ENDLINE REPORT COMMUNICATION FOR EDUCATION AND IMPROVED SCHOOL GOVERNANCE (C4E) DECEMBER 2018 Disclaimer All opinions expressed in this evaluation report are that of the evalutor (Real-Time Evaluation, Ratha Lork and Kurt Bredenberg) or those interviewed (where indicated) and do not necessarily reflect of the views of CARE or UNICEF. Map of Target Areas List of Tables Table 2.1: Summary of SamplE SizE by ProvincE Table 2.2: Summary of Data CollEction MEthodologiEs EmployEd by KEy Informant and RElEvant Forms Table 3.1: Background CharactEristics of HousEholds Table 3.2: FrEquEncy of ChildrEn’s AttEndancE in thE Last 3 Months Table 3.3: AwarEnEss LEvEls of ChildrEn’s AbsencE Table 3.4: ParEnts Who IndicatEd That ThEir ChildrEn HavE to EngagE in Employ- ment Table 3.5: ParEnts Who HavE EvEr AllowEd ThEir ChildrEn to Stay HomE WhEn NOT ill Table 3.6: PErcEivEd SEriousnEss of StudEnt AbsEntEEism among Local & Education Officials Table 3.7: ParEntal AttitudEs About thE ImportancE of AttEnding School Table 3.8: FrEquEncy of HElping ChildrEn at HomE with HomEwork Table 3.9: PErcEptions among Officials REgarding thE DEgrEE to Which ParEnts ValuE Education Table 3.10: ParEnts Indicating, ThEy Know onE or MorE SSC mEmbErs at ThEir Child’s School. Table 3.11: Quality of ParEntal RElationship with SSC Table 3.12: ParEnts Indicating, ThEy AwarE thE Campaigns. Table 3.13: Campaigns Through Which Communication ChannEls. Table 3.14: Officials’ PErcEption of thE DEgrEE of ParEntal AwarEnEss of about In- formation Campaigns Table 3.15: ParEntal Opinion about thE RolEs and REsponsibilitiEs of SSCs (among thosE who havE evEr bEEn SSC mEmbErs) Table 3.16: Officials’ PErcEption of thE RElationship bEtwEEn School and Community Table 3.17: Variation on KEy InvEstigativE ParamEtErs by GEndEr and Ethnicity Table 3.18: Final BasElinE and Post-trEatmEnt Indicator ValuEs (TrEatmEnt and Con- trol Groups) Table of Contents Disclaimer Map of Target Areas List of Tables Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Background 7 1.2 PurposE and ObjEctivE of thE BasElinE AssEssmEnt 8 2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 8 2.1 GenEral FramEwork and Focus 8 2.2 SamplE Construction 9 2.3 Data CollEction MEthods and SurvEy InstrumEnts 11 2.4 Data ManagEmEnt 12 2.5 Data TrEatmEnt 13 3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 14 3.1 HousEhold ReprEsEntation 14 3.2 School AttEndancE and AssociatEd CausEs 15 3.3 AttitudEs about thE ImportancE of Education 17 3.4 Community Education NEtworks and ChannEls of Communication 18 3.5 Variations on KEy ParamEtErs by GEndEr and Ethnicity 21 3.6 Comparison of KEy AttitudEs bEtwEEn TrEatmEnt and Control Groups and 22 OthEr StakEholdErs 4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 26 ANNEXES 31 Annex 1: List of TrEatmEnt and Control VillagEs 31 Annex 2: CasE StudiEs 33 Annex 3: List of Data CollEction Forms 34 Annex 4: Summary List of All Data TablEs 53 Annex 5: CompositE REcord of Focus Group Discussions 62 Annex 6: List of KEy Informants 65 Page | 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations CAPI ComputEr AssistEd PErsonal IntErviEwing C4E Communication for Education DOE District OfficE of Education DTMT District Training and Monitoring Teams GIS GEographical Information SystEm MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport POE Provincial OfficE of Education PED Primary Education DEpartmEnt SSC School Support CommittEE ToR TErms of REfErEncE Page | 2 Executive Summary Background ThE prEsEnt rEport describEs an internal assessment of the impact of the Communication for Ed- ucation ProjEct (C4E) implEmEntEd by CARE in Ratanak Kiri and Mondulkiri ProvincEs. UndEr thE projEct, a communication for development campaign was designEd by CARE, in collaboration with UNICEF, MoEYS/PED and local govErnmEnt countErparts, to promotE bettEr awarEnEss and positivE attitudinal changEs toward valuEs of Education to incrEasE community dEmand for good quality education among parEnts, carEgivErs and community mEmbErs. ThE campaign also sought to strEngthEn pErcEptions of stakEholdErs’ rolE in supporting inclusivE lEarning EnvironmEnts for all childrEn at school. ThE communication channEls usEd by thE campaign includEd sound rEcord- ings (E.g., radio, public announcEmEnts, Etc.), posters, social mEdia, and othEr forms of communi- cation. In tEchnical tErms, the projEct focusEs on the rolE of what arE known as District-based Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support Committees (SSCs) and their man- datE to promotE strEngthEnEd demand for inclusivE quality Education among community mEm- bers and other stakeholders. MembErs of thE School Support CommittEEs (SSCs) led thE cam- paign to improvE attitudEs and bEhaviors as thEsE rElate to Education. ThEsE champions facilitat- Ed a Human-Centered Design Approach to thE dEvElopmEnt of thE campaign and plannEd evEnts in rEmotE communitiEs targEtEd by thE projEct. ThE prEsEnt assEssmEnt took thE form of basElinE and EndlinE data collEction activitiEs to dEtEr- minE the ExtEnt of impacts during the four-month pEriod of actual implEmentation. ThE endlinE survEy itself occurrEd in DEcEmbEr 2018, approximatEly four months aftEr thE baselinE survEy. Impacts were primarily assessed through a review of changes in behaviors and attitudes among key stakEholdErs including housEholds, villagE chiefs, and Education officials. RElatEdly, thEsE impacts arE thought to also reflect the effectiveness of District Training and Monitoring Teams (DTMT1) and School Support CommittEEs in effEcting thE dEsirEd changEs. Specifically, thE basElinE-endlinE assEssmEnt sought to documEnt stakEholdErs’ undErstanding of thE importancE of education, thEir awareness of this importancE, and possiblE changEs in behav- ior and practicE that may result from subsEquEnt projEct intervEntions. AchiEving this objEctivE requirEd thE design of an assessment methodology, thE devElopmEnt of data collEction tools, thE training of enumerators, and data analysis procEdurEs. ThE prEsEnt report documEnts thE out- comEs of thEsE efforts, building on a basElinE assessment report that was implEmEntEd and com- plEtEd in August-SeptEmbEr 2018. Methodology Employed ThE currEnt assessmEnt collEctEd data from housEholds in a total of 40 villagE-communitiEs1 rep- resEnting a mix of rural and remotE locations as well as villagE chiEfs and educational officials in Ratanak Kiri and Mondul Kiri Provinces. A prEpondErancE of thE housEholds visitEd during thE assessment were of indigEnous ethnicity (about two-thirds). Data was collEctEd from 595 re- spondEnts at basElinE and 598 respondEnts at endline. Data collEctEd from thE various stakE- holdErs was triangulated to chEck for validity and areas of inconsistEncy. Investigators utilizEd focus group discussions and interviews, as key methodologiEs for data collEction. In ordEr to ex- peditE thE collEction and tabulation of data, information was immEdiately encoded into mobilE 1 Inclusive of 30 treatment villages and 10 control villages. Page | 3 devicEs that usE spEcializEd softwarE designEd for resEarch purposEs. Research Questions: 1. To what ExtEnt doEs communi- Conclusions about program impact arE basEd on a comparison ty undErstand about the im- of basElinE and endlinE valuEs. ThE instrumEntation for both portancE of Education? 2. To what ExtEnt do campaign survEys has beEn kept in largE part thE samE. BasEd on discus- activities rEach the community? sions with CARE, a small control group (10 villagEs) was includ- 3. What has bEEn changEd as a ed in thE data collEction methodology for comparison purposEs. result of thE campaign- Communi- cation for Education (C4E)? ThE dEvElopmEnt of data collEction tools and stratEgiEs wErE 4. What arE thE kEy rEcommEn- closEly guidEd by key research quEstions idEntifiEd in thE TErms dations to raisE furthEr undEr- standing of thE importancE of Edu- of REfErEncE for thE baseline assessmEnt. This includEd thE four cation? resEarch quEstions summarizEd in thE box to thE right. Summary of Impacts Key Impacts Indicated in Endline Data ThE prEsEnt EndlinE survEy found pos- Assessment Parameter Changes from Baseline That Exceed itivE impacts among 11 or 55% of thE Comparable Movement in a assessment parameters investigated Control Group 1. % of parents who have children as part of the evaluation process for Decreased by -7.2% frequently absent thE C4E projEct. ThEsE impacts arE 2. % of parents who have ever al- summarizEd in Box 4.1. Impact in this lowed their children to stay home Decreased by -6.9% when not ill casE is dEfinEd as thE movEmEnt of an 3. % of parents who interact with Increased by 14.2% indicator in a dEsirEd dirEction among SSC ‘often’ membErs of the trEatment group that 4. % of parents who have ever re- ceived information about educa- Increased by 10.0% exceeds comparable movement along tion ‘Often’ (Outreach Efforts) thE samE indicator in a control group. 5. % of officials who believe that Increased by 43.3% among Village Chiefs ThErE wErE in all ninE othEr assEss- communities value education ‘a Increased by 8.5% among Education great deal’ Officials ment parameters or 45% of thE total 6. % of officials who believe that in which thErE was no obsErvEd im- parents value education ‘a great Increased by 43.0% among Village Chiefs deal’ pact or whErE thE obsErvEd changEs 7. % of Education Officials who were lEss than thosE obsErvEd in thE believe DTMTs operate ‘effective- Increased by 1.2% ly’ (not asked of Village Chiefs) control group. Thus, onE can concludE 8. % of officials who bEliEvE com- that whilE thE C4E projEct achievEd munitiEs arE ’vEry EffectivE’ in Increased by 36.7% among Village Chiefs promoting transparEncy, per- Increased by 13% among Education Offi- positivE changE among a majority of formancE, and accountability of cials its stated indicators, there were still a primary schools 9. % of officials who bEliEvE that Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs numbEr of instancEs whErE impacts SSCs ‘play a strong rolE’ in Edu- duE to thE Education campaign wErE cation not conclusivE. 10. % of officials who feEl that par- Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs Ents arE ‘vEry awarE’ of infor- Increased by 21.8% among Education mation campaigns Officials Among thE positivE impacts obsErvEd, Increased by 30% among Village Chiefs 11.