By Theresa Sila Wikaningtyas Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant Education for Youth A Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education About This document presents an honest review and appraisal of the Non Cash Grants program conducted in Non Formal Education through the USAID funded Decentralization Project (DBE3) with a view to illustrating the strengths and successes but also to highlight the weaknesses and challenges in order to derive maximum learning. The opinions expressed in this document are the result of an internal and informal review and evaluation by DBE3 staff and non formal education partners. They are not representative of USAID. Theresa Sila Wikaningtyas carried out this study between August and December 2009 with professional advice and guidance provided by DBE3 staff and non formal education partners in Jakarta, North Sumatra, South Sulawesi, East, West and Central Java Front Cover The photograph on the front cover shows youth learners at PKBM Nur Alif, Jeneponto, South Sulawesi Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 1.0 Context 4 2.0 The DBE3 Non Formal Education Program 7 3.0 The DBE3 Non Cash Grants Program 10 4.0 The Review 17 5.0 Findings 19 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 32 Annexes Annex 1: Non Cash Grants Partner Selection Criteria 39 Annex 2: List of Cohort 1 Non Cash Grants Partners 41 Annex 3: List of Cohort 2 Non Cash Grants Partners 45 Annex 4: List of Non Cash Grants Monitoring Sample 49 List of Tables and Charts Table 1: Number and Percentage of Target Non Formal Education Providers by Type 10 Chart 1: DBE3 Non Cash Grants Process Flowchart 13 Table 2: Implementation Schedule of the Non Cash Grants Program 16 Table 3: DBE3 Non Cash Grants Program Monitoring Schedule 18 Abbreviations and Acronyms AED Academy for Educational Development APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Dearah (regional budget) BAPPEDA BLPLSP Government Planning Board Regional Non Formal Education Tutor Training Centers CLC/PKBM Community Learning Center/ Pusat Kegiatan Belajar Masyarakat COP Chief of Party DBE Decentralized Basic Education DBE1 Improving the Quality of Management and Governance DBE2 Improving the Quality of Primary Teaching and Learning DBE3 Improving the Relevance of Junior Secondary Education DC District Coordinator DCOP DEE DPLS Deputy Chief of Party Directorate of Equivalency Education Directorate for out of school education at MONE DINAS Provincial or district education office DIKNAS Dinas Pendidikan Nasional (National Education Office) DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (Regional House of Representatives) DF District facilitator GOI Government of Indonesia IR Intermediate Result IRD International Relief and Development ICT Information & communications technologies LSE Life Skills Education M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MONE Ministry of National Education MORA Ministry of Religious Affairs MT Management Team MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NCG NFE/P Non Cash Grant Non Formal Education/Non Formal Education Provider NGO/LSM Non Government Organization/Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat PC PK Pontren Provincial Coordinator Pondok Pesantren PPA Public-Private Alliances PMPTK Ditjen Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Directorate General for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel) SC SKB Save the Children Federation, Inc Government/MONE Non Formal Education Provider SMA SMK Senior high school Vocational high school SMP Junior secondary school STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance TVE Technical-Vocational Education USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 1 Executive Summary This paper presents a review and appraisal of the Non Cash Grants Program conducted by the USAID funded Decentralized Basic Education 3 Project (DBE3). It is intended to highlight the strengths and successes as well as weakness and challenges of the program, in order to gain maximum learning for future development assistance projects considering working in non formal education (NFE). Between 2007 and 2010 , DBE3 implemented a Non Cash Grants program aimed at supporting NFE partners to design and implement a locally relevant life skills program to teach out of school youth professional vocational skills which could be used to enter the local workforce either as an employee or an entrepreneur. This was in keeping with the overall objectives of the DBE3 Non Formal Education Program in assisting out of school youth to build the skills needed to better participate in the community and workforce. The Non Cash Grants program was conducted in two phases in six DBE3 target provinces. During the course of the program, DBE3 conducted a series of activities which included training over 414 NFE Managers from partner Institutions on how to write proposals at access non cash grants, the procurement of equipment totaling 292,250 US$ and distribution to 167 NFEP partners which supported the training of 1690 in and out of school youth in a wide variety of vocational and life skills programs such as sewing, ICT training, automotive repair, egg hatching, screen printing, honey bee cultivation, welding, cookery, livestock rearing and bridal make up training. Following the implementation of the non cash grants, DBE3 conducted a review and evaluation of the program. The review included monitoring visits to a sample of NFE Partners to perform a visible check on the assets provided through the grant, a review of all documents related to the grant and interviews with NFEP Managers, tutors and warga belajar (learners). In November 2010 a focus group discussion with DBE3 Staff was held to further information and data on the program for the review. In general, the review found that the overall concept and the design of the program were solid and the program was well appreciated at the local level. However, the review also found that the program was not always well managed by DBE3 and this led to mixed results and inconsistent impact across the project. Where the program was successful clear benefits for the youth learners, the wider community and the future of the Non Formal Education Provider was USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 2 were seen. In contrast, there were numerous cases where the program was not relevant, was not successful and did not benefit the youth learners. On occasions, the program was not completed. Several key recommendations for the improvement of future non cash grants program emerged from the review. The following is a summary. A thorough explanation of the conclusions, findings and recommendations is available in the final section of this report (p.36). Finding Recommendation 1 The procurement process used by DBE3 in the Non Cash Grants program was too complex, time consuming and not appropriate to the local context The Procurement process needs to be simplified and be more flexible to take into account the training program, local conditions, and availability of goods in the local area. 2 The needs analysis which was a critical part of the non cash grants proposal design was not included in the DBE3 training and was ignored in the development of proposals meaning that some NCG programs were not locally relevant. It should be compulsory for grant recipients to conduct a “needs analysis” to ensure that the program proposed is locally relevant, demand driven and can rely on local resources, which was the overall aim of the NCG program. 3 The DBE3 District Facilitators (DF) were marginalized in the NCG program so DBE3 staff, who were at that time over stretched with other project activities, had no support at the District level to act as liaison with the NFEP. DF should be fully engaged in the NCG program from start to finish as they can provide vital support. DF should be trained to facilitate the workshops on proposal writing with NFEP in target districts rather than DBE3 staff. 4 The most relevant and successful NCG programs were in NFEP which built on what they were already doing and for which they had previous experience, existing networks and support within the community and local businesses. NFEP which tried to implement new programs with no previous experience and local networks did not do so well. DBE3 should be more closely involved in guiding NFEP in deciding which out of school programs should be supported by NCG and encourage partners to build on what they are already doing. If NFEP want to try something new, DBE3 should provide additional guidance and support in helping to establish local networks with NGO and local businesses to increase the chances of success of the programs. 5 DBE3 asked all NFE partners to participate in the NCG program even when it was clear that some NFE were not in a position to use the grant effectively because they did not have the numbers of learners, facilities, relevant experience with vocational training; or the capability. DBE3 should place resources only where they will be most effective. Potential recipients for the Non Cash Grants need to be selected carefully 6 DBE3 made the mistake of seeing the program as only the provision of equipment. There was a lack of technical assistance provided beyond the initial training and an assumption that each NFEP was “capable” of implementing the program alone. Experience has shown that it is a combination of technical assistance with the provision of limited amounts of equipment; small grants or materials to beneficiaries which has the most positive impact. It is the technical assistance and not the equipment which is important. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 3 7 The tools used during the review and approval process of the proposals for NCG were not carefully thought out and were largely ineffective; the indicators did not relate to the objectives of the program so there was no real standard against which to measure whether the proposed program was suitable or feasible or locally relevant. The tools and indicators used in a review and approval process should be few and link clearly to the objectives of the program, it should be compulsory for each and every proposal to achieve all indicators and there should be no blanket approval of proposals. The criteria needs to be used rigorously by people who both understand the objectives of the program and know the local situation and are able to say whether the program is feasible or not. 8 DBE3 did not engage with other relevant NFE stakeholders in the district in the design and implementation of the non cash grants program. This meant that valuable opportunities and assistance was lost DBE3 need to establish relationships with local NGOs, who are key players in the provision of NFE in Districts. NGO involvement can help with connecting partners with networking other NFEP as well as local enterprises. Local NGOs could help in setting up work experience programs or internships with these businesses for NFE learners as part of or following from the vocational training program. 9 Although the objective of the DBE3 non cash grants program was clearly stated the project did not develop any indicators or tools for monitoring or measuring the impact of the program and the extent to which the objective was achieved. DBE3 only measured inputs (how many grants were disbursed) and not outcomes. It is essential to have proper tools to measure the extent to which objectives have been achieved. These tools should go beyond simply monitoring “inputs” to look at outcomes. 10 DBE3 did not consider the consequences of providing expensive equipment to NFEP which may not have the resources to store, secure or maintain it. The result was that some equipment was never used, some lost or stolen, some broken and left unrepaired and some NFE not having funds to use, replace or repair it. DBE3 needs to understand and address some of the key consequences of providing equipment to NFEP, which they may never have had before, don’t have space to use it, don’t know how to take care of and especially when this equipment has been purchased from outside the local area. The NFEP may need additional support in understanding how to maximize and sustain the use of the equipment and this should be included in the program. . USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 4 Introduction The aim of this written review is to present an honest appraisal of the Non Cash Grants program conducted through the USAID funded Decentralization Project (DBE3) with a view to illustrating the strengths and successes but also to highlight the weaknesses and challenges in order to derive maximum learning for future development assistance projects considering working in non formal education. The opinions expressed in this document are the result of an internal and informal review and evaluation by Non Formal Education partners and DBE3 staff. 1.0 Program Context 1.1 Non Formal Education Non formal education is often best understood in the context of formal education. The term formal education usually refers to the highly institutionalized, chronologically graded and hierarchically structured education system provided by the state from running from primary school to University level. In most countries, the formal education system is primarily Government supported although often (but not always) the state allows and certifies private systems of formal schooling. The early levels of formal education are usually compulsory, classroom based and accompanied by trained teachers. Learning is certified and from a state created and approved curriculum or syllabus framework. Generally, formal education is the socio-cultural accepted norm for learning for children and youth and the general assumption is that such an education will be successful. In contrast, non-formal education can be defined as any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the population, adults as well as children. Non-formal learning is not state propagated and although structured in terms of learning objectives, time and support, it generally occurs in planned but highly adaptable ways, and in many places such as institutions, organizations, the workplace, the community and other situations outside the spheres of formal education. Non Formal programs can include continuing education courses, adult literacy, organized field trips, museum visits, and structured training programs developed by organizations. Non Formal learning is intentional from the learners’ perspective. The role of Non Formal Education is traditionally seen as to provide opportunities for people of any age to increase their skills and knowledge, as well as to experience the emotional rewards associated with an interest for a particular subject or passion for learning. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 5 As a result of the Education For All debate (which still determines educational policy and planning in developing countries) increasingly, there has been a trend of also identifying non￾formal education, with children’s alternative schooling (out of school) in countries where it may be difficult (politically or economically) to pay for the expansion of formal education to reach everyone. Therefore, there are often strands of non formal education which provide out of school programs offering a second chance to children (and adults) who can not or did not participate in formal education or who did not complete their schooling. However, often the common view of Non Formal Education is that it is a sub-system of education, certainly not superior and often considerably inferior to formal schooling. 1.2 Non Formal Education in Indonesia The situation of education in Indonesia is not much different from the situation in other developing country contexts. Indonesia is committed to Education for All and Formal Basic Education in Indonesia lasts for 9 years and includes Elementary School (SD/MI) and Junior Secondary School (SMP/MTS). All children of school age, 6 to 15 are required to attend. Elementary school aims at providing children aged between 6 and 12 the six years of general elementary education, which is well suited to the relevant stage of their physical and mental development. Lower secondary school aims at providing children aged between 12 and 15 with the three years of general secondary education suited to the relevant stage of their physical and mental development, which is based on building on the education they have received in elementary school. The definition and scope of non formal education is much more imprecise. It is defined by Education Law 23 in 2003 as any education organized by the Government or community that is (but need not) be structured and phased. It can be (but does not have to be) legalized and certified by the Government. The goal of non formal education is to provide educational services to young children who have not yet been in school, people who have never been in school, people who are illiterate, people whose educational needs cannot be met by formal education, for general communities and for those people people who need to develop their knowledge and skills and professional attitudes. Therefore, the Indonesian definition of Non Formal Education covers any institution, individual or community group that provides any kind of educational activity for any group of people outside of the formal system. Although formal education is compulsory, around 30% of children in Indonesia do not complete their basic education in the formal system for a variety of reasons and so, as in other developing USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 6 country contexts, non formal education in Indonesia is also used to support nine year compulsory basic education for all. The Indonesia Ministry of National Education has established a series of equivalency education programs called Paket’ with Paket A being equivalent to elementary school, Paket B to junior secondary education and Paket C to senior secondary. When asked what is non formal about such a national system of education leading to recognized equivalent qualifications such as the paket programs, the answer is given that they non formal because they are more flexible, have less well qualified and trained teachers, have a simplified form of curriculum and different teaching and learning materials. They are frequently part-time and have more flexible dates of terms than the formal schools. This suggests that the words flexibility, adaptability and simplified may be best suited to define people’s perceptions of non formal education in Indonesia. As the concept of Non Formal education in Indonesia is so broad, it takes place in very diverse and complex situations. Non formal programs in Indonesia inlcude those offered from the Ministry of National Education such as the equivalency programs desxribed above, functional literacy education programs, education for women’s empowerment, early childhood education, technical and vocational training and short courses (such as ICT programs). Other Ministries also offer non formal education programs including vocational training programs from the Ministry of Manpower, Health and Nutrition education from the Ministry of Health, Religious education from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and education for street children from the Department for Social Affairs. In addition to a large number of programs, there are also a wide variety of providers. Non Formal Education providers (NFEP) can be private, community based, from the religious sector or from governmental or non governmental entities. The most common providers offering programs for youth include: Sanggar Kegiatan Belajar (SKB) Government run (MONE) District level non formal education provider offering a range of programs including the Paket programs and Vocational Training Pusat Kegiatan Belajar Masyarakat (PKBM) Government owned/certified Community Learning Center Balai Latihan Kerja (BLK) Government run (Ministry of Manpower) non formal education provider usually focusing on vocational training Rumah Singgah Drop in facilities for street children providing health and safety education and sometimes vocational training operated by the Department of Social Affairs USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 7 Kursus Private owned profit oriented institutions focusing on specific skills such as sewing, English language, and computers). Kelompok Belajar Paket Informal clubs teaching paket A, B or C which do not have formal certification of establishment from government to organize out of school education provision. These groups tend to stop activities after one or two cycles of programs. Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM) Non Government Organizations which usually have formal legalization/certification of establishment from government to organize out of school education provision. Pesantren Formal Institutions that guided by the values and norms of Islam. They usually target young people who do not access formal education, and focus on religious teaching and learning, with the addition of vocational trainings Majlis Taklim Islamic based informal groups that offer non formal education services, usually religious teachings Sunday schools. Christian based informal groups that offer non formal education services, usually religious teaching Not only are the programs and providers diverse but so are the learners in non formal education. NFE is open for all members of community. The equivalency education programs for example, can be accessed by people up to age 44 so the groups of learners doing Paket A, B, and C are usually quite heterogeneous. NFEP have a great dependency on external funding. Aas a result, most NFEP in Indonesia face problems that relate to the insufficiency of facilities and teaching and learning resources, such as books, premises for learning, and learning media. Most NFE providers are financially dependent upon government to implement programs. Often the Government or donor will fund only one program and when that program ends the NFEP may have to close. 2.0 The DBE3 Non Formal Education Program The Decentralized Basic Education (DBE3) project was designed to support USAID priority of improving the quality of decentralized basic education in Indonesia and this included both formal and non formal education. The primary aim of the DBE3 project non formal education project was to: • Assist youth who have dropped out of school before receiving their junior high school certificate to build the skills needed to better participate in the community and workforce. The request for applications from USAID required that the DBE3 project ‘focus on building nongovernmental organization (NGO) and community learning center (CLC) programs that are needs- USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 8 and community-based, demand-driven, flexible, sustainable, and that rely heavily on locally-available resources” and that the project “provide support at the central level for the development of a standards framework and materials for Package B” and at the district/sub-district level, “assist training in the use of the new, improved equivalence materials”. As the focus of the project was on basic education programs and youth, DBE3 concentrated project efforts only on improving the quality of design and delivery of the strand of non formal education which deals with out of school youth; specifically the TVE and Paket B programs offered by local non government organization and community learning centers. Therefore, through the remainder of this document where the phrase non formal education is used to refer specifically to out of school education programs for youth and not to the broader concept of non formal education as it is generally understood and defined in Indonesia. Although NFE providers in Indonesia differ in their organizational forms, the DBE3 Non Formal Education Situation Analysis of 2006 found that most NFEP face some similar challenges. These include strategic planning capacity, transparency in terms of budget planning and spending, limited networking with other institutions, poor administrative capacity, insufficient funding, too few qualified tutors and managers and inadequate learning media, such as books. Therefore, DBE3 developed two main aims which could benefit all NFEP partner institutions: The first aim was to improve the capacity of managers in non formal education providers so that they could better design and support the implementation of relevant teaching and learning programs that helped youth to develop life skills. To achieve this aim, DBE3 implemented two strategies. The first was to develop and implement a Management Training Module through which DBE3 would train and support managers of partner non formal education providers to practice good organization management and administration skills; mobilize community, public, and private sector resources; reach out more directly to out-of-school youth; and deliver relevant, quality programs that help young people develop life skills. The second strategy was to implement a non cash grants program where DBE3 would give managers to skills to access and manage small grants and other resources to support the design and delivery of quality out of school youth programs The second aim of the DBE3 non formal education component was to enhance the quality and relevance of the out of school education programs for youth by supporting the Government in its efforts to improve the Paket B equivalency education program and strengthen the capacity of tutors in the Non Formal Education system to deliver both the Paket B program and other USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 9 relevant, competency-based education for out of school youth. To achieve this aim, DBE3 developed a Teaching and Learning module and trained and provide on going support to improve the quality of tutors working on youth education programs in the non formal education system with youth. Following the finalization of the program framework DBE3 selected a number of non formal education providers across 98 sub districts in 44 districts to work with. These were selected in two cohorts the first between October and December 2005 and the second in 2007. The criterion used for selection for both groups was: • Can accommodate a minimum of 10 students; • Conducts NFE related activities at least once a week; • Has a permanent organizational structure; • Has a cadre of reliable tutors; • Has supporting facilities and networks; • Located near or within the gugu1s and inside the sub-district; • The institution has been in operation for a minimum of one year; • Commitment to cooperate with other stakeholders, including the business sector; • Ready and willing to provide access and facilities for formal education programs; • Experience working with other organizations to provide non formal education programs Although DBE3 originally proposed to work only with six NFE provider partners (NGO and CLC) per district per cohort, an early assessment in 2005 showed that this number of a NFEP were often not present in DBE partner districts. Therefore, for cohort 1, DBE3 decided to expand the pool of possible partners to include Pesantren and other relevant NFE providers that offered out of school programs. It solicited recommendations for possible partners from district education and religious affairs offices and other stakeholders and then shortlisted and selected partners with district education and religious affairs office concurrence. Ultimately DBE3 selected119 target NFE provider partners in cohort 1 and 85 in cohort 2. However, as the project proceeded 13 NFE partners closed and by early 2008, DBE3 was only working with 191 Non Formal Education partners, the majority of which were PKBM as shown in table 1. 1 The cluster of schools in which the DBE project was working; As part DBE3 planned to increase links between the formal and non formal education systems. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 10 Table 1: Number and Percentage of Target Non Formal Education Providers by Type NGO CLC Paket B SKB Pesantren Total # # # # # Cohort 1 10 53 12 3 28 106 Cohort 2 0 46 7 2 30 85 Total 10 99 19 5 58 191 3.0 The DBE3 Non Cash Grants Program As mentioned above, one of the key strategies to achieve the first aim of the DBE3 Non Formal Education was to train and support NFE providers to access and manage small grants to develop and sustain the delivery of a relevant life skills training programs for youth. For the Non Cash Grants program, DBE3 would lead each NFE Partner through an extended process to both design and implement a locally relevant life skills program to teach out of school youth professional skills which could be used to enter the local workforce either as an employee or an entrepreneur. At the beginning of the process, DBE3 conducted a training workshop through which DBE3 technical advisers provided the NFE Partner managers with the knowledge and skills to develop a proposal for a life skills activity. The workshop included training on how to conduct needs analyses to identify an appropriate activity, how to develop a budget and how to be accountable for expenditures. Following the workshop, NFE Partners were asked to finalize their proposal in consultation with learners and the community. DBE3 District Coordinators provided support in the finalization of the proposal. In order to ensure that the program was contextually relevant and demand driven, it was compulsory that during the proposal making process NFE Partner managers conduct a lengthy needs analysis, including consultations with the community and out of school youth, to identify programs, which were most needed by the community and could mobilize and utilize locally available resources. Each NFEP then had to submit the proposal for review by DBE3. The proposal had to contain proof of the consultation process, a detailed implementation and finance plan and indication of cost share provided by the NFE Partner and/or the local community USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 11 The proposals were then reviewed by a DBE3 committee, comprised of technical and finance staff using an agreed criteria. Four of the key criterion for approval was that the proposal included: • Clear evidence of the consultations process • Local community contribution of at least 10% of the resources needed to implement the program • The activity meets child safety standards. The non cash grants were not to be used for international travel, indirect costs or goods and services for personal use. The complete criterion is included in Annex 1. As proposals were received, DBE3 also conducted a compliance check on each of the NFEP. This was intended to ensure that the status of partners receiving support was as claimed, that the grant would be used for the intended purpose. Proposals would only be approved if the both the compliance check was clear and the committee agreed to the program. Following approval the NFE Partner would receive a Non Cash Grant agreement to sign. The agreement was to last for 12 months (or the life of the DBE3 cohort) whichever was shortest2 and through the agreement, DBE3 would provide support to a maximum budget of US$ 1,750 per partner. Due to USAID regulations, this amount would not be provided in cash form but in non cash form such as equipment, supplies or other expendable property or services the program needed. The procurement was undertaken by DBE3, not the partner. Once the non cash agreement was signed and procurement completed, the NEFP was left to implement and manage the activity. DBE3 field staff would conduct a number of monitoring visits to check: • Inventory or the capital assets and materials provided by DBE3; • The performance meaning the progress made by the NFEP towards meeting the objectives of the activity supported by the Non Cash Grant. The final step in the process was to close out the grant. The purpose of the close out was to formally end the process and ensure that activities were complete and all documents received. As part of the close out, NFEP were requested to complete and send to the provincial office: • A final expenditure report 2 The agreement could be modified USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 12 • A narrative report on the activity • A final inventory and: • A disposition plan Once these documents had been received and approved by DBE3 the grant was officially closed. Approximately 6 months following the close out of the grant, DBE3 staff including provincial and central based personnel travelled to a sample of NFE partners in cohort 1 and 2 districts to assess the long term impact and sustainability of the programs conducted through the non cash grants. This included checking the assets remained in the NFE Partner and discussions with staff and learners on what had been achieved and how the assets were still being used. The ultimate goal was that through the Non Cash Grants program, NFEP managers would develop the knowledge, skills and understanding to design and offer out of school programs for youth that are needs-and community-based, demand-driven, flexible, sustainable, and that rely heavily on locally-available resources beyond the life of the project and that they could manage and implement the grant in a transparent and accountable way. The plan was that they could use this knowledge, skills and understanding into the future and beyond the life of the DBE3 project to apply for grants from other donors, projects and national organizations and institutions working in non formal education. Therefore, the process was equally as important as the outcome of the non cash grants program. A summary of the complete process of the non cash grants program is presented below. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 13 Chart 1 DBE3 Non Cash Grants Process Flowchart Not approved Partners can rewrite proposals based on review and re-submit Approved 1 DBE3 Training for NFEP Managers on how to prepare a proposal for a non cash grant 2 Partners prepare proposals; preparation include youth and community consultations 3 Partners submit proposals; DBE3 committee review against criteria 4 A compliance check is carried out to ensure the grant will be used as intended 6 Procurement and distribution by DBE3 to each NFEP 7 Partner implements program, DBE3 monitors the inventory and performance during implementation START 5 A 12 month non cash grant agreement is made between DBE3 and Partner 8 Non Cash Grant was closed out. Each NFEP provides and inventory, narrative report and disposition plan 9 Post program monitoring to check impact and sustainability END USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 14 The DBE3 non cash grants program started in mid year 2007 and continued into June 2010. In May 2007, DBE3 developed draft guidelines for DBE3 staff to use to help target non formal education provider partners access DBE3 non-cash grants. The guidelines included a description of the objectives of the non-cash granting activity, the technical requirements, the criteria, procedures, and formats that NFE managers could use in developing their proposal. Meetings were conducted between May and September, 2007 to orient DBE3 field based staff and District Facilitators on the non cash grants program and how to use the guidelines. Between November 2007 and March 2008, DBE3 trained 223 Managers from the 106 cohort 1 partners on the non cash grants process and how to prepare and complete proposals to access the grants. The training was included in the NFE Management module and conducted at the same time as the rest of the contents of the module. By March 2008, DBE3 had received proposals from all NFEP in cohort 1 and had approved the implementation of 96 of them. Much of the equipment was procured and distributed between March and November 2008 and the out of school youth programs were implemented as equipment was received by each NFE partner between June 2008 and March 2009. The programs supported through the grants were mostly vocational training but were very diverse including automotive skills, tailoring, photography, ICT and screen printing. By March 2009, all the training programs supported by the grants were complete and the majority of the cohort 1 Non Cash Grants was closed out. The list of NFEP and the supported programs for cohort 1 with dates for the final close out of the grant is included in Annex 2. Unfortunately, the whole program for the first cohort 1 took around 18 months, which was much longer than originally planned. As the initial training on how to write non cash grant proposals was spread out over a long period of time, receipt and approval of the proposals and the procurement and implementation of the activities took place across several months. From March 2008 to June 2010, DBE3 completed the non cash grants program for cohort 2 NFE partners. The process was modified for the second cohort following the experience of implementation in cohort 1. For the cohort 2 NFEP, DBE3 prepared a separate training program for the non cash grants as the training in the Management Module was considered too confusing and insufficient which had led to delays in the development and submission of proposals in cohort 1. The training program was developed in February 2008 and involved a 2 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 15 day workshop to train NFEP managers on how to prepare and write proposals for a non cash grant. The contents of the workshop focused on: • What is meant by Non Cash Grants and the DBE3 Non Cash Grants Program • What components are needed in a proposal for Non Cash Grants • How to decide Non Cash Grant activities (including conducting consultations) • How to prepare detailed implementation schedules • How to prepare finance plans and write budgets • How to prepare informative proposals which communicate ideas clearly • Developing indicators to measure the success of the Non Cash Grants activity At the end of the workshop, participants were expected to have prepared a draft outline of their proposal. The training was implemented at the provincial level between March and April 2008 by DBE3 technical staff (the Non Formal Education Adviser and Youth Development Specialist) and in total included 191 managers from the cohort 2 NFE Partners. As the training program was implemented in a shorter timeframe DBE3 was able to set a deadline for receipt of proposals for cohort 2 NFE partners of mid November 2008 and in doing so was able to review and approve proposals from all NFE partners who had submitted them within a short timeframe. By the end of November, DBE3 had received and approved proposals from 71 partners out of a possible 85. As a result of the more focused training program and, the quality of the proposals from cohort 2 NFEP was higher and most proposals were approved on the first submission. However, in general, participants still had difficulty preparing budgets for their programs as they did not seem to be familiar with average market rates for the goods and services included in their proposals. Moreover, all NFE Providers in cohort 2 were willing to provide some cost share towards the activity, an average of more than 16% toward the total cost, demonstrating that NFE Provider partners in cohort 2 were trying to cooperate with DBE3 and other partners to find best, most effective resources for their learners. DBE3 procured and distributed equipment for cohort 2 NFE Partners between December 2008 and March 2009. Again most of the activities implemented were vocational training programs such as welding, banana leaf handicrafts, paving USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 16 stone making, egg hatching and embroidery. There were also some unusual programs such as Islamic preaching and flower board making. By June 2009, all activities had been completed and agreements were closed out in January 2010. A list of cohort 2 NFE Partners and their programs can be found in Annex 3. In general the non cash grants program for cohort 2 NFE Partners ran more smoothly and efficiently than in cohort 1. However, just prior to the initial activities for cohort 2, the mid term evaluation of the DBE program took place and the evaluation team recommended that “DBE 3 should move expeditiously to extricate itself from most of its non-formal programs in the field” and “redirect remaining resources to the junior secondary school program.” This had an unfortunate impact on the non formal education activities for the cohort 2 NFE Partners, including the non cash grants program, as DBE3 tried to complete the process as quickly as possible and as DBE3 technical staff were re-directed to work on the streamlined DBE3 program. From September 2009 to June 2010, DBE3 conducted the impact and sustainability monitoring of the Non Cash Grants program for cohort 1 and 2. DBE3 staff visited a sample of NFE Partners from cohort 1 and 2 in each province. The monitoring process in general concluded that program was mostly successful and had achieved its goal in increasing opportunities for vocational training life skills education to NFE students. Moreover, that the programs implemented with the support of the non cash grants had also had an impact the community and not only the student. More detailed findings from the monitoring and evaluation process is described in the next section of the report. Table 2: Implementation Schedule of the Non Cash Grants Program Date Activity May 2007 Development of DBE3 Non Cash Grants Guidelines May - September 2007 Socialization of the Non Cash Grants Program and Guidelines to DBE3 Provincial Staff and 106 cohort 1 NFE Partners November 2007 - March 2008 Training of 223 cohort 1 NFE Partner Managers on how to write proposals for non cash grants as part of the Management Module training. February 2008 Development of Non Cash Grants training program for cohort 2 NFEP USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 17 March 2008 Approval of 96 out of 106 Non Cash Grants proposals for cohort 1 NFE Partners March - November 2008 Procurement and distribution of equipment for 96 cohort 1 non cash grants program totaling 168, 000 US$ March – April 2008 Training of 191 Managers of cohort 2 NFE Partner Managers on how to write proposals for non cash grants March 2008 Recommendation from the mid term evaluation that DBE3 withdraw from all activities in Non Formal Education and redirect all resources and efforts to Formal Education. June 2008 – March 2009 Implementation of activities supported by DBE3 Non Cash Grants in cohort 1 NFE Partners November 2008 Approval of 71 non cash grants for cohort 2 NFE Partners December 2008 – March 2009 Procurement and distribution of equipment for 71 cohort 2 non cash grants programs totaling 124, 250 US$ January and June 2009 Implementation of activities supported by DBE3 Non Cash Grants in cohort 2 NFE Partners February 2010 Cohort 1 Non Cash Grants are closed out. January 2010 Cohort 2 Non Cash Grants are closed out. February 2009 – June 2010 Monitoring of long term impact and sustainability November 2009 Evaluation of Non Cash Grants Program 4.0 The Review 4.1 Aim The objective of the final review of the Non Cash Grants program was to see whether or not it achieved the agreed objectives, to identify the best practices, if any, which could be shared with others and to learn lessons so that subsequent programs may be better managed. 4.2 Activities The review comprised of the following activities: • Field Visits to a sample of DBE3 NFEP Partners in five provinces and interviews with NFE managers, students and community stakeholders. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 18 • Focus Group Discussions with DBE3 Staff including Provincial Coordinators, Senior Education Officers and District Coordinators • Document Review such as project work plans and reports, procurement requests and reports and financial and narrative reports from NFEP to gain an insight into the NCG Program as it was implemented Field visits were conducted to a sample of approximately 50% of the total number of NFEP partners involved in the NCG Program. Convenience sampling was used to determine the NFEP to be visited, taking into account timing, accessibility, and availability of the partners in the specified time. The sample included a diverse number of PKBM, SKB, Pesantren, Paket B providers, as well as LSM. Each field visit included a visible check on the assets provided through the grant and the documents related to the implementation of the program (such as training materials and attendance records, financial records and reports); interviews with NFEP Managers, tutors and warga belajar (learners). A complete list of the sample NFEP is included in Annex 4. The field visits conducted as part of the review of the Non Cash Grants program took place between February and July 2009 for Cohort 1, and October 2009 and June 2010 for Cohort 2. Table 3: DBE3 Non Cash Grants Program Monitoring Schedule Cohort I NCG Monitoring Visits Time Province Visited February 2009 East Java February 2009 North Sumatra May 2009 Central Java June 2009 South Sulawesi July 2009 West Java - Banten Cohort 2 NCG Monitoring Visits Time Province Visited October 2009 West Java-Banten December 2009 Central Java March 2010 East Java June 2010 North Sumatra June 2010 South Sulawesi USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 19 The data for this review was collected by DBE3 staff such as Program Assistants, the Deputy Chief of Party, Provincial Coordinators, Senior Education Officers, and District Coordinators. The data collected through the field visits and discussions conducted as part of the review was analyzed thematically according to the aspects of the program it related to such as concepts, implementation or impact. The results presented in the following sub-sections are based on the opinions from these people involved in the review. On most occasions, youth that were involved in the non-cash grants program did not participate in the interviews because when field visits were conducted, most of the trainings had been completed. 5.0 Findings 5.1 Program Concept and Design For the majority of people involved in the review the concept or idea of the Non-Cash Grants program was good. Most stakeholders appreciated the fact that the program was innovative and flexible and really provided the opportunity for out of school youth training to be demand driven and therefore suitable to local conditions and resources. However, one general comment was that the program would have been more efficient and easier to manage if the grant being given was money and not in kind resources. As the Non Formal Education sector in Indonesia had yet to receive much attention from the development world it meant that DBE3 was seen as a pioneer in this part of the education sector in Indonesia and were well received by MONE and MORA. However, this also meant that DBE3 did not have much reference from other programs to learn from and act as a foundation for developing, planning and implementing an effective program. Nevertheless, it was expected that the DBE3 Non-Cash Grants successes could therefore be used by other NGO or Aid organizations as a standard for future similar programs. The process adopted by the DBE3 Non Cash Grants program was also considered appropriate by most people involved. DBE3 beneficiaries and staff alike both thought that the steps included in the process were necessary in order to ensure that the programs adopted by the NFE partners really were demand driven and locally relevant. However, a small minority of beneficiaries did comment that the overall process used by DBE3 was too long, too complex and time consuming. The main issues for those participants were the proposal writing process which often included reviews and rewrites. Some even commented that they did not have to USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 20 “jump through so many hoops” to apply for grants from MONE and that was for larger amounts of money. Perhaps one of the main weaknesses in the design of the program was the role adopted by DBE3. From the start, the DBE3 project saw its role in the NCG program as simply that of providing equipment to the NFE partners and considered that when the equipment was procured and distributed the job was done. As stated in the non cash grants guidelines, DBE3 will “once the non cash grant agreement is signed, [DBE3] will step back and let the organization implement the non cash grant program. DBE3 will only procure and provide the in kind items requested and directly pay for other activity costs but the partner should manage the activity. DBE3 is always reminded that this is the sub-grantee/partners program and the sub-grantee/partner staff is considered capable of implementing the activities. It was the lack of involvement of DBE3 in the program that led to many difficulties in implementation (described in section 4.2). Moreover, experience has shown that it is the combination of technical assistance with the provision of limited amounts of equipment; small grants or materials to beneficiaries which has the most positive impact. In providing equipment, grants and materials to beneficiaries is that they are linked very closely to the technical assistance and beneficiaries understand that the materials are intended to act as a starting point for them and they are expected to build on it and look for ways to make it sustainable beyond the life of the project. It is also unusual that DBE3 adopted this role as one of the main objectives of the non formal education program was to “strengthen the capacity of tutors in the Non Formal Education system to deliver both the Paket B program and other relevant, competency-based education for out of school youth” so it would make sense that DBE3 staff or DF should have been involved in providing quality control and giving suggestions and advise on how to improve training methods during the activities related to NCG rather than taking such a hands off approach. 5.2 Program Implementation Although on the whole people liked the idea of the non cash grants program for non formal education and agreed that the overall process was reasonable, the review found that there was poor management and a general lack of rigor and control during the implementation of the non cash grants program which led to a number of issues which meant that the project was not achieving some of the key objectives. Most people appreciated the concept of the non cash grants program because it could support NFEP to develop locally relevant and demand driven programs, the ‘needs analysis” in particular USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 21 was felt to be an essential element to ensure that the program proposed by the NFEP was demand driven. However, in many cases, this needs analysis did not occur. The review found that despite the claim that there was training and support on how to conduct “needs analysis” (consultations with youth and the community) it was in fact not included in the training for cohort 1 partners (during the management module) and not covered in sufficient detail for cohort 2 partners (during the non cash grants workshop). Therefore, the youth and community consultations was not effective in determining what kind of training local youth really needed and what local needs and resources were. In the case where needs-assessment was done, it was not done rigorously and the treatment for the respective needs was generic. The result was that in many cases, but not all, the programs chosen were not relevant and/or possible and were often what was trendy or only perceived as useful by individuals or the institution. For example, the Islamic Preaching training that was run by PKBM Nurul Haq. Although Islamic Preaching is not considered a bad thing, it can not really be defined as a life skill in keeping with the MONE concept as adopted by DBE3, which would help prepare youth learners to participate actively in the community and to enter the workforce. As this PKBM was run by a Pondok Pesantren it seemed that the training was only beneficial to the Pesantren and not necessarily to the local community. The fact that some of the program included in the proposals were not needs based was not addressed by DBE3 and in fact it seems that the appropriateness of none of the program planned by the NFEP was challenged during the review of the proposals. In all cases, the program proposed was accepted whether it was really locally relevant or not or whether it really was a “life skills” program. Although there was a review of the proposals by Provincial staff and then a committee consisting of the Non Formal Education Adviser, DCOP and Finance Staff, who were all based in Jakarta, the reviews were “desk reviews’ and the staff conducting them did not always have a good understanding of the local conditions of the NFEP. This led to DBE3 supporting some programs which were not really appropriate to the context of the particular NFEP. For example, PKBM Nusantara in Pasuruan, East Java was granted two computers in order to conduct computer training. However, during the monitoring visit and the review, the manager admitted that it would have been better if the NFEP had requested some items related to agriculture or livestock farming, such as cows, as the majority of people living in the community earn a living through livestock farming and it would have been better for youth and their future employment opportunities if they had been trained on how to raise livestock rather than computers. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 22 In some cases, the program supported by DBE3 clearly would not meet the objectives of the Non Cash Grants program. For example, in South Sulawesi 8 Cohort 1 partners proposed the procurement of books for the establishment of community libraries. Whilst this is a commendable activity, there was no training for out of school youth involved and no follow up. Therefore, the program was simply a provision of things and did not include a ‘relevant life skills training programs for youth” which was the objective of the non cash grants program. However, on a positive note, monitoring visits proved that the books were still in the library and being used by many people in the community. One program which clearly did not meet the objectives of the non cash grants program in providing youth with relevant employability skills was the program supported in Pesantran Madaniah in Jeneponto, South Sulawesi, where the non cash grants was used to buy materials for the building of a room intended for use as a library. Not only is an infrastructure or building program not a youth life skills program, the money equivalent provided by DBE3 (17, 500, 000 IDR) was not sufficient for the completion of the building even with the partners’ contribution. Therefore, the building was never completed and the non cash grant achieved nothing. Photos of the unfinished library building at Pesantren Madaniah In order to ensure that the out of school youth programs proposed were relevant and furthered the objectives of the project, DBE3 developed a Review and Approval form (Annex 1) However, this clearly did not work well and an analysis of the tool indicates that this was because the form was largely ineffective. The Review and Approval form contains 18 indicators against which to review the proposals. These included 8 main indicators worth 3 points each and 10 other indicators worth 1 point each making a total of 34 points. However, in order to be approved the proposal only had to be awarded 28 points meaning that they could fail one of USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 23 the main indicators and 3 of the other indicators. There is no suggestion of which indicators must be achieved or which are a priority. This explains why the NFEP did not have to conduct a needs analysis and/ or consultation with youth in order to be approved. As a stated key objective of the program was to support NFE Partners to develop programs that are “needs-and community-based, demand-driven, flexible, sustainable, and that rely heavily on locally-available resources” it would seem essential that the NFEP meet the criteria for conducting local consultations. It was a mistake on the part of DBE3 to not insist that this indicator was met to ensure the core concept was applied. Moreover, the instructions included in the criteria for approval of the non cash grants states that the form can be used or “adapted” and yet says nothing about which parts are essential, which parts can be adapted and how. This suggests that the review and approval form was a mere formality and acted as a guide rather than a real tool for measuring whether the non cash grants were relevant and would achieve their intended objective. Some of the indicators on the review and approval form did not match the objectives of the program. Although the form included an indicator on “Life Skills” it measures whether life skills are being developed “comprehensively” rather than whether they are locally relevant and demand driven, which was the aim of the program. In some cases the indicators included in the Review and Approval form were unrealistic and difficult for the NFEP to meet. One of the indicators against which proposals were reviewed was that the training targeted at least 10 learners aged between 12 and 18. The reality of the situation however, was that many NFEP do not have learners of fixed age ranges. As explained in section 1.0 non formal education programs in Indonesia, including programs for out of school youth are open to everyone and anyone generally up to the age of 44. Moreover, many of the DBE3 NFEP were small and did not have 10 learners aged 12-18. In some cases, to meet the DBE3 requirement, NFEP created a new “artificial” group of students consisting of JSE-aged youth especially for the DBE3 supported Non Cash Grants program. This meant that sometimes some of the students who attended the DBE3 supported ICT program were actually students in school and attending the NFE and learning ICT as an after school activity. Such was the case in PKBM Yasinal in Makassar, South Sulawesi for example, where all the learners participating in the class were attending in the afternoon following their lessons at formal school. Therefore, the program did not benefit out of school youth at all! USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 24 A more carefully thought out tool more rigorously and consistently used would have prevented many of the subsequent problems with the non cash grants, which are described later in the review. Sometimes the review of the proposals presented difficulties to DBE3. As there was such a wide variety of programs being proposed by the NFEP, more often than not, the DBE3 staff reviewing proposals did not have the technical understanding and/or background needed to assess whether the program was likely to work and/or whether the equipment listed for procurement to be procured was appropriate or not. In some cases this led to the postponement of the grant and even the cancellation of the program altogether. For example, in Deli Serdang, North Sumatra, Yayasan Madya Insani proposed to set up a community radio station. In the proposal, the total amount of the grant was more than that provided by DBE3 but was promised by the community. However, due to the lack of technical understanding of setting up a radio station, DBE3 did not know whether what was proposed was what was actually needed. This led to not only the cancellation of program but also the MOU and the partnership between DBE3 and Yayasan Madya Insani. Once the youth training programs were approved, difficulties in implementing them continued. The one most persistent and widespread problem faced during the implementation of the non cash grants program was the procurement and distribution of the equipment. The procurement of the NCG materials was done according to the regulations from Save the Children and USAID. Part of the process was to seek offers from at least 3 different vendors for each material. This bidding process became a problem because many times there were not enough vendors available locally. And for this, many materials had to be procured from Jakarta and thus took more time than expected. This was considered ineffective because the process had to be done also for small materials such as needles, for those proposing sewing trainings, and buckets and pans, for those proposing cooking training. Because the process was very time consuming, it affected the implementation of the program at the field level. The procurement and distribution process for Phase 1 NCG took 8 months from March to November 2008. As the Non Cash Grant agreement only lasted for a period of 12 months, this meant that many NFE partners did not receive the equipment in time to conduct the training program according to the schedule and the agreements had to be modified again and again. During the field visits, many partners commented that they received the materials when the training period had almost ended. The situation was very similar for phase USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 25 2 NFEP. Although the process was faster lasting only 3 months (December 2008 – February 2009), not all the NFEP received the equipment in time to complete the training as planned. Many NFEP stated that this was regrettable and that it had in turn affected the implementation of the trainings. As a result of the delayed procurement process, some of the NFEP that had set up a special learner group for the trainings had trouble keeping the youth who would participate in the training. Some of the youth ended up leaving before the training had started and the NFEP had to find replacements or conduct the training with fewer numbers. DBE3 staff and beneficiaries felt that the procurement process was too strict, cumbersome and complicated needs to be simplified and take into account local realities and be more flexible. In some cases, the consequences of the slow procurement process presented unpleasant difficulties for DBE3. In one particular situation, it negatively affected DBE3’s image in the district. Although every care had been taken to maintain good relationship with the NFEP, because of this long procurement process, there was one time when partner viewed DBE3 as being unprofessional in fulfilling its responsibility. As a result of a long delay in the procurement process for NCG materials for PKBM Al Islah in Lebak, Banten, the manager sent offensive messages to the DBE3 West Java team, accusing DBE3 of keeping its promises specified in the agreement. This issue was later resolved when the goods were eventually delivered and received by the partner. Even though the partner sent out an apology it was still an unfortunate occurrence and should not have happened. The review found that the implementation of the non cash grants program could have been helped by more fully involving the DBE3 NFE District Facilitators (DF). The Non Formal Education District Facilitators were selected from key educationalists living and working in the target district, their role was to support the implementation of all DBE3 programs in the NFEP through providing on going mentoring and support to the NFEP Managers. However, this clearly did not happen. Although during field visits some DF’s were present and admitted to have been somewhat involved in the NCG implementation, most were only aware of the program and not at all involved in the implementation. This is unfortunate as the DF could act as a mediator between partners and DBE3 staff and could play a crucial role in providing the local knowledge to DBE3 to ensure that proposed program was demand driven and locally relevant, especially at a time when the DBE3 program was so intensive and extensive and the DBE3 District Coordinators were based at the provincial level. DBE3 should have fully engaged the DF at all times. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 26 Not only were the NFE DF under utilized in the program but there was also a lack of involvement from other stakeholders in the districts which was considered by many staff and stakeholders to be a flaw in the NCG program. By involving local stakeholders in the program planning, implementation and monitoring and sustainability of the program would be maintained even when DBE3 project has ended. Involving local stakeholders such as local NGOs in the program planning and implementation would have helped help both DBE3 and NFE partners to determine the kind of program or training which was most needed and was suitable for the local conditions. Usually local NGOs have a more established network with other organizations, including other NFEP, local foundations and businesses enterprises and their involvement could help DBE3 and its partners to connect with other potential partners for the program. Work placements or internships for youth in the NFEP would be more feasible if there was a relationship with local enterprises. Connecting DBE3 partners to other NFEP could promote the sharing of knowledge and resources amongst NFEP, so that they could learn from each other’s successes and failures. The nature of NFE provision in Indonesia also posed a challenge to the implementation of the non formal education program. As explained in section 1.0 there is a wide variety of NFE providers in Indonesia catering for a large audience of different ages and needs. Although DBE3 intended to focus on PKBM and NGO the target was widened to include all different types, therefore, in implementing the non cash grants program, DBE3 faced many challenges. Some of the NFEP partners were not fully established or were very small and therefore, did not have a dedicated place for the training or to store equipment. Many partners had to conduct the training in make-do venues, which sometimes include setting up a computer lab or sewing studio under their house or in a make-do shack near the village hall. For example, PKBM Merdeka in Tangerang, Banten did not hold the sewing training they proposed, in their venue. Instead, they planned to hold the training jointly with another PKBM (PBKM Bina Insani) at their location which was not too far away. However, when PKBM Merdeka was visited, DBE3 found that the equipment provided by DBE3 had never been used and in fact was still in the boxes, which had never been opened. When asked why, the PKBM manager said that he did not have any space to set up the sewing machines and thus to conduct the training and the agreement with the PKBM Merdeka did not happen. The lack of a secure place to store equipment meant that there were a number of cases where equipment and especially computers were stolen. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 27 In hindsight, many DBE3 staff felt that the NCG program should not have been implemented in all DBE3 NFEP partners but should focused the resources on those NFEP where it would have made the most difference rather than focusing on trying to achieve equality and parity. In being more selective, DBE3 could have increased the amount provided for the non cash grants to each selected partner and increased the impact. In fact during cohort 2, the DBE3 North Sumatra team only selected to submit proposals from 4 NFEP as they felt that the other NFEP would not be able to implement the program effectively and achieve results. Moreover, many DBE3 staff felt that the initial selection of partners for the overall NFE program needed to be reviewed as the DBE3 partners included too many NFEP that had been established by people from the District Education Office and there was a lack of objectivity in the selection process. The implementation of the NCG became more challenging in mid 2008 following an independent mid term evaluation of the whole of the DBE program. The main recommendations for DBE3 was to “largely withdraw from direct delivery of activities under Out of school youth are better prepared for lifelong learning, entrance into the workforce and participation in community development and stop direct delivery of activities that are aimed at improving the institutional capacity of non-formal education providers to deliver life skills education….Redirect remaining resources to the junior secondary school program”. Although all the decisions made for cohort 1 NCG had been completed and cohort 2 was in process, clearly this action had a huge impact on the implementation of the DBE3 non cash grants program, as project management and field staff, concentrated all its energies on developing and implementing a revised technical program for formal education. With no technical advisers for non formal education, the NCG program was not really handed over and efforts to implement it focused purely on completing the procurement and distribution of remaining in kind resources and withdrawing from non formal education as soon as possible. 5.3 Program Impact It is quite challenging to thoroughly and accurately assess the impact of the non cash grants program as DBE3 did not really develop any indicators and tools to measure success or the extent to which the program met its’ objectives. Although the program did include monitoring visits, these simply focused on a visible check of the equipment and whether the training program had been completed and with how many learners. The only indicator included in the DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation plan for the non cash grants program measured the activity and not the outcome “Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers that use DBE3 small sub USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 28 grants/resources”. Therefore, review focused on assessing the program impact against using mostly anecdotal information and data collected during field visits. Despite the lack of rigor in the implementation of the Non Cash Grants program and the constant challenges faced in the procurement process, the overall result of the program was in general quite positive. The Non-Cash Grants program was very well received and appreciated by the NFEP partners. All of the partners visited stated that the grants given by DBE3 were very important and useful for the growth of the learning centers. In almost all cases, although the program supported may have been dubious, the materials and resources given were used according to the proposals and across all cohorts and provinces DBE3 supported the training of an estimated 1690 youth in a wide variety of vocational and life skills programs. With a few exceptions where items had been stolen, most of the equipment distributed through the non cash grants was still in place and in good working order and much of it still being used for various purposes at the time of the field monitoring visits. Moreover, the non cash grants program had been used by Non Formal Education providers to raise money from the community and/other sources to support the out of school training program. In cohort 1 the grants leveraged on paper3 around US$ 16,000 and in cohort 2 US$ 19,955 making a total of 35,955 US$ or 13.6% of the DBE3 contribution, which was higher than the 10% aimed for by the project. Even though some youth dropped out of the NFEP during the training and went back to their old routines, in most cases, the youth who participated in the trainings supported by DBE3 succeeded in completing the training and went on to pursue further studies or even entered the workforce using the skills they obtained from the trainings. An example of this is from PKBM Melati in Jeneponto, South Sulawesi. Before the training program, most of the learners at the PKBM worked as casual road cleaners. After they received computer training from the DBE3 NCG they were often asked to help with some clerical duties at the District Head office. Once the trainings were complete and the grant had been closed out, many NFEP opened up the programs to all NFE learners (not just youth aged between 12 and 18) and people in the local community. An example of this is PKBM Taruna Bakti in Sukabumi, Banten. Using the computers from DBE3 NCG they integrated ICT subject into the learning activities of both Paket B and Paket C program. Other people in the community were also welcomed to 3 This figure is according to the non cash grants proposals and not the final financial reviews. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 29 computer training at the PKBM. Similar thing also happened in Paket B Permata Hati in Tapanuli Selatan, North Sumatra, PKBM Bambapuang and LSM Sulawesi Baru in Enrekang, South Sulawesi. Another example of how the DBE3 NCG also brought benefits not only for learners but for the wider community is from PKBM Handayani in Bojonegoro, East Java, which had held sewing training and handicraft making. After they closeout the program, they employed learners as well as housewives from the community to make handicrafts from banana stems. These people were given part of the profit which in turn added to their family income. Therefore, the DBE3 NCG also contributed in empowering community members, especially women. The same PKBM also established cooperation with 2 local public schools to conduct extracurricular sewing trainings for the students. Learners who received training from DBE3 NCG became the tutors for the high school students. As they were teaching formal school students, they were also brushing up their own skills so that they themselves were better prepared to use their skills when they work as tailors or in a garment factory. In fact, it was the sewing/tailoring programs supported by DBE3 which usually provided the most post program benefit. There are numerous examples of where learners participating in the training continued to work at garment factories, or for the PKBM or Pesantren to make school uniforms. Learners sewing school uniforms at Pondok Pesantren Al Istianah, Karawang (left) Handbags made by learners at PKBM Handayani, Bojonegoro (right) Not all programs were as successful as the sewing programs, with ICT programs seeming to have the most difficulties. In many cases, the numbers of computers provided by DBE3 (which were often only 3) were insufficient to adequately teach ICT competencies to all learners and give them the opportunity to practice their skills. A lot of NFE providers had trouble with keeping their computers operational. NFE partners, such as PKBM Darussalam and Pondok Pesantren Al Muhajirin in Sukabumi, PKBM Bambapuang in Enrekang, and PKBM Bina Warga in USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 30 Subang, to name a few, received computers and were faced different difficulties when the computers broke or became infected with viruses. Since computers were a new thing for many NFE partners they did not know how to repair simple problems and as and they did not have access to computer reparation or maintenance service, they did not do anything with the broken computer. This in turn caused problems during the training as each computer had to be shared by more learners and also meant that the program eventually became unsustainable. In giving such expensive equipment, DBE3 also needs to consider how to support the NFEP to maintain them. Moreover, there are several cases where DBE3 found during the monitoring and evaluation visits that computers, especially laptops, had been stolen. In Pondok Pesantren Al Irsyad in Makassar for example, during a monitoring visit the manager reported that the laptop had gone missing and there was only the bag left. Another example where a computer was stolen was PKBM Paradigma in Palopo. Learners sharing the few computers at PKBM Syifaush Shudur DBE3 tended to look at the NCG program in isolation and did not link it to other parts of the DBE3 project, including other work in NFE. However, it is apparent that other elements of the on going DBE3 project could have supported and strengthened the NCG program and vice versa. For example, the ICT module and sustainability toolkit developed under the formal education program could also have benefitted those NFE partners which conducted ICT training under the NCG, especially in providing ideas on how to maintain computers and use them for income generation activities. Linking the Establishing Partnerships module to the NCG program could have helped NFE partners to create networks and agreements with private sector partners in the local area to offer internships, work placement programs for youth participating in the training. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 31 A broken computer screen at PKBM Bina Warga in Subang, West Java On a more positive note, many participants in the review commented on how the actual materials provided by DBE3 helped the NFEP become more sustainable. As explained in section 1.0 the existence of many NFE in Indonesia is very tenuous and many close down when they do not have programs to run or access to funding. By providing NFEP with equipment for a locally relevant life skills program, DBE3 had provided NFEP with a mechanism for income generation, growth and sustainability. A good example is from PKBM Permata Jaya Jeneponto in South Sulawesi, which conducted a bridal make up training through the non cash grants program. After the training, the demand for bridal make up service increased, even from other neighboring villages. The money the students and PKBM received from providing their services was used to purchase more traditional wedding costumes, more equipment as well as pay wages for the former learners who were now working as the make up artists. The manager of the PKBM later used the ideas presented by DBE3 to initiate the idea of growing chilies in the empty ground of the PKBM, from which the money would be used to supplement the income to run the PKBM, when bridal service orders became low. Some of the NFE Partners felt that the training program was too short and that the impact would have been greater if they had more time to more carefully implement it. Following procurement and distribution of the equipment most NFE Partners had approximately 6 months left to implement the training program and some had even less time. In general they felt that this was not enough time to conduct the training and really see the impact in terms of youth entering the work force. This was especially true for the NFEP who were new to vocational training programs and were using trainers from outside. The review found that for most of the USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 32 NFEP who were successful in completing the program and sending learners into the workforce during the period of the DBE3 work in NFE, it was because they had been involved in youth vocational training for a long period of time prior to the program and had experience, links and networks with other organizations, which they could use and build on. Therefore, it could be concluded that the DBE3 program only partially contributed to their success. PKBM Karsa Mandiri in Klaten, Central Java was one of those PKBM which had done vocational training prior to DBE3 NCG and therefore, had networks to material suppliers as well as buyers for their bag production. The PKBM now receives orders to make bags for workshops or merchandises from different organizations and persons, including DBE3 Central Java. Another PKBM that had sent learners to work according to the life skill training they received was PKBM At Taqwa, in Sukabumi. This PKBM had close ties with a small printing company, which employed learners after they received photography and photo editing training held under DBE3 NCG. The Non-Cash Grants program was intended to provide capacity building for NFEP partners, not only in terms of facilities but also in the form of skills. This is true not only for the learners who developed their vocational skills through the training programs, but also for the NFEP managers, who had attended the DBE3 training. During the DBE3 training NFEP managers had acquired new skills to write grant proposals, budgets and narrative and financial reports. Following the training some of them used these skills to access grants from other sources. An successful example of this is PKBM Nusantara in Pasuruan, East Java. After the closeout of DBE3 NCG, the PKBM used the proposal writing skills they learned through the DBE3 NCG to gain support from the District Education Office. Now the computer training program has been incorporated into the PKBM Paket B learning activities, with support from the District Education Office. There were not many other examples of this found during the review. 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations To summarize, the non cash grants program was innovative and challenging and greatly appreciated at the local level. However, the program was not always well managed by DBE3 and so the results of the program were mixed. In some places it was successful and achieved some measure of impact and some unexpected and important results not only for the learners but for the whole community and future of the NFEP. In other places, the programs were not really locally relevant, did not benefit out of school youth and in were sometimes uncompleted. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 33 In terms of whether the program met the agreed objective of giving “NFE managers the skills to access and manage small grants and other resources to support the design and delivery of quality out of school youth programs” it is difficult to really measure how far this was achieved. It is true that the program trained and supported NFE managers to write proposals and gave them the experience of managing small grants for the implementation out of school youth programs, but it is not clear how many Managers were able to or in fact did apply these skills following the DBE3 program as there was no follow up. It is also difficult to assess the quality of the program and training provided through the grants as DBE3 simply did not get involved - assuming that the NFE was capable of doing it alone. In general, the main strengths and benefits of the non cash grants program include: • 414 NFE Partner Managers gained knowledge and experience on how to develop proposals for Life Skills vocational training programs and on professional, transparent, and accountable management of their organization. • Approximately1690 out of Youth in target communities had the opportunity to participate in vocational training programs and learn skills to enhance their wellbeing and enabled many of them to enter the work force. • The program mobilized additional support for target NFEP and was able to leverage material and financial support from other sources to the amount of 35,955 US$ or 13.6% of the DBE3 contribution. • Provided vocational training equipment and materials to NFEP which could be used for future programs beyond the life of DBE3 both with learners at the NFEP and in the community. • The non cash grants were successful in empowering not only learners aged 12 – 18 but also other community members, such as women. • The program enabled DBE3 and USAID to learn valuable lessons about working with and in out of school education and share these with other donors. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 34 Former youth learner with DBE3 NCG now works at a motorcycle repair shop run by PP Al Fattah, Indramayu, West Java Although the NCG programs achieved some notable successes, the general feeling amongst people involved in the review is that the impact could have been greater In order to improve the management, implementation and impact of any future non cash grants program, the following is recommended based on the key findings. Finding 1- DBE3 made the mistake of seeing the program as simply the provision of equipment. There was a lack of technical assistance provided beyond the initial training and an assumption that each NFEP was “capable” of implementing the program alone and DBE3 role as a procurer and provider of equipment and nothing more. This led to some problems because DBE3 did not support or guide the NFEP, did not challenge and question some of the more dubious proposals, did not provide quality control during the training and did not link the NCG to other useful parts of the project. This meant a good opportunity to really engage in on going dialogue and institutional and individual capacity building with the NFEP was missed. The bottom line is that DBE3 is a technical assistance project aiming to improve the quality and relevance of youth education programs and if the NFEP were already capable, the DBE3 would not be needed. Recommendation 1- NCG programs need to be managed more carefully and processes implemented more rigorously in order to achieve greater success and impact. NCG programs are not only about distributing equipment and should not be. Experience has shown that the combination of technical assistance with the provision of limited amounts of equipment; small grants or materials to beneficiaries which has the most positive impact. It is the technical USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 35 assistance and not the equipment which is important. In providing equipment, grants and materials to beneficiaries is that they are linked very closely to the technical assistance and beneficiaries understand that the materials are intended to act as a starting point for them and they are expected to build on it and look for ways to make it sustainable beyond the life of the project. Finding 2- The tools used during the review and approval process of the proposals for non cash grants were not carefully thought out and were largely ineffective; the indicators did not relate to the objectives of the program, they were not compulsory or prioritized and could be adapted. This meant that there was no real standard against which to measure whether the proposed program was suitable or feasible and so programs which mean that programs were supported which were not locally relevant, not furthering the objectives of the project or the NCG program and even some which were never really feasible and eventually did not take place. Recommendation 2- The tools and indicators used in a review and approval process should be few and link clearly to the objectives of the program, it should be compulsory for each and every proposal to achieve all indicators and there should be no blanket approval of proposals. The criteria needs to be used rigorously by people who both understand the objectives of the program and know the local situation and are able to say whether the program is feasible or not. Finding 3 - The procurement process used by DBE3 in the Non Cash Grants program was too complex, time consuming and was not appropriate to the local context. It slowed down program implementation and caused some ill feeling between partners. Many items could have been purchased locally and more quickly. Recommendation 3- The Procurement process needs to be simplified and be more flexible to take into account the kinds of trainings to be implemented, local conditions, and availability of goods in the local area. This would mean that the process would be more efficient, in terms of time and cost and would allow more time for actual program implementation. Finding 4- The non cash grants program design was mostly solid; a ‘needs analysis’ was a central part of the design to ensure local consultations were conducted so a program relevant to local conditions and employment opportunities was proposed. However, this needs analysis seems to have been largely ignored in the training and development of proposals meaning that some programs were supported were not locally relevant. Recommendation 4- DBE3 should USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 36 ensure the design of the program is followed. It should be compulsory for grant recipients to conduct a “needs analysis” to ensure that the program proposed is locally relevant, demand driven and can rely on local resources and is not just something considered “trendy”. A wide variety of stakeholders should be included in the needs analysis including community members and representatives of local businesses, who can explain what key skills are needed to enter the local work force. As part of the needs analysis, NFE Managers should complete an inventory of local industry and even conduct visits to local work places to see for themselves what skills are needed and establish networks with local businesses. Finding 5- The DBE3 District Facilitators (DF) were all marginalized in the Non Cash Grants Program and therefore, DBE3 staff, who were at that time over stretched with other project activities, had no support at the District level to act as liaison with the NFEP. Recommendation 5- District Facilitators need to be fully engaged in the Non Cash Grants program from start to finish. They can provide vital support to programs as under staffed, large and complex as DBE3 was at the time. DF should be trained to facilitate the training on proposal writing and conduct the training with NFEP in target districts (not the DBE3 staff). The DF should support the managers of the NFE to conduct the local consultations and mentor them to prepare the proposal so that DBE3 only receive proposals which have already been vetted and approved by DF. The DF should be involved in reviewing any proposals submitted as they have local knowledge necessary to determine whether a program is locally relevant. This would have been an invaluable support to DBE3 especially following the mid term evaluation when DBE3 staff were unable to provide on going support. Finding 6- Not only were the Non Formal District Facilitators excluded from the program but DBE3 also did not engage with other relevant NFE stakeholders in the district in the design and implementation of the non cash grants program. This meant that valuable opportunities and assistance was lost. Recommendation 6- DBE3 and the NFEP need to establishing relationships with local NGOs, who are key players in the provision of NFE in Districts. NGO involvement can help with connecting partners with networking other NFEP as well as local enterprises. Local NGOs could help in setting up work experience programs or internships with these businesses for NFE learners as part of or following from the vocational training program. Work placement for learners would be more feasible if there has been an established relationship with local enterprises. As for connecting partners to other NFEP, it could help partners in doing knowledge sharing among NFEP, so that they could learn from each other’s USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 37 successes and failures. Moreover, it would help to increase the chances of success of the program as described under recommendation 8. Finding 7- DBE3 opted for equity and offered all NFE partners the chance to participate in the NCG program and receive in kind resources even when it was clear that some NFE were not in a position to use the NCG effectively because they did not have the numbers of learners, facilities, relevant experience with vocational training; or the capability. The result was that the amount of in kind resources provided to each NCG was low (less than could be received by MONE) and some NCG were wasted because programs were not completed. Recommendation 7- DBE3 as a whole should learn from the actions of the DBE3 team in North Sumatra and aim to place resources only where they will be most effective. Potential recipients for the Non Cash Grants need to be selected carefully. Only NFE providers which are relatively stable (not likely to close), have the necessary numbers of students and infrastructure to successfully implement a life skills program should be included in the program in order to maximize the impact. In this way, partners can receive larger grants. Providing resources to NFEP who are unable to use them or to take care of them or likely to close is wasteful and inefficient. Finding 8- The most relevant and successful NCG programs supported by DBE3 were in NFEP which built on what they were already doing and for which they had previous experience and existing networks and support within the community and especially with local businesses. NFEP which tried to implement new programs with no previous experience and local networks did not do so well. Recommendation 8- DBE3 should be more closely involved in supporting NFEP to decide which out of school programs should be supported by NCG and encourage partners to build on what they are already doing. If NFEP want to try something new, DBE3 should provide additional guidance and support in helping to establish local networks with NGO and local businesses to increase the chances of success of the programs. Finding 9- The objective of the DBE3 non cash grants program was clearly stated but the project did not develop any indicators or tools for monitoring or measuring the impact of the program and in particular the extent to which the objective was achieved. DBE3 only measured inputs (how many grants were disbursed) and not outcomes. Recommendation 9- It is essential to have proper tools to measure the extent to which objectives have been achieved. These tools should go beyond simply monitoring “inputs” such as how much equipment was USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 38 distributed, how many partners received grants and how many learners are trained, to look at the outcomes achieved by the inputs. For example, programs could measure what actually happens to the learners following the training, whether the NFE Managers continue to use the skills they have developed. Finding 10- DBE3 did not consider the consequences of providing expensive equipment to NFEP which may not have the resources to store, secure or maintain it. The result was that some equipment was never used, some lost or stolen, some broken and left unrepaired and some NFE not having funds to use, replace or repair it. Recommendation 10- It is necessary for DBE3 to understand and address some of the key consequences of providing equipment to NFEP, which they may never have had before, don’t have space to use it, don’t know how to take care of and especially when this equipment has been purchased from outside the local area. The NFEP may need additional support in understanding how to maximize and sustain the use of the equipment and this should be included in the program. For example, when providing computer equipment, the NFEP may also need support in understanding how to look after the computers properly so that they do not malfunction. If “needles” for sewing machines to be used in Sibolga are purchased in Jakarta, the program needs to make sure that replacements are also available in North Sumatra. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 39 Annex 1: DBE3 Review and Approval Form for Non Cash Grants The DBE3 provincial office will evaluate the feasibility of an Activity Plan by carrying out a desk￾review and using or adapting the following tools: Main Evaluation Criteria Indicator Evaluation Results Yes No Teenagers There is an attachment of an attendance list for a meeting to discuss Activity Plan at which at least 50% of participants were teenagers There are minutes of the meeting Activity Plan targets at least ten 12 to 18 year olds There is information about how the teenagers will be involved in the implementation of the activity Life skills Background information and objectives specify that the proposed program/activity will develop life skills in a comprehensive way Partner contribution Activity Plan contains an explanation that partner will contribute at least 10 percent of estimated total resources allocated for the program/activity implementation ME The ME plan specifies at least 3 times that its data sources will be 12 to 18 year olds Continuity In the Activity Plan there is an explanation about the plan to continue this program/activity after the completion of cooperation with DBE3 SCORE A: n YES x 3= ………….. x 3= …………… Minimum score for this part is 21. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 40 Other Evaluation Criteria Indicator Evaluation Results Yes No Partnership with other parties The Activity Plan includes plans (both provisional and confirmed) for cooperation with at least one other party other than DBE3 Monitoring Evaluation The Activity Plan includes ME that contains indicators, measurement method, measurement schedule and reporting schedule Duration Duration of Activity Plan is 1 year at the most Content Title page Background based on needs analysis results Clear general and specific objectives Detailed plans for the activity Partnership with parties other than DBE3 Inputs needed Budget SCORE B: n YES answer x 1= ……………. X 1= ………………… TOTAL SCORE = SCORE A + SCORE B = ………………… An Activity Plan that gets a SCORE of at least 28 is considered qualified. If an Activity Plan gets less than that, DBE3 and DF will help the partner to develop a better one. Minimum score for this part is 7. Minimum TOTAL SCORE is 28. USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 41 Non Cash Grants Program Partners Cohort I Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date North Sumatra Tebing Tinggi Paket B Harapan 2 Sewing and computer operation 19 January 2009 Paket B Harapan 3 Sewing/tailoring 15 January 2009 PKBM Taqwa Computer operation 16 February 2009 Paket B Cendana Melati Beauty salon and computer operation 15 January 2009 Paket B Melati Tunas Computer operation, silk screening and calligraphy 15 January 2009 Paket B Laskar Nurul Electrical welding and computer operation Items were taken back 7 Mar 2009 Binjai PKBM Budi Utomo Computer operation 16 January 2009 PKBM Asuhan Ayah Bunda Process of silk-screening 16 January 2009 Yayasan Karang Event organizing 19 January 2009 Deli Serdang KPB Pintar Sewing/tailoring 13 February 2009 Yayasan Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Marginal (YLPMM) Sewing 12 January 2009 Ponpes Al-Amin Process of silk-screening N/A KPB Semangat Computer operation and graphic design 28 January 2009 Yayasan Madya Insani Community Radio training N/A - Cancelled Sibolga PKBM Cerdas Hair & make-up beauty salon 24 January 2009 Tapanuli Utara Paket B Mapan Hair & make-up and automotive/tire repair 29 January 2009 West Java/Banten Indramayu Jaka Anom Motor cycle service 25 January 2010 Istiqomah Computer operation 25 January 2010 Darun Nahwi Motor cycle service 25 January 2010 Tunas Warga Toy creation 25 January 2010 Al-Fattah Motor cycle service 25 January 2010 Karawang Cepat Tepat Mechanics of motor cycle 21 October 2009 Aditya Motor cycle service 21 October 2009 Warnasari Plaited chair and desk 21 October 2009 Sukabumi Sinar Samudera Computer operation 22 February 2010 Annex 2 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 42 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date Darussalam Computer operation 22 February 2010 Taruna Bhakti Computer operation 22 February 2010 At-Taqwa Photography and editing 22 February 2010 Al-Muhajirin Computer operation 22 February 2010 Cilegon Melati Computer operation 1 June 2009 Al-Insyirah Electrical welding 1 June 2009 Widya Bina Karya Electrical welding 1 June 2009 Tangerang Pancakarya Process of silk-screening 1 June 2009 Bina Insani Sewing/tailoring 1 June 2009 Istimewa Lapas Computer operation 1 June 2009 Merdeka Sewing/tailoring 1 June 2009 Lebak Al-Ishlah Computer & Internet 1 June 2009 Raudlotul Sholihin Computer operation 1 Junw 2009 Muara madur Computer operation 1 June 2009 Tanjung Layar Computer and music 1 June 2009 Central Java Karanganyar SKB Karanganyar Sewing Training February 2008 PP. Al Muhlisin Sewing Training July 2008 PKBM Bimma Computer Training May 2008 TPQ. Darun Najah Computer Training May 3008 Klaten PP. Urwatul Wutsqo Computer Training May 2008 PKBM Marsudi Karya Sewing Training April 2008 PP. al Anwar Muhammadiyah Computer Training May 2008 Boyolali PKBM Tunas Mulia Internet Training June 2008 PP. Nurul Ula Livestock Training (Cow) June 2008 Kudus LPTM Wanabakti Manunggal Computer and Hand Phone Techinician Training June 2008 PP. Al furqon Sewing Training June 2008 PKBM Utomo Sewing Training June 2008 PP. Al Qudsiyah Computer Training June 2008 Jepara KPB Nurul Muhtadin Silk Screening, Computer and Sewing Training June 2008 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 43 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date PP. Nurul Huda Mantingan Computer and Sewing Training June 2008 PP. Nurul Huda Tegal Sambi Computer Training June 2008 PKBM Krida Wiyata Computer Training June 2008 PP. Raudhatul Mubtadiin Sewing Training June 2008 East Java Bangkalan PP Al Bakriyah Computer operation 31 December 2008 PKBM Trunojoyo Computer operation 31 December 2008 PP Al Kholiliyah An Nuoniyah Computer operation 31 December 2008 PP Syaichonah Moch. Kholil Computer operation 31 December 2008 PKBM Ababiel Computer operation 31 December 2008 Mojokerto PP As Sholikhiyah Computer operation 31 December 2008 PP Sabilul Muttaqin Computer operation 31 December 2008 PKBM Bina Insan Sejahtera Computer operation and graphic design 31 December 2008 PKBM Mojopahit Computer operation 30 September 2008 Sidoarjo PKBM Sumber Ilmu Computer operation 31 December 2008 PKBM Edelweis Fabrication and sewing/tailoring 31 December 2008 Surabaya PKBM Taman Belajar Computer and internet 31 December 2008 PP Darut Tauhid Computer operation 31 December 2008 PP Al Fitrah Home industry and fabrics 31 December 2008 PKBM Wipra Computer operation 31 December 2008 Tuban PP Assamarqondi Sewing/tailoring 31 December 2008 PKBM Wilis Jaya Computer operation and sewing 31 December 2008 PP Widya Pantura Computer operation and sewing 31 December 2008 PP Salaf Al Alamin Computer operation and sewing 31 December 2008 PP Al Hidayah Computer operation 31 December 2008 South Sulawesi Palopo PKBM Wallacea Honey Bee cultivation Rattan handicrafts 31 October 2008 PKBM Wisata Indah Honey Bee cultivation training Fern handicrafts training 31 October 2008 PKBM Melati Fish and duck 31 October 2008 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 44 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date seeding/cultivation English course Computer training PKBM Paradigma Computer training Leadership training 31 October 2008 Enrekang PKBM Sofi Ganesha Computer training Sewing/tailoring 31 December 2008 LSM Sulawesi Baru Computer training 31 December 2008 PKBM Bambapuang Computer and English training 31 December 2008 PKBM Melati Computer training 31 December 2008 Jeneponto PKBM Permata Jaya Bridal make-up training 31 October 2008 Pesantren Madaniyah School library construction 31 October 2008 PKBM Sejati Automotive mechanic training 31 October 2008 PKBM Nur Alif Community Library 31 October 2008 YPPLS Community library and computer procurement 31 October 2008 Pangkajene PP DDI Baru-Baru Tangnga Computer operation 31 December 2008 PKBM Tunas Muda Community Library 31 December 2008 PKBM Sempurna Community Library 31 October 2008 Soppeng LSM Yayasan Sumpunglolo English language training 31 October 2008 LSM Yayasan Padi Increasing organization and tutorial capacity 31 October 2008 PKBM Lompengeng Community Library 31 October 2008 PKBM Harmonis Community library 31 October 2008 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 45 Non Cash Grants Program Partners Cohort 2 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date East Java Tuban PKBM DungIreng Computer Operation 30 November 2009 PKBM Tunas Bangsa Computer Operation 31 May 2009 PP Al Huda Computer Operation and Silk Screening 31 October 2009 PP Al Husain Computer Operation 30 November 2009 Pasuruan PP Nurul Badri Computer Operation 31 May 2009 Paket B Nusantara Computer Operation 31 May 2009 PP Al Ayubi Computer Operation 31 May 2009 PKBM Miftahul Huda Computer Operation 31 May 2009 Sampang PP Tahfidzil Quran Computer Operation 28 February 2009 PP Salafiyah Nurul Yakin Sewing 30 June 2009 PKBM Harapan Bangsa Sewing 30 June 2009 PKBM Al. Hidayah Computer Operation 31 May 2009 Nganjuk PP. Tri Bakti Computer Operation 31 May 2009 PP. Riyadlotul Muttaqien Computer Operation and Sewing 30 April 2009 PKBM Budi Utomo Computer Operation 31 May 2009 Bojonegoro PKBM Lestari Egg Hatching 28 February 2009 PKBM Handayani Banana Stem Handycraft 31 May 2009 PKBM Adnan Al Charish Sewing 28 February 2009 PP Abu Dzarin Al Ridwan Computer Operation 31 December 2008 PP Abu Dzarin Al Ma’ruf Sewing 28 February 2009 Central Java Grobogan PP At Tadzkir Kaliaren Computer Operation December 2008 PKBM Ngudi Luhur Wood-Lathe and Sewing June 2009 PP Al Hidayah Paving Block Making March 2009 Klaten PKBM Marsudi Kawruh Computer Operation March 2009 Annex 3 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 46 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date PKBM Karsa Mandiri Sewing February 2009 PP Roudlotuzzahidin Silk Screening Process January 2009 PKBM Al. Karomah Computer Operation January 2009 PP Nurudh Dholam IV Culinary Training November 2008 Demak PKBM Handayani Computer Operation February 2009 PP Mifthahul Ulum Sewing December 2008 PP Sirojul Ulum Sewing January 2009 PP Subulussalam “Salsabila” Reading Club January 2009 Purworejo PKBM Rahayu Electrical Welding February 2009 PP Assya’roni Computer Operation and Sewing March 2009 PP Salafiyah Al Amin Computer Operation June 2009 PKBM Tunas Muda Sewing February 2009 Central Java Blora PP Al Ikhlas Computer Operation January 2009 PP Mambaussurur Biogas June 2009 PKBM Wirorejo Sewing March 2009 West Java/ Banten Karawang PKBM Nurul Islam Motorcycle Service 21 October 2009 PP Salafiyah Al Istianah Sewing 21 October 2009 PKBM Nurul Furqon Sewing 21 October 2009 PP Hikmatul Mujahirin Computer Operation 21 October 2009 Indramayu PKBM Tunas Harapan Motorcycle Service 25 January 2010 PKBM Melati Motorcycle Service 25 January 2010 PKBM Tirta Ayu Motorcycle Service 25 January 2010 PKBM Jagantaka Motorcycle Service 25 January 2010 Garut PKBM Syifaush Shupur Computer Operation N/A PP Nurul Fatah Sewing N/A PKBM Tarbiyatul Aulad Embroidery and Electone N/A PP Darusalam Embroidery and Electone N/A Bogor PKBM Cemerlang Computer Operation 15 January 2010 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 47 Province District Non Formal Education Provider Training Content Closeout Date PKBM Matahari Computer Operation 15 January 2010 PKBM Damai Mekar Computer Operation 15 January 2010 Subang PKBM Nusa Indah Computer Operation N/A PKBM Nurul Ishlah Computer Operation N/A PKBm Cempaka Sari Computer Operation N/A PKBM Bina Warga Computer Operation N/A South Sulawesi Pinrang PKBM PADAIDI Mechanical Welding 31 May 2009 SIPATOKKONG Sewing 31 May 2009 Sidrap PKBM 45 Uniform Sewing 31 March 2009 PKBM ARYA Uniform Sewing 31 March 2009 PKBM PP NURUL HAQ Islamic Preaching 31 January 2009 PKBM Kharisma Uniform Sewing 31 March 2009 Kota Makasar PKBM Yasinal Computer Operation 31 March 2009 PPs Islam Al Irsyad Computer Operation 31 May 2009 Luwu PKBM SAWERIGADING Uniform Sewing 31 March 2009 Pinrang PPS ”Ittihadul Usrati Wai Jama’ah” DDI Computer Operation 31 May 2009 North Sumatra Tapanuli Selatan SKB Tapsel Computer Operation, Paving Block and Nata De Coco Making 28 February 2009 Paket B Permata Hati Computer Operation 28 February 2009 Tanjung Balai PKBM Perwira Sewing, Flower Board making, Entrepreneurship 30 April 2009 PKBM Datuk Bandar Sewing, Flower Board making, Entrepreneurship 30 April 2009 USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 49 Annex 4 Sample of NFEP for Cohort I and Cohort II NCG Monitoring Cohort I Province District NFEP Type West Java/Banten Indramayu Darun Nahwi Pondok Pesantren Al Fattah Pondok Pesantren Tunas Warga PKBM Jaka Anom PKBM Istiqomah PKBM Tangerang Bina Insani PKBM Panca Karya PKBM Merdeka PKBM Istimewa Lapas PKBM Cilegon Melati PKBM Al Insyiroh PKBM Widya Bina Karya PKBM Sukabumi At Taqwa PKBM Taruna Bakto PKBM Al Muhajirin Pondok Pesantren Darussalam PKBM Sinar Samudra PKBM Central Java Kudus Utomo PKBM Al-Furqon Pondok Pesantren Al-Qudsiyyah Pondok Pesantren Boyolali Nurul Huda Pondok Pesantren Tunas Mulia PKBM Karanganyar Karanganyar SKB Jepara Nurul Huda Tegal Sambi Pondok Pesantren Roudlotul Mubtadiin Pondok Pesantren Nurul Huda Muntingan Pondok Pesantren Klaten Marsudi Karya PKBM USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 50 Province District NFEP Type East Java Bangkalan Al Bakriyah Pondok Pesantren Trunojoyo PKBM Al Kholiliyah An Nuoniyah Pondok Pesantren Syaichonah Moch. Kholil Pondok Pesantren Ababiel PKBM Mojokerto As Sholikhiyah Pondok Pesantren Sabilul Muttaqin Pondok Pesantren Bina Insan Sejahtera PKBM Mojopahit PKBM Sidoarjo Sumber Ilmu PKBM Edelweis PKBM Surabaya Taman Belajar PKBM Darut Tauhid Pondok Pesantren Al Fitrah Pondok Pesantren East Java Tuban Assamarqondi Pondok Pesantren Wilis Jaya PKBM Widya Pantura Pondok Pesantren Salaf Al Alamin Pondok Pesantren Al Hidayah Pondok Pesantren North Sumatra Tebing Tinggi Harapan 2 Paket B Harapan 3 Paket B Taqwa PKBM Cendana Melati Paket B Melati Tunas Paket B Laskar Nurul Paket B Binjai Budi Utomo PKBM Asuhan Ayah Bunda PKBM Yayasan Karang LSM Deli Serdang KPB Pintar KPB Yayasan Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Marginal (YLPMM) LSM Al-Amin Pondok Pesantren USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 51 Province District NFEP Type KPB Semangat KPB Yayasan Madya Insani LSM Sibolga Cerdas PKBM Tapanuli Utara Mapan Paket B South Sulawesi Jeneponto Permata Jaya PKBM Madaniah Pondok Pesantren Sejati PKBM Nur Alif PKBM Pangkajene BaruBaru Tanga - DDI Pondok Pesantren Tunas Muda PKBM Sempurna PKBM Enrekang Sofi Ganesha PKBM Sulawesi Baru LSM Melati PKBM Bambapuang LSM Cohort 2 Province District NFEP Type West Java/Banten Bogor Damai Mekar PKBM Matahari PKBM Karawang Al Istianah Pondok Pesantren Nuruk Furqon PKBM Subang Bina Warga PKBM Nurul Islah PKBM Garut Syifaush Shudur PKBM Nurul Fatah Pondok Pesantren Central Java Klaten Karsa Mandiri PKBM Marsudi Kawruh PKBM Grobogan At Tadzikir Pondok Pesantren Ngudi Luhur PKBM USAID DBE3: Review of the Non Cash Grants Program in Non Formal Education 52 Province District NFEP Type Purworejo Al Amin Pondok Pesantren Rahayu PKBM Blora Mambausurrur Pondok Pesantren Al Karomah PKBM Demak Sirajul Ulum Pondok Pesantren Miftahul Ulum Pondok Pesantren Handayani PKBM East Java Tuban Al Husain Pondok Pesantren Dung Ireng PKBM Bojonegoro Handayani PKBM Lestaro PKBM Nganjuk Riyadlotul Muttaqien Pondok Pesantren Budi Utomo PKBM Pasuruan Al-Ayubi Pondok Pesantren Nusantara PKBM North Sumatra Tapanuli Selatan SKB Tapanuli Selatan SKB Permata Hati Paket B Tanjung Balai Perwira PKBM Datuk Bandar PKBM South Sulawesi Makassar Yayasan Insan Amaliah PKBM Islam Al Irsyad Pondok Pesantren