WIDTECH PROJECT EXPANDING ADVOCACY FOR GIRLS' EDUCATION IN UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA USAID CONTRACT # PAO-0100-0-06-600600 Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) - Prime Contractor; Academy for Educational Development (AED) - Sub-contractor EVALUATION OF USAID-FUNDED GIRLS' EDUCATION ACTIVITY Evaluators: Seema Agarwal-Harding (U.S. consultant) Dayaram (Indian consultant) Submitted by L.T. ASSOCIATES, INC. 1825 Eye Street, NW, suite 400 Washington DC, 20006 June 20,2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................ 4 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................... 7 I.- INTRODUCTION LA.. Background and Purpose of the Evaluation ............................................. 8 I.B.. The Tasks of the Evaluation ................................................................ 9 LC.. Evaluation Methodology ................................................................ 9 11.- FINDINGS 1I.A.. Description of Project Activities and Achievements ........................... 11 1I.A. 1 . Major Activities and Results ........................................................ 11 II.A.2.. Private Sector School Study ..................................................... 16 II.A.3.. Collaboration with the DIETS ..................................................... 17 II.A.4.. Cooperation with Janshala ..................................................... 18 II.A.5.. Partnership with CRS-CARE for ECDC ........................................ 19 II.A.6.. Website and Resource Center ..................................................... 20 Comments on Project Effectiveness and Quality of Deliverables .......... 22 Implementation Delays .............................................................. 22 Limited Management Effectiveness and Efficiency 22 Different Perceptions of BETI's Vision and Priorities. and Mismatch between BETl's Concept and Reality ................................ 23 BETI's Comparative Advantage and Sustainability ............................. 25 BETI's Business Plan ............................................................... 26 Limited O.D. Experience and Training While Designing BET1 ............... 27 Ambiguity in Roles and Responsibilities of Implementing Partners .......... 28 111.- RECOMMENDATIONS 1II.A.. Creating an Operational Distinction between DAIIAEDIL and BET1 ........ 30 1II.B.- Strengthening BETI's Technical and Managerial Leadership and In-house Technical Expertise ................................................. 30 1II.C.- Holding roundtables on BETI's Vision, Priorities, and Program Linkages ............................................................... 31 1II.D.. Improving the Quality and Timeliness of Project Deliverables ................ 31 1V.- CONCLUSIONS 1V.A.. Lessons Learned ..................................................................... 33 1V.B.. Unresolved Issues .................................................................... 33 APPENDICES Appendix 1 : List of Persons Interviewed ................................................ 36 Appendix 2: Interview Schedule ......................................................... 37 Appendix 3: Interview Guide .............................................................. 39 Appendix 4: List of Documents Reviewed ............................................. 41 Appendix 5: BETI's Institutional Structures and Organizational Chart .............. 42 Appendix 6: Snippets from the Files as Provided by AEDIL ......................... 44 Appendix 7: BETI's Work Areas ......................................................... 45 Appendix 8: Organizational Structure Proposed at the Self-Evaluation Workshop in Lucknow ................................................... 47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Puroose. An evaluation of the USAID India-supported Girls' Education project -Expanding Advocacy for Girls'Education in U.P. - was conducted May 12 - June 5,2001 in Delhi and Lucknow in India. The project is implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) as prime contractor, and the Academy for Educational Development (AED) as sub-contractor, covering the period October 1, 1998, through March 31,2001. USAID India engaged L.T.Associates, Inc. (LTA) to provide an independent expatriate evaluator, and directly engaged a local evaluator, to assess the program in the third year of its implementation. The Girls' Education Activity is an element of the USAID Mission's Strategic Objective # 9, which aims at expanding advocacy and service-delivery networks for women and girls. The Activity has three main elements: To support greater coordination and cross-fertilization of activities that promote girls' education in Uttar Pradesh state ; To establish a girls' education coordination center to serve as a clearing house for policies, research, training, and information in the area of girls' education; and To strengthen the capacity of public and private institutions and other stakeholders in support of girls' education in Uttar Pradesh. DAUAEDL has prepared a three-year work plan to implement the Activity, of which the development of the girls' education coordination center (to be named as Better Education Through Innovation Foundation, BETI) is the center-piece. This center was to be a catalyst, not an implementing agency, whose role was to support the other two elements. It was conceived as a clearinghouse for information as well as a "center of excellence" in policy dialogue, research, advocacy, training, capacity-building, and alliance-building in support of girls' education in U.P. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess progress in the implementation of the DAIJAED work plan with a view to providing USAID India with factual information on the relevance and impact of the BET1 Foundation on girls' education in U.P. Specifically the evaluators were asked to: 1) Examine (a) the contractor's effectiveness in implementing the activities, laid out in the work plan; @) the extent of stakeholder participation, in identifying and conducting research as well as training projects; (c) the quality control mechanisms that exist in DAI/AED/BETI, and the quality of project deliverables; (d) the contractor's effectiveness in support of the center with respect to management structures, efficiency, and timeliness. 2) Assess (a) the adequacy and appropriateness of institutional structures, such as the Board of Trustees, Steering Committee, and Technical Advisory Groups; (b) the extent of DAUAED support in setting up BETI's institutional bodies, and follow-up on recommendations by BET1 management; (c) BETI's comparative advantage and sustainability; (d) BETI's business plan for its attention to self reliance and growth. 3) Make recommendations for improving efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The evaluation was conducted in a spirit of constructive learning, and involved self-evaluation, collective thinking, review of relevant documents, and key informant interviews. Findin~s. Although the project was initiated in October 1998, the bulk of the work has been undertaken since September 1999, and, while there are notable achievements especially during the last six months, the results and quality are short of those intended in the DAI/AED/L work plan. With regard to achievements, the most notable project activities and outputs were the following: 1. BETI's set-up as a Trust and its launching ceremony was well organized and publicized; 2. a study of private sector schools; 3. classroom-based PLMRA gender training for Bahraich DIET teachers; 4. the BET1 website 5. participation in the framing of the education policy of the state of U.P. There are also some promising joint ventures between BET1 and such partners as CARE and CRS (an early childhood development effort), the Janshala project (community mobilization in two urban wards of Lucknow), and AEDIW and CISCO (the piloting of a gender module on IT). However, in terms of the quality and timeliness of deliverables, there remains much to be desired. Serious implementation delays have occurred throughout the project. There are complaints that it is heavily dependent on external technical assistance and that the cumbersome approval arrangements prevent quick responses. A lack of agreement on BETI's functions and priorities and inadequate understanding of the prerequisites for setting up a girls' education coordination center stem from the project implementation team's limited organizational development expertise. Unclear roles and responsibilities for key project staff in leadership, management, and decision￾making have led to poor managerial efficiency and effectiveness. Concerns were also directed at the organizational capabilities of the center, with much of the decision-making power centralized at the top; inadequate level of in-house technical expertise; and with poor utilization of participatory processes limiting professional and stakeholder inputs, and programmatic linkages with partners in the field. BETI's current set-up was seen as a major impediment. Indeed, while BET1 exists on paper as an independent entity with its own board of trustees and corporate officers, in reality its structures and operations are not distinct from the AEDIL office and its personnel. Nor does the entity command a separate budget or dispose of an appropriate corporate strategic plan and effective organizational structure and management systems. Thus, despite unanimous agreement on the need for a girls' education coordination center and high regard for the current director of the DAVAEDIL office with respect to her commitment, social standing, and connections, BET1 is perceived as having a limited ability to fulfill its program goals and objectives. The general view is that for BET1 to become a "center of excellence," an effective body for "coordination and cross-fertilization," a "clearing house for policy, research, advocacy, training, and alliance-building," and a "catalyst rather than an implementing agency," the center should follow certain key guidelines of democratic governance and quality assurance: A BET1 should have strong, independent technical and managerial leadership as distinct from the DAIIAEDIL office; B The Chair of BETI's Board of Trustees should not also be the BETI's Executive - Director: C BETI's management style should follow democratic principles, encouraging broad￾based participation and transparency in decisionmaking; D BET1 Hhoulddevelop a technically &ong in-house capability and staff with a proven record in innovative work on girls' education in India and elsewhere; E BET1 should set clear objectives, and pursue a strategic plan if it is to meet its overall goals; and F BETI's sustainability is contingent upon its capacity to elicit its own funding independent from the AED contract; appropriate institutional and organizational structures and systems; strategic business planning processes; and strong in-house program leadership to define priorities and mobilize commitment and support to achieve them. Recommendations. TO bridge the gap between the concept and the reality of BET1 as a girls' education coordination center for U.P., the evaluators recommend the following: 11.- Separating BET1 and the AEDIL Office: A distinction between DAUAEDIL and BETI, organizationally as well as in its functions, will help clarify roles, identify appropriate staff needs, and.build the foundation for the future growth and development of BET1 within a supportive framework. 2.- Leadership and staffing: BETI's future evolution should be guided by strong technical leadership through the separation of the function of Chairperson from the Executive Director and Treasurer. Both these persons should be carefully selected, strong conceptually as well as managerially, independent, and focused. BETI's in-house expertise should be strengthened in an orderly way according to a clear set of agreed priorities. 3. Roundtables: Professionally facilitated roundtables (using local experts to the extent possible) would ensure the focused participation of present and potential partners, key selected beneficiaries and professional staff in defining the development strategy and setting for BET1 to fulfill its mission, allowing it to become an effective and efficient organization and, later, an institution to be valued in its own right. The remaining few months of the project should be utilized to initiate the process of BET1 separation from DAUAEDIL. Competent institutionaWorganizationa1 development specialists might assist DAYAED in building BETI's organizational and institutional capabilities, allowing BETI to play the coordinating and catalytic role envisioned for it from the beginning. The BET1 idea is undeniably pertinent, and the experience so far encouraging. Although the project is currently facing some fundamental problems, its achievements to date indicate that the vision is worth sUpporting. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AED BET1 BRC CARE CREDA CRS CSO CTO cv DAI DIET DPEP ECD ECE ECCE ECDC ED ESC GECC GO1 GOUP ICDS IR IT MS NFE NGO NF'RC OD OP PWPLA R4 RF RG SO SOW SCERT SIEMAT SUDA TAG-A TAG-R TAG-T TLM UP UNICEF USAID VEC WIDTECH Academy for Educational Development (Center for) Better Education Through Innovation Block Resource Center Center for American Relief Everywhere Center for Rural Education and Development Action Catholic Relief Services Civil Society Organization Chief Technical Officer Curriculum Vitae Development Alternatives, Inc. District Institute of Educational Training District Primary Education Program Early Childhood Development Early Childhood Education Early Child Care & Education Early Childhood Development Center Executive Director Executive Steering Committee Girls' Education Coordination Committee Government of India Government of Uttar Pradesh Integrated Child Development Service Intermediate Result Information Technology Mahila Samakhya Non-Formal Education Non-Governmental Organization Urban Ward Education Committee Organizational Development Operating Partner Participatory Rapid Appraisal1 Participatory Learning Appraisal Results Report and Resources Request Results Framework Resource Group Strategic Objective Scope of Work State Council for Education Research and Training State Institute of Educational Management and Training Urban Development Agency Technical Advisory Group - Advocacy Technical Advisory Group - Research Technical Advisory Group - Training Teaching-Learning Materials State of Uttar Pradesh United Nations Children's Fund United States Agency for International Development Village Education Committee Women in Development Technology I.- INTRODUCTION An evaluation of the USAID India-supported GirlsYEducation Activity was conducted May 12 - June 8,2001, in Delhi and Lucknow. The project is implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) as prime contractor and the Academy for Educational Development (AED) as sub￾contractor, covering the period of October 1,1998, through March 3 1,2001. USAID India engaged L.T. Associates, Inc. (LTA) to provide an independent expatriate evaluator, and directly hired a local evaluator, to assess the program in the third year of its implementation. 1.A.- Background and Purpose of the Evaluation The Girls' Education Activity is an element of the USAID Mission's Strategic Objective # 9, which aims at expanding advocacy and service-delivery networks for women and girls. The activity has three main objectives: a To support greater coordination and cross-fertilization of activities that promote girls'education in Uttar Pradesh state; 0 To establish a girls'education coordination center to serve as a clearing house for research, policy studies, training, and information on girls' education; and To strengthen the capacity of public and private institutions and stakeholders to support girls' education in Uttar Pradesh. The state of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) was selected for several reasons. First, the state exhibited extremely high gender gaps in child survival, schooling, literacy, and other relevant areas; and the gender gap in literacy was one of the highest in the world. Second, few donors were assisting girls' education in U.P. at the time the project was started. Third, USAID has other, related investments in place in the state, e.g., a women's reproductive health program. From its inception, the girls' education coordination center was seen as a catalyst rather than an implementing agency. It was conceived as a coordinating body that would serve as a clearing house for critical discussion and the dissemination of information on relevant program interventions, and it was intended that the center would initiate policy dialogue, research, advocacy, training, capacity development, and alliance-building with regard to girls' education in U.P. A three-year work plan was prepared by DAIIAED, and revised later with the approval of USAID, to implement the project, focusing essentially on establishing and building the organizational capacity of the girls' education center. The work plan included three principal elements: 0 Strengthening the capacity of institutions like the District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETS) and the State Institute of Education, Management and Training (SIEMAT) in Uttar Pradcsh to improve girls' education; Strengthening the capacity of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and its operating partners; and Establishing a girls' education coordination center, now named Better Education Through Innovation Foundation (BETI). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess progress achieved to date in the implementation of the DAUAED work plan with a view to providing USAIDAndia with factual information on the relevance and impact of the BET1 Foundation so that the Mission can decide on further effort to support this activity. 1.B.- The Tasks of the Evaluation More specifically, the evaluators were asked to examine and assess the following: 1) Examine (a) the contractor's effectiveness in implementing the activities in the work plan; (b) the extent of stakeholder participation in identifying and conducting research and training; (c) the contractor's effectiveness in supporting the center with respect to management structures, efficiency, and timeliness, and (d) BETI's business plan for its attention to self-reliance, growth, and sustainability. 2) Assess (a) the relevance and impact of the BET1 Center and its activities; (b) the quality control mechanisms of DAI, AED, and BETI, the quality of project deliverables, and the relevance of the deliverables to the overall goal and project objectives; (c)the comparative advantage of BET1 and its potential for sustainability; (d) the adequacy, functioning, and appropriateness of institutional structures such as the Board of Trustees, Steering Committee, and Technical Advisory Groups (TAGS) for purposes of serving BETI's mandate; and (e) the support from DAUAED in setting up BETI's institutional bodies, BET1 management's guidance for these bodies and follow-up on recommendations. The evaluators were also asked to make recommendations on improvements relating to project efficiency, impact, and sustainability. During USAID India's initial briefings of the consultants, the critical issue of the evaluators' independence was raised. The Mission stressed that findings should not be biased, and made it clear that the consultants had been selected based on their "indevendent standing" and technical strength in the fields of girls' education and organizational deveiopment. It was-noted that the project was developed with limited resources, that there had been concern from the outset at the - - limited technical leadership for the project, and that the project design forced BET1 to operate as a contractor, rather than a grantee. The evaluators were told they should feel free to question the assumptions behind the project, the entire arrangement with GiWID and DAI, and the contractor's degree of success in "helping to create a corporation." 1.C.- Evaluation Methodology This evaluation was conducted in a spirit of collaboration and open-mindedness involving review of relevant documents, interviews with key players, group self-evaluation, and critical discussion. Participants were frank and helpful. The evaluation team consisted of Dr. Seema Aganval-Harding (U.S. consultant) and Mr. Dayaram (local consultant). Following a two-day review in Washington by Dr. Aganval-Harding of relevant documents ~rovided bv USAID/India and AEDIW the team svent three days in Delhi at the USAID office , undergoing briefings, reviewing files and project implementation records, and conducting preliminary interviews. Five days were spent in Lucknow in the local AED office, where a three￾hay self-e;aluation workshop was held with the full participation of the AED staff and the USAID/ Project CTO. While in Lucknow, several interviews were held with primary stakeholders and key participants. Individual interviews with stakeholders, implementation partners, members of BETI's Board of Trustees. Steering - Committee members, and TAG members helped the evaluation team to determine the project's implementation experience to date. The self-evaluation workshop conducted in Lucknow with AEDILBETI staff provided insights into the day-to-day workings of the BET1 Foundation. Upon return to Delhi, two days were spent debriefing USAIDiIndia staff, while additional key informant interviews were also held. An oral presentation was made at the USAID office on May 31,2001; another on June 6, to a larger audience. A draft version of the evaluation report was submitted by the evaluators to USAIDAndia before the departure of the U.S. evaluator on June 8. Written comments on the draft from USAIDAndia were received on June 12, subsequent to which the report was finalized by the two evaluators and the contractor, L.T. Associates, Inc. A list of persons interviewed is provided in Auvendix 1 along with an interview schedule and interview guide in Avuendices 2 and 3. The list of documents consulted is given in Appendix 4. 11.- FINDINGS Section A presents a description of the project's overall performance to date. Specific comments on the problems and constraints encountered in building BET1 into an effective organization are presented in Section B. 11. A.-Description of Project Activities and Achievements With support from DAYAEDIL, the BET1 Foundation was established as a Trust in March 2000, and following a well-publicized launching ceremony in April 2000 the agency has been involved in a number of training and outreach activities, the majority of which were undertaken during the last six months. Key dates related to the establishment and functioning of BET1 are indicated below. Tables 1.1 .to 1.5 provide more details on the major activities conducted and results achieved; they are followed by detailed descriptions of some on-going outreach efforts. II.A.1.- Maior Activities and Results Table 1.1.- Kev Dates related to BETI's Establishment & Activities September 1998: December 1998: July 1999: August 1999: December 1999: January 2000: March 2000: New contract signed between USAIDIIndia and DAIIAED under WIDTECH. DAIIAED developed work plan for October 1, 1998, through March 31,2001. Sehba Hussain was hired as Project Director and AED office was set up in Lucknow. Roundtable held to identify BETI's mission and functions Private Sector School Study recommended by CRS. New USAIDICTO for the girls'education project was hired; work plan revised. Private Sector School Study approved. Presentation by a consultant on alternative legal status for BETI; USAID Project CTO's minutes recorded the consultant's intent to submit a proposed organizational structure for BET1 with four separate committees with clearly defined functions; the proposal was never received. Establishment of BET1 as a Trust with Deeds and By-laws by MsSehba Hussain and Dr. Kamal Gulati. Ms. Hussain was designated as Chair and Dr. Gulati as Secretary of the Trust. April 2000: July 2000: September 2000: November 2000: January 200 1 : March 200 1 : April/May 2001: First TAG-R meeting held. Spectacular Launching of BETI. AEDIL submitted first draft proposal for the DIETs. AEDIL's official letter on the DIETs sent to GOUP. First meeting of the Steering Committee held. BET1 website launched with databases available online. Approval for the DIET activity received. Mahakumbh mela attended by BETI. PLA activity held in the Baharaich DIET. Private Sector School Study completed. Appendix 5 provides the names of BETI's institutional structures and their members, and its organizational chart. An organizational framework proposed by participants at the self-evaluation - - . - workshop in Lucknow is presented in Appendix 8. Table 1.2 below presents the project activities in terms of the S09lIR3 indicators. Table 1-2.- S09lIR3 Results Framework and Related Indicators independent, autonomous, girls' education coordination center in 1 NGO (Vigyan in -govt. organizations Lucknow) working on 2 CBOs attend a meeting of religious leaders in Allahabad 112001 BET1 participates in state printed materials during BET1 launch (4-512000) Press conference held at 3-4 news articles 1-2/2001 PLA handbook and gender mapping fact sheet being used by DIET activity and Janshala Visits and meetings in 2 other DIETS Materials provided to Bahraich DIET 5000 children asked to participate in exhibition of children's work Private school study provides information on schools and children, and on regulations regarding recognition of private schools Table 1.3 below represents a summary of the perceived results of the project after three years of implementation, as they relate to the three stated objectives of the project. Table 1-3.- Proiect Obiectives and Results Achieved Stated Objectives of the Project Support greater coordination and cross￾fertilization with activities in support of girls' :ducation Establish a center to serve as a clearing house on policies, research, training, materials, and information on girls' education Strengthen the capacity of public and private institutions, and stakeholders in support of girls' education in U.P. Perceived Results after three years Coordination with CARE, CRS, Janshala, and selected DIETS in U.P. has begun. Despite a slow start, there are reasonably good indications that this will continue, provided BETI's technical input is valued. Efforts to design strategies that may lead to cross-fertilization are also underway. BETI's current organizational structure inhibits effective coordination. BET1 is beginning to set up a resource base in materials and a website. However, the quality of the website as well as the resource center are below expectations. BETI's capacity to conduct policy research and to influence policy is still limited. BET1 is beginning to be seen and used as a resource for gender training, and it is expected that its performance will improve and that it may continue to be useful in this regard. BET1 was supposed to identify an institution and strengthen its capacity to advance girls' education. SIEMAT and Mahila Samakhya were identified as two likely institutions, but no concrete progress has been made, as reported by project team. Further, as a young organization with limited capacity and credibility, BET1 is not yet accepted as an entity which can strengthen the capacity of other institutions. Note: Information for this table was collected by the team at a self-evaluation workshop held in Lucknow during May 22- 24,2001. Table 1.4 gives detail about BETI's major activities and achievements Table 1-4.- DAIIAEDIL and BET1 Maior Achievements to date Achievements highlighted by AEDL Launch + Kumbh Mela festival (Launch: April - May 2000; Kumbh Me1a:Febmary 2001) Private School Study (Dec. 1999 - June 2001) Collaboration with DIETS (December 2000) Indicators Media coverage, forging partnerships with journalists, launch event Exercise Report, Study Report, Tool for private school recognition Fact sheet on gender mapping, data collection format, presentation at district level using primary and secondary data Results Interest in the issue of girls' education demonstrated by newspaper articles JunelJuly 2000 as well as participation involving 38 schools, 350 teachers and 5000 entries of displays by school-children. 3-4 schools now working with neighboring schools / communities + 2 madarsas Information was collected from a fairly large sample in a new, important area not yet well understood or supported Information obtained on girls' education included malelfemale ratios and degree of community support Information was obtained on how many schools are recognized/unrecognized and on regularization of private schools Information dissemination is planned for June 2001 Research may contribute to policy discussions (but this is seen as unlikely given BETI's present style of operations with stakeholders and GOUP). Credibility built and relationships forged with DIET staff a BET1 invited back by Bahraich DIET, which asked for more training Institutional development plan was requested for gender component of teachers' in-service training. Senior Lecturer at Bahraich DIET made oral request to BET1 staff Bahraich Mela advocacy table provided free by Baharaich DIET BET1 invited to attend monthly administrative meetings at a block where all clusters come. These meetings discuss school support issues, including matters affecting girls'education a One BET1 manager physically provided the DIET with learning materials due to come from the DPEP but whose distribution had been delayed. 4. PLA Workshop (February 2001' Tool kit in English and Hindi; Workshop report; BRC/NPRC training for 25 people 5. Social mapping in 2 educational wards of urban Lucknow (sample 20%); Information booklet on Janshala training material; 900 community group members training Janshala (since January 200 1, under BET1 umbrella) 8 Training reached 10 people (6 teachers and 4 trainers/coordinators from 2 schools) 28 persons from DIETS, State Office underwent concept training, March 20-22 8 Intensive orientation of these people planned for 7 days in July in one district so they can become master trainers; this training will be conducted by three BET1 staff Training planned for 44 schools in 2 blocks in each of 3 districts, including urban areas (NPRC); There is satisfaction that PLA is being done in schools, including those in urban areas, where it was not done before. 8 Ward Resource Centers are finally getting established after dialogue 8 Community now provides water (BETI provided list of schools with no toilets or water to State Director of Urban Development) Finding solutions for anganwadi workers - where there are no anganwadi workers 8 School Education Committees, MTA, and PTAs are being formed; didn't exist in urban areas earlier. Details on each activity are indicated in Appendix 6 and described below. BETI's work areas are presented in Avvendix 7. I.A.2.- Private Sector School Study The purpose of the study was to understand the different dimensions of the private schooling system, especially supply-side issues at the primary and upper-primary levels. Schools surveyed are primarily those in a selected area of Lucknow. The study treated the following: Physical infrastructure (buildings and essential facilities) Management, especially recognition and operation Teaching-learning process; teaching methods and instructional aid Community support and parent-teacher interaction Profiles of children attending the schools Teachers' backgrounds - gender, numbers, training, experience, salary, etc. The study was exploratory, and descriptive rather than analytical. Basic data were collected through a questionnaire in Hindi. All types of non-governmental schools were lumped together as "private school." Madarsas and Makhtabs of their very nature needed special and separate attention. The decision to conduct a Private Sector School Study was the outcome of a consultative process. The study was initially proposed by CRS and received endorsement by other partners. It was commissioned before the Technical Advisory Group on Research (TAG-R) was constituted. TAG￾R was not involved in finalizing the study's scope, and TAG-R had no say in the selection of the researcher. The Study was commissioned in December 1999 and was to be completed by March 2000, before the launch of BETI. However, the study was not finished until March 2001. This excessive delay is viewed by many as due to the weak technical expertise available within BETI, which affected its ability to conceptualize and carry out the study. The final version of the study was drafted by someone not associated with the study at any stage, and it appears that much of the true flavor of the study was lost in its translation into English. Some TAG-R members felt that the research design could have been different, that they were not consulted adequately in the study's design or implementation, and that the views they did express were not incorporated into the design. Despite these limitations, the study can be seen as significant. It is the first study of private schools in U.P. It generated information about private sector educational facilities through interactions with teachers and school managers. It has brought to the fore important issues. The study's most important conclusion is that, even at the primary stage, private schools play an important role in children's education in U.P. Since a highly competent TAG-R now exists under the BET1 umbrella, TAG-R membership can play a much more proactive role in all aspects of future BET1 research efforts. 1.A 3.- Collaboration with the DIETs Strengthening the capacities of the DIETs is one of the key elements of the AEDIL work plan for BETI, and a good deal of activity is occurring in this regard. The GOUP, which has been working on a previous project involving DIET Rae-Bareilly, is now cooperating with BET1 on work with three new DIETs. This follows a period of negotiations that was prolonged both because of a delay in sending a formal communication to the GOUP/DPEP and of the late start of DPEP work with the DIETs. BETI has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DPEPiUP for work involving the three DIETS of Bahraich, Hapur (Ghaziabad) and Jaunpur. According to the MOU, BET1 will assist the DIETS, BRCs, NPRCs, and VECs in their planned interventions with technical assistance for qualitative institutional capacity development, and with special emphasis on enhancing advocacy and technical support for girls' access, retention and achievement in schools. Work with the Bahraich DIET started recently after the appointment of a field coordinator; in the other two DIETs, coordinators are yet to be appointed. Field Testing of the PLA toolkit in Bahraich has taken place with students, teachers and DIET faculty members. Gender sensitization activities will be undertaken with teachers in selected clusters during the month of June 2001. An approach paper on this has been developed by BETI's part-time Training Coordinator. The following table provides a summary of BETI's planned work with selected DIETs in U.P. District Block Bahraich Mihinpurwa 1 I I I Garh 1 Jaunpur / Barsathi Machhli￾shahar 4 Districts 6 Blocks I I NYaYa Panchayat Vishwanath￾gaon Shikari -Chaura Gandu Nagla Dehrarampur Gothaon Rampur - Kalan 6 clusters No. of No. of Students Schools B G T 06 1231 654 1885 - - No. M 10 16 ers - - T 13 - 18 While BET1 staff and consultants are putting forward their best efforts in providing innovative and much needed PWLA training to selected DIETs, the view of the GOUP and other local stakeholders is that much of the work that was done under the Rae-Bareilly project could be utilized well under this activity. BET1 should review the work previously with DIET Rae-Bareilly to leam from that experience and find out what could be adopted for use in the other DIETs. I.A.4.- Cooperation with Janshala BET1 has been selected as the lead coordinating agency for the Janshala Project for two wards in urban Lucknow. This collaboration is governed by an MOU, already signed. Laxmi and SEWA, two other NGOs in Lucknow, have been identified by SCERT for Hazratganj and Saadatganj Wards, respectively. The work involves preparation of maps and the identification of clusters and civil wards with the help of Nagar Nigam and the Department of Education. A total of 33 schools (3 1 primary and two upper primary) are covered from the 148 Mohallas and two municipal wards. The social mapping being done involves resource mapping, Venn diagrams, timelines, seasonality, focus group discussions with teachers, community members and parents, interviews with teachers, and the provision of additional information by Sector Wardens. Results of the social mapping have been shared with such relevant entities as the Department of Basic Education, SUDA, ICDS, Nagar Nigam, the DIETS and DPEP. In meetings with the Director of SUDA, the Director of ICDS, the Secretary of Women and Child Development, the Chief Warden for Civil Defence, and officials from U.P. Jal Nigam, full collaboration and support have been assured specifically regarding the following: - Infrastructure improvement (water supply, toilets, etc.); - Community Centres to double up as schools where need exists: - Early childhood Education - ~dditional registration in the existing Aganwadi Centres; services attached to schools; some new centers. Community support was assured for: - Formation of School Education Committee for 5 schools where orientation has taken place - Dialogue on location/construction of WRC - Parent-Teacher meetings twice per year at each school level - Solutions for day-to-day problems (e.g., cleaning of toilets, temporary arrangement for storage of drinking water) by the School Education Committee/Community - Mobilisation for education in the catchment of Saadatganj school by the Committee under the leadership of an active Maulavi - Identification of space for establishing an Alternative Education Center for working children Proposed activities for the current quarter are: - Networking workshops for School Management Systems - Preparation of Ward Education Plans - "Utsavas" for environment building to help increase enrollment in both the wards - Selection of "Bal Mitras" for remedial learning and alternative schooling based on the Pratham (Mumbai) model - 10 units in each ward (total for the year - 25 units per ward). I.A.5.- Partnershia with CRS and CARE for ECDC Pre-schooling is considered critical not only to retain children longer in school but also because it allows many girls to attend school who would otherwise be left at home to take care of younger siblings while their parents are working. CRS has been supporting partners in the area of ECDC. CARE is also working to strengthen ECDC programs that permit girls to be released to attend school. The major challenge for the ECDC program has been to secure community acceptance for pre-schools. At the same time, those parents who do want pre-schooling also want the 3Rs to be taught from the pre-school years. Both CRS and CARE have expressed a need for additional support in this area. In one ward of Lucknow city, BET1 has begun work in ECDC along with CRS and CARE. In an attempt to collaborate, the following activities have been planned by BET1 in support of CRS and CARE: Capacity building for participatory action research on child care in pre-primary and feeding programs; addressing gender differences in program access, services and impacts; assessing constraints on, and opportunities for, enhancing the impact of child care feeding programs on girls' education. Technical assistance for identifying the poorest and neediest at the village level in dialogue with community organizations, OPs, NGOs, and CSOs, with an emphasis on community action and convergence of services, e.g., child care, with a focus on girls. Formulation of action plans to facilitate the development and growth of active learning in ECE as community-owned and -supported functional activities linked with child care and girls' education. I.A.6.- Website and Resource Center The BET1 website was set up in November 2000 and features databases available online. Although in its rudimentary stage, the website has the potential of being very useful once the information is more complete and provided it is regularly updated. As of June 2001, the website had 17 entries, most related to BET1 activities. These included: - A description of the girls' education scene in U.P. - Information on organizations linked with BET1 in some capacity (four entries) - Findings of the Private Sector School Study - Training Resource Materials, with information on different training manuals, the names of the preparing organizations and the language of the manuals - An Expert Resource Data base, giving information on contact addresses, areas of expertise and language capabilities - Media Contacts. BET1 has tried to classify, index, and design materials on the web in a manner suited to meeting the information needs of its stakeholders; however, there is work to be done. The site could serve many more functions: for instance, putting research findings related to girls' education in India and abroad on the web could be of immense value to planners, policy-makers and implementing agencies. It could also help BET1 in its advocacy function. Collecting innovative practices and disseminating these to the implementing agencies and others are also BET1 mandates that could he satisfied by putting the information on web pages. With regards to BETI's resource function, there are signs that other agencies and organizations are looking to BET1 for resource support. BET1 has been approached by 15 organizations and individuals from various parts of Uttar Pradesh seeking the following assistance: 0 Curriculum materials and resource persons for NFE programs 0 Information on gender training Linkages on child labor and Balwadis 0 Materials for organizing and training women's groups 0 Designs of programs for adolescent girls 0 Information on ECD curricula 0 How to link with BETI. Most inquiries come through personal contacts with the BET1 staff. Others come from partner organizations and people who have read about BET1 in the newspapers. BET1 resource center materials are largely BETI's own reports and publications, but also include some training materials from other organizations. Nevertheless, materials in the Resource Center are scanty; there has been very little effort to identify relevant materials and procure them. A short-term consultant could help collect relevant information and enter it on the web pages. Such a consultant could also help develop the Resource Center into a well-stocked depository for materials related to girls' education. DAVAED technical support toward this end should be strengthened. 1I.B.- Comments on BETI's Effectiveness and the Quality of Deliverables The BET1 project represents an innovative, complex, and challenging initiative meant to fill a gap identified by stakeholders in the education sector in U.P. Despite participants' laudable efforts, there have been implementation problems that have caused the quality of project deliverables to suffer, most of which stem from weaknesses of an organizational and institutional nature, as indicated in the following sections. II.B.1.- Im~lementation delays There have been consistent and unnecessary delays in implementation, not fully understood by project staff, throughout the life of the project. A large part of the work is dependent upon consultants, and delays in consultant or staff approvals have meant serious and, in some cases, irreversible delays in implementation. In some critical instances (e.g., the letter to GOUP regarding work with the DIETS, staff appointments), there has been disregard for concerns. In appointments of staff and consultants, the proper bidding process has often not been adhered to, and there has been a recurring problem in approving nominations due to the failure to submit SOWS and CVs together and on time. All this seems to reflect inadequate planning and insufficient preparation on the part of the contractor, despite repeated attempts to guide the process of submission of requests by USAIDII. Requests for technical assistance are currently routed through two intermediate layers of approvals, both located in Washington: AEDN and DAI/W. This has proved cumbersome and time-consuming, and has been detrimental to the progress of the project. AEDIL often does not know where a request is stuck. Although the office has tried to monitor the process, it has been unable to speed it up. There is nothing to indicate that this problem of implementation delays has been resolved. 11. B.2.- Limited Management Effectiveness and Eff~ciency The technical and managerial leadership of the BET1 program is weak, and this has affected BETI's efficiency and effectiveness, as reflected in: BETI's over-centralized decision-making in the hands of one person at the top who occupies several policy and executive positions. Inadequate staffing, weak technical and managerial in-house capabilities, and a non-strategic business plan are additional problems, discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The absence of a well thought-out, regular internal review process to facilitate "learning while doing." Although there are annual work plans and reports, quarterly operational plans, and progress reports, it is evident from reading these documents that there is limited follow-up of pertinent issues, e.g., the linkage with SIEMAT, the pursuit of the PROBE study, the development of BETI's organizational structure. Reports mention many of these activities, often stating reasons for delays, but without appropriate follow-up actions. Consultants' reports, such as Ron Bonner's report on the Results Framework, list several issues and recommendations, but these have not been pursued. A lack of resourcefulness in identifying and effectively utilizing the large pool of local intellectual resources in girls' education and related fields. There have been regular, frequent complaints by USAIDII that DAIIAEDIBETI are not identifying good technical people locally; that, when they are identified, they are not being utilized properly; and that their recruitment is not carried out in a thoughtful or careful manner, often leading to consultants' loss of interest. Several consultants told the evaluation team about what they felt were unnecessary arguments over their pay scale and scope of work. Such complaints have been detrimental to the credibility of the DAIIAEDIBETI team. Finally, the skills of the consultants eventually selected often do not match the skills needed for the job, and the selection process is often not transparent or competitive. A rigidity and disregard for suggestions from the project team and technical resource persons, leading to mistrust and lack of confidence. This is especially evident with respect to USAIDII's concern for the organizational development of BETI, and with the request for technical assistance from the contractor to strengthen this aspect of the project. Even the routine provision of technical assistance for different project activities features disregard for the concerns of USAIDII, especially with respect to submission of SOWS, CVs and other documents, which tend to be submitted for approval piecemeal rather than in an organized manner. Although BET1 disposes of a consultant roster (as posted on its website), there is limited evidence that this has been used systematically to obtain "state of the art" expertise in required areas. 1I.B. 3. - Different Perceptions of BETI's Vision and Priorities. and Mismatch between BETI's Concept and Reality Although a common vision of BETI's role was developed at the Roundtable attended by stakeholders and partners, in practice different program partners have different ideas about what the priorities of a "girls' education coordination center" should be. This has led to dissatisfaction with the way it is currently operating. Despite efforts to create a common vision, and chart a path to get to that vision, clarity and unanimity are still missing. Nor do AEDIL and BET1 staffs share a common vision of BET1 amongst themselves, as was evident during the self-evaluation workshop held in Lucknow. Some examples of this problem are given below. BET1 is viewed in Uttar Pradesh and the rest of India as providing an unmet need in the area of information dissemination .Yet this function has not been properly internalized by BET1 staff. During the self-evaluation workshop, none of the current DAIIAEDJL staff (who also function as BET1 staff) mentioned information dissemination as one of their primary functions. When this was pointed out to them, they acknowledged that this was a gap in their perception. Because of this gap, the quality of the web-site has suffered, and while there have been well organized, powerful and high profile media events aimed at advocacy, the impact of such events remains uncertain. The research and volicv-dialorme function is one of the key operating areas envisaged for the girls' education coordination center. The idea was that research should be timely, manageable, action-oriented, and lead to policy and program improvements. Yet the type ofresearck appropriate for BETI to undertake, and congruent with BETI's methods and purpose, is not well understood by BET1 staff. Their own in-house capability to design, conduct and supervise research activities is also limited. The TAG-R is made up of highly capable persons, yet they are not used effectively in research activities. They in fact complain of being misused, of having limited influence, and of "play-acting" during TAG-R meetings. Another BET1 function envisaged was building the cavacity of uublic and private institutions involved in promoting girls'education. BETI's staff remain unclear as to how they are supposed to do this. Many see it as a direct training function, e.g., training of teachers in the different DIETS, which implies a role as an implementing agency serving the needs of the GOUP and other clients, rather than a catalyst as originally conceived. Interviews within USAIDA revealed clearly that BET1 was to be tasked to strengthen the capacity of CRS and its operational partners (OPs) in the area of girls' education. This decision by USAIDA, meant to coordinate the organizations USAID supports, figured in the revised work plan of October 1, 1999, of DAWAED. Currently, not all stakeholders agree to this BET1 function. CRS, for example, doubts that BET1 has the capacity to take up the task of building CRS capacity, given CRS's long history of working in U.P. (indeed, in India) and more recently with girls' education efforts in selected rural and urban areas. This was evident during the evaluators' meeting with CRS, and is also mentioned in Dr. Bonner's report of February 2000, in spite of the fact that USAID's Results Framework for reporting on its IR3 was developed in consultation with CRS. At any rate, the general view amongst BETI's partners is that it is unrealistic for BETI, a fledgling organization with limited in-house technical resources, to build the capacity of other organizations. Partner institutions, both public and private, rather see themselves as helping strengthen the capacity of BETI. CRS has used organizations inside and outside U.P. to provide resource support for advancing its girls' education efforts, and views BET1 mainly as a research and advocacy organization. According to CRS, there are in fact many other organizations with better expertise than BET1 in the areas where CRS requires support. CRS' view is that BET1 must acquire that capacity before CRS will look to it for support of this kind. In terms of networking with other girls' education providers, BETI's informal networks are well established and reliable, but institutional linkages and formal networks are yet to emerge. A particular example of poor linkages is BETI's relationship with SIEMAT in U.P. The need to involve SIEMAT with girls' education in U.P. first appeared in the WIDTECH project in Harding's situational analysis study (1998). Harding saw important responsibilities for SIEMAT in the area of capacity building for civil society organizations. In the revised work plan, prepared by DAI/AED for the period from October 1,1999, to March 3 1,2001, strengthening SIEMAT's capacity was again mentioned as a priority area. This, according to the work plan document, was the outcome of discussions with USAIDA. The Vth Quarterly report observed that "ongoing communications with partner organizations suggest the -- need to carefully explore their needs and the ways in which collaboration can be - & beneficial. A summary report on the needs assessment of existing resources and a note on recommended strategies/processes for the BET1 center to undertake in its training cooperation with partners will be the deliverables. The work should be completed in the seventh quarter." However, while the VIIth Quarterly report mentions meetings held with partner organizations on various issues including advocacy, private sector school study and the launch of BETI, there is no specific mention of SIEMAT. In the subsequent quarterly reports, strengthening of the capacity of SIEMAT keeps appearing as a deliverable without any reporting of activities with SIEMAT. During the evaluation, it became clear that the way BET1 is functioning today is very different from its concept as articulated in the project SOW. This has been at the heart of USAIDII's concern with BET1 and the project as a whole. The following table summarizes the mismatch. I BETI% concept as articulated in the SOW / The reality of how BET1 functions today I Broad-based ownership I Limited ownership Active participation of stakeholders 1 Passive participation of stakeholders Coordination center Catalyst, proactive Clearing house Implementation agency Reactive Repository of resources - Defining new directions Innovative Leveraging resources from public, private, II.B.4.-BETI's Corn~arative Advantage and Sustainability Service provider Broker of services - Contracting services to government and clients on a needs-be - and corporate sectors Strong in-house technical capability Building capacity of other institutions Within its short existence, BET1 has signed contracts with the GOUP and other partners as a provider of gender-related services within several projects: - - basis Weak in-house technical capability Other institutions strengthening BETI's capacity to deliver Gender training for selected DIETS (partial DPEP support) Community mobilization in urban wards (Janshala funds) Piloting of gender module on IT with AEDIW (CISCO Systems funds) ECE demand generation (CARE & CRS support) Vocational training pilot activity (Unniti Foundation) (planned). Given these successes, BET1 might be able to mobilize enough contracts to sustain itself if it were to become primarily a service provider, as the need for gender-related services is great in U.P. The prospect of BETI's sustainability, however, is constrained in several ways: (I).- BET1 is not perceived as a entity separate from the project or from AEDIL, as its Chief executive and staff are AEDL personnel and its office is still located within AEDIL; (2).- BETI's effectiveness and viability depend on one individual, the current State Director of DAUAEDL and the Project Director, who is also serving BET1 in many additional capacities: Chairperson of BETI's Board of Trustees Treasurer of BET1 Executive Director of BET1 Chairperson of the Steering Committee of BET1 Chairperson of the Technical Advisory Groups on Research and Advocacy (3).- BETI's staff salary structure will be difficult to maintain. The current structure is that of the DAUAEDL project which provides BET1 with support. It may not be compatible with what a more independent BET1 could afford. BET1 would have to rely on other factors than salaries, including the commitment and dedication of DAUAEDIL staff, if it wished them to continue beyond the life of the project as BET1 staff, given the expected fall in their earnings. BETI's business plan, however, does not provide clear guidance as to how this isse of sustainability might be satisfactorily resolved. II.B.5.- BETI's Business Plan BETI's business plan does not reflect strategic thinking regarding BETI's funding plans, or areas of strategic advantage for BET1 within the developmental mosaic of U.P. Nor does BETI's staffing plan match the vision and scope of the Foundation. The Business Plan does not explain the strategies for achieving the agency's main objectives. It contains a financial plan, describing the financial requirements for five years and how BET1 would be able to sustain itself from overhead earnings. It also describes how the dependence on USAIDII and DAIIAED will taper off and how BET1 could become sustainable. It talks of generating resources from sources other than USAID, mainlv - bv - selling - services. Some of the forecasted plans seem highly improbable given BETI's current capacity, and there is no matching plan for technical capacity enhancement. In fact, the Business Plan leaves the possibility open that BET1 might be compelled to provide services in new areas in which it is not now active: The staffing plan has identified three positions of coordinators for different program areas: (a) Administration and Business Development, (2) Programming and Monitoring, and (3) Communication and Information Resource Management. The job responsibilities are detailed. There is a mismatch, however, between the existing staff positions in BET1 and what has been called for in the Business Plan. One of BETI's important functions is gender training. Although this is also one of the important deliverables, there is no training coordinator position provided for in the Business Plan. In the October 2000-June 2001 work plan, DAVAED was to carry out several tasks related to the launching of the BET1 center. Among these, the two most critical were to conduct a strategic planning exercise with the BET1 team, and to develop an organizational plan for BETI. Neither of these was accomplished. According to the XIth quarter report, these were "delayed due to non￾availability of the consultant, and vacant staff positions." As a result, the lack of an "action plan" or "strategic focus" for BET1 has been cited by several members of the Steering Committee/Advisory Committee as preventing BET1 from utilizing the Steering Committee or the Technical Advisory Groups effectively. While the By-laws provide for the existence of a Board of Trustees, and for an advisory council, in practice these functions are controlled by the Chairperson of the Executive Council. Although the Advisory Council has been given "reviewing and approving" functions, and is expected to "take decisions pertaining to the program of the Trust," the current Steering CommitteeIAdvisory Council members interviewed by the evaluation team feel unable to steer the development of BETI. They talk about the need for BET1 to be "governed by a wider group, and not put too much power in the hands of one person," citing as examples the need for preparing the agenda for meetings through a participatory process, in advance; for devoting the bulk of the meeting time to discussing strategies rather than to presentations; for delegating responsibility to members of the Steering Committee to guide the process of decision￾making; and for allowing the Steering Committee to be headed by a prominent personality other than the director of the BET1 Foundation. They all seem to feel that a sound organizational structure and a strategic business plan will be critical if BET1 is to develop a clear focus, gain credibility, and achieve its goals and objectives. If BET1 is to evolve as a coordinating body, it will need further strengthening and substantial support, both technically and managerially. Most important still, it will need to develop a corporate strategy and action plan to translate its mission into reality, with clear focus and priorities. DAVAEDlL's cooperation in this respect is critical for the future development of BETI, especially during the period of the no-cost extension. II.B.6.- Limited organizational Development (0.D) Experience and Training While Designing BET1 BET1 was conceived of as a deliverable of the DAUAED project. USAID11 realized throughout the implementation of the project that strong organizational development experience was necessary if BET1 were to be set up as an independent, autonomous girl's education coordination center. ~es~ite repeated requests, and USAID~I'S insistence on medium- to long-term technical assistance from the contractor in the area of institutional development, such assistance has not been provided to BET1 in an adequate manner. The contractor appears to have had neither the understanding nor the capability to set up a corporation of this nature in India, and this had led to some significant flaws in BETI's design. For example, lines of demarcation between BET1 and DAIIAEDIL have been allowed to become fudged, and DAIIAEDIL staff have taken on a dual function, becoming BET1 staff instead of working as facilitators in helping to set up an independent coordination center with appropriate leadership and following democratic governance principles. This "dual identity" of the DAIIAEDIL staff has led to confusion, lack of objectivity on their part, and an inability to function effectively --- points they themselves made to the evaluators. Confidence of USAIDIIndia in the implementing partners has also been seriously affected. The BET1 center has not been able to ensure the effective use of technically sound committees because the roles and responsibilities assigned to these committees do not allow them to function with full capacity. Existing committees (with the exception of the Board) have advisory functions and no decision-making power. It also appears that suggestions made by USAID/I related to organizational development principles have not been given due attention and have often been ignored. This is reflected in the centralization of the key functions in one person, as well as in the absence of an organizational development plan. Although the USAID Project CTO's meeting minutes talk of the intent of a DAIIAED consultant to submit an organizational plan, as well as detailed functions and roles for the technical committees, these never materialized. II.B.7.- Ambi~uitv in Roles and Resaonsibilities of Kev Proiect Im~lementers There are no official documents or meeting minutes that clarify the roles or responsibilities of the different implementing partners, i.e., DAUW, AED/W and AEDL As a result, confusion has been allowed to set in with respect to day-to-day management and decision-making. There is frustration, fear of blame, and a feeling of helplessness in DAIIAEDL staff in the face of the problems encountered, especially regarding delays in project implementation. DMAEDL staff cannot see any role for DAUW in project implementation, and contend that DAIN provides an unnecessary constraint under which they must operate. DAIIAEDIL staff also feel that they have no decision-making powers, and are unclear where such powers lie, whether with DAN, AEDm or with USAIDII. Consequently, they lack a sense of ownership of project activities, and are reluctant to share responsibility for the project's accomplishments or failures. For its part, AEDN feels that it is doing what it has been asked to do by USAIDII. Examples given included the hiring of the director and adherence to the time-frame for launching BETI. With regard to DAIIW, with whom a brief interview was held, it appears that the firm, although it is the prime contractor, does not share the burden or the responsibility for implementing the project, both of which have been passed on to AEDIW. The net effect is that there is a lack of ownership for the result framework of BET1 on the side of the contractor. This situation has adversely affected USAIDII's confidence in the project staffs ability to deliver the required results. Finally, DAI, AED and BET1 seem unclear about their roles, and they have not adhered to the roles envisaged in the SOW. One reason may be the evolving and unfolding nature of the project, which requires close and direct interaction between USAIDII and DAIIAEDIL that has often been lacking. (When this in fact has happened, it has led to improved implementation.) The physical proximity of the two agencies should have allowed for more frequent interaction; however, there appears to be a lack of mutual trust between DAI/AED/L and USAID/& stemming mainly from the fact that respective roles and responsibilities have not been effectively clarified. As a result, attempts by USAID/I to provide technical inputs have often been misconstrued, and treated as interference or unnecessary control. DAI/W and AEDm seemed to have provided valuable technical support to BETI, but usually when requested under critical circumstances and normally in response to demands from DAIIAEDIL or USAIDII. Throughout the implementation, USAID11 has felt that the contracting firms have neither been proactive nor monitored the project closely. DAUW's role, in fact, is not visible, except for the routing of various proposals, requests, and reports. Further investigation is needed to determine what reasons and constraints have led to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The non-availability of DAIAV and AED/W representatives during the evaluation has prevented the evaluation team from delving more deeply into the matter. 111.- RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations focus on ways to overcome some of the existing constraints and to improve BETI's effectiveness and impact as a girls' education coordination center for U.P.: 1II.A.- Creating an O~erational Distinction between DAIIAEDIL and BET1 The contractor (DAIIAED) should be encouraged to create a distinction between DAIIAEDIL and BETI, organizationally as well as in its functions. This will help clarify roles, identify appropriate staff needs, and build the foundation for the future growth and development of BET1 within a supportive framework. DAIIAEDL's primary function as a support service for BET1 can be realized under such an arrangement. Once the separation is made effective, DAIIAED should develop a strategic work plan-for the remaining months of the project. The contractors' role as facilitators in the development and strengthening of BET1 is critical. Without DAUAED support, and the cooperation of the founding members of BET1 and its Board, USAIDII may find it difficult to guide the future development of BETI. 1II.B.- Strengthening BETI's Leadershiu (Technical and Managerial) and In-house Technical Exoertise BETI's future evolution should be guided by strong technical leadership through the separation of the functions of the Chairperson from those of the Executive Director1 Treasurer. USAIDA may need to take an active role in identifying suitable leadership for BETI. The selection and appointment of the Chairperson and Executive Director need to be based on clear job descriptions and candidates' proven work histories. Both these job-holders should be carefully selected, technically strong conceptually as well as managerially, independent, and focused. Once selected, they should be allowed to operate within an open, supportive, and creative environment. BETI's in-house expertise should also be strengthened to fulfill the promise of becoming a credible "clearing house," a "center of excellence," and an effective body for "coordination and cross￾fertilization" of programs related to policy, research, advocacy, training, and alliance-building." Effective leadership of BET1 would be demonstrated through its pursuit of broad-based democratic governance and quality assurance: a. Developing strong, independent (technical and managerial) leadership distinct from that of the DAUAEDL office; b. Creating a distinction between the Chair and the Executive Director of BETI; c. Operating under a management style that lends itself to democratic principles, broad-based participation and transparency in decision-making; d. Appointing appropriate staff, distinct from that of the DAUAEDIL office; e. Developing a technically strong in-house capability and staff with a proven record of having carried out serious and innovative work for girls' education in India and elsewhere; f. Following clear objectives, strategic plans, and specific actions for meeting BETI's overall goals; and g. Building BETI's sustainability through a refined organizational structure, more strategic focus, business planning processes, and stronger linkages with on-going activities of educational services - - Recent steps taken by the Board to appoint a separate Treasurer, and the beginning of programmatic linkages with CRS, CARE, Janshala, and DIETS are proof that there is movement in this direction already, as expressed by the few Board members interviewed by the evaluators. 1II.C.- Holding Roundtables on BETI's Vision. Priorities, and Program Linkages Roundtables externally and professionally facilitated (using local experts to the extent possible) would ensure the active and focused participation of partners, key stakeholders, selected beneficiaries, and key staff in the definiti~~of strategic and oper&ional plans for BETI, by: Defining a commonly shared vision for BET1 as a girls' education coordination center; Supporting an independent BoardISteering Committee for BETI, and empowering it to define priorities and functions. The BoardJSteering Committee should ideally be an active decision￾making body, with membership of strong advocates, leaders, and praEtitioners of girls' education efforts, donor agencies, and representatives of the public, private media, religious groups, etc. Building - a broad-based ownership for BETI. Institutional linkages - for BET1 should be strengthened through a transparent process of listening, learning, and sharing, with wide participation of partners (e.g., CRS, CARE, UNICEF, NGOs, etc.), stakeholders (GOI, GOUP, DPEP~MS, SIE~T, SCERT, etc.), and beneficiaries @IETs, Schools, CBOs, etc.). Linkages should build on past field experiences, targeted innovations, and joint ventures. USAIDII might take the initiative in ensuring the organization of such a roundtable, which might sit for several sessions and could evolve into a more effective steering committee over the course of the next several months. 1II.D.- Improving the aualitv and timeliness of proiect deliverables Critical for BETI's product quality is to strengthen BETI's in-house expertise and to combine this with a more effective use of consultants. The staff needs of BET1 should be reflected in its strategic plan, with staff (and consultant) skills matching the priority program areas. Although the project's SOW detailed the intent behind the project, it did not provide a holistic strategy or approach for implementing it. For example, while the SOW asked for a "proposal for setting up the BET1 center," it did not focus on the development approach or strategy, or indeed on the form or structure of such an organization. An implementation strategy for strengthening the BET1 Foundation as a girls' education coordination center was not requested; it should now be developed. Monitoring the implementation of a detailed action plan both by the contractor and USAID11 will be helpful within a flexible environment that promotes internal learning, along with accountability. Also necessary for BETI's future success is a simple arrangement to replace the existing cumbersome and complex funding and approval mechanism. Streamlined procurement processes with clearly specified time limits for approvals and flexible funding arrangements (e.g., grants) should be explored. Finally, frequent and direct communications with the GO1 and GOUP would be helpful in strengthening cooperation, building ownership, and exploring bilateral arrangemenis for future funding. Strong programmatic linkages with partners would improve the quality and effectiveness of the deliverables. In order for project managers to fulfill their roles effectively, roles of key project staff should be made clear, and critical skill gaps in project management, administration, understanding funding mechanism limitations, etc., should be identified and filled, preferably with training. 1V.- CONCLUSIONS Information available to date to the evaluation team shows that the project has completed some but not all the key actions and activities laid out in the revised AEDL Work Plan for the October 1, 1998- March 3 1,2001 contract period. The girls' education coordination center, (now named the BET1 Foundation) was established in March 2000 as a Trust; its Board of Trustees, Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Groups have been constituted and have met at least once; its work areas have been defined and its organizational structure established. It has completed a survey of private sector schools in U.P., set up a website, made contacts with the media, and signed protocols of cooperation with a few public and private educational services providers. All these actions and activities have been done within the past six months, except for the private sector school survey, and are far less than what was promised in the DAVAEDIL Work Plan in terms of both quantity and quality. One of the reasons might be that the Work Plan itself was too ambitious given the resources at the project's disposal: its also lists many activities indicate their respective priorities. Even though the activities completed are fewer than planned by DAIl AEDL and are relatively newly started, they seem to go in the right direction. While it is too early to expect the project to show positive impact, the decision to evaluate progress thus far is a pertinent one. Indeed, the evaluation has revealed that the project have been facing a member of fundamental constraints, which require immediate attention. 1V.A.- Lessons learnt The evaluation once again demonstrates that agreement on a vision or idea is not enough to make it work. Much more needs to follow. The idea must be embodied first in a strategic plan, and then in resource and operational plans through a process of priority-setting and planning for implementation and sustainability. The process must involve key stakeholders as active participants, and continuous monitoring. In this instance, the focus of the strategic planning process should be to define the steps that will enable BET1 to operate as an effective and efficient organization, and at the same time pave the way for it to become an institution valued by its environment. A phased work plan is needed. 1V.B.-Unresolved Issues The constraints facing the project stem from three fundamental, related problems that need further research. They are fundamental because, if they are left unresolved, the future of BET1 cannot be assured regardless of how relevant the original vision might have been. These constraints are the following: 11.- The non-existence of BET1 as an independent. autonomous entity in its own right. On paper there is an entity called BETI, but in reality this entity does not exist, either physically or as an organization, apart from the project or, more specifically, the AEDIL office and its personnel. This is a sore point made to the evaluation team repeatedly during its field work, by BETI's stakeholders, partners and staff. Although everyone including DAIIAED seemed to agree that BET1 should have an independent structure, so far this has not materialized. 2 The absence of a budget for BETI. No regular funding source is available outside the projectkontract funds administered by DAIIAEDL. Therefore, BETI's operations are tied not only to the amount of funding available under the contract, they are also hampered by the regulations and procedures governing the disbursement of these project funds. 3. The legal status and institutional features of BETI. Although discussion of BETI's legal status lies outside the evaluators' SOW, some of the organizational and management problems brought to their attention nevertheless stem from BETI's legal and institutional framework. Such are questions and claims regarding the decision-making of the Board, the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory Groups, etc., as well as the many "hats," some of which would be incompatible in normal circumstances, that the incumbent Director is wearing within BET1 and AEDIL. Different views of the respective compositions, roles, and decision authority of these structures also exist among stakeholders, as indicated in the DAIIAED work plan and interviews with members of these structures, who want more decision-making authority. One question is why the Board, which is supposed to be composed of senior technical and management experts, should be vested with authority over policies and key staffing decisions, while the Technical Advisory Groups, which comprise similar professional experts, and the Steering Committee, which represents current and potential BET1 financiers, are not? Thus, at the heart of the strategic thinking process for BET1 are the key issues of funding sources and institutional structures. These issues should be analyzed beyond their legal aspects with a view to delving into such areas as the socio-political requirements for a high-profile, non￾governmental agency to operate successfully in India. Experiences from other countries should be reviewed. At this point, it appears that BET1 does need technical support from competent institutional/ organizational development specialists to guide it through the review and planning process. These skills are hard to find and they are expensive, but DAVAED should be in a position to provide them. APPENDICES A~pendix 1: List of Persons Interviewed Ms. Ms. Dr. Prof. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Dr. Ms. Carla Barbiero- USAIDlI Renu Jain-USAID11 Na1in.R. Jena-USAID11 A.K.Jalaluddin - TAG& member, BET1 Akhila Shibdas - TAGIA member, BET1 Panchmukhi - Member of Board, BET1 Mahesh Kumar - Auditor, BET1 Vimla Ramchandran Sharda Jain- Sandhan, Jaipur Manju Agarwal Manohar Shenoy - Director, CAREJL, UP (Member BETI, Steering Committee) Alexander Matthew - Project Director, CRS, Lucknow Deepti Pant - Coordinator, Education, CRS, Lucknow Sikha - CRSIL Puja - CRSIL Suman Bhatnagar, UNICEF, Lucknow Net Ram, Secretary, Basic Education, Govt. of U.P. Vrinda Saroop - State Project Director, DPEP, UP Rajesh Tandon - Director, PRIA, Delhi Sehba Hussain - BET1 Nishi Mehrotra - Deputy Director, BET1 Neeti Saxena - BET1 Saheera Naim - Communications Consultant Anjum Hasan - Business and Finance Development Consultant Alok Dwivedi - Office Assistant R.P. Sahi - Social Mobilization Consultant Chloe O'Gara - Vice President, AED/W Deanna Handel - DAIIW Appendix 2: Interview Schedule .. ., .. ~~ ......... j Date ) . . ... ~ .. .~ . . ,.... . .. ~. .. ~.~ ... .. Linkage with BET1 Contract for Evaluation signed and briefing on assignment Contractors for USAID0 girls' education project - briefing on project implementatior highlights Funding agency ~...~ Time 10:30 am 10:30 am 10:OO am 4:00 pm ~.. ... ... .. .,.~ . ... ... . .,. Names of organizations/individuals and meeting venues Lem H. Tmong, President LT Associates, Inc. DAI (Belinda Bernard) and AED (Deanna Handel) USAID office Deputy Director and staff - briefing Carla Barbiero, USAID TAG-Advocacy member TAG-Research member Board of Trustees member Aud~tor, AED Chartered Accountant, and facilitator for setting up BET1 as a T~st Director, AEDk and Founding member of BETI AEDL staff, also working as BET1 staff Steering Committee member Steering Committee member, and implementing partner for IR3 Results Framework TAG-Research member Stakeholder steering Committee member Stakeholder, and Implementing partner on work with DIETS steering committee member 5:30 pm 11 :00 am 10:30 am 12:30 pm 5:00 pm 9:30 am 345 pm 1 am 7:00 pm pi5 am 11:00 am Cancelled Cancelled I~enn Jain and Nalin Jena, USAID 1 Akhila Sivadas, Media Advocacy Group Prof. AKJalaluddin Dr. Panchmukhi Mr. Mahesh Knmar Ms. Sehba Hussain Ms. Sehba Hussain, Ms. Nisbi Mehrotra, Ms. Shahira Naim, Ms. Niti Saxena, Ms. Anjum Hassan, Mr. Alok Dwivedi, Mr. RPShahi - staff of the AEDL office Ms. Manju Agarwal, Director, Mahila Samakhya Mr. Alexander Matthew, CRS Zonal Director Ms. Puja, CRS Education team member Ms. Shiksha, CRS program executive Dr. Sharda Jain, Director, Sandhan Dr. Vimala Ramachandran, women's activist, Former Director MS, GO1 Mr. Manohar Shenoy, Director, CARE-U.P. Dr. Shardendu, Director, SCERT Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, President - U.P. Prathrnik Shiksha Sangh, GOUP , .~ ,.,~ ~~... . . . .. ~~~ .~,,~., .,.~ . , . . .. ~ . .. ... .. .~ , . ~., . 5/25 ! ! i i r 5/26 5/30 1l:lO am 3:30 pm. 9:30 am. 4:00 pm Ms. Vrinda Saroop, State Director DPEP Ms. Suman Bhatnagar, Education program officer, UNICEF Mr. Net Ram, State Secretary, Basic Education, GOUP Mr. Rajesh Tandon, Director, PRlA Stakeholder stakeholder Steering Committee member Stakeholder, and O.D. specialist Appendix 3: Interview Guide i) ii) iii) iv) 4 vi) vii) viii) ix) 4 xi) xii) xiii) How did you get involved with this project? Who approached you? How did you feel about getting involved? How has your involvement experience been so far? How was the project idea conceived? What process was used to contextualize the project and inputs? What lessons were learned from the UMASS project and how did these influence this project's design and implementations style? What do you think the project has accomplished so far? What do you see as the project's main challenges? Do you feel that there is a need for BETI? Why? Are there any doubts about the assumptions that have guided its inception? How do you see BETI's role? Are you aware of any other organizations which have a similar mandate to BETI? Is there convergence of thinking regarding BETI's role? The USAID project has three principal elements- Building the capacity of the DIETS, SIEMAT, and SCERT; Building the capacity of CRS and its OPs; and establishing a girls' education coordination center. Is there any evidence that the first aspect was pursued by the project? Was BET1 supposed to provide this? What is BETI's relationship with SCERT and SIEMAT? What is BETI's relationship with CRS and CARE? In what ways does this relationship work well? What problems, if any have been encountered in the relationship so far? What channels of communication and management structures provide challenges to the project? Are you satisfied with the project structures and communication channels? Are they conducive to efficient and effective implementation? Can you suggest better ways? Do you feel that there is clarity of roles of the major players - USAIDII, AEDIL, BETI, AEDIW, DAI? If you have attended any of the meetings, what has been your experience? How do you see the different committees of BET1 functioning well? Can you describe the ways in which the committees are not functioning well in your experience? What suggestions can you make? Do you feel any strain from the implementation project so far? How would you describe the strain? Where does the strain come from? What could alleviate the strain? With hindsight, do you see aspects of the design or implementation that could have been done differently? What on-going mechanisms were in place that could have allowed you to modify the project during the last two years? xiv) xv) xvi) xvii) viii) xix) xx) xxi) xxii) xxiii) xxiv) xxv) xxvi) What comment would you like to make regarding the planning process of the project? Has it been well planned? Do the plans match the goals and objectives of the project? Are the plans followed well? What problems have been encountered? What suggestions would you like to make? Have you noticed project delays in other USAID projects in U.P.? If so, what were the reasons for these delays? Why do you think there have been delays in this project? What was happening during the first year of the project? Why was the private sector school study so delayed? Did the contractor relationship with USAID/I provide strain to the project? What was the nature of this strain? What assistance, if any has been provided by AED and DAI? What was the nature of the support? Has their support been of use to the project? What needs, if any, were not met by the contractor? What are your views about the talents and caliber of key project staff? To your mind, do they represent the technical skills needed for their roles and functions? What types of additional skills would be needed for their roles? What type of staff should a girls' education coordination center have? In your mind, does BET1 have this type and caliber of staff? What would be your recommendations? Do you see BET1 as a "Center of Excellence"? What would such a center provide that would make it a clearing house on policy, information, research, training and advocacy? What to your mind is the primary function of a girls' education coordination center? Who does BET1 work with? What is the nature of this relationship? What value, if any, does BET1 add to this relationship? Does BET1 know about, andor understand your partner strengths? What ways would you suggest for strengthening the linkages between BET1 and yourself or other partner organizations? Who is BET1 accountable to? What is BETI's relationship with GOUP, other implementing partners, and with the CBOs? How is this project viewed in U.P.? What has been the experience of working with USAID, its contractors, and contract staff'? How has the communication been? Are you aware of any recent developments and shifts within the project? Would you like to make any suggestions? Who needs BETI? Who uses it? Why? What would they do if BET1 was not there? What would happen to BET1 beyond AIDJAED? Would you like to make any suggestions to USAID regarding hture involvement in girls' education in U.P.? Which other actors, agencies, institutions should they speak to? What should they focus on? What should they avoid? Amendix 4:List of Documents Reviewed DAI's Scope of Work Work Plans October 1998 - August 2000 October 1999 -March 2001 October 2000 -June 2001 David Harding's report, "Strengthening Girls' education in India," prepared for USAIDIIndia; June 1998 Peg Sutton's reports Situation Analysis of Girls' Education in U.P The BET1 Center Ron Bonner's report," Results Framework for Girls' Education," prepared for USAIDAndia Reports of the Private Sector School Study BET1 Research Strategy notes Minutes of Technical Advisory Group (Research) and Steering Committee meetings Annual Progress Reports 1999 2000 Quarterly Progress Report October - December 2000 July - September 2000 April -June 2000 January - March 2000 October - December 1999 July - September 1999 April -June 1999 December 1998-March 1999 Trust Deed and By-laws BETI's Business Plan Note on Establishing program linkages for BET1 Minutes of Roundtable consultative meeting for BET1 BET1 Results Report for 2000 Draft PLA Toolkit Appendix 5: BETI's Institutional Structures & Organizational Chart A.- Founding members: 1. Ms. Sehba Hussain 2. Dr. Kaval Gulati B.- Board of Trustees: 1. Ms. Sehba Hussain, Chairperson 2. Dr. Kaval Gulati 3. Dr. Devaki Jain 4. Dr. V.R. Panchamukhi 5. Mr. S.K. Sharma 6. Ms. Runa Banerjee C.- Steering Committee: 1 - Secretary, Department of Basic Education, GOUP 2- Director, Doordarshan, UP 3- Director, CARE -UP 4- Director, CRS- North India 5- Director, Mahila Samakhaya, UP 6- Director, SRC, Literacy House 7- 8- Association 9- 10- Director, OSD, USAIDI I, New Delhi 11- Dr. Chloe O'Gara, AED, Washington . 12- Ms. Sehba Hussain, Director, BET1 Foundation D.- Technical Advisory Groups: 1- TAG (Research) 1. Ms. Sehba Hussain, Chair 2. Dr. Sharda Jain, Sandhan, Jaipur 3. Prof. A.K. Jalaluddin, New Delhi 4. Ms. Renuka Mishra, Nlrantar, N. Delhi 5. Dr. Puja Juyal, I.T. College, Lucknow 2- TAG (Advocacy) 1. Ms. Sehba Hussain, Chair 2. Ms. Akhila Shivdas, CFAR, N. Delhi 3. Ms. Irpinder Bhatia, Asavari Films, N. Delhi 4. Dr. Urmil Thapiyal, Writer, Composer & Lyricist, Lucknow 5. Mr. Sharat Pradhan, Correspondent, Reuters, Redff. Net and other agencies, Lucknow ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF BETI(as of May 26,2001) Note: Mr. Anrnol Singh died. Although Neeti Srucena is working in the BETI of$ce, her name was not mentioned in DAI/AED/DETZ staff list, because her salaiy is being paid from another source. Ms. Preeti Jinda is the new Program Monitoring consultant A Research Consultant VACANT / I Social Mobilization Coordinator '\ R.P. SAHI Program Monitoring DIET \ Consultant , \ \ PREETI JINDAL State Director Deputy Director SEHBA HUSSAIN NISHI MEHROTRA - Program Associate - Finance and Business Development , ANJUM HASSAN Office Assistant Field Coordinator, ALOK DWWEDI MAYA RAM YADAV I _, Training Consultant/Sub I' , Contractors' APPROVAL AWAITED - - - - - - - Backup Supportive supervision Communication consultant SHAHIRA NAIM Intern IRM (Temp.) HIMANI JOSH1 I Field Coordinator, Ghaziabad UNDER PROCESS Field Coordinator, Jaunpur IDENTIFIED Appendix 6: Snippets from the files provided bv DAIIAEDIL 9 A three-day PLA workshop in Lucknow elicited views on BETI. Taking part were participants from the three districts of Baharaich, Ghaziabad, and Jaunpur. They included BRC Coordinators, ABSAs (Additional Basic Shiksha Adhikaris), NPRCCs (Nyaya Panchayat Resource Center Coordinators), teachers (from two schools in each district), DIET faculty, and representatives from SCERT and the State Project Office. The participants felt that: -A carefully developed seating arrangement will help develop contacts among the children. - Developed an understanding of the workload of children and their school participation. - One can understand the problems girls face to participate in school. - Gender dzrerences will have to be taken up through activities. - Basic problems of gender bias can be addressed through gender analysis of text books. - Learned that girls like to be questioned on school work just as boys do. - Realized that inappropriate language though unconsciously used, still affected the girls' psyche. 9 The launch was such a high profile event that BET1 is firmly registered in the minds. This is of great advantage when one meets officials and other people who can easily recall BETI. For example, during the first meeting with Ms. Sharda Lal, Program Executive, All India Radio, she immediately remembered BETI, was aware of its agenda - thanks to the visibility during the launch. 9 BET1 has an informal arrangement with Lucknow under which we have provided the Program Executives in-charge of Women's Program (both rurallurban), children's program (rurallurban) with lists of Resource Persons to be used for talks, panel discussions etc. BET1 will also facilitate their field visits to make live recordings of success stories in the field. One talk and one panel discussion has already been broadcast. A field trip to record the success story of Balika Shiksha Project in Barabanki is scheduled for June. 9 The Mahakumbh was covered by the news channels. In Aaj Tak, the 24-hour Hindi news channel, it was part of a feature on "Night Life at the Kumbh". The team had shot the street theatre performance in the camp area at night. 9 As part of the Mahakumbh Advocacy, a BETI-sponsored booklet containing sayings from ancient scriptures on women's education was released at a meeting of religious leaders at the Mahakumbh. The book was released by Sri Sri Ravishankar ji, the head of the Art of Living Movement. Among the other eminent persons who spoke at the function as the Head of the Gayatri Pariwar. Both of them endorsed the cause of Girl Child Education. The function was attendedly a cross section of people including their followers. The event was covered by the media. Appendix 7: BETI's WORK AREAS BET1 Institutional Capacity Janshala DIETS Vocational Education & Training Advocacy1 Social Mobilization nportance of chooling for girls the largest nreached group), lorking children anc hildren with isabilities ~dvocacy for girls ducation Retention in schools through Mother-Daughter Melas" School enrollment campaigns Capacity building of community through folk medii * Village Education Committees WC), Mother-Teacher Associations, Women's Motivator Groups at village/cluster level. :mand generation ir ban areas (work th NGOs e.g., ULMI , Mahila makhya & SEWA )emand generation. oak for job lacements for girls (ith IT training. Information1 Database Management Website 4dapt Pratham node1 from Mumbai Dissemination of nsefnl TLMs. Data collection on district-specific education information & its dissemination. Information about local resource persons available at district level to Block Resource Center of DPEP, Sharing & disseminating resource materials to Nyaya Panchayat Resource Centers to strengthen schools iccess to Non 'ormal Education nd Family Life Iducation materials rom State Resource :entre (Literacy louse) & Mahila lamakhya Collect information on 10 Women Polytechnics in U.P. Based on certain criteria select 5 for collaboration. Research 'eam training in :search techniques LA Social Mapping, Micro-planning (e.g., water outlets, working children, distance to school, etc.) 'LA to strengthen iender in Class- >oms in the 5 :search areas Curriculum, Instmction and guidance Language and speech Managing time & space Sexuality lentification of out￾f-school girls with ssistance from mshala through AXMI and SEWA. Market Research 01 Girls as IT users Identification of and feasibility analysis of local academies Gender module for IT field testing in training programs Capacity building1 Training Itaff members 'raining for Community Core ,roups Teachers for Alternative Education Centers Teacher Monitors At community level VECs, Women motivator Groups (WMG), Mother / Teacher Associations (MTAs) and Mahila Sansads (Women's Parliament.) DIET Level: Training of Block Resource Coordinators Nyaya Panchayat Resource Center Coordinators and in￾service training of teachers and Shiksha Mitras (Para-Teachers iupport NFE and locational training bein lone by SEWA and wcational training bough apprenticeship Training of local instructors, Local NGOIAcademy strengthening Early Community ECE examples from Community Strengthen existing Childhood Awareness India and around the perceptions of ECE Anganwadis & Balwadis I I+ Best Practices I 1 Source: BETI: 24 May '01 Education (EcE) Infomation Resource Center - Importance of ECE - Contribution to ECE - Supplementary nutrition Access following websites on education. SIEMAT Mahila Samakhya HRD-GO1 website International websites world - Develop Website network - Data base of +Consultants + Media Personnel + Reviews & Journals for Education Research. - Case studies1 - micro studies Collaborate with Mahila Samakhya Resource Centers at state & district level Appendix - 8: Organizational - Framework proposed for BET1 at the Self-Evaluation Workshop in Lucknow, May 22-24,2001 by Stakeholders. ach TAGlRG has 'his framework was developed during detailed discussion with key stakeholders in the course of the evaluation, and vith AEDIL and USAID11 staff during the self-evaluation workshop held in Lucknow on 5/24/01