Reaching and Educating At Risk Children in India 
REACH India 
Report of the mid-term review 
July 2006 
Neelam Singh Sheshagiri K M 
For 
Creative Associates International Inc 
& 
USAID 
CONTENTS 
Acknowledgements (Page 4) 
Executive summary (Page 5)
1. Introduction, background and methodology (Page 10)
2. Progress against stated objectives (Page 11)
Strengthening strong performing NGOs to scale up their delivery of educational 
services (Page 13) 
(i) Reaching the Unreached 
o Delivery of educational services to children at risk 
o Range of interventions 
(ii) Working with parents and communities 
(iii) Working with government schools 
Building the capacity of smaller, less mature NGOs (Page 21)
Selection process 
Capacity building process 
(i) Quality Education 
o The Learning Classroom Series 
(ii) Monitoring and evaluation 
o Student Tracking Tools (STT) 
o Quality of Education Assessment Tool 
o Individual Student Profile 
(iii) Organizational Development 
(iv) Financial Management 
Promoting the adoption of best practices within the NGO and state/district 
education communities (Page 28) 
Networking among NGOs 
(i) Information dissemination 
(ii) Documentation and Research 
(iii) Lobbying and advocacy 
3. Priorities towards sustainability (Page 33)
Key recommendations (Page 36) 
Annexures attached separately 
I. Scope of work for the REACH India mid-term review 
II. Criteria for selection of grantees for the review; list of respondents to 
questionnaire 
III. Framework for enquiry for the review 
IV. Abbreviations 
V. List of People Met 
VI. Review Schedule 
Acknowledgements 
The consultants wish to acknowledge the unstinting support of the REACH and USAID 
teams in the preparation and undertaking of this mid term review of the REACH India 
project. Sincere thanks are due also to the REACH grantees in Delhi, Kolkata, Jharkhand 
and Karnataka, for taking time out from their busy schedules, to facilitate field visits and 
participate in discussions. We would like to place on record our appreciation of REACH 
grantees who were not visited by us, but who responded to our questionnaire. 
Finally, the willing participation of teachers, parents, children and community members 
enriched our interactions. Their questions, achievements, hopes, anxieties, fears and 
frustrations added the much needed insights needed for this review. To all of them, we 
would like to express our gratitude. 
We sincerely hope that this document will add to the rich discourse that exists in REACH 
India on education, and strengthen its endeavors to provide a meaningful education to every 
child. 
Neelam Singh and Sheshagiri K.M 
July 2006 
Executive Summary 
1. Background 
REACH India, a four-year project funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), was initiated in September 2003 towards improving access of 
vulnerable children to quality basic education and complementing the Government of India's 
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA, ‘Education for All’ campaign). The goal is to reach out to 
about 200,000 children through 109 NGOs by sustaining capacities and supporting 
qualitative improvements in the process of reaching these beneficiaries. REACH was 
designed to provide educational opportunities to ‘at-risk’ children in six geographical areas 
by supporting NGOs through grants and technical assistance. These geographical areas, viz. 
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Kolkata, Mumbai and North Karnataka are a mix of rural 
and urban, which differ in terms of socio-economic and cultural characteristics. 
Strengthening NGO capacity to scale up delivery of educational services to out of school 
children and improve quality of education in schools, promotion of best practices within the 
NGO and government sector, encouraging stronger relationships between NGOs and 
government, and promotion of resource networks among NGOs to address issues of UEE 
are the key features of REACH. This mid term review is envisaged to allow reflection on the 
progress, achievements and gaps of the programme and to consider any strategies, actions 
and linkages that could help sustain its interventions beyond the project. The review process 
involved consultations with USAID, REACH and selected Grantees, desk study of literature, 
and field visits in Delhi, Kolkata, North Karnataka and Jharkhand. 
2. Strengthening strong performing NGOs to scale up their delivery of educational 
services to out-of-school children in urban and rural areas 
The time available for actual interventions on the ground in different regions has been short, 
given that almost a year was spent in setting up the organization, systems and procedures 
and thereafter in identifying the grantees. In any assessment of REACH programme as a 
whole, the very short and inadequate time frame of the interventions for any purposive and 
sustained education programming to take place on the ground needs to be taken into 
account. There has been a tendency in the programming to pay more attention to the 
quantitative aspects (i.e. the numbers) of bringing children back into school. A more holistic 
and comprehensive analysis on mainstreaming and retaining children in the formal system is 
thus needed for lasting impact. REACH and its Partners may well undertake this analysis. 
By the end of March 2006, a total of 49,046 children had been enrolled by grantee NGOs in 
various education interventions. It must be noted that the revised figures for children to be 
mainstreamed into formal schooling now stands reduced at 88,000. Due to the phased 
manner in which the intervention has expanded to different regions of the country, REACH 
has had to continually revise its estimate of out of school children to be mainstreamed, based 
on field level analyses. Further, government interventions for out of school children through 
bridge courses etc also operate in areas where REACH works; therefore absorption of 
children in these programs cannot be ruled out; this impacts the REACH targets by reducing 
the number of out of school children to be mainstreamed. 
REACH India interventions encompass a wide range focusing on vulnerable children 
including girls, children with developmental disabilities and those from marginalized families. 
Approaches include bridge courses, coaching classes, Early Childhood Education (ECE), 
Special Education for children with developmental disabilities and a variety of pedagogical 
interventions. Albeit a number of interesting approaches are being implemented by the 
grantees, the inability to consolidate the experiences through empirical research, 
documentation and dissemination of learning could be seen as a weakness of REACH India 
at this stage. 
3 Working with Parents and Local Communities 
While most partners have attempted to create greater awareness among parents on the need 
for children to be educated, this activity at present seems to be limited to the identification 
of out of school children and their mainstreaming in government schools. Further, a sense 
of despair and helplessness prevails among parents in both rural and urban areas about the 
functioning of government schools. REACH interventions may well focus on building the 
understanding and capacity of parents and local communities to negotiate better with the 
schools and educational system at large. In this connection, strengthening PTAs, School 
Development Committees and working with Panchayats are areas that need attention. 
4 Working with the Government Schooling System 
Working towards the realization of UEE goals entails the development of strong linkages 
with the government system at different levels from the school, to the state level. REACH 
grantees have attempted to establish linkages with government during the course of their 
work. Admittedly, this is a difficult task, given the inertia within the system. Furthermore, 
the government-NGO relationship is seen with a degree of distrust by increasingly 
politicized bureaucracy and interest groups. 
Barring the work of a few NGOs, from whom much can be learnt, most grantees have not 
yet moved towards working more directly with the government schools to improve their 
overall functioning and quality. A related point is about the development of internal 
capacities of REACH Partners to engage effectively the government system at all levels. This 
is integral to any capacity building efforts for the NGOs. A critical observation that must be 
made is that unless the quality of the government school system improves considerably in 
the near future, the gains made by the REACH intervention are likely to be lost, as many 
children may find it difficult to cope with the transition. Eventually, they will drop out. 
Another question that crops up is this: Are formal schools the only answer? What about 
open systems of learning, like the National Open School, for instance? There is also the need 
to ‘vocationalize’ learning inputs to enable adolescents develop employable skills in local 
markets. These aspects need systematically investigation in the remaining period. 
5 Building the capacity of smaller, less mature NGOs 
NGO selection in REACH has been through a rigorous process that has taken much of the 
initial one and a half years of the intervention. A unique feature has been the selection of 
NGOs, large and small, working in rural and urban settings. Some NGOs are known in the 
education sector, while others look at education as a key component of their overall 
development interventions. REACH India has sought to engage with the larger, more 
established NGOs as Partners in capacity building of small NGOs (the sub-grantees). For 
the smaller NGOs, the REACH program offers perhaps the first opportunity to 
systematically work on children’s education. They have been supported by REACH through 
inputs for staff and teachers on organizational development, quality education (like the 
‘Learning Classroom Series’ for example) and financial administration. Partners value these 
inputs highly. These efforts need to be consolidated. They are likely to bear fruit and result 
in lasting impact only if the grantees choose to continue to build upon this strong 
foundation. 
To augment these efforts, an advisory board consisting of civil servants, academicians and 
experts was involved with REACH right from the selection stage itself. This board was 
expected to steer the program towards a wider vision, and also liaison with the government. 
However, the board seems to have become inactive after the selection process, as it is likely 
that administrative aspects dominated the REACH program. 
6 Developing a shared notion of Quality Education 
There is a wide variety of understanding and interpretations of quality in REACH. 
Articulations are also uneven in their depth. The over riding considerations of quality seem 
to be the achievement of basic skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking, along with 
the achievement of the quantitative target of mainstreaming a certain (committed) number 
of children in school. The understanding of quality therefore lacks a deeper conceptual and 
philosophical basis. It may help to revisit/rethink this issue and arrive at a broader, deeper 
notion of quality that drives the endeavor of educating vulnerable children. In this 
connection, the initiative of the Learning Classroom Series (LCS), facilitated by REACH 
through the services of an external consultant, along with the Quality of Education Tool 
(QEAT) developed by REACH, holds promise as regards the development of a collective 
understanding on quality over time. The challenge is to systematically explore the 
possibilities of sharing these ideas and approaches to enhance quality within the government 
schools. 
7 Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation 
REACH has developed elaborate tools and systems to record the progress of their 
interventions on the ground. Many of these approaches are still works in progress. These 
include individual tracking and profiling systems for children, and regular monitoring of 
classroom processes through quality checklists. For finance, REACH has provided inputs on 
basic accounting and audit procedures for each grantee and sub grantee. However, key 
monitoring documents such as Performance Monitoring Plans (PMPs) do not have 
process indicators – they are based on quantitative targets. Indicators other than numbers 
of children to be mainstreamed would have helped the grantees to focus on the actual 
processes that are needed to root their interventions more strongly. 
8 Promoting the adoption of best practices within the NGO and state/district 
education communities
The focus so far has been on implementation of activities, given the tight deadlines and 
targets for children to be mainstreamed. Much less time has been spent on learning from the 
experiences and achievements of each other. While there is some scope for REACH in 
creating learning and sharing platforms to help pooling of complementary skills and 
expertise, given the differences among many of the grantees (based on ideological, political 
and personal equations), a uniform strategy may not be appropriate. 
The same can be said about the potential replication in the government system of 
approaches adopted by REACH partners. Model building takes time. Sharing, learning and 
wider dissemination must also be undertaken deliberately for it to have any wider influence 
and impact. REACH and its Partners may well create space in the remaining duration of the 
intervention for this to happen. 
Given the enormous challenges that mainstreaming vulnerable children involve, 
documentation and research in the REACH India programme has been weak. The resources 
earmarked for research on issues of relevance have been reprogrammed to accommodate the 
budget cuts. There is still the possibility that a concerted attempt to pull together the rich 
and wide variety of experiences, backed with evidence and demonstration, would enable 
respective NGOs to showcase their work for advocacy and fund raising. Among the many 
possible areas for research and documentation, the issue of transition, retention and learning 
in children must be highlighted. REACH and its Partners could demonstrate how, through 
their interventions these challenges have been addressed effectively. 
9 Networking 
A critical component of the REACH India programme has been the realization that 
networking is crucial. REACH India made concerted efforts to bring the grantees together 
from selection stage onwards. However, despite these efforts, REACH has not been able to 
pool together their strengths, the knowledge base and experience despite encouraging and 
facilitating interactions among them. Informal coming together for sharing experiences has 
happened in some places. This should not be seen as a reflection on REACH India but on 
the notion of networking. Working together entails similar perspectives on critical issues and 
ways and means of addressing them, and this is not happening in REACH India. 
Although not stated in the discussions, one does sense personality and ego clashes that are 
compounded by conflicting interests of member organizations who vie for funds for similar 
work from the same donors. On the whole, while it may not be possible to bring all Partners 
together as part of a coherent network, REACH and its grantees may well explore common 
issues and themes around which they can come together in the remaining period of the 
intervention. 
10 Sustaining the Process 
Sustainability may be seen in at least three complementary ways. In the remaining period, 
REACH and its Partners may focus their attention on these aspects in a systematic manner 
and explore ways of ensuring continuity of efforts. The first is to sustain the interventions of 
capacity building of grantees – it has been noted already that REACH has undertaken efforts 
to create strong, vibrant organizations which can effectively address the agenda of UEE for 
vulnerable children. These processes must be consolidated. Secondly, to ensure that the 
ideas generated during the REACH intervention must find their way into the larger 
government system. For this, it has already been noted that a deliberate strategy needs to be 
out in place. Only when innovative ideas and approaches enter the government system is 
there hope of change on a wider, larger scale. Thirdly, we have mentioned the need for a 
more rigorous approach to working with community based institutions like PTAs, School 
Development Committees and Panchayats. The agenda of local education governance is a 
key area that needs urgent attention. These three complementary aspects must be focused 
upon in the coming 18-20 months of REACH India. If this happens, it is likely that a strong 
foundation can be laid for future work and for sustaining children’s learning. 
1. Introduction – background, purpose and methodology 
REACH India, a four-year project funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), was initiated in September 2003 towards improving access of 
vulnerable children to quality basic education and complementing the Government of India's 
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All campaign). It is slated to end in September 2007, 
about a year from now. A ‘no cost’ extension has been requested by REACH for a period of 
six months starting October 2007. 
The project was designed to provide educational opportunities to ‘at-risk’1
 children in six 
geographical areas by supporting NGOs through grants and technical assistance. These 
geographical areas, viz. Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Kolkata, Mumbai and North 
Karnataka are a mix of rural and urban, which differ in terms of socio-economic and cultural 
characteristics. 
The interventions seek to address the basic education needs of at-risk children, especially 
girls, up to 14 years of age, who are either out of school or are in school but in danger of 
dropping out. 
This is primarily done by strengthening NGO capacity to scale up delivery of educational 
services to out-of-school children and improve the quality of education in schools. The other 
purposes promoted by the projects include: 
o Promoting the adoption of best practices within the NGO and educational 
communities. 
o Encouraging stronger and more complementary relationships between NGOs 
and government in promoting UEE objectives 
o Encouraging strengthened supportive and resource networks among NGOs to 
address issues pertaining to achievement of UEE 
The project aimed at reaching out to about 200,000 children through 109 NGOs by 
sustaining capacities and supporting qualitative improvements in the process of reaching 
these beneficiaries. 
With a year to go before the end of REACH India, a mid-term review was envisaged to 
allow reflection on the progress, achievements and gaps of the programme and to consider 
any strategies, actions and linkages that could help sustain its interventions beyond the 
project. 
Project grantees, individually and collectively, as well as project staff, in consultation with 
grantees, and its Advisory Board is considering how, in the remaining period, the greatest 
benefits can be achieved and possibilities of continuance strengthened. The mid term review 
is expected to help sharpen these ideas and directions. 
1
 We quote from the Program description document of REACH India: ‘Most vulnerable children in India 
live in rural areas and urban slums, which by and large are by passed by government programs and 
services. They comprise children from squatter colonies, children with HIV-AIDS, children from poor 
families, street children, working children and the children of sex workers.’ 
 
The review methodology included desk study of relevant literature, discussion with REACH 
and USAID staff, and field visits to selected regions and partners. Different types of grantees 
(direct and capacity building grantees and sub-grantees) were visited in Delhi, Kolkata, 
Jharkhand and North Karnataka. The grantees were selected for interactions with the review 
team keeping the following criteria in mind – volume of funds, type of grantee (direct or 
capacity building), rural/urban location and population, duration of intervention in REACH 
program, and focus areas/strategies followed. The visits included discussions and interviews 
with partner staff, teachers, children, parents and community representatives, as well as 
government officials from the education department, besides field visits to the actual 
sites/centers of learning. A questionnaire was circulated to all partners (even those not 
visited by the review team) to elicit their responses. (Refer Annex 3 for the study/review 
framework and tools.) 
2. Progress against stated objectives 
The progress has to be viewed in the context of the late start of the REACH programme in 
the different regions. Although REACH officially began in September 2003, almost a year 
was spent in setting up the organization, systems and procedures and thereafter in 
identifying the grantees. The selection process for sub-grantees of the capacity building 
grantees took even longer (see box below). 
Region Start up month Project duration 
Chhattisgarh June 2005 2 years 2 months 
Delhi October/November 2004 2 years 10 months 
Jharkhand December 2004 2 years 8 months 
Kolkata January 2005 2 years 7 months 
Mumbai September 2005 1 year 11 months 
North Karnataka November 2005 1 year 8 months 
It needs to be noted that the time available to interventions by sub-grantees is even shorter. 
For example, the programme has been operating in Karnataka for just about six months in 
the case of direct grantees but for the sub grantees, ground level interventions will begin 
with the new academic year, i.e., July 2006. The interventions of sub grantees of Akshara 
and SVYM are barely a few months old – as recent as March/April 2006. As this report is 
being written, the baseline exercises are still underway with these sub grantees. Therefore, in 
any assessment of REACH programme as a whole, the very short and inadequate time frame 
of the interventions for any purposive and sustained education programming to take place 
on the ground needs to be taken into account. As a result, there has been a tendency in the 
operational aspects of the program to pay more attention to the quantitative aspects (i.e. the 
numbers) of bringing children back into school; this tends to push into the background 
other socioeconomic factors that may be responsible for preventing children from 
participating in schooling. 
The following sections attempt to outline the progress against objectives in terms of 
reaching out to Out of School Children, building capacities of NGOs to do likewise, and 
promoting the adoption of best practices within NGO programs as well as the government 
education system. 
Strengthening strong performing NGOs to scale up their delivery of 
educational services to out-of-school children in urban and rural areas 
200,500 TOTAL 
(i) Reaching the Unreached 
(a) Delivery of educational services to children at risk 
The REACH India programme initially aimed at reaching out and educating about 400,000 
children at risk. The figure was revised later to 300,000 and further to 200,000, which is the 
stated objective for the end of the programme in August 2007 (now March 2008 with the 
proposed no cost extension). The following is the break-down of the 200,000 children who 
have been targeted by the programme, as per the monitoring and evaluation data provided 
by REACH India: 
105,000 Mainstreamed into formal schools through bridge courses and Balwadis 
40,500 Directly enrolled into formal schools 
55,000 Already enrolled in schools but supported through indirect means (e.g. 
remedial support, teachers’ training, provision of additional teachers in 
single teacher government schools, etc.) 
These children were to be reached out through more than 100 NGOs. As of now, about 82 
NGOs are implementing the programme. These include: 22 direct grantees, 11 capacity 
building grantees and 49 sub-grantees. About 27 sub-grantees are yet to begin 
implementation (as mentioned earlier, the 22 sub-grantees in Northern Karnataka are still 
engaged in baseline surveys). 
The NGOs have so far prepared the ground and are showing encouraging progress against 
targets. The following observations provide an overview: 
 
o By the end of March 2006, a total of 49,046 children had been enrolled by 
grantee NGOs in various education interventions. The Jharkhand region 
accounted for nearly half (46.8%) of the students. 
o About 67.7% of the above children are enrolled in bridge courses. Direct 
enrolments in formal schooling systems account for 10% of enrolments. The 
Balwadis (preschools) as well as remedial classes have enrolled 9.9% children 
each. 
o About 50.8% of those enrolled were continuing in bridge courses and only 
12.7% had dropped out. 
o Only 5% of 49,046 who were enrolled into an NGO intervention could be 
mainstreamed. The remaining children have not yet completed the bridge course 
and will be mainstreamed in the current school year. 
o A slight majority (51.2%) of the enrolled students were girls, reflecting the 
general pattern of the programme. Nearly 80% of the students were identified as 
belonging to a scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward classes or a 
minority group. 
o A slight majority of children (53.1%) of children served by REACH 
interventions were from urban areas. Bridge and balwadi programmes tended to 
serve a majority of rural students while direct enrolment, remediation, and 
Alternative Education Services (AES) tended to serve students in urban areas. 
According to latest estimates by REACH, 88,000 children are expected to be mainstreamed 
in formal schools by the end of the project period. As against the above figure of 1,45,500 
children, this represent a further reduction. These estimates are based on project proposals 
and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plans of each Partner. The main reason attributed by 
REACH for a further reduction in the number of children to be mainstreamed is the 
following – as the REACH intervention started in different regions, the estimates of children 
to be mainstreamed in project proposals that were approved by REACH, were at variance 
from REACH’s own initial estimates of 4,00,000, 3,00,000, and subsequently, 2,00,000 
children. It must be noted that grantees’ proposals were based on actual assessments of field 
needs. Invariably, baseline surveys were conducted by all Partners to arrive at their estimates. 
Further, it must be noted that REACH grantees work in a dynamically changing 
environment, where government interventions also operate. Observations on the ground 
suggest that many children are continually getting enrolled/absorbed in bridge courses and 
EGS centers of the government. This possibility cannot be ignored, and may explain the 
reduction in numbers of the children to be mainstreamed by REACH interventions. 
 
The grantees are confident that their targets in terms of number of children to be 
mainstreamed will be met by the end of the project period. However, for many of them 
including the Karnataka partners, whose programmes commenced only six months ago (the 
sub grantees in Karnataka are still engaged in the baseline exercises), this is going to be a tall 
order. 
There are enormous challenges to be met as far as the targets are concerned. These 
challenges range from children potentially dropping out of bridge centers (for instance, as of 
April 2006, up to 35% dropping out of bridge centers as reported by the capacity building 
grantee Deepalaya in Delhi), and government schools, even after mainstreaming. 
Mainstreaming seems to be more understood as the activity of getting children to enter the 
formal schooling system of the government. In reality, this is at best a limited step, and has 
to be accompanied by adequate support structures that enable the child to cope with the new 
(and often hostile) environment of the school. Unless these structures and activities are 
functioning effectively, the gains in terms of numbers are likely to be lost. 
In the remaining period, REACH Partners have to critically assess if adequate support 
mechanisms have been provided to enable retention and meaningful learning. There is thus a 
need to review and address this aspect of drop-outs. Quick, accurate assessments of the 
status of children in transition (For example: Do children like being in government schools? 
How are they coping? What factors encourage or hinder mainstreaming and retention?) need 
to be undertaken to put in place supportive mechanisms for children who are mainstreamed, 
and for those who are still struggling to even access programmes like the bridge centres. This 
type of analysis could add great value to the program. 
In connection with mainstreaming it must be stated that approaches towards 
institutionalizing learning through open school systems like the NIOS, need to be explored 
more systematically in the remaining duration of the project. The formal schooling system 
may not always be the best route to children who are older, and who also may need other 
inputs like vocational education, for instance. A concern was expressed in Delhi regarding 
the validity of certification through the NIOS. Such constraints could be addressed through 
concerted discussions with concerned government education departments. Another related 
question must be posed: whether all children from the bridge centers will be mainstreamed 
in the true sense of the term. What about those who still remain? What about the costs of 
mainstreaming them beyond the project period? Where is this going to come from? These 
aspects need to be addressed more comprehensively in the remaining period. 
(b) Range of Interventions; focus on special groups 
Children ‘at risk’ are being supported through bridge courses (both residential and non￾residential) and remedial teaching/coaching and by provision of support to formal schools. 
Some of the grantees are also attempting to work with the formal (mostly government) 
schools. 
Indeed, one observes an impressive array of interventions in the REACH India programme: 
o Bridge courses enable children to quickly move into the mainstream through 
enrolment into formal schools. Residential bridge courses for girls have a definite 
appeal. This fact has been observed where intensive learning has been provided 
through residential programmes (e.g. Balika Shivirs in Rajasthan). This is evident 
in the case of REACH India grantee BVA. In the past, finding girls for 
admissions to the bridge courses was extremely difficult and a lot of field work 
was required. But now there is a rush for admissions. Non-residential Bridge 
Courses are more widely prevalent in REACH, with most Partners using these as 
a means to get children mainstreamed in the formal school system. 
o Interventions like the Bridge Courses are further supplemented by coaching 
programs. These are often referred to as activities of ‘remediation’. Partners 
point out that children who have been mainstreamed in school, and those who 
are already in school, but are having difficulties in learning, need this support, if 
they are to remain in school and learn. However, remediation or coaching 
programs are not the norm; most Partners have not instituted them in their 
practice. 
o It is well known that ECE prepares children for primary education. Although 
most REACH grantees are engaged with primary education, there are exceptions 
like CWD and SARD, which have ECE interventions as well as part of their 
design. This element could have been more deliberately added as part of the 
overall design of the REACH program. 
o Focus on identifying and addressing learning disabilities -- Manovikas Kendra, 
Ummeed, Digdarshika and AADI are among the few Partners that have an 
exclusive focus on differently ‘abled’ children 
o A range of innovative (pedagogical) interventions, often working directly with 
the government schools, include science education (Agastya Foundation), 
Teaching-Learning materials (Avehi-Abacus), Accelerated Reading and Learning 
Programs (AR/LP of Akshara), Curriculum strengthening (Vikramshila), ‘Whole 
School’ approaches (CEMD, TTF), professional development of teachers and 
education administrators (CEMD) etc are in place. 
The wide range of approaches in the REACH intervention as described above attempt to 
reach out to different groups of vulnerable children, especially girls, children from tribal 
communities, differently ‘abled’ children, and so on. 
In terms of numbers, the number of girls targeted in REACH is slightly more than boys, as 
is evident from the information available. Partners seem to be placing an equal emphasis on 
the education of boys and girls; however, interventions still seem to be dictated by the 
perceived imperative of girls becoming mothers and what would they require from education 
during this transition. There seems to be the need for reflection on teaching and learning, 
which will enable girls to explore their personhood, and sometimes stretching the boundaries 
of who they are and could become. 
The challenges of mainstreaming children in tribal areas, like those of Chhatisgarh and 
Jharkhand, are enormous. Both these states comprise of significant proportion of tribal 
population in the country. The tribal population is socially and economically marginalized. 
Low levels of illiteracy and rampant poverty contribute to lowering schooling for children in 
the list of priorities for tribal communities/families. Most tribal children in the areas where 
Jharkhand grantees work are first generation learners. Furthermore, the field level activities 
of Jharkhand grantees suffer particularly from the increasing concern about the spread of 
Maoist influence across the state. 
Though special education for children with developmental disabilities is not an exclusive 
focus area, REACH Partners like AADI are pioneers in this area. Other grantees who are 
doing notable work include Mano Vikas Kendra, Ummeed and Digdarshika. Their 
experiences need proper documentation. 
Albeit a number of interesting approaches are being implemented by the grantees, the 
inability to consolidate the experiences through empirical research and dissemination of 
learning could be seen as a weakness of REACH India at this stage. 
Following are some snapshots from the field visits: 
o While children in a learning centre run by a NBJK sub-grantee in Giridih could 
hardly read as per their level, children in another centre fared quite well. The 
visible differences between the two centres were the level of enthusiasm and 
preparedness among the teachers. Also, there were two teachers and more 
children in the latter. There was not much difference in the attitude and 
response of the parents who were satisfied as long as the teacher attended the 
school regularly – a complaint they had against the government schools. 
o Meeting with the teachers running the learning centres of the same NGO 
revealed that they themselves were not thorough in their understanding of basic 
concepts. For them, the job as the teacher in the NGO learning centres was ill￾paid (they were being paid Rs.1000/-, less than the minimum wages) and 
essentially supplemented their income from other sources (e.g. agriculture). 
While it would be wrong to doubt their commitment, one came to understand 
that people did not mind a low-paid job as it added to their social status in the 
local milieu. 
o Children who have been taken through Akshara’s ARP in Raichur district 
(through Prerna, the local NGO) seem to have picked up the skills of reading 
story texts; the program has made them enthusiastic about reading and wanting 
to learn more. However, there are many children in the same group who can read 
by decoding the symbols, but are unable to explain the meaning of the text 
completely. This seems ot be the next challenge for the program, which plans to 
make school libraries an integral part of children’s learning. 
o Agastya’s science demonstrations in schools and local communities provoke 
children teachers and community members alike to think about common natural 
phenomena which occur in daily life. A key question, however, is: how will these 
approaches be instituted in schools? Will mere demonstrations and some teacher 
training work? 
o SARD in Delhi has negotiated with the MCD schools to allot space for its 
resource centers within each school where it works. These resource centers act as 
spaces where children who have difficulties with learning, are further supported. 
The resource centers also act as spaces for teacher enrichment within the school. 
It was not possible to get a good sense of what children are learning because the mid-term 
review took place when the learning centres and schools were closed for vacations. 
Monitoring systems of REACH, like the Student Tracking Tool (STT), do not capture the 
element of scholastic achievement in children. Some attempts were made to meet with 
children and it appears that their performances are mixed. The grantees have developed their 
own measures of what children learn in the core subjects. Usually, marks or grades are 
provided to regularly monitor the achievement of subject related competencies. 
(ii) Working with parents and communities 
While most partners have attempted to create greater awareness among parents on the need 
for children to be educated, this activity at present seems to be limited to the identification 
of out of school children and their mainstreaming in government schools. In a number of 
interactions with parents and community members, the review team observed a general 
sense of helplessness and despair as regards the relationships between the formal schools 
and parents is concerned. A widespread belief is that the school will ‘never change’ and ‘we 
cannot do anything about it’. Parents are nevertheless seen to be sending their children to 
government schools, as they do not have the capacity to meet the costs of private schooling 
in many cases. However, there seems to be an increasing trend towards sending children to 
private schools, both in rural and urban areas. This is likely to further undermine the 
functioning of government schools, unless their quality improves perceptibly. Indeed, this 
represents a key challenge for interventions like REACH. 
In the rural Jharkhand, for instance, the children are first generation learners. School as an 
organized structure for learning and education of children is an alien concept, and hence, 
there is little or no conception of the quality of school or of formal education, in general. As 
long as the teacher turns up at the centre, they seem satisfied. The government school 
teachers are generally seen as lax and are accused of absenteeism. Theirs is a valid concern 
but it raises doubts about their ability to collectively monitor the quality of schooling at the 
local level (e.g. what teachers are teaching and what children are learning). Interactions with 
teachers at the learning centres did suggest that they lacked proficiency both in terms of 
instruction and content. This is critical because after a certain point, parents (and children 
too) look for returns to schooling (e.g. job opportunities, visible improvement in quality of 
life, and so on) and are disappointed if this is not seen to be happening. This results in high 
rate of drop-outs, and a critical mass of children educated up to a certain level remains a 
distant goal. 
REACH interventions need to be more strategic in their approach to community 
mobilization around children’s education. This must be linked to the development of the 
‘bargaining power’ of communities to make schools perform better. Admittedly, this takes 
time. Nonetheless, parents and local communities need to be supported in building of their 
capacities and confidence to negotiate with the government school system, to pressurise it 
into becoming more accessible and improving its performance. After all, it is this system that 
is expected to cater to the learning needs of most children who have been mainstreamed. 
There are some promising examples in REACH which will need building upon: 
 
o SVYM, in North Karnataka, has chosen to work with the School Development 
and Management Committees (SDMC) in an effort to federate them at the block 
level; there are plans to work closely with the Panchayati Raj institutions as well. 
SVYM realises that Panchayat resources need to be tapped into to encourage 
community level interventions for at risk children. This is part of pushing the 
agenda of decentralised education governance. 
o Similarly, Prayas is trying to create vigilance committees in the community, and 
small working groups among local NGOs to regularly monitor children in 
schools, towards ensuring retention and learning of children in schools. 
Thus, more efforts are required fairly quickly at the grassroots level in order to promote pro￾active engagement of the community in sustaining the interventions and claiming the 
resources that are rightfully their own. 
(iii) Working with the government schooling system 
A laudable feature of REACH India has been the imperative of linking the interventions 
with SSA by supporting and working with the government agencies. In Jharkhand, for 
example, BVA along with CINI Asha, UNICEF and SSA is developing the curriculum for 
bridge courses. However, the process of mainstreaming children in the formal (mostly 
government) schooling system cannot be viewed in isolation, and only with respect to 
enrolling out of school children. School enrollment campaigns under DPEP/SSA have 
raised awareness among parents about schooling and put the spotlight on the school. 
Arguably they want to educate their children. But the issue is the functioning of schools, 
and of the quality of teacher and learning. This needs urgent attention. 
We have already mentioned that, among both rural and urban communities, there is a 
perceptible sense of despair about the government school system. Despite impressive 
quantitative expansion in schooling facilities over the years, due to interventions like the 
OBB, DPEP and now the SSA, a feeling persists on the ground that it does not function, 
with its poor infrastructure and absent teachers. Concerns remain about the quality of 
teaching and learning, and ill-equipped, ill-resourced and distant schools. If these conditions 
do not change sufficiently, all efforts at mainstreaming will be rendered ineffective and 
counterproductive for children’s self esteem and ability for continued learning. While the 
data collected by the NGOs does give an indication of children joining the formal education 
system, it is not clear if they are attending schools regularly. It is still early to say whether 
these children would stay on in the formal education system. A systematic mapping may be 
required to ascertain this. 
Stronger networks and linkages with government departments and schools are critical to 
ensure that children stay on and learn. By and large, there is a need for the grantees to cover 
much ground in this regard. Barring the work of a few, most grantees have not yet moved 
towards working more directly with the government schools to improve their overall 
functioning and quality. This is acknowledged by the grantees themselves. A related point 
that must be made in this connection is the development of internal capacities of REACH 
Partners to engage effectively the government system at all levels, particularly so on the 
ground, in the day-to-day practice of working with teachers. This is an area that needs to be 
focused upon in the days to come. 
We must note that there are enough examples in REACH that have the potential to impact 
the government schooling system at a wider level in multiple ways. CEMD’s work on 
educational leadership for school principals and department officials is time tested, and well 
appreciated. SARD, for instance, has had prior experience of working closely with 
government schools in the PESLE program, where its inputs have mainly been in the areas 
of teacher support. Akshara, which uses the NGO Pratham’s approach to early reading and 
literacy, has attempted to institute the approach in government schools. Agastya, as we have 
already noted, is doing promising work with government schools on science education. 
Vikramshila, for many years, has worked on pedagogical improvements in the government 
schooling system. AADI is integrating the issues and concerns of children with 
developmental disabilities, with the concerns of school development as a whole. There is 
thus a corpus of experiences that need to be synthesized and tapped for the future. 
 
The above concerns notwithstanding, some positive attempts that already exist need to be 
noted: 
o In Kolkata, Vikramshila uses the state government’s curriculum and by 
unpacking it and identifying the core concepts, it is seeking to enhance learning 
among children. 
o In Delhi, SARD has established resource centers in each MCD school it works 
with. Space for this has been provided by the school itself. These resource 
centers cater to the need of ‘slow’ learners, and they have been envisaged as 
spaces for teachers to come together, share ideas and innovate. 
o CEMD in Delhi has for many years worked with the government system to 
promote educational leadership. TTF in Karnataka likewise works with teachers 
and school principals, and has recently started translating its experience in 
government schools. All these experiences need to be shared on a wider scale. 
o Agastya in Karnataka has innovated the approach to science teaching, while 
Akshara has made inroads with its accelerated reading and learning programs in 
schools. Similarly, Avehi-Abacus in Mumbai works with a large number of 
government schools to promote its learning materials and methods. 
Review and documentation of the approaches, especially in terms of what has worked and 
what has not in the remaining period is crucial. The collation of the above experiences will 
prove to be invaluable to REACH in particular, and the education sector, in general. 
In connection with mainstreaming it must be stated that approaches towards 
institutionalizing learning through open school systems like the NIOS, need to be explored 
more systematically. The formal schooling system may not always be the best route to 
children who are older, and who also may need other inputs like vocational skills, for 
instance. A concern was expressed in Delhi regarding the validity of certification through the 
NIOS. Such constraints could be addressed through discussions with concerned government 
education departments. 
In connection with the process of mainstreaming, and of working directly with the 
government schools, we must ask a related question: whether all children from the bridge 
centers will be mainstreamed in the true sense of the term. What about those who still 
remain? What about the costs of mainstreaming them beyond the project period? Where is 
this going to come from? These aspects need to be addressed. 
 
Building the capacity of smaller, less mature NGOs 
(i) Selection process 
NGO selection in REACH has been through a rigorous process that has taken much of the 
initial one and a half years of the intervention, both for capacity building and direct grantees, 
as well as the sub grantees. The Partners of REACH represent an interesting mix – they are 
large and small, working in urban and/or rural areas, with focus on education or education 
as a component of a range of interventions that include health, economic development, 
HIV/AIDS, land rights, watersheds and so on. Many of them are engaged in direct and 
indirect implementation, and some are intensely engaged in policy advocacy as well. This 
mix promises a variety of perspectives, approaches and interventions. 
(ii) Capacity building process 
An interesting feature of REACH India has been the mechanism of transfer of financial and 
technical assistance through ‘capacity building’ grantees. Relatively well-established and 
strong NGOs were identified for this role and through them smaller and less mature NGOs 
are being supported. There are 11 capacity building grantees spread across five regions. 
REACH India has sought to engage with the larger more established NGOs as partners in 
capacity building of small NGOs. In addition, they have been providing support in the areas 
of (i) organizational development; (ii) quality education; (iii) monitoring and evaluation and 
(iv) financial administration. The technical assistance that has been provided is rated very 
highly by the grantees. 
The means of sustaining capacities and qualitative efforts developed in the process of 
reaching these beneficiaries need to be explored and encouraged. 
Some of the capacity building grantees are well-known in the development sector for their 
competence in education programmes and have acquired a good reputation for their work. 
Many others are quite large in terms of size (staff and funds), the range and spread of 
interventions but are better known not for education but for their emphasis on other 
development issues (e.g. community development, juvenile justice, etc.) which were and 
remain their organizational priorities. 
REACH India’s approach of identifying and selecting smaller NGOs has helped these 
organizations engage more systematically with educational issues (with support from 
REACH and the capacity building grantees) and at the same time, develop further their 
financial, accounting and technical capacities and the confidence for educational 
programming. By constantly engaging key stakeholders like parents, government 
schoolteachers and officials, and local leaders, the grantees have managed well to keep the 
spotlight on children’s education. All these efforts have resulted in an enhanced awareness 
and even sense of urgency to increase efforts to meet the goals of UEE. 
 
For REACH India, reaching out to a large number of organizations within the short time 
available, and setting up systems for implementation, is in itself an achievement. The 
grantees have on record acknowledged these efforts. Further, through the much appreciated 
inputs vis-à-vis the Learning Classroom Series (LCS), REACH has attempted to set up open 
ended, hands on learning methods for the professional development of NGO staff and 
teachers. These efforts must be consolidated through follow up; they require time to take 
root. In essence, this implies continuity as far as inputs and their application in day-to-day 
work is concerned. 
REACH India has invested substantially in the capacity building of NGOs, mainly in terms 
of improvement in education quality, monitoring and evaluation, organizational 
development and financial management and administration. These efforts are likely to bear 
fruit given there is a commitment by the Partners to ensure continuity of inputs well beyond 
the period of the REACH intervention. 
(iii) Developing a shared notion of Quality Education 
It is not easy to look for a shared articulation or understanding of school quality in 
particular, or quality of education in general, in the REACH interventions. From interactions 
with grantees, what comes across is a wide variety of understanding and interpretations of 
quality. Articulations are also uneven in their depth. On the whole, these range from 
statements like ‘every child in school and learning well’, to ‘child centered, activity based and 
joyful learning methods in order to attain Minimum Levels of Learning (MLLs)’. Indeed, in 
most cases, the MLLs feature as a key aspect. The terms child centered or activity based are 
not elaborated further in most cases. 
In some cases, the grantees have a broader notion of quality, which encompasses each 
activity or aspect of the entire intervention. We may take an example here to illustrate the 
case. Thus, for Deepalaya, quality considerations operate at their level as a capacity building 
grantee, and also at the level of their sub grantees. In this case, the issues for consideration 
involve attendance of children, and their monthly achievements on the core subjects. At 
Deepalaya’s end, thinking on quality involves the nature and effectiveness of their 
interactions both with Reach and with their sub-grantees, in terms of timely support 
provided, adherence to systems and procedures etc. 
Though in some instances (like Prayas), the articulations on quality involve notions of 
holistic development (such as ‘creativity, self confidence, curiosity, self reliance, dignity of 
the individual etc), it is not clear how these aspects are addressed in the day-to-day practice 
of running bridge centers and working with government schools. 
In conclusion, we may state that at the grantee level, the over riding considerations of quality 
seem to be the achievement of basic skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking, along 
with the achievement of the quantitative target of mainstreaming a certain (committed) 
number of children in school. At the moment, the understanding of quality therefore lacks a 
deeper conceptual and philosophical basis. It may therefore help to revisit/rethink this issue 
and arrive at a broader, deeper notion of quality that drives the endeavor of educating 
vulnerable children. In this connection, the initiative of the Learning Classroom Series 
(LCS), facilitated by REACH through the services of an external consultant, holds promise 
as regards the development of a collective understanding on quality over time. 
LCS is a programme using open-learning methods for NGO personnel to enrich their 
educational services. It comprises of a series of three workshops on curriculum enrichment, 
improved teaching learning strategies and promoting active assessment in the classroom. 
These themes were identified for improvement of the education quality on the basis of 
proposal reviews, site visits and informal discussions with the partner NGOs. It was further 
verified with the Education Quality Checklists in Delhi and Jharkhand. In between the 
workshops, the participants are expected to practice the learning in the field. 
The LCS series workshops have been widely appreciated by Partners. A concern, however is 
that for these intensive inputs to be internalized it takes time and continuity of efforts. In the 
remaining period therefore, this process of capacity building must be consolidated through 
regular follow up and attempts must be made to introduce the same approach in the wider 
government school system at various levels in a phased manner. 
REACH has also attempted to define the contours of quality through tools such as the 
Quality Education Assessment Tool (QEAT), which has a deeper pedagogical basis. 
Orientations of Partners on this tool and its usage, is underway. Through elaborate 
classroom observations and recording of processes of teaching, learning and interactions 
between teachers and children, and through regular interviews with teachers and NGO staff, 
the status of quality at any given point in time can be mapped. 
The challenge for REACH in the remaining period would be to deepen its understanding of 
quality at different levels, and look for ways to use this understanding in strengthening 
practices in the government schooling system. For this to happen, grantees must first 
demonstrate how a broader, deeper notion of quality informs their work, beyond the 
achievement of MLLs. 
(iv) Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation 
REACH and its grantees have developed elaborate tools and systems to record the progress 
of their interventions on the ground. Many of these approaches are still works in progress 
and need to be refined. These include individual tracking and profiling systems for children, 
and regular monitoring of classroom processes through quality checklists. As far as tracking 
of finance is concerned, REACH has provided inputs on basic accounting and audit 
procedures for each grantee and sub grantee (see section on Financial Management for some 
details). 
A key document that enables and sets a benchmark for monitoring is the Performance 
Management Plan (PMP) of REACH. This sets out the indicators that have to be met by 
each grantee with regard to covering children through bridge courses, direct enrollment in 
school, and mainstreaming of children following the bridge course cycle. However, a 
review of the PMP reveals that there are no process indicators – the PMP is a plan that is 
based on quantitative targets. In the absence of such indicators, the emphasis shifts to 
achieving the required numbers – processes like working with parents and communities, 
improving the functioning of the government school etc tend to be less emphasized. 
Indicators other than numbers of children to be mainstreamed would have helped the 
grantees to focus on the actual processes that are needed to root their interventions more 
strongly. 
o Student Tracking Tool (STT) 
In recognition of the need to closely monitor the progress of children who are out of school, 
REACH India has designed and implemented the Student Tracking Tool (STT). All the 
grantees are using this tool. 
In April/May 2005, the M&E team from REACH India provided training on the STT for 
the Delhi partners. The STT uses an excel sheet and makes tracking simple and systematic. 
Each child is given an UI number (Unique Identification number). At the AECs or Bridge 
Centers, the teacher routinely records the presence or absence of a child. In the case of the 
government school, the bridge course teachers visit the school every month (2-3 times), 
more specifically on the last working day of every month to collect information on children 
who have been mainstreamed. Based on the information given by the schoolteacher, the 
bridge course teacher follows up with the parents and the child. 
The STT, however, does not track all children in school. For this, one has to rely on official 
records which may not be accurate. There also may be a thin line separating children who 
have been out of school, and those who are in, and just about barely managing to stay on. 
So, there may be a need to develop a more sensitive and simpler system that derives its ideas 
from the STT, for tracking all children in school. Indeed, if this happens, this could result in 
becoming a useful contribution of REACH to the government schools. 
While all grantees found the STT to be extremely useful, some of the Jharkhand and Kolkata 
grantees found it to be cumbersome and were of the opinion that it should be simplified. 
Inefficient electricity and internet connections in the rural areas add to the difficulties. 
Nonetheless, the consensus is that it should be promoted widely, beyond the REACH 
grantees after simplifying it. 
o Quality of Education Assessment Tool 
Though the STT does not focus on children’s learning attainments in the various subjects (it 
is only a tool that tracks the status of children ‘physically’) Partners have often developed 
their own simple systems to monitor the basic competencies learnt by children. In some 
cases, marks are given. In others, children’s learning is graded. Yet in other cases, it is 
categorized into ‘levels’. The LCS training has helped partners conceptualize the assessment 
formats. 
In some cases, as in the case of Disha in Delhi, for instance, ‘specific learning outcomes’ 
(SLO) on the lines of the minimum levels of learning (MLLs) for each subject is fixed. The 
teacher then grades the child’s achievement based on these SLOs. 
REACH India’s ‘Quality of Education Assessment Tool’ is a much more broad based 
approach to enable the NGOs to assess the status of quality of their interventions on a 
number of critical parameters through regular observations, discussions and recording. The 
key parameter is the classroom teaching and learning environment, which is mapped with 
the help of an extensive checklist. To date, REACH has trained NGO staff to use this tool. 
It is too early to ascertain the experiences of using the same. Along with the modified STT, 
the Quality assessment tool has the potential to be used in government schools to strengthen 
qualitative monitoring and support as well; this needs to be promoted strongly in the 
remaining period. 
o Individual Student Profile 
This is a simple format developed by REACH, to help the recording of data of each child, 
both quantitatively and in a qualitative sense. It records the profile of the child in terms of 
its family background, attendance, achievement in school, etc. At the field level, more 
items can be added to make the profile more comprehensive, as it is a flexible tool. 
REACH and its grantees should now advocate for the usage of the STT at the school 
level for all children through the government systems. A simplified version of the QEAT, 
along with the assessment formats developed through the LCS workshops, can also help 
in regularly monitoring qualitative processes in school. Adoption by the government 
systems would ensure sustainability of these extremely well designed and effective tools 
of monitoring. 
(v) Promoting Organizational Development 
During the process of selection of the grantees, an effort was made to engage with the 
potential grantees through a series of workshops on project development and proposal 
writing. It was a useful exercise as it gave the potential grantees an idea of the expectations 
from partnership with REACH India, helped improved mutual understanding about the 
goals, approaches, outcomes and systems, and left with the smaller NGOs in particular some 
skills that could enable them to seek funds from other sources. 
An advisory board, consisting of civil servants, academicians and education experts was 
involved in the selection of the grantees from the short listed NGOs. The selection process 
was planned well and was able to bring together as partners a wide array of NGOs with 
varied levels of competencies and potentials. Some were funded to expand their work and 
some were funded to innovate. In principle the REACH grantees are an interesting mix that 
potentially could complement each other, but in practical terms the perceptions on 
education and its role in the wider development process, approaches to work and the issues 
of autonomy prevent such complementarities. 
As the donors or externally funded programmes suffer from a problem of “image”, they face 
greater challenge in addressing resolution of these issues, which in cases require deft 
handling or may be left unresolved for being less important. The REACH India advisory 
board was in a unique position, given its composition, to steer the programme towards a 
wider vision. However, after the selection process it seems to have become inactive. It was 
expected to suggest policies, procedures and practices to enable REACH India work towards 
achieving the SSA objectives regarding vulnerable children. It was envisaged that it would 
serve as a liaison with the Ministry of HRD in the Government of India. 
Interview with one of the former members of advisory board suggests that the members as 
important people in the education sector and bureaucracy were not able to give adequate 
time to guiding the process and the follow up by REACH India was also weak and failed to 
keep them informed and engaged. It is likely that the administrative aspects dominated the 
REACH India agenda and strategic reflection, vision and guidance required for scaling up 
the programme was neglected. 
Weak linkages with the government seem to have contributed to the failure of REACH 
India to make a contribution to the wider process of UEE It was intended that REACH 
through the advisory board, through USAID and on its own would keep the Ministry of 
HRD informed of all initiatives and progress. Some efforts have been made through 
periodic interactions and by convening information sharing events. But strategic guidance 
and evolution of REACH India as a programme with a unique identity and the ability to 
bring about changes at larger scale has not happened. At the state level, REACH India staff 
expects the grantees to take the lead while the latter expect coordination and support from 
the former. Given the reality of uneasy government-NGO partnerships overall, the political 
environment in the states, the crucial role of individuals in the bureaucracy, 
institutionalization of relationships with government can indeed be difficult. The advisory 
board could have played an important role in identifying key issues for dialogue with the 
government; further, contacts with the government at different levels could have been 
rigorously promoted to ensure convergence and synergy of efforts. 
In the remaining period of the programme, efforts to formalize relationships of NGOs with 
government education departments may not be feasible. What could positively be done is 
the consolidation of the image of REACH as a set of approaches to bring children who are 
at risk within the formal education system. It may allow the grantees to pursue the agenda 
on their own and perhaps together with other like-minded NGOs. As part of the phasing 
out process, discussions need to take place about the approaches that work, the evidence 
that would support its advocacy and its packaging and promotion. 
(vi) Strengthening Financial Management Systems 
Recognizing that transparency and accountability are critical not only from the donors’ 
perspective but also from developmental perspectives, REACH India also focuses on 
ensuring sound financial management and promoting best practices in its dealings with the 
grantees. The staff is bound by the grant agreement but efforts are made to advice and 
guide the grantees. At the roll-out stage, a grant management workshop was organized at 
which the sub-grantees were also invited. 
The feedback from smaller grantees and sub-grantees, and especially those located in the 
rural regions, suggest that they have benefited immensely from the technical assistance 
pertaining to financial management. The low-key articulation of the large and/or urban 
based NGOs could probably be because they work with a range of donor agencies and have 
acquired the experience of operating a variety of financial management systems. 
Furthermore, they have staff who specialize in accounts and finance and are already 
familiarized with, for example, software packages such as Tally. According to REACH India 
finance staff, the smaller grantees have practical problems and are more receptive while the 
larger grantees have well-developed systems and know how to respond to the donors. 
REACH India’s efforts need to be commended for adding value to the systems of NGOs 
which are generally believed to be weak in financial management. With donors becoming 
increasingly fastidious and the imperative of social development or the inability to hire and 
retain technically qualified staff due to limited budget or remote rural location no longer 
qualifying as pertinent arguments, it is likely that the smaller grantees would be able to 
benefit in future in their dealings with potential donors. However, it is not clear on the 
whole if the grantees would continue to follow the systems and best practices being 
promoted by REACH India as different donors tend to have differing systems, which they 
must adopt. 
Promoting the adoption of best practices within the NGO and 
state/district education communities 
(i) Networking among NGOs 
 
A critical component of the REACH India programme has been the realization that 
networking is crucial. The programme itself has been able to bring under one umbrella a 
rich variety of NGOs. They work in different geographical regions, with different categories 
of children at risk from different socio-economic communities, in different ways and have 
assimilated varied experiences. REACH India made concerted efforts to bring the grantees 
together from selection stage onwards. Assistance through capacity building grantees to sub￾grantees is another way in which networking has been promoted. 
However, despite these efforts, REACH has not been able to pool together their strengths, 
the knowledge base and experience despite encouraging and facilitating interactions among 
them. This should not be seen as a reflection on REACH India but on the notion of 
networking. There seem to be a number of problems in practical terms, which were 
commented upon at length by the grantees, sub-grantees and REACH India staff. 
Working together entails similar perspectives on critical issues and ways and means of 
addressing them, and this is not happening in REACH India. There are inevitable 
hierarchies and political differences among the NGOs. NBJK, a large and influential NGO 
by virtue of its range and spread of programmes, appears to be a donor rather than a 
facilitating NGO in its interactions with the sub-grantees, which essentially depend on it for 
REACH India funds. 
Sometimes cooperation is hampered by competition and conflicting claims over resources 
and positions of authority. Even if the NGOs are located in the same city (e.g. CINI Asha, 
CLPOA and Vikramshila in Kolkata), they do not interact on a regular basis. And above all, 
there is absence of common concern and a shared sense of urgency. 
In Kolkata, the NGOs seem to be competitors and/or lack common ground. While there is 
a perceptible lack of energy in the network of the primary Kolkata grantees (which they 
themselves corroborate), there is a greater bonding among the capacity building grantees and 
their sub-grantees. 
In Delhi, there has been some informal learning between organizations like SARD, AADI 
and CEMD. More recently, Prayas has attempted to establish an Education Alliance focusing 
on South Delhi, in which more than 20 NGOs have come together. Prayas’s efforts are 
however not supported by REACH budgets – the activity of networking and alliance 
building was not budgeted for in the project proposal, which focused mostly on 
implementation related activities. 
Although not stated in the discussions, one does sense personality and ego clashes that are 
compounded by conflicting interests of member organizations who vie for funds for similar 
work from the same donors. While relationships between the sub grantees and the capacity 
building grantees may be of nature so as not to hamper day to day work, the sub-grantees 
rely on the capacity building grantees for channelling of funds. They therefore tend not to 
voice their concerns and ideas but instead work mostly on the instructions and plans made 
by the larger NGO. In order to promote more functional autonomy to the smaller NGOs, 
more space needs to be created by the capacity building grantee to allow for alternative 
approaches and thinking. 
On the whole, while it may not be possible to bring all Partners together as part of a 
coherent network, REACH and its grantees may well explore common issues and themes 
around which they can come together. However, this has to happen around a common 
agenda. In Delhi, for instance, acceptance of NIOS certification by the larger school system 
arose as an issue which Partners felt needed collective advocacy. Similarly some grantees are 
exploring possibilities of joining hands with the Right to Education Task Force (RETF) to 
explore how the Right to Information and the Right to Education can be used to negotiate 
space with the government to improve its education services. 
(ii) Information Dissemination, sharing and learning 
REACH India has a rich array of promising interventions. These include: 
o Accelerated Reading and Learning Programs (ALP/ARP) of Akshara, modeled on 
the NGO Pratham’s approach 
o Agastya’s approach to science education in schools 
o SVYM’s approach to federating the School Development and Management 
Committees (SDMC) and working with Panchayats 
o CWD’s attempt to link with primary schools through Balwadis (Preschools) 
o SARD’s resource centers in MCD schools 
o Vikramshila’s focus on using the government curriculum in a meaningful way 
o AVEHI-Abacus’s inputs on teaching-learning materials through its learning kits 
o CEMD’s work with the schooling system through inputs for development of 
education leadership, and 
o Work of AADI, Manovikas Kendra and Ummeed on working with children having 
developmental disabilities 
However, the focus so far has been on implementation of activities, given the tight deadlines 
and targets for children to be mainstreamed. Though REACH partners do realize that there 
is much that can learn from each other, much less time has been spent on learning from the 
experiences and achievements of each other. Not much ground has been covered in terms of 
grantees learning from each other’s experiences. By and large, they continue to work in 
isolation. While there is some scope for REACH in creating learning and sharing platforms 
to help pooling of complementary skills and expertise, given the differences among many of 
the grantees (based on ideological, political and personal equations), a uniform strategy may 
not be appropriate. 
The same can be said about the potential replication in the government system of 
approaches adopted by REACH partners. Model building takes time. Sharing, learning and 
wider dissemination must also be undertaken deliberately for it to have any wider influence 
and impact. REACH and its Partners may well create space in the remaining duration of the 
intervention for this to happen. Other challenges of working with the government system 
have already been highlighted. We may mention here some initiatives that Partners have 
taken to learn from each other, and some possibilities that exist: 
o In Karnataka, the complementary skills and expertise that REACH grantees bring to 
the fore can be used to strengthen initiatives, as the REACH intervention gets 
underway. 
o In Delhi, Prayas has attempted to create an ‘Education Alliance’ for quality education 
of marginalized children. So far, over 20 organizations have come together. 
Challenges to widen the scope of this network, however exist. 
o SARD, AADI and CEMD in Delhi have come together to exchange ideas and 
support each other. 
o Similarly, in Mumbai, REACH grantees have come together a few times to learn 
from each other’s experiences and also to forge a common network. 
Efforts have been made through workshops and newsletters to disseminate information 
among the grantees and sub-grantees about what each other are doing. Often, good practices 
in the REACH program in particular, and in the education sector in general, have also been 
highlighted through these newsletter. 
 
(i) Documentation and Research 
Given the enormous challenges that mainstreaming vulnerable children involve, 
documentation and research in the REACH India programme has been weak. The resources 
earmarked for research on issues of relevance have been re-programmed to accommodate 
the budget cuts. Arguably, the research agenda could not take off because of engagement 
with the start up and implementation of interventions within the short duration of 
programme. There is still the possibility that a concerted attempt to pull together the 
experiences, backed with evidence, would enable respective NGOs to showcase their work 
for advocacy and fund raising. It could allow REACH India to develop through concerted 
efforts evidence based policy research on India’s out of school young people. The outcome 
could be used for advocacy purposes. 
Among the many possible areas for research and documentation, the issue of transition, 
retention and learning in children must be highlighted. REACH and its Partners could 
demonstrate how, through their interventions these challenges have been addressed 
effectively. 
However, innovative and successful approaches have to be forcefully demonstrated before 
they can become institutionalized within the larger government schooling system. This 
requires rigorous process documentation of what has worked, and what has not, and 
research on outcomes due to these approaches. A key recommendation therefore would be 
the emphasis on institutional learning. It must be noted, however that these approaches have 
been in place prior to REACH India. The value that REACH can add lies in the wider 
dissemination of their learning through research and documentation. On the whole, it can be 
said that for REACH India and its grantees, the varieties of experience and approaches 
present a good chance to learn. 
 
(ii) Lobbying and Advocacy 
The response of the grantees vis-à-vis working directly with government, suggests a mixed 
picture. In some regions, the relationship of NGOs with key government officials is 
relatively cordial (e.g. Kolkata) while in others they are still trying to work out ways and 
means of working together (e.g. Jharkhand and Delhi). In North Karnataka, REACH 
Partners seem to have a strong relationship with the government which they are seeking to 
build upon. The discussions with the grantees and government officials as well as 
observations elsewhere suggest that the ability to work with government agencies depends 
on a number of factors, foremost being the articulation of a collective vision of moving 
forward towards a common goal and initiative towards large-scale changes/systemic 
reforms. Further, there are enormous challenges in institutionalizing the relationship with the 
government. In reality, personal equations and rapport seem to work more effectively, than 
organizational arrangements. While this helps in gaining access to government, it seems to 
place a constraint on the stance that an NGO should take – to what extent can there be 
genuine engagement on issues that need urgent sorting out? 
However, the importance of working with the government is being recognized gradually and 
slowly. The genesis of most grantees has been in an era when NGOs were seen more or less 
as parallel to the government and confrontational approaches, be it passive or active were 
favored. Thus, government-NGO partnership is still being understood both at the 
conceptual and practical level. 
As there is inability to develop a rapport with the government officials, some of the 
Jharkhand grantees expect assistance from REACH in this regard. On the other hand, the 
Kolkata grantees have benefited from the presence of a favorably disposed senior 
bureaucrat. Indeed, individuals within the government rather than government institutions 
tend to matter. There is always the possibility that the person concerned would be 
transferred and the NGOs would need to start all over again on building trust and a cordial 
working relationship. The NGOs located in the urban areas seem to stand a better chance 
because they tend to have more people who have the language and networks. They are able 
to interact with the higher authorities relatively easily because of physical proximity and 
more communication channels. However, there are other challenges in the urban areas, as in 
the case of Delhi, for instance. School education is administered by more than one agency – 
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, The Delhi Cantonment board and the Directorate of 
Education, which oversees the SSA. Lack of coordination between these agencies further 
complicates the task of achieving UEE on the ground. With frequent transfers of officials, 
NGOs find it even more difficult to get a toe-hold for engagement and negotiation in the 
government system. 
Furthermore, the education department in different regions is not streamlined, which makes 
it difficult for the NGOs to identify key individuals for lobbying. They have had to lobby 
with different people in the education department at different points of time. Indeed, the 
relationships continue to depend on personal rapport and relationships and there is no 
guarantee that the trust and comfort with key individuals in the state education department 
would persist as officials are transferred periodically. Furthermore, the government-NGO 
relationship is seen with a degree of distrust by increasingly politicized bureaucracy and 
interest groups. 
The political environment or the perception of it influences the position of an NGO 
regarding its approach – should it collaborate or challenge? This a real issue among a range 
of grantees. Growing influence of the Maoists in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand has had an 
effect on the functioning of grantees and sub-grantees. Fearing retribution from an allegedly 
saffronist NDA government in Ranchi, CWD seeks to assume a low-key and markedly non￾confrontational approach. The Kolkata grantees recognize the threat of the very strong and 
politicized teacher’s unions in West Bengal. In Karnataka, there are different shades in the 
relationships of REACH partners with government. 
Agastya and Akshara have established linkages with the highest levels of government at the 
state level, the latter being enabled by the ‘corporate’ linkage of its management. SVYM 
seeks to federate the SDMCs and work with Panchayats but is facing great difficulty in 
getting the government to respond. Its work is perceived to be ‘political’ in nature and 
therefore unacceptable whereas the activities of other grantees are more acceptable because 
they deliver services and/or materials (e.g. teachers’ training, provision of materials and 
support to libraries). 
Influenced by its ideology, set of beliefs, history, current capacities and interests, each 
grantee is seeking to make a positive difference in the education scenario in India. However, 
they are not engaging in a comprehensive range of interventions that could characterize a 
holistic approach or could give it sufficient clout and influence. This requires both 
overcoming of differences, as well as putting in place a holistic approach on the ground. 
4. Priorities towards sustainability 
Interactions with grantees, sub-grantees and parents as well as observations of the mid-term 
review team highlight a few areas of concern: 
Inability to address wider developmental issues that impact on education 
The socio-economic conditions of the household, school infrastructure and environment, 
teachers’ attendance and perception of returns on education among the communities and 
families are factors that to a great extent impact on whether a child would enroll in a school, 
and more importantly whether s/he would stay on and learn something. In most cases, 
children are first generation learners and they need encouragement, support and facilities. 
Furthermore, the parents (especially those living in rural areas) do not have the conception 
of quality that would enable them to play an active role in monitoring the education of their 
children and the functioning of the schools. 
Socio economic factors such as poverty/family income, sibling care, lack of basic 
services etc are critical for children’s enrolment, attendance, attainment and retention. 
These factors have to be taken into account and addressed if the processes are to be 
sustained. Clearly, they are beyond the scope of REACH India. The programme is 
neither geared to nor is able to address the ‘root causes’ or a number of factors critical for 
children to enroll into and to stay on in the formal school system.
It may however be useful to identify how the grantees are seeking to address these issues 
if they are and sharing of experiences of how they could make the connections. While 
some of the REACH India grantees are focused essentially on education (e.g. 
Vikramshila, CEMD, among others) there are a number of others who have a community 
development approach. It would be interesting to explore how they have (if they have) 
linked their REACH India related interventions with other developmental interventions. 
While the grantees may well achieve the quantitative targets and expenditure – in terms of 
enrolment and to a lesser extent with continuing support to children after they have been 
enrolled, the question remains what thereafter. This brings them in contact with the 
government schooling system – unless this system is made to work better, unless its 
capacities are strengthened and its accountability is focused upon, much of the gains made in 
REACH may not sustain ultimately in terms of children’s retention and learning.
Is mainstreaming into formal schools the only way out? 
Mainstreaming has been reduced to mere number of children enrolled into formal schools. 
Undoubtedly there can be two views regarding the emphasis on mainstreaming of children. 
By all accounts the necessity of getting a certain number of children enrolled in schools has 
diverted attention from qualitative aspects, it was perhaps imperative to insist upon it. It 
would have been a never ending exercise in capacity building. The fact that children must go 
to formal school, not just to non-formal education centres, has to act as a constant reminder 
of the broader goal. This is particularly critical for a large proportion of NGOs that had 
been working on NFE. This insistence acts as a reminder for them. 
Making primary education ‘sustainable’ is the challenge. Sustainability could be seen in 
different ways: (i) Sustainability of the REACH India programme; (ii) sustainability of the 
field level programs (bridge course, learning centers, remedial coaching centers etc) (iii) 
sustainability of the capacity building initiatives and (iv) Sustainability of learning among 
children. 
Sustaining the REACH India programme 
This could be viewed in financial terms. What happens when REACH India ends? It is 
important to note that it is a programme and not an organization that can raise funds from 
various sources. 
There does not seem to be a perceptible or significant shift towards a meaningful 
collaboration with the government. Most of the grantees will run the program with 
REACH’s assistance and thereafter with funding from other donors. 
Most of the learning centres/balwadis are likely to run successfully till the end of the project. 
Thereafter the NGOs are likely to look for other donors. Most seemed confident of getting 
funding support. Some centres may sustain through community initiatives, some may 
continue to be run by the NGO as private initiatives (i.e. charging fees) while many are likely 
to be shut down. 
One option could be to set up REACH India as an independent organization so that it can 
seek funding from various sources, including USAID (perhaps through QUEST). However, 
this may not still ensure that REACH in turn would sustain the project interventions. The 
requirement and focus of another donor may be quite different. The other option could be 
to strengthen the processes and programmes within a broader conceptual framework that 
could be eligible for future fund raising. 
Sustaining the capacity building efforts initiated by REACH 
The focus on children at risk/hard to reach/marginalized and vulnerable and on ensuring 
their enrolment and retention in the formal school system could be considered the USP – 
unique selling proposition – of the REACH India programme. As the implementation phase 
has been considerably short because of the four year duration of the programme and the 
proportionately long preparatory phase (e.g. getting the management in place, identification, 
verification and negotiation before initiation of the partnerships with grantees), REACH 
India has not been able to consolidate, develop and present the lessons from experiences as 
a possible policy framework. There has been value addition through various capacity 
building interventions but it would be a while before the learning is internalized by the 
recipient organizations and individuals. The qualitative nature of capacity building deems it 
necessary that there is a critical mass of people who are well-versed with the theoretical 
premises and proficient in the best practices. 
Sustainability may be seen in at least three complementary ways. In the remaining period, 
REACH and its Partners may focus their attention on these aspects in a systematic manner 
and explore ways of ensuring continuity of efforts. 
o The first is to sustain the interventions of capacity building of grantees – it has been 
noted already that REACH has undertaken efforts to create strong, vibrant 
organizations which can effectively address the agenda of UEE for vulnerable 
children. These processes must be consolidated through rigorous follow up, leading 
to viable networks being formed around key themes/areas. 
o Secondly, to ensure that the ideas generated during the REACH intervention must 
find their way into the larger government system. For this, it has already been noted 
that a deliberate strategy based on documentation and advocacy, needs to be put in 
place. Only when innovative ideas and approaches enter the government system is 
there hope of change on a wider, larger scale. 
o Thirdly, we have mentioned the need for a more rigorous approach to working with 
community based institutions like PTAs, School Development Committees and 
Panchayats. The agenda of local education governance is a key area that needs urgent 
attention. 
These three complementary aspects must be focused upon in the coming 18-20 months of 
REACH India. If this happens, it is likely that a strong foundation can be laid for future 
work and for sustaining children’s learning. 
In conclusion, it should be stressed that most of the gains from the REACH India program 
will be lost if there is lack of continuity beyond the period of the current intervention. 
Key recommendations 
A lesson for everyone associated with the programme (especially REACH India staff, 
grantees and sub-grantees) has been that four years are clearly inadequate for initiating, 
setting up, implementing and preparing for the withdrawal. Longer time span is required for 
any purposive involvement in children’s education and for recording the outcomes of the 
processes that have been initiated. 
REACH is doing good work in reaching out to hitherto unreached children. It has also 
contributed immensely to developing capacities within the grantee NGOs. In the remaining 
period of the REACH India intervention, which potentially includes a six-month no cost 
extension beyond September 2007, the emphasis needs to be on consolidation and 
showcasing of the work undertaken in the programme towards policy advocacy on 
effectively including children at risk in the formal education system. A forceful 
demonstration of ideas and approaches needs to be made leading to institutionalization of 
efforts. A process of introspection thus needs to be initiated by REACH with the grantees to 
address the following areas of work. 
1. Organizational development: A process of looking ahead needs to be initiated by 
REACH India in partnership with its grantees with focus on the following broad 
areas: 
(i) The phasing out process could include orientation and support pertaining to 
fund-raising and leveraging government and other resources 
(ii) Discussions also need to focus on the collective learning from the programme 
and the development of a holistic vision (that entails a multi-pronged 
approach) on education for children at risk for policy advocacy. 
(iii) Capacity building of NGOs pertaining to quality education (for children out of 
schools and those in schools) needs to be consolidated as valuable investment 
has been made in this area. This is integral to any future organizational 
development of the grantees. In this regard, capacity building needs to focus 
on making current education interventions ‘more rounded’ and holistic, 
involving all stakeholders (parents, teachers, community institutions and the 
government departments) in equal measure. This needs to be reflected upon in 
the coming months. 
 
2. Strengthening the formal school system: Ideas developed as part of REACH 
interventions have the potential to strengthen the quality of the government schools. 
These inputs are crucial from the point of view of making the formal school system 
more accessible to children at risk. It is therefore important that steps be taken in the 
remaining period to strengthen the formal schooling environment to make it more 
conducive for children’s retention and learning. The challenge for REACH in the 
remaining period would be to deepen its understanding of quality at different levels, 
and look for ways to use this understanding in strengthening practices in the 
government schooling system. 
All grantees agree that their relationships with the government both at local and state 
levels, has to be continuously strengthened, if they are to make a change in the 
functioning of government schools. 
3. Looking beyond formal schools: Mainstreaming could look beyond enrollment 
and retention in formal schools. Systems such as the Open schools could be 
increasingly considered as alternatives, with the addition of the component of 
vocational education in order to enhance livelihood opportunities for adolescents.
4. Focus on working with communities: Work intensely and more strategically with 
communities – build their capacities and confidence for negotiating better with the 
government schooling system to reduce distance between school, teacher and 
parents/community. REACH interventions need to be more strategic in their 
approach to community mobilization around children’s education. This must be 
linked to the development of the ‘bargaining power’ of communities to make 
government schools perform better. 
5. Development of a common perspective through policy research towards 
advocacy: 
(i) Process documentation and field research towards policy analysis should 
include best practices derived from evidence of the efficacy of a range of 
interventions undertaken under the REACH programme. 
(ii) Sharing, learning and wider dissemination must also be undertaken deliberately 
for it to have any wider influence and impact. 
Potential areas: 
o Experiences from linkages between Early Childhood Education (ECE) and 
Primary Education 
o Experiences from addressing learning disabilities among children at risk in 
urban and rural areas 
o Experiences of mainstreaming and retention in government schools; 
viability of Open schools; integration with life-skills and vocational 
training/education 
o Experiences of Pedagogical interventions that are designed to strengthen 
teacher capacity and improve learning outcomes in children 
o Initiatives like the Learning Classroom series (LCS) and its influence on 
practices 
(iii) An advocacy strategy that pulls together the lessons from the wide array of 
interventions while recognizing, accommodating and possibly supporting 
independent initiatives by NGOs would be required. 
6. Networking: Be it organizational development, capacity building on quality 
education or documentation, research and analysis, it would be imperative that 
REACH India takes on a more pro-active facilitating role for getting the grantees to 
a common platform. In this, the grantees continue to see an important role for 
REACH, beyond the function that it plays as a conduit for funds. Many grantees 
expect from REACH India a role in facilitating the network. Perhaps REACH does 
have a role but as a lot of time goes into making the network function on a 
continuing basis, it needs to be realistic in terms of its expectations and creative in its 
approach. A somewhat loose arrangement like a resource group and/or working 
groups could be a possibility. 
7. Documentation and research needs to be strengthened. 
REACH India needs to carve an identity of its own. This entails that it showcases its work 
as a holistic programme in terms of its effectiveness and value towards policy advocacy. 
Further, experiences need careful documentation for wider sharing and learning among 
REACH Partners and the education sector as a whole. Inadequate documentation may 
actually result in an opportunity lost for learning on key issues of UEE. 
Wherever applicable, REACH and its grantees can rework budgets and approaches in order 
to align more strongly with the above recommendations, keeping in view that budget bottom 
lines need to remain the same for the remaining period of the interventions. 
Annexure I 
SCOPE OF WORK 
1.0 Background 
REACH India, a four-year project (September 03 -September 07) funded by the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID), aims to improve access of vulnerable children to quality basic 
education and complements the Government of India's Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All campaign). 
The project provides educational opportunities to at-risk children in six geographical areas by supporting 
NGOs through grants and technical assistance. The interventions supported address the basic education needs 
of at-risk children, especially girls, up to 14 years of age, who are either out of school or are in school but in 
danger of dropping out. This is primarily done by strengthening NGO capacity to scale up delivery of 
educational services to out-of-school children and improve the quality of education in schools 
The other purposes promoted by the projects include: 
o Promoting the adoption of best practices within the NGO and educational communities. 
o Encouraging stronger and more complementary relationships between NGOs and government in 
promoting UEE objectives 
o Encouraging strengthened supportive and resource networks among NGOs to address issues 
pertaining to achievement of UEE 
During its life, the project will reach out to about 300,000 children through 100 NGOs. The means of 
sustaining capacities and qualitative efforts developed in the process of reaching these beneficiaries need to 
be explored and encouraged. A review at this stage when the project is at a mid-point, will allow REACH to 
reflect on its progress, achievements and gaps. More importantly, it will inform the project of the strategies, 
actions and linkages it needs to consider putting in place and support to sustain its interventions beyond the 
project. Project grantees, individually and collectively, as well as project staff, in consultation with grantees, 
its Advisory Board and others too is considering how, in the remaining project months, the greatest benefits 
can be achieved and possibilities of continuance strengthened. The mid term review can be utilized to 
sharpen these ideas and directions. 
2.0 Objectives: 
o To review the progress of the project and recommend approaches that should be 
o considered to increase project impact 
o The six areas are -Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh and Northern Kamataka
o To recommend steps to sustain the program interventions and the NGO platform 
o including leveraging of government (SSA) and non government resources 
o To provide recommendations on project phasing, and the areas those require greatest emphasis 
/priority given remaining timelines and budgetary constraints. 
2.1 Key issues 
Following is list of key issues that the review will consider. Further questions within each area will be 
developed by the Review Team. 
o What has been the progress against project objectives? 
o What has been the key innovations supported by the project that can be scaled up? 
o Has there been a value addition by the project intervention to the partner NGOs - 
o either in terms of capacity building or program implementation. Are these enhanced capabilities 
likely to continue even after project completion? 
o To what extent does the project interventions support! complement the government's effort towards 
education for all? 
o What are the areas/ activities that the project need to concentrate now, given the fund availability and 
the time frame? 
o What is the level of networking among the NGOs? What steps are to be taken to strengthen such 
networks and sustain them beyond the project period? 
3.0 Illustrative Approach: 
The findings are intended to be advisory rather than directive in nature. The team will get inputs from US 
AID/India Representative and AIR/REACH representative on team. The approach will include extensive 
review of project documents and consultations with the NGO partners and government counterparts in the 
field. The outcome would be a set of operational recommendations on areas and activities that the project 
needs to concentrate on in order to maximize project impacts and sustain project interventions. 
Field visits will be made to selected sites and a mix of individual projects will be identified. The sample will 
be representative of REACH project interventions. The criteria for selection will include: 
o Location -urban; rural 
o Nature of intervention -Bridge schools; residential courses; remedial classes; in school teacher 
training; inclusive education 
o Target group -street children; girls, differently able children; children form socially vulnerable 
groups 
o Type of grant -amount; number of beneficiaries; NOD profile (past experience in education; total 
size of its operations), capacity building or direct service grants 
o Elapsed time of project interventions -early rollout; recent rollout 
o Networking -strong network of stakeholders; emerging network 
In each of the regions visited, the team will meet with all the NGO partners including the sub-grantees. The 
team would also hold discussions with government officials in the National, State and district level in charge 
of Education for All and also with other donors involved in similar activities. 
3.1 Illustrative Level of Effort and Schedule: 
The contractor is expected to provide two Experts/Consultants for this review. The team leader will be a 
Consultant with at least 10-15 years of experience in India and international, in the field of education and in 
strategic planning having a good understanding of the NGO sector. The second consultant will have 7-9 
years the experience in the field of education, especially in quality issues and in conducting evaluations. 
The Experts/consultants would be responsible for writing the report. The USAID and REACH 
representatives will assist in document review, development of tools, etc and would accompany the 
consultants on field visits (not at Contractor's expense). However, you as Team leader would be the overall 
in charge of the review. It is anticipated that the review will take 25 days spread over a period of 10 weeks, 
beginning May 8th, 2006. 
4.0 Illustrative time lines 
o Preliminary discussions; study tools development -5 days 
o Field visits -11 days (the group will divide into two teams). This includes one day stakeholder 
session with capacity building grantees in Delhi 
o Analysis and report writing -7 days 
o Finalize report -2 days 
o Total number of days -25; Start Date: o/a May 8th, 2006; End date: July 15th, 2006 
4.1 Illustrative tasks 
o Desk review; discussion with USAID and REACH staff, government and other 
o stakeholders 
o Develop key questions, checklists and study tools 
o Questionnaire survey with grantees and sub-grantees 
o Field visits to project sites in Delhi, Jharkhand, Kolkata and North Karnataka -this 
o should cover rural, urban, capacity building and direct grantees, old grants and new 
o grants, bridge courses, learning centers, interventions for disabled and in-school 
o interventions. 
o Stakeholder discussions in the project areas 
o Presentation on key findings and discussion on next steps with REACH and USAffi 
o Present draft report 
o Finalize report 
Annexure II 
NGO selection criteria for the REACH mid-term review 
The following 11 NGOs will be visited and reviewed by the team: 
Region NGOs Responsibility Dates for visit 
Delhi o
o
o
Disha 
SARD 
Prayas Juvenile Aid Centre Society 
Sheshagiri KM 13th to 19th June 
North o Akshara Foundation 4th to 12th June 
Karnataka o Tropical Research and 2006 
Development Centre (TRDC) 
Kolkata o CINI Asha Neelam Singh 31st May to 6th
o Vikramshila Education Resource June 2006 
Society 
o Manovikas Kendra Rehabilitation 
and Research Institute for the 
Handicapped 
Jharkhand o Centre for Women’s Development 23rd to 28th May 
(CWD) 2006 
o Banwasi Vikas Ashram (BVA) 
o Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra (NBJK) 
The above NGOs were selected according to the following criteria: 
1. Combination of rural and urban base, capacity building and direct 
grantees, and old and new association with REACH India 
 State/City Direct grantees 
(8) 
Capacity building 
grantees (5) 
Association with REACH 
Old (more 
than a year) 
New (less than 
a year) 
Rural (5) Jharkhand (3) BVA and CWD NBJK Since 
December 2004 
North 
Karnataka (2) 
TRDC Akshara Since
November 
2005 
Urban (6) Delhi (3) SARD and Disha Prayas Since October 
2004 
Kolkata (3) Manovikas 
Kendra 
CINI Asha and 
Vikramshila 
Since January 
2005 
2. Size of funding 
Large (above $300,000) Medium (between $100,000- Small (below $100,000) 
300,000) 
Direct SARD $264,972.28 TRDC $84,997.00 
Manovikas $237,979.00 
Kendra 
Disha $149,983.00 
BVA $132,711.00 
CWD $115,540.00 
Capacity 
building 
CINI Asha 
Prayas 
NBJK 
Vikramshila 
Akshara 
$724,657.00 
$402,879.95 
$621,575.00 
$385,947.00 
$398,793.00 
3. Different ways of working 
Intervention Description Representative grantee 
Bridge courses Residential BVA (D) 
Non-residential Prayas and CINI Asha (CB), TRDC (D) 
Remedial teaching/coaching CINI Asha (CB) and TRDC (D) 
Planning and management CEMD (D) 
Teachers’ training, pedagogy CEMD, CWD, TRDC and Manovikas 
Kendra (D) 
Vikramshila (CB) 
Curriculum development Vikramshila (CB) 
Quality improvement CWD (D), Vikramshila and Akshara (CB) 
4. Engagement with different levels of education 
Level Representative grantee 
Pre-primary CWD (D) and Akshara (CB) 
Primary All the NGOs included in the review process 
Upper primary CEMD and BVA (D) 
CINI Asha and Akshara (CB) 
5. Working with different ‘categories’ of children ‘at risk’ 
Risk factors Categories of 
children 
Representative grantees 
Gender Girls in particular BVA (D) 
Older CEMD and BVA (D) 
CINI Asha and Akshara (CB)
Age 
Younger children CWD (D) 
Akshara (CB) 
Social identity Tribals BVA , CWD and TRDC (D) 
Differing 
abilities 
Children with 
disabilities 
Manovikas and Umeed (D) 
Special 
circumstances 
Street children 
Children of sex 
workers 
Disha (D), CINI Asha and Vikramshila (CB) 
6. Partnerships 
Representative grantees 
Government Akshara, CINI Asha and Vikramshila (CB), CWD and Manovikas (D) 
NGOs Almost all NGOs included in the review process 
Communities BVA, CWD, Disha and TRDC (D) 
7. Focus on education within the NGOs 
Representative grantees 
Primary TRDC (D), Akshara and Vikramshila (CB) 
Secondary Disha (D) and CINI Asha (CB) 
List of Organizations who responded to the REACH mid term review Questionnaire 
Information was solicited from the remaining NGOs through questionnaires sent to them
through e-mail. Responses were received from the following: 
1. ABHAS, New Delhi (Prayas sub-grantee) 
2. ASRA – Action for Self Reliance and Alternatives, New Delhi (Deepalaya sub-grantee) 
3. Basti Local Committee and Social Welfare Centre, Kolkata (CINI Asha sub-grantee) 
4. Deepalaya, New Delhi 
5. Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust, New Delhi (Deepalaya sub-grantee) 
6. East and West Educational Society, New Delhi (Prayas sub-grantee) 
7. EFRAH, New Delhi (Prayas sub-grantee) 
8. IRAM, New Delhi (Prayas sub-grantee) 
9. Nav Srishti, New Delhi (Prayas sub-grantee) 
10. Prayas Institute of Juvenile Justice, New Delhi 
11. Sahara Charitable Society, Mumbai 
12. SAKSHI – Centre for Information, Education and Communication, New Delhi (Prayas 
Sub grantee) 
13. SIRE, North Karnataka 
14. TRDC, North Karnataka (Direct Grantee) 
15. Ummeed Child Development Centre, Mumbai (Direct Grantee) 
16. Urbo Rural Integrated Development Association (URIDA), New Delhi (Deepalaya sub￾grantee) 
17. AASHA
Annexure 3 -- Framework for enquiry 
The scope of work for the REACH review states the following objectives and key issues: 
Objectives 
1. To review the progress of the project and recommend approaches that should be considered to increase project impact 
2. To recommend steps to sustain the program interventions and the NGO platform, including leveraging of government (SSA) and non government 
resources 
3. To provide recommendations on project phasing, and the areas those require greatest emphasis /priority given remaining timelines and budgetary 
constraints. 
Key issues: Following is list of key issues that the review will consider. Further questions within each area will be developed by the Review Team. 
o What has been the progress against project objectives? 
o What has been the key innovations supported by the project that can be scaled up? 
o Has there been a value addition by the project intervention to the partner NGOs - either in terms of capacity building or program implementation. Are 
these enhanced capabilities likely to continue even after project completion? 
o To what extent do the project interventions support/complement the government's effort towards education for all? 
o What are the areas/ activities that the project need to concentrate now, given the fund availability and the time frame? 
o What is the level of networking among the NGOs? What steps are to be taken to strengthen such networks and sustain them beyond the project period? 
Accordingly, the following framework for enquiry has been worked out. 
Key question Description/elaboration: key strands of enquiry… Rationale for enquiry Possible methods and ways of study/ 
enquiry 
A. Why education for 
every child? How is 
it visualized? 
Philosophical basis, roots… 
o Aims/Conception of education vis-à-vis 
organizational understanding of 
The question is important for 
understanding where the organization is 
coming from and its future perspective. It 
Study of literature from USAID, REACH 
and selected Partners 
Discussion with key persons: 
development… Where does education ‘fit in’? should help the analysis of the approach - In USAID and REACH 
For how long has education been on the radar and quality of direct service delivery and - across different levels in the Partner 
of the organization? capacity building, as well as the interest, Organization 
o How has it been visualized, given local inclination and potential for building upon - Teachers 
conditions (geography, local community)? the REACH support. - Community representatives and 
parents 
B. What is the 
analysis of the 
situation? 
Understanding and analysis of community and its 
children 
o What is the organizational understanding of the 
The question is important for assessing 
the extent to which the organization’s 
work and the REACH support relate with 
Study of literature from USAID, REACH 
and selected Partners 
Discussions with those who were involved 
community and its socio-economic and cultural the realities of children’s lives, the in the exercise/analysis… 
context/issues/concerns? likelihood of education bringing about 
o How have they gone about ascertaining status 
of local communities? What did they ask? Who
did they ask? What kind of research studies 
were conducted…? 
o What conclusions have been drawn? 
- overall -- with respect to the 
community 
- with respect to children (pre-school/ 
school going age group…up to 14 
years) 
positive changes in their lives and 
sustainability of the intervention and 
impact. 
C. Flowing from A and 
B above, what have 
you therefore put on 
the ground? 
Perceptions about 
the ability to 
innovate and 
respond to the 
context… 
1. Program Management Structure and Functions 
o What is the management structure of the 
program (reporting, decision making, learning 
and sharing at USAID/REACH level)? 
o What is the nature of relationships 
(USAID/REACH)? 
o What is the management structure of the 
program at the level of the Partner (Capacity 
Building and Direct Grantee to be studied 
separately…)? 
o What are the relationships like: USAID/REACH 
and Partners (both types of grantees)? 
o What are the relationships like: Capacity 
Building grantee and direct grantee, capacity 
building and sub-grantee? 
2. Strategies on the ground…
o What are the broad strategies and 
interventions? 
o Who is targeted by these interventions? 
o What is the rationale for selection of the six 
geographical areas? 
o What enables innovation and response in 
accordance with the developmental concerns 
(especially pertaining to education), socio￾economic and political context and the profile 
of children? 
Four possible strands to be studied: 
a. Working to bring children who never been to school, 
The questions relate directly with the 
objectives of the REACH project, 
whether it has been able to deliver uptil 
now and its ability to do so in the near 
future and beyond REACH. The 
recommendations are likely to emanate 
from this line of enquiry. 
-- Document study 
(USAID/REACH/PARTNER) 
Discussions with key persons/groups 
Observations of activity/interventions, like: 
- classrooms in government 
schools, … in bridge course, … 
in coaching programs, 
- Ongoing Training programs 
- Ongoing Meetings/workshops 
or have dropped out, back into mainstream 
schooling, through stop gap arrangements like 
bridge courses 
b. Working with the government schooling system 
c. Alternative initiatives, like NIOS, EGS/NFE centres; 
own schools 
d. Support structures like coaching/tuition classes 
before/after school 
In all the above, look at curriculum, pedagogy, training, 
community involvement, focusing on access, enrolment, 
retention and completion/learning… 
3. Interventions which complement field strategies 
Capacity building of NGOs: Understand the Capacity 
Building model/approach (grantee/sub grantee…) – how 
does it work? What is meant by Capacity building? What 
are the forums for learning and sharing? 
Partnering with NGOs: Is there a coming together locally, 
regionally and nationally on identified/shared concerns? 
Advocacy – what we mean and understand by it…what 
have we done so far – locally, regionally, nationally? 
D. Experiences and 
Lessons 
What are the changes? 
(i) Access and meaningful education for children at 
risk? 
(ii) Enhanced abilities of the organizations engaged in 
the process? 
(iii) Enhanced ability of the government system to reach 
out meaningfully to disadvantaged children living on 
the margins? 
(iv) What else? 
What is their notion of progress, quality? 
How do they establish that something has changed? 
How do they monitor? 
What works? What does not? (Refer to the three 
sections under C for reference…), 
Especially in terms of access, achievement/learning 
How have we as USAID/REACH/partners changed? 
These questions should help in the 
understanding of the extent and nature of 
changes as a result of the REACH and 
formulating the recommendations for the 
remaining course of the program. 
-- Documents (publications, audio-visual 
materials, etc) information and database 
systems 
-- Discussions, reflections… with parents, 
teachers, children, staff, government 
departments 
-- Measuring numbers enrolled, learning 
outcomes - in children? Among the trained 
NGO staff, government teachers and 
administrators? 
E. Challenges and 
possibilities 
Where do we go from here? 
What should we do in the remaining period of project 
These questions should help get a sense 
of the future perspective of the grantees, 
Reflections/ discussions with key 
stakeholders 
support, given budget constraints? What is our their plans and concerns. It would be 
positioning/commitment for these interventions beyond important to know if (and how) they have 
REACH? sought to link with the government, 
Our notion of sustainability – what is it? Does it exist? communities, the private sector and 
Need to look at sustainability in the short term, medium donors. 
term and long-term… 
How will we leverage resources – human, material, 
financial? Where?
Enquiry with key stakeholders 
The key stakeholders, i.e. the child, parents, community representatives, local NGO, teachers and the government, need to be engaged in discussion regarding 
the interventions, nature of linkages, experiences, lessons learnt and issues for the future. For each stakeholder and each partner visited, there would be a 
checklist that is specific to that partner (either direct or capacity building grantee) – its staff, teachers, children, parents, community members etc. The following is 
a generic questionnaire – the specificity would be built in for each NGO. 
The Child 
Her opinions, questions, concerns and development (separate checklist for children is necessary…) 
Parents 
o Their background, 
o What are their expectations from school, bridge course etc. 
o How do they support all their children to attend school? 
o What has changed? (Examples?) 
o How do they relate with school? Examples… 
o What is the notion of quality? 
o How do they envisage continuing education for their children? What kind of education? 
o What concerns, questions remain regarding their children’s education? 
Community Representatives 
o How do they perceive the REACH interventions for out of school/in school children? 
o What are their expectations from it? What has been the experience so far? 
o How are they supporting the interventions? 
o What has changed? (Examples…?) 
o What is the notion of sustainability? 
o What is the notion of quality? 
o How will the community sustain interventions beyond the REACH? 
o What concerns, questions remain regarding education of children in their community? 
Education Department 
o How do they relate to the REACH interventions? 
o What are the expectations? (Is there an MoU?) 
o What is the nature of linkages? 
o What is the department’s role? 
o What are the experiences so far? 
o What more needs to be done? 
o What will the scenario be in the event of REACH moving out/winding up? 
The Teacher (Govt. school, bridge course, coaching classes etc…questions to be specific depending on whether the setting is governmental, non￾govt. etc) 
o Background, experiences so far (brief); understanding of education 
o Experiences so far with respect to REACH intervention: 
o What is its objective? How does the teacher see the intervention? 
o Actual day to day experiences of teaching and being with children; training provided so far, if any, and its relevance/impact; what has changed (numbers 
of children, their learning, environment in classroom/school) – how are changes recorded, monitored, assessed? 
o Relationships with parents – how do parents see the teacher? How do parents support the program? 
o What are the concerns of the teacher regarding his/her work? 
Local NGO (Direct or capacity Building Partner of REACH) 
o Vision/mission, aims of education… 
o Analysis of situation…how was it done? Who did it? What is the learning? 
o Design of interventions on the ground…in school, support out of school, working with children not in school… 
o Experiences: documentation, if any…how is it recorded, monitored, measured, assessed, reviewed? 
o Links with govt. community, parents, teachers 
o Notion of quality, sustainability… 
REACH/USAID 
o Conception of REACH; Partner selection process; Rationale and selection of interventions; Partner support; Monitoring systems, documentation 
o Platforms for sharing and learning 
o Relationship with direct support and capacity building grantees… 
o Links with government: state and national levels; Notion of quality, indicators, formats… 
o Notion of sustainability – have we reached ‘there’? 
o What questions and concerns remain? 
Annexure 4 -- Abbreviations 
AADI Action for Ability Development and Inclusion 
AEC Alternative Education Center 
ALP/ARP Accelerated Learning Program/Accelerated Reading Program 
BVA Banvasi Vikas Ashram 
BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee 
CEMD Centre for Education Management and Development 
CWD Centre for Women’s Development 
CINI Child in Need Institute 
CLPOA City Level Program of Action 
DPEP District Primary Education Program 
ECE Early Childhood Education 
EGS Education Guarantee Scheme 
HRD Human Resource Development 
LCS Learning Classroom Series 
MCD Municipal Corporation of Delhi 
MLL Minimum Levels of Learning 
NBJK Nav Bharat Jagriti Kendra 
NFE Non-formal Education 
NGO Non-governmental Organization 
NIOS National Institute for Open Schooling 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan 
PTA Parent Teacher Association 
QEAT Quality Education assessment Tool 
REACH Reaching and Educating at risk Children 
RETF Right to Education Task Force 
SARD Society for All Round Development 
SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan 
SVYM Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement 
STT Student Tracking Tool 
SDMC School development and Management Committees 
SLO Specific Learning Objective 
TTF The Teacher Foundation 
UEE Universalisation of Elementary Education 
USAID United States Agency for International development 
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Education Fund 
UIN Unique Identification Number 
Annexure 5 -- List of People Met 
Delhi 
Prayas: 
Prayas Sub grantees: Zuber, Sakshi, Neha, Sakshi, Deepak, IRAM, Ambrish, IRAM, Baby 
Priyadarshini, IRAM, Lalit, East and West Society, Sayeed Ahmed, EFRAH, Raiz Ahmad, 
EFRAH, Deepika, Abhas, Javed, Abhas, Nirmal Kaur, Navsrishti 
SARD: Pradeep Kumar, Sudhir Bhatnagar, (to be added) 
Deepalaya: T. K Matthew, Peter 
AADI: Mamta 
Katha: Parminder, Anand Rana
DISHA: Shobhna Radhakrishna, R. L Chopra Roshan Lal, Devendra Kumar, Ashok 
Kumar, Ravi Kumar srivastava, Lakshmi Chauhan, Bimla Sharma, Sunitha Sharma, Kapil 
Jain, Ramesh Kumar, Abhay Kumar, Preetpal, Ravi Chopra. Teachers: Ritu Pahuja, Bhoop 
Singh Yadav, Nirupma Saxena, Shashi Babar, Lalit Sharma, Jai Prakash, Hari Ram Bhatti, 
Kiran Devi, D. P Bhaskar, Anuradha Sharma, R.S Sanwaria 
Naushad Khan, Moushami Sarangi, Rajib Haldar, Priyanka 
Jharkhand 
Badlao Foundation: 
CWD: Sister Vimla Verghese, Director; Ashok Kumar Singh, Amit Bodra, Jayant Toppo, 
Manjula Ekka, Mary Anastasia Lugun, Laldeo Prasad. 
BVA: Suresh Shakti, Kuldip Mishra, Beena Lall, Nibha Sinha, Rupa Kumari, Renu Kumari 
NBJK: Girija Satish, Executive Director; Adhim Mahto; Arif 
NBJK Sub-grantees: Umesh Kumar, Samajik Parivartan Sansthan, Giridih; Prabhat Kumar 
Singh, VEDIC Society, Palamau; Filman, Lok Prerna Kendra, Chatra; Ajay Kumar Sinha, 
BPYP, Latehar; Banmali Sahu, GNK Gumla; Barnali Chakrabarty and Arbind Tiwary, 
YUVA, East Singhbhum; Arjun Kumar, Jan Sahbhagi Kendra 
Others: Rajnikant Verma, State Project Officer, JEPC, Ranchi, Jharkhand; Vinoba Gautam, 
UNICEF 
??? REACH Coordinator (to be found out…) 
Kolkata 
CINI Asha: Partha Ray, Assistant Director; Sujata Mullick, Sougata Bhattacharjya, 
Shyamsunder Pahari, Sanghamitra Nath, Seemantini De, Anuttma Sanyal, Namrata Kaur, 
Ruth Raju, Poushali Dutt and Sagar Ghosh and Susanta Saha. 
CINI Asha sub-grantees: Shikha Mitra, Secretary, and staff of AIWC ECC; Probir Basu 
and other staff of SPAN
Vikramshila Education Society: Shubhra Chatterjee, Kanupriya Jhunjhunwala and 
Bashundhara 
Vikramshila sub-grantees: Samina Alam, Project Coordinator, and other staff of Banga 
Education Society; Staff of Humanity Association. 
Manovikas Kendra: Dr Sharda Fatehpuria, A K Sanyal, Ela Dutta, Mahua Paul, Rakhi 
Biswas, Shyamashree Chakraborty, Somnath Chatterjee and Papri Bose 
CLPoA: Dhritiman, Nandini, Achintya 
Sanlaap: Satyaki, Ipsita, Sutapa 
IPER: Sushmita, Ratna 
Others: Debaditya Chakraborty, Principal Secretary, School Education, Government of 
West Bengal 
North Karnataka 
TTF: Marianne Lobo
Akshara: Vijay Kulkarni, Mahantayya Swamy, Giovind Dandin, Bande Rao Patwari, Prema 
Akshara Sub grantees: Pramod Kulkani, Prerana, Madhvacharya, Prerana, Vidya G. Patil, 
Prerana, Ranganna, Prerana, Jambamma G, Prerana, Shanti Ranjan Das, Jan Kalyan, 
Sugurayya Swami, GRAMS Teachers: Mallamma, Padmaja 
SVYM: Mamatha, Rajendra Prasad, Santhosh Shetty 
SVYM Sub grantees: Harish, Abhivruddhi, Ravi Tonashyal, Abhivruddhi, C. Thippesh, 
READS, T. Ramanjanaya, SNEHA, K.M Manjunathaiah, SNEHA, Gururaj, Bhoruka 
Charitable Trust, Siddu Pujari, POWER, Nadaf, POWER, B. K Barlaya, BIRDS, Prakash, B. 
K, BIRDS, Saroja, Vishala, Satyavati, Vishala, B. C Reddy, Seva, Sadanand M.P, Seva 
Agastya: Bala Warrier, Ram Kishen, Manju, Hamsa, Suresh, Nandakumar 
TRDC: Anil Abbi, Geeta Patil, Savitri, Thippeswamy, Vikram, Majid, Harish, Basavaraj 
REACH India: Dennis Gallagher, Nandini Prasad, Anjali, James, Manjir Ghosh, Saloni, 
Arpana…(to be added) 
USAID: Sourav Banerjee, Madhu Ranjan, Mamta Kohli, (to be added…)
Annexure 6 -- REACH Mid-Term Review: Schedule 
Dates and Days Neelam Singh Sheshagiri K M 
8th – 12th May 
(Mon-Fri) 
Planning meetings, including discussions with REACH India and Mamta 
Kohli of USAID 
16th May (Tue) Finalisation of the review 
framework and tools through 
discussions with Sourav Bannerjee, 
Mamta Kohli and Madhu Ranjan 
from USAID and Nandini Prasad 
and the PME team of REACH 
India 
Not available 
22nd May (Mon) Meeting with Dennis Gallagher 
23rd May (Tue) Delhi – Ranchi - Hazaribagh 
Meeting with the four Jharkhand 
grantees, viz. CWD, Badlao 
Foundation, BVA and NBJK 
Not available 
24th May (Wed) Visit to the CWD, Torpa Not available 
25th May (Thu) Visit to Banvasi Vikas Ashram at 
Bagodar, Giridih, and meeting with 
the staff and interactions with 
students of the residential bridge 
course and their parents 
Not available 
26th May (Fri) Meeting with NBJK staff and sub￾grantees in Hazaribagh 
Not available 
27th May (Sat) Visit to NBJK sub-grantee Samajik 
Parivartan Sansthan in Giridih 
- Field visit to two centres and 
interactions with children and 
parents and meeting with the 
teachers 
Not available 
28th May (Sun) Ranchi-Delhi Not available 
31st May (Wed) Delhi – Kolkata 
Meeting with the Kolkata grantees 
Meeting with the CINI Asha staff 
Not available 
1st June (Thu) Visit to CINI Asha sub-grantees 
- Interaction with the AIWC 
ECC staff and visit to 
Phoolbagan centre 
- Interaction with SPAN staff 
and visit to the coaching 
centre and meeting with the 
stakeholders in the field area
Not available 
2nd June (Fri) Visit to two Vikramshila sub 
grantees 
- Interactions with Banga 
Education Society 
Not available 
- Interactions staff of 
Humanity Association 
Meeting with Vikramshila staff 
3rd June (Sat) Meeting with Vikramshila Director, 
Mrs Shubhra Chatterjee 
Not available 
4th June (Sun) Free day Mumbai-Bangalore 
5th June (Mon) Visit to Manovikas Kendra 
- Meeting with staff 
N. Karnataka field work 
Bangalore 
- Meeting with Karnataka 
Partners: Akshara, SVYM, 
Agastya, TRDC, TTF 
6th June (Tue) Kolkata – Delhi Raichur 
- Akshara + sub grantee 
7th June (Wed) Not available Raichur 
- SVYM + sub grantee 
8th June (Thu) Not available Akshara field visit 
9th June (Fri) Not available Agastya, Kuknoor 
10th June (Sat) Not available TRDC, Savanur 
11th June (Sun) Not available Goa-Mumbai-Delhi 
12th June (Mon) Meeting with the Delhi grantees 
13th June (Tue) Not available Prayas meeting; field visit 
- 
14th June (Wed) Not available Prayas field visit 
15th June (Thu) Not available SARD field visit 
16th June (Fri) Not available Disha field visit 
17th June (Sat) Not available Disha field visit 
18th June (Sun) Not available 
19th June (Mon) Not available 
20th June (Tue) 
21st June (Wed) 
22nd June (Thu) Analysis of findings 
23rd June (Fri) Analysis of findings 
24th June (Sat) Analysis of findings 
25th June (Sun) 
26th June (Mon) Sharing session with REACH India staff 
27th June (Tue) Drafting of report 
28th June (Wed) Drafting of report 
3rd July (Mon) Sharing session with USAID staff 
Up to 15th July Finalization of report