GENDER EQUITY THROUGH EDUCATION PROJECT (GEE) MIDTERM EVALUATION MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY (MOEST) 24 AUGUST 2010 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Dr. Valerie Haugen and Tom Tilson, Ph.D. for Management Systems International. GENDER EQUITY THROUGH EDUCATION PROJECT (GEE) MIDTERM EVALUATION MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY (MOEST) Management Systems International Corporate Offices 600 Water Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 Contract No. DFD-I-00–05–00251–00, Task Order No. 2 Services under Program and Project Offices for Results Tracking (SUPPORT) DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Gender Equity in Education Program (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry Of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) i CONTENTS Project Data Table............................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................vi Project Location—Southern Sudan................................................................................vii Glossary............................................................................................................................viii Acronyms........................................................................................................................ xiii Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 1 Background............................................................................................................................................ 1 Most Significant Findings, Conclusions, and Impact..................................................................... 3 Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 9 Lessons Learned.................................................................................................................................11 I. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 12 1.1 Context.........................................................................................................................................12 1.2 ProJECT Description .................................................................................................................13 II. Purpose, Methodology, and Summary of Evaluation Questions............................ 15 2.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................15 2.2 Summary of the Methodology .................................................................................................16 2.3 List of Evaluation Questions.....................................................................................................16 III. Findings and Conclusions.......................................................................................... 18 3.1 Program management................................................................................................................18 3.2 Effectiveness of Project implementation ...............................................................................20 3.3 Efficiency........................................................................................................................................23 3.3 Strategic Alliances.......................................................................................................................26 3.4 Impact (Effects over the short term) .....................................................................................29 3.5 Sustainability.................................................................................................................................37 IV Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 41 4.1 Short-Term Adjustments to the Cooperative Agreement...............................................41 4.2 Scale-Up and/or Phase-Out of Program Components ......................................................41 4.3 Follow-On Programs..................................................................................................................43 4.4 Summary of Recommendations...............................................................................................43 V. Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................... 45 ANNEXES........................................................................................................................ 48 ANNEX 1: Scope Of Work ............................................................................................ 48 ANNEX 2: GEE Mte Mission Schedule ......................................................................... 53 ANNEX 3: Expanded Discussion Of The Methodology Approach And Limitations Of The Research ......................................................................................... 55 ANNEX 5: Should One Size Fit All?.............................................................................. 76 ANNEX 6: More Specific Recommendations For Winrock International Gee Implementation....................................................................................................... 80 ANNEX 9: Equity Considerations ................................................................................. 93 ANNEX 10: A Draft Targeting And Selection Strategy ............................................ 99 ANNEX 11: The Real Costs Of A Secondary School Education .............................. 101 ANNEX 12: Comfort Kit Discussion And Alternative Feminine Hygiene Products ......................................................................................................................... 106 ANNEX 13: Possible Ways Gee Can Expand The Pool Of Female Primary Education Teachers....................................................................................................... 114 ANNEX 14: Value For Money: Further Discussion.................................................... 116 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ii ANNEX 15: Expanded Discussion Of Future Directions .......................................... 118 ANNEX 16: Benefits Of Educating Girls..................................................................... 120 Gender Equity in Education Program (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry Of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) iii Scholarship recipients at Assosa Girls Secondary School (Malakal town, Malakal county, Upper Nile State). June 2010 (Photo by Valerie Haugen) Charles, scholarship recipient at Loka Secondary School (Lainya county, Central Equatoria State). As the male head of the household, he cares for four younger brothers. on weekends, he digs fields by hand to earn money to feed his siblings and mother. June 2010 (Photo by Valerie Haugen) Gender Equity in Education Program (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry Of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) iv PROJECT DATA TABLE Program Name Gender Equity through Education for Southern Sudan Region/Country Africa/Southern Sudan (Geographic Area 650) Program Bilateral under Strategic Objective A12/A055 Government of Southern Sudan Counterpart Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST)1 Funder United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Managing Contractor Winrock International (WI) Agreement Information2 Leader Cooperative Agreement No. GDG-A-00–03–00008–00 (2005) Associate Cooperative Agreement No. 650-A-00–07–00003–00 (August 6, 2007) Modification #01 (January 6, 2008): Add incremental funding of $300,000 increasing the Total Obligated Amount from $1m to $1.3m. Modifications #02: September 30, 2008: Add incremental funding of $2.5m increasing Total Obligated Amount from $1.3m to $3.8m. Modification #3 (September 1, 2008): Correct errors in Modification 1. Modification #4 (October 14, 2009): Add incremental funding of $2,808,000 increasing the Total Obligated Amount from $1.3m to $6,608,000 Modification #5 (October 15, 2009): Change numbering of Mod 2 to Mod 4 and correct obligated amount; De-obligate $108,000 from agreement to reduce Total Obligated Amount to $6.5m Modification #06 (February 18, 2010): Increase amount of award by $3m from $6.5m to US$9.5m and Total Program Amount to from $6,962,008 to $10,179,705, including cost-share GEE Impact Evaluation Mission TBD GEE Mid-Term Evaluation Mission May 29–June 29, 2010 Key Program Dates GEE Implementation Period September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2012 Total Program Amount including Cost-Share Current Total Contract Value Original Total Contract Value $10,179,705 $9.5m $6.5m 1 After the MTE the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) was divided into the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science, and Technology. 2 Unless noted otherwise, all monetary amounts reported in this paper are in U.S. dollars. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) v Evaluation Provider MSI (Management Systems International) MTE Team Members: Dr. Valerie Haugen (External Evaluator/Team Leader) Dr. Thomas Tilson (External Evaluator) Ms. Esther Akumu (Deputy Director-Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education, MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate) Ms. Kathryn Johnston (MSI Education Advisor to USAID) Ms. Necia Stanford (Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International) Ms. Christine Jada (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, GEE￾Winrock International) MTE Mission Site Visits Southern Sudan States of: Central Equatoria, Northern Bar El Ghazal, Upper Nile, Western Bar El Ghazal (May–June, 2010), Southern Kordofan (February 2010) Gender Equity in Education Program (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry Of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The midterm evaluation (MTE) Team would like to thank the personnel of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), in particular, the many individuals in the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) and the State Ministries of Education (SMOE) who gave so generously of their time and who provided the team with excellent and candid commentary. The team would also like to extend its sincere thanks to the students, school personnel, and community members who shared their perspectives on education in Southern Sudan. The feedback on GEE enabled the MTE Team to examine the perceived changes resulting from the project and to construct recommendations for the final two years of program implementation. Special thanks are extended to personnel from the donor and development partner community whose views also helped to inform a more complete understanding of the context in which GEE is being implemented and the changes beginning to emerge because of GEE, particularly at the state level, due to the work of GEE personnel from Winrock International (WI). Without this professional and collegial assistance to the team and willingness to participate in a collaborative manner in the conduct of the MTE, the effectiveness of the team and the final product would have been reduced. The team would like to thank the staff of Management Systems International (MSI) for their dependable and accommodating assistance with strategic guidance, administrative support, and on-the-ground logistical assistance and their excellent preparation work setting the parameters of the MTE prior to the Team’s mobilization, especially Ms. Ami Henson (Services Under Program and Project Offices for Results￾SUPPORT Chief of Party), Ms. Katharine Hoffman (MSI Home Office Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist), and Ms. Ingrid Orvedal (SUPPORT Assessment, Monitoring, and Evaluation Adviser). And, last, but most certainly not least, we would like to commend those colleagues who participated as full members of the midterm evaluation team—Ms. Esther Akumu (Deputy Director-Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education, MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate), Ms. Kathryn Johnston (MSI Senior Education Specialist to USAID), Ms. Necia Stanford (Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International), and Ms. Christine Jada (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, GEE-Winrock International)—and Mr. James Emmanuel (Deputy Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International) as a partial team member. The help provided by Ms. Sarah Okwaci, Mr. Philip James Akoth Lah, Ms. Rosemary Cunyua, and Mr. Abdul Hakim (GEE-Winrock International personnel in the Malakal and Wau offices) organizing the site visits and facilitating the team’s work in the field was greatly appreciated. Gender Equity in Education Program (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry Of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) vii PROJECT LOCATION—SOUTHERN SUDAN FIGURE 1: MAP OF SOUTHERN SUDAN (SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS-OCHA) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) viii GLOSSARY3 Term Definition Boundary Partners “ . . . those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly and with whom the program anticipates opportunities for influence.”4 Capability “ . . . the collective skill or aptitude of an organization or system to carry out a particular function or process either inside or outside the system. Capabilities enable an organization to do things and to sustain itself.”5 Capacity “That emergent combination of individual competencies, collective capabilities, assets and relationships that enables a human system to create value.”6 Capacity Development Different organizations use different definitions for capacity development. According to the OECD-DAC Network on Governance, capacity development is the process whereby people, organizations, and societies as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain capacity over time. Recent research (OED 2005) shows that capacity development is more likely to be effective when (1) capacity development is treated as a goal in its own right, and increased efforts are made to identify the objectives it seeks to achieve (“Capacity development for what?”); (2) support for capacity development addresses three dimensions: human capacity, organizational capacity, and broader institutional capacity; and, (3) capacity development is country-owned rather than donor￾driven.7 Also referred to as ‘capacity enhancement’ and ‘capacity building.’ Collaborative Evaluation A collaborative evaluation “implies a varying level of involvement that considers the extent to which program staff and other stakeholders should be included as part of the evaluation team . . . [It] is often empowering to participants . . . [and] enhances their understanding of evaluation so they gain new skills . . . [and it] promotes utilization of evaluation findings”8 Conflict (Sensitive) Analysis Conflict analysis is the systematic study of the profile, causes, actors, and dynamics of conflict. It helps development, humanitarian, and peace-building organizations to gain a better understanding of the context in which they work and their role in that context. . . conflict analysis is the foundation of conflict sensitivity, and without a good understanding of the context in which interventions are situated, organizations that support or directly implement them may unintentionally help to fuel violent conflict or to exacerbate existing tensions. Conflict analysis helps organizations move towards a better understanding of the context in which they work and a conflict-sensitive approach.9 Conflict Sensitivity “ . . . the ability of an organization to develop and use the sum of its human and organizational capital to minimize negative and maximize positive impacts on the conflict 3 A number of these definitions, including those for effectiveness, efficiency, impact, lessons learned, and sustainability, are taken from Ausguide. Canberra: AusAID. 4 Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. (2002). 5 Baser, Heather and Morgan, Peter (2008). 6 Ibid. 7 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1997). http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,3343,en_21571361_39494699_39503763_1_1_1_1,00&&en-USS_01DBC.html, Accessed 10pm on July 12, 2010 from Sydney, Australia. 8 O’Sullivan, Rita M. (2008). 9 Conflict Sensitivity Organization. (no date provided). http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/resource_pack/chapter_2__266.pdf Accessed 10am July 18 2010 from Sydney Australia. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ix dynamics of the environment(s) where it works. This means an awareness of the causes of historical, actual, or potential conflict and the likelihood of further conflict, and its likely severity; and the capacity to work with all parties to minimize the risk of further conflict.” 10 Counterpart or Counterpart Relationship “A counterpart is an individual or a collectivity (e.g., a group or even an organization) who contributes to a relationship designed to exchange knowledge and support as part of a deliberate effort to induce development results in a partner country.”11 Direct Beneficiary The people with whom the project will work to effect change. Also called ‘primary beneficiaries’ or ‘boundary partners.’ Effectiveness The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. Progress in achieving objectives, standard of outputs, and benefit to the target population. Efficiency A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results, taking into account the timeliness and appropriateness of the preparation and implementation processes, including appraisal and peer review; standard of the contract and activity implementation by the contractor; strength of partner government support and the value of dialogue in country; USAID management including risk management and use of external expertise; activity monitoring and communication. Endogenous Processes Capacity processes that appear to be internally driven (by the organization), and not driven by the concerns of an external donor. Evaluation A social science activity directed at collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and communicating information about the workings and effectiveness of social programs. According to the United Nations Development Fund, evaluation is a rigorous and independent assessment of either completed or ongoing activities to determine the extent to which they are achieving stated objectives and contributing to decision making.12 Gender Gender is a social construct that assigns roles and responsibilities to males and females in the management of society. Gender Equality Gender equality means that women and men enjoy the same status. Gender equality means that women and men have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national, political, economic, social, and cultural development, and to benefit from the results. Gender equality is therefore the equal valuing by society of both the similarities and differences between women and men, and the varying roles that they play.13 Gender Equity Gender equity is the process of being fair to women and men. To ensure fairness, measures must often be available to compensate for historical and social disadvantages that prevent women and men from otherwise operating on a level playing field. Equity leads to equality.14 The MOEST draft (4) Education Act 2008 states that “[g]ender equity refers to a state where there is no discrimination in education based on sex and where there is equitable opportunity for all persons.” Gender Parity Index The Gender Parity Index (GPI) is the ratio of the number of female students (regardless of age) enrolled to the number of male students. A GPI of 1 indicates parity between the sexes; a GPI that varies between 0 and 1 indicates a disparity in favor of males; whereas a 10 Waqo, Halakhe and Onyango, Rachael (2008). 11 Morgan, Peter (2008). 12 UNDP (2009). 13 Status of Women-Canada (1996). 14 Ibid. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) x GPI of greater than 1 indicates disparity in favor of females. Gender￾Responsive Budget Gender-responsive budgets are not separate budgets for women but are instead general budgets that are planned, approved, executed, monitored, and audited in a gender￾sensitive way. The ultimate goal of gender budgeting is gender equality and gender equity.15 Gender (Sensitive) Analysis “During program and project design, gender analysis is the process of assessing the impact that a development activity may have on females and males, and on gender relations (the economic and social relationships between males and females which are constructed and reinforced by social institutions). It can be used to ensure that men and women are not disadvantaged by development activities, to enhance the sustainability of activities, or to identify priority areas for action to promote equality between women and men. During implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, gender analysis assists to assess differences in participation, benefits, and impacts between males and females, including progress towards gender equality and changes in gender relations. Gender analysis can also be used to assess and build capacity and commitment to gender sensitive planning and programming in donor and partner organizations and to identify gender equality issues and strategies at country, sectoral or thematic programming levels.”16 Impact Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended; inter alia, impacts may be economic, institutional, technological, environmental, sociocultural, or gender￾related; including measurement of the extent of impacts (if possible, a cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken). Indicator An indicator “is the unit of measurement (or pointer) that is used to monitor or evaluate the achievement of project objectives over time. Indicators can include specification of quantifiable targets and measures of quality.”17 Institution Institutions are humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction. They are the ‘rules of the game’ in a society, the rules that facilitate human interaction and societal life. They are the arrangements humans have made for governing their lives ... They may be formal arrangements, such as legal systems and property rights, or informal arrangements, like moral standards. In some cases, they take the form of implicit work views or mental maps, i.e., cognitive frameworks for looking at the world around you. These arrangements or institutions operate at different levels, ranging from an international level (such as trade arrangements) to community and individual levels (for instance, the values that determine the way in which people interact with each other).18 Institutional Development Institutional development is the process by which institutions evolve and perish, i.e., ongoing endogenous and autonomous processes in society.19 Lessons Learned Generalizations based on evaluation experiences with activities, programs, or policies that abstract from the specific circumstances to broader situations. Frequently, lessons learned highlight strengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and implementation that affect performance, outcome, and impact. 15 Schneider, K. (2007) 16 Hunt, J. (2004). 17Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) (formerly Cardno Acil). www.acil.com.au/glossary.htm 18 European Center for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) (no date provided). 19 Ibid. Also, for an excellent historical perspective on Organizational Development and Institutional Development, see Van der Velden, Fons and Leenknegt, Anne-Marie (2006) Facilitation of Organizational Change: Beyond Organizational and Institutional Development. Contextuals No. 5 December. http://contextinternationalcooperation.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/contextuals-no￾5.pdf Accessed from Lae, Papua New Guinea at 10:50am August 7, 2009. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xi Monitoring “Monitoring can be defined as the ongoing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the progress being made towards achieving their goals and objectives. ‘Are we taking the actions we said we would take?’ . . . ’Are we making progress on achieving the results that we said we wanted to achieve?’”20 Objective A concrete statement describing what the project is trying to achieve. The objective should be written at a basic level so that it can be evaluated at the conclusion of a project to see whether it was achieved or not. A well-worded objective will be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART).21 Organization(al) Development “The practice of changing people and organizations for positive growth which can take on many forms, including, but not exclusively, team-building, organizational assessments, career development, training, e-learning, coaching, innovation, leadership development, talent management, and change management.”22 Outcome An outcome is a short or medium-term result that is the logical consequence of the intervention achieving a combination of outputs. For instance, an outcome might be the application of new knowledge and skills by participants following their training course. Outcomes may take one to five years to achieve. Output An output is the most immediate, tangible result of an activity. An output could be, for example, the number of persons trained in a course. Outputs can usually be achieved within the period of a month to a year. Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities, and partner and donor policies—relevance of the activity’s objectives (i.e., were they clear, realistic and measurable?); adequacy of documented activity design to achieve objectives. Stakeholder Specific people or groups who have a stake in the outcome of the project. Normally stakeholders are from within the company and could include internal clients, management, employees, administrators, etc. A project may also have external stakeholders, including suppliers, investors, community groups, and government organizations. 23 Sustainability The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed—sustainability of benefits (technological, social, environmental, gender); sustainability of institutional capacity; maintenance of future recurrent budget (financial sustainability). Technical Cooperation Technical cooperation (also commonly referred to as ‘technical assistance’) is the provision of know-how in the form of personnel, training, research, and associated costs. (OECD DAC Statistical Reporting Directives 36–39). It comprises donor-financed (1) activities that augment the level of knowledge, skills, technical know-how or productive aptitudes of people in developing countries; and, (2) services such as consultancies, technical support, or the provision of know-how that contributes to the execution of a capital project. 20 UNDP (2009). Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. NY: UNDP. 21 http://www.tenstep.com/open/miscpages/94.3Glossary.html 22 http://www.odportal.com/OD/whatisod.htm Accessed from Sydney, Australia at 9:00am July 16, 2009. 23 http://www.tenstep.com/open/miscpages/94.3Glossary.html 24 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,3343,en_21571361_39494699_39503763_1_1_1_1,00&&en-USS_01DBC.html Accessed 10pm on July 12, 2010 from Sydney, Australia. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xii Technical cooperation includes both freestanding technical cooperation and technical cooperation that is embedded in investment programs (or included in program-based approaches). In order to report against this question, donors are invited to review their portfolio of projects and programs and estimate the share of technical assistance/cooperation. 24 Ultimate Beneficiary The individuals, groups, or organizations that will ultimately benefit from the implementation of a project. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xiii ACRONYMS Acronym Description ACA Associate Cooperative Agreement AED Academy for Educational Development AOTR Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative AP Annual Plan AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AWP Annual Work Plan BOG Board of Governors BRIDGE Building Responsibility for the Delivery of Government Services CA Cooperative Agreement CAFS Conflict-Affected and Fragile State CARE International Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. CB Capacity Building CBO Community-Based Organization C.E. Capacity Enhancement CEC County Education Center CEO County Education Office CES/C.E. Central Equatoria State CK Comfort Kit COP Chief of Party COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CSO Civil Society Organization CSPM Conflict Sensitive Program Management CV Curriculum Vitae DC District of Columbia DG Director General DGESC Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xiv Acronym Description DP Displaced Person EDC Education Development Center EES Eastern Equatoria State EMIS Education Management Information System EQUIP Education Quality Improvement Program ERDF Education Rehabilitation and Development Forum FAWE Forum for African Women Educationalists FCR Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations F2F Face to Face FBO Faith Based Organization FGD Focus Group Discussions FY Fiscal Year GBV Gender Based Violence GEE Gender Equity through Education Project GEM Girls Education Movement GESC Gender Equity and Social Change GESP Gender Equity Support Program GOSS Government of Southern Sudan HEAR Health, Education, and Reconciliation Program ICT Information and Communications Technology ID Institutional Development IDF Institutional Development Framework INEE International Network for Education in Emergencies IRI Interactive Radio Instruction JRS Jesuit Refugee Service LLG Local Level Government LTA Long Term Technical Assistance M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goals Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xv Acronym Description MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund MOEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MOGSWRA Ministry of Gender, Social Welfare and Religious Affairs MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSI Management Systems International MTE Mid-Term Evaluation MTE Team Mid-Term Evaluation Team NBEG Northern Bahr El Ghazal State NESEI New Sudan Education Initiative NGO Non Governmental Organization OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OD Organizational Development OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator PAGE Promotion and Advocacy for Girls’ Education PMP Program Monitoring Plan PTA Parent Teacher Association PU Program Unit RFA Request for Applications SBEP Sudan Basic Education Program SCF Save the Children SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound SMOE State Ministry of Education SMOE HQ State Ministry of Education Headquarters SNV Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (SNV) or Foundation of Netherlands Volunteers SOW Scope of Work/Statement of Work Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Midterm Evaluation Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) xvi Acronym Description SSIRI Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction Program SSTAP/TAP South Sudan Technical Assistance Program STA Short-Term Technical Assistance STTI/STTC State Teacher Training Institute or College SUPPORT Services Under Program and Project Offices for Results SWAN Sudanese Women’s Advocacy Network TA Technical Assistance TL Team Leader TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Fund UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Education Fund UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women (Fonds de développement des Nations unies pour la femme) UNS Upper Nile State USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WBEG Western Bar el Ghazal State WES Western Equatoria State WI Winrock International WI HO Winrock International Home Office Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 1 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Conflict, natural disasters, famine, and policies and practices antithetical to development have severely affected Southern Sudan’s social, political, and economic structures. Southern Sudan currently has the lowest Human Development Indicator ratings in the world, and roughly 90 percent of the population cannot read or write. Since the mid-1990s, education (like other key services) has been provided largely by international organizations. The Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) is working to build its core organizations and systems and operationalize a decentralized structure. The Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Project funded by USAID “contributes to the United States Government (USG) foreign assistance objective of ‘Investing in People’ and to USAID’s Education Program Area and to the Program Elements of Basic Education, Maternal and Child Health, and Other Public Health Threats. It is designed to directly address the cross-cutting areas of conflict mitigation, gender, and HIV/AIDS. In addition, by filling service gaps and pursuing more equitable access to education, the project indirectly contributes to improving security by increasing community stability and reducing conflict among the disenfranchised. GEE also aligns with the Government of Southern Sudan laws and policy frameworks and its commitments to international agreements such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Millennium Development Goals, specifically Millennium Development Goal #3— Promoting gender equity and empowering women.”25 At present only USAID, through the Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Project, is giving serious attention to the secondary education sub-sector. GEE implements activities in all ten states and two of the Three Areas. Purpose and Methodology From May 29 to July 3, 2010, USAID/Sudan conducted a “Mid-Term Review of GEE in a collaborative manner to maximize learning opportunities on program performance and potential for USAID, the Government and Winrock.”26 The MTE team consisted of two external evaluators, Dr. Valerie Haugen (Team Leader) and Dr. Thomas Tilson, as well as Ms. Esther Akumu (Deputy Director-Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education, MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate-DGESC), Ms. Kathryn Johnston (MSI Senior Education Specialist to USAID), Ms. Necia Stanford (Chief of Party, GEE￾Winrock International), and Ms. Christine Jada (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, GEE-Winrock International)—and Mr. James Oryema (Deputy Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International) as an occasional team member. The Team was tasked to consider the following areas: • How relevant and robust is the GEE design (including the development hypothesis and project logic)? • Is the project effective in enhancing the demand of girls for education, institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, and promoting accountability and good governance (i.e., school governance in the community) at all levels? • What are the best practices in terms of project implementation? Are there key lessons to be learned that would be useful for other USAID projects in Sudan? 25 Scope of Work for the Mid-Term Review of the Gender Equity through Education Program (GEE) Cooperative Agreement (CA) No. 650-A-00–07–00003–00. 26 Ibid. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 2 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Assessing GEE progress to date in meeting the deliverables of the Cooperative Agreement (including any amendments to the original) and developing lessons for future USAID/Sudan investments. • Assessing GEE in the context of coordinating with other USAID-supported programs in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas.27 • Assessing the GEE approach in the context of coordinating with non-USG implementing partners and stakeholders (including humanitarian organizations, UN agencies, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, NGOs, and FBOs). • Making recommendations for: 1. Scaling up or phasing out project components in order to achieve maximum impact in the time remaining 2. Short-term adjustments in the CA that would improve performance in the remaining period 3. Follow-on programs to expand and sustain current efforts and provide tangible benefits in terms of improving education opportunities and outcomes for girls and young women The Team visited 15 public and private girls, boys, and co-educational secondary schools, State Ministries of Education (SMOEs), and county education offices (CEOs) in four states: Central Equatoria (CES), Northern Bar el Ghazal (NBeG), Upper Nile (UNS), and Western Bar El Ghazal (WBeG). A total of 385 individuals were interviewed, including direct beneficiaries of GEE activities (i.e., scholarship recipients in secondary school and TTIs/TTCs and some parents) as well as stakeholders and indirect beneficiaries from the MOEST, State Ministries of Education (SMOE) at state, county and school/Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs) or Colleges (TTCs) levels), Board of Governors and Parent-Teacher Association members and development partner organizations. The team also reviewed a range of GOSS and United States Government (USG), GEE and international primary and secondary source documentation. A range of qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments were developed and deployed, including focus group discussions (FGD), key informant interviews, and participant observation. Basic analyses of raw data from the fieldwork and meta-analyses of GEE project and MOEST Education Management Information System (EMIS) data were also undertaken. Program Description On August 6, 2007, USAID established the GEE Program to “continue, accelerate, and expand accomplishments achieved under the Gender Equity Support Program (GESP),”28 which ran from July 2002– September 2007. Winrock International (WI) began GEE implementation on September 1, 2007. The project is scheduled to run until August 31, 2012 (a five-year life cycle) with a contract award of $9.5m and a total project budget of $10,179,705 including a cost-share from WI.29 Figure 2 (below) illustrates the GEE Project logic as interpreted by WI. GEE staffing currently consists of 23 personnel working out of offices in Juba (Juba Headquarters-HQ), Malakal, and Wau. Program officers directly implement activities, and up until May 2010, two technical advisors30 in gender were placed in the MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate to build capacity to: (i) increase the number of female teachers, (ii) raise awareness of and support for girls’ education at central and sub-national levels, (iii) design and implement appropriate policies, and (iv) integrate gender into all aspects of education planning and program implementation. 27 Technical Assistance Program (TAP), Heath, Education, and Reconcilliation (HEAR) Project, and Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction (SSIRI) Project 28 USAID. (2007) Action Memorandum, March 12, 2007. 29 USAID. (2009) Amendment 6 to the Cooperative Agreement. 30 The gender adviser to the State Ministries of Education recently resigned; hence, the team was unable to interview her during the MTE. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 3 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) FIGURE 2: WINROCK INTERNATIONAL’S GEE PROJECT LOGIC31 NB: The Cooperative Agreement also states that GEE “promotes gender parity and equity in the education system.”32 Most Significant Findings, Conclusions, and Impact Findings WI GEE is on target to achieve four of its nine nominated output indicators. GEE has met or exceeded its targets for two indicators associated with the Scholarship Program Component, which is GEE’s most demanding activity with respect to volume of supply and process demands. (See Table 1 below.) Winrock has already exceeded the following indicators: • Number of beneficiaries • Number of learners enrolled in USG-supported schools Winrock appears to be on target for the following indicators: • Number of scholarship disbursed • Number of comfort kits distributed • Number of PTAs supported • Number of administrators/officials trained Winrock appears to be behind schedule on the following indicators: 31 Winrock International GEE. Gender Equity through Education Proposal, Annex, p. 7. April 3, 2007 32 USAID. (2007) USAID-Winrock International Cooperative Agreement-September 2007-August 2012. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 4 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Number of teachers trained (completed TTI/TTC) • Number of materials distributed • Number of policies/guidelines developed TABLE 1: INDICATOR DATA THROUGH YEAR 3—SECOND QUARTER (MARCH 2010) Indicator Baseline Achievements as of Q2 Y3 Life of Project (LOP) Target Number of Beneficiaries 1,776 4,491 (3,882) 3,800 (3,420) Number of Scholarships Disbursed 1,776 (1,776) 6,253 (5,556) 9,500 (8,075) Number of Teachers Trained (completed TTI/TTC) 35 (35) 132 (131) 500 (500) Number of Learners Enrolled in USG-Supported Schools 4,776 (1,776) 23,660 (7,097) 14,122 (4,224) Number of Comfort Kits Distributed (No data available or reported) 5,556 8,075 Number of Materials Distributed (No data available or reported) 4,749 11,680 Number of PTAs Supported (No data available or reported) 83 92 Number of Administrators/Officials Trained (No data available or reported) 92 (63) 120 (80) Number of Policies/Guidelines Developed (No data available or reported) 1 5 Institutional Development Framework (IDF) Custom Indicator No data have been reported against this indicator. NB: Figures within parentheses indicate the number of females out of the total number reported. As of June 2010, most GEE personnel (23) are in place and are becoming increasingly effective in their roles. Reporting is timely and of good quality and, over the past year, GEE has been tightening processes and beginning to break down silos33 between project activities. It has established functional processes for the distribution of scholarship packages and has had no leakage of scholarship funds provided; monies are being used appropriately. Scholarship recipients and school personnel are grateful to have even the limited support provided. Comfort kits (CKs) costing GEE approximately $17 to purchase are provided annually to female scholarship recipients. The CKs contain a variety of items, and it is assumed that these items will ease the lives of the female students and enable them to come to school confident and assured. Each CK includes six reusable sanitary pads. On average, girls use the reusable sanitary pads provided for three months then discard them. As long as the pads are functional, girls indicate that they do make a difference in their school attendance; however, once the pads break down, the girls buy disposable pads, use rags, or stay home. On 33 A ‘silo mentality’ or ‘silo syndrome’ refers to the tendency in organizations for a vertical rather than horizontal approach to communication, collaboration, and implementation. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 5 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) average, the soap provided lasts one week (as it is often shared with others) and the Vaseline lasts two weeks. Students also note that the tuition stipend and the personal-items stipend are helpful, but all students (and administrators) stated that the amounts were very limited and that making a real difference in students’ lives would require a greater investment.34 The same was mentioned by education administrators about the school improvement grants (SIGs)—that the amount was too limited to make a real difference to the school community. There is some evidence that the SIGs, when paired with other funds, have more impact. To date, GEE has not exploited the SIGs or the scholarship package overall as a catalyst for school-level change. There is some emerging evidence that the mentoring program can be viable, and it is clear that there are interested and committed individuals willing to volunteer their time. In addition, the Leadership for Change training program has been well received and there is a clear desire for follow-up support and more such opportunities. Participants acknowledged the good quality of the training programs and materials. However, this activity and the Mother-Daughter Loan Scheme (a key aspect of sustainability highlighted in the WI proposal) have both stalled due to lack of cost-share funds.35 GEE has a good working relationship with USAID and, for the most part, with education administrators at various levels, including those within MOEST and the SMOEs at the state, county, and school levels. MOEST personnel are able to identify individual and some organizational benefits, particularly from previous TA at DGESC (MOEST), such as enhanced ability to plan work, improved knowledge of and relationships with development partners, and increased personal accountability and commitment. There is some anecdotal evidence from GEE staff regarding the project’s effect on promotion of accountability and good governance; however, at present, the approach does not target capacity building in these areas, and no education administrators or Board of Governors’ (BOG) members mentioned these as benefits. With respect to institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, the common view of stakeholders is that GEE is delivered by Winrock—not the GOSS or USAID. GEE maintains contact with a number of other development partners and organizations, primarily on an information-sharing basis. There is no evidence of collaborative programming, although there has been discussion with some organizations. BRIDGE and GEE are both implemented by Winrock International and have complementary activities, but as yet there has been no collaboration. The MTE found some anecdotal indications that GEE is a catalyst for attracting girls as well as boys to secondary school, but there are limited hard data available to substantiate this. There is no clear evidence that GEE is contributing to retention or females’ completion of secondary school and no evidence of any effect on the enrollment and graduation rates of female primary-education teachers, both of which are the important overarching goals for the project. An examination of GOSS and USG documentation and discussions with GOSS leadership show that the GEE design aligns with the intentions of both governments regarding gender equality and gender equity in education. The Request for Applications (RFA) notes that, “[i]n response to the educational plight of girls and women in Southern Sudan, the MOEST strategy acknowledges the right of all persons to an education regardless of ethnicity, culture, sex, religious or socio-economic status . . . At the heart of MOEST policy measures on gender equity and social change is the provision of scholarships to encourage girls to enroll and complete secondary education . . .” The RFA’s stated development hypothesis is that female participation in education must be improved since it is a basis for stability and equitable development in Southern Sudan. The RFA’s stated overall goal for GEE is “to provide incentives that will encourage girls to complete secondary school and mentor women into the teaching profession” with the purpose “to continue, accelerate, and expand the gender equity support program.”36 The project logic is built on the view that three components 34 See Annex 11 on the Real Costs of a Secondary School Education. 35 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was noted that this statement regarding the Leadership for Change component of the program did not accurately reflect the components current status. USAID stated that “the complete program was administered minus some additional follow up that was added for Sudan, but never occurred in the previous iterations of the program.” 36 USAID Sudan 650-A-07–002 RFA (p. 14). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 6 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) (scholarships to support girls’ education and school improvement; advocacy, community mobilization and mentoring; and supporting strategies including Technical Assistance-TA) incorporating interventions targeted at the individual (ultimate beneficiaries), the organizational (schools, ministries and county education offices) and institutional (structures and beliefs) levels to address barriers to gender equality and equity will have an impact on female participation in education. Conclusions Southern Sudan presents an unusually difficult environment in which to carry out a major development project like GEE, and any conclusions drawn around the efficiency of implementing the project need to take into account the environmental context, the capacity of WI, and the extent to which GEE has been able to adapt to the changing circumstances. GEE has demonstrated the ability to adapt to constraints and challenges, and many issues encountered have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. Good or excellent progress has been made against most of the output indicators; however, GEE is well past the halfway point in its project lifecycle and, while the scholarship program is clearly functional, other project interventions have progressed with different levels of success. When GEE has the time to plan carefully and to put existing materials into use, it does so well. The implementation process for scholarships distribution was established quickly, and the process has proven to be good. The training programs are of good quality. The Mentoring Program is of good quality and is well received, but the rollout of the program has not kept up with expectations. The Leadership for Change initiative is also of good quality, but GEE has not provided the necessary follow-up support. Consequently, GEE will be faced in the next two years with the simultaneous challenges of transitioning out of the scholarship program activities, ramping up stalled activities, and putting into place an as-yet undefined sustainability and exit strategy for the scholarships and the stalled interventions.37 The MTE process has helped to bring to light and, hopefully, resolve the issues that have emerged regarding GOSS ownership of and investment in GEE. The actual benefits and outcomes of the project to date cannot be clearly demonstrated on the basis of existing (and accessible) project data or MTE data collected. This issue also arose during GESP despite the RFA assertions about the success of GESP regarding results. In essence, there are no reportable outcomes or development results being monitored and reported against to which GEE (or GESP) are contributing.38 , 39 Success is defined on the basis of outputs-driven metrics at this point in time. While it is clear from the field research that the monetary value of the scholarship awards (henceforth referred to as ‘stipends’) make some small difference in the lives of the recipients, the amount is too small to have any significant benefit. The same can be said of the school improvement grants. The lack of a targeted focus on capacity building of county and school personnel, including BOGs, to provide a school environment that is conducive to girls’ successful participation40 (and which will also have positive effects for boys) is a missed opportunity, especially since the scholarship program—as the only larger scale secondary education initiative—has a clear potential to leverage a structured engagement. 37 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011), it was stated that this statement inaccurately reflects the sustainability and exit strategies that GEE has begun to implement. USAID stated, “GEE has already begun a sustainability and exit strategy by embedding the mentoring program into the GOSS-MOEST and SMOE as part of the government’s PAGE program.” 38 The MTE Team was unable to locate documentation that revealed the evidence on which the assertions about the success of GESP contribution to effects or results are based. The same is true for GEE. The team did locate one document, a consultancy report by Kirk (2005), that detailed the findings and conclusions of a limited early impact assessment of GESP that perhaps was taken into account in the GEE design process. However, this assessment was not an extensive ex-post evaluation of GESP, and the consultant notes that data upon which assertions of impact are based are limited. If this is the only evaluation available, it should not have been used as the sole basis for legitimizing the outcomes and impact of GESP or the treatment of a successor project (GEE) that is largely one and the same as the original (GESP). 39 The results cited are not development results or outcomes but are, by and large, input and output indicators. (See footnote 40 below.) Recent USAID Office of Transition Initiatives’ guidance on monitoring and evaluation emphasizes the importance of helping programs to “ . . . meet institutional reporting requirement while remaining effects-based rather than metrics-drive.” USAID. (2010) Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Evaluation in Complex, High-Threat Environments. Washington, DC: USAID. 40 According to Kirk (2005), GESP school-level interventions were specifically targeted toward female students and female teachers. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 7 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE has confronted a number of significant constraints including financial issues (funding flow and local banking problems), contextual challenges (including security concerns) and handover issues, which have affected implementation (of which many are beyond the control of the project). That being said, there is solid evidence that GEE personnel are cost-conscious and strive to find ways to be cost-effective. In addition to the constraints, a number of other factors have had an effect on the implementation and GEE’s potential impact, particularly concerning the ‘peace dividend.’ These factors include: 1. Lack of a risk analysis with a corresponding risk matrix with agreed roles and responsibilities on the parts of the parties concerned (namely, GEE, USAID and GOSS) with respect to risk mitigation strategies: A thorough risk analysis would have picked up most, if not all, of the risks which have materialized to date and would have enabled proactive, rather than reactive, responses.41 2. The process-driven nature of the scholarship program component: This component has tended to consume the attention of staff to achieve the numbers of scholarships and recipients without any accompanying strategic and tactical considerations associated with targeting of students or schools or a considered response to external pressure to spread the project thinly and widely and to do so ahead of schedule. 3. The lack of a clearly articulated approach to capacity building through technical assistance (TA) and during direct implementation of activities: At this point in time, there is minimal demonstrated effect on the SMOE GESC Directorates from 1.5 years’ worth of external technical assistance. Individual and organization benefits for the MOEST GESC Directorate have stalled. Responsibility for this situation lies with GEE and GOSS and, to a certain extent, with USAID for not demanding more from both parties with respect to the TA. 4. The absence of a conflict sensitive analysis of the project design, the WI proposal and subsequent activities42: As of April 2010, USAID has formally espoused an ‘action learning’ approach to projects in complex, high￾threat environments43 and this principle has been embraced by USAID Sudan personnel prior to and since the CPA. WI has demonstrated the capacity to utilize such an approach effectively. However, despite the adaptability of GEE to issues beyond its control, there are numerous aspects (with which GEE has struggled and which will have an effect on GEE’s contribution to gender equality and establishing sustainable gender equity practices) that could and should have been anticipated and avoided by both USAID and WI. Reputable international research and practice on education in emergencies and reconstruction, programming for girls’ participation (including conditional cash transfers such as scholarships), and capacity enhancement (including through technical assistance and in CAFS) are considerable and were available well before GEE’s inception, yet few, if any, of the accrued lessons learned appear to have been incorporated into the GEE approach (either at the design stage or subsequently) by the parties concerned. For example, the chronic issues with security (which were unrecognized initially by WI) and avenues for addressing security concerns without jeopardizing GEE’s ability to reach out to females and other marginalized target groups in rural areas may well have been mitigated through such an analysis. A case in point at this time is the lack of a well-articulated project response to the scenarios that may emerge as a result of the 2011 referendum.44 41 The lessons presented in the lessons-learned table in the Annex section of the WI proposal are actually more appropriately viewed as risks. The table includes mitigation strategies. This table could have formed the basis of a well-developed risk matrix. UNDP’s Handbook on Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluating provides good guidance on developing an adequate risk matrix. 42 Although the Winrock International proposal mentions conflict sensitivity, it is not clear how the proposal or subsequent implementation reflects a conflict-sensitive lens and analysis. 43 USAID. (2010) Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Evaluation in Complex, High-Threat Environments. Washington, DC: USAID. 44 There is good advice on continuation of education even in emergencies in documentation produced by the International Network for Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction (INEE). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 8 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) The result of inadequate conflict-sensitive programming is that certain undesirable effects have manifested, such as the continued perception among constituents that education services are provided by NGOs and not the GOSS, and an absence of school-based strategies to make the learning environment conducive to girls (as well as boys). While there must be room for flexible maneuvering to ensure that implementation can respond to a changeable context, many lessons have already been learned (in other arenas) and should not have to be repeated by GEE in order to be legitimized. The relevance of GEE in the Southern Sudanese context is apparent from the documentation and data reviewed and the decision-makers consulted. Although not stated in the RFA, GEE’s apparent development hypothesis that the participation, retention, and completion of secondary education and primary education teacher training by females should yield a private return to the individual female and social returns to Southern Sudan is supported by reputable international research.45 The project logic as presented in the RFA and explicated further in the WI proposal is sound to the extent that the three components target the individual, organizational, and institutional levels and the theory of change appears to be that interventions at these various levels will bring about immediate changes and longer-term impact over time. However, the devil is in the details. Firstly, the RFA’s goal and purpose statements are virtually identical46 and are both purpose￾level objectives. WI’s representation of the project logic at the goal- and purpose-levels does not resolve this problem. This situation raises issues with respect to the rigor of the project logic and the contribution of the project to Southern Sudan’s development—in essence, there is no project goal-level objective (the development goal or result). A sensible development goal and purpose could have been, “To increase the number of female students enrolled in and completing primary and secondary education” and “To provide incentives for females to complete secondary school and enter teacher training institutes.” Secondly, the full vertical and horizontal logic of the project is not laid out clearly in any documentation. The project logic is based on the following assumptions: (1) the provision of very limited financial and other support to girls47 will be the critical elements enabling these girls to remain in and complete secondary school, (2) these girls will transition into and graduate from teacher training institutes due to the incentives provided, (3) these girls will be hired by GOSS and work in primary schools, and (4) once the number of female role models in primary schools increases, more primary school-aged girls will enroll (and, by default, the number of females in secondary schools should also increase). Given that GEE is essentially a bigger GESP, prior to the design and the publication of the RFA an exercise to (1) test the development hypothesis and the project logic underpinning GESP and (2) gauge the significance of GESP’s contribution48 over its five years of implementation could have prevented some of the issues that have emerged under GEE. These issues include, but are not limited to, (1) the lack of a gender-sensitive analytical lens applied to the project’s design 45 See, for example, Chapter 4 (Returns to Education: The Gender Perspective) in Girls’ Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empowerment and Economic Growth. (World Bank, 2008); Randell and Gergel (2009) state that, “According the UN Beijing + 10 Review, girls’ school enrollments rise relative to boys’ as the proportion of female teachers rises from low levels.” 46 According to the RFA, the goal is “to provide incentives (emphasis added) that will encourage girls to complete secondary school and mentor women into the teaching profession” with the purpose “to continue, accelerate, and expand (emphasis added) the gender equity support program” (which consisted of providing the exact types of incentives identified under each of the nominated components). The WI goal is the same as that of the RFA, but the WI purpose objectives, ‘To reduce . . . barriers’ (by providing incentives such as scholarships, mentoring, etc.) is really just a re-statement of the goal. Neither USAID’s nor WI’s goal-level objective is a development goal. 47 According to the RFA, “(GEE) addresses the issues of direct costs of education by making provision for scholarships paid to schools for each female student. This scholarship is used to support three critical areas equally: 1) Tuition fees, 2) school supplies, and 3) funds to support school improvement strategies that will benefit both boys and girls. The current estimate for each scholarship is $60 per female per year on average.” However, please refer to Annex 12 for an realistic representation of the per annum cost (direct and indirect costs, but excluding opportunity costs) of secondary school. 48 USAID (2010) provides the following guidance on monitoring and evaluation in complex, high threat environments: “…given the nature of these environments, it is more realistic to demonstrate impact through significant ‘contribution’ rather than ‘attribution.’” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 9 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) and subsequent implementation,49 (2) the project’s title itself, since a gender equity project would have a more balanced treatment of females and males than is apparent in GEE, (3) the use of the term, ‘scholarship,’ rather than the more appropriate term, ‘stipend’ or ‘subsidy,’50 (4) the inadequacy of the stipend in light of both the direct and opportunity costs associated with secondary education and teacher training, and (5) the lack of a significant contribution to girls’ attendance from the provision of sanitary napkins. Recommendations For Winrock International GEE 1. Rationalize activities, focusing only on those with a strong likelihood of becoming sufficiently embedded in the MOEST and the SMOEs plans and budgets. Identify schools and counties where there is fertile ground for initiating school community-based support to fill the gap that will be left once GEE ceases operations. 2. Enact cost-saving measures and shift any savings to core activities, including increasing the value of the education stipends and school improvement grants, taking into account a conflict-sensitive analysis, and sustainability (including building capacity in targeted skill and knowledge areas at the school, county, state and GOSS levels) and exit activities. 3. Immediately draft and put into effect a sustainability and exit strategy as well as a standard risk management matrix, taking into account GEE’s ending date of August 31, 2012. This strategy should incorporate (as far as the current budget allows) targeted capacity enhancement of secondary-school heads and female teachers, BOGs (including the addition of females, if they are underrepresented), and county education officers in school governance, community engagement, and gender-sensitive schools in order to develop a School Equity Action Plan taking any Girls’ Education Movement (GEM) and Promotion and Advocacy of Girls’ Education (PAGE) and mentoring initiatives into account. These two initiatives are embedded within the MOEST and grew out of activities prior to the CPA. 4. Immediately improve the monitoring and evaluation approach including: (1) finalizing the data entry for the ACCESS database (as a matter of urgency) to provide accurate figures on the number of schools and the number and type of scholarship students, (2) re-evaluating and potentially rationalizing and redefining the data being collected, including specifying outcome indicators and collecting supporting data, and (3) eliminating the Longitudinal Study or redirecting the approach to that of an end-of-project tracer study. For USAID 5. In the short- and medium-term, provide predictable support to improve the condition of the secondary education sub-sector itself, including the provision of textbooks. A positive impact on Southern Sudan’s progress economically and on human development indicators will need a serious investment in this sub-sector by both donors and the GOSS, including realistic amounts budgeted for conditional cash transfers and school-improvement grants.51 6. Investigate the status of the Winrock International cost-share contribution and mitigate any negative impact on specific project activities (notably, the Leadership for Change initiative) financed through the cost￾share. 49 The mere fact that females are a target group, that the project is called a ‘gender equity’ project, and that data are sex￾disaggregated does not mean that the design or the implementation are necessarily gender-sensitive. 50 Kirk (2005) notes that the GESP money to individual girls is a tuition subsidy. The use of this term makes it clear that the support is not intended to be a full scholarship that covers the total cost of tuition. 51 See Buckland (2005) and Herz and Sperling (2005) for current research and advice on support to the secondary education sub￾sector in general and specifically for female participation. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 10 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 7. Facilitate a discussion between MOEST and Winrock to consider placing a senior gender adviser within a Special Office located under, and with direct oversight from, the Office of the Undersecretary. The adviser should have demonstrated experience in assisting government ministries in a decentralized system to mainstream gender, develop gender-sensitive policies, and undertake gender-responsive budgeting at a national level; any TA at the state level should reflect a similar arrangement. For future TA, consider locating personnel under the Academy for Educational Development’s (AED) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) rather than within a new or existing gender equity project (assuming TAP or a similar program continues beyond 2011). 8. Allow scholarship awards and recipient indicator targets to be reduced, so that no new students are taken on to replace recipients who have left GEE prematurely—especially those who have moved outside Southern Sudan.52 This shift should enable a greater emphasis on quality and sustainability. 9. Improve the quality of the “indicators” (including improved disaggregation) against which GEE must report to consist of a mix of input, output, and outcome (short, medium, and long-term) indicators.53 Possibilities to choose from include: • Number of students who receive scholarship awards (disaggregated by sex and secondary school or TTI/TTC); • Number of scholarship recipients who utilize all the years of their award and with no breaks in enrollment (disaggregated by sex and secondary school or TTI/TTC); • Number of scholarship recipients who pass their school leaving examination with average or above average scores (disaggregated by sex); • Number of BOG members (disaggregated by sex) trained in school-based management and gender￾sensitive school environments; • Number of teaching and learning support materials (including teacher reference books, student textbooks, pamphlets and notebooks distributed); • Number of individual action plans carried out fully; and • Number of gender-sensitive and pro-poor changes enacted at the school and state levels.54 For GOSS 10. With USAID and GEE, put into place a functional approach for utilizing technical assistance— particularly long-term technical assistance—that incorporates roles and responsibilities, mutual accountability, and a mechanism to ensure that lack of progress on the part of either party can be resolved effectively and efficiently. Technical assistance is the most expensive form of aid, and ineffective and/or inefficient use of this resource must be addressed for the benefit of all concerned, particularly children in schools. 55 11. Initiate action on an MOEST-funded scholarship program and incorporate the GEE Leadership for Change and Mentoring Program initiatives into the MOEST and SMOE annual plans (specifically, under the 52 According to GEE project documentation (PMP June 2009, p. 26), dropout rates of TTI recipients were higher than the anticipated 10 percent, although data from 2003 (Dr. Jackie Kirk, “Toward a Girls Education Support Program: A Draft Report”) indicate that this is not unexpected. 53 The current indicators do not conform to standard indicator construction practices (such as SMART), nor do the indicators proposed by the evaluators. The evaluators have done this intentionally to align with current USAID-Sudan practices. It is up to USAID to determine whether it is going to conform to best practice. 54 This list of indicators are a mix of those GEE already reports on which could be improved and other indicators which are not part of GEE’s reporting but, if included, could improve their ability to report results. 55 For sound advice on the capacity development indicators and the use of TA, see Morgan (1997), The Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators. Canada: Canadian Agency for International Development. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 11 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education and the Girls Education Movement initiatives) in order to address the issue of sustainability of benefits.56 Lessons Learned 1. Numerical targets—such as those in the GEE RFA, (which also do not conform to best practice for indicator construction)—can become a project’s raison d’etre, driving an implementing agency to achieve specific, quantitative targets without considering the less-tangible, but significant, qualitative impacts that such targets may ignore. 2. Scholarship-program targeting and selection must be intentional and purposeful, or the overall development impact may be limited. 3. Volatility in funding for identified activities (as has been the case for the cost-share-financed activities under GEE) is highly undesirable in conflict-affected and fragile state (CAFS) environments. 4. The lack of a viable risk-management matrix puts undue pressure on personnel and counterparts to respond to unanticipated, but by and large predictable, situations and is a threat to benefits and impact. 5. Unnecessary mistakes can occur when the development hypothesis or a project’s logic have not been adequately tested, reviewed, and adjusted at key points in time, e.g. prior to the Request for Applications, prior to implementation, and periodically throughout the course of implementation. 6. Lack of a strong contractual obligation for collaboration with other designated USAID projects results in limited engagement and benefit. 7. The absence of a conflict-sensitive analysis of the project design and subsequent activities can undermine the ‘peace dividend.’ 8. A clear understanding of and agreement by both the government and the implementing agency on how to effectively use technical assistance can help ensure that the investment is not wasted. 9. Including a milestone linked to handover processes in the contract/cooperative agreement of implementing agencies may help to safeguard the quality and integrity of the handover. 56 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was stated that this action was already underway at the time of the MTE. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 12 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context Sudan is the largest country in Africa and is classified as a ‘rebuilding country’ under the United States government’s (USG) current strategic framework. Historically, Sudan has been divided into the North, which has a predominantly Arab and Muslim population and close ties to Egypt, and the South, which has a predominantly black, Christian, and animist population. From 1898 to 1954, the two regions were administered separately by a British-Egyptian pact in which ‘no-go’ zones were imposed between the North and South. The administrative situation and the no-go zones both served to exacerbate the two regions’ separateness. The First Sudanese War began shortly after independence in 1956 and lasted for 17 years, followed by a ten-year period of peace. The Second Sudanese War began in 1983 and ended some two decades later on January 9, 2005 with the official signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). During Sudan’s 54 years of nationhood, it has been consumed by war for a total of 38 years. The Nairobi CPA grants a six-year interim period of autonomy to Southern Sudan and an internationally monitored referendum in 2011 to determine its future direction, the sharing of common wealth, and the resolution of the Abyei conflict through self-determination. Southern Sudan’s population is estimated at 8.2 million57 people, along with an additional four-million-plus people who are living as displaced persons in northern Sudan or as refugees elsewhere. It is estimated that around 95 percent of Southern Sudan’s population was displaced due to the Second Sudanese War, and generations of Sudanese have been born into or lived through decades of violent conflict. Along with natural disasters, famine, and policies and practices antithetical to development, conflict has severely affected the South’s social, political, and economic structures. Southern Sudan currently has the lowest Human Development Indicator ratings in the world and 85–90 percent of its population cannot read or write. The Sudanese place a high value on education. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Secretariat of Education went to great effort to create and implement a strategy for providing basic education and life-skills training during the past war. Since the signing of the CPA, the fundamental building blocks of the sector have been put into place, specifically, the: (i) establishment and staffing of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) and the State Ministries of Education (SMOEs); (ii) development of a number of necessary legislative, policy, and other documents, including the draft Southern Sudan Education Act (2008); (iii) establishment of the “educational cycle or ladder” of eight years of primary (basic) education for learners aged six to thirteen (including non-formal education), four years of secondary education, and four years of tertiary education; and (iv) establishment of sector planning and development mechanisms such as the Education Rehabilitation and Development Framework meetings and thematic working groups. However, in this immediate post-conflict period, the education sector is still in a formative state, both in terms of its capacity to manage education service delivery to the current student population and to expand the provision of quality education to any Southern Sudanese interested in learning. SMOE personnel from the state-and local-level government offices tend to have little involvement with schools: not because of a lack of interest, but largely because they lack transport. They are also unsure of their roles as administrators and managers and are in the early stages of organizational development. Most education officers and head teachers do not have minimum academic and professional qualifications or experience. While there is evidence of strong leadership in the education sector in some states, these leaders also tend to be vulnerable to the changing political scene, as evidenced by the wide-scale and frequent changes of administrators in 57 The current census estimates the figure at approximately 8.2 million (GOSS (Resolution 171/2009), and this figure has been accepted by the GOSS for planning purposes. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 13 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) MOEST and in many SMOEs. These displacements create significant challenges to building the strength of the sector. SMOE funding for education is provided almost exclusively by the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) through the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) or the MOEST. Education receives less than eight percent of the national budget, of which at least 80 percent is spent on salaries. There is little evidence of operational funds, except through the intermittent funding of proposals submitted occasionally to development partners by SMOEs. Since the mid-1990s, education (and other key services) has largely been provided by international organizations. Until recently, many development partners provided their own stand-alone solutions to education service delivery, at best, simply informing SMOEs of their activities, and at worst, bypassing the government altogether; this scenario exacerbates the already daunting challenges facing the new ministries. In addition, formal or informal access of education managers to technical expertise is increasingly limited as development partners withdraw. Internationally, the secondary education sub-sector is under-funded—and especially in conflict-affected contexts,58 and this is very clearly the case in Southern Sudan as well. This under-funding by donors and the GOSS creates significant challenges in establishing core organizations and systems as well as a decentralized structure that can provide good quality education services in general and specifically in the secondary education sub-sector. Currently, the system is slowly changing over from a mix of several systems (Northern Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and others) to the system of Southern Sudan using its own curricula. The majority of secondary schools in the northern areas of Southern Sudan uses the northern curriculum and teach using Arabic as the medium of instruction, but will begin the shift to the Southern Sudan curriculum using English as the medium of instruction within the next couple of years. This changeover will be challenging, as many teachers lack proficiency in English and methodologies for content-based instruction for students learning in a second (or third) language. Secondary education has expanded rapidly in the last few years, increasing from 89 schools in 2008 to 160 today.59 Likewise, the secondary school enrollment (S1-S4) increased from 23,522 in 2008 to 30,905 in 2009 with an increase in S1 alone from 9,789 in 2008 to 14,298 in 2009. In spite of this progress, the secondary education sub-sector is particularly constrained: enrollment is very low, with only six percent Gross Enrollment Rate (GER) and three percent Net Enrollment Rate (NER). In addition, the percentage of female students enrolled remains low, with an average of 26 percent across Southern Sudan; this figure, however, represents a significant overall increase from five years ago. Participation rates vary greatly across the states, ranging from a low of 6 percent in Lakes State to a high of 35 percent in Central Equatoria State (CES). There is tremendous upward pressure from the primary education sub-sector, especially given GoSS’s push for enrollment at this level. USG assistance places a strong emphasis on building peace dividends, such as sustained and comprehensive improvements in social services (i.e., education and health), economic growth, and democratic governance. Currently, only USAID, through the Gender Equity through Education (GEE) Project, is giving any serious attention to the secondary education sub-sector. 1.2 Project Description On March 23, 2007, USAID established the GEE Project to “continue, accelerate, and expand accomplishments achieved under the Gender Equity Support Program (GESP),”60 which ran from July 2002 58 See Buckland (2005). 59 MOE Education Management Information System (EMIS) data taken from the annual education census; however the Department of Secondary Education states that the number is over 250. The evaluation team has chosen to consistently use the EMIS data throughout this report, 60 USAID. (2007) Action Memorandum, March 12, 2007. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 14 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) to September 2007. These accomplishments included helping females complete secondary school and teacher training institutes and building the capacity of the MOEST to mainstream gender. An Associate Cooperative Agreement (650-A-00–07–00003–00) was signed on August 6, 2007 by USAID and Winrock International for GEE implementation over a five-year period (2007–2012) with an original budget of $6.5 million. Modification 06 was signed on February 18, 2010, increasing the project budget to $9.5 million, or US$10,179,705 including the cost share. GEE is implemented in all ten GOSS states and in two of the Three Areas.61 GEE’s goal is to provide incentives to encourage girls to complete secondary school and to mentor women to enter the teaching profession. This goal is to be accomplished by reducing financial, infrastructural, social, and institutional barriers that prevent females from attending secondary schools and becoming teachers with scholarships at the core of the project. During FY08, GEE placed two technical advisors in the MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate to build capacity to: (1) increase the number of female teachers, (2) raise awareness of and support for girls’ education at central and sub-national levels, (3) design and implement appropriate policies, and (4) integrate gender into all aspects of education planning and program implementation. GEE focuses on advocacy, community mobilization, and training for MOEST staff, as well as leadership training at the state level. Winrock International’s Project logic is presented in Figure 3 below. FIGURE 3: WINROCK INTERNATIONAL GEE PROJECT LOGIC62 NB: The Cooperative Agreement also states that GEE “promotes gender parity and equity in the education system.”63 61 GEE support to Abyei was terminated after the May 2008 fighting, but the project may resume activities there. 62 Winrock International GEE. Gender Equity through Education Proposal, Annex, p. 7. April 3, 2007 63 USAID. (2007) USAID-Winrock International Cooperative Agreement-September 2007-August 2012. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 15 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) II. PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY, AND SUMMARY OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS 2.1 Purpose From May 29 to July 3, 2010, USAID/Sudan conducted “the Mid-Term Review of GEE in a collaborative manner to maximize learning opportunities on program performance and potential for USAID, the Government, and Winrock.”64 The MTE Team consisted of two external evaluators, Dr. Valerie Haugen (Team Leader) and Dr. Thomas Tilson, as well as Ms. Esther Akumu (Deputy Director-Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education, MOEST Gender Equity and Social Change Directorate), Ms. Kathryn Johnston (MSI Senior Education Specialist to USAID), Ms. Necia Stanford (Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International), and Ms. Christine Jada (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, GEE-Winrock International)— and Mr. James Oryema (Deputy Chief of Party, GEE-Winrock International) as an occasional team member. The purpose of the mission was to conduct a review of GEE experience to date. Two aims of the MTE findings, conclusions, and recommendations were to provide input to: (i) improve and enhance the implementation of GEE and (ii) ensure the greatest positive impact with the strongest likelihood of the sustainability of the benefits derived from the project. Specific areas of investigation requested by USAID/Sudan are found in Figure 4 below. In addition, the findings have been used to suggest avenues for program modification and/or additional support, should funding become available from USG. FIGURE 4: WINROCK GEE MID-TERM EVALUATION AREAS OF FOCUS The MTE Team was asked to address 38 evaluation questions (see section 2.3 below) under three focus areas: (i) project design, (ii) project implementation, and (iii) project impact to date. The following questions and directives were considered to be especially important: • Is the project effective in enhancing the demand of girls for education, institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, and promoting accountability and good governance (i.e., school governance in the community) at all levels? • What are the best and weaker practices in terms of project implementation? Are there key lessons to be learned that would be useful for other USAID projects in Sudan? • Assess GEE progress to date in meeting the deliverables of the Cooperative Agreement (including any amendments to the original) and developing lessons for future USAID/Sudan investments. 64 Ibid. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 16 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Assess GEE in the context of coordinating with other USAID-supported programs in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas.65 • Assess the GEE approach in the context of coordinating with non-USG implementing partners and stakeholders (including humanitarian organizations, UN agencies, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, NGOs and FBOs). • Make recommendations for: Scaling up or phasing out project components in order to achieve maximum impact in the time remaining. Short-term adjustments in the CA that would improve performance in the remaining period. Follow-on programs to expand and sustain current efforts and provide tangible benefits in terms of improving education opportunities and outcomes for girls and young women. The outcomes of the MTE mission were presented in a series of informal debriefings for government and GEE personnel and in a formal presentation to GOSS and USG stakeholders and other interested parties on July 9, 2009 at MOEST in Juba. A draft mid-term evaluation report was submitted for comments to GOSS, USAID, and Winrock through MSI on July 7, with the final report being submitted on August 24, 2010. 2.2 Summary of the Methodology66 The team visited 15 government and private, girls, boys, and co-educational secondary schools, State Ministries of Education (SMOEs), and county education offices (CEOs) in four states: Central Equatoria (CES), Northern Bar el Ghazal (NBeG), Upper Nile (UNS) and Western Bar El Ghazal (WBeG). A total of 385 individuals were interviewed, including direct beneficiaries of GEE activities, such as scholarship recipients in secondary school and Teacher Training Institutes or Colleges (TTIs/TTCs) and some parents, as well as stakeholders and indirect beneficiaries from the MOEST, State Ministries of Education (SMOE at state, county and school/TTI/TTC levels), Board of Governors (BOGs), and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) members and development partner organizations. The team also reviewed a range of GOSS and United States government (USG), GEE and international primary and secondary source documentation. A range of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods using customized instruments as well as focus group discussions (FGD), mini-focus group discussions, key informant interviews and participant observation. Basic analyses of raw data from the fieldwork and meta-analyses of GEE project and MOEST EMIS data were undertaken as well. Analyses of the data were undertaken in an iterative manner throughout the field work with a team workshop to draft preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations. There were some limitations to the research, including a lack of opportunity to visit several schools outside of urban areas and to interview parents, any substantive number of Board of Governors’ members (including women) and two of the three Gender Advisors, the inaccessibility of GEE’s quantitative data and an absence of historical and contractual documentation, including on the Gender Equity Support Program (GESP) (see Annex 3: Expanded Discussion of the Methodology). 2.3 List of Evaluation Questions The evaluators grouped the set of more than 50 evaluation questions in the Scope of Work under organizing topic areas that correspond closely to the MTE Report outline. The list of questions was then rationalized somewhat to 38 questions during the Team Planning Meeting to consist of the following questions in Table 2 (below).67 65 Technical Assistance Program (TAP), Building Responsiblity for the Delivery of Government Services (BRIDGE) Program, Health, Education, and Reconcilliation (HEAR) Project, and Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction (SSIRI). 66 See Annex 3 for an expanded discussion of the methodology. 67 The original numbering has been left intact in the event that the reader wishes to refer to the Scope of Work (Annex 1). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 17 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) TABLE 2: GEE MTE RATIONALIZED EVALUATION QUESTIONS RELEVANCE OF GEE—ALIGNMENT WITH GOVERNMENT 1. How well does GEE correspond to the GOSS education priorities? MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY Effectiveness: 5. Provide a brief description of the program outcomes, deliverables, and products. Assess the quality of the deliverables to date. (quality is discussed under “Quality” heading.) 6. Is GEE progress to date in meeting the deliverables of the Cooperative Agreement on track for the project’s current stage of implementation?? 6.a. Are GEE’s implementation targets (as specified in project documents) on track for the project’s current stage of implementation? 6.b. Describe any areas of concern or of accelerated success in implementation. 8. Assess the quality and performance of Winrock International in managing the implementation of GEE. (quality is discussed under the “Quality” heading.) 8.a. What are the team’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement with respect to management of the Cooperative Agreement? 8.b. What are the team’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement with respect to communications with USAID, the GOSS, and stakeholders? 5.a. Identify particular strategies, activities, or programs that have either failed or have been effective and describe why. For example: 3. Is the monitoring and reporting system providing the program with adequate data to make programmatic decisions? 3.a. Is the longitudinal study design appropriate and sufficient to assess the project’s life-of￾project impact? Efficiency: 8.c Has Winrock provided adequate value-for-money? PARTNERSHIP AND RELATIONSHIP 10. What relationships has GEE developed with other implementing partners in the areas in which it operates (USAID and others)? 10.a. Has the program effectively leveraged these relationships? 10.b. What has been the impact on the project? 10.c Has the use of subcontractors been successful? If not, why not? If not, what mitigating measures have been taken to improve implementation? QUALITY 5. Provide a brief description of the program outcomes, deliverables, and products. Assess the quality of the deliverables to date. 5.a. Identify particular strategies, activities, or programs that have either failed or have been effective and describe why. For example: 9. Identify the best and weakest practices, success stories, and testimonials. 9.b. Is there a story that can demonstrate to the U.S. Congress lasting impacts from the project? B. What are the best and weaker practices in terms of project implementation? Are there key lessons to be learned that would be useful for other USAID projects in Sudan? INCLUSION 5.a.i. Is the activity effectively addressing gender issues such as inclusiveness, training and promotion in the workplace, and the overall gender gap in education? If not, why not? What are the areas for improvement? 5.a.ii. Is the activity addressing other equity issues (disenfranchised, disabled, returnees, etc.) 5.b. Is the approach to identifying scholars succeeding in terms of transparency and coverage Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 18 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) of all potential candidates? If not, why not? What role have other incentives/activities played in supporting scholars and encouraging them to continue with their education (e.g., facilities, improvement grants, comfort kits, learning materials, mentors, community mobilization, etc.)? 5.c. How effective has the program been in encouraging female secondary-school leavers to consider the teaching profession? PEACE DIVIDEND/CONFLICT SENSITIVITY 12. Is this activity rendering a clear CPA “peace dividend” (i.e., help the government bring education to the people or address gender issues, such as gender-based violence)? IMPACT A. Is the project effective in enhancing the demand for and supply of social services, institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, and promoting accountability and good governance at all levels? 12.a To what extent has the GEE program responded to the educational needs of females in Southern Sudan as elaborated in the proposal and agreed to in the CA? 12.b What has been the impact of program interventions to date? 13. Is the program on track to be effective in improving the capacity of State Ministries of Education and MOEST to address issues of gender parity and equity in a broader sense? GEE APPROACH 2. Is the GEE project logic sound in addressing the financial, infrastructural, social, and institutional barriers to girls’ education? 11. What are the main internal (endogenous) and external (exogenous) factors or events that have impacted project implementation? 11.a. How has GEE responded? 11.b. Did GEE do an adequate risk assessment at the outset? 4. Is the approach to sustainability articulated in the project design adequate and appropriate? 4.a. What are the constraints to sustainability? 4.b What can GEE do to mitigate those constraints? LESSONS LEARNED 9.a. Are there important lessons to be learned? III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Program management Findings: Under an Associate Cooperative Agreement, WI provides management oversight for GEE and ensures the overall technical and financial integrity and adherence to the terms of the Cooperative Agreement. WI fields all long-term technical assistance (LTA) personnel and is the official conduit for communications between GEE and USAID. The GEE management structure is a moderately decentralized model, consisting of a head office in Juba (GEE Juba Hub) for administration and technical assistance to MOEST and two satellite offices in Malakal (UNS) and Wau (WBEG). Each office has responsibility for project implementation across several states in a given region. According to the Winrock International Home Office (WI HO), the Chief of Party (COP) supervises and evaluates all staff; prepares reports (written and oral) for and liaises directly with USAID, WI HO, MOEST, and other GOSS ministries (such as the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning-MOFEP) and development partners; and undertakes any additional responsibilities necessary for the successful implementation of GEE. The GEE Juba Hub: (i) provides technical guidance to the Program (and implements program activities in the Equatorias), (ii) provides oversight of the activities of the TA personnel through review of written and oral reports and field visits, (iii) identifies and recommends personnel for GOSS consultation and concurrence and for WI HO and USAID approval, (iv) reports to USAID and other donors, (v) maintains financial records and reports, (vi) provides orientations and training to field staff, (vii) supervises Juba Hub office activities, and (viii) undertakes any other necessary management of activities. One WI HO program officer (PO) and a Regional Operations Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 19 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Manager (ROM) provide support on financial, programmatic and technical, and contractual and administrative matters. The Group Vice President for Empowerment and Civic Engagement provides ultimate oversight from WI HO. The Vice President for Empowerment and Civic Engagement has not visited the project yet, but plans to do so in the fall. The US-based staff coordinate reporting to USAID. As of June 2010, most (23) GEE personnel are in place and becoming increasingly effective in their roles. There have been some issues with fielding international personnel and finding qualified and capable personnel for some local hire positions. For example, there was not a full-time COP in the field until several months into implementation, and a new COP (with extensive experience with GEE) arrived 11 months ago. Some personnel, particularly the COP and the senior level staff, are overloaded, and there has been no finance manager for many months. Over the past year, GEE has been tightening processes and has begun to break down intra-project silos. It has established functional processes for the distribution of scholarship packages and has had no leakage of scholarship funds provided; monies are being used appropriately. There is a lack of information on the WI HO cost-share arrangement, and delays in providing external funding have had an effect on the implementation of some scheduled activities. A number of changes that should have been captured in formal amendments to the Cooperative Agreement were not—for example, the addition of males as a percentage of the scholarship recipients and changes in targets for some indicators. There have also been issues with the management of NGOs contracted to provide services and a difference of opinion regarding information shared and known prior to contracting. In several instances, GEE personnel have committed significant amounts of time to some service providers and continued the relationship; in another instance, the relationship was terminated, despite satisfaction on the part of training program participants with the content of the training program. In another instance, a relationship was established with a not-for-profit organization that subsequently was dissolved with still-unresolved residual effects. GEE has a good working relationship with USAID and has established a reputation within USAID for providing reports on time and maintaining close contact. For the most part, GEE has a collegial working relationship with education administrators at various levels, including those within MOEST and the SMOEs at the state, county, and school levels. There have been some issues with communication with MOEST. For example, in spite of a MOEST request to renew the contract of an LTA, the individual was replaced and a new LTA recruited with approval only from USAID, not GOSS. GEE maintains contact with a number of other development partners and organizations, primarily on an information-sharing basis. There is no evidence of collaborative programming, although there has been discussion with some organizations. BRIDGE and GEE are both implemented by Winrock International (WI) and have complementary activities, but as yet there has been no collaboration between these projects. The MTE found some indications that GEE is a catalyst for attracting girls as well as boys to secondary school, but there are limited hard data available to substantiate the anecdotal evidence collected during the MTE. There is also no clear evidence that GEE is contributing to retention or completion of females in secondary school, nor any evidence that it affects the enrollment and graduation rates of female primary education teachers. Conclusions: GEE has demonstrated the ability to adapt to constraints and challenges, and many issues encountered have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. Overall, the Project has been managed well—even if not strategically—on the Southern Sudan end, given the challenges it has confronted. The close working relationship between USAID and GEE during the tenure of both Chiefs of Party is obvious, and the current USAID activity manager is satisfied with GEE’s efforts. The MTE process has helped to bring to light and, hopefully, resolve the issues that have emerged regarding GOSS ownership of and investment in GEE. However, GEE is well past the halfway point in its project lifecycle and, while the scholarship program is clearly functional, other activities have progressed in fits and starts. Consequently, GEE will be faced in the next two years with the simultaneous challenges of transitioning out of the scholarship program activities, ramping up stalled activities, and putting into place an as-yet-undefined sustainability and exit strategy for the scholarships and the stalled activities. Despite the structures put in place to support the GEE team in the field, there are clear areas where the engagement of WI HO senior personnel would have been of value, for example, in safeguarding the integrity Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 20 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) of decisions that should result in an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement and ensuring that the cost￾share obligations were honored in a timely fashion. Many implementing agencies make it a practice to ensure that senior personnel make regular visits to project sites in order to troubleshoot and legitimize the project team with the donor and the government client. A greater presence by WI HO personnel would enable a clearer understanding of the Southern Sudan context, thus hopefully avoiding some of the weaker aspects of implementation raised within this report. Of particular importance is better management of monitoring and evaluation and the fielding of a senior M&E expert once WI HO has raised funding, ensuring that changes to the CA are documented formally and that relationships are managed well. 3.2 Effectiveness of Project implementation 3.2.1 Deliverables Findings: According to the quantitative data reported, and on a purely numerical basis, WI GEE is demonstrating more-than-adequate or adequate progress. Of the nine indicators that GEE has monitored between September of 2007 and March of 2010, the status of achievement of output indicators is as follows: Winrock has already exceeded the following indicators: • Number of beneficiaries • Number of learners enrolled in USG supported schools Winrock appears to be on target for the following indicators: • Number of scholarship disbursed • Number of comfort kits distributed • Number of PTAs supported • Number of administrators/officials trained Winrock appears to be behind schedule with the following indicators: • Number of teachers trained (completed TTI/TTC) • Number of materials distributed • Number of policies/guidelines developed TABLE 3: INDICATOR DATA THROUGH YEAR 3—SECOND QUARTER (MARCH 2010) (THE NUMBER IN PARENTHESIS IS THE NUMBER OF FEMALES.) Indicator Baseline Achieve￾ments as of Q2 Y3 Life of Project (LOP) Target 4,491 3,800 3,882 3,420 1. Number of Beneficiaries Women Men 1,776 609 380 2. Number of Scholarships Disbursed 1,776 6,253 9,500 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 21 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Women 1,776 5,556 8,075 Men 697 1,425 3. Number of Teachers Trained (completed TTI) 35 132 500 Women 35 131 500 Men 1 — 4. Number of Learners Enrolled in USG￾Supported Schools 4,776 23,660 14,122 Women 1,776 7,097 4,224 Men 3,000 16,563 9,898 5. Number of Comfort Kits Distributed (No data available or reported) 5,556 8,075 6. Number of Materials Distributed Mentoring Manual and “Let’s Talk” booklet (No data available or reported) 4,749 11,680 7. Number of PTAs Supported (No data available or reported) 83 92 8. Number of Administrators/Officials Trained (No data available or reported) 92 120 Women 63 80 Men 29 40 9. Number of Policies/Guidelines Developed (No data available or reported) 1 5 10. IDF (No information available or reported) Conclusions: As far as meeting the annual deliverable target numbers, GEE is clearly doing its job against most indicators. 3.2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Findings: The WI approach to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of GEE is articulated in the 2007 proposal, the 2008 Annual Report, and the June 2009 Program Monitoring Plan (PMP), and the M&E demands become increasingly complex with each successive document. GEE reports consistently on the numerous indicators. There was a delay in fielding an M&E Officer and the (then) COP took on significant responsibility for meeting M&E requirements. Data are captured in hard copy, and to date, there is no complete dataset in electronic form. GEE has had an ACCESS database built, and it is being populated with Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 22 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE data; however, this task is behind by several months. A data-systems analysis was undertaken by MSI for USAID in 2009 and identified numerous issues with GEE data systems. It is not clear whether GEE has seen this analysis yet and, if so, what the response to it is. Many of the issues encountered in the course of the MTE are highlighted in the analysis. The Longitudinal Study focus was originally meant to examine trends in retention and completion; a Terms of Reference was produced by the WI HO, and the consultant nominated in the WI proposal was fielded. However, somewhere between the description in the RFA and the conducting of baseline research, the purpose shifted to an examination of attitudes toward teaching, gender, and girls’ education. The consultant conducted an ambitious research agenda and completed a report on the findings of a number of attitudinal ‘surveys.’ The time demands of this baseline research activity were such that the (then) Undersecretary for Education demanded that his staff be returned to their duties. Conclusions: WI content on M&E in its proposal and in the PMP is quite solid and well-written for the most part. But the complexity of the M&E plan (and particularly the high number of indicators which were apparently introduced by WI itself in 2009) seems out of proportion to the lack of complexity of the project. In addition, introducing new indicators halfway through a project lifecycle presents issues that are best avoided. After nearly three years of operation, input and output indicators can mask the impact of a project and negatively influence the design strategies, impact, and sustainability. Some indicators, such as the total number of students affected by USG support through the project (the number of students enrolled), are misleading; for example, the anticipated wider benefits to all students that are being attributed to a minimal school improvement grant may not be even noticed by most (if any) students. But most importantly, there are no impact indicators for any of the components, with the exception of the Institutional Development Framework (IDF) which, as yet, has not been reported against. The development of the Access database is clearly a solid step in the right direction, but one wonders why it was developed so late. As of July 1, 2010, the database is only partially populated, and the Grant Tracker spreadsheets used previously have incomplete data; consequently, neither could be used for analysis by the MTE Team to verify project achievements as reported by GEE. Lastly, the first phase of the Longitudinal Study has not yielded useful or relevant data for GEE, MOEST, or USAID. This issue could be attributed to the poor quality of the TOR and/or to the misalignment of the TA skills and knowledge with the type of research. 3.2.3 Quality Findings: The activities that GEE has undertaken have had varying levels of quality. The evaluators found that the reporting was generally of very good quality. All participants interviewed remarked on their satisfaction with the scholarship processes and the training programs delivery and materials, including the Let’s Talk booklets. This was with the exception of the lack of attention to providing bilingual materials. The project (as directed by the original RFA) uses a one-model-fits-all approach: the same payment to each student, the same tuition support regardless of the amount of tuition charged at each school, and the same amount for improvement grant (with only some variation) regardless of the size of the school or the needs of the institution. Furthermore, there is no variation in approach that might take into account the circumstances in the different states (other than the special program involving the New Sudan Education Initiative (NESEI). (See Annex 5: Should One Size Fit All?) The training programs, such as monitoring, Leadership for Change, and M&E, have been well-received. The training materials for Leadership for Change were already well-established prior to GEE, and the Mentoring Program manual was revised by GEE though designed prior to the program. According to Leadership for Change and Monitoring Program participants, trainers and content were very good. Documentation provided on M&E highlighted gaps in the M&E system. The raw data from forms collected through school visits in 2008 and 2009 are present and some data were entered into Excel spreadsheets. The hard copies have enabled the project to extract basic information about the progress of activities, especially against the performance indicators. But the construction of the spreadsheets makes it difficult to carry out even simple analyses. In 2009, GEE subcontracted the development of a database using Microsoft Access software. The database has been constructed using the rules of database design. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 23 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) The Mentoring Program, initially implemented by the Sudanese Women’s Advocacy Network (SWAN), was well-received by the mentors, although many were dissatisfied with management of supplemental money. Mentors are very committed and eager, and students seem to be appreciative of the program. However, Winrock did not anticipate the need for, nor provide, adequate capacity building for SWAN. GEE took over implementation of the program in Year 3, but has been slow in the implementation of this important activity. GEE undertook a program to provide a special opportunity for 30 bright primary-school graduates from the northern region. The SMOEs in Abyei, WBG and NBeG states selected 30 students to study in Yei, CES, under the umbrella of the NESEI program. The girls and their parents were told that support would be for four years (and GEE documentation indicates that this was the original intention), but GEE (with the support of USAID) had to terminate the program prematurely for a number of reasons, including cost. There is lack of evidence that a thorough activity design (including consideration of costs) and a risk assessment (including students’ attitudes, students’ safety, etc.) were carried out prior to implementation. There are still outstanding issues with parents and NESEI that need to be resolved. The comfort kits (CKs), which are are provided annually to female scholarship recipients and cost GEE approximately US$17 to purchase, have been a mainstay of both the GESP and GEE programs. The CKs contain a variety of items, and it is assumed that these items will ease the lives of the female students and also enable them to come to school confident and assured. On average, girls use the six reusable sanitary pads provided for three months, then discard them; the soap provided lasts one week (as it is often shared among many), and the Vaseline lasts two weeks. The pads are functional and girls indicate that the pads do make a difference in their school attendance; however, once the pads break down, the girls buy disposable pads, use rags, or stay home. Conclusions: When GEE has the time to plan carefully and to put existing materials into use, it does so well. The implementation process for scholarships distribution was established quickly, and the process has proven to be good. The training programs are of good quality. The Mentoring Program is of good quality and well￾received, but the rollout of the program has not kept up with expectations. The Leadership for Change initiative is also of good quality, but GEE has not provided the necessary follow-up support. Such delays have an impact on the quality of an initiative, especially since momentum is lost. The NESEI program, the choice of SWAN to implement the Mentoring Program (as well as the initial proposal to use local NGOs to carry out the scholarship program), and the local production of comfort kits indicate insufficient planning and risk assessment processes that have affected the quality of the initiatives. Outstanding quality issues associated with M&E, the comfort kits, and written materials provided bilingually in both English and Arabic (in the same document) need to be resolved. 3.3 Efficiency 3.3.1 Processes and Timeliness Findings: GEE has developed a number of strategies to address challenges beyond its control, such as problems with the banking system and delays with USAID obligations. There is currently no risk mitigation matrix in place (for example, there was no strategy in place to mitigate the effects of any delay in USAID funding). GEE has avoided ‘re-inventing the wheel’ and has utilized existing materials, adapting them to the Southern Sudanese context, for example, the Leadership for Change program curriculum and the Mentoring Program manual. However, although Southern Sudan has two recognized working languages (English and Arabic), the project has been tardy in providing content bilingually. The scholarship program component (including the associated M&E requirements) captures the majority of GEE staff time. At this point, most of the associated processes are implemented consistently and are generally on time. There are continuing inefficiencies in the M&E processes, particularly related to data capture and data quality. According to interview responses and key documentation, the processes for implementing the first phases of the various training programs (SWAN Mentoring Program, Leadership for Change, and Mentoring Program-GEE version) have been well-constructed, well-executed, and delivered on time. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 24 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) However, there are issues with the timeliness of the follow-up for all of the programs. For example, concerns about SWAN’s capacity to implement the Mentoring Program led to the dissolution of the relationship. GEE took over direct implementation with the full support of the Ministry and some delays ensued. The LTA who was overseeing this program also recently resigned on short notice, and some participants in the recent GEE￾sponsored Mentoring Program orientation workshop mentioned that they are still waiting for GEE responses to their plans for rolling out the program in their respective states. Mentors trained under SWAN, who have already been working, are waiting for further guidance from GEE. For example, mentors in Southern Kordofan are disengaged, but those in WBEG are still active but are wondering “what next?” There are unresolved issues about how the mentors should work with large numbers of students and what appropriate incentives there might be for mentors. Some participants in the recent orientation workshops are confused about the workshop focus (orientation or TOT). In addition, the Leadership for Change post-training follow￾up visits to the states took place over a year ago, but nothing further has been done, apparently due lack of funds from WI’s cost-sharing obligation. Conclusions: Southern Sudan presents an unusually difficult environment in which to carry out a major development project like GEE, and any conclusions drawn around the efficiency of implementing the project need to take into account the environmental context, the capacity of WI, and the extent to which GEE has been able to adapt to the changing circumstances. This said, overall, WI has been reasonably efficient in implementing the project. GEE is to be commended on the use of existing materials, which saves time, effort, and money and also probably results in a better product. There has been especially good progress in distributing scholarships and dealing with challenges to efficient implementation that have been beyond GEE’s control (school opening and closing days, banking, weather, security situation). There are other challenges within GEE’s control—such as the hiring, firing, and supervision of staff and partner organizations, both international and local; developing plans with appropriate risk assessment; data collection, entry, processing, etc.—that could and should have been handled with greater efficiency. There has also been less-than-optimal progress in other areas, especially those associated with the Community Mobilization and Advocacy component (e.g., mentoring, developing local support for girls’ education) which, if implemented, will put stress on staff and other activities. And there have been chronic problems with the comfort kits associated with production (as well as quality) that used up large amounts of staff time and will likely cost additional money to resolve. The revised Mentoring Program and the Leadership for Change initiatives started off well, but there has been insufficient timely follow-up. A strategic approach and a risk management matrix (informed by lessons from projects in similar challenging environments) with viable risk mitigation strategies could have better helped the Project identify and cope proactively rather than reactively with the issues with which it has had to contend fairly frequently, such as security, emerging capacity individuals and organizations including NGOs, funding constraints that have affected implementation, etc. 3.3.2 Value for Money68 Findings: There is solid evidence that GEE personnel are cost-conscious and strive to find ways to be cost￾effective. There are circumstances that are beyond GEE’s control such as school opening and closing times and banking sector, weather, and security issues. There are also circumstances within GEE’s control that have an impact on the project’s value-for-money, and several of these are being handled well at this point in time. For example, the COP has broadened the scope of work of the newly-named ‘program officers’ and is identifying avenues for ensuring there is no downtime. Some activities have been pursued even though it is clear that ongoing issues are not being resolved. For example, GEE decided to produce the comfort kits locally, rather than importing them from Nairobi, in an effort to benefit local women’s groups. GEE provided a training workshop for targeted NGOs, but one NGO failed to perform, which had a negative impact on the performance of the other two NGOs and caused delays.69 In addition to a lack of risk 68 See Annex 14 for an expanded discussion of Value for Money. 69 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was stated that—beyond what is stated here—the “NGO decided to subcontract their work to the other two NGOs, and this is what caused the delays.” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 25 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) assessment and mitigation strategies, there was no cost-benefit analysis (assessing, for example, how much contracted organizations profit and how much staff time and effort have been devoted to the activity). Several GEE personnel have spent considerable amounts of time dealing with the comfort kit production and money for capacity development has been spent, but issues still remain. An obvious area with value-for-money implications is found in the shift from using local NGOs to undertake implementation of a number of the project activities to a direct implementation approach using GEE personnel. WI has processes for gauging the capacity of potential partner NGOs, but in the case of NGOs in Southern Sudan, it only sub-contracted one NGO, SWAN, and subsequently terminated the relationship and did not attempt to engage with any of the other NGOs as described in its proposal. WI also proposed that the COP would be replaced after a relatively short time by a Sudanese national. In 2009, WI requested a $3m increase in its budget to cover, among other things, the cost of direct implementation and retention of an expatriate COP. The MTE Team was not able to obtain sufficient hard data on the dropout, retention, and completion rates and final examination scores of scholarship recipients and non-scholarship recipients during the fieldwork, and the existing project evidence is limited or non-existent. These data should be available once the new database is complete. Of the student data that have been entered into the database, some 100 or more out of 805 recipients are tagged as ‘drop-outs.’ If these data are accurate, then approximately 450 of 4,491 recipients to date have ‘gone missing’ from the project. GEE has attempted to track missing recipients and has made efforts to try to have the student’s scholarship award ‘follow’ her/him if the student is in a new school. There has not been any serious work done with schools to thoroughly trace and re-enter students who have dropped out. As part of its proposal, WI included a cost-share obligation representing about seven percent of the project budget. According to WI HO, $248,117, or just over one-third of the total obligation, has been raised. However, it is not clear how much of these matching funds are new money or are in-kind contributions, and how this money has been used, especially since GEE documentation notes that some activities have not started or are being delayed because of the lack of cost-share funds.70 , 71 Conclusions: The lack of substantive evidence that the scholarship program (and other activities under the two remaining components) is having the desired effects makes it difficult to state that the project represents value-for-money. The ‘leakage’ of more than one-tenth of scholarship recipients appears problematic, at least on the surface; however, this area needs more investigation before conclusive statements can be made. A proper assessment of ‘value-for-money’ of the GEE Project would require analyses such as rate of return on investment that are beyond the capabilities and time constraints of the MTE Team. But, on the basis of available evidence from the MTE and from GEE documentation, no argument can be made that an assumed return on investment is strong, particularly in terms of secondary school retention (and, importantly, completion) or entry of secondary school graduates into (and completion of) teacher education programs. This problem with classifying GEE’s contribution lies primarily in the lack of evidence to demonstrate that GEE is a deciding factor, or at least a strong contributing factor, in secondary school participation or completion. On the basis of well-documented international evidence on the rate of return for educating females and, assuming that GEE has a positive effect on enabling girls to complete secondary school with good grades, there may be a return on the investment in terms of further education, long-term earnings, productivity, health, and other aspects.72 70 This may be due to the limited access evaluators had to GEE financial documents. 71 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was stated that as the Mother Daughter Microfinance Program is not delayed as significantly as this statement would imply, it was a year three activity and the evaluation occurred in year three. Additionally, this statement alludes to the fact that more than one activity has been delayed (i.e. the Leadership for Change) which, as indicated by USAID, is inaccurate. 72 See Annex 16 for a summary of relevant information on the benefits of educating girls, including focusing on secondary education for girls. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 26 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Some concrete observations can be drawn based on approximate costs and numbers of scholarship recipients, however. For example, a rough calculation is that it costs about $1,000 to provide a scholarship package of about $60 (tuition, personal items, and comfort kit). This calculation is based on a $9.5 million project delivering 9,500 scholarships (each individual female recipient receives $60 including the cost of the comfort kit; males receive $40 without the comfort kit). In addition, GEE is providing technical assistance, training, and manuals or other materials. Factoring in the scholarship package, the school improvement grant (about $400/school) and capacity building efforts, a rough estimate is that there is about $250 of direct benefits for each $1,000 expended. Had time allowed, the MTE Team could have undertaken a simple value￾for-money comparison of GEE against other scholarship programs and this, perhaps, would have provided a better means for determining value-for-money. It is, however, highly likely that the shift to direct implementation with its corresponding likely significantly costs has had an impact on the value-for-money that would have been assumed on the basis of the parameters for implementation in the original proposal. In addition, given that some activities have not progressed because of a shortfall in the anticipated cost-share revenue, one could conclude that the cost-share mechanism, while perhaps providing a competitive edge, does not provide value-for-money on the ground. The cost-share arrangement is discussed further in section 3.4.6, Peace Dividend and Conflict Analysis. While some of the inefficiencies that are present in the implementation are attributable to circumstances beyond GEE’s control, other inefficiencies that have cost implications are within GEE’s control, such as miscommunication about or lack of effective follow-through on tasks, particularly those associated with monitoring and evaluation, and productive use of staff down time (which is currently being addressed). Investments made in the Longitudinal Study and the State Gender TA do not represent value-for-money, and the funds could likely have been better spent topping up the scholarship packages, funding travel for education administrators to visit their constituents, or bringing education administrators together for intensive capacity-enhancement activities. 3.3 Strategic Alliances The partner organizations and programs with which GEE is expected to collaborate are numerous and varied. The various development organization stakeholders and the relationship bases range from strategic (USAID and MOEST) to technical (MOEST) to operational (USAID projects, MOEST-MDTF, CBTF) to a combination thereof (IRC, SMOEs, UNICEF, NGO Partners).73 Indeed, some partnerships are multi￾faceted, as in the case of MOEST. Some partnerships are more advanced, and others are in the process of being established. 3.3.1 Winrock International GEE-MOEST and SMOE Collaboration Findings: Nearly all sub-national level education administrators interviewed noted that GEE’s engagement with them is fairly superficial, but positive, and they appreciate GEE’s reliability and follow-through. Interactions as described consist largely of notification of visits and requests to accompany GEE personnel as they undertake direct implementation of activities. The word “witness” was used by several stakeholders to describe their role in GEE. At the school level, engagement with school bodies is for the purely instrumental purpose of rolling out a prescribed GEE process, including recording and reporting data to serve GEE’s purposes. Teachers are generally unaware of GEE or the school improvement grants. As for the GEE￾MOEST collaboration, among those interviewed there was great appreciation for the efforts of one LTA in particular, but the sentiment expressed frequently was that GEE is not the Ministry’s project. It is clear from GEE documentation that efforts have been made to engage productively with MOEST on numerous occasions. It is also clear from the evidence that MOEST personnel changes have had an impact on relationship-building and continuity. 73 The contractual relationship between AED/TAP and USAID is discussed in Annex 7. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 27 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Conclusions: Without a functional working relationship and strategies to enable MOEST to absorb some of the key GEE activities, there will be little hope of any benefits being sustained. There also needs to be a sound capacity-building approach articulated and utilized, with measurable indicators to demonstrate progress. The field of capacity enhancement (or capacity building) has significant literature on which to draw, and major development organizations, including the World Bank, are focusing on this area. UNDP in particular has a very usable framework for capacity enhancement which takes into account the individual, organizational, and institutional dimensions of any capacity enhancement endeavor. 74 It is not too late to repair any rifts that may have emerged, but demonstrating progress in capacity enhancement in two years will require intensive focus by GEE and MOEST. 3.3.2 Winrock International GEE-USAID Projects Partnerships Findings: The USAID RFA states that, “The GEE program will work in concert with other USAID￾supported education programs to maximize the overall USAID investments in education for girls and women.”75 Interviews with management personnel from Building Responsibility for the Delivery of Government Services (BRIDGE) Health, Education, and Reconciliation Program (HEAR), Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction Program (SSIRI), and the Technical Assistance Program (TAP) indicate that the projects maintain contact with each other, primarily on an information-sharing basis. There has been some dialogue with some of the projects on ways collaboration could be fostered, but to date nothing concrete has been progressed with any of the projects. Issues with time, funds, and project scope were mentioned as constraints to cross-project synergies. GEE regularly provides copies of its biweekly and quarterly reports to all USAID projects. However, this effort is not always reciprocated. Despite some commonalities in focus and intention between GEE and BRIDGE and their management by the same implementing agency, little substantive collaboration has emerged. GEE’s focus on secondary education and teacher training aligns well with the TAP focus on primary education. Collaboration between GEE and TAP is expected. For example, “TAP documentation indicates that the Program will address gender equity and will support the Directorates of Gender Equity and Social Change and one of the key programming principles is ‘Encouraging the access and success of girls in school and female teachers as education professionals will cut across all programs.’76 A number of the program reports mention specific activities related to gender and development in some of the states. For example, in Unity State, TA personnel worked with the SMOE on the recruitment of qualified teachers, with female teachers being given priority. TAP was also instrumental in ensuring that gender was addressed in the (draft) Education Act. TAP also collaborates with NGOs and USAID’s GEE and BRIDGE projects. Because TAP no longer has a major formal role in teacher education, the responsibility for keeping gender issues front and center apparently now falls exclusively on GEE.”77 Conclusions: To date, meaningful inter-project collaboration that results in real benefits on the ground is lacking. There are more opportunities for synergies across projects than have been identified between the projects; however, the issues of time and processes for collaborating, funds, and potentially working outside of a project’s scope or the parameters of an annual work plan will need to be addressed if USAID wishes this expectation to be taken seriously. Some possibilities are discussed here. Also see Annex 7, USAID Inter￾Project Synergies, which provides a brief description of the four education projects and some additional ideas. GEE and BRIDGE both include a “bottom-up” as well as a “top-down” focus, while TAP mainly works from the top down. The orientation to different ends of the development and education sector spectrum can be used to good effect if collaboration is strategic, carefully planned, and well-executed. Theoretically, the presence of personnel from three of the programs—GEE, BRIDGE and TAP—on the ground in three 74 “Institutional” in UNDP terms refers to cultural norms and mores, etc.—not to an organization. 75 USAID. (2007) Request for Applications (RFA) Number USAID-SUDAN-650-A-07–002-RFA Gender Equity through Education Program for Southern Sudan. Nairobi, Kenya: USAID. 76 Taken from the TAP 2007 PMP, p. 3. 77 Taken from the TAP MTE Report (2009). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 28 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) states should enable significant synergies to be identified and built into implementation approaches. In addition, BRIDGE may have the operational funds that the other two projects lack, making the collaboration all the more important. For those states in which BRIDGE does not operate, other opportunities for collaboration and development must be found. As noted, GEE also has advisors in MOEST. If GEE, through its central level TA, is able to articulate particular systems, strategies, and processes for dissemination and embedding at the sub-national level, TAP TA personnel could be of great assistance in much the same way that they have been to the Booz Allen payroll systems rollout and the UNICEF EMIS rollout. TAP assistance to help SMOEs operationalize GEE activities should mean that both programs can claim and report on some of the successes and results, especially related to teacher training. A clear plan for GEE and TAP collaboration regarding gender, particularly at the MOEST and SMOE levels and regarding the use of and reporting against the Institutional Development Framework (IDF), is essential.78 GEE and HEAR collaboration could include possible use of HEAR health materials as part of the GEE mentoring program. Should GEE begin to work with grades 7 and 8, there would be considerable potential for collaboration in both Kauda and Kurmuk. GEE, BRIDGE, and TAP could collaborate on capacity building at the ministry level in gender-sensitive planning and budgeting and policy development, especially if GEE quantitative and other research data were in an accessible format to enable SMOEs to utilize them for planning and policy-development purposes. GEE and BRIDGE could potentially collaborate on community mobilization activities. GEE could be of assistance to SSIRI in SSIRI’s treatment of gender, which appears at this point in time to be fairly weak. 3.3.4 Winrock International GEE-Donor Partnerships United Nations International Fund Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) Findings: Among development partners, GEE interacts primarily with UNICEF at both the central and state levels. GEE and UNICEF personnel have collegial working relationships, particularly at the state level. At the central level, UNICEF has been designated as the lead development partner in the education sector and has played a key role in the establishment of 11 technical working groups. The groundwork is being laid for a sector-wide approach in education (or at least a sub-sector wide approach in general education). This direction is being reflected at the state level, where UNICEF undertakes an annual micro-planning process with each state and county that is also supposed to involve all development partners to produce state and county level Annual Work Plans. While these Work Plans at present only designate SMOE and UNICEF funding envelopes, they do cover both organizational development and capacity enhancement types of activities, as well as education development projects. UNICEF has approximately $100,000 available annually, but there is evidence from the 2009 TAP MTE that some SMOEs are not accessing the funds. The Education Management Information System (EMIS) activity has been ongoing for some time with USAID, and subsequently UNICEF, funding. 79 The annual Education Census implementation was shifted to UNICEF. In 2008, the AED-UNICEF EMIS team trained designated SMOE personnel as EMIS focal points and provided two computers per state for processing and analyzing EMIS data. UNICEF is also spearheading the mapping of donor activities in education. Forum of African Women Educationalists (FAWE) Findings: A FAWE chapter has been established in Southern Sudan and recently become operational with UNICEF support and currently consists of two staff, one of whom is based in the Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change (DGESC), and a board. FAWE (as a pan-African organization) has a well￾organized and well-researched approach for promoting gender-sensitive school environments and for 78 Taken from the TAP MTE Report (2009). 79 The USAID Sudan Basic Education Program implemented by CARE developed the precursor to the EMIS, which was called the Annual Education Census. Later, AED developed the EMIS with UNICEF funding. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 29 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) working with education decision-makers and communities. The GEE State Gender Adviser’s job description notes that the individual is to represent GEE on FAWE. The State Gender Adviser has been involved closely with FAWE; however, according to FAWE, it is not possible for an individual to represent an organization— rather, the individual is selected to the board on the basis of her or his own merit. Conclusions: Although to date GEE has not attempted to build on UNICEF state- and county-level efforts—particularly through the TA personnel and program officers—in a more formalized manner, there are a number of plausible avenues for increased collaboration including piggybacking on the micro-planning for the development of Annual Work Plans (AWPs), especially given that UNICEF is the primary funder for most MOEST and SMOE activities. It is therefore essential for sustainability to work with MOEST and UNICEF to embed targeted GEE activities into MOEST and SMOE Annual Work Plans where they will have some chance of ongoing funding and implementation. In addition, GEE could learn from UNICEF’s experiences putting funding through the government system for activities at the sub-national levels and could experiment with a similar method for disbursing scholarship awards and school improvement grants. GEE documentation suggests that the GEE database will be made available to the government. Synergies with the AED-UNICEF EMIS activity should be identified. There is a need for careful consideration of FAWE’s program of activities and personnel’s scopes of work, and it would behoove GEE to determine how its targeted activities could be aligned under or with FAWE’s activities, especially since FAWE will be in existence well past GEE’s life cycle. GEE should ensure that its efforts do not duplicate those of FAWE. . 3.3.5 Winrock International GEE-International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Partnerships Findings: GEE maintains collegial relationships with a variety of INGO partners, largely on an information￾sharing basis. Conversations with ACROSS and Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) revealed a number of areas where there might be potential for collaboration. For example, JRS also provides secondary school scholarships and has been effective at getting parents and guardians involved, even those who live some distance from the school. GEE collaborated with NESEI on a scholarship program activity to enable top performing, female primary-school graduates from Abyei, NBEG and WBEG to attend the Yei Girls Boarding School, a NESEI-sponsored school. Recipients and the three parents interviewed noted the benefits of the scholarships, but were upset that GEE had reneged on promises made. The collaboration ceased after two years due to both cost issues and some scholars’ personal issues. GEE personnel note that GEE is often approached by NGOs/INGOs (as well as GOSS entities) for funding, which it is generally not able to provide. Conclusions: There are opportunities to work with INGOs/NGOs in the interests of sustainability of some of GEE’s targeted activities, utilizing materials and approaches developed by other INGOs (such as BOG training and engagement of parents/guardians of secondary school students), and producing and disseminating materials (for example, ACROSS has the capacity to produce print materials cost-effectively and also is utilizing the mega-voice equipment, which could be beneficial in under-resourced schools and JRS has parent education materials). 3.4 Impact (Effects over the short term) 3.4.1 Increased Retention, Participation and Completion Findings: Scholarship recipients and school personnel are grateful to have even the limited support provided. There is some evidence that GEE has enabled students to make their lives somewhat easier for a short period of time and some indication of an effect on school attendance. For example, all students interviewed mentioned specific areas where the GEE funds had been helpful. For some students, the GEE money enabled them to buy missing uniform items and thus they were able to enter their school and attend classes. Other students mentioned that they were able to buy notebooks so that they could now actually take down content from the blackboard—an important benefit in a context where textbooks are rare. GEE keeps detailed data on what students spend personal money on, however, there has been no analysis to date of these Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 30 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) data since they are still not available in electronic form. There is some limited evidence that when GEE ‘tops up’ the partial support from other scholarship providers (for example, Jesuit Refugee Service’s Yei TTC scholarships), the benefits are clearer and recipients are able to stay in school without dropping out to earn money and then re-enroll. For example, there is evidence among both TTI and secondary school recipients that, to the extent that the recipient is able to acquire a full uniform (top, bottom, closed footwear, socks), she/he is able to remain enrolled consistently; after tuition, the uniform requirement is the biggest barrier to retention, participation, and eventual completion. All stakeholders considered the school improvement grants to be too little to make a real difference in the retention, participation, and completion of the whole student body. The real cost of a year of secondary education ranges from about $140–$422 depending on the support for personal items, books, tuition, and special fees related to exams in the last year.80 Many of the students interviewed (both female and male and including those in TTIs) noted that they “dropped out” for periods of time to earn money for tuition and uniforms. For a number of students, this situation continued even though they were receiving GEE support. Where the school was able to supplement the GEE grant, benefits to the broader student body were more apparent. Training for school personnel and BOG members consists of instruction on how to undertake the scholarship selection and distribution processes, monitoring the use of the school improvement grants, and distribution of personal items. GEE has supported 132 of the targeted 500 prospective or existing teachers in completing the TTI training cycle (including existing female teachers from Arabic pattern schools to improve their proficiency in English). The first cohort of GEE TTI recipients graduated recently. The actual benefits of this support are not captured in GEE documentation, and the MTE Team met with only a small number of TTI scholarship recipients. Conclusions: While it is clear from the field research that the monetary value of the stipends makes a small difference in the lives of the recipients, the amount is too small to have any significant benefit. The actual benefits and outcomes of the project to date cannot be demonstrated on the basis of a solid body of existing data. If GEE hopes to have a clear and demonstrable impact on retention, participation, and successful completion of secondary school and TTIs, the amount of the stipends needs to take the real costs (both direct and indirect) of getting an education into account. Clearly, any instances of dropping out should be avoided in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness of the education system (and the scholarships). The support to existing female teachers to gain English language proficiency is an important effort. GEE is to be commended for building the capability of female teachers to use English, as this effort may well have significant benefits on several fronts.81 It would make sense to continue this support, especially given the tendency of females to leave the teaching profession. As the transition to the Southern Sudan curriculum continues, females (both female teachers and female students) are at greater risk of dropping out due to language issues.82 If the school grants are to make an appreciable difference to the retention, participation, and successful completion rates for the student body as a whole, they also need to be significantly increased and linked to the development of a gender-sensitive and pro-poor school environment. 3.4.2 Demand for Education Findings: All educational personnel interviewed pointed to the increasing demand for schooling; these findings back up public opinion polls conducted by USAID. There is some limited evidence from the fieldwork that suggests that GEE itself has had an effect on the demand for education services. Some schools 80 See Annex 11, “The Real Cost of a Secondary School Education” for more detailed information. 81 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was clarified that while GEE supports administrators in English Language training through the Leadership for Change, the program does not support teachers in English language training. 82 This pattern is well-documented internationally. Language shift and language marginalization have serious implications for females in education. See “Language, Minority Education and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power” (Corson, 1993), “Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies” (Ducher for Center for Applied Linguistics-CAL, 2001), and “Girls, Educational Equity and Mother-Tongue-based Teaching” (UNESCO, 2005). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 31 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) indicate that, since GEE’s involvement, the number of females interested and enrolling has increased. For example, Yei Girls Boarding School uses GEE to draw in prospective students, and the head teacher is convinced that the school’s enrollment has more than doubled in two years due to GEE. There is additional, anecdotal evidence that awareness of GEE is spreading by ‘word of mouth,’ and some school personnel believe that increases in enrollment and the re-enrollment of some girls who had dropped out (due to pregnancy) can be attributed to the fact that GEE exists. Aside from some limited attention given to the Mentoring Program initiative, and with the exception of radio campaigns, GEE has not yet undertaken other significant advocacy, community mobilization, and mentoring activities that could stimulate demand. Conclusions: Without adequate metrics, it is difficult to measure GEE’s influence on demand for education, including the retention of girls in school or their desire to go into teaching. Ideally, GEE should be able to analyze enrollment data disaggregated by sex from a couple of years prior to and during GEE to see if there are any noticeable changes and then see if those changes can be attributed to GEE. To date, this has not occurred. The scholarships undoubtedly make life a bit easier for the male and female scholars, and a few students interviewed report that they would have to drop out without the extra support. But there is some ambiguity around the notion of ‘dropping out’; some students ‘drop out’ but re-enroll when they have saved up some money. In addition, the dropout rate at the schools seems relatively low from the data collected. The students have a high level of commitment to continue schooling and they and their families seem willing to make considerable sacrifices to enable the students to stay in school.83 These aspects, combined with the low monetary value of the scholarship stipend against actual costs (see Annex 11: The Real Costs of a Secondary School Education) of schooling and other external factors that influence the behavior of the girls (or any scholarship recipient) make it difficult to attribute an increased demand for education to GEE. Regarding teaching, some students are interested in becoming teachers,84 but factors85 such as low status, minimal pay, limited spaces available in TTIs/TTCs and, currently, few teaching positions available after graduation are all disincentives to a demand for places. GEE could help identify incentives important to female teachers. Given GEE’s lack of engagement with communities and with schools outside urban areas, any community mobilization and advocacy efforts should take rural areas into account. 3.4.3 Supply of Quality Education Services86 Findings: There is limited evidence to demonstrate that GEE has had an effect on the supply of education services in general, or the quality of education services in particular. For example, one school noted that the eight chairs for teachers that were bought with GEE grant money had made a difference in the time that teachers remained at school, but other schools were unable to point out specific benefits linked to supply. There is some evidence that if a school or TTI had matching or additional funding from another source, the effect of the GEE grant was more impressive. For example, Yei Girls Boarding School used the GEE grant to sink a toilet pit and used other funds to build the toilet block. All schools mentioned that the grant money was very small, and a few personnel noted that big demands were placed on the school by GEE for very little return. 83 These findings also mirror findings from research on primary education retention in 2003 by Dr. Jackie Kirk, who noted that there are “ . . . rapid decreases in female participation in the early grades, and especially at P4, but then (there are) more stable enrolment figures for girls through P5-P8. As the SBA has also shown, this seems to indicate that once girls reach P5, there is a relatively good chance that she will stay in school to complete the primary cycle” (Towards a Girls’ Education Support Program: A Draft Report, p 6). 84 These data are supported by a 2003 Sudan Basic Education Program (SBEP) survey in which 138 women between the ages of 20 and 30 were sampled. Fifteen percent (or 21 women) said they were interested in teaching, regardless of the conditions. 85 Some of these factors emerged during the GEE MTE field work, and others are noted in a document developed in 2003 for SBEP, “Towards a Girls’ Education Support Program,” by Dr. Jackie Kirk. 86 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011), it was noted that this discussion of supply of quality education comes from the agreed-upon SOW. It reflects the Misson’s desire to understand the wider impact of its programs, and is not meant to imply that this was a specific objective of the GEE program. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 32 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE’s approach to school improvement grants has undergone a number of changes. The GESP secondary school formula for the parts of the ‘scholarship package’ was 10SP (tuition stipend): 10SP (grant): 10SP (personal items), and the GEE RFA used the same formula, but doubled the amounts. WI used the formula initially, then introduced a new formula that was not linked to the number of scholars. Currently, secondary schools receive 1,050SP in year one and 735SP each year thereafter. TTIs under GEE have consistently received 2,230SP ($1,000). This formula does not take into account school size, condition, or functionality. In schools where the scholarship recipients make up a large percentage of the overall student body, schools are at least assured of a predictable cash flow on the basis of the tuition stipends. Other than ensuring that funds are used for the agreed purposes, schools are not required to commit to any other activities that could affect the supply side. Most adults interviewed noted that while the annual grants (and the scholarship stipends) were appreciated, they were too little to make a real difference on the supply side of education and on quality. GEE is providing scholarships to mainly females in some TTIs for both pre- and in-service and English language training. As yet, GEE has no strategy for increasing females in and graduating from TTIs. The RFA specifically mentioned implementation in Juba, Malakal, and Wau (as former garrison towns) and WI has followed this instruction. However, there is little evidence of a contribution to the supply of services outside of state capitals in more rural areas. GEE cites insecurity as the reason for lack of rural engagement.87 In an effort to increase the supply of education services for other marginalized groups, GEE has included males and students with disabilities as scholarship recipients since 2008. Currently, males comprise about 13.6 percent of the scholarship recipients (no data are available on the number of students with disabilities.) There is no evidence that GEE has had any effect on the supply of appropriate services for either group. Conclusions: Without a clear vision of how GEE will influence the supply side of education and without adequate metrics to measure its influence, it is difficult to evaluate GEE’s effect to date. The lack of a targeted focus on capacity building of county and school personnel, including BOGs, to provide a school environment that is conducive to girls’ successful participation is a missed opportunity, especially since the scholarship program has a clear potential to leverage a structured engagement. Anecdotal evidence shows some small effects on the supply side, but the amount of the grant is an issue, as is the fact that GEE has not taken advantage of the scholarship program to function as a catalyst and a lever for initiating positive systemic change at the school level. The rationale for moving away from a school grant amount linked to the number of scholars was sensible, but the failure to take a given school context into account is problematic. In addition, the grant provided to TTIs is three times that of the secondary school allocation, although TTIs serve very limited numbers of students and many have received significant external support. 3.4.4 Institutionalizing a Decentralized Approach to Service Delivery88 Findings: The PMP (June 2009) notes that, “GEE supports institutional capacity building of the Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change at the central, state and county level by engaging appointed representatives in all GEE scholarship distribution and grant monitoring site visits.”89 MOEST personnel are able to express individual and some organizational benefits, particularly from previous TA, such as enhanced ability to plan work, improved knowledge of and relationships with development 87 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011), it was noted that the reasons for GEE to focus on state capitals include the fact that there are few secondary schools in the more rural areas. 88 The Government of Southern Sudan is a decentralized system. Policy, planning, and monitoring and evaluation are undertaken at the national level, and service delivery is undertaken at the sub-national levels. Additionally, in further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was noted that the discussion of GEE’s role in decentralizing education service delivery reflects the Mission’s desire to understand the wider impact of its programs and is not meant to imply that this was a specific objective of the GEE program. 89 GEE Program Performance Monitoring Plan June 2009, p. 6. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 33 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) partners, and increased personal accountability and commitment. The following benefits were expressed by MOEST and some SMOE personnel:90 Changes in awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of MOEST and SMOE HQ personnel • Increased feelings of empowerment, confidence, competence, and accomplishment. For example, MOEST GESC Directorate personnel feel more competent undertaking aspects of their jobs, including dealing with development partners as a result of LTA, and Leadership for Change participants felt proud, appreciated, and confident of their own ability to find solutions to issues. • Raised level of excitement among Leadership for Change and Mentoring Program participants about what they can accomplish. • Improved writing skills (i.e., reports and proposals). Personnel who have access to and have been supported in using technology are continuing to use technology on the job. • Improved understanding of planning (at the individual, departmental, and organizational levels) and budgeting. • Improved understanding of how to get help and find information. Changes in the interests and stated intentions of MOEST personnel • Increasing interest in what other staff are doing. • Challenging ‘silos,’ information-guarding, and top-down decision-making. • Acquiring basic computer-literacy skills and proficiency in English. • Striving to emulate the TA personnel with respect to work habits, knowledge, and general professionalism. Changes in short-term or intermediate behavior of MOEST and SMOE HQ personnel • Improved work habits. MOEST personnel interviewed said they are working more systematically and productively due to individual and departmental work plans. • Improved responses to MOEST requirements, including annual plans and budgets. • Improved communication skills, especially for those personnel who, as part of their Leadership for Change Action Plan, targeted English language proficiency as an aim. • Improved ability to deal with development partners, including networking and interpersonal communication. Outcomes on an organizational level • Improved efficiency. For example, in 2009, TA personnel helped GESC Directorate personnel to prepare their budget submission on time. • Improved organizational learning and behavior among MOEST GESC personnel. • Improved communication within MOEST broadly and within the Directorate specifically and with sub-national education personnel (including at the school level). 90 In the absence of data on the Institutional Development Framework and a conceptual framework used by GEE for investigating the effects of the project on helping to institutionalize a decentralized approach to service delivery, the evaluators have borrowed a framework for categorizing effects on individuals. See online source: http://www.talkingquality.gov/docs/section5/5_2.htm, accessed June 22, 2009 10:00pm Juba, Southern Sudan. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 34 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Improved understanding of gender. Many personnel are able to articulate the importance of gender equality and gender equity strategies, which is the first step to bringing about change at the organizational level. 91 There is a demand for opportunities to engage with TA personnel, and MOEST GESC Directorate personnel stressed the benefits of having TA. MOEST personnel in the Curriculum and Secondary Education Directorates have commended GEE on its engagement with them. The engagement consists primarily of information sharing, discussions on ways to finance certain requests (such as printing the BOG Guidelines), and providing technical expertise for the GESC personnel during meetings with MOEST and other stakeholders. Additionally, personnel from these departments have moved with GEE staff to the states to support the Mentoring Program and to conduct monitoring visits. The two initiatives, Leadership for Change and the Mentoring Program (version 2), have had a catalytic effect on individuals, but no discernible effect yet on the organizational or institutional levels. There is no evidence that LTA input at the sub-national level has had any effect on individuals or on strengthening decentralization itself. The Scholarship Program component has drawn sub-national personnel from all levels into the implementation process, primarily for instrumental purposes. With respect to institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, the common view of stakeholders is that GEE is delivered by Winrock and is not owned by any of the various stakeholders from MOEST to the schools. Conclusions: It is apparent that GEE does not see itself as having a key part to play in strengthening decentralization for the purposes of service delivery. While the presence of technical assistance personnel has had some limited catalytic and motivational effects on the GESC Directorate personnel and some initial effects on those personnel who participated in the Leadership for Change program, the momentum associated with both TA and the training programs appears to have stalled. Without a clear approach to capacity enhancement at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels and without corresponding processes to monitor and evaluate change, any TA investment is in danger of having little sustainable effect. In addition, international experience in organizational and institutional development suggests that TA personnel will need to build the commitment to and momentum for change early on so that they do not become the de facto prime movers. In young organizations with personnel who are new to the work of government, multiple uses of TA is not unusual, but there must be balance. The Leadership for Change program and the Mentoring Program both have potential to help institutionalize decentralization for service delivery by covering both supply side and demand side of education, but the potential will not be realized without each activity having a clear design, work plan and budget and key milestones that are reported against. There was a golden opportunity to strengthen decentralization at the sub-national level (as well as to enhance the capacity of individuals) through the Scholarship Program component implementation, but this opportunity has not been exploited. 3.4.5 Promoting Accountability and Good Governance Findings: According to anecdotal information from GEE staff, GEE is providing a good model for education administrators through its stance on and requirements associated with anti-corruption, accountability, and record-keeping. Education administrators themselves did not mention any of these areas during interviews when they were asked what effect GEE has had. Personnel, particularly teachers, frequently mentioned their isolation from GEE’s scholarship program processes (especially the use of the school improvement grant) and indicated they would like to be involved. Scholarship recipients were, for the most part, able to articulate the process by and the reasons for which they were selected and were able to recount the processes established for the use of the personal items monies. The Team had access to only a few BOG members and no parents, so it was not possible to solicit their views. 91 NB: These changes are based on very limited data that is anecdotal in nature and is based on the interviews of a very small number of individuals. To read too much into the changes identified without further in-depth examination of the actual benefits would be a mistake. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 35 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE handles all financial transactions directly with little involvement or use of government systems, with the exception of the personal items and school improvement grant monies. Although these monies are given directly to the school, the school is expected to purchase the nominated items. To date, there is no evidence of any leakage; monies are used appropriately for intended purposes, and schools keep accurate records. FIGURE 5 AND FIGURE 6: SCHOOL PERSONNEL AT ASSOSA GIRLS’ SECONDARY SCHOOL (MALAKAL TOWN, UNS) SHOWING THEIR GEE RECORDS. JUNE 2010 (PHOTO BY THOMAS TILSON) Conclusions: It does not appear that GEE views building accountability and good governance as part of its core mandate, but rather sees itself as a model for good behavior, which may result in unanticipated benefits. If GEE is expected to have an effect on accountability and good governance (and it would be sensible to expect this of a project that works so closely with more than one-third of the secondary schools in Southern Sudan92), these areas should be factored into GEE’s scope of work and reported against. 3.4.6 Peace Dividend93 and Conflict-Sensitive Analysis Findings: Southern Sudan is still a conflict-affected context, and there are also numerous areas in various states that suffer from “insecurity.”94 Education funding across the states is not systematic or uniform, and the secondary education sub-sector has not gained any traction with the GOSS or donors. SMOE and, consequently, secondary school, funds are severely constrained. In some states, secondary schools are actually subsidizing the education system upwards. State and county education administrators point out the lack of available transportation, which completely constrains their ability to be visible and to oversee the education system and respond to issues and opportunities. Administrators are grateful to GEE for providing the opportunity to travel to see their constituents. Lack of funds has also had an impact on the quality of teaching and learning—schools have minimal teaching and learning materials, teachers are often absent for parts or all of the school day, and students are hungry and tired. WI’s proposal refers to conflict sensitivity, but subsequent GEE documentation gives no indication that a conflict-sensitive lens or analysis has been or is currently being applied to GEE programming.95 Education 92 This percentage is calculated using EMIS data on the total number of secondary schools. 93 The ‘peace dividend’ is included in the Scope of Work under impact assessment; however, since it is such a critical area, it has been addressed in its own section rather than being included in the ‘Impact-Short-Term Effects’ section. 94 “Insecurity” can mean anything from inter-ethnic conflicts among pastoralists to cross-border incursions by militant groups from other countries to ongoing conflict in the North-South border areas to the garden variety of crime (break-ins, muggings, etc.). 95 According to UNICEF, “Aid as well as development and humanitarian assistance can have unintended consequences on the dynamics of conflict. And all too often they are negative. The non-neutrality of aid is becoming more widely understood by the Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 36 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) administrators feel that they are “witnesses” to GEE’s implementation and that their authority is actually diminished because beneficiaries and other stakeholders see the benefactor as Winrock International, not the GOSS (or even USAID). This is despite the fact that: (i) agreements are signed between Winrock, the school, the SMOE, the County Education Office and the MOEST Directorate of Secondary Education, and (ii) County Education personnel are present during scholarship distribution and monitoring visits. Many scholarship recipients and personnel remarked that the introduction of the scholarships to individual students has actually created tensions and division between students who are selected and those who are not. For example, according to students in Loka Secondary School (Lainya County, CES), a scholarship and a non￾scholarship clique have formed, and students from one group no longer interact with those from the other group. In Yei Girls Boarding School, scholars mentioned that comfort kits or personal items have been stolen by girls who have not received scholarships.96 As discussed in section 3.4.2, the effect of the school improvement grant that was intended to create benefits for all students and offset bias is negligible. International literature makes clear the danger in having large numbers of uneducated, unemployed youth, particularly males, in post-conflict contexts. The RFA mentioned the inclusion of males in group activities, as did WI’s proposal. In its second year, GEE, in response to external pressure, began to include males in the scholarship program. Male scholarship recipients do not receive comfort kits, although GEE personnel and the field data show that the boys would appreciate this type of support as well. Conclusions: The government is failing to provide adequate resources (not compensated for by funding from other sources) to the secondary education sub-sector and the GEE cash cost-share contribution has not been realized in toto; consequently, GEE is at risk of not contributing as fully as it might towards achievement of the peace dividends. The complexity of the Southern Sudan context97 and the secondary education sub￾sector itself make GEE’s implementation even more challenging. Given the grim international statistic that 40 to 50 percent of peace agreements collapse within five to ten years of being signed with the subsequent return of war98, international insights into programming for Conflict-Affected and Fragile States (CAFS) need to feed into how GEE operates.99 Some GEE activities, such as the mentoring program, could both contribute significant benefits to the sub￾sector and to youth affected by conflict.100 GEE has also thus far been unable to put the government’s “face first” with the public. In consequence, beneficiaries tend to view Winrock as the sole provider of the support, not as a partnership between USAID, Winrock, and the government. Small, but important, immediate changes to legitimize the GOSS could include re-establishing the school and WI GEE agreements to be agreements between the school, the SMOE, and the MOEST Directorate of Secondary Education (excluding international community and aid agencies. As a result, the use of conflict analysis tools and methodologies, such as peace and conflict impact assessments and ‘do no harm’ analyses, have gained traction in development and humanitarian practice since 1999. They have helped organizations design programmes (sic) that, at the very least, do not exacerbate tensions and, at best, contribute to prevention.” Taken from http://www.un.org/children/conflict/machel/english/9-preventing-conflict-and-building￾peace.html Accessed July 1, 2010 at 11pm, Juba, Southern Sudan. 96 Research by the International SCF Alliance shows that messages and signs of hope and possibility are extremely important for young people who have lived through conflict. Depriving numbers of secondary school students of those messages and signs (of which a scholarship award and comfort kits are a part) by privileging some and not others is contrary to best practice in CAFS. (“Last in Line, Last in School: How Donors are Failing. . . . ) 97 Southern Sudan has a mixture of contexts—from former garrison towns to pockets of insecurity to peaceful areas—in which education services need to be delivered. 98 International Alert. (2008). 99 A possible source of funding is the Sudan Recovery Fund, which is described as a fund to “accelerate recovery in Southern Sudan through high-impact, quickly disbursed projects. The Fund focuses on four key areas: a) consolidating peace and security; b) delivering basic services; c) stabilizing livelihoods; and d) building capacity for decentralized and democratic governance.” (Taken from Allocation Proposal Sudan Recovery Fund Round III June 2009.) 100 UNESCO and Save the Children Alliance have written extensively about the underfunding of education on Conflict-Affected and Fragile States and the dangers of this situation as well as the dangers of not providing a quality education, especially to large groups of under-employed and under-engaged youth, many of whom are easily re-absorbed into a cycle of conflict and combat. See Annex 17, Bibliography. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 37 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) WI GEE), presenting certificates to schools and students101 that identify GOSS rather than WI as the provider of the assistance, and having County Education Office (CEO) personnel present any money or items with the student signing an agreement with the County Education CEO to use the items as intended. New female teachers and head teachers are not being trained in sufficient numbers to have an impact on access to education, and this presents a disconnect in delivering the anticipated peace dividend. Existing secondary school teachers while, in the main fairly well-qualified, have few and, in some cases, no teaching materials, and students have no or few learning materials—leaving little chance of improving the quality of education. GEE can help strengthen linkages between levels of the education system and help leverage funds to improve the quality of education and to equitably benefit more learners. 3.5 Sustainability 3.5.1 Relevance of GEE Design Findings: The GEE Project aligns with GOSS priorities on a country level through the Interim Constitution (which includes statements on women, equality, and diversity), The Child Act (2008), the MOEST Education Act (draft form 2008), and the MOEST Education Policy Framework (2006–2007). The MOEST Policy Framework102 sets targets for female participation in education (11 percent of girls to 33 percent by the end of 2007). GEE also supports the commitments made to several key international agreements, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and Millennium Development Goal 6. Sudan is not yet a signatory of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). However, the President recently stated that the quota for females in government should be increased to 30 percent (up from 25 percent nominated in the Interim Constitution), and the Undersecretary of Education is firmly behind gender mainstreaming and a diverse and representative student body. Females are underrepresented as participants at all levels of the education system and as personnel in key leadership and management positions in the sector. Females hold only 11 percent of teaching positions. The secondary education sub-sector is responding to the upward pressure from primary education. Secondary schools have increased from about 23 (excluding Juba, Wau, and Malakal) in 2005, 89 in 2008, 117 in 2009, and 160 in 2010 with little government attention to regulation. The Loka Secondary School103 head teacher noted that over 1,000 individuals tried to enroll in 2010, but the school is at capacity with 279 students. GEE is located under USAID’s ‘Investing in People’ objective, which supports the delivery of critical social services, including education and health, and builds institutional capacity. GEE also aligns with USAID’s Fragile State Strategy with its four interrelated priorities to: (i) enhance stability, (ii) improve security, (iii) encourage reform, and (iv) develop the capacity of institutions. GEE is to be implemented according to the following development principles:104 • All activities will be carried out in close coordination and collaboration with the various levels of the MOEST, including central, state, and county offices. In addition to close collaboration, it is expected that the program will support and develop MOEST capacities to provide leadership for the GEE program. This approach is essential to ensure sustainability and ownership of the program activities and will be a central responsibility of the activity’s gender advisor. • The GEE program will build on previous successful GESP strategies and activities, and to the extent possible will continue to provide support to the same girls, women, and schools funded under the GESP. 101 Currently, GEE does not provide any certificates. 102 MOEST. (2005) Education Policy Framework. Juba, Southern Sudan: MOEST. 103 Lainya County, CES. 104 USAID Cooperative Agreement N0.650-A-00–07–00003–00, p. 15 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 38 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Conclusions: The USAID GEE Project is relevant to the Southern Sudanese context, given the challenges associated with the education of females and economically disadvantaged students. The development principles are germane; however, the lack of a quality hand-over process and a summative evaluation of GESP to investigate thoroughly the merit of various elements of GESP (notably, the approach to selection of sites and recipients and the real impact of the comfort kits) has limited the relevance of the second principle. GEE is the only substantive donor project focusing on the secondary education sub-sector, despite the fact that international literature shows that the lack of a pipeline from primary school to secondary school is a disincentive to primary school enrollment and participation, particularly for females and the poor,105 and despite international literature that shows very clearly the negative effects of not providing access to a quality education for large numbers of disenfranchised youth, particularly young men.106 It should be noted, however, that GEE is not focused on strengthening the secondary education sub-sector per se; rather, it is a targeted girls’ education initiative, despite the project name (which implies equitable treatment of gender issues and these involve both females and males). But a key constraint to GEE’s success in enabling girls to benefit from their participation in and to graduate from secondary schools (and TTIs) as educated members of society lies in the significant issues within the sub-sector, particularly around the quality of education. The lack of GOSS attention to and the absence of both GOSS and donor funding for the secondary education sub-sector run the risk of, firstly, frustrating the growth in primary school participation and, secondly, turning out under-educated secondary school graduates. These are the individuals who will eventually be asked to take up leadership and professional positions. The time is ripe for a significant investment to put a solid foundation in place while the sub-sector is still relatively limited and, therefore, manageable. 3.5.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of GEE Design Findings: The RFA has a solid section on monitoring and evaluation and the selection criteria for ranking proposals are extensive and clear. The description of the GEE design as described in the USAID RFA (2007) is limited. Prospective implementing agencies undertake their own research and compile proposals based on the knowledge they have of the context. The perspective on capacity building through TA is limited and does not appear to take into account international advice on timeframes and effectiveness. The design does not appear to have had a conflict-sensitive lens applied to it, and there is no evidence that a conflict analysis was undertaken. The RFA included wrong data on inherited students and school locations that put the winning implementing agency on the back foot immediately. The title, “Gender Equity,” implies that both females and males will benefit, but there is no clear strategy or targets for the two sexes. There is also no prescribed strategic targeting information, and there is no process stipulated for the handover from CARE International GESP to Winrock International GEE. Conclusions: Many of the issues that this MTE Report comments on with respect to GEE are the result of a design that lacked key elements and was weak on detail and strategy. For example, targeting guidance could have provided a more strategic framework for taking on new schools and bringing in new scholarship recipients in an intentional and purposeful manner with clear benefits identified. This guidance would have been especially useful given that a mode of operation had already been established under the predecessor project and not critiqued or evaluated. Although there was time following GEE’s inception to undertake some of this critical strategizing, neither WI nor USAID exploited the opportunity with the government. The project took the simplest approach: find schools where there are many girls and provide scholarships. The MTE Team reviewed a document produced in 2003, “Towards a Girls Education Support Program: A Draft Report,” that provided a solid project design that took into account and dealt with many of the issues 105 UNICEF (Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children). (2000). 106 See UNESCO. (2007). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 39 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE is encountering.107 It is not clear to the Team why this document was not used as the basis for the GEE design (or indeed whether it was used for the Gender Equity Support Program design). Documentation on GESP, including the RFA and subsequent winning proposal from CARE International and any formative or summative evaluations, were not available for comparison. According to the international literature, “ . . . In the 10-year interval between development of the Cape Town Principles and the Paris Principles, there was a marked shift away from targeted assistance to community-based support for children associated with armed conflict. This occurred partly because assistance to specific groups of children tended to perpetuate stigma. The targeted approach also had the unanticipated consequence of stirring up jealousies and social divisions at a time when unity was desperately needed. Current thinking on the subject (of cash incentives) emphasizes support to all children affected by armed conflict and their inclusion within strategies for post-conflict recovery.”108 GEE is at significant risk of exacerbating tensions in a post-conflict environment. Although the design rationale for targeting girls is understandable in a country where female participation at all levels is so low, the post-conflict context and the clear lessons learned in other conflict-affected environments need to be taken into account in the design and implementation of any initiative (regardless of the sector). In addition, although GEE is framed as a project to benefit girls (predominantly), there are issues with the gender sensitivity of the project itself.109 While the school improvement grant is a step in the right direction toward a ‘school community-based’ approach, the grant is so limited that it makes no real difference to the student community at large in a given school. With some creative thinking, mechanisms can be identified that visibly benefit all students and also entice and enable girls to stay in school without creating further social fractures.110 In addition, cash transfers and school grants are ultimately unsustainable unless GOSS steps in to introduce and promote funds and/or creative avenues for schools and SMOEs to establish their own self-regenerating funds. Ideally, both a sustainability and an exit strategy should be fleshed out in the response to an RFA so that the donor, the client, and the implementing agency are clear from the start about what needs to be put into motion at the beginning, the middle, and the end of implementation to maximize sustainability of benefits. 3.5.3 Sustainability of Benefits Findings: While there is mention of sustainability in the WI proposal and in subsequent documents (e.g., the introduction of the mother-daughter loan scheme),111 little has been done along these lines. There is no sustainability or exit strategy documented and agreed upon with government.112 As of the MTE, GEE’s exit strategy consists of informing states and schools that the project is phasing out of their respective area or 107 Kirk, Jackie. (2003) “Toward a Girls Education Support Program: A Draft Report.” Juba, Southern Sudan: USAID. 108 UNICEF. (2009). 109 For example, the basis for inclusion in GEE as a scholarship recipient is the mere fact of being female and poor. There is no serious critique of who the most excluded Southern Sudanese girls are, how to reach them, or how to support them once they have been reached. A recent World Bank (2008) document notes the following: “ . . . within any given country, girls from excluded groups are less likely to enroll in school, complete fewer years of schooling, and are less likely to complete primary school or attend secondary school . . . countries with multiple ethnic and language groups have lower PCRs (primary school completion rates) for girls, a larger gap between male and female PCRs, and lower overall achievement . . . School quality matters more for excluded girls than for boys or children from mainstream families . . . Studies . . . found that compared with boys, girls were less likely to enroll in and more likely to drop out from poor quality schools.” GEE pays scant attention to issues of quality, and this likely has an effect on girls’ participation as well as success in examinations. Another example concerns language of instruction. The World Bank document as well as research by UNICEF show that girls are much less likely than boys to have proficiency in the language of instruction if it is different from their mother tongue. This has implications for participation and completion. 110 According to Herz and Sperling (2005), providing girls with textbooks is a quick and easy way to increase female participation. 111 Realization of this activity is linked to the availability of funds from the WI HO under the cost-share arrangement. 112 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was clarified that (i) PAGE is the sustainability strategy for the mentoring and community mobilization activities; and (ii) phasing out of the schools is the exit strategy for the scholarship program. And, as further stated by USAID, “the lack of a strategy for encouraging the government (or others) to continue providing scholarships is a weakness and means that this aspect of the program is unlikely to be sustained.” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 40 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) school.113 The (draft) Education Act refers to the provision of scholarships by the government, but there are as yet no scholarships provided by MOEST. Scholarships that are available are provided by a number of INGOs and range in value and target group. As mentioned previously, there is a ‘contract’ between GEE and each respective school that is signed by various individuals (including officials of the MOEST and SMOEs) that deals mainly with proper use of the GEE monies, but there is no recognized and binding agreement between the sub-national and the central levels regarding roles and responsibilities with respect to GEE implementation and sustainability of benefits.114 Regarding capacity enhancement, international literature urges donors to set timeframes of not less than ten years, and more realistically 15–20 years, as appropriate time frames, and recent research notes that TA is an exceedingly expensive form of aid.115 Although TA in gender specifically has been provided prior to the CPA under GESP (since 2002), since the establishment of GOSS, the sub-national level—and even some parts of the MOEST GESC Directorate—have had limited access to and success with TA inputs to date.116 Threats to capacity enhancement that were mentioned by participants include frequent changes in personnel and a lack of consideration of the most appropriate counterparts for TA. With the exception of brief mention of peer mentors, scholarship recipients are not being tapped for the role they might play in sustainability. Conclusions: GEE’s challenge, in the very short implementation time remaining, will be to ensure that the processes for strengthening decentralization—both downwards from the center, but also upwards from the sub-national levels—are sufficiently embedded within MOEST and the sub-national levels. Addressing this challenge is necessary to help ensure that the benefits being introduced through GEE, particularly those associated with TA, the Leadership for Change program, and the mentoring program, are able to be continued. At this point in time, the activities with the greatest likelihood of being sustained and having an impact are the Leadership for Change and the Mentoring Program initiatives, provided there is funding for both and provided the reach extends far enough down and across the education system. With respect to the 113 GEE does not distinguish between an exit strategy and a sustainability strategy. The phasing out process is referred to by GEE as an exit strategy. An exit strategy typically would deal with how equipment and other materials will be handed over and how the activity will be closed down. A sustainability strategy typically would present a vision and a practical plan for ensuring sustainability of benefits and, in the case of TA, an approach for ‘weaning’ organizations off of the TA. 114 The Ministry of National Education (MONE) in Indonesia uses these types of agreements between itself and the governor of the province or district in which MONE itself or MONE with development partners are investing in education development, for example, in school construction. When the governor does not ensure that the terms of the agreement are being honored, MONE sends a representative to explore the situation and attempt to resolve it; if the governor does not remedy the situation, MONE institutes financial penalties by withholding central level funds that should be flowing to the province or district. This approach works very well, and very few governors renege on their agreements. 115 Peter Morgan (2002) cites World Bank research from the 1980s that concluded that, “ . . . on the basis of a survey of 95 completed projects with some form of TA for capacity building, that 36 percent achieved ‘substantial success,’ 51 percent ‘partial’ success, while 13 percent had ‘negligible’ results. From the late 1980s to 1997, about 30 percent of Bank-supported projects had ‘unsatisfactory’ development outcomes. Bank exit evaluation also judged close to 66 percent as not having had’ substantial’ institutional development impacts. But these figures, especially the latter ones on institutional development, closely approximate those found in organizational change efforts in the North American private sector. We can therefore draw (the) conclusion . . . that most efforts at capacity-building fail at about the same rate, everywhere and at all times and especially the first time. But they fail for different reasons in different contexts.” Morgan also notes that “TA can be faulted for self￾perpetuation and excessive costs. . . . The care and feeding of the TA personnel created overhead costs that drained scarce resources and time from national officials. And the high costs of such interventions also shifted investments from other development possibilities that could have offered better opportunities. (And he states that) The TA itself can be well-designed and managed, but end up submerged under the weight of broader organizational, economic, financial and political constraints.” This research points to the need to be very clear about what is intended from TA and how it will be achieved. Morgan cites a number of substantial success factors and failure factors that should be taken into account in any GEE TA provided. Unfortunately, Morgan also notes that “[d]espite the endless production of ‘lessons learned’ and ‘best practices,’ virtually all the participants in development cooperation, both at the country and the IDO levels, did not have the resources or the time or the incentives or the willingness to master the learning-performance-learning cycle.” 116 Morgan, Peter (2008). A PNG study on technical assistance and counterpart relationships found that “many of the key GOPNG systems were informal . . . they did not lend themselves easily to TA understanding and support. Understanding how country systems actually did work and why could be a huge challenge for new TA staff. . . . Many counterparts were frustrated by the lack of local knowledge of culture and systems of TA personnel and indicated that the first few months were often spent getting the TA personnel up to speed on GOPNG systems.” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 41 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Mentoring Program, in particular, once the volunteer mentors (including peer mentors) are trained, and provided they are given the opportunity to develop their own materials, this activity should be self-sustaining and involve no ongoing costs or effort beyond monitoring to ensure that mentors are behaving appropriately. Ideally, if time allows, GEE should be working with its targeted schools (and the SMOE HQ and county education office personnel) to build school capacity to generate income and to initiate policies and practices that are gender-sensitive and pro-poor. The FAWE approach and materials could be of great assistance. Although personnel may be shifted from one position to another, they may not necessarily be lost to the sector. Such cases are a boon to the sustainability of benefits from capacity enhancement inputs and outputs. However, there is clearly a need to have a well-articulated approach to capacity enhancement and increased access to TA personnel who understand and can apply the theory and practices in the field of capacity enhancement. For example, by focusing on building a ‘critical mass’ of education sector personnel, enough capable individuals will remain,117 even if a few individuals are moved, removed, or proven to be less capable than desired. In addition, international and MTE evaluators’ experience with technical assistance as a form of aid repeatedly reveals the loss of benefits following the departure of TA personnel. At this point in time, at the very least, a clear and realistic set of individual and organizational development targets needs to be specified along with the manner in which these core targets will be achieved and measured. IV RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Short-Term Adjustments to the Cooperative Agreement Given the fact that only two years remain of the project life-cycle and that funds are largely committed against particular components and activities (most notably the Scholarship Program Component), and given the parameters of this Component, there are only a few sensible adjustments that could be made to the Cooperative Agreement. These adjustments are: • Potential rationalization of the indicators and the establishment of outcome indicators. GEE’s existing data collection mechanisms should allow the project to acquire data that will help demonstrate the impact of the scholarship program component. • Elimination of the Longitudinal Study or modification of the approach to that of an end-of-project tracer study and rate of return analysis, which could provide GOSS and USAID with useful data and information on the impact of a secondary school education in Southern Sudan. 4.2 Scale-Up and/or Phase-Out of Program Components118 Given that there are only about two years remaining for the GEE Project and that most of the activities and related funding are already determined, there are limited opportunities to make significant changes in the program. 119 The MTE Team strongly suggests that, in its two remaining years, GEE focuses on a few activities that have already shown promise of making a difference in terms of project objectives and sustainability. As a matter of priority, GEE should phase out or not initiate the following for cost savings and/or programmatic reasons: (1) the Longitudinal Study; (2) the production and distribution of comfort kits (see 117 This would be further enhanced if combined with an emphasis on succession planning in MOEST and the SMOEs. 118 Please refer to Annex 6 for additional, smaller-scale recommendations for GEE implementation. 119 For example, there are already enough scholarship recipients in the pipeline so that few new students can be accepted, and there is no need for targeting additional schools. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 42 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Annex 12 for alternative suggestions for providing sanitary products); (3) the microcredit loan scheme; (4) any media/materials distribution, until there is a clear plan detailing the anticipated benefits and ways and means of monitoring the impact of the products.120 The MTE team also recommends that GEE determine the value-for-money of the field offices in Wau and Malakal, and take action as necessary. If and when funds become available, GEE could consider expanding two important and well-received initiatives that have not received sufficient attention—the Mentoring Program and the Leadership for Change program—with a well-conceptualized plan that takes the post-GEE realities into consideration and assures scale-up both vertically and horizontally across the education system. It is also important, for a number of reasons linked to sustainability and impact, to provide school-based management training (including a focus on gender-sensitive school environments and community engagement) to school administrators and BOG members (especially females) that includes a focus on gender-sensitive school environments and community engagement. In addition, it is essential for many reasons to increase the funding level of the school grants to the greatest extent possible. This latter proposal will require GEE to work with county education offices and schools to initiate school improvement plans that try to assure at a minimum: (1) all students are able to come to school in the proper clothing (while working with schools to loosen the requirement for certain types of footwear); (2) have one nutritious meal at school a day; (3) at the very least, GEE secondary schools have textbooks of some type for all subjects (ideally at a ratio of one set per secondary school student or, if this proves impossible, at a ratio of at least one complete set per scholarship recipient/non-scholarship recipient) and that teachers have adequate reference materials; and (4) teachers are provided with incentives that encourage them to come to school and remain for their full teaching load every day. Lastly, GEE should consider scaling-up the use of government systems for implementing the project activities. This proposal will not require any significant financial outlay, but it will require a thorough understanding of the education sector and the potential for using and strengthening government systems and structures. USAID and Winrock have already put forth a number of ideas for expanding and improving the project over the final two years. These were shared with MTE Team. Should GEE receive a significant injection of funds in the final two years, the following are proposed: 1. Significantly increasing the scholarships, particularly for any needy female in her candidate year and for the needy male students who are already scholarship recipients, and the school improvement grants, working with schools to minimize any harm that might occur from an increase in scholarship stipends and to provide improvements that are linked to quality and a gender-sensitive and pro-poor school environment. The MTE Team also proposes that, rather than a set increase of support for each of the scholarship components, a more flexible approach should be piloted that takes into account the variable tuition levels, the extra expenses for exams in the final year, and the size and needs of the schools. In addition, the project might also consider the relative needs of girls depending on where the girls live. One measure to determine such needs would be the female enrollment in secondary schools, which range from a low of 6 percent (Lakes) and 9 percent (NBEG and Unity) to a high of 28 percent (WES) and 35 percent (CES). 2. Investing seriously in textbooks and other learning materials (including investigating the feasibility of the mega-voice devices being utilized by ACROSS) and reference materials for teachers.121 3. Establishing a well-designed approach to capacity building including providing regular, ongoing opportunities for vertical and horizontal interactions of education administrators, funds for travel to 120 The distribution of the BOG guidelines could be linked to capacity enhancement activities with schools as part of a sustainability strategy, and this would help ensure that the Guidelines are understood and used. 121 Certainly, the most compelling evidence from research is that the availability of textbooks is a major determinate of student learning and achievement and is a drawing card for female students. (Herz and Sperling, 2005) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 43 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) and from schools, creating professional networks for school administrators and BOGs, and locating Equity Advisors who have an initial mandate to focus on gender mainstreaming and gender-sensitive and pro-poor school environments in a Special Office under the SMOE Director General. 4. Focusing technical assistance on community mobilization and advocacy, strengthening initiatives that are already underway rather than starting from scratch. For example, continuing to build upon the PAGE and GEM mechanisms and providing funds and technical assistance to education offices that are going forward on their own would be important contributions. As just one example, the NBEG SMOE Directorate of GESC has a plan for 2010 to implement several important activities to raise the level of consciousness among communities about the importance of education for girls, but it has no money to carry out the plan.122 4.3 Follow-On Programs Perhaps the most striking conclusion from the MTE is the stark need in the secondary education sub-sector. It is an extraordinary credit to Southern Sudan and its people and communities that a secondary school system even exists and functions as well as it does, given the huge constraints. The possibility of follow-on programs provides an opportunity to think about applying some of the new aid approaches detailed in the Accra Agenda for Action123 to meet the objectives of the GEE Project and even to expand the parameters. For example, an approach that relies more on government leadership could provide the opportunity to significantly increase capacity within the sector. There will remain a continuing need to provide extra support for female students, but these objectives might be achieved while at the same time expanding secondary schools and improving the quality of education for all students. For example, an obvious way to get girls into secondary schools, scholarships aside, is to expand secondary education, including boarding schools with female dormitories. The schools would be even more attractive, including to girls, if they could provide a decent quality education in a gender-sensitive school environment. A ‘radical’ follow on program is described in Annex 15. 4.4 Summary of Recommendations 1. Rationalize activities, focusing only on those that have a strong likelihood of becoming sufficiently embedded in MOEST and the SMOEs plans and budgets. Identify schools and counties where there is fertile ground for initiating school community-based support to soften the gap that will be left once GEE ceases operations. 2. Enact cost-saving measures and shift any savings to core activities (including expanding the value of the education stipends and the school improvement grants), taking into account a conflict sensitive analysis, sustainability (including building capacity in targeted skill and knowledge areas at the school, county, state, and GOSS levels), and exit activities. 3. Immediately draft and put into effect a sustainability and exit strategy, and a standard risk management matrix taking into account GEE’s ending date of August 31, 2012. The strategy should incorporate targeted capacity enhancement of secondary school heads and female teachers, BOGs (including the addition of females, if they are underrepresented), and county education officers in school governance, community engagement and gender-sensitive schools in order to develop a School Equity Action Plan taking any Girls’ Education Movement (GEM) and Promotion and Advocacy of Girls’ Education (PAGE) and mentoring 122 In NBEG in 2009, only 13 percent of the P8 students were girls, and only 10 percent of the S1 students were female. 123 Also see UNIFEM (2004) Gender Equality Now. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 44 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) initiatives into account. These two initiatives are embedded within the MOEST and grew out of activities prior to the CPA.124 4. Immediately improve the monitoring and evaluation approach including (1) finalizing the data entry for the Access database (as a matter of urgency) in order to provide accurate figures on the number of schools and the number and type of scholarship students; (2) re-evaluating and potentially rationalizing and redefining the data being collected, including specifying outcome indicators and collecting supporting data; and (3) eliminating the Longitudinal Study or re-directing the approach to that of an end-of-project tracer study. For USAID 5. In the short- and medium-term, provide predictable support for improving the condition of the secondary education sub-sector itself, including provision of textbooks. A positive impact on Southern Sudan’s progress economically and on human development indicators will need a serious investment in this sub-sector by both donors and GOSS, including realistic amounts budgeted for conditional cash transfers and school improvement grants.125 6. Investigate the status of the Winrock International cost-share contribution and mitigate any negative impact on specific project activities (notably, the Leadership for Change initiative) financed through the cost￾share. 7. Facilitate a discussion between MOEST and Winrock to consider placing a senior gender adviser within a Special Office located under and with direct oversight by the Office of the Undersecretary. The Adviser should have demonstrated experience in assisting government ministries in a decentralized system to mainstream gender, develop gender-sensitive policies, and undertake gender-responsive budgeting at a national level. Any TA at the state level should reflect a similar arrangement. For future TA, consider locating personnel under the Academy for Educational Development’s (AED) Technical Assistance Project (TAP) rather than within a new or existing gender equity project, assuming TAP or a similar program continues beyond 2011. 8. Allow scholarship-award and recipient indicator targets to be reduced so that no new students are taken on to replace recipients who have left GEE prematurely, especially those who have moved outside Southern Sudan.126 This shift should enable a greater emphasis on quality and sustainability. 124 In further discussion with USAID (January 4, 2011) it was highlighted that the activities listed here were part of the year three work plan for GEE (drafted in 2009) and as such the recommendation should be to continue these activities. 125 Buckland’s (2005) advice to the World Bank is that it “Provide leadership in secondary education.” Available data suggest that the share of resource to secondary education declines in immediate post-conflict years, although enrolment expands rapidly. Of the US$1billion spent on education project in conflict countries since 1994, only 8 percent was specifically targeted to secondary education programs, while 46 percent was specifically for primary and 12 percent specifically for tertiary programs. In addition, by enhancing the secondary education sub-sector (particularly the quality of education as noted in the previous footnote) as a whole, females will be more likely to attend with the associated benefits following. For example, Herz and Sperling (2005) note that, “Providing girls one extra year of education beyond the average boosts eventual wages by 10–20 percent. Students have found returns to primary education on the order of 5 to 15 percent for boys and slightly higher for girls. . . .” A leading development economist has found that returns to female secondary education are in the 15–25 percent range. Yale economist Paul Schultz has found that wage gains from additional education tend to be similar if not somewhat higher for women than for men, and that the returns to secondary education in particular are generally appreciably higher for women: “Increasing investments in women’s human capital, especially education, should be a priority for countries seeking both economic growth and human welfare . . . The case for redirecting educational investment to women is stronger the greater the initial disparity in investments between men and women (Schultz 2002).” A 100–country study by the World Bank shows that increasing the share of women with a secondary education by 1 percent boosts annual per capita income growth by 0.3 percentage points. This is a substantial amount considering that per capita income gains in developing countries seldom exceed 3 percent a year (Dollar and Gatti 1999). 126 According to GEE Project documentation (PMP June 2009, p. 26), dropout rates of TTI recipients were higher than the anticipated 10 percent, although data from 2003 (Dr. Jackie Kirk, “Toward a Girls Education Support Program: A Draft Report”) indicate that this is not unexpected. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 45 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 9. Improve the quality of the “indicators” (including improved disaggregation) against which GEE must report to consist of a mix of input, output, and outcome (short-, medium-, and long-term) indicators.127 Possibilities to choose from include: • Number of students who receive scholarship awards (disaggregated by sex and secondary school or TTI/TTC); • Number of scholarship recipients who utilize all the years of their award and with no breaks in enrollment (disaggregated by sex and secondary school or TTI/TTC); • Number of scholarship recipients who pass their school leaving examination with average or above average scores (disaggregated by sex); • Number of BOG members (disaggregated by sex) trained in school-based management and gender￾sensitive school environments; • Number of teaching and learning support materials (including teacher reference books, student textbooks, pamphlets, and notebooks distributed); • Number of individual action plans carried out fully; and • Number of gender-sensitive and pro-poor changes enacted at the school and state levels.128 For GoSS 10. With USAID and GEE, put into place a functional approach for utilizing technical assistance, particularly long-term technical assistance, that incorporates roles and responsibilities, mutual accountability, and a mechanism to ensure that lack of progress on the part of either party can be resolved effectively and efficiently. Technical assistance is an extremely expensive form of aid and ineffective and/or inefficient use of this resource must be addressed for the benefit of all concerned, particularly the child in the school.129 11. Initiate action on an MOEST-funded scholarship program and incorporate the GEE Leadership for Change and Mentoring Program initiatives into the MOEST and SMOE annual plans (specifically under the Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education and the Girls Education Movement initiatives) in order to address the issue of sustainability of benefits. V. LESSONS LEARNED 1. Numerical targets—such as those in the GEE RFA (which also do not conform to best practice for indicator construction)—can take over as the ‘raison d’etre’ of a project, driving an implementing agency to meet and achieve numbers without any of the parties concerned ever understanding the reality behind the numbers. There is a tendency of implementers to give special attention to activities, including M&E efforts, that focus on the indicators required by USAID and give less attention to other aspects of the project that may also be equally or more important. In the case of GEE, this meant a high level of focus on the scholarships, which were being measured by indicators, and less attention to the advocacy and community mobilization activities, which have no associated indicators. 127 The current indicators do not conform to standard indicator construction practices (such as SMART), nor do the indicators proposed by the evaluators. The evaluators have done this intentionally to align with current USAID-Sudan practices. It is up to USAID to determine whether it is going to conform to best practice. 128 This list of indicators are a mix of those GEE already reports on which could be improved and other indicators which are not part of GEE’s reporting but, if included, could improve their ability to report results. 129 For sound advice on the capacity development indicators and the use of TA, see Morgan (1997). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 46 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 2. Scholarship program targeting and selection must be intentional and purposeful or the overall development impact may be limited. In a conflict-affected state such as Southern Sudan, virtually every secondary school student could feasibly qualify for a scholarship stipend. To ensure maximum benefit and to avoid the potential for causing harm, a targeting strategy that is strategic and discriminating with a long-range view toward workforce and social development is necessary. 3. Volatility in funding for identified activities is highly undesirable in a Conflict-Affected State. CAFS are already marginalized financially by the donor community and are especially susceptible to the negative effects of any volatility in the assumed volume and the flow of funds. A cost-share contribution by an implementing agency is highly undesirable—unless the agency can show up￾front that it has already raised the funds promised.130 The implementer should make clear from the onset the sources of the cost-share such as additional funds and in-kind contributions. It may be difficult for the implementer to raise the additional funds. And there is time and effort expended by home office and field staff to raise these funds or to monitor in-kind contributions, which takes away from the focus on implementation. To the extent that the cost-share is based on in-kind contributions such as donated community labor to help with construction, it is likely that such labor would have been available in any case and, thus, no actual additional resources to the project are provided. 4. The lack of a viable risk management matrix puts undue pressure on personnel and counterparts to respond to unanticipated (but by and large predictable) situations and is a threat to benefits and impact. A risk assessment should be a standard part of a project, as it will help the implementer (and USAID) better plan for contingencies, reduce the likelihood that the implementer will be caught off-guard, and enable appropriate responses to events that could affect the project. 5. Unnecessary mistakes can arise when the development hypothesis and a project’s logic have not been adequately tested, reviewed, and adjusted at key points in time (prior to the Request for Applications, prior to implementation, and periodically throughout the course of implementation). 6. Lack of a strong contractual obligation for collaboration with other designated USAID projects results in limited engagement and benefit. If USAID is serious about this requirement, appropriate emphasis in the contract, oversight, and funding need to be taken into account. USAID strongly encourages its projects to collaborate, but often there is little overlap and each project had its own priorities. USAID needs to provide ongoing encouragement to all of its partners to develop viable collaborative processes. 7. The absence of a conflict-sensitive analysis of the project design and subsequent activities can actually undermine the ‘peace dividend.’ See section 3.4.6, Peace Dividend and Conflict Analysis for elaboration. 8. A clear understanding of and agreement by both the government and the implementing agency on how to use technical assistance effectively will help ensure that the investment may be wasted. Given that TA is considered generally to be the most expensive form of aid and is probably the most expensive component of GEE, it is particularly important in human resource–poor countries such as Southern Sudan. While TA is needed most in such countries, the limited level of well-qualified local staff also make it a challenge for the host country to become sufficiently involved in determining the need for TA, preparing the SOW, and supervising the advisors. Nevertheless, it is just such shared 130 SCF (2009). According to SCF, “ . . . of the $9 billion basic education aid needed worldwide, $5.2 billion should support children living in conflict-affected fragile states—or approximately $45 per school-age child. . . . (Conflict-Affected and Fragile) countries are home to half of all the children out of school worldwide (37 million out of 72 million children)—yet they receive less than one-fifth of basic education aid.” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 47 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) responsibilities with the implementer that are especially important. TA is critical and the implementer and the government must establish a close collaborative relationship regarding technical assistance, including mutual responsibility in terms of supervision and accountability. 9. Including a milestone linked to handover processes in the contract/cooperative agreement of both implementing agencies may help safeguard the quality and integrity of the handover. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 48 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEXES ANNEX 1: SCOPE OF WORK Management Systems International (MSI) SUPPORT Program with USAID/Sudan131 Mid-Term Review of the Gender Equity through Education Program (GEE) Cooperative Agreement (CA) No. 650-A-00–07–00003–00 Implemented by Winrock International (Estimated start date: May 2010) Introduction and Background Sudan is the largest country in Africa, borders 9 countries, and has a population estimated at 40 million. Since independence in 1956, Sudan has suffered from civil war, with only a decade of troubled peace from 1972 to 1983. Southern Sudan and the critical border areas (consisting of the northern states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, plus Abyei132—commonly referred to as the Three Areas) are characterized by years of underdevelopment, war, famine, drought and flood, producing a crisis of enormous proportions across the region and resulting in the devastation of economic, political and social structures. In addition to the loss of lives, opportunities and infrastructure, the war displaced families and divided communities. In consequence, the health, education and infrastructure status of the Sudanese people are among the poorest globally. After decades of civil war, Sudan’s warring parties signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January of 2005. Since that time the country has taken steps toward peace, reconciliation and good governance, although the pace has been slower than expected or desired. Despite the signing of the CPA, Sudan remains a vulnerable state. Its children, many of whom are orphans, returning refugees and ex-combatants, are particularly at risk—especially in the “hot spots” of the Three Areas. It is essential that displaced and other affected people, particularly orphans and ex-combatant youth, be safely reintegrated into their communities. In the case of the youth, affected by the many conflicts and tensions during the past 21 years, the provision of basic education is critical to providing a solid foundation upon which their future success and contribution to society can be based. The provision of education can also be seen as a tangible result of the “peace dividends” expected by Sudanese citizens and, in turn, will contribute to stabilization in the region. Durable stability is contingent upon demonstrative and observable change “on the ground” and education, highly valued by the Sudanese, is both a necessary and visible symbol of that change. In many areas, primary health and education services have been almost exclusively externally funded. Non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), and multilateral and bilateral aid agencies offering humanitarian relief became the prime providers of an array of much needed services. As 131 MSI has a 3-year contract to provide Mission-wide support to USAID/Sudan in program and project evaluation and designs, analytic studies, MIS management, translation services, facilities management, VIP hosting, and research. An in-country team, based in Juba provides these services, supplemented by short-term technical assistance. 132 Under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Abyei was established as a special geographic area under the Presidency; Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile are administered by the Government of National Unity (GNU). The ten states in the South are administered by the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 49 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) peace is consolidated, USAID will continue to support a responsible transition from emergency to development assistance that seeks to improve access to and quality of basic education. Education and health activities are reinforced by investment in other essential services, such as water and sanitation, in an effort to rebuild local communities, reduce tensions, and provide the much sought-after peace dividends. Some pertinent human development statistics from Southern Sudan include: • Over 90% of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. • 85% of the men and 92% of women cannot read and write. • Only 27% of girls are in school. • 97% of the population has no access to sanitation. • Some of the deadliest diseases in the world are prevalent, including Malaria, Yellow Fever, Cholera, Meningitis, Rift Valley Fever, Ebola, Hemorrhagic Fever and Guinea Worm. Polio, once eradicated, has reemerged. • The maternal mortality rate is the highest in the world and the child immunization rate the lowest. One out of seven women who become pregnant will probably die of pregnancy related complications. A 15 year old girl has a higher chance of dying in childbirth than finishing primary school. USAID Education and Country Strategies Under the United States Government (USG) Strategic Framework, education and health fall under the Investing in People objective, which also includes institutional capacity building in these areas. In 2005, the Sudan Mission developed and approved a new strategy based upon a Fragile States concept which placed primary importance on nurturing achievement of a just and lasting peace through the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). It has two strategic objectives (SO): (i) averting and resolving conflict and (ii) promoting stability, recovery and democratic reform in Sudan. USAID Education Program for Sudan: Overview The Education Portfolio contributes to both SOs through activities which bolster confidence in the CPA and government’s capacity to deliver social services and peace dividends. It helps to establish the foundations for an effective, equitable and quality education system. It supports capacity building for the education officials that make and implement policies. It works to improve service delivery at the community level, promote access to grades 1–8, English language competency and literacy, equitable access and education opportunities for girls, and teacher training. In the Three Areas it also promotes a more integrated approach by linking local authorities, educators, and health workers to build awareness of and improve health and enhance education opportunities at the community level. Gender Equity through Education Program (GEE) Linkages to Education and Country Strategies GEE contributes to the USG foreign assistance objective of “Investing in People” and to USAID’s Education Program Area and to the Program Elements of Basic Education, Maternal and Child Health, and Other Public Health Threats. It is designed to directly address the cross-cutting areas of conflict mitigation, gender, and HIV/AIDS. In addition, by filling service gaps and pursuing more equitable access to education, the project indirectly contributes to improving security by increasing community stability and reducing conflict among the disenfranchised. Finally, GEE specifically addresses the Global partnership Millennium Development Goal #3—Promoting gender equity and empowering women. Program Goals, Objectives, and Technical Approach Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 50 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) The overall goal of the GEE program is to provide incentives to encourage females to complete secondary school and continue their education at teacher training institutes in order to become teachers thus impacting female enrollment over time. GEE has three objectives which contribute to this overall goal i. Reducing financial and infrastructure barriers; ii. Reducing social barriers; and iii. Reducing institutional barriers. Each objective is addressed by a specific set of activities. Financial and infrastructure constraints are addressed through GEE’s Scholarship Program. This provides scholarships so that females (and disadvantaged boys) can attend secondary school and Teacher Training Institutes. Scholarship packages also include a small allowance for personal items and a facilities improvement grant to the school. Social barriers to gender equity in education are addressed through the Advocacy, Community Mobilization and Mentoring Program. Sub-activities under this component include: distribution of comfort kits to female scholars, development and distribution of learning materials, a mentoring program for scholars, and support to other government programs related to increasing gender equity in education. Institutional constraints are addressed through provision of technical assistance and training to the MOEST Directorate for Gender Equity and Social Change and State Ministries of Education and focus groups examining men’s and boys issues in education. Also included in this component is a longitudinal study on the impact of scholarships on girls’ completion of secondary and teacher training education. Mid-Term Evaluation Purpose, Overview, and Context Since elaboration of the Fragile States concept and the signing of the CPA, USAID’s program in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas has been in transition from humanitarian assistance to one focused on longer￾term development. The program has grown considerably and, in some cases, in a sporadic manner. Difficulties encountered when the program was run entirely from Nairobi and to the changing program landscape as dictated by Washington adversely affected program implementation. In light of this, the Mission decided to undertake an array of mid- and late-term evaluations. While wanting to address a variety of specific issues and questions that can lead to corrective measures in the projects under review (elaborated upon in a subsequent section), the Mission also wants to address the following in all mid-term evaluations: • Is the project effective in enhancing the demand for and supply of social services, institutionalizing a decentralized approach to service delivery, promoting accountability and good governance at all levels? • What are the best and weaker practices in terms of project implementation? Are there key lessons to be learned that would be useful for other USAID projects in Sudan? While steady progress has been made over the last four years, the evolving context, nascent institutional structures, and political uncertainties in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas have had considerable impact on the transition from humanitarian to development assistance. Security remains a major problem in many places and its impact on achieving results and deliverables in a timely manner cannot be underestimated. The evolving nature of the needs, uncertain political future, and ongoing security problems probably mean that USAID programs cannot perform to the same standards as in countries that have fully transitioned or were never fragile to start with. Any evaluation—particularly of a project at mid-term—must reflect these contextual factors. Objectives and Outcomes In addition to the above, the key objectives for the current mid-term review include: • Assessing GEE progress to date in meeting the deliverables of the Cooperative Agreement (including any amendments to the original) and developing lessons for future USAID/Sudan investments. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 51 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Assessing GEE in the context of coordinating with other USAID-supported programs in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas (TAP, BRIDGE, HEAR and SSIRI). • Assessing the GEE approach in the context of coordinating with non-USG implementing partners and stakeholders (including humanitarian organizations, UN agencies, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, NGOs and FBOs). • Making recommendations for: 4. Scaling up or phasing out project components in order to achieve maximum impact in the time remaining. 5. Short-term adjustments in the CA that would improve performance in the remaining period. 6. Follow-on programs to (i) expand and sustain current efforts and provide tangible benefits in terms of improving education opportunities and outcomes for girls and young women, (ii) support the CPA, and (iii) enhance the work of other sectors (i.e. Health, Economic Growth, Democracy and Governance). Key Issues and Questions A. Project design 1. How well does GEE correspond to the GOSS education priorities? 2. Is the GEE approach having success in addressing the financial, infrastructure, social and institutional barriers to girls’ education? Provide recommendations on which elements should be strengthened, modified, cut and (or) added to improve the approach. 3. Is the monitoring and reporting system providing the program with adequate data to evaluate its impact? How successful has the Longitudinal Study been in establishing the baseline for further evaluation? 4. Describe and assess the measures being undertaken to ensure the sustainability of the capacities being developed under GEE. What are the constraints to sustainability, and what can GEE do to mitigate them? B. Project Implementation 5. Provide a brief description of the program outcomes, deliverables, and products. Assess the quality of the deliverables to date. Identify particular strategies, activities, or programs that have either failed or have been effective and describe why. For example, • Is the activity effectively addressing gender issues such as inclusiveness, training and promotion, and the overall gender gap in education? If not, why not? What are the areas for improvement? • Is the activity addressing other equity issues (disenfranchised, disabled, returnees, etc) • Is the approach to identifying scholars succeeding in terms of transparency and coverage of all potential candidates? If not why not? What role have other incentives/activities played in supporting scholars and encouraging them to continue with their education (e.g. facilities improvement grants, comfort kits, learning materials, mentors, community mobilization, etc)? • How effective has the program been in encouraging female secondary school leavers to consider the teaching profession? • Has the use of subcontractors been successful? If not, why not? If not, what mitigating measures have been taken to improve implementation? 6. Is GEE progress to date in meeting the deliverables of the Cooperative Agreement and GEE’s implementation targets (as specified in project documents) on track for the project’s current stage of implementation? Describe any areas of concern or of accelerated success in implementation. 7. Does the program have environmental compliance issues? If so, how well has it performed against USG guidelines and regulations? 8. Assess the quality and performance of Winrock International in managing the implementation of GEE. What are the team’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement with respect to management of Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 52 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) the cooperative agreement and communications with USAID, GOSS and stakeholders? Has Winrock provided adequate value for money? 9. Identify the best and weakest practices, success stories, and testimonials. Are there important lessons to be learned, and is there a story which can best demonstrate to the U.S. Congress lasting impacts from the project? 10. What relationships has GEE developed with other implementing partners in the areas in which it operates (both USAID and others)? Has the program effectively leveraged these relationships, and what has been the impact on the project? 11. What are the main internal (endogenous) and external (exogenous) factors or events that have impacted project implementation? How has GEE responded? Did GEE do an adequate risk assessment at the outset? C. Project Impact to Date 12. Is this activity rendering a clear CPA “peace dividend? To what extent has the GEE program responded to the education needs of females in Southern Sudan? What has been the impact of program interventions to date? 13. Is the program demonstrating that it is effectively building capacity of State Ministries of Education and MOEST to address issues of gender parity and equity in a broader sense? Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 53 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 2: GEE MTE MISSION SCHEDULE GEE MISSION SCHEDULE MAY 27—JULY 6, 2010 DAY DATE LOCATION/TASKS MAY Thursday 27 Travel to Juba Friday 28 Travel to Juba Saturday 29 Juba-Team Planning Meeting Sunday 30 Juba-Team Planning Meeting Monday 31 Juba-Meetings JUNE Tuesday 1 Juba-Meetings Wednesday 2 Juba-Meetings Thursday 3 Juba-Meetings Friday 4 Juba-Meetings Saturday 5 Juba-Meetings Sunday 6 Fly to Malakal Town, Malakal County, Upper Nile State Monday 7 Malakal Town, Malakal County, Upper Nile State Tuesday 8 Malakal Town, Malakal County, Upper Nile State Wednesday 9 Malakal Town, Malakal County, Upper Nile State Thursday 10 Fly to Juba Friday 11 Juba Saturday 12 Fly to Wau Town, Wau County, Western Bar el Ghazal State Sunday 13 Wau Town, Wau County, Western Bar el Ghazal State Monday 14 Wau Town, Wau County, Western Bar el Ghazal State and Aweil Town, Aweil County, Northern Bar el Ghazal State Tuesday 15 Wau and Aweil site visits Wednesday 16 Fly to Juba Saturday 17 Juba—Meetings Sunday 18 Juba—Meetings Monday 19 Juba—Work from hotel Tuesday 20 Juba (morning) and drive to Yei Town, Yei County, CES (4–5 hours) Wednesday 21 CES Yei County site visits Tuesday 22 CES Yei County site visits Wednesday 23 CES Lainya County site visits (morning) and drive to Juba around 1pm (4–5 hours) Thursday 24 Juba—FCR work Friday 25 Juba—FCR work Saturday 26 Juba-Prep for Presentation to Govts Sunday 27 Juba -Report writing Monday 28 Juba-Finalize Presentation to Govt PPP and Report writing Tuesday 29 Juba-De-briefing to USAID; Presentation to Govts Wednesday 30 Juba-Report writing JULY Thursday 1 Juba-Report writing (Val); Fly to Nairobi (Tom) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 54 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Friday 2 Juba-Report writing (Val in Juba/Tom in Nairobi) and submit draft Report to MSI (Val) Saturday 3 Fly to Nairobi (Val) Sunday 4 Fly to Johannesburg (Val) Monday 5 Fly to Sydney (Val) Tuesday 6 Arrive home (Val) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 55 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 3: EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF THE METHODOLOGY APPROACH AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH The Mid-Term Evaluation was a formative evaluation study that utilized a collaborative approach133 guided by the two external evaluators with the input of representatives from the three key organizations involved in GEE: GOSS-MOEST, USG-USAID, and Winrock International (WI). The collaborative nature of the evaluation was an intentional decision made on the basis of enhancing stakeholder understanding and ownership of the MTE findings and conclusions as well as the commitment to implementing the proposed recommendations. Site Selection The team canvassed a wide range of GEE stakeholders and direct and indirect beneficiaries in the course of the MTE, predominantly in four states selected by USAID and WI: Central Equatoria, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile, and Western Bahr el Ghazal. Western Equatoria State was on the original list of states to be visited, but it was dropped because of the travel logistics and a consensus that the schools there would add little new to the findings in the other states. The four states visited represent the regions within Southern Sudan—particularly the Equatorias, with a longer history of development and education and extensive use of English and the northern states with lower rates of enrollment, a lower percentage of female students, and extensive use of Arabic. In addition, Southern Kordofan was visited by one of the evaluators in March. Table 1 (below) provides a list of all institutions visited. School sites were selected on the basis of representativeness using the following characteristics: • Located in different regions within Southern Sudan (as described above) • GESP versus GEE schools • Type of school—government and private (religious) • Boarding and day schools • Target school population—coeducational, all girls, all boys 133 A collaborative evaluation “implies a varying level of involvement that considers the extent to which program staff and other stakeholders should be included as part of the evaluation team . . . is often empowering to participants . . . (and) enhances their understanding of evaluation so they gain new skills . . . promotes utilization of evaluation findings.” (O’Sullivan, 2004) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 56 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) TABLE 1: GEE MTE GOSS OFFICES AND SCHOOL SITE VISITS State County Payam School Name Type of School USAID Program # Scholars Supported in toto to Date Facilities Improvement $ in toto to Date • Language of Instruction Curriculum • Length of Academic Program • Any Significant Funding Support • Other Comments CES State Ministry of Education Lainya County Education Office Yei County Education Office CES Juba Juba Juba Commercial Secondary School Government GEE 127/313 (41%) 11,718/$5,258 • English Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 CES Juba Juba Dr. John Garang Secondary School Government National High School GEE 86/153 (56%) 8,274/$3,713 • English Pattern • Southern Sudan Curriculum • 4 CES Yei Yei Yei Girls Boarding School (Secondary) Government Boarding GESP/GEE 123/254 (48%) 10,575/$4,745 • English Pattern • Uganda Curriculum • 4 • NESEI CES Yei Yei Yei Teacher Training College TTC GESP/GEE 34/35 (97%) 4,820/$2,163 • English Pattern • Uganda Curriculum • 2 • ACROSS Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 57 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) CES Yei Glumbi Jambu Progressive College Government Secondary School GESP/GEE 6/18 (33%) 1,215/$545.24 • English Pattern • Uganda Curriculum • 4 • Community-built CES Lainya Loka Loka National Secondary School National Day Boarding GESP/GEE 73/89 (82%) • English Pattern • Uganda Curriculum • 4 Northern Bar el Ghazal State Ministry of Education NBEG Aweil Aweil Rabat Secondary School Government GEE 40/310 (13%) 4,410/$1,979 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 NBEG Aweil Aweil Aweil Secondary School Government National High School GEE 30/276 (11%) 3,570/$1,602 • English Pattern • Northern/Southern Sudan Curricula • 3 NBEG Aweil Aweil Aweil Girls Secondary School (GEE) Government GEE 35/35 (100%) 3,990/$1,790 • Arabic Pattern • Northern/Southern Sudan Curricula • 3 • New school—Community demanded that Govt build it Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 58 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Kauda, Southern Kordofan Regional Education Office Southern Kordofan Kauda Kauda TTC TTC GEE 32/32 2008 (100%) 32/34 2009 (94%) 7,997/$3,586 • English Programs ranging from 2–4 years • Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) Southern Kordofan Kauda Yusuf Kuwa TTI GEE 30/31 2008 (97%) 4,834/$2,168 • English Year program; some students in first year take intensive English • Money arrived too late to pay scholarships in 2009 Upper Nile State Ministry of Education Office Malakal County Education Office Upper Nile Malakal Southern Assosa Girls Secondary School Government GEE 82/204 (40%) 7,938/$3,562 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 Upper Nile Malakal Northern Atar Boys Secondary School Government National High School GEE 62/224 (28%) 6,258/$2,808 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 Upper Nile Malakal Northern St. Lwanga Secondary School Private- Catholic GEE 111/341 (33%) 10,374/$4,655 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 59 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Upper Nile Malakal Northern St Mary’s Teacher Training College Private￾Catholic GEE 17/19 (89%) 1,596/$716134 • English Pattern • MoEST In-service Teacher Training Curriculum • 2 • Students receive stipend from SMOE; TTC solicits money internationally from religious groups Western Bar el Ghazal State Ministry of Education WBEG Wau Wau El Salaam Secondary School Government GEE 39/675 (6%) 4,326/$1,941 • English Pattern • Northern/Southern Sudan Curricula • 3 WBEG Wau Wau Mbili Girls Secondary School GEE 140/403 (35%) 12,810/$5,748 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 WBEG Wau Wau Busere Secondary School GEE 35/277 (13%) 3,990/$1,790 • Arabic Pattern • Northern Sudan Curriculum • 3 134 This figure may not be accurate. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 60 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Participants 385 individuals representing students, teachers, education officials, partners, and others (see Table 2 below for a breakdown by participant group of individuals interviewed) with a perspective on GEE were interviewed. In each state, the team met with SMOE education administrators where available, typically the Director General for General Education, the Directors of Gender Equity and Social Change (and any available personnel), Secondary Education, Planning and Administration, and Teacher Education. The team met with some county education administrators from the same departments as well. Either in those meetings or in a separate meeting, the team met with representatives of USAID partners, particularly the TAP and BRIDGE programs. TABLE 2: NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS INTERVIEWED DISAGGREGATED BY SEX Participant Group Female Male Total Board of Governors (and/or Parent Teacher Association) 0 12 12 Development Partner 9 13 22 GOSS (MOEST, SMOE HQ and County Personnel and MOGSWRA) 15 29 44 Mentor 16 9 25 Parent 1 2 4 Scholarship Recipient 136 37 173 Teacher (including Head and Deputy) 15 78 78 Winrock International Personnel 7 6 13 TOTAL 199 186 385 Site Visit Process The team spent approximately three hours at each school, beginning with a meeting with the Head Teacher for an overview of the school and the role of the GEE Project. The team then split into three groups. One group continued to meet with the head teacher and, if possible, one or two other teachers who have been closely involved with the GEE Project. Other members of the team met with a group of GEE scholars typically about eight to ten. The third group from the team met with teachers. In each group, the team members utilized standard, open-ended questions to guide the discussion. The key participant interviews with the head teacher included a detailed collection format to obtain a range of data about the school and the GEE program. All data in relation to people was disaggregated by sex. Such information included the number of teachers and their qualifications, number of students, number of scholars by grade level, and the number of disabled scholars. The team also collected information on dropouts, repetition, and absenteeism, plus data on the PTAs and BOGs, and the mentoring program. Data on tuition and other costs, the support by GEE for tuition, personnel needs, comfort kits, and the improvement grant. Finally, the team reviewed the documentation required by the Project. Table 3, “Data Sources (People) and Evaluation Topics” (below) provides a complete list of participant groups and the evaluation areas explored with each group. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 61 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. These data were gathered using a variety of research methods including Focus Group Discussions (FCG) with structured questionnaires and individual participant interviews using semi-structured questionnaires. Quantitative data consisted of information from schools relating to enrollment, the number of scholars, and financial data regarding tuition and other fees. Primary and secondary sources were also utilized, most notably, GOSS, USG and Winrock International GEE documents. A list of pertinent primary and secondary source reference materials can be found in Annex 17: Bibliography. Analysis of the data was undertaken in an iterative manner throughout the fieldwork, culminating in a one-day team workshop to agree on findings, conclusions, and recommendations (FCR). Consultations were undertaken primarily in a face-to-face mode with interviews with the Winrock home office staff conducted via telephone. During the unstructured and semi-structured individual interviews and the FGDs, participants were asked to respond to a series of topical areas and the interviewers then followed up with open-ended probe questions. The evaluators reformatted the GEE Project Grant Tracker database so that it would be easier to analyze the data. In addition, the evaluators entered the new data collected from each school visited and carried out some analyses. Integrity of the Data: Validity and Reliability Data were captured in note form with strict attention paid to recording the informant’s speech exactly. Where the speech or the meaning was not clear, the team sought clarification with non-leading, non-evaluative follow-up questions such as, “Could you explain in another way what you mean?” or “Did you mean X or Y or something else?” During focus group interviews, the team ensured that all informants had an equal share of time to provide their opinions. As the interviews progressed, the team identified emerging themes or patterns and verbalized these, checking with the informant(s) for their agreement or disagreement. Data were triangulated to the greatest extent possible in order to address issues of data integrity so that the findings/patterns that emerged were not the views of isolated individuals. The participation of the implementing agency personnel during consultations did not affect the team’s objectivity. The evaluators were sensitive to any indications from beneficiaries and stakeholders about an unwillingness to be frank in front of any respective team member and endeavored to provide other opportunities for discussion. Limitations of the Research The determination of the states to be visited was made prior to the arrival of the external evaluators. While this was not ideal, the team was obliged to use the states that had been nominated and the team was able to provide input into the determination of the schools to be visited. There do not appear to have been any negative repercussions resulting from this situation, aside from the fact that only four states were visited. Time did not allow for the testing of any interview protocols or questionnaires before their use; however, based on the first interviews, the protocols were refined. Likewise, the data collection format used at the schools was improved based on its use in the first couple of schools. Other limitations of the evaluation were as follows: • Not all team members participated all the time, which had an impact on the data collection process established and on the ongoing analysis of the data. • The team was not able to meet with parents and with only a few PTA and BOG members. • There was only one visit to a school/school community outside of a major urban area. GEE schools are predominantly in urban areas; however, it would have been important to be able to visit schools/school communities in outlying counties. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 62 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • The primary information repository—the Grant Tracker—was not up to date, in part, because of the transition to the new Access database, which is not scheduled to be usable with data entered until August 2010. This lack of complete and up-to-date data available affected the team’s ability to verify GEE project documentation on its achievements or to run any additional analytics based on the GEE monitoring data. • The lack of time to field-test the instruments developed prior to use. Refinement of the instruments and processes for the FGD and practice undertaking the data collection had to be done as the evaluation was being undertaken, which potentially compromised the rigor of the research. • Although recognized qualitative research methods were used to gather data, the analysis of the qualitative data was only as rigorous as time and circumstances allowed. The evaluators attempted to ensure that the principles and practices of a rigorous qualitative data analysis were followed, but there were constraints that obviously affected the research. • The evaluators were not given access to project financial information other than the very general figures that were contained in the Cooperative Agreement and subsequent amendments. This situation limited the extent of the analysis that could be undertaken with respect to value for money and efficiency. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 63 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) TABLE 3: DATA SOURCES (PEOPLE) AND EVALUATION TOPICS FOCUS USAID￾Activity Manager Min GESWRA MOEST (GESC) MOEST (Undersec, Dirs 2nd Ed, Tchr Ed, Quality Prom, Trng Participants) SMOE HQ (Min, DG, Dirs 2nd Ed, Tchr Ed, Quality, GESC staff) County Ed Officers WI Mgmt WI-TA Partner s Relations Beneficiary (Students, Mothers) Mentor BOGs (Member, SchoolHead) Subcontractor (SWAN, Women’s Self￾Help, Binongo) Alignment with Government (GOSS and USG) XXX XXX XXX XXX X X Management￾Effectiveness XXX XXX XX XXX X X X XXX XXX XX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX Management-Efficiency XXX XXX X XXX XXX X XX XXX XX Partnerships (USAID, GOSS, BRIDGE, HEAR, SSIRI, TAP) XXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX X Relationships (UNICEF, ACROSS, JRS, TWG￾GESC) n/a XXX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX XX X XX Quality (documents/reporting, personnel, products, M&E, . . . ) XXX XX XXX XXX XXX X X XXX XXX XX X XXX XXX XX Inclusion (gender, disabilities, ethnicity) XXX XXX XXX XX XX X X X XXX XXX XX XX XXX XX XXX X Peace Dividend/Conflict Sensitivity XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X XX XX XX XXX XX XX XXX X Impact XXX XX XXX XXX XXX X X X XXX XXX X XX XXX XXX XXX X Sustainability XXX XX XXX XXX XXX X X X XXX XXX X X X XX XXX XX GEEP Approach (design integrity, appropriateness/relevanc XXX XXX XX XXX X X XXX XXX XX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 64 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) e) X Future Directions XXX XX XXX XXX XXX X X XXX XXX X XX XXX XXX XXX XXX NB: Need to ensure that out of the Target Groups (above), there are individuals we can interview about their knowledge of the Leadership for Change training, the M&E Committee(s) and the School . We need to ensure that the range of individuals who participated are represented (i.e., L4C—MOEST and SMOE HQ personnel; M&E Committees; School and Student Selection Participants). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 65 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 4: ALIGNMENT WITH GOVERNMENT The following content is included to enable easy access to content from documents of relevance to GEE’s alignment with Government laws, policies and intentions. Commitments to International Agreements Sudan is a signatory to a number of international agreements of relevance to the GEE project: the Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) established in 1965 and signed by Sudan in 1990. Sudan is one of seven countries (including the USA) that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) that would provide an internationally agreed framework for women’s rights. However, Sudan does ascribe to the Millennium Development Goals, including Goal 3, “Promote gender equality and empower women” with the corresponding target, “Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2015, and in all levels of education no later than 2015.” Commitments on a National Level Several documents produced by the Government of Southern Sudan are of relevance to GEE and deal with issues related to women, children, people with disabilities and diversity. 1.Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005 6. (2) English and Arabic shall be the official working languages at the level of the governments of Southern Sudan and the States as well as languages of instruction for higher education. (3) There shall be no discrimination against the use of either English or Arabic at any level of government or any stage of education. 20. (1) Women shall be accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men. (2) Women shall have the right to equal pay for equal work and other related benefits with men. (3) Women shall have the right to participate equally with men in public life. (4) All levels of government in Southern Sudan shall: (a) promote women’s participation in public life and then representation in the legislative and executive organs by at least twenty-five percent as an affirmative action to redress imbalances created by history, customs and traditions; (b) enact laws to combat harmful customs and traditions that undermine the dignity and status of women 33. (1) Education is a right for every citizen and all levels of government in Southern Sudan shall provide access to education without discrimination as to religion, race, ethnicity, HIV status, gender or disability. (2) All levels of government in Southern Sudan shall promote education at all levels and shall ensure free and compulsory education at the primary level; they shall also provide free illiteracy eradication programmes. 34. (1) All levels of government in Southern Sudan shall guarantee to persons with special needs participation in society and the enjoyment of rights and freedoms set out in this Constitution, especially access to public utilities, suitable education and employment. 41. All levels of government in Southern Sudan shall: (a) promote education at all levels to create the necessary qualified cadres for development; Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 66 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) (b) mobilize public, private and communal resources and capabilities for education and promotion of scientific research geared towards development; (d) recognize the cultural diversity of Southern Sudan and encourage such diverse cultures to harmoniously flourish and find expression through education and the media. 43. All levels of government in Southern Sudan shall: (a) adopt policies and provide facilities for the welfare of children and youth and ensure that they develop morally and physically, and are protected from moral and physical abuse and abandonment. 2.Government of Southern Sudan: The Child Act 2008 (Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development) 14. Right to Education and Well-Being (2) Every child has the right to education regardless of the type or severity of the disability he or she may have. 23. Right to Protection from Marriage and other Negative and Harmful Cultural and Social Practices (1) Every child has the right to be protected from early marriage, forced circumcision, scarification, tattooing, piercing, tooth removal or any other cultural rite, custom or traditional practice that is likely to negatively affect the child’s life, health, welfare, dignity or physical, emotional, psychological, mental and intellectual development. 26. Rights of the Female Child. (1) Every female child has a right to be protected from sexual abuse and exploitation and gender-based violence, including rape, incest, early and forced marriage, female circumcision and female genital mutilation. (2) Every female child has the following rights— (a) the right of equal participation on a non-discriminatory basis as partners with a male child in social, economic and political activities; (c) the right to develop their full potential and skills through equal access to education and training. (3) No female child shall be expelled from school due to pregnancy or motherhood or hindered from continuing her education after one year of lactation. 27. Rights of Children with Disabilities. Every child with a disability has the right to. . . . education and training to help him or her enjoy a full and decent life in dignity and achieve the greatest possible degree of self-reliance and social integration. Duties of the Government 36. Recognition of the Child Rights Enshrined in this Act. 39. Duties of Parents (d) ensure that their children receive fulltime education suitable to their ages, ability and aptitude. 3.Government of Southern Sudan: Southern Sudan Education Act, 2008 (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology): Principles (iv) Education shall promote love, pride and respect for Southern Sudan’s diverse and positive cultural heritage. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 67 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) (v) Education shall promote gender equity throughout the primary, secondary, tertiary, alternative systems and all other institutions of learning. (vi) Education shall inculcate in the individual awareness of and respect for life, human dignity in general and human rights in particular, especially the rights of the child and the girl child. (vii) Education shall promote spiritual development, tolerance and respect for different religious beliefs and practices. (xii) Education shall promote awareness of and care and concern for learners with special needs and train them in the knowledge, skills and attitudes that will enable them to be useful and productive to themselves and the society. Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change (i) The Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change shall be responsible for leading and managing the education sector efforts to respond to Southern Sudan’s social needs. (ii) The functions of this Directorate shall include but not be limited to: 1) providing strategic direction and leadership in gender and social change programming; 2) developing programs and working with the SMOEs to implement programmes to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate programmes contributing to social change (e.g. protection of the child’s rights; girl child protection, HIV prevention; psycho-social wellbeing; civic and peace education; land mine awareness; environmental awareness; special needs education; life skills education; nutrition education); 3) working with SMOEs to oversee implementation of gender and social change mainstreaming in schools throughout Southern Sudan; and 4) coordinating studies to develop, test and support good practices. 14. Roles and Responsibilities of Development Partners at the GOSS-MOEST Level (i) The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology shall mobilize and coordinate resources of Development Partners for programmes in the education sector that correspond to the development priorities of the Government of Southern Sudan. (ii) Development Partners shall implement programmes and activities in agreement with GOSS-MOEST or the SMOEs. (iii) Development Partners’ planned activities and programmatic interventions shall be approved and monitored by GOSS-MOEST or the SMOEs. 26. Gender Equity in Education (i) Every institution of learning and training shall adopt a policy of affirmative action and develop strategies to ensure the enrolment, retention and successful completion by female learners to address imbalances resulting from history, customs and traditions as stated in the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, article 20, subsections 4a and b. (ii) There shall be affirmative action in favor of female learners in matters relating to admissions at all levels of education and the awarding of scholarships at all institutions of learning and training. (iii) The curriculum and the teaching and learning materials shall be gender responsive. (iv) GOSS-MOEST shall develop and enforce guidelines for the protection of learners against all forms of exploitation and abuse by education service providers. (v) Sexual relationships between staff members and learners shall be prohibited. (vi) Any staff member who has made a learner pregnant shall be dismissed and decertified. (vii) Pregnant learners shall have the right to remain in school or gain re-entry after delivery. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 68 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) (vii) GOSS-MOEST, in collaboration with the Ministry of Social Affairs, shall discourage cultural practices which inhibit school attendance and completion for female students such as early marriage and pregnancy, as per the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, article 20, subsection 4b. (viii) The management of educational institutions shall ensure gender parity and equal opportunities in governance and decision-making at all levels as per the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, article 20, subsection 4a. (ix) A programme of affirmative action shall be introduced to encourage females to enter the education profession at all levels, to stay in the profession and to succeed as teachers and in leadership positions such as school heads, county and payam officers, and as officers within GOSS-MOEST and SMOEs. 28. Southern Sudan National Languages in Education (i) All Southern Sudan languages and the English and Arabic languages shall be treated as per the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, section 6, subsections 1–5. 34. Grants and Scholarships (i) The GOSS-MOEST may establish scholarships to be called the Southern Sudan Government and State Scholarships. (ii) The scholarships shall be tenable at all the Universities in the Sudan and any other university, college or institution approved by GOSS-MOEST. (iii) Every student to whom a scholarship is awarded under this Act shall sign a bond agreeing to return to Southern Sudan upon obtaining his or her qualifications and to serve within the education system at the GOSS-MOEST or SMOE level for a period of twice the period for which the scholarship was enjoyed, provided that the person is offered an appointment appropriate to his or her qualifications at a level of remuneration as is paid to holders of like offices in Southern Sudan. 4.Government of Southern Sudan: Education Policy Framework 2006–2007 (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology): Strategies of implementation MOEST plans of action are to: Construct, renovate and expand education facilities. Develop and distribute instructional materials. Implement school feeding programmes. Enhance basic education for marginalized or under-served population. Revitalize the tertiary educational system. Develop quality early childhood educational materials Develop quality curriculum materials for primary, secondary and alternative educational systems. Gradual phase out of the (old) curriculum now in use. Establish the Southern Sudan Examination Council. Develop efficient examination and learning assessment systems. Enhance technical and business education. Improve equity in access to the educational system. Enhance educational planning systems. Intensify the teaching of English. Improve the education management systems. Intensify teacher training to ensure quality. Recruit education personnel with focus on teachers. Provide office furniture and equipments. Introduce learning of computer knowledge and use in schools. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 69 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Quality Promotion & Innovation Develop a standard curriculum for all levels of schools. Design programs and regulations for examinations. Design and adopt standard methods of accreditation and certification. Develop quality instructional learning /training materials for all curricula. Develop standards for monitoring schools to ensure quality control. Promotion of Girls’ Education Balance domestic work to encourage girls go to school. Provide scholarships to create role models. Provide scholarships for the best girl performer. Provide scholarships to the economically disadvantaged, rural and disabled . Monitor progress in schools through school visits by Ministry officials. Strengthen PAGE (Promotion and Advocacy of Girls Education) to create awareness at state, county and payam levels. Constantly monitor dropout rates among girls. Provide school feeding to improve retention rate and daily attendance. Provide life skills, adult functional literacy and ALP for women and dropout girls. Enlighten girls about the importance of nutrition and hygiene. Linkup with relevant educational partners that promote girls education. Provide exchange school visits to relevant institutions and countries. Make schools attractive/enjoyable through games, clubs and associations. Promotion of Special Needs Education Create reporting mechanisms on children’s welfare at home and school. Ensure basic teacher training in special needs and child protection. Ensure sensitization on key issues like special needs education and child protection. Provide TOT in special needs education to accelerate coverage in schools. Secondary Education Secondary education standard has deteriorated over the years. This is due to under-staffing and acute shortage of learning materials. During the war, communities and NGOs generally contributed to support few secondary schools in Southern Sudan. However, despite its significance, secondary education has been given very little attention and funding to enable curriculum development, school construction and teachers training. In 2009, there were 160 secondary schools in Southern Sudan. (In 2008, there were 117 secondary schools including 57 government, 29 community, and 31 private and other)135 . Our projection is that there will be many returnee students from neighboring countries so there will be great need for:—Development of a standard curriculum and syllabus for secondary schools. Increasing and improving physical facilities. Recruitment of qualified teachers from both inside and neighboring counties. Provision of Textbooks and Teaching and Learning Materials, Including Laboratories Equipments and Apparatus. 135 MoE EMIS data Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 70 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Re-introduction of subject -based clubs and debating societies. MOEST plans to improve the standard of secondary education so that students are adequately prepared for higher education. Additionally MOEST is planning to construct 20 secondary schools and to rehabilitate 24 of the existing ones. Furthermore, MOEST will strive to promote and emphasize girls’ education through: Opening of boarding secondary schools for girls. Affirmative action by lowering school fees for girls. Provision of comfort kits. Provision of girl friendly learning environment. Other measures for improvement These measures shall be used; Improving academic standards—by setting examination and certification guide lines. Supervision of standards to be regularized. Improving school administration through formation of: Board of Governors Parents and Teachers Association Disciplinary committees (at school level for teachers) Teachers code of conduct. Morals and ethics—through religious instructions and code of conduct Leadership training—through encouragement of election of student leaders who will serve as part of the school administration. Extra-curricular activities—such as art, culture, drama, traditional dance, sport and music will have to be compulsory in all schools. Career guidance—to adequately help students make informed choices on what careers to undertake. Career guidance shall be introduced. Each school shall organize for a careers’ day each year. Types of secondary schools Apart from the conventional secondary schools, MOEST stands to focus on specialized secondary schools and these include: National Secondary Schools These shall accept students from all states in Southern Sudan. They shall enhance nation building and promote unity among our future generations. As stated by the South African politician, Cecil John, “An Education relation makes the strongest ties.” Two of such schools shall be established in each of these greater regions: Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile. Science Secondary Schools As previously mentioned, education has been severely retarded by the civil war. Consequently there is an acute shortage of prospective candidates for admission particularly into the university faculties of science such as, Agriculture Engineering Medicines Veterinary Sciences Information and Computer Technology Other specific technical support institutions Given the fact that no nation can advance on modern lines without good bases of scientific knowledge and research, the rapid production of sufficient number of students in the sciences will be a top priority of Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 71 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) MOEST. It is necessary to establish special secondary schools to be known as science schools, where the students will concentrate in the study of sciences and mathematics along with other subjects and languages. The schools will be equipped with adequate laboratories and classroom facilities and staffed with well trained teachers. Commercial / Business Secondary Schools Like the National Academic Secondary School, commercial secondary schools will be established in each of the three greater regions. They will admit limited number of students and measures will be taken to ensure the provision of adequate equipment facilities needed to give sound commercial education. Technical Schools The war in the Southern Sudan has led to massive destruction of infrastructures; many children have no schools or dropped out earlier leaving them without any skills to prepare them for later life thus leaving them to live in abject poverty. However skilled personnel are in higher demand in industrial, communication, business sectors etc. this has made it crucial for MOEST to revitalize our technical schools that have been run down by the war. For the moment MOEST will start with the renovation and revitalization of Torit and Tonj Technical Schools, to: Train youth and young adults in technical skills. Provide the youth with life skills, hence reduce dependency. Provide an alternative exit for primary school leavers. The targeted group will include the youth and adults, demobilized young soldiers and school dropouts. Quality Promotion and Innovation MOEST is committed to ensure quality education to the children in Southern Sudan through quality promotion and innovation. Activity plans, These shall include: Equipping of offices and appointment of qualified staff. Implementing capacity building for staff. Convening National Language conference. Developing learning materials to fill gaps in supplies of primary textbooks. Developing secondary school, ECD and Special Needs curricula. Developing a legal framework for examinations. Training of teachers at the county level (CECs). Printing and distribution of primary and secondary school textbooks. Teacher Education and Training Our declared commitment to provide quality education cannot be realized unless we have the required number of qualified and trained teachers. This constitutes the major task of the Department of Teachers Education and Training. Currently we have only 17,920 teachers and only 20% of whom are trained and 10% are female. Our target is to have 35,000 teachers by 2015. What are the strategies for increasing the number of teachers? The Ministry will adopt the following strategies: Fast-track training programs The programs are: Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 72 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Mode 1—Pre-service Regional Teacher Training Institutes (R.T.T.I) have been changed to State Teacher Training Institutes (S.T.T.I.). Recruitment: Graduates of secondary four: two-year pre-service training. Primary 8 leavers: four years training. Fast Track: a short teacher classroom survival kit designed for randomly recruited interested persons of different educational background level to meet the pressing teachers demand precipitated by pupils’ enrolment explosion arising from the big influx of the returnees and the Go-To-School initiative. This program has produced more than 1,000 new teachers early January 2007 and will continue as a source and mode of teachers’ recruitment for the next eight years. Currently there are four S.T.T.I.s: Malakal, Aramwer and Arapi in addition to Ezo currently operating in Maridi. It is worth mentioning that Arapi was opened in 2004. The first batch of 211 students has set for their qualifying examination last year. The University of Juba and the Arapi Administration and MoEST have agreed that University of Juba is to set exams. The University marks the examinations and issues the certificates. After teaching for a minimum of two years, the graduates may go back to the University as second-year students. Mode 2—In-service The curriculum for pre-service will be used. The recruitment will be done at the County level and the training will be residential. Twenty CECs were scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2007 using MDTF, two for each state.136 Mode 3 Continuous training, e.g., by offering programs of evening classes for untrained teachers. Mode.4 Secondary school teachers will be trained by the three universities in Southern Sudan. Others will be expected from the diaspora. Mode 5 The proposed National Education Act that makes it mandatory for every Southern Sudanese graduate (secondary or university) to spend at least one year in teaching before any appointment elsewhere; if this policy is implemented for two years, the shortage of teachers will be reduced. Mode 6—Teachers Scholarships MOEST will strive to find: Scholarships for the students to be trained in the Teachers Training Institutes locally and in Kenya and Uganda. Mode 7—Distance Learning 136 According to MOEST, as of 2010, fourteen are either completed or still under construction. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 73 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) In addition to our universities faculties of Education [Juba, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile] Agreement has been reached between MOEST-GOSS and the Kenyan Ministry of Education to offer Distance Learning Opportunities for Teachers by the University of Nairobi faculty of education. As mentioned elsewhere, teachers have been leaving the profession in mass numbers due to poor earnings and poor working conditions. Hence, it is extremely important to provide remuneration/motivation for them in order to retain them in the teaching profession. This will be by granting them a number of the following allowances: Nature of job allowances. Accommodation. Transport. Hardship or rural areas allowances. Cost of living allowances. Teachers open cadre promotion Loans (housing, cars, and other kit loans). We have also initiated the Diaspora Skill Transfer Programmes to identify, recruit, and place skilled Southern Sudanese in voluntary positions in the education sector. We are looking for individuals not only to come and perform specific task but rather to teach, train and transfer their skills to their brothers and sisters. Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change (DGESC) The Directorate of Gender, Equity and Social Change (DGESC) is a new discipline in the MOEST in GOSS. The DGESC is tasked with crucial issues (gender, special education and social change) that will contribute positively to national development. It shall focus on the following, Girl Child Education. Special Needs Education. Nutrition and Life Skills. Civic and Peace Education. Land Mine Awareness and Environmental Education. Child Protection and Psychological Needs. The culture of Southern Sudan has often sidelined girls from attending school, a situation that has been aggravated by the war. It is for this reason that the late Chairman Dr John Garang de Mabior declared 7th July as a National Day of Girls’ Education in Southern Sudan, which we have already started to observe last year. In addition, early marriages and pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, abuse of child rights, gender based violence, are among the factors that negatively impact on girls education that should be collectively checked. Hence the Ministry policy aims at three key issues: To increase education accessibility for girls. Ensure that women receive employment, i.e. to benefit from the 25% in employment accorded to them by the Interim Constitution. Gender mainstreaming in all its activities. Policies for promoting girls’ education: Ensuring that education is accessible to all girls by increasing enrollment from the current 11 percent to 33 percent and above by the end of the year 2007. Ensuring the retention of girls in school, (i.e., complete education levels successfully). Promoting closer cooperation among states and counties regarding girls’ education. Promoting women’s empowerment in all disciplines, including employment. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 74 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Eliminating/reducing cultural barriers that create gender, social, political and economic imbalance in Southern Sudan. Countering a social problem that inflicts children/youth such as HIV/AIDS, drug abuse and alcoholism. Enlightening parents about the need to send/keep girls in school Enlightening the girls about the negative effects of early pregnancies and marriages. To promote awareness on special needs and child protection. Established mobile schools for nomadic/ pastoralist communities. To ensure that those living with disabilities are protected and enabled to develop as productive citizens. To ensure a risk-free environment to reduce deaths and injuries. Other affirmative actions to improve girls’ education include the following: Promotion and advocacy in all areas with special emphasis on girl child education. For example: Community girls’ schools. Girls Boarding schools. School Feeding programmes. Development of a Policy Paper on girl child education, civic and peace education as well as nutrition and life skills. Assessment and monitoring of the number of girls in school (data collection, retention, enrollment, promotion etc). Establishment of Promotion and Advocacy for Girls Education (PAGE) groups at all -levels: state, county and payam. Undertaking inter- and intra-state campaigns to mobilize support for girls’ education. Inclusion of women’s empowerment activities; ALP; life skills training etc. Establishment of special scholarship for girls, particularly those who are talented or disadvantaged. Special Needs Education, Land Mines and Environmental Awareness, Child Protection and Psycho-Social Needs MOEST and the Ministry of Gender, Social Welfare and Religious affairs are tasked with the responsibility to care for and protect children/people who are abused; orphans and disabled who are in need of special education. These include victims of: Sexual harassment, rape and other forms of molestation Physical abuse by parents, teachers, or friends Mental torture (starvation, isolation) etc. During the war, many people became mentally traumatized and physically disabled. It should be noted that special education for these victims is an expensive exercise, however this has to be undertaken since it is a mandatory national obligation. There is currently a great need to protect the environment, and schools have to take the lead in addressing it. Today, schools and their surroundings have been littered with all sorts of dangerous materials that are hazardous to the well-being of our children. Consequently, creating awareness about these hazards [e.g. Land Mines, Drug Abuse etc] is of prime importance. How do we achieve these objectives? By: Carrying out assessments for: Teachers with special need background to be recruited. Learners with special need background to be enrolled. Developing policy papers to ensure coordinated implementation of programmes. Identifying an area for the National Institute of Special Education. State centres for special needs education. County centres for special needs education. Developing, orienting and adapting curricula and syllabi, especially for learners with special needs. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 75 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Providing counselors in schools. Training of teachers with regard to special needs. Developing, acquiring and distributing requisite teaching materials. Providing training and learning materials (Braille, projectors, computers, posters, furniture etc.). Teaching landmine and environmental awareness in schools and communities Land Mine sensitization Capacity building of staff, especially in special needs education and child protection Exchanging programs with relevant institutions, national and international. Monitoring child care in homes, schools and other locations in collaboration with the Ministry of Gender, Social Welfare and Religious Affairs. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 76 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 5: SHOULD ONE SIZE FIT ALL? Based on available GEE Project data, the following histograms were produced in an effort to show where GEE’s efforts were concentrated during 2008 and 2009. These visuals could be useful in re-thinking a ‘one size fits all’ approach and in informing a discussion on sustainability. It is not necessarily a bad thing that support has been concentrated in some states and counties. These are the very sites where there may be the greatest traction for testing out sustainability efforts. Combining these graphs with data on secondary school enrollment and transition rates (disaggregated by sex) would show very clearly that different strategies for increasing female retention and graduation rates may be necessary. See also Annex 14: Future Directions. Graph 1: Total number of scholars supported, disaggregated by year (blue=2008; red=2009) and state, ordered by total number of scholars (descending). Graph 2: Total number of scholars supported over 2008–2009, disaggregated by county, ordered by total number of scholars. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 77 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Graph 3: Percentage of scholars of total number of student beneficiaries in USG-supported schools over 2008–2009, disaggregated by state/special area, ordered by % scholars of student beneficiaries. Graph 4: Total value of grants, disaggregated by year (blue=2008; red=2009) and state/special area, ordered by total grants. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 78 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Currently, GEE is administered using a common set of guidelines for all activities related to scholarships— the same payment to each student, the same tuition support regardless of the amount of tuition charged at each school and whether it is a day or boarding institution, and the same amount of institutional support regardless of the size of the school or the needs of the institution. Furthermore, there is no variation in approach that might take into account the circumstances in the different states. For example, in 2009, in CES, 35 percent of the enrolled secondary students were female, whereas in NBEG the female enrollment rate was only nine percent. A more flexible approach to the allocations, at least for the tuition support and improvement grant, is proposed. a. The tuition support could be adjusted depending on the level of tuition charged at the school. Whereas most government schools charge around 50 ($24) to 60 ($27) SDG per year, some of the private schools charge several hundred pounds. Also, government boarding schools charge more— Loka Secondary School charges 225SDG ($101) and Yei Girls Board School charges 540 SDG ($242). In addition, GEE might take into consideration the high cost for students in their candidate years (S3 or S4, depending on the curriculum being followed) who are going to take the school leaving exams. The additional costs vary a bit, but may be 300 SGD ($135) for the fee, national ID registration, and study booklets. The risk is that schools that have a large number of scholarship recipients might continue to raise the tuition rates, knowing that GEE will do the percentage match. b. Winrock shifted to a set amount for the improvement grant, with some variation ranging from about 735 to 1050 SDG ($283 to $404). An advantage of this system rather than payment on a per scholar basis is that schools with few scholars will still receive a useful amount of money. First, it should be noted that the total amount given for the improvement grants on a per school basis is less than the originally planned amount on a per scholars basis. Second, the fact that this amount is so small has been criticized by all of the schools, county and state offices visited. It is desirable for GEE to find the means to increase this portion of the scholarship plan with the aim to increase the amount per school to enable schools to make a real difference with setting and realizing gender-friendly school policies that should ultimately benefit all students. c. GEE could take into account the differences in female enrollment rate in secondary schools. Thus, if NBEG has only a nine percent female enrollment rate, GEE could consider special support strategies for such low enrollment states, depending upon the issues that are the greatest blocks to female participation and completion. Some possible ideas are the following: • Consider differentiated strategies for different states. For example, in CES, not so much awareness-raising and community mobilization may be needed as in other states, but there is a need for more financial support because of the larger number of females who are graduating from P8 but who are not making it into S1 or who are dropping out once in secondary school. In NBEG, more effort initially might be necessary for community awareness-raising and advocacy with targeted full scholarships for all poor girls in secondary schools to ensure that they graduate with good exam scores and are proficient in English. As the community awareness raising and advocacy efforts pay off, the strategy may be shifted. • Build upon the positive aspects of the experience with the NESEI Program which provided an opportunity for a few well-qualified students in the northern states to benefit from attending a good school in CES. GEE had to pull out of this Program prematurely because of the high cost (however, it should be recognized that in states/regions where female enrollment is particularly low against the Southern Sudan average, the costs to generating interest and raising female participation in the early stages may well be significantly higher than for other states/regions where participation is better-established). But, perhaps, GEE could piggyback on the new system of national schools in order to promote the same objectives. For example, GEE could work with the MOEST Department of Secondary Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 79 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Education to initiate the program at the Loka National Secondary School in Lainya County, CES, to help ensure that a new intake of students from the other states includes well￾qualified students from the areas where GEE is working. Loka Secondary School is significantly under-utilized and could accommodate a much larger number of students if some funds for upgrading the existing infrastructure could be sourced (as well as teachers who come to class regularly). GEE might be able to provide some extra support for such a school and its students, although the bulk of the costs would have to be met by MOEST or a donor. • GEE could consider increasing the level of support on a per student basis in states tat are severely gender-challenged. While the national female enrollment rate in secondary school in 2009 was 27 percent, states with ten percent enrollment or below include Warrap at 10 percent, NBEG at nine percent, Unity at nine percent, and Lakes at six percent. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 80 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 6: MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WINROCK INTERNATIONAL GEE IMPLEMENTATION Capacity building Capacity building of the MOEST Directorate of Gender Equity and Social Change is an important objective of GEE. With the decision to assign a staff member as the State Gender Advisor, Winrock assumed some responsibility for capacity building at the state level. Also, with GEE offices in Wau and Malakal, there would also be expectations for some capacity building in those locations. However, the impact of the Gender Advisors has been minimal, with the exception of the first Gender Advisor assigned to the DGESC, who seems to have made important contributions to the directorate based on discussions with the staff. Also, there has been lack of coordination of GEE activities between the MOEST DGESC and the SMOE Departments of Gender Equity and Social Change. Typically, at the state level there is good communication and involvement of GEE staff with the DGESC regarding the scholarship program, but little effort at capacity building or involving the Department of Secondary Education, which should be an important partner. There is little sense of ownership by the Ministry at any level. Most Sudanese from staff at the Ministry to those in the schools perceived GEE as an NGO program. The Leadership for Change program was received very well by the Sudanese participants. Following the training, GEE/Ministry teams visited all of the states and their trip reports showed the value of these follow￾up visits. However, it seems there have been no activities in the past year to provide additional support to the participants. The Gender Advisors do not appear to have been used by Winrock International to provide expert advice to GEE management on ensuring that the Project is gender sensitive. Recommendations include the following: 1. Review international literature on the provision of TA as a form of aid and use the knowledge to strengthen GEE’s and MOEST’s approach to the use of TA. 2. Clarify and strengthen the role and responsibility of the Gender Advisor at MOEST. 3. Explore ways the Gender Advisor(s) can contribute their technical expertise to GEE management to ensure that the Project is gender sensitive and to undertake periodic gender analyses of the implementation. 4. Look into establishing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MOEST and a respective sub-national education organization as well as a signed commitment from any individual participating in intensive coaching or mentoring from a technical adviser could help protect the aid investment during implementation and potentially after GEE. 5. Hold off on hiring a new State Gender Advisor until there is a clear strategy in place for using TA effectively and efficiently. If and when a replacement is hired, do not hire a junior person and do not have this position report to another TA position. 6. The line of reporting should be to MOEST and to WI, and both should undertake oversight and performance assessments of any TA personnel. 7. As part of the program to strengthen capacity, find ways in which to develop a stronger sense of ownership of the program by the Sudanese. 8. Re-engage with the participants of the Leadership for Change program and find the means to enable them to carry out some of the Action Plans developed at the original training workshop. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 81 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 9. Use and build on existing Government structures rather than introducing new administrative structures. 10. Ensure that the USAID branding requirements are adhered to. 11. Continue the efforts to use GEE personnel more creatively and diversely and, in the event that new personnel are hired, ensure that they can wear multiple ‘hats’ (administrative, training, change agents, etc.). 12. Produce Scholar photo ID cards with the scholar’s unique scholarship number. 13. Consider giving each scholar a certificate as a way to give special recognition to the Project and to provide an opportunity to give credit to USAID, MOEST, and Winrock. 14. The COP should try to spend more time at the DGESC in Juba and regularly visit states where there are a significant number of scholars as well as cultivating relationships in other states. 15. Although some times of the year are very busy for field staff, there are also slow times. Consider opportunities for staff development during these times. 16. Conduct a cost/benefit assessment of the regional offices in Wau and Malakal with the thought of possibly closing the offices with any savings applied to other GEE activities. What would be the potential savings by closing the offices, and how would GEE carry out its activities in the areas currently covered by the two field offices? The purpose of these offices appears to be scholarship distribution and not capacity building at the Ministry. As a result of their presence, the staff can conduct additional monitoring visits to the participating schools, but such visits do not seem to have yielded much benefit and may not be necessary. Interaction with the Ministry seems limited to administrative issues and seeking involvement in the distribution process. Since the distribution program is seasonal, there are times when the staff are underutilized. GEE could consider hiring temporary staff to assist with the distribution. 17. The GEE office in Juba may consider ways to provide additional feedback to their field offices, e.g., responses to bi-weekly reports, more involvement in decision-making processes, working with the field offices when Juba staff are traveling, etc., as well as satisfactory mechanisms for resolving disputes or concerns regarding performance assessments and terms of contracts. 18. GEE could improve staff efficiency by using carbon paper or self-copying sheets when filling in data forms where there is need for multiple copies so as to avoid copying the data by hand or taking the document away to be photocopied. 19. Drawing more females into teaching remains a major objective of the Project. WI and USAID may want to consider the following: • Given the difficulty at this time to enter teacher training because of a lack of institutions, modify this objective to encourage the women to: (a) enter any post-secondary institution for further study or (b) begin teaching right away upon graduating from secondary school, if possible, and await opportunities that may arise to enter either an in-service or pre-service teacher training program. (There are numerous international examples of rapid preparation and deployment of female secondary school graduates into the teaching force that could be cost-effective and could bring about the desired movement in numbers of female education personnel.) • Complete the process for printing and distributing the Women into Teaching document. • Develop other specific activities or materials that would promote teaching as a worthwhile profession. • Provide special incentives for scholars to enter a teacher training institution. • Work with MOEST and SMOEs to carry out research on what types of incentives, aside from the obvious ones, really make a difference to women considered the teaching profession and investigate ways to accommodate any incentives that emerge. 20. GEE has access to several good materials that could be more effectively utilized: • All materials being disseminated to the public including any forms used at schools should be bilingual. It is recommended that materials contain both languages, rather than printing English only or Arabic only versions. The reason for this is to help facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of both the designated national languages. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 82 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) • Distribute the Women into Teaching brochure. • Create a version of Let’s Talk for young men. • Distribute copies of both the female and male Let’s Talk booklets to all students and the Women into Teaching brochure to female students in all secondary schools. Southern Sudan is ‘information-poor’ and these materials are well-liked and not costly to produce. • Consider the use of the Community Health Promoters guide from the HEAR Project and, if appropriate, distribute it as part of the mentoring program. 21. Explore the ways and means of initiating commitments from schools to be classified as gender sensitive/pro-poor schools. Any new schools should “earn” the right to participate. At the moment, schools only have to agree to administer some processes associated with the scholarships. Some examples commitment might include the following: • Develop and implement a Gender Sensitive and Pro-Poor Action Plan that also involves students in bringing about change. • Identify and provide cash and in-kind contributions (such as bricks and/or labor) including a monetary figure for in-kind contributions, possibly through fund-raising activities with and for students. • A committed BOG that has 30 percent female representation and that meets quarterly. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 83 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 7: EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF USAID EDUCATION PROJECT SYNERGIES 1. Description of USAID Education Projects The table below provides a visual comparison of the four USAID Education Projects, followed by a brief narrative describing each project. Comparison of Four USAID Project Foci INITIATIVE GEE BRIDGE HEAR SSIRI TAP Sub-Sector Secondary Education, agriculture, and water and sanitation services Primary, teacher training Primary, secondary, adult education, teacher training Primary and Secondary Education Individual Beneficiary Support Scholarships, Mentors School Support Grants Education component especially for primary schools including teacher training and English language support for teachers and officials Health advocacy and practices, training of teachers in health and good teaching practices, small groups at school level Radios, guides, teacher training Community Support & Development Advocacy, Mother￾Daughter Loan Scheme, Comfort Kit Outsourcing Support for Community Action Groups, Women Support Groups, Water User Committees, hygiene forum, and town hall meetings Community training including PTA Advocacy Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 84 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Capacity Enhancement LTA for Education Administrators at MOEST GESC and other relevant directorates, SMOE HQ GESC, SMOE County, School Heads and BOGs Sector policy workshops. Training government officials on finance, HR, gender, agriculture, community planning Training of teachers, community health promoters, health and education officials, PTAs Teachers, MOEST, SMOE, country and payam education officials LTA for Education Administrators at MOEST Directorate of Planning, SMOE HQ Senior and Middle Managers, County Education Officers using Individualized and Group Mentoring Pilot Initiatives Micro-Enterprise Development Loan Scheme, Production Outsourcing to Local Organizations Education Resources Centers and computers, Internet access, and books. Use of digital devices as alternative to radios in some locations; use of Internet in TTIs and a secondary school; training in video production $30,000 grants per state per annum for CB activities. Use of IDF as an organizational development tracking tool. Target Groups Predominantly female secondary school and TTI students and some males and some young Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) State and county level officials across sectors with community groups Teachers, education and health officials, parents and community members, primary school children Primary school children, secondary school students, teachers, other adults Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 85 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) BRIDGE (Building Responsibility for the Delivery of Government Services) BRIDGE began in 2009. It is being implemented in Northern Bar El Ghazal, Unity, and Warrap States, plus the Three Areas. It is an integrated program that aims to strengthen state and local governments in their efforts to decentralize and deliver basic services, provide tangible peace dividends, and increase economic opportunities. Specifically mandated to collaborate closely with MOEST at the GOSS, state, county, and payam levels, BRIDGE focuses efforts at the county level and currently works in two counties in each state. BRIDGE is also expected to work closely with development programs, whether supported by USAID or other donors. It has a Juba-based Education Coordinator tasked with overseeing these responsibilities. Specific BRIDGE activities include: SMOE personnel training in management, gender and English; in-service teacher training, school curriculum rollout, textbook distribution, expansion of the USAID-supported interactive radio instruction programs, Parent-Teacher Associations and Boards of Governors training and support and activities to make schools ‘girl-friendly’ to reduce the incidence of gender-based violence in schools. HEAR (Health, Education and Reconciliation) Program The Health, Education and Reconciliation (HEAR) Project responds to the USAID objective of investing in people under the program areas of education and health. The project has three interrelated and interdependent objectives including: 1) promoting primary school education, 2) promoting health and 3) strengthening school governance through community groups. The Project has designed activities that collectively “increase the access of healthy girls and boys to quality education through community support and action.” The HEAR Project trains head teachers, teachers, PTAs and community health promoters at the school and community levels. The Project also develops resource materials and community-based projects in order to reinforce student learning, engage service providers in delivering effective health and hygiene messages to community members, and rehabilitate and construct additional facilities at schools.137 SSIRI (Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction) Program The Southern Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction (SSIRI) project was initially funded in 2004 and will end in 2012. SSIRI designs, develops, and broadcasts cost-effective instructional programs to provide learning opportunities for children, adults, and teachers in Southern Sudan. SSIRI is an integral part of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The core programs consist of daily half-hour broadcasts for children in primary school for grades 1–4. In addition, there is an important series for teaching English to youth and adults from beginners to advanced levels. Also, there is a series for teachers on classroom management. Finally, SSIRI supports computer centers with Internet at teacher training institutes and a secondary school. TAP (Technical Advisers Program) In September, 2005, USAID established the EQUIP2 Southern Sudan Technical Assistance Program (TAP) to build the capacity of the newly created MOEST in priority areas of policy development and implementation, planning and budgeting, and program implementation. The Project is schedule to end in September 2011. The Academy for Educational Development (AED) and its partners, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and (until 2008) the American Institutes for Research (AIR), are the TAP implementing agencies. TAP Phases 1 and 2 are best described as four phases. Phases 1 and 2 (2005-May 2007) focused on establishing the “machinery of government” necessary for the newly-created central level Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, primarily through short-term technical assistance (STTA). Phases 3 and 4 represent a shift to long-term technical assistance (LTTA) working to build capacity at the sub-national level in State Ministries of Education headquarters (HQ) and county development/education 137 Content taken from HEAR MTE (2010). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 86 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) centers (CDCs/CECs). Phase 3 (June 2007-May 2008) is best described as the “1 STA: 2 SMOE Model” and consisted of four AED-contracted Senior Technical Advisors138 (STAs—one of whom functioned as Chief of Party), two MoE-contracted STAs financed out of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), and a small number of administrative personnel. Phase 4 (June 2008-September 2011), the “2 LTTA: 1 SMOE Model,” currently consists of pairs of LTTAs co-located in each some. .139 2. Discussion of Synergies There are commonalities of focus and intention between GEE and BRIDGE gender activities. Also, GEE’s focus on secondary education and teacher training aligns well with the TAP focus on primary education. TA support at central and state levels is mutually reinforcing. The respective COPs of GEE and TAP are in close touch over matters of mutual concern and share material and approaches (such as the IDF) across the two programs. GEE documentation focuses on girls and female teachers, as does TAP documentation. “TAP documentation indicates that the Program will address gender equity and will support the Directorates of Gender Equity and Social Change and one of the key programming principles is “Encouraging the access and success of girls in school and female teachers as education professionals will cut across all programs” (TAP 2007 PMP, p. 3). A number of the Program reports mention specific activities related to gender and development in some of the states. For example, in Unity State, TA personnel worked with the SMOE on the recruitment of qualified teachers, with female teachers being given priority. TAP was also instrumental in ensuring that gender was addressed in the (draft) Education Act. TAP also collaborates with NGOs and USAID’s GEE and BRIDGE projects. Because TAP no longer has a major formal role in teacher education, the responsibility for keeping gender issues front and center apparently now falls exclusively on GEE.”140 MOEST and SMOEs are facing difficulties bringing females into ministry positions and achieving the 25 percent target,141 teaching and BOGs and PTAs and bringing girls into classrooms. For example, executive or management positions that are held by women are almost exclusively in the Directorates of Gender Equity and Social Change and Preschool/Early Childhood Education.142 AED documentation needs to reflect the shift in TAP and GEE’s shared responsibility for gender impact to GEE having sole responsibility for gender in order to avoid confusion. A clear plan for TAP and GEE collaboration regarding the gender, particularly at the SMOE level, is essential.143 To date, the collaboration of the HEAR Project with GEE has been on logistics in Kauda, HEAR has provided support for GEE staff when then have come to Kauda to meet with the one secondary school and two TTIs/TTCs that they are supporting. The HEAR Project focuses mainly on primary schools, The SSIRI Project also focuses on primary schools, but supports many secondary schools in audio English language programs. SSIRI also gives support to computer centers at one GEE secondary school—the Juba Day Secondary School—and two GEE TTIs/TTCs—Maridi and Arapi. Although there has been no direct collaboration between the two projects, there has been an overlap in providing opportunities for students, some of which are likely to be GEE scholars. 138 Senior Technical Advisors are variously referred to in documentation as State Advisors (SA). For the purposes of the MTE Report, the terms, “Senior Technical Advisor/STA,” will be used. 139 SSTAP MTE Report, March, 2010. 140 Taken from the TAP MTE Report (2009). 141 The 25 percent target is included in the Interim Constitution; however, the President recently has endorsed a 30 percent target. 142 Out of the ten states as of June 2009, one (Warrap) has a female minister of education and one (Western Equatoria State) has a female director general. There tends to be greater representation of women in the lower tiers in some SMoEs, for example in the inspector ranks, although incomplete data do not allow a conclusive statement across the SMoEs in this regard. 143 Taken from the TAP MTE Report (2009). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 87 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) GEE and BRIDGE both include a “bottom-up” as well as a “top-down” focus while TAP mainly works from the top down. The orientation to different ends of the development and education sector spectrum can be used to good effect if collaboration is strategic, carefully planned, and well executed. The presence of personnel from three of the programs—GEE, BRIDGE and TAP—on the ground in three states should enable significant synergies to be identified and built into implementation approaches. In addition, BRIDGE may have the operational funds that the other two projects lack, making the collaboration all the more important for both GEE and TAP. For those states in which BRIDGE does not operate, other opportunities for collaboration and development must be found. As noted, GEE also has advisors in MoEST. If GEE, through its central level TA, is able to articulate particular systems, strategies and processes for dissemination and embedding at the sub-national level, TAP TA personnel could be of great assistance in much the same way that they have been to the Booz Allen payroll systems roll-out and the UNICEF EMIS roll-out. TAP assistance to help SMOEs operationalize GEE activities should mean that both programs can claim and report on some of the successes and results, especially related to teacher training. Both GEE and TAP need to determine how the IDF reporting on gender will be undertaken. GEE and HEAR collaboration could include possible use of HEAR health materials as part of the GEE mentoring program. Should GEE begin to work with grades 7 and 8, there would be consider potential for collaboration in both Kauda and Kurmuk. GEE, BRIDGE and TAP could collaborate on capacity building at the Ministry level in gender-sensitive planning and budgeting and policy development. Sharing GEE quantitative and other research data in an accessible format would enable SMOEs and schools to utilize these data for planning and policy development. GEE and BRIDGE could potentially collaborate on community mobilization activities. GEE could be of assistance to SSIRI in SSIRI’s treatment of gender, which appears at this point in time to be fairly weak. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 88 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 8: SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS OF WINROCK INTERNATIONAL LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR GEE The MTE Team is not proposing that the WI GEE logical framework be reworked this late in the Project. Below is a partially completed proposed logical framework that is based on logical framework conventions. This partial framework captures GEE’s activities and it includes Objectively Verifiable Indicators that can be used to evaluate the Project impact during implementation and at the closure of the Project. USAID may wish to pick up some of the elements from the draft revised logical framework and incorporate them into GEE. Should a new, similar project be designed, the proposed modifications below may be of some interest. Proposed Alterations to the GEE Project Logical Framework (partially completed) Objectives Statement Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Important Assumptions Original GEE Goal Proposed Goal Proposed OVIs (numerous examples of possible OVIs are provided) To provide incentives to encourage females to complete secondary school and continue their education at teacher training institutes in order to become teachers thus impacting female enrolment over time To increase the number of Sudanese youth, especially girls, students with disabilities, students from marginalized ethnic groups, and the very poor graduating from secondary school with average or above average achievement. To increase the number of female primary school teachers, head teachers and education administrators at the school, county and state levels. X% increase in the number of secondary school students scoring average or above on final examinations by 20XX (year). X% increase in the number of girls scoring average or above on final examinations by 20XX (year). X% increase in the number of females in the primary education workforce by 20XX (year). The MOEST and SMOEs will be able to plan effectively for inclusive education and gender mainstreaming, to develop policies that support inclusive education and gender mainstreaming, and to guide schools in the implementation of these plans and policies. Original GEE Purpose Proposed Purpose • Reduce To assist the X% of students The provision of Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 89 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Objectives Statement Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Important Assumptions financial and infrastructure barriers • Reduce social barriers • Reduce institutional barriers MOEST and SMOEs to provide financial, psycho￾social and academic support to secondary schools and to targeted groups of learners in secondary and teacher training institutes. supported achieve average or above grades per annum. 0% leakage of school grant funds per annum. X% of schools supported show Y% increase in income generated per annum. the nominated financial, psycho￾social and academic support will enable students to graduate and succeed on examinations. The MOEST and SMOEs are able to put in place measures and practices that enable these organizations and the individuals working in them to benefit significantly from external TA. Component 1: Support to Targeted Student Groups Output 1: X full and Y partial scholarship packages provided to Z secondary school students and ZZ female students for teacher training and education administrator training programs. X % of enrolled scholarship recipients uses their scholarship each consecutive year. Less than 5% of scholarship recipients repeat or fail a grade level per annum. X% of enrolled female scholarship recipients uses their scholarship each consecutive year. X% of students supported have fewer than 10 An targeting strategy and associated selection criteria that fit the immediate and longer term aspirations of Southern Sudan and is relevant for the needs of individual states and regional areas will be able to be developed and utilized. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 90 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Objectives Statement Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Important Assumptions days of absence per annum. 95% of students supported who drop out are retrieved per annum. Inputs & Activities Output 2: X mentors trained, including 70% females. X% of students meet a mentor at least once 40 times per annum. Interested and committed individuals can be identified. These individuals will carry on with mentoring activities with minimal oversight. Inputs & Activities Output 3: Complete sets of textbooks (and pamphlets for candidate year) provided to all scholarship recipients and complete sets of reference books provided for all subject areas in all secondary schools. Cheap printing options can be identified and creative means of transport that is not cost-prohibitive can be utilized. Inputs & Activities Component 2: School-Based Management Output 2.1: X BOG members, school head teachers from Y schools, and X county education officers, including 40% females, Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 91 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Objectives Statement Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Important Assumptions trained in school￾based management (SBM), community engagement and self-sustaining schools. Inputs & Activities Output 2.2: X school improvement grants provided to Y schools. Output 2.3: X democratically elected community leaders, including 70% females, trained in advocacy and civil society engagement. Inputs & Activities Output 2.4: X students with demonstrated leadership abilities trained in community activism and community organizing. Component 3: Education Planning and Policy Development for Gender and Inclusion Output 3.1: X education administrators trained in Leadership for Change. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 92 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Objectives Statement Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Important Assumptions Inputs & Activities Output 3.2. . . . . Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 93 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 9: EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS Treatment of Other Marginalized Groups Male Youth Affected by Conflict “More than a billion people are between the ages of 15 and 24; almost a fifth of the world’s population. 85 percent of them reside in the developing world, where nearly all of the world’s current conflicts take place. Almost half of the world’s unemployed are youth. Nearly half of all new HIV infections occur among youth” (Ebata et al 2005). The situation of young males in Southern Sudan has not been well researched. The assumption is that girls are the most disadvantaged and, taking into account only enrollment and transition rates, this is clearly the case. But young men have extreme pressures put on them and few of the males interviewed during the MTE had been able to progress systematically through their secondary school academic cycle. Many ‘dropped out’ for periods of time to earn money to support orphaned siblings and to save enough money to pay the next term’s tuition or to buy that one missing piece of a school uniform that kept them outside the school gate. GEE began to include males as a target group in 2008. However, no set percentage has been agreed with MOEST and subsequently with the SMOEs. Best available current data indicate that about 13.6 percent of the scholarship recipients are male. There is no apparent rhyme or reason for selecting males in a given state or country or school. For example, in one state, the entire student body of a boys’ school was given scholarships. This action speaks more of a numbers-driven approach rather than a strategic approach that is intentional and purposeful. One young 27-year-old man whose father was killed had made it into S4 by sheer grit and determination. He married a woman two years ago just so there would be someone to care for his younger brothers while he was at school because he knew that without an education, he would be of no use to the family. Every weekend, he walks the two hours home and digs in a field with his bare hands to make money to leave for his wife and brothers. In fact, this young man (and others) have actually married young women for instrumental purposes—to take care of younger siblings while the young man is studying or working. This situation is probably more common than not and certainly works against gender equality in education. Another young man is committed to ensuring that his younger sisters continue to have access to primary school. The pressure on young men to take up the mantle of head of household in families where the father has been killed, disabled or is unable to find work is not unusual. Conflict sensitivity also needs to be taken into account when considering support for males. The international findings on the longevity of peace accords is stark: “ . . . negotiated settlements have a poor record of success. Some studies show that only 50 percent of all negotiated settlements last beyond five years, while in others, negotiated settlements have been shown to keep the peace for only three and a half years” (Bekoe, 2005). International literature that is frequently cited (and used a a rationale by development agencies, including USAID) consists of “Popular depictions of (male) youth as security threats also arise, for the most part, from Western sources. Robert D. Kaplan has famously characterized male youth in urban West Africa as ‘out of school, unemployed, loose molecules in an unstable social fluid that threatened to ignite.’ Such menacing descriptions were supported by Samuel P. Huntington’s argument that societies are particularly vulnerable to war when people aged 15–24 (that is, youth) comprise at least 20 percent of the population. His thesis illustrated the demographic dangers created by ‘youth bulges,’ defined as defined as ‘extraordinarily large youth cohorts relative to the adult population.’ . . . Such fear does not inspire people to try and understand and work with youth. Instead, it encourages the idea that people must protect themselves against young people” ( Sommers 2006). However, Sommers goes on to state that, “This (idea) is a preposterous contention. During periods of war or peace, youth are not inherently dangerous. A recent study, for example, indicates that adolescent males with high levels of testosterone in their blood are easily influenced by peers. If their peers are involved in Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 94 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) delinquent behavior, they are likely to become leaders. Testosterone in early adolescent males was found to be ‘related to leadership rather than to antisocial behavior in boys who definitely did not have deviant peers.’” Several reviews of the literature on programming for youth in general and for youth in conflict-affected contexts note the absence attention by the international community to youth—their invisibility in both the development and the humanitarian assistance realms.144 The situation in Southern Sudan is no different. At present, GEE is the only serious donor initiative that deals with youth, but this situation is rather by default because to enable females to attend teacher training institutes and hopefully enter primary school classrooms, the Project must target female secondary school youth. Youth are not targeted primarily because they are youth, but more so because they are a means to an end—providing female primary school teachers to the nation’s classrooms. It is clear that denying support to young adult males can have repercussions beyond the individual sphere and the implications for a lack of a strategy to support young males must be recognized and addressed in an intentional manner. The Very Poor According to Sarbib and Salmi (in Buckland, 2005), “ . . . conflict and poverty are closely interwoven. Conflict blunts, and subsequently unravels, years of hard-won economic and social development. Recent research also shows us that development patterns—which worsen inequalities, deepen poverty, or slash at the ties that bind societies together—can themselves contribute to the likelihood of conflict and its haunting recurrence.”145 Buckland goes on to state that, “ . . . conflict presents not only challenges for reconstruction but also significant opportunities for reform of education systems. . . . Reducing poverty and decreasing reliance on primary commodity exports, both of which require a functioning and effective education system, have been shown to be critical strategies for reducing the risk of conflict.” The GEE RFA specifically targets females, but it provides no other substantive guidance on the sub-sets beneath this broadest of categories that might be considered, notably, the very poor. To its credit, GEE introduced a set of categories that it introduced to school personnel and BOG members to use to screen potential scholarship recipients from the vast pool of students with a range of legitimate needs. The application of these criteria is subjective and varies from school to school. This situation, consequently, makes it difficult for GEE to state with any degree of certainty or accuracy, what its impact on any specific sub-groups might be. It can only claim, with any certainty, that it has distributed scholarships to X females and Y males. Determinations of financial hardship are particularly difficult to make without clear guidance and may be subject to a lack of objectivity on the part of the selection committees. A frequent response from selection committee members was, “We know the situations of the students. We know who really needs help and who doesn’t.” However, some scholarship recipients noted that they knew of girls who were even worse off than they themselves were, but those girls were not selected—apparently because they were ashamed to come forward to reveal the level of their poverty to the entire school. The uniform policy (school top, bottom, closed shoes and socks) in all schools is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, having a uniform at least assures a very poor student of one set of decent clothing and footwear while in public. On the other hand, students are turned away at the gate if they are missing a part of the required uniform. Nearly all scholarship recipients interviewed noted that they had all had multiple experiences with absenteeism due to a missing uniform item. At Mbili Girls Secondary School, the MTE Team observed several girls who did not have the full gear arrive at the school gate only to be turned away. 144 See, for example, Buckland, Peter. (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction. Washington, DC: World Bank; Machel, Graca. (2001) The Impact of War on Children: A Review of the Progress Since the 1996 United Nations Report on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. London: Hurst & Co.; Lowicki, Jane and Pillsbury, Allison. (200) Untapped Potential: Adolescents Affected by Armed Conflict. A Review of Programs and Policies. New York: Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. 145 In Buckland, Peter. (2005) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 95 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Both girls and boys who walk long distances lament the fact that their shoes (especially the girls’ shoes) wear out within a month of purchase and they cannot afford to buy a new pair. School policy regarding footwear keep poor students away from school until they can borrow or earn enough money to buy another pair of shoes that, in turn, only lasts for a month. Bear in mind that many girls (and boys) walk one to two hours to get to school, only to be turned away. The fact that any girls are coming to secondary school, given the immense barriers, is something to be celebrated in Southern Sudan and every effort should be made to ensure that those girls who do attend are adequately supported. A seminal work by Herz and Sperling (2004) notes that, “Several studies show distance to school discourages girls’ attendance more than it does boys.’ In Malaysia, the lack of a secondary school in the community lowers the probability of a girl attending by 17 percentage points.” If the price of a pair of sturdy shoes and a pair of boots enables girls to attend secondary school in the first place and regularly once enrolled, this is an investment that is well worth the small cost. Schools also create other disincentives for poor students. For example, for students unable to afford accommodation close to the school, walking long distances in bad weather sometimes means they arrive late at the school. If they do arrive late, they are turned away again. And the cycle repeats itself. To date, GEE has had no appreciable effect on helping schools to create gender-sensitive and pro-poor school environments. The FAWE model aimed at creating gender-responsive schools is one that could have significant benefit for GEE as it begins to roll out it sustainability strategy. Sommers’s (2006) review of the available literature on youth and conflict notes that : . . . certain issues surfaced as prominent concerns, including the significance of participatory, holistic programming and the particular importance of vocational training” as well as enabling poor youth to access not only education, but capital and work opportunities following school. The literature also notes a marked reluctance on the part of development agencies to factor youth into income generation initiatives as well as the importance of linking education to subsequent livelihoods. In a context such as Southern Sudan, where human capital (and capacity) is limited, a pool of secondary school graduates is a vital resource; however, intentionality in enabling this resource to be utilized may be necessary, particularly for the very poor. Sommers also recommends that effective programming for conflict and post-conflict youth “Seriously explore(s) possibilities for expanding youth access to capital.” In Southern Sudan, it is not enough that poor females (and males) complete secondary school—completing it well, with a solid grasp of English and Arabic, and with a conduit provided for work opportunities or further study (whether in the teaching profession or more broadly), should be the goal and is critical for Southern Sudan’s development. Ethnicity The Undersecretary of Education (MOEST) clearly expressed the desire for an education system that embraced diversity and noted that this was a core principle underlying the creation of the national schools which, ideally, would have equal representation of students from across Southern Sudan from all ethnic and linguistic groups. He expressed concern that without this type of targeted nation building there could be threat to the peace and Southern Sudan’s development. Buckland (2005) notes that, “Ethnic or religious Mbili Girls' Secondary School, Wau, WBeG. Photo by V. Haugen Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 96 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) dominance rather than diversity is also a powerful contributory factor in civil conflict; education has a key role in mediating or deepening ethnic, religious, and other identity-based conflicts.”146 While there are data on the ethnic composition of each state and region in Southern Sudan through OCHA, no GEE data were available about the ethnic composition or language backgrounds (first, second, third, etc.) of the scholarship recipients. Anecdotal evidence from the TAP MTE shows that ethnicity is a factor in the assignation of jobs and there is apparently a tendency in some states to favor individuals who have English language skills, even though both English and Arabic are considered to be languages of the workplace. For example, according to the TAP Quarterly Report (January—March 2008, p. 12), “There is a heavy Arab influence in the state reflected in the use of Arabic as the preferred language of governance and educational instruction within the state. This is having a tremendously negative impact on education service delivery and other areas of educational management. The Report also noted that, “Consequently, a greater effort is needed in WBG to facilitate the transition from GOS governance processes to that of GOSS” and the TAP MTE found that recently (2009), the WBG State Ministry of Education underwent a massive re-shuffling and has apparently largely replaced Arabic speakers in management positions with English language teachers.” The same would probably have been found during the GEE MTE if this had been an area of focus during interviews. With respect to the student body, the MTE Team was unable to collect specific information on ethnicity. On the basis of interviews with a small percentage of GEE scholarship recipients, those who came from marginalized ethnic minority groups that typically had little engagement with the formal (or non-formal) education system clearly stood out. GEE made a commendable effort to provide support to females from states with very low female enrollment as well as Abyei, which is affected by conflict, but unfortunately, this activity was discontinued. Ethnicity and language are likely to be significant, yet inadequately understood variables and the dynamics associated with power and control can make or break the potential for development assistance to be effective. International research makes it clear that “ . . . heterogeneous countries are also more likely to be poor. . . . Countries that are ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous are particularly at risk. They have more difficulty reaching universal primary education—and more difficulty bringing girls into school (emphasis added)—than do more homogeneous countries at similar levels of development.”147 International research makes it clear that females are marginalized much more so that males where there are issues of language policy shift.148 Given the research and the fact that the GOSS Interim Constitution includes a clear message on official languages and on equity, it would also be sensible for GEE to examine ethnicity and language data on secondary school students to help ensure that its activities do not marginalize or reward one group(s) over another and to determine whether there are any patterns of success or failure that can be linked to ethnic or linguistic backgrounds, particularly among girls. These issues of privilege and success or failure linked to ethnicity and language also have implications for a conflict-sensitive approach as well. The lack of a policy on ensuring that Project materials used with stakeholders and beneficiaries are in a bilingual format is a deficit that needs to be rectified immediately. Ensuring that materials are bilingual (English and Arabic together, not in separate documents) will help reinforce language proficiency in both languages and gives a clear message that both languages are valued, as per the Interim Constitution. 146Buckland, Peter. (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction. Washington, DC: World Bank 147 World Bank. (2008) Girls Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empowerment and Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. 148 See “Language, Minority Education and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power” (Corson, 1993), “Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies” (Ducher for Center for Applied Linguistics-CAL, 2001) and “Girls, Educational Equity and Mother-Tongue-based Teaching” (UNESCO, 2005). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 97 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Religious Diversity GEE collects data on scholarship recipient religious backgrounds, but it is not clear why or to what end. Religious background, especially for those students who are Moslem or who are from the Arabized regions and schools of Southern Sudan, face challenges not necessarily due to their religious beliefs but due to the prevalence of Arabic and Arabic patterns schooling. As Southern Sudan continues to roll out the English medium Southern Sudan curriculum, students from Arabic pattern schools are at a disadvantage in language policy shifts—this is so especially for females (see ‘Ethnicity’ section above). Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) Sudan is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. According to Disabled World, “Having a disability places you in the world’s largest minority group. . . . The World Bank estimates that 20 per cent of the world’s poorest people have some kind of disability, and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantaged. “ Handicap International (2006), notes that, according to the United Nations, approximately 10–12 percent (over 650 million people) of the global population have disabilities. Of this total, 80 percent live in low-income countries. . . . People with disabilities (PWDs) are highly over-represented among the poor; about 82 percent of them live below the poverty line.149 Handicap International notes that, “Poverty is considered both a cause and a consequence of disability. Poverty is a cause of disability since the poor often lack resources to prevent malnutrition, and do not have access to adequate health services that many prevent some disabilities. Poverty is a consequence of disability since people with disabilities often lack access to education, health services and income-generating activities; they are often denied their human, social and economic rights. These factors contribute to high levels of vulnerability and exclusion. . . . Usually, people with physical impairments face fewer problems for social and economic inclusion than people with visual or hearing impairments. Persons with intellectual impairments are the most disadvantaged in this respect. . . . Not all people with disabilities or their families are poor or equally poor. Due to these different socio-economic conditions, some people with disabilities have better chances on socio-economic inclusion than others. Differences in strengths and weaknesses should be into account when designing . . . programs.” According to the World Bank, “ . . . leaving people with disabilities outside the economy translates into a forgone GDP of about 5–7 percent. People with disabilities often have to rely on their families or on charity for survival. Furthermore, women with disabilities are generally worse off than men with disabilities; they have less access to jobs and earn half the income of male peers in similar jobs. The World Health Organization notes that “Of these global number of Persons With Disabilities, some 10 percent (or 1 percent of the global population/or 65 million people) need wheelchairs. There are indications that only a minority of those in need of wheelchairs have access to them and of these, very few have access to an appropriate wheelchair.” State parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have the obligation to “take effective measures to insure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities” (2008). Southern Sudan has been almost continuously at war for several decades and war takes its toll on a population. Unfortunately, the MTE Team was not able to gather any substantive data on PWDs and few data exist at the GOSS or donor levels. It should be noted, however, that based on findings from other conflict-affected contexts, the levels of psychological distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder that has a significant impact on the ability to learn and retain information, are typically much higher than those of the general population in a context not affected by conflict. 149 According to Disabled World, “The World Bank estimates that 20 per cent of the world’s poorest people have some kind of disability, and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantage“.http://www.disabled￾world.com/disability/statistics/ Accessed July 16 2010 from Sydney, Australia. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 98 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Commendably, WI has included students with disabilities into its scholarship recipient pool. However, it is possible to do more for students with disabilities. Some additional ideas include: • Get the DGESC personnel responsible for special needs education and landmine awareness involved in GEE activities regarding students with disabilities. • Including a module in the Mentoring Program manual and content in the Let’s Talk Booklet targeted specifically at students with disabilities. • Liaising with the OECD to explore the potential for using the OECD ’s Ten Question Screening Instrument (TQSI) and methodology to determine levels of disability based on a sample of the population. There may be potential for this survey to be administered along with the education census or during GEE monitoring visits as a way of getting at least some core data. • Help SMOEs to link schools with organizations that provide appropriate assistive devices to students with physical disabilities. For example, the Free Wheelchair Mission,150 which delivered 550 wheelchairs to Sudan in 2009. 150 See http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4916275/k.BE91/Home.htm Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 99 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 10: A DRAFT TARGETING AND SELECTION STRATEGY A Targeted Approach to Scholarship Provision GEE does not distinguish between the concepts of targeting and selection or their respective criteria and this is problematic. In a context where the need is so great, a clear targeting strategy helps draw boundaries around assistance that then makes the parameters of the Project very clear to all concerned. The following matrix (below) provides a detailed layout of an intentional targeting strategy for a project that focuses on marginalized youth (particularly females, youth with disabilities, youth from under-represented ethnic groups and the very poor) in Southern Sudan.151 A Draft Model for a Targeting Strategy for Marginalized Secondary School Students Location Targeting Criteria Student Targeting Criteria Targets (GEE Project and GOSS￾MOEST and SMOEs) Selection Criteria (point system) Rural/remote areas P8 graduate Overall female:male split (70%:30%) Entering or already enrolled secondary school Counties with lowest percentage of females in the education system Not receiving support from any other organization Female students with disabilities (10% of the 70% target) Leadership qualities (based on personal essay and teacher recommendation) Counties with lowest human development indicators Disabled Male students with disabilities (15% of the 30% target) Professional interest (primary education-2; under-represented fields-1) Under-represented tribal/ethnic group Male students who are heads of households (10% of the 30% target) Academic standing (A/B average-2 points; C average-1 point)152 Head of households or only person in family working Rural:urban split (50%:50%) In-kind contribution (?) Rural resident No guardian working 151 NB: Any conditional cash transfer program (such as a scholarship program) in a CAFS should be underpinned by a significant investment at the school level to ensure concrete benefits for all secondary school students. 152 This proposed selection criterion needs to be treated with care since better grades could indicate greater access to learning materials which in turn may indicate a student who is a little better off financially. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 100 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Changes in scholarship program roll-out Advertise widely; place burden on students to self￾identify; will require visits to local communities or the use of local NGOs and FBOs for connecting with communities Run selection process from County Education Offices-legitimizes GOSS, gives education personnel a chance to meet families and builds capacity to run activities. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 101 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 11: THE REAL COSTS OF A SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION Rationale for Annex 11 The analysis below is presented because: (1) the MTE Team reviewed existing international literature on conditional cash transfers, particularly scholarship programs for girls, which provides relevant information for GEE (or any subsequent scholarship project) and (2) the MTE data collected are unable to substantiate any particular significant contribution to the expected development results of girls being retained in and completing secondary school and teacher training institutes, which suggests that the GEE scholarship package of support needs to be re-thought. Compared to a number of other scholarship and stipend programs investigated, including several programs in Africa and several other highly-regarded programs outside of Africa,153 the GEE scholarship package of support is clearly sub-standard, especially considering the impact that is expected from the Project. This situation is unfortunate because scholarship programs can clearly have a significant development impact if structured well. According to Herz and Sperling (2004), “Several rigorous studies, including a large controlled experiment in Mexico, have confirmed the strong impact of scholarships on girls’ enrolments. Research also suggests that programs that reduce the cost of schooling by providing supplies such as textbooks, and uniforms or programs that offer meals or school-based health care can have significant impacts, especially for girls. Secondary school stipends offered through Bangladesh’s program lifted girls’ enrolment to almost double the national average. . . . The stipend covers full tuition and exam costs, textbooks, school supplies, uniforms, transport, and kerosene for lamps. Any girl in grades 6–10 is eligible . . . as long as she meets three basic criteria: (1) she attends school regularly, (2) she achieves certain minimum grades, and (3) she does not marry while she is in school. The Bangladeshi scholarship program also encouraged more girls to sit for exams and to higher secondary schools and intermediate colleges. The stipend program’s costs are substantial, but the government has found the impact on girls’ enrolment and attainment (as well as delayed marriage) impressive enough to continue it on a national scale. The government has expanded the existing program to offer all female students free tuition to both the secondary and the ‘higher secondary’ level (emphasis added).” Importantly, Herz and Sperling (2004) note that, “ . . . government intervention is essential—The private market, left to itself, will not reach all children and tends particularly to neglect poor girls. . . . no country in the world has successfully developed without a public education system supported by government. As basic economics suggests, when the cost of schooling increases for parents, holding quality constant, the amount of education they demand for their children falls. Extensive evidence from many countries shows that the poorer the parents are, the sharper the trade-off is. Many studies show that where son preference is strong, the trade-off tends to be sharper for girls than for boys. In Tanzania, for instance, parents spend up to 14 percent more to educate girls, and in Guinea 11 percent. In Uganda and Zambia, according to a cross￾country study, spending on girls at the primary level is greater than for boys because the costs for girls are higher. Four costs to parents to educating girls (are): 1. Direct Fees. In many countries, children pay tuition or other fees to attend school Studies show these fees can amount to 5–10 percent of household income—or 20–30 percent for poorer families. In Uganda, Bangladesh, Zambia, and Nepal, education spending ranked on overage as the second or third major household expenditure, in a survey of poor households. The fees may be similar for girls or boys, but parents may be less willing to pay them for girls. 153 Notably, Bangladesh, Mexico and Brazil. See Herz and Sperling (2004). Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 102 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 2. Indirect Fees. In addition to direct payments for schooling, and even in areas where such payments are not required, there are often indirect fees, such as to parent-teacher associations, charged to parents for having their children attend school. These indirect fees can also include such things as paying for escorts for girls to get to school, supplementing teacher salaries, or finding secure housing for female teachers to stay in rural communities to teach girls. 3. Indirect Costs: Transport, Clothing, Safety, and Social Criticism. The costs of transportation and clothing necessary for children to attend school are often significant. These costs may be greater for girls than for boys because families may incur greater clothing expenses for girls to ensure modesty or meet cultural expectation. Girls may also need money for transport to ensure that they are safe and not bothered along the way. In addition, many parents worry that their girls may be subjected to attack or sexual assault once they are at school in some cultures, just as appearance of impropriety can affect girls’ marriage prospects and leave parents concerned about supporting unmarried daughters. Finally, where few girls have ever been educated, parents may be reluctant to be among the first to send girls to school because of the fear of social criticism. 4. Opportunity Costs: Chore Time and Contribution to Family Income. In many African and Asian countries, daughters are traditionally expected to do more chores at home than are sons. In these countries, girls fall victim to a self-fulfilling prophecy. As they are expected to do more, the ‘opportunity cost’ of educating them seems higher and so they are kept home.” Comparative Analysis of GEE Support and the Real Costs of Secondary Education The GEE scholarship covers only a small part of the real direct and indirect costs of secondary school. In order to merely access most secondary schools, a student must pay the tuition fee and come to school dressed in a full uniform (which must consist of a shirt or blouse and skirt or trousers as designated by the school, shoes with closed toes and heels, socks and, in some cases, a blazer). Additional costs for students associated with school include the following—textbooks, study pamphlets, supplies such as notebooks and pencils/pens), and national examinations at the end of the last year of secondary school (also called the “candidate” year in this report), either S3 or S4. The GEE Program contributes SP 84 ($37) towards the expenses of the scholars in secondary schools divided equally between tuition and the purchase of personal items. This sum only covers a relatively small fraction of the student’s costs. Although the GEE stipend of SP 42 ($19) does contribute about 75% of the average tuition of government day schools, it does not come close to meeting the tuition of boarding or private schools, which may run from approximately SP 225 to SP 540 ($101-$242). In addition, it does not offset the high costs associated with taking exams in the candidate year. Likewise, the GEE contribution of SP 42 ($19) towards personal items only meets about one-third of the most basic cost for a uniform of SP 120 ($54). And it is far short of the amount of money needed to properly take care of a student’s basic needs—SP 403 ($222). The benefits provided under the GEE scholarship are shown in Table 4. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 103 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) TABLE 4: GEE SCHOLARSHIP PACKAGE (PER SECONDARY SCHOOL RECIPIENT) Item Value (SP/USD)154 Tuition Stipend 42/19 Personal Items Stipend 42/19 Comfort Kit (females scholarship recipients only)155 45/20 (approximate value) Table 5 (below) shows items that a student should possess in order to have some chance of graduating successfully and on time from secondary school. For example, without a uniform, a student is not admitted on the school compound to attend classes. Since the uniforms must be washed and dried (often a difficult task in the rainy season and with no soap), a student needs to have a secondary uniform. Note that the list also includes both shoes and boots, as most students must walk a long distance to school, sometimes up to two hours. Thus, the students need boots suitable for walking as well as shoes for school itself. These items are recommended based on data from the MTE field work and a review of other scholarship program inclusions and the rationale for such inclusions. The table consists of three columns of projected costs. The first column is a comprehensive list of the minimum recommended set of items a student should have to attend school (with clothes and shoes lumped together as uniform). The second column is a more restricted list—no mosquito net, poncho, backpack, boots, or money for a nutritious meal. The third column consists of the bare minimum for a uniform— blouse/shirt, shirt/pants, and shoes. TABLE 5: ITEMIZED COSTS FOR BASIC NEEDS ITEMS (SP/USD) Personal Items Recommended Option Possible Option Least Desirable Option Shirt or blouse 30/$13 30/$13 30/$13 Pants or skirt 30/$13 30/$13 30/$13 Shoes 60/$27 60/$27 60/$27 Socks (long/short) 2/$1 Boots 25/$11 Backpack 40/$18 Disposable sanitary pads/year 120/$54 120/$54 Poncho 20/$9 Mosquito net 10/$5 One nutritious meal per day(*) 8/$4 TOTAL 345/$145 240/$107 120/$53 TOTAL with extra blouse/skirt and shirt/pants 405/$180 (*) Many students eat only one meal per day and that meal is not particularly nutritious or filling, and they may walk for several hours a day. Some students are working, some as hard laborers. 154 Calculated at the interbank exchange rate on June 15, 2010. This rate is what Winrock used in its June report on the amount of grant and scholarship money given to schools. 155 See Annex 12 for a full discussion of the comfort kit. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 104 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) The following chart shows a breakout of the full list of the recommended option’s number and type of personal items. Chart 1: Visual Representation of the Recommended Option Personal Items The following pie chart shows the figures for each of the options above. The blue column on the left shows what the Project contributes towards the personal item. The other columns show the three levels possible support based on the cost estimates in the table above. Chart 2: Comparison between GEE Current Support for Personal Items and MTE Proposed Levels of Support USD 202 179 157 112 90 67 45 22 0 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 105 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) The Project payment for personal items of SP 42 ($19) covers only about one-third of even the most minimal list of items and only about 10 percent of a full list of items that students should have in order to attend school and to have some chance of graduating successfully. It is no wonder that students (and education administrators), while expressing appreciation for the support that students do receive from GEE, also state that the actual need is much greater than assumed by GEE. It is also not surprising that, given the limited current financial support from the Project, even counting in tuition support (below), there is little evidence that the scholarship makes the difference on whether or not a student remains in school. The scholarship clearly makes life a bit easier for the scholars (as is documented in GEE’s Success Stories), but, in most cases, it cannot be substantiated that the scholarship is not the determining factor for student retention or completion. The following table shows the typical tuition and other fees that students must pay to attend secondary school, as well as the cost for textbooks and other learning materials that students should have. For all but the last year, the students are obliged to pay just the tuition. The typical fee for most government day schools is about SP 50–60 ($22/$27). Tuition costs for private day schools are much higher, ranging from SP 250 ($112) to SP 300 ($135) for the two GEE schools visited by the Team. But boarding schools can cost considerably more. For example, the two boarding schools visited by the Team charged SP 225 ($101) and SP 540 ($242) per annum. While the GEE Project tuition stipend of SP 42 ($19) makes a significant contribution toward the typical annual tuition of SP 50–60 ($22/$27) for those students in government day schools, the tuition stipend does not substantially offset the tuition costs of boarding or private schools (which, one can argue, would typically provide a safer environment for girls and a better quality education). There are also additional fees for the student in the candidate year. For example, as noted above, S1 government day school tuition costs are about SP 50–60 ($22/$27), whereas in the candidate year, costs for tuition and examination (with ID card) jump to about SP 240 ($108). When the costs of textbooks and study pamphlets are added in, the candidate year tuition, examination, and learning materials cost is around SP 555 ($249). There is no GEE contribution towards the higher costs associated with the candidate year, despite the fact that this year is critical to achieving the overall goal of seeing females through secondary school. It is for this reason, that the Team has recommended in the body of this report that the Project adapt a more flexible approach to the payment of fees. The table below makes it clear that the GEE stipend is a drop in the bucket of the actual financial need associated with the academic side of a secondary education. Table 6: The Real Costs of the Academic Side of Secondary Education Compared to the GEE Tuition Stipend Item S1/S2 . . . Candidate Year GEE Tuition Stipend Tuition Fee 60 ($27) 60 ($27) 42SP($20) Exam Fee 60 ($27) National Identify Card 120 ($54) Materials to Support Learning Books 260 ($117) 140 ($63) Study Pamphlets 105 ($47) Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 106 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Other (including Stationery) 130 ($58) 70 ($31) TOTAL 450 ($202) 555 ($249) 42SP($20) GEE has paid no real attention to the quality of education. For example, although textbooks should be provided by the Government, there are few textbooks in schools (and some schools have no textbooks; students rely solely on the teacher for content and if the teacher does not show up for class, there is no learning. Many students reported that there was no teacher for as many as half of their classes each day). In fact, MOEST has not yet produced any textbooks for the new Southern Sudan curriculum. Some books are available for students to buy in the case that her/his school is using the northern Sudan curriculum or the Ugandan or Kenyan curricula and MOEST has produced syllabi for some of the core subjects and made some effort to ensure that each school has some reference books for teachers. Quality of education has a particular importance for girls’ participation. Herz and Sperling (2004) note the following: “Where parents already want to educate boys but are more ambivalent about girls, improvements in education quality may be particularly important to tip more decisions toward sending girls to school (emphasis added). Although more research is needed on precisely how to improve the quality of education in particular settings, studies find that a first and critical step is to have enough qualified teachers who attend school regularly, and that beyond teachers, schools are more effective at attracting girls if they offer a curriculum that equips children for the twenty-first century and have the requisite books and learning materials. An Egyptian study found that low educational quality and lack of learning were the top reasons for dropouts among girls (emphasis added). In Kenya and Bangladesh, research indicates the quality of teaching influences demand for education for girls even more than for boys. Provide adequate books and supplies . . . Where schools have few or hardly any books or learning materials, parents may not bother to send their children. Research is limited but suggests these inputs matter, particularly in parents’ decisions to educate girls. A multi-country study found that textbooks boost enrolment and achievement. Provision of textbooks encourages girls’ enrolments in Africa and South Asia and is one of the few interventions that promotes achievement (emphasis added) (along with alternative learning programs and single-sex schools). While it is beyond GEE’s mandate to provide qualified teachers in secondary schools, at the very least, a sustainability strategy should focus on raising the awareness of education administrators and community members about what works in girls’ education and supporting schools to develop targeted equity strategies. It should also be a priority that GEE provide every school with enough funds to buy a complete set of textbooks for every scholar (as well as ensuring that the other non-scholarship students have access to textbooks). ANNEX 12: COMFORT KIT DISCUSSION AND ALTERNATIVE FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS Background Comfort kits (CKs) were first provided to secondary school female scholarship recipients under the Sudan Basic Education Program’s Gender Equity Support Project (GESP). GEE comfort kit contains the same items as the original GESP comfort kit. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 107 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Comfort Kit and Items, Photo by T. Tilson Originally, the comfort kits were purchased in Kenya and distributed locally. When Winrock International took over the implementation of the revised GESP, it initially used Kenyan suppliers. However, WI’s proposal included a recommendation to produce the CKs locally and WI subsequently contracted three women’s organizations to produce the CKs. Despite bringing in a volunteer from the US to build the capacity of the women’s organizations to produce good quality CKs, there have been ongoing issues with timely delivery of the necessary number of CKs, as well as issues with quality control (Kits had and continue to have non-standard numbers of items and problems with the longevity and comfort—sizes, materials used, design—and hygiene issues associated with the sanitary napkins. In addition, data from the MTE mission show very clearly that most of the items in the CKs have a short ‘shelf-life.’ Table 7: Shelf-Life of Comfort Kit Items Item Assumed Time Item Lasts Actual Time Item Lasts Bar of soap 1 year 1–2 weeks (if shared with family) Jar of Vaseline 1 year 2–4 weeks Sanitary Pads 1 year or more 3 months Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 108 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Comb 1 year 1 year (if the comb is high quality; if not, it lasts a few months) Underwear 1 year or more 1 year or more (provided the underwear fit in the first place) Let’s Talk Booklet 1 year or more 1 year or more (The booklet is read and referred to frequently by girls who can read English. For those who cannot, some try to find family members or friends who can translate orally for them. Clearly, the booklet needs to be bilingual and could be provided to all secondary and upper primary school girls and teachers. Boys have also expressed interest in the booklet.) Do Sanitary Pads Cut Down on Girls’ Absenteeism? What Does the Research Say? The research on whether sanitary pads or other alternative feminine hygiene products such as the DivaCup or Moon-Cup affect girls’ absenteeism is divided. According to a recent research study by the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan reported in 2010 in the American Economic Journal of Applied Economics, “Despite the money being spent on (the issue of menstruation, sanitary products and school attendance), and the seeming media consensus on its importance, there is little or no rigorous evidence quantifying the days of school lost during menstruation or the effect of modern sanitary products on this time missed. Existing evidence is largely from anecdotes and self-reported survey data.” The researchers cite Kristof (2009) who states that, “education experts increasingly believe that a cost-effective way to help keep high school girls from dropping out in poor countries is to help provide them with sanitary products.” They note that such arguments are “based largely on anecdotal evidence: girls report missing school during their period and report limited access to modern sanitary products . . . This fails to give a sense of the depth of the issue: even if every girl reports missing school one day a year during her period, the problem may be widespread but not large in magnitude. The evidence on sanitary products has similar problems.” In a randomized evaluation of sanitary products provision to girls in Nepal, the researchers found that, “First, menstruation has a very small impact on school attendance: (they) estimate that girls miss a total of 0.4 days in a 180 day school year . . . (and) second, improved sanitary technology has no effect on reducing the (small) gap: girls who randomly received sanitary products were no less likely to miss school during their period. We can reject (at the 1% level) the claim that better menstruation products close the attendance gap.” The anecdotal evidence from the MTE mission would tend to support the findings of the researchers. A number of girls stated that they use rags if nothing else is available and many of the girls said that even if they have their periods, they try their best not to miss school. Some girls said they miss school not because of a lack of products, but because they suffer from cramping and walking a total of four hours to and from school on small amounts of food while having cramps is too much for them to bear. However, a recent study on sanitary protection for girls in Ghana by Oxford University has found different results. According to the Said Business School, “The study had two parts: an in-depth qualitative investigation of the circumstances surrounding schoolgirls’ menstruation in poor districts, and a quantitative pilot trial of pads and puberty education provision. The first phase indicated that post-pubescent girls were missing school as many as five days each month due to inadequate menstrual care. Other activities such as work, chores, and playing with other children are also restricted. In rural locations the impact of menstruation upon the girls Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 109 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) was particularly noticeable where there were no, or inadequate, toilet or washing facilities, no privacy, and the girls had walks of 2 hours or more to attend school. The second phase tested a combination of sanitary pads provision and an education module about menstruation and hygiene. After six months, the girls in the treatment groups where pads were provided missed significantly less school than before the test. On average, the rate of absenteeism was cut by slightly more than half, from about 21% of school days to about 9% of school days. In the village where education only was provided, there was also a reduction in absenteeism, but the effect was delayed. “Further work is needed to determine the long-term relationship between information, pads provision, and school performance,” observed Scott, who added that a larger study was in planning. The girls also reported an improved ability to concentrate in school, higher confidence levels, and increased participation in a range of everyday activities while menstruating. Negative experiences relating to soiling and embarrassment declined, as did feelings of shame and isolation, and measures of well-being improved. “These improvements in girl’s self-esteem are particularly important,” said Dolan. “A positive self-image will not only provide girls with a more rewarding and effective experience of school but will help them to participate fully in their families, communities and societies.” Dr Montgomery agrees: “The potential impact of this study for the life chances of these girls is profound, as it is already well known that it is women who are main players in driving economic development in many parts of Africa. While it is important to recognize that the provision of sanitary protection is important, the study also revealed the value of puberty education particularly concerning menstruation and hygiene. While we think that this education may not to be sufficient in itself, it is essential that it be provided.” The study points to a number of important issues for policy makers and NGOs in developing countries, not least how to fund and implement a program of sanitary product provision, and how to dispose of the pads with minimal environmental impact particularly in rural areas. Yet the benefits appear such that further research is warranted.” The study clearly shows that sanitary pad provision may have significance for female education in the developing world, but the researchers draw attention to other factors at work. They observe that the onset of menstruation itself puts the girls at educational risk, bringing an array of negative practices, including sexual harassment (especially from teachers, who, in such areas, are mostly young males), withdrawal of economic support from home, sudden pressure to marry or to leave the community to find work” (Said Business School Press Release, January 2010). Both research studies have implications for GEE. Certainly, the girls interviewed during the MTE appreciate the sanitary pads and use them as long as the pads are not problematic. But, as one girl put it, “When someone gives you something, you say ‘thank you.’” The sub-text is that a better quality product would be appreciated, but the girl is thankful for whatever is given to her. However, the level of effort and expense that have gone into the provision of CKs and especially the production of the sanitary pads may, in fact, have little benefit to attendance in reality. If re-usable pads or DivaCups (for example) are provided as a means of reducing a girl’s monthly cost of living and also of helping to ensure better hygiene and less worry about what to do if there is no private toilet facility with clean water, then providing high quality sanitary products that have a long shelf life is a good idea. UNICEF recently found that, in Guinea, enrollment rates for girls from 1997 to 2002 jumped 17 percent after improvements in school sanitation and the dropout rate among girls fell by an even bigger percentage. UNICEF also notes that schools in northeastern Nigeria showed substantial gains after UNICEF and donors built thousands of latrines, trained thousands of teachers and established school health clubs. However some research has found that for older girls, it is not necessarily the existence of a toilet block that is important, but having a good quality sanitary product that they don’t have to worry about during the day, is important. The findings of the Oxford University researchers that good sanitary products are especially important for girls walking long distances resonates with the MTE findings that most of the girls interviewed (if they were not in a boarding school) walked between two and four hours every day. Boarding school female students and Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 110 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) their teachers reported that these girls often try to return to their families when they are menstruating, if they don’t have access to reliable products. Proposed Action Although WI is to be commended for the effort made to garner a donation of disposable sanitary pads from Proctor and Gamble, had this agreement materialized there would have been negative environmental and potentially negative health consequences and the MTE Team encourages GEE to investigate possibilities that are less harmful. Given the issues with the CKs and the fact that the items do not last for the anticipated amount of time, the MTE Team has recommended that the production of the CKs be stopped and that the money be used to top up the scholarship recipients’ personal items stipends, with female scholarship recipients receiving marginally more personal items money due to the cost of buying disposable sanitary pads (ca 7–10SP/$3–5 per month). The MTE Team recognizes that providing funds for girls to purchase disposable products has environmental consequences, but the Team anticipates that this would be a very short-term solution until a satisfactory re-usable sanitary product can be sourced and provided. The following information is presented for GEE’s consideration. The Team would like to urge GEE to investigate the potential of working with Lunapads, an established and reputable Canadian-based company with branches internationally including in the US. Lunapads already provides high quality re-usable sanitary pads, special underwear and ‘Moon-Cups’ to girls in developing countries as a part of its social responsibility agenda and it is quite possible that GEE could collaborate with the company. The MTE Team suggests looking into products produced by Lunapads (see photos below): (1) the Pads4Girls kits contain an assortment of Lunapads as well as a pair of underwear (many girls don’t have underwear) and a carry-purse. Lunapads pads typically last between three and five years. See the “How To” video (http://lunapads.com/tips-and-advice/how-to￾videos) (2) the DivaCup, which can last up to ten years and more (3) “Happier Periods Naturally,” a 28-page illustrated booklet printed on 100% post consumer recycled paper that presents an inspiring, educational and positive perspective on cycles and periods that could be of use to the Project (see http://www.lunapads.com/extras/teen￾booklet.html ). Topics include: • How to chart your cycle (booklet includes a cycle chart) • The environmental impact of disposable pads and tampons • Natural options to disposable pads and tampons • Ways to celebrate your moon time • Self care tips Both the pads and the DivaCup (or Mooncup) products have been introduced in developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, including countries that are considered to be conservative. When the MTE team members, including the MOEST representative, discussed the DivaCup with a few secondary school girls and TTI students, they were open to considering the product. Please see the photos of Lunapads and the DivaCup below. The cost of either of these items is on a par with the cost of the Comfort Kits, but they have the added advantage of a very long shelf-life. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 111 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Photos of Lunapads products. The Team also suggests undertaking a small research study that can provide evidence of the effects of providing sanitary products and feminine hygiene education to girls in Southern Sudan. Other Considerations: Consumerism, Environmental Impact, Health Repercussions Turning Sudanese Girls into Consumers The supply of free samples by multi-national companies has its risks. Companies routinely target the younger generation to bring about cultural change. Getting young Sudanese women hooked on disposable sanitary products may have repercussions that GEE is not taking into account. For example, Proctor and Gamble runs the largest sanitary products campaign with a stated goal of improving school attendance. It has pledged US$5m toward providing puberty education and sanitary products. Significant among these is the erosion of traditional knowledge and approaches or the view that disposable is better than re-usable. A number of the girls interviewed during the MTE mission mentioned their concern about environmental degradation linked to disposable sanitary products and said they preferred to use re-usable products. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 112 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Environmental Impact and Health Considerations of Disposable Female Sanitary Products156 , • Lunapads will last well over 5 years with recommended use and care, as opposed to 3 or 4 hours in the case of disposable products. While individual use may vary, we estimate that a single Lunapad replaces 120 disposable pads or tampons. • The cost of reusable products is significantly less than disposables—women can save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over time. • On an individual level, a menstruating women in North America will throw away 125 to 150kg or approximately 16,800 disposable pads or tampons in her lifetime.157 The evidence from the GEE MTE indicates that, if a girl or woman can afford to buy disposable sanitary pads (commonly referred to as ‘Always’ in Southern Sudan), she will do so. Tampons are not yet on the market. Menstruating girls and women in Southern Sudan will increasingly contribute to environmental issues over time, particularly as the economy improves, unless high quality reusable products are made available. • In 1991, the Landbank Consultancy report reviewed the environmental impact of disposable diapers and concluded that compared to cloth diapers, throwaway diapers used 20 times more raw materials, three times more energy and twice as much water; overall they generated 60 times more waste. Disposable menstrual pads are made from substantially equivalent materials and ingredients as disposable diapers. • 1,000,000 disposable pads and tampons are now being diverted from landfills monthly thanks to Lunapads’ customers having made the switch to reusable products, and tens of thousands of women worldwide are feeling more connected to themselves and at peace with their consumer choices. • From a common sense perspective, the choice to wash and reuse cloth menstrual pads is a simple one, akin to using stainless steel water bottles, cloth shopping bags or rechargeable batteries in lieu of their single-use counterparts. In doing so, we reduce the gross amount of resources consumed and solid waste generated. In addition to the waste issue, one must also consider resources consumed, as well as manufacturing processes. Lunapads are made with a combination of three types of fabric, which admittedly use their own share of resources to produce. Critics may reasonably point to the use of conventionally-grown cotton as an environmental demerit to cloth pads. Further resources (water, detergent and energy) are also required in order to capitalize on their reusable benefit. That said, Lunapads are very small and do not require special laundering treatment, making the amount of water and soap required for their maintenance fairly minimal. Lunapads is further on track with our stated goal of switching to 100% organic or sustainable textiles, and currently use 100% certified organic fabrics for over half of our products. While growing cotton requires water and fertilizer, it is an easily renewable resource compared to trees, and requires relatively minimal processing to be rendered into a final product. • Disposable pads and tampons are made primarily of bleached kraft pulp or viscose rayon, the origin of which is wood cellulose from trees. Imagine, if you will, what kind of processing is required to make solid wood into the fluffy fibers found in disposable pads—in a nutshell, a lengthy series of powerful chemical baths. The rayon and pulp are further processed with a variety of bleaching agents 156 Information taken from http://lunapads.com/why-switch/statistical-facts/ Accessed 6pm July 8, 2010 from Sydney, Australia. 157 Approximately 20 billion pads, tampons and applicators are sent (by 73 million menstruating women) to North American landfills annually. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 113 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) to render them white (although not more absorbent), and then treated with another host of chemicals to enhance absorbency or add scent. Dioxin is a carcinogenic chemical, listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most toxic of all cancer-linked chemicals. It is banned in most countries, but not the U.S. While the jury is still out on the direct risk to human health posed by dioxin residue in disposable pads and tampons, its danger to the environment via effluent from factories is well known. In fairness, progress has been made in recent years to address this issue and oxygen-based bleaches are being increasingly adopted. That said, there has also been an increased adoption of use of Super Absorbent Polymers (SAPs) in the pursuit of “ultra thin” pads, and disposable pads continue to be backed in plastic. Precisely what all these chemicals and substances are and what their gross environmental impact might be is largely unknown, particularly in the long term. Pad and tampon manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients of all their products (proprietary information) and many are only listed generically (“fragrance” as an example) on the packaging. The long-term health and environmental impact of these ingredients is contentious and largely unknown. 158 158 Information taken from http://lunapads.com/why-switch/statistical-facts/ Accessed 6pm July 8, 2010 from Sydney, Australia. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 114 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 13: POSSIBLE WAYS GEE CAN EXPAND THE POOL OF FEMALE PRIMARY EDUCATION TEACHERS The following are some options for the GEE Project to consider as it attempts to expand the pool of females graduating successfully from Teacher Training Institutes and Colleges: 1. Develop a focused strategy for encouraging girls to enter teaching. Winrock plans to publish soon a booklet Women into Teaching (from SBEP) and the staff have discussed with the Ministry other types of promotional campaigns. 2. Together with MOEST, consider supporting options for some students to join a teacher education program in Kenya or Uganda. 3. Support girls who wish to continue their studies at a university, especially with the idea that they might subsequently teach at secondary schools. 4. Consider as an option that female graduates of secondary schools enter teaching immediately with the idea that, subsequently, they will be able to join either the pre-service or in-service program leading to certification. 5. The Project might consider working with a few of the secondary schools, perhaps the boarding schools in particular, on introducing some teaching methods courses that might159 (a) give special attention to teaching as a career and (b) help prepare students who are interested in becoming teachers upon graduation from secondary school. The attention being given to supporting women teachers has its origin in the SBEP Program. The following is an excerpt from the report by Dr. Jackie Kirk, Towards a Girls’ Education Support Program (July 2003). Some of these ideas remain relevant. Women Teachers as Agents of Change Equally important as the empowerment of girls in education is the empowerment of women teachers. Research in Uganda suggests that where women teachers are marginalized and given little authority and respect within a school it is difficult for them to have a positive impact on girls. In some instances the relationships between women teachers and girls can become strained and rather than a source of support, be a source of conflict and resentment. Therefore integral to the GES program are activities aimed at supporting women teachers to be agents of change. Publicity Campaign A publicity campaign focusing on the importance of women teachers is seen as a strategy, not only for promoting recruitment of new teachers, but also for boosting the confidence and self esteem of those already teaching. It may convince reluctant husbands and families to allow women to enter teaching and it is hoped that it also contributes towards more respect for women teachers within the school setting (especially from male teachers and head teachers). As currently envisaged, the campaign will include a pamphlet, and a poster with different images of women teaching (e.g., at the front of the classroom, working with a group of children and in a bush school outside). As the new radio station (Sudan Radio Service) develops and begins to have an impact, it could also be possible to put out radio jingles. 159 According to Herz and Sperling (2004), “Studies find good training enables young, undereducated women to teach primary school effectively, if temporarily.” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 115 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) Women Teacher Role Models Different Sudanese heroines and role models play an important part of the girls’ education program being developed by Joyce Janda for SBEP. An important linkage will be including two or three women teacher role models into the program, and with the women chosen working on some materials (e.g., small booklets on their life stories) and activities (such as visits to RTTIs and TTIs) to inspire and motivate women to continue with their teacher education. Promotion of these materials and activities in secondary schools could also increase the number of secondary school leavers going into teaching. Leadership Workshop for Women Teachers As a follow up activity to initial GES implementation, a leadership workshop for women teachers is proposed. This would be developed by the SBEP team, working closely with experienced teachers and teacher educators in southern Sudan to include activities that developed women’s capacity for leadership, decision-making, goal setting etc in the school setting but also beyond. The course would relate to the women’s experiences in school, but would not be limited to curriculum and pedagogy. Readings from novels, poems etc would be used to stimulate reflection and discussion, and the format would be very participatory. The course, once developed, would be piloted for county and payam level girls’ education supervisors, and potential teachers of it. The course would then be delivered over a week at the different RTTIs and TTIs. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 116 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 14: VALUE FOR MONEY: FURTHER DISCUSSION A proper assessment of “value for money” of the GEE Project would require cost analyses such as return on investment that are beyond the capabilities and time constraints of the evaluators. However, the following observations can be made. A rough calculation is that it costs about US$1,000 to provide a scholarship package of about $60 (tuition stipend, personal items, and comfort kit). This is based on a $9.5 million project delivering 9,500 scholarships (each female recipient receives $60 and each boy $40 (without the comfort kit) on an annual basis). In addition, GEE provides a school improvement grant initially based on $20/scholar, but this was changed to a set amount, within a small range, per school. In the first year, each school received 1,050 SP ($471); in subsequent years the amount is 735 SP ($330). However, the “national “secondary schools receive 1,050 ($471) every year and the TTIs/TTCs receive 2,230 SP ($1,000) each year. If converted back to a per scholar basis, the amount would be about $16 per secondary scholar per school. Thus, one could estimate that the total package for a school including the scholarship and improvement grant would be about $76 per girl and $56 per boy each year. Therefore, given that the total project budget is $9.5m and the total number of scholarships to be provided is 9,500, one can estimate that it costs $1,000 to deliver each scholarship, which averages $73 (about 13% of the scholars are boys). Thus, at the first cut, this seems like an expensive mechanism for providing a relatively small scholarship package. However, the GEE Project provides some additional benefits—technical assistance, training, and manuals or other materials. All together with the scholarship package, the school improvement grant, and efforts related to capacity building, Winrock estimated that there is roughly $250 of direct benefits for each $1,000 of Project funds. However, it should be noted that most of the anticipated benefits of the capacity building activities are not yet being realized. Whether this represents good value for money in the Southern Sudanese context was not able to be determined. Had time allowed, the MTE Team could have examined other scholarship programs in Southern Sudan and elsewhere and done a comparative cost analysis that would have provided a framework for drawing a conclusion about GEE’s value for money. Another factor regarding value of money relates to the goals of the Project. Two important goals of the Project are to: 1. Increase the retention of girls in secondary schools and teacher training institutions 2. Encourage more girls to enter the teaching profession The MTE Team was not able to obtain sufficient hard data on the dropout, retention and graduation rates of secondary school recipients. This information may become available once the new database is in use. Existing evidence is weak that the Project is having a major impact on retention. Also, there is also no evidence that the Project is having an impact on encouraging girls to enter the teaching profession. Data from the Longitudinal Study was to have supplied some information on this topic. The baseline study shows that 40 percent of the girls expressed some interest in becoming teachers. In addition, based on interviews with recipients, it is clear that some female scholars have ambitions to enter teaching as well as other professions. However, given that the Project has not yet made any efforts to encourage girls to enter teaching, there is no evidence that the Project has had an influence on career choices. Thus, no argument can be made that the return on investment is strong in terms of the two large goals stated above. An important factor on return on investment is the long-term benefits to women who complete secondary education. Assuming that GEE has a positive impact on enabling girls to complete secondary school, the long-term benefits to female students completing secondary education are likely to be substantial based on relevant research finding—and these outcomes may, in fact, be the major rationale for the Project. Annex 15 Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 117 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) includes a summary of research on the benefits of girls’ education. The MTE Team, however, is unable to give figures on the rate of return potentially associated with GEE. Operating a project in southern Sudan is very expensive, and WI’s operational expenses in terms of office space, equipment, etc. appear to be reasonable within this context. Finally, the two field offices in Wau and Malakal may not be providing adequate benefits for the cost incurred, and the Team encourages WI to weigh the costs and benefits of having these offices against the costs and benefits of providing services to these areas out of the Juba hub. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 118 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 15: EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS Theoretically, a $10 million project could allocate $1 million to each state with objectives similar to the GEE Project, but with a substantially different approach to managing the project. The major objectives of the different approach could be to (1) ensure ownership of the project by the Sudanese, (2) develop Sudanese capacity to design, manage, and monitor projects including budget control, (3) demonstrate to citizens that GOSS is capable of delivering services, and (4) enable a higher percentage of the budget to reach the beneficiaries. Rather than being administered almost solely by an NGO, the government would be put in the forefront. Although the basic goals and objectives would be determined ahead of time through the project design and negotiations, the state officials would have a major role to play in the following areas: 1. Determining appropriate variations in the program and its approach depending on local circumstances, for example, to determine if a mentoring program should be an integrated component, or if a campaign at the community level on the importance of education for girls would be helpful, or whether it would be appropriate to provide special scholarships for exceptionally capable students. Determining the balance between a more comprehensive program per student or greater coverage. 2. Determining the criteria and selection process for targeting schools 3. Determining the criteria and selection process for choosing the scholars, such as the percentage of male and female recipients, the percentage of disabled students, and other criteria such as students who are head of households 4. Setting criteria for the school improvement grants that, for example, might include minimum criteria for improving the quality of the education program 5. Developing the implementation strategies and processes 6. Taking responsibility for implementing the project—public campaigns; orientation for the counties, schools and communities; distributing the scholarships; monitoring; and accountability issues Basically, each state would receive the funding, probably through a NGO selected by the donor. The implementation process would need to ensure that the NGO has sufficient oversight of the use of the money and would be held accountable. Challenges: There are potential liabilities of this approach, especially the lack of government capacity. Southern Sudan and the respective ten states was only created five years ago and the country is struggling to establish a functioning government with limited financial resources and human capital. However, significant progress has been made over the past few years, making the situation very different from the time when the GEE project was designed. An assessment of the capacity and needs in each state would help to determine the required technical support, especially regarding project management. Specific challenges would be the following: • Ensuring that each state strategy feeds into the overall project strategy and targets. • Disbursing funds and auditing finances. • Monitoring and evaluating the implementation and impact. Process: GEE could convene a state-based Scholarship and Community Mobilization and Advocacy Workshop to (a) undertake scholarship and community mobilization and advocacy strategy development and planning; (2) establish a Scholarship and Community Mobilization and Advocacy Task Force with TOR; (3) develop a Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 119 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) detailed budget and disbursement mode; and (4) identify the roles and responsibilities of each party (Government and Implementing Agency). UNICEF already utilizes this type of model with SMOEs in its annual planning exercise, so there is a precedent and a model upon which to build. Participants: SMOE HQ and county education personnel, secondary school head teachers and senior female teachers and matrons, heads of BOGs (plus female BOG member if head is not female) and TAP STA/POE. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 120 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 16: BENEFITS OF EDUCATING GIRLS The following content (with emphases added) is taken from Hertz, Barbara and Sperling, Gene B. (2004) “What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence and Policies from the Developing World.” New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/6947/what_works_in_girls_education.html Also see World Bank. (2008) “Girls Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empowerment and Economic Growth.” Washington, DC: World Bank. “ . . . extensive research confirms that investing in girls’ education delivers high returns not only for female education attainment, but also for maternal and children’s health, more sustainable families, women’s empowerment, democracy, income growth, and productivity. . . . Providing girls one extra year of education beyond the average boosts eventual wages by 10–20 percent. Students have found returns to primary education on the order of 5 to 15 percent for boys and slightly higher for girls. . . . A leading development economist has found that returns to female secondary education are in the 15–25 percent range. Yale economist Paul Schultz has found that wage gains from additional education tend to be similar if not somewhat higher for women than for men, and that the returns to secondary education in particular are generally appreciably higher for women. ‘Increasing investments in women’s human capital, especially education, should be a priority for countries seeking both economic growth and human welfare . . . The case for redirecting educational investment to women is stronger the greater the initial disparity in investments between men and women’ (Schultz 2002). . . . A 100–country study by the World Bank shows that increasing the share of women with a secondary education by 1 percent boosts annual per capita income growth by 0.3 percentage points. This is a substantial amount considering that per capita income gains in developing countries seldom exceed 3 percent a year (Dollar and Gatti 1999). Educated women are more likely to enter the formal labor market, where they often reap greater wage gains than in the informal sector. . . . A 65- country analysis finds that doubling the proportion of women with a secondary education would reduce average fertility rates from 5.3 to 3.9 children per woman. The authors conclude, ‘The expansion of female secondary education may be the best single policy for achieving substantial reductions in fertility’ (Subbarao and Raney 1995).” “ . . . Extensive research across and within diverse countries has established that female education— controlling for other influences—strikingly decreases infant mortality. Recent research shows that better maternal education is associated with better height and body mass indicators for children. Primary education alone helps reduce infant mortality significantly, and secondary education helps even more. A Yale economist found that an extra year of girls’ education cuts infant mortality 5–10 percent . . . each additional year of a mother’s schooling cuts the expected infant mortality rate by an average of 5–10 percent. This link ‘is especially striking in low income countries’ (Schultz 1993) . . . Where only half as many girls as boys go to school, 21 more children per 1,000 die . . . Increasing girls’ enrolment in primary and secondary school by 10 percent is associated with an average decline in infant mortality of 4.1 and 5.6 deaths per 1,000 births, respectively (Hill and King 1995). . . . A recent cross-country study finds that women’s education generally has more impact than men’s education on children’s schooling (Filmer 2000). Multiple studies have found that a mother’s level of education has a strong positive effect on her daughters’ enrolment—more than on sons’ and significantly more than the effect of fathers’ education on daughters. . . . Paternal education also promotes children’s enrolment, more for girls than for boys, but the effects of maternal education are stronger . . . an increasing body of research shows that more-educated people, especially youth, are less likely to engage in risky behavior and contract HIV. Educated girls are less likely to contract HIV. Young rural Ugandans with secondary education are three times less likely than those with no education to be HIV positive (De Walque 2004). A Kenyan study found that girls who stay in school are four times more likely to be virgins than those who drop out (UNICEF 2002b). . . . A review of 113 studies indicates that school-based AIDS education programs are effective in reducing early sexual activity and high-risk behavior (Kirby et al. 1994). . . . A 100-country study finds that educating girls and reducing the gender gap tends to promote Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 121 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) democracy. The study argues that these findings confirm the hypothesis that ‘expanded education opportunities for females goes along with a social structure that is generally more participatory and, hence, more receptive to democracy’ (Barro 1999).” Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 122 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) ANNEX 17: BIBLIOGRAPHY The following publications and papers served as the major documents reviewed by the evaluation team in preparation for conducting the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Gender Equity through Education Program. 1. AusAID. (2005) AusGuideline 6.4: Promoting Practical Sustainability. (October) Canberra; Commonwealth of Australia. . 2. Baser, Heather and Morgan, Peter. (2008) Capacity, Change and Performance: Synthesis Report. Maastricht, Netherlands: European Center for Development Policy Management. 3. Bekoe, D. , 2005–03–05 ”Toward the Successful Implementation of Peace Agreements” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii. Online <.PDF>. 2009–05–26 fromhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71861_index.html 4. Brinkerhoff, Derick. (2007) Capacity Development and Fragile States. Maastricht, Netherlands: ECDPM 5. Buckland, Peter. (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction. Washington, DC: World Bank. 6. Conflict Sensitivity Organization. (no date available) Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peace-Building: Tools for Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment. http://conflictsensitivity.org/?q=node/49 7. Corson, D. (1993) Language, Minority Education and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 8. Crawford, P. et al. (no date provided) Aristotle and Plato at It Again? Philosophical Divergence within International Aid Project Design and Monitoring and Evaluation. http://www.aid￾it.com.au/Portals/0/Documents/070105_Aristotle%20and%20Plato%20at%20it%20again.pdf 9. Curtis, Bill, Hefley, William E., and Miller, Sally. (2002) The People Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Workforce.” USA: Addison-Wesley. 10. DFID. (2002 Gender Manual: A Practical Guide for Development Policy Makers and Practitioners. London: DFID. 11. Ducher, N. et al. (2001) Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies” Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 12. Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. (2002). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. 13. Ebata, Michi et al. (2005) Youth and Violent Conflict: Society and Development in Crisis. A Strategic Review with a Special Focus on West Africa. New York: UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention. 14. European Center for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) (no date provided). Institutional Development: Learning by Doing and Sharing. Maastricht, Netherlands: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poverty Policy and Institutional Development Division (DSI/AI). 15. Global Campaign for Education. (2005) Girls Can’t Wait: Why Girls’ Education matters and How to Make It Happen Now-Briefing Paper for the UN Beijing + 10 Review and Appraisal. No location: Reproductive Health Matters. 16. Goodhand, Jonathan. (2001) Conflict Assessments: A Synthesis Report: Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Nepal and Sri Lanka. London, UK: University of London-King’s College Centre for Defence Studies Conflict, Security and Development Group. ISSN 1475–2174: July. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 123 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 17. Government of Southern Sudan Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Southern Sudan Education Act (draft), 2008. 18. Government of Southern Sudan Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2007) Policy Handbook. January 2007. 19. Government of Southern Sudan Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development. (2008) The Child Act. Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development: Juba, Southern Sudan. 20. Hauck, Volker and Baser, Heather. (2005) TA Pooling: Tools and Lessons Learned. London: DfID. 21. Handicap International. (2006) Good Practices for the Economic Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Developing Countries: Funding Mechanisms for Self-Employment. http://www.handicap-international.org/uploads/media/goodpractices-GB-2coul.PDF Access 8am July 12 2010 form Sydney Australia. 22. Hauge, Arild O. (2002) Accountability—to What End? In Development Policy Journal Special Issue: Technical Cooperation, Vol 2, December, pp. 73–94. UNDP. 23. Hertz, Barbara and Sperling, Gene B. (2004) What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence and Policies from the Developing World. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. 24. Hunt, J. (2004) Introduction to Gender Analysis Concepts and Steps. In Development Bulletin, No. 64, pp. 100–106. 25. International Alert. (2008) Building a Peace Economy in Northern Uganda: Conflict Sensitive Approaches to Recovery and Growth. International Alert Investing in Peace Briefing paper Issue No. 1, Sept 2008. Nairobi, Kenya/Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Africa Peace Forum/Project Ploughshares. 26. International Alert. (no date provided) Code of Conduct: Conflict Transformation Work. 27. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. (2004). Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, ’Chronic Crisis and Early Reconstruction. London: INEE. 28. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. (2004) Interactive INEE Minimum Standards Toolkit. London: INEE. 29. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. (no date provided) Good Practice Guide on Women and Girls’ Education. New York: INEE. 30. Kemper, Yvonne. (2005) Youth in War-to-Peace Transitions: Approaches of International Organizations. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management. 31. Kirk, Jackie. (2003) “Toward a Girls Education Support Program: A Draft Report.” Juba, Southern Sudan: USAID. 32. Lokuji, Alfred Sebit. (2006) Building the Capacity for Sustainable Peace in Sudan: Paper #2—Peace Hazards in the Power Sharing Aspects of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement during the Interim Period in the Sudan. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 124 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 33. Machel, Graca. (2001) The Impact of War on Children: A Review of the Progress Since the 1996 United Nations Report on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. London: Hurst & Co. 34. Machel, Graca. (1996) The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. Geneva: UNICEF. 35. Management Systems International. Evaluations/Special Studies Guide for Sudan SUPPORT Project. 2008. 36. Memorandum of Understanding between United States Agency for International Development and the Government of South Sudan Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. May 12, 2006. 37. Missika-Wierzba, Bathylle and Nelson, Mark (2006) A Revolution in Capacity Development? Africans Ask Tough Questions. Capacity Development Brief Number 16, May. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute. 38. Morgan, Peter. (2008) Improving Counterpart Relationships in Papua New Guinea: A Study for the Governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Canberra, Australia: AusAID. 39. Morgan, Peter. (2002) Technical Assistance: Correcting the Precedents. In Development Policy Journal Special Issue: Technical Cooperation, Vol 2, December, pp. 1–22. UNDP. 40. Morgan, Peter. (1997) The Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators. Canada: Canadian International Development Agency. 41. Morley, Steven and Coady, David. (2003) From Social Assistance to Social Development: Targeted Education Subsidies in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development/IFPRI. 42. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1997) Guidelines on Peace, Conflict and Development. Geneva: OECD. 43. Oster, Emily and Thornton, Rebecca. (2010) Menstruation, Sanitary Products and School Attendance: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (forthcoming). 44. O’Sullivan, Rita G. (2004) Practicing Evaluation: A Collaborative Approach. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: SAGE Publications 45. Randell, Shirley K and Gergel, Diana R. (2009) The Education of Girls in Africa. Opening Address at the Federation of University Women of Africa Conference, Lagos, Nigeria (July). 46. Rose, Pauline. (2006) Education in Fragile States: Capturing Lessons and Identifying Good Practice. Centre for International Education, University of Sussex. May. 47. Save the Children Foundation. (2009) Rewrite the Future. London: International Save the Children Alliance. 48. Save the Children Foundation. (2008) Last in Line; Last in School: How Donors Can Support Children Affected by Conflict and Emergencies. London: International Save the Children Alliance. 49. Save the Children Foundation. (2007) Last in Line; Last in School: How Donors are Failing Children in Conflict-Affected States. London: International Save the Children Alliance. 50. SDC. (2006) Conflict-Sensitive Program Management CSPM: Integrating Conflict Sensitivity and Prevention of Violence into SDC Programs. Geneva, Switzerland: SDC. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 125 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 51. Sommers, Marc. (2006 ) Youth and Conflict: A Brief Review of Available Literature. Washington, DC: USAID (EQUIP3). 52. Schneider, K. (2007) Public Finance Management including Gender Responsive Budgeting. Oslo, Norway: United Nations. 53. Status of Women-Canada. (1996) Gender-Based Analysis: A Guide for Policy-Making. Ottawa: Status of Women-Canada. 54. Taddesse, Sam. (2009) Discussion Paper: Thoughts on Institutional Capacity Building. January. 55. Tomasevski, K. (2003) Education Denied. London: Zed Books. 56. UN. (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010. .New York: UN. 57. UN. (1998) Priorities for Post-Conflict Peace-building. New York: UN. 58. UNDP. (2009) Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York: UNDP. 59. UNDP. (2008) Capacity Development Practice Note. October. New York: UNDP. 60. UNDP. (2006) Youth and Violent Conflict: Society and Development in Crisis? New York: UNDP. 61. UNDP. (2002) Development Policy Journal: Special Issue—Technical Cooperation. Vol 2, December. New York: UNDP. 62. UNDP. (1998) Capacity Assessment and Development in a Systems and Strategic Management Context. Technical Advisory Paper No. 3: Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Development Policy. January. New York: UNDP. 63. UN-Habitat. (2009) Mapping/Capacity Assessment of Local Organizations involved in Community Driven Development/Recovery in Southern Sudan. May 25. New York: UNDP. 64. UNESCO. (2007) Children in Crisis-Education Rights for Children in Conflict Affected and Fragile States. Paris: UNESCO. 65. UNESCO International Institute of Educational Planning. (2006) Guidebook for Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction. Paris: UNESCO IIEP. 66. UNESCO. (2005) Girls, Educational Equity and Mother-Tongue-based Teaching. Bangkok: UNESCO-Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. 67. UNICEF. (2009). Children and Conflict in a Changing World. New York: UNICEF- New York. 68. UNICEF. (2006). Education in Emergencies: A Resource Toolkit. New York: UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia and UNICEF New York. 69. UNICEF (Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children). (2000) Untapped Potential: Adolescents Affected by Armed Conflict: A Review of Programs and Policies. New York: UNICEF. 70. UNICEF. (1996) Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children: Impact of Armed Conflict 71. UNIFEM. (not provided) Gender Equality Now: Accelerating the Achievement of the Millenium Development Goals. New York: UNIFEM. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 126 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 72. UNIFEM. (2006) Promoting Gender Equality in New Aid Modalities and Partnerships. New York: UNIFEM. 73. UNIFEM, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. (2005) Towards Achieving the MDGs in Sudan: Centrality of Women’s Leadership and Gender Equality. Oslo: Government of Norway. 74. USAID. (2010) Guide to Gender Integration and Analysis. Washington, DC: USAID. http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/updates/iu2-1006d.pdf 75. USAID. (2010) Lessons Learned: Monitoring and Evaluation in Complex, High-Threat Environments. Washington, DC: USAID. 76. USAID. (2007) Cooperative Agreement No. 650-A-00–07–00003–00 with Winrock International (with modifications). 77. USAID. (2007) Cooperative Agreement No. 650-A-00–07–00004–00 with Academy for Educational Development (with modifications). 78. USAID. (2007) Strategic Framework for Investing in People. http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2007/html/82981.htm 79. USAID. (2007) Women and Conflict: An Introductory Guide for Programming. Washington, DC: USAID. 80. USAID. (2006) Men, Women and Development. Washington, DC: USAID. 81. USAID. (2005) Youth and Conflict: A Toolkit for Intervention. Washington, DC: USAID. 82. USAID. (2005) Basic Education Strategy. http://www.usaid.gov/policy/educationpolicy05.pdf 83. USAID. (2005) Fragile States Strategy. http://www.usaid.gov/policy/2005_fragile_states_strategy.pdf 84. USAID. (2004) Conducting a Conflict Assessment: A Framework for Analysis and Program Development. Washington, DC: USAID. 85. USAID. (2000) Recent Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS: Measuring Institutional Capacity. November. 86. USAID. (1999) More, But Not Yet Better: An Evaluation of USAID’s Programs and Policies to Improve Girls’ Education. Washington, DC: USAID. 87. Van der Velden, Fons and Leenknegt, Anne-Marie (2006) Facilitation of Organizational Change: Beyond Organizational and Institutional Development. Contextuals No. 5 December. http://contextinternationalcooperation.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/contextuals-no-5.pdf 88. Waqo, Halakhe and Oyango, Rachael. (2008) Conflict Sensitive Programming. Presented at the Kenya Humanitarian Forum, OCHA, August 15, 2008. 89. Watson, David. (2005) ECDPM Study on Capacity Change and Performance: Monitoring and Evaluation Aspects of Capacity and Capacity Development-Working Paper for a Discussion in a Workshop in 2006. 90. World Bank. (2008) Girls Education in the 21st Century: Gender Equality, Empowerment and Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. 91. World Bank. (2005) OED Review of Bank Support for Capacity Building in Africa: Management Response. Washington, DC: World Bank. Gender Equity through Education (GEE) 127 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOEST) 92. World Bank. (2005) Capacity Building in Africa: An OED Evaluation of World Bank Support. Washington, DC: World Bank. 93. World Health Organization. (2008) Violence, Injuries and Disability Biennial 2006–2007 Report. Geneva: WHO.