (80%) had bathing devices and three open houses (60%) had playing instruments. DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 192 Table 5: The Observation Analysis of Facility and Infrastructure Accessibility Facility and Infrastructure Accessibility Document Available No document Number Percentage Number Percentage Activity room Bedroom Goods saving room Kitchen Toilet Playground Cloth-drying area Basic furniture: i) Chair ii) Table iii) Cupboard Supporting instruments: i) Kitchen utensils ii) Cleaning devices iii) Bathing devices iv) Playing instruments 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 100 100 60 100 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 60 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 Table 6 showed the observation result of learning media which was printed and electronic media. From printed media aspect, all open houses (100%) had textbook and story book. Four open houses (80%) had magazine and picture. From electronic media aspect, four open houses (80%) had television, four open houses (80%) had radio, three open houses (60%) had VCD/ DVD and one open house (20%) had internet access. Table 6: The Observation Analysis of Learning Media Learning Media Document Available No Document Number Percentage Number Percentage Printed Media: i) Textbook ii) Story book iii) Magazine iv) Picture Electronic Media: i) TV ii) VCD/ DVD iii) Radio iv) Internet 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 1 100 100 80 80 80 60 80 20 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 20 20 20 40 20 80 EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 193 Discussion and Conclusion The study finding showed that the curriculum of street children resocialization programme at open houses was done following the guidance from Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia or Ministry of Social Affairs the Republic of Indonesia. The curriculum only contained the core of guiding and learning that would be done. Curriculum should be explained by tutor based on the street children’ needs. Therefore, curriculum must be flexible that might contain the street children’ needs and wants. According to Djudjud Sudjana (1996), non-formal education curriculum, such as street children resocialization programme, should be flexible so that curriculum could fulfill different needs of programme participants. From the facilitators’ skill aspect, it showed that facilitator of open houses Bandung consisted of knowledgeable and skillful facilitators in the field of street children tutoring. Most of tutors (89%) graduated from SMPS (Sekolah Menengah Pekerja Sosial or Junior High School for Social Worker). It was based on UNDP and Depsos RI (United Nations for Development Programme and Ministry of Social Affairs the Republic of Indonesia) that required the minimum education of facilitator at open houses was SMPS graduate. The duty given to facilitator was adequate and in line with practical knowledge they had. But they still needed special and routine training, workshop or seminar to improve tutors’ knowledge and skill. The study finding showed that street children had different background, in which generally they experienced social deviation, either lightly or heavily. Generally, they needed resocialization programme at open houses. According to E.A.S. Dewi (2002), the effort to return their attitude and behavior to social norm was very important to do through resocialization activity. From the facility and infrastructure accessibility aspects, open houses in Bandung had been adequate in minimum level. Hence, Djudju Sudjana (1993) stated that facility and infrastructure accessibility would determine the success of process and output than non-formal education program. If facility and infrastructure accessibility was not adequate, it could surely disturb and lessen the success of non-formal education programme. From learning media aspect, it showed that media (printed and electronic) at open houses in Bandung city had been adequate in minimum level. This finding was in line with the study finding of M. Ishak (2000) showing that learning media was still lacking and needed to be added. The study finding showed that guiding and learning was done through social and mental guidance in which the street children were guided according to their needs. This finding was in line with UNDP and Depsos RI (1997) that in resocialization to street children, the facilitators used the equality and friendship principles. Although they were children, their experience at the street had made them mature. Street children were positioned as subject of the change that had been occurred on them. It was also in line with the approach of A. Bandura (1969) which developed three approaches to change individual or group attitude such as belief-oriented approach, affection-oriented approach and behavior-oriented approach. DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 194 The study finding showed that administrators involved in all levels of street children resocialization programme at open houses. The finding was in line with the finding of E.A.S. Dewi’s study (2004) in which the function of planning, organization, implementation, monitoring and evaluation were very important to be done by administrators if they want street children resocialization programme successful. The involvement of parents was usually by inviting parents and guardian of the children to come to open houses or the responsible people from open houses, usually tutor or administrator, came to the street children parents’ home (home visit). This study supported the study finding of Sulistiati (2001) and Soetarso (2001) showing that the important factor for the success of programme was the involvement of parents in the programme. The street children guiding was not separated from the effort to guide their family. The programme monitoring was very important to ascertain that street children resocialization programme at open houses could be done as what had been planned. Accordingly, Dinas Sosial Provinsi Jawa Barat or West Java Province Social Affairs Institution (2001) stated the importance of programme monitoring in which programme monitoring was the activity to guide and direct the implementer of open houses about daily process and duty either in official administration or service administration. The study finding showed that there was difference of perceptions among administrators, tutors and street children about the good and positive attitude and life philosophy, performing social behavior in line with societal values, the ability of self-regulating, and the ability to deal with life obstacles. It described that there was still any space to make the responsible ones at open houses to improve the quality of street children resocialization programme input and process at open houses. The study finding was quite similar with the finding of E.A.S. Dewi’s study (2004) showing that there was a change in most of street children after following the programme at open houses on their awareness of the importance of education for their future, the growth of self-confidence and their courtesy. Supported by the study finding of M. Ishak (2000) showing that street children who followed the program at open houses were usually able to solve the problems they faced, certainly if they were not able to solve the problems by themselves, the role of parents, relatives, teacher or tutor were needed to help solving the problems they faced. Street children resocialization programme at open houses in Bandung city still faced a lot of problems. The main problems were: first, the limited learning facility accessibility; second, the limited budget available; third, very poor street children family so they forced their children to earn some money; fourth, the lack of facilitator to guide the street children; fifth, the lack of expert who helped solving the problems of street children; and sixth, the follow-up of programme participants’ positioning for the participant who did not have home at all and family, in order not to make them return to the street. Some of these study findings were in line with the finding of E.A.S. Dewi (2004) that the budget for street children guiding was still lacking and still depended on the budget from Departemen Sosial RI or Ministry EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 2(2) 2010 195 of Social Affairs the Republic of Indonesia, there was still no budget from regional government. In Bandung city, the budget to handle the street children was still low. Hence, A.N. Sugiarta (2002) also stated his study finding that there were a lot of street children resocialization programme that had been implemented, but from human resources and facility and infrastructure accessibility, it was not prepared optimally so that the program did not run smoothly. From the main problems faced, some recommendations were suggested: first, increasing the cooperation with various parties than government institution, NGO, group and individual that were allowed to help in completing the facility accessibility and budgeting for the street children resocialization programme at open houses. Second, developing parents or other guardian, such as giving them capital for business or giving training of various needed skill, so that they could try to have business and got out of the poverty and did not ask their children to earn for money at the street. Third, increasing the cooperation with various responsible parties, especially university and Dinas Sosial Kota/Provinsi (City/Province Social Affairs Institution) to add more tutor and expert. Fourth, increasing the cooperation with transit house and orphanage to send the programme participant after completely following the program at open house. References Amir Hasan. (2002). Penteorian Sosiologi dan Pendidikan. Tanjong Malim: Quantum Books. Bandura, A. (1969). The Social Learning of Deviant Behavior: A Behavioristic Approach to Socialization. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Watson. Bogdan, R.C. & S.K. Biklen. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia]. (1999a). Pedoman Penyelenggaraan Pembinaan Anak Jalanan Melalui Rumah Singgah. Jakarta: Depsos RI. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia]. (1999b). Petunjuk Teknis dan Pelaksanaan Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak Terlantar. Jakarta: Direktorat KAKLU. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia]. (1999c). Petunjuk Teknis dan Pelaksanaan Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak Jalanan. Jakarta: Direktorat KAKLU. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia]. (1999d). Pedoman Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak Dini Usia. Jakarta: Direktorat KAKLU. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia] & YKAI [Yayasan Kesejahteraan Anak Indonesia]. (1999). Modul Pelatihan Pemberdayaan Anak Jalanan Melalui Rumah Singgah. Jakarta: Depsos RI – YKAI. Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia] & ADB [Asian Development Bank]. (1999). Citra Anak Indonesia. Jakarta: Depsos RI. Dewi, E.A.S. (2004). ”Efektivitas Manajemen Sistem Pembinaan Anak Jalanan di Kota Bandung”. Unpublished Master Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Dinas Sosial Kota Bandung. (2006). Data Perkembangan Anak Jalanan di Kota Bandung. Bandung: Dinas Sosial Kota Bandung. DIDIN SARIPUDIN, Resocialization Programme Evaluation of Street Children at Open House 196 Dinas Sosial Provinsi Jawa Barat. (2001). “Pelayanan Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak Terlantar dan Anak Jalanan di Jawa Barat”. Prosiding Seminar Pengentasan Anak Jalanan dan Anaka Terlantar di Jawa Barat. Ertanto, Kirik. (2003). “Anak Jalanan dan Subkultur: Sebuah Pemikiran Awal”. Available online at http://www.kunci.or.id/esai/misc/kirik_anak.htm [accessed at Bandung: 5 January 2007]. Horton, P.B. & C.L. Hunt. (1984). Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ishak, M. (2000). ”Perkembangan Model Program Pendidikan Taruna Mandiri: Studi Terfokus pada Kehidupan Anak-anak Jalanan di Bandung”. Unpublished Doctor Dissertation. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Newspaper of Suara Karya. Jakarta: 27 Nopember 2006. Saripudin, Didin. (2005). Mobilitas dan Perubahan Sosial. Bandung: Masagi Foundation. Silva, T.L. (1996). “Community Mobilization for the Protection and Rehabilitation of Street Children” in Proceedings International Conference on Street Children, pp.5-18. Soetarso. (2001). ”Pendekatan Keluarga dalam Pengentasan Anak Jalanan dan Anak Terlantar di Jawa Barat”. Paper presented at Seminar Pengentasan Anak Jalanan dan Anak Terlantar di Jawa Barat, Anjuran Dinas Sosial Propinsi Jawa Barat. Bandung: 9-10 September. Stufflebeam, D.L. (1971). “The Relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for Educational Accountability” in Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5(1), pp.19-25. Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Sudjana, Djudju. (1993). Strategi Pembelajaran dalam Pendidikan Non Formal. Bandung: Nusantara Press. Sudjana, Djudju. (1996). Pendidikan Non Formal: Wawasan Sejarah Perkembangan Falsafah dan Teori Pendukung Asas. Bandung: Nusantara Press. Sudrajat, T. (1998). ”Rumah Singgah Anak Jalanan: Suatu Praktek Pekerjaan Sosial”. Paper presented at Kongres dan Seminar Pekerja Sosial Profesional, Anjuran Departemen Sosial RI. Jakarta: 20-23 October. Sugiarta, A.N. (2002). ”Profil Rumah Singgah dalam Menyiapkan Anak Jalanan yang Produktif dan Mandiri”. Unpublished Master Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Sulistiati. (2001). ”Model Pendekatan Terpadu untuk Memecahkan Masalah Anak Rawan”. Unpublished Doctor Dissertation. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. UNDP [United Nations for Development Programme] & Depsos RI [Departemen Sosial Republik Indonesia]. (1997). Pedoman Penyelenggaraan Rumah Singgah: Program Uji Coba Anak Jalanan di 7 Provinsi di Indonesia. Jakarta:UNDP – Depsos RI. UNICEF [United Nations for International Children, Education and Fund]. (1997). “International Child Health” in A Digest of Current Information, VIII(1).