SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2013 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00 Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010 October 2014 This study was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program

Summary Annual Progress Report October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014

Submitted to: U.S. Agency for International Development/Asia and Middle East Bureau Chris Capacci-Carneal, COR AME/ME/TS Washington, D.C.

Submitted by: Creative Associates International 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20015

Under Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00/Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010

October 2014

This report was made possible by the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Creative Associates International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)

DEC Submission Requirements

Contract No. EDH-I-00-05-00029-00 a. USAID Award Number Task Order AID-OAA-TO-10-00010 b. USAID Objective Title Investing in People (IIP) USAID Asia and Middle East Regional School Dropout Prevention c. USAID Project Title Pilot (SDPP) Program

USAID Program Area and Education (program area 3.2) d. Program Element Basic Education (program element 3.2.1) Summary Annual Progress Report: October 1, 2013 – September 30, e. Descriptive Title 2014 f. Author Name(s) Karen Tietjen Creative Associates International 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700 g. Contractor name Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: 202 966 5804 Fax: 202 363 4771 Contact: [email protected]

Sponsoring USAID AME/ME/TS h. Operating Unit and COTR Chris Capacci-Carneal, COR i. Date of Publication October 30, 2014 j. Language of Document English

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014)

Table of Contents Acronyms ...... ii Activity Summary ...... iii Executive Summary ...... 1 I. Project Overview, Rationale and Strategy ...... 2 II. Progress toward Results and Requirements and Activities Undertaken ...... 3 A. Result/CLIN 1: Elements of Successful Student Dropout Prevention Programs Identified ...... 3 B. Result/CLIN 2: Risk Factors and Conditions that Increase the Likelihood of Students Dropping Out of School in the Pilot Countries Identified ...... 4 C. Result/CLIN 3: The Effectiveness of Education Interventions in Reducing School Dropout Rates Determined in Each Pilot Country...... 7 III. Project Management and Operations ...... 34 A. Operations ...... 34 B. Key Meetings with USAID and Partners ...... 36 C. Staff Actions ...... 44 D. Consultants ...... 45 E. Staff and Consultant International Travel ...... 46 F. Procurements ...... 48 IV. Status of Contract Deliverables ...... 48 V. Challenges and Actions Taken...... 51 VI. Major Activities Planned for Next Quarter ...... 53 VII. Accrued Expenditures ...... 54

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page i Acronyms

ACD Assistant Country Director AME Asia and Middle East Bureau BEPC Bihar Education Project Council BRC/CRC Block/Cluster Resource Center CARE/TL CARE/Timor Leste CBO Community-Based Organization CIES Comparative and International Education Society CLIN Contract Line Item Number (USAID) COR/COTR Contracting Officer’s Representative/Technical Representative (USAID) DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DED District Education Director DOE District Office of Education DPO District Program Officer EFA Education for All EWS Early Warning System EWRS Early Warning and Response System FPO Field Program Officer FY Fiscal Year HQ Headquarters HR Human Resources ICT Information Communication Technology IDEAL Institute for Development, Education, and Learning IIP Investing in People IRL Indochina Research Limited KAPE Kampuchean Action for Primary Education M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development MO Monitoring Officer MOA Memorandum of Agreement MoE Ministry of Education MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPR Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. NA Not Applicable NGO Non-governmental Organization PO Project Officer POE Provincial Office of Education PRI Panchayati Raj Institution PTA Parent-Teacher Association QUEST Quality Education and Skills Training RED Regional Education Director RTE Right to Education SDPP School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program SES Selected Educational Statistics STS School-to-School International TOR Terms of Reference U.S. United States UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page ii Activity Summary

Lead Implementing Partner: Creative Associates International (Creative) Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica) School-to-School International (STS) Other Implementing Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) Partners: Institute for Development, Education, and Learning (IDEAL) CARE/Timor Leste (CARE) USAID Asia and Middle East Regional Activity Name: School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program’s objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and Activity Objective: countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention in primary and secondary school by piloting and testing the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in four target countries: Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste. USAID Program Objective: Investing in People (IIP) September 27, 2010 – September 29, 2013 (extended to September 29, Life of Activity: 2015) Total Estimated Contract/Agreement $51,504,754 Amount:

Obligations to date: $51,504,754

Accrued Expenditures 12th $1,991,169 Quarter (July-Sept. 2014): Activity Cumulative Accrued Expenditures to $36,537,453 Date (Inception through September 2014): Estimated Expenditures $1,994, 910 Next Quarter:

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page iii Executive Summary The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year program, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from primary and secondary school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and countries in Asia and the Middle East on student dropout prevention by piloting and testing the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste. SDPP’s three-stage applied research approach includes 1) identifying best practices in dropout prevention in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1); 2) identifying those groups, grades and/or geographic areas most severely affected by dropout and analyzing the risk factors and conditions affecting dropout (Result/CLIN 2); and 3) designing, implementing, and evaluating pilot interventions to keep at- risk students in the most acutely affected areas in school (Result/CLIN 3). All standards and deliverables under Result/CLIN1 have been achieved. All Result/CLIN2 standards have been achieved, except a four-country summary and a final presentation in Washington. Under Result/CLIN 3, pilot dropout prevention interventions have concluded in Cambodia, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste. School interventions in India will continue through the school year (March 30, 2015). In all four countries, SDPP interventions reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls (47 percent) In Cambodia, interventions in the 215 treatment schools concluded in Quarter 3, having reached 59,271 grade 7-9 students (41,487 at risk). SDPP worked with MOEYS to develop a Sustainability Plan, approved in Quarter 4. Follow-up 2 impact assessment data were collected, and Fidelity of Implementation (FOI) and Qualitative Research (QR) conducted. FOI found overall high fidelity with some weakness in case management, which was addressed by supporting monthly school meetings. Computer Labs received replacement equipment; schools were trained on repair and maintenance. In India, SDPP interventions spanned two school years, reaching 10,814 students (8,343 at risk) in 113 treatment schools. SDPP responded to the Bihar Education Project Council request for a simplified EWS suitable for scale-up. Follow-up 2 and FOI data were collected. SDPP trained teachers and staff on the FCI process and enrichment program (EP) activities, and conducted leadership training for headmasters. NEW EP sessions and voice messages were created for program related activities. In Tajikistan, SDPP concluded its support of 1,753 at-risk students in 82 schools in Quarter 3. SDPP was authorized to organize one Consultative Group meeting and an International Literacy Day celebration. Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Schools were trained on the revised EWS toolkit and 203 Tutoring Lessons; all SDPP materials were submitted for MOES approval. FOI found high fidelity but weakness in case management; SDPP staff worked with the schools. SDPP proposed several training activities to reinforce interventions, but the lack of a signed Letter of Commitment hampered progress. In Timor Leste, SDPP concluded intervention support, having served 12,616 students (5,467 at-risk) in 97 schools spanning two school years in FY14. Each quarter, a National Coordination Body meetings were hosted by the MOE. Follow-up 2, FOI and QR data were collected. Based on FOI results, staff encouraged teachers to hold case management meetings, using the first trimester exam results as a focus; reactivated ‘Stay in School’ Community Groups; and trained teachers on extracurricular sessions. SDPP HQ prepared a preliminary analysis of Baseline and Follow-up 1 data, and oversaw the collection and data cleaning of Follow-up 2 data. It developed FOI tools, supported data collection, and conducted analysis. It designed a Qualitative Research Study exploring beneficiary-intervention interactions, and launched data collection in three countries. It completed filming for the SDPP multimedia packages in all countries. It developed and organized two panels on SDPP research results and community mobilization, which HQ and country team member presented at for the Comparative International Education Society 2014 Conference in Toronto.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 1 I. Project Overview, Rationale and Strategy For the past two decades, children’s access to basic education has been the major focus of national and international education development efforts. However, as more children enroll in school, but fail to complete it, school dropout has become recognized as a major educational challenge both in developed and developing countries. Although the pattern of dropout varies by country, the result is the same: increasing numbers of under-educated and unemployable youth. Reducing dropout is key to improving access to basic education, particularly in countries with relatively high enrollment rates where most school-age children who do not currently attend school have previously been enrolled in school. The School Dropout Prevention Pilot (SDPP) Program is a five-year multi-country program, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), aimed at mitigating student dropout from primary and secondary school. Its objective is to provide evidence-based programming guidance to USAID missions and countries in Asia and the Middle East (AME) on student dropout prevention by piloting and testing the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions in four target countries: Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste. Using multiple channels, including a web-based platform, SDPP will build a community of practice, sharing information and feedback on intervention design, research methodologies, and results. It will also produce practical and accessible guidance and models for designing, implementing and assessing dropout prevention programs in primary and secondary school. SDPP will advance knowledge on dropout prevention programs through an applied research approach. In a three-stage process, it will: 1. Identify best practices in dropout prevention in the U.S. and developing countries (Result/CLIN 1).

2. Identify existing policies and programs in each country designed to prevent or reduce student dropout and analyze dropout trends to identify the groups, grades and geographic areas most severely affected by dropout. SDPP will conduct a situational analysis in the target area and among the most affected groups in order to understand the risk factors and conditions affecting dropout (Result/CLIN 2).

3. Design, implement and evaluate interventions to keep at-risk students in schools in the most acutely affected areas. There are no preconceived interventions to reduce dropout prescribed by the project; design will be tailored to fit the needs of the target group in each country based on the situational analysis as well as informed by promising interventions noted in the literature review. However, SDPP will not fund school construction, subsidies/incentives, general teacher training, vocational education, or workforce development activities. SDPP will rigorously assess the effectiveness and replicability of the pilot project interventions to provide state-of-the-art information on which dropout prevention strategies work (and those that do not) using randomized control trials and/or quasi- experimental designs and combining quantitative and qualitative methods (Result/CLIN 3). SDPP is implemented by Creative Associates International with international partners Mathematica Policy Research (Mathematica, or MPR) and School-to-School International (STS), and local partners Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) in Cambodia, Institute for Development, Education, and Learning (IDEAL) in India, and CARE in Timor Leste. With technical guidance from Creative’s SDPP headquarters, implementing partners in the target countries implement the SDPP program, working with the government and key stakeholders to identify the project target group and site, design interventions, and assess effectiveness.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 2 II. Progress toward Results and Requirements and Activities Undertaken

A. Result/CLIN 1: Elements of Successful Student Dropout Prevention Programs Identified Programs or interventions from around the world which have been evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing dropout have been identified in order to help determine programming recommendations for the four pilot countries and to inform the selection and design of interventions in each country. The review of existing U.S. and international research on dropout prevention also provides critical information regarding dropout to USAID and its partners in the AME region. Requirement 1.1: Conduct Identification and Analysis of U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout Prevention Programs and Interventions During FY11, identification and analysis of existing research on dropout prevention programming around the world was completed. All four standards under Requirement 1.1 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:

 Plan for conducting the identification and analysis provided within thirty days after award.  Plan for identification and analysis includes methodology and criteria to identify effective evidence-based programs and interventions for preventing student dropout.  Identification and analysis includes a review of at least fifteen programs or interventions.  A synthesis of effective interventions that can be adapted to the pilot countries.

Requirement 1.2: Produce Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout Prevention Programming During FY11, the results of the literature review were synthesized into a school dropout prevention and analysis report, which was approved by USAID. The report has been translated into Khmer, Hindi, Tajik and Russian, and Portuguese and Tetun (for Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste, respectively). All six standards under Requirement 1.2 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:

 Draft report submitted within thirty (30) days after completion of analysis.  Report includes an executive summary, which succinctly profiles specific interventions, combinations of interventions and or programs that have demonstrated student dropout prevention.  Report includes estimated costs associated with each intervention or program associated with positive results.  Report includes a conclusion as to which interventions/programs are most convincing and make the greatest contribution to the understanding of student dropout prevention.  Report is grammatically correct and contains no spelling or punctuation errors.  Minimum of two hundred (200) reports packaged.

Requirement 1.3: Distribute Report on U.S. and International Evidence-Based Student Dropout Prevention Programming English and local language versions of the report have been distributed in all four countries and in the U.S., including to the AME Bureau of USAID/Washington. In-country distributions were done primarily in conjunction with the intervention design workshops (year two) and other events including the program launches this year. The English and six local language versions are available on the SDPP website. The three standards under Requirement 1.3 have been achieved.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 3 Standards Achieved:  Minimum of two-hundred (200) total hard copy reports distributed to USAID pilot missions, and the AME Regional Bureau in English.  Minimum of fifty (50) hard copy reports distributed to each of the four (4) USAID pilot missions and the respective host country representatives and key stakeholders in the official languages of the country.  Report, in English, distributed to intended recipients within thirty (30) days after TO COTR approval.

Requirement 1.4: Present Findings of the Analysis Key findings from the literature review were presented to USAID missions, host country representatives, and other stakeholders in the four pilot countries as part of the design consultation workshops held during the project’s second year. Presentations on the findings of the literature review have been made to USAID AME Regional Bureau representatives, including the SDPP COR. All three standards under Requirement 1.4 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:  A minimum of five (5) presentations total on report findings made to USAID AME Regional Bureau, USAID pilot missions and host country representatives and key stakeholders.  Presentations include all key findings.  Presentations include a power point that summarizes findings.

B. Result/CLIN 2: Risk Factors and Conditions that Increase the Likelihood of Students Dropping Out of School in the Pilot Countries Identified In-depth assessments of the risk factors and conditions that influence school dropout have been completed. In each country, this effort involved three main components, including analyzing national data on dropout trends; identifying existing policies and programs designed to prevent or reduce student dropout; and conducting field-based, primary research on dropout in the geographic areas and with the target populations and grades that pilot project interventions will address. Requirement 2.1: Identify Assessment Tools Development of tools used in conducting primary research on dropout in the four pilot countries (data collection instruments, data entry system, and a variety of guidelines, training materials, and other supportive tools) was completed during the first year of the project. Both standards under Requirement 2.1 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:  List of assessment tools for each of the four (4) countries that indicate the subset of core tools for all countries.  Each proposed assessment tool specifies the factor(s) it assesses.

Requirement 2.2: Conduct an In-depth Assessment of Student Dropout Issues and Trends in each of the Four Pilot Countries To ensure that pilot projects address the most critical academic and social pressures that influence dropout in each of the four pilot countries, SDPP has conducted in-depth assessments in each country. The assessments served to identify children who are most vulnerable to dropping out of school, to determine

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 4 the reasons for dropout in the most affected areas, and to assess the effects of existing policies and/or programs designed to prevent or reduce student dropout rates, through three major tasks: (1) analysis of dropout trends, (2) policy and program analysis, and (3) on-site primary research that profiles children at risk of dropping out and the factors and conditions affecting dropout. All three tasks in each of the four SDPP countries have been completed, and all four standards under Requirement 2.2 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:  Draft plan for implementing in-depth assessment developed for each of the four (4) pilot countries within two (2) months after award.  Four (4) individual pilot country assessment plans submitted within fifteen (15) days after approval of drafts.  In-depth assessments initiated within each of the four (4) pilot countries no later than one (1) month after Country AM/TO COTR approval.  Inventory of existing government policies and programs of government, NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) that may affect dropout rates and that may be considered as interventions to test in Result 3 compiled.

Requirement 2.3: Produce Report of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments In order to help USAID, host country governments, and other stakeholders in the pilot countries and the AME region gain a clearer understanding of dropout factors and trends, key findings from the country assessments have been documented and shared widely. Results are presented in separate reports on each of the major components of the assessments: the dropout trends analysis, the inventory of policies and programs, and the situational analysis/primary research. Analysis of Dropout Trends: Reports on the data trends analysis for all four countries have been finalized, translated, and submitted to USAID/Washington. The reports frame the magnitude of the dropout problem in each country and identify the locations, groups and grades that are most acutely affected by dropout. Copies of the report in English and in local languages have been distributed in all countries. Policy and Program Analysis: Inventories of the government policies or institutionalized practices in each country that may influence dropout, together with information on past or current government or non- governmental programs with potential for influencing dropout, were compiled for each country, submitted, and approved by USAID in year one. English and local language translations have been distributed in all four countries. On-Site Primary Research: Initial summary reports providing an overview of the primary research methodologies and results from each country have also been prepared. A more detailed report summarizing the findings of the research was prepared for the Timor-Leste Ministry of Education. SDPP completed analyses of data from all four countries and prepared four full country reports. One four- country summary report is under preparation.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 5 One Standard under Requirement 2.3 has been achieved, while the others have been partially achieved.

Standards Achieved:  In-depth country assessment results identify grade-levels and student populations most at risk of dropping out for each of the four pilot countries  Four (4) in-depth country assessment draft reports written within two (2) months after the completion of the country assessments.  All four (4) reports adhere to a uniform organizational format.  Written reports are grammatically correct, without spelling or punctuation errors. Standards Partially Achieved:  One (1) report with country comparisons.

Requirement 2.4: Present Findings of In-Depth Pilot Country Assessments Findings of the in-depth country assessments, including trend analyses, policies and programs, and primary research, together with findings from the literature review on dropout prevention programming, were presented in all four countries at the consultative intervention design workshops held during the first two quarters of FY2012. In addition, country-specific presentations were made to USAID Mission personnel in-country in Cambodia, Timor Leste, and India during FY2012, as well as to the incoming USAID Country Director for Tajikistan and the two USAID/Washington SDPP CORs in Washington. The findings from all four countries were also presented at the 2012 Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A presentation to USAID in Washington covering all four countries will be scheduled in consultation with the AME Bureau. The seven standards under Requirement 2.4 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:  Four (4) country tailored power point presentations.  Presentations on in-depth country assessments include all risk factors and trends identified for each of the four (4) countries.  Presentations include at least two (2) recommendations for possible programming to mitigate student dropout for each of the four (4) pilot countries.  Presentations on in-depth country assessments include a summary of findings for each of the four (4) country assessments.  A minimum of four (4) workshops held to discuss country findings and possible programming options.  A minimum of five (5) presentations on the in-depth country assessment findings made to pilot country stakeholders, including USAID mission personnel and Washington personnel.  One (1) power point presentation including all countries.

Requirement 2.5: Translate and Distribute In-Depth Pilot Country Assessment Report The dropout trends analysis reports and policy and programs inventory reports have been translated into Khmer (Cambodia), Hindi (India), Tajik and Russian (Tajikistan), and Tetun and Portuguese (Timor Leste). In all four countries, the PowerPoint presentations summarizing key results from the primary research were also translated into local languages. The reports have been widely distributed, primarily but not exclusively in coordination with the intervention design consultative meetings and launches in each country. English and local language versions of the reports have also been distributed to the USAID/Washington AME Regional Bureau.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 6 The final, primary research component of the assessment report has been completed and will be sent for translation in FY15. The standards under this requirement have thus been partially achieved.

Standards Partially Achieved:  Each country assessment report translated into the official languages of the pilot countries: Cambodia (Khmer), English, Tajik, Portuguese and Tetun.  A minimum of four-hundred (400) total in-depth country assessment reports distributed to four (4) USAID pilot country missions and the respective host government representatives and stakeholders in the languages required.  A minimum of fifty (50) in-depth country assessment reports distributed to each of the four (4) pilot country missions and AME Regional Bureau, in English.  Each in-depth country assessment report comprises a print and compact disc (CD).

C. Result/CLIN 3: The Effectiveness of Education Interventions in Reducing School Dropout Rates Determined in Each Pilot Country In FY14, SDPP conducted a second (and final) year of school-based dropout prevention interventions in each of the four pilot countries, reaching 84,454 students in 507 treatment schools. Based on findings from CLINs 1 and 2, the interventions introduced in the schools address identified academic, economic and social pressures shown to influence dropout, as well as gender considerations where needed. The rigorous research designs allow for measurement of intervention effectiveness. By the end of the pilots, SDPP will have identified achievements and failures, described lessons learned, suggested possible models for replication in other countries, and made recommendations for dropout prevention programming in Asia and the Middle East. Guidance and programming guides and toolkits on evidence- based school dropout prevention programming, including best practices, requisite conditions and estimated cost, will be prepared and distributed. Requirement 3.1: Establish Pilot Country Coordination Bodies for the SDPP Program SDPP coordination bodies or consultative groups, which were formed in each of the four SDPP countries in FY12 with codified scopes of work, continued to meet throughout FY14. The consultative groups serve as a means of fostering collaboration, communication and coordination among the SDPP implementers, USAID pilot country mission personnel, host government representatives and other key stakeholders. Cambodia: SDPP continued its close collaboration with the National Coordination Body and with senior Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) officials. In Quarter 1, nine representatives of the (MoEYS)—including National Coordination Body members—joined the EWS trainings for homeroom teachers and school directors, encouraging them to collaborate with SDPP for a second school year. Fifteen officials from the MoEYS ICT Department helped deliver SDPP computer literacy training to Computer Lab teachers. In Quarter 2, National Coordination Body members and representatives from the six Provincial Offices of Education (POE) met for two days to review the implementation plan and discuss the draft SDPP Sustainability Plan, which was endorsed by H.E. Im Koch. In Quarter 3, SDPP assisted the MoEYS to develop its official instruction letter to the 215 treatment schools to continue implementation of EWS and Computer Labs in School Year 2014/15, following the end of SDPP support in June/July 2014. The MoEYS announced it would request additional resources from the Ministry of Economy and Finance to continue SDPP school intervention. In Quarter 4, the sustainability plan—“Guidelines for the Implementation of the Early Warning System and Computer Lab Interventions”—was officially approved by the MoEYS Secretary of State for Secondary Education H.E. Im Koch on September 19, 2014, including not only the SDPP treatments schools but those operating computer labs funded by the USAID IBEC project. The national

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 7 Coordination Body and relevant MoEYS officials met with SDPP to review SDPP progress and approve activities proposed to strengthen both school and MoEYS capacity to continue to support and expand the interventions, including two national dissemination workshops planned for October and December 2014. India: SDPP staff interacted frequently with state, district and block- education officials, responding to high level interest in replicating and expanding the SDPP interventions. In Quarter 1, SDPP obtained permission from Samastipur District officials to conduct school personnel training and provided a progress report to the State Project Director for Education. In Quarter 2, the Consultative Group granted SDPP permission to continue activities in the 2014/15 school year starting April 2014, and suggested SDPP work with the state technical team to develop a stream-lined EWS for expansion to statewide. In Quarter 3, State officials formally requested a scalable EWS model that can be expanded to more blocks and another district in Bihar State. In Quarter 4, SDPP shared a revised plan for expansion of the EWS intervention with the State Project Director’s office. It proposed to train other block, district and state-level education staff who could train schools on the interventions. The district-level coordination meeting was postponed due to heavy rains, but permission was obtained for SDPP to capture stories, pictures and video footage from intervention schools. Tajikistan: Due to the on-going discussions between USAID and the Ministry of Education and Sport (MoES) about the Letter of Committment, the SDPP Consultative Group was authorized to meet only once in FY14, although permission was granted for SDPP to continue school-based activities in school year 2013/14, starting in October 2013. Nevertheless, meetings took place frequently between individual Consultative Group members and SDPP staff, particularly at the district level, to update them on program activities and ensure continued support. In Quarter 3, with MoES authorization, SDPP organized a Consultative Group meeting in Kulob, chaired by the MoES Supervisor for Pre-Primary and Secondary Education for Kulob, and attended by district education officers and USAID to review progress, plans to reinforce school capacity to continue the interventions, and the second reward package of books. In Quarter 4, the MoES approved the SDPP-organized International Literacy Day Celebration, held in September, which brought together regional and district education directors preempted the tentatively- scheduled Consultation Group meeting. Quarterly reports on SDPP activities were regularly submitted to the MoES.

U.S Ambassador to Tajikistan Susan Elliot greets Grade 9 students at School #4 in Dangara District at the International Literacy Day celebration on September 23, 2014, organized by SDPP.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 8 Timor Leste: The Country Coordination Timor Leste Body met four times, once per quarter in FY14, with meetings chaired by the “The SDPP program acts as a key for the Ministry of National Director for Basic Education or Education to pay attention to student attendance from his representative. In Quarter 1, newly- beginning to completion of basic education. We need to prevent repetition. We need to make extra efforts to ensure that appointed District Directors were oriented all students pass the exams. Many students drop out of school to the program activities. In Quarter 2, because of repetition. When a student has had to repeat a members discussed how the interventions grade 2 or 3 times it greatly increases their risk of dropout.” could be continued after SDPP; the Director General for Basic Education --Cidálio Leite, Director General for Preschool and Basic Education. expressed interest in integrating the Extra- curricular enrichment activities into regular classes and continuing the EWS intervention. In Quarter 3, SDPP staff presented sample copies of the “easy-user” EWS Guide for teachers and a draft poster.

In Quarter 4, the Country Coordination Body met in September. SDPP staff updated participants on SDPP activities of the previous school trimester and presented findings from the Fidelity-of-Implementation assessment, showing high levels of teacher absenteeism and poor record-keeping at the schools, which inhibit intervention impact. Participants expressed the desire to continue SDPP activities, and noted the final results will influence Ministry of Education (MoE) policy. All five standards under Requirement 3.1 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved:  Stakeholders identified in each of the four (4) pilot countries that include, at a minimum, representatives from the Ministries of Education, the teacher’s union (where applicable), and community representatives, PTAs or private sector.  Areas of collaboration identified and areas of potential conflict and resolutions identified.  A SDPP project oversight body formed in each of the four (4) pilot countries.  A communication plan developed for each of the four (4) pilot countries.  The Coordination Body convened and a scope of work developed for its engagement in the project.

Requirement 3.2: Design Student Dropout Prevention Pilot Projects Pilot projects in each of the countries were designed and operationalized in FY 12. In FY14, the school- based interventions entered a second year of implementation and were concluded in three countries— Cambodia, Tajikistan and Timor Leste (see Requirement 3.5). Each country has implemented an Early Warning System (EWS), as one of two interventions. While each country EWS is tailored to the context, they all aim to: (i) use existing school-level data on attendance, performance, behavior, and other indicators to identify students at risk of dropping out of school; (ii) enhance the capacity of schools to address the needs of at-risk students; and (iii) strengthen the partnership between school personnel and the parents or guardians of at-risk students. In addition to the EWS, other interventions include computer labs in Cambodia; in-school arts and crafts, sports, and language arts activities in India; after-school tutoring and recreational activities in Tajikistan; and extra-curricular enrichment activities in Timor Leste. All three standards under Requirement 3.2 have been achieved.

Standards Achieved  Four (4) tailored draft pilot design plans are completed within six (6) months after award.  Each of the four (4) pilot design plans includes the proposed methodology for selecting intervention sites.  Minimum of four (4)-[one (1) per country] design workshops are conducted that include representatives of the SDPP project oversight body.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 9 Requirement 3.3: Develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan SDPP’s research plan, developed in FY12, details study design, data collection, and analysis for the impact evaluation. It includes basic elements for country M&E plans, including: proposed outcome variables and their operational definitions (between-grade and within-grade dropout, attendance, performance, progression, student attitudes, and teacher attitudes/behaviors), described by country and in accordance with the target grades and school calendars in each country; data sources needed to measure these outcomes as well as other student and school characteristics needed for the impact analysis; and data collection methods and timelines by country. In addition, “Fidelity of Implementation” (FOI) a nd Qualitative Research tools and procedures have been developed, piloted and implemented in each country. All four of the Requirement 3.3 standards have been achieved.

Standards Achieved  Target dates established for all activities and outputs of pilot projects.  Operational definitions provided for all variables included in the four (4) country pilots.  At least three (3) outcome indicators established for each of the four (4) country pilots.  Data sources [identified] for each indicator.

The following presents progress on M&E activities. Impact Assessment Due to uncertainties about the SDPP extension, which was received in late August 2013, the SDPP data analysis plan was revised to eliminate formal baseline reports. Instead, in Quarter 1 of FY14, SDPP produced a preliminary report on all four countries comparing baseline with selected findings from Follow-on 1 data, collected during the first year of school-based intervention. Baseline analyses suggest that random assignment successfully created treatment and control groups that are equivalent on almost all observed characteristics in all countries. The preliminary analysis comparing baseline data with the first follow-on impact data on student dropout, student engagement in school (attendance), student attitudes (emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and behavioral engagement), and teacher behavior and attitudes indicates that only in a few instances is there a statistically significant, extremely modest difference in with-in or between grade dropout between treatment and control groups. In summary:  Dropout and Attendance: There are no statistically significant impacts of the programs on dropout or attendance in Tajikistan, India, or Timor-Leste; nor are there dropout or attendance impacts for at-risk students in these three countries yet. In Cambodia however, EWS schools have a statistically- significant lower within-grade dropout rate than control schools, although no such significant findings are present in EWS+Computer schools. Also, among at-risk students in Cambodia, EWS schools have statistically-significant lower dropout than control schools.  At-risk Student Attitudes: There are no significant impacts on attitudes of at-risk students in any of the four countries.  Teacher Dropout Prevention Practices: Impacts on the teachers’ dropout prevention practices are mixed: significant positive impacts were found for EWS and EWS+Computer schools in Cambodia and a marginally significant positive impact for schools in Timor-Leste, although none found in in Tajikistan or India

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 10 Table 1: Impact Assessment Data Collection Schedule Data collected for: Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor Leste Total Baseline 1 June 2012 July 2012 May 2012 May 2012  Schools 322 220 165 191 898  Student Records 89,040 25,562 8,110 29,477 152,189  Teacher Records 6,339 1,667 3,035 1,881 12922  Student Interviews na na na na na  Teacher Interviews 4,342 661 1,039 1,031 7,073 Baseline 2 December 2012 na November 2012 na  Schools 322 na 165 na 487  Student Records 140,214 na 8,245 na 148,459  Teacher Records na na na na na  Student Interviews 12,515 na 1,995 na 14,510  Teacher Interviews na na na na na Follow-up 1 June 2013 May 2013 May 2013 May 2013  Schools 322 220 165 191 898  Student Records 140,002 12,812 8,245 29,458 190,517  Teacher Records 7,234 2,014 3,658 2,044 14,950  Student Interviews 12,512 3,300 2,005 5,568 23,385  Teacher Interviews 4,287 647 917 903 6,754 Follow-up 2 June 2014 March 2014 May 2014 April 2014  Schools 322 220 165 190 897  Student Records 190,458 39,625 16,615 31,301 277,999  Teacher Records 8,003 2,280 4,251 na 14,534  Student Interviews 15,949 3,433 2,670 na 22,052  Teacher Interviews 4,345 618 1,062 na 6,025 Follow-up 3 (endline 1) February 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014  Schools 322 220 165 190 897  Student Records 152,081 27,319 8,435 25,610 213,445  Teacher Records na 2,494 na 2,389 4,883  Student Interviews na 3,199 na 5,605 8,804  Teacher Interviews na 606 na 945 1,551 Follow-up 4 (endline 2) na na na February 2015  Schools na na na 190 190  Student Records na na na 25,368* 25,368  Teacher Records na na na na na  Student Interviews na na na na na  Teacher Interviews na na na na na *This is the expected sample size for Follow-up 4, however data entry is not yet complete.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 11 These results are not unexpected at this stage, because: (1) the estimates (in some cases based on incomplete analysis) are premature, as data was collected earlier than was optimum because of the 2013 contract termination date1; (2) limited intervention exposure time, in some cases only four months2; and (3) in some cases (i.e. Cambodia) timing required the use of proxy variables for with-in grade dropout, making a premature estimate even more inexact. Follow-on 2 data collection—planned for Quarters 2 and 3— allowed SDPP to “recoup” some of the missing data from Follow-on 1, as well as allow for a longer exposure time. In Quarter 2, the SDPP HQ and country team representatives participated in a two- day review of the preliminary results, discussed its implications, and planned for further analysis and data collection, specifically determining to conduct qualitative research studies to better understand the findings. In Quarter 1, SDPP HQ developed plans, schedules and scopes of work for data collection for Follow-on 2, survey instruments were revised, and the CSPro data program updated. Requests-for-Quotations were issued to local data collection firms in Cambodia, India and Tajikistan. In Quarters 2-4, SDPP HQ assisted the country teams with data collections, quality assurance, and data cleaning. Cambodia: In Quarter 1, Indochina Research Limited (IRL) was contracted to conduct the Follow-Up 2 data collection and data entry. In Quarter 2, the SDPP Cambodia M&E team worked closely with SDPP HQ and IRL to finalize the tools and other forms required for the data collection, and inform the schools of the upcoming data collection and its requirements. In Quarter 3, the SDPP HQ, the country team and IRL conducted training on the instruments and protocols for 167 enumerators, and launched data collection in the 322 schools. In Quarter 4, data collection and data entry were completed; data was uploaded to the secure website for cleaning and analysis. The SDPP country team followed up on data cleaning questions with IRL. In August, the MoEYS officially delayed the start of the school year to November 2014 due need for 75 percent of Grade 12 students to re-sit the national exam in October, which resulted in postponing the planned Follow-up 3 data collection. SDPP HQ and country staff reviewed Follow-on 3 instruments and training materials, and worked with IRL to schedule data collection for FY15 Quarter 1. India: In Quarter 1, local research firm Sunai was contracted to conduct the Follow-on 2 data collection and data entry. In Quarter 2, the SDPP team conducted a one-day orientation program for school personnel in control and intervention schools on data collection needs. Follow-on 2 data collection tools were finalized and translated in Hindi, and 100 data collection team members were trained in their application. Data from 220 schools were collected. Training of 15 data entry operators was conducted and data entry initiated. In Quarter 3, data entry and cleaning was completed. In Quarter 4, SDPP HQ, the country team and Sunai began planning for Follow-on 3, which is scheduled for F15 Quarter 1. Tajikistan: In Quarter 1, local research firm Zerkalo was contracted to assist in data collection and entry. In Quarter 2, the SDPP country M&E team and field staff visited treatment and control schools to check all the records required for Follow-on 2. The M&E team worked with SDPP HQ to revise the tools and other documents, and began translation. In Quarter 3, the SDPP/Tajikistan team—with SDPP HQ assistance—conducted training for 38 Zerkalo enumerators and 11 SDPP supervisory staff on data collection. Data collection was carried out in all 165 schools, and data entry concluded at the end of June. In Quarter 4, the country team began preparations for Follow-on 3—scheduled for FY15 Quarter 1--by officially requesting the District Education Departments to emphasize the importance of preparing the documents needed. Data collection was moved up by two weeks at the request of the USAID Activity

1 The SDPP contract extension was issued August 22, 2013, which necessitated that data collection be completed early to allow for some analysis before the scheduled September 2013 termination date. 2 Exposure time was limited because SDPP interventions had been implemented in the schools for less than six months, school schedules were disrupted with frequent closings preventing implementation, and typical roll-out issues.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 12 Manager. The M&E team visited treatment and control schools to determine availability of documentation. SDPP HQ worked with the country team to develop/revise instruments and training materials. With Zerkalo, the country team developed a data collection schedule and initiated the data collector hiring process. Timor Leste: In Quarter 2, the SDPP country team prepared for and initiated the Follow-on 2 data collection in the 190 project schools. Data collection instruments and training materials were reviewed and translated, and SDPP M&E and Research Officers participated in a 5-day training session. Data collection started at the end of February, but experienced delays due to difficulty in locating students for interviews; unavailability of records, and heavy rains and flooding. In Quarter 3, SDPP M&E and Research Officers completed the Follow-up 2 data collection, although availability of school records continues to be a challenge. The data entry for the Follow-up 2 data collection was concluded. In Quarter 4, Follow-up 3 Data Collection School Visit Plans were formulated and shared with district M&E and Research Officers to facilitate coordination with data collection teams. A three-day training was held to improve SDPP staff interviewing skills. Fifty-three external data collectors, 16 team leaders, and 11 replacement candidates were recruited and trained for Follow-on 3 data collection. Training was facilitated by SDPP HQ and the CARE USA Senior Research and Learning Advisor. Follow-on 3 data collection was initiated, and by the end of the quarter data from 56 control schools had been collected. Attrition among team leaders and data collectors was the biggest challenge of the initial phase of the Follow-up 3 Data Collection: nine temporary staff resigned and one was terminated due to her poor performance. The data entry application was uploaded and the country team started testing the database system. Data collection and data entry will be completed in FY15 Quarter 1.

Participants practice completing the Proficiency Test during the Participants and facilitators in a group photo at the end of the Follow-up 3 Data Collection Training Follow-up 3 Data Collection Training

Monitoring of SDPP Interventions Reports from country teams in FY13 indicated that the SDPP Fidelity of Implementation (FOI) instruments and protocols placed too heavy a burden on program staff. In response, SDPP HQ streamlined and tested the instruments and protocols. In FY 14, SDPP HQ worked with the country teams to: re-design FOI tools; develop protocols and guidance on FOI data collection, analysis, and reporting; and implement two rounds of FOI in treatment and control schools.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 13 Table 2: Schedule of Fidelity of Implementation activities by country Tools Round 1 data Round 2 data Tools Round 1 data Round 2 data Country developed, analyzed, analyzed, finalized collected collected piloted reported reported Cambodia Jan-March Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Apr-Jun Jul-Oct India Jan-Mar Apr-Jun EWS C1 Aug * EWS C1: Nov-Dec Jan-Feb 15 Sep-Oct Other Other interventions: interventions Sep-Oct Nov-Dec Tajikistan Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Timor Leste Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct Oct Nov-Dec Bold=completed, italics=in progress or planned * Data in India collected for Early Warning System, Component 1: At-risk students identified. Data for EWS Components 2-4, enrichment activities, and parent involvement to be collected Sep-Oct. Cambodia: In Quarter 1, the M&E team worked with SDPP HQ to update and revise the fidelity tools to provide more streamlined but measurable tools for fidelity for EWS, Computer Labs (with a student computer literacy assessment) and control schools, which were piloted, revised and re-tested. In Quarter 2, the M&E team trained staff and the provincial teams carried out the fidelity check in all 322 schools. In Quarter 3, Round 1 FOI data cleaning and preliminary descriptive analysis were completed showing relatively high results for both EWS and Computer Labs. In Quarter 4, the provincial teams completed the 2nd round of Fidelity: 19 schools were re-visited to check if they had improved their score for the EWS implementation which had not reached the fidelity threshold and 61 randomly selected schools were assessed. As all schools scored highly on Computer Labs in round 1, there was no 2nd round fidelity check, although staff continued to monitor computer labs. The student assessment was conducted for the 2nd time to the same classes in the same 12 schools and KAPE randomly selected 61 control schools to carry out a fidelity check to ensure there was no contamination. The KAPE IMS Manager designed a database to enter the data which was submitted to School-to-School and Creative for final analysis. Initial findings show improvement in fidelity. India: In Quarter 1, the country team tested existing FOI tools for case management, open house and Enrichment Program (EP) implementation. In Quarter 2, new fidelity tools were developed on EWS, EP and Parent activities with assistance from SDPP HQ and pilot tested. In Quarter 3, the three FOI tools-- Early Warning System, Enrichment Activity and Parental Engagement--were finalized and FOI data was collected for EWS. In Quarter 4, data was collected for the Enrichment Program and Parental Engagement processed. During FOI data collection, ghost students and “migrated” students were identified in treatment and control schools, and data sent to SDPP HQ. This information is important as it must be factored into the impact assessment calculation of dropout. There were: 776 ghost students in treatment schools and 366 ghost students in control schools, and 123 migrated students in treatment schools and 105 migrated students in control schools. Tajikistan: In Quarter 1, the SDPP country team conducted FOI monitoring visits to treatment schools to check whether the EWS and Afterschool Tutoring interventions were being implemented as intended. In Quarter 2, the SDPP HQ, the country program and M&E teams developed, revised and tested two FOI instruments to simplify and reduce the number of FOI tools to only two. Round 1 FOI data was collected. In Quarter 3, analysis of Round 1 data revealed some data anomalies, which resulted in the revision of the EWS tool and retraining of SDPP staff involved in FOI data collection. A second round of data collection was conducted.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 14 In Quarter 4, the FOI database was revised to reflect the changes in the FOI tools, and FOI data was entered, tabulated and sent for analysis. Timor Leste: In Quarters 1 and 2, the country team worked with SDPP HQ to review and revise FOI instruments. In Quarter 3, the M&E team pilot tested the finalized FOI tools, initiated Round 1 data collection, and develop the FOI database and entered Round 1 data. In Quarter 4, plans were developed for the second round of FOI data collection in FY15 Quarter 1. Qualitative Research Study To augment the data obtained through the impact assessment study, the FOI study, and routine monitoring, SDPP HQ designed a Qualitative Research Study to (1) better understand why changes in student and teacher behaviors and attitudes have happened, and (2) how beneficiaries and targets (students, teachers, school directors, parents and community members) have responded and reacted to the interventions. This is intended to inform improvements in SDPP intervention design for future use by government and others, and indicate what is likely to be sustained. The approach is a small-scale data collection effort using qualitative research methods: focus group interviews with students, teachers, parents and community members and a one-on-one interview with the school director, using semi- structured interview guide with open-ended questions for both. The sample includes 10-12 schools (two per administrative unit), comprising a high SDPP take-up school and low SDPP take-up school with enough students and teachers to conduct focus group interviews and where both interventions have been implemented (i.e. Cambodia). Cambodia: In Quarter 3, initial drafts of the quantitative research tools were developed and Qualitative Research Questions shared with the country team for feedback. • How did SDPP interventions affect at-risk In Quarter 4, SDPP traveled to Cambodia to train students’ decisions to stay in school? staff on the instruments and administration • How did or why didn’t SDPP interventions affect protocols, and piloted them in three schools in Pursat at-risk student decisions to dropout? province. Following tool revision, the country team • How did students react to SDPP interventions— provided further training to 18 provincial staff did they notice them, like them, felt helped and charged with data collection. Round 1 FOI data were supported, or prefer something else? collected by six teams, each assigned to a province. • How did teachers, school directors, parents and Focus group and individual interviews were community interact with the SDPP interventions— conducted with 455 students, dropouts, parents, did they notice them, understand them, use them, teachers, school directors, and community members. like them or prefer something else? The FOI database was developed and tested. • What kind of difficulties did SDPP beneficiaries (students) and targets (teachers, school director, India: Given the Impact Assessment data collection parents and community) experience with SDPP preparation for Follow-on 3 and FOI data collection interventions? activities, the Qualitative Research Study activities • What aspects of the SDPP interventions will they were not scheduled until FY15 Quarter 2. continue to use? Tajikistan: The Qualitative Research was launched in Tajikistan with a visit by SDPP HQ. In Quarter 3, instruments were developed, field tested and finalized. Fifteen SDPP staff members (3-person teams), including Dushanbe staff, were trained in data collection methods. Qualitative data were collected in 10 schools, two per district. Focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 333 students, dropouts, parents, teachers, school directors, and community members.

In Quarter 4, the M&E database officer designed an Excel database and conducted data entry. Following analysis procedures provided by SDPP HQ, each instrument was analyzed twice by different team members. Initial analysis will be ready in FY15 Quarter 1.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 15

Timor Leste: In Quarter 3, SDPP HQ prepared draft instruments and shared with the country team. In Quarter 4, SDPP HQ travelled to Timor Leste to train the country team. Instruments were trialed and finalized. Thirteen country team members were trained on their application. Data collection is planned for FY15 Quarter 1.

SDPP HQ provides feedback to the SDPP Focus Group Interview in Cambodia SDPP team practicing through role play as team in Cambodia practicing the FGI tools. with at risk students. interviewer, interviewees and note takers.

Requirement 3.4: Launch SDPP Projects in the Four Pilot Countries SDPP school-based activities were formally launched in all four countries in FY13, with participation of senior U.S. and host-country government officials. The events helped to raise public awareness about dropout and SDPP interventions, and solidify local and national government support for the program. Both standards under Requirement 3.4 have been fully achieved.

Standards Fully Achieved:  Pilot launchings in the four (4) pilot countries within the first year after award.  One (1) press release for each of the four (4) pilot countries issued.

Requirement 3.5: Conduct Student Dropout Prevention Pilots in the Four Selected Countries In FY14 Quarter 1, SDPP began a second year of school-based intervention activities in all four countries, SDPP Country School Calendars made possible by the contract extension received in late Cambodia: October – July FY13 (August 22, 2013). Over the course of the year it reached 84,454 students, of which 39,930 were girls. In India: April - March (break May & June) Cambodia and Tajikistan, SDPP interventions resumed Tajikistan: September - June with the new 2013/14 school year in Quarter 1, and were Timor Leste: January - September concluded in Quarter 3. In India, interventions continued uninterrupted (except by extended holidays and NB: Calendars are subject to change, inclement weather) through the end of the 2013/14 frequent breaks/holidays and disruptions school year in Quarter 2, and resumed with the new due to inclement weather, national events, 2014/15 school year in Quarter 3 with completion strikes, etc. planned for FY15 Quarter 1. In Timor Leste, the first

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 16 full year of SDPP interventions was concluded in Quarter 1; the second year of interventions began with the new school year 2015 in Quarter 2 and concluded in Quarter 4. Varying by school calendar, the following activities were undertaken in each of the SDPP countries: (1) implementation and conclusion of a second year of school interventions, (2) strengthening and further operationalization of interventions, including revision of procedures and materials and training, (3) initiation of activities aimed at building ministry of education capacity to continue, sustain and/or expand SDPP interventions, and (4) distribution of participation rewards to treatment and control schools Cambodia: School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014) School-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were scheduled to resume in October 2013 to coincide with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year. For the second year, schools openings were delayed due to heavy rains. Numerous (56) treatment schools, as well as SDPP’s Battambang office were closed or adversely affected by flooding, resulting in the postponement of planned activities to later in the year. Nevertheless, the full work program for school-based activities was implemented, albeit within a shortened timeframe. Early Warning System: Implemented in all 215 treatment schools, the Early Warning System intervention reached 59,925 grade 7-9 students (27,348 girls). In preparations for at-risk student identification, 39 SDPP staff were retrained on EWS, followed by a 2-day training on EWS for 2,008 school personnel, POE/DOE representatives and MoEYS officials in six provinces. Homeroom teachers completed at-risk child scoring of entering Grade 7 students and Grade 8 and 9 transfer students and at- risk student identification at the beginning of Quarter 2. 41,487 students (17,910 girls) were identified as “at-risk” of dropping out. Over the course of the year, students received a range of follow-up support from schools, teachers and communities, including home communication (11,842 letters and 11,383 calls) and 44,072 home visits, increased in-class attention and case management meetings. The EWS Parent-Teacher Association Training Guide and PTA/Community toolkit were updated and expanded for use in the training of 931 PTA members in early Quarter 2. To reinforce their skills, SDPP program and provincial teams observed PTA- and school director-led community meetings in each treatment school and provided feedback. Three meetings were held during the school year at different sites within the community. Re-published anti- dropout toolkits, comprising ring-bound posters, wall calendars, diaries and banners, were used to support discussion of the value of education, issues leading to dropout and ways to prevent dropout. 641 schools and community meetings brought together members of the Commune Council, village chiefs, local police, parents, teachers and school principals Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results, although high overall (90 percent of schools met or surpassed the threshold score), showed significant weakness in the implementation of follow-up support (i.e., case management) by teachers, with an average score of 36 percent. As a consequence, the country team redoubled its effort with provincial staff meeting regularly with schools to assist them on follow-up. Discussion of at-risk student was included in the agenda of monthly teacher meetings at the schools and results were recorded in the school report. Computer Labs: Implemented in 108 of the 215 treatment schools, computer labs served nearly 40,000 grade 7, 8 and 9 students for twice-weekly (total of two hours) computer literacy classes. Multiple trainings were conducted over FY14 for computer lab teachers, school director and technicians on their use and support. In Quarter 1, SDPP staff and MoEYS trainers provided a 5-day training to 535 teachers and schools directors in the computer lab schools on the computer literacy curriculum, student project work exercises, and computer lab timetabling and operation. In Quarter 2, 108 selected computer teachers participated in three-day training on computer lab maintenance and basic repair.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 17 The SDPP country monitored the computer labs and equipment to ensure they were functioning and operated according to guidelines. Repair and replacement of solar panels, batteries and peripheral equipment (monitors, keyboards, printers, etc.) were effected through the local companies, and completed in Quarter 4. SDPP also arranged to re-install a computer lab into a new classroom, following relocation of the school. Encouraging schools to clean debris off solar panels restored power to several computer labs that had suffered from weak power. SDPP worked with schools to construct simple bamboo ladders to access roofs. To date, 83 of the 108 schools have fabricated ladders.

School personnel climbing the locally made step ladder, School personnel cleaning the solar panel carrying water to clean the solar panel on the roof of the SDPP on the roof of the SDPP computer lab. computer lab.

Round 1 fidelity-of-implementation results showed the 98 pecent of the labs were functional, 93 percent followed the computer literacy curriculum, and 94 percent of schools provided the required support. Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014) At the end of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued. In Quarter 4, the SDPP team worked to strengthen the capacity of the MoEYS and schools to sustain the interventions. (See 3.1 for discussion.) Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the Asian Development Bank’s Senior Education Advisor, Dr. Seema Aggarwal, met several times with SDPP HQ and country staff. The ADB is interested in replicating the EWS in its new program. The SDPP team provided materials and organized school visits so she and MoEYS colleagues could observe the EWS and Computer Labs in action and get feedback from school personnel, parents and communities. With USAID COR concurrence, SDPP offered to provide training on the interventions to central, provincial and district MoEYS staff involved in ADB project implementation. The ADB has not yet responded. Computer Labs: In Quarter 4, SDPP organized one-day Computer Lab safety and management meetings with 471 school directors, local authorities and Community/PTA members and MoEYS, POE and DOE officials to review the Computer Lab Security and Maintenance Plan, ensure understanding of computer lab maintenance and support requirements, and to develop school-based plans for safeguarding the computer labs and sustaining the computer literacy program in the up-coming school year. Overall, commitment on the part of the participants was high, including suggestions for a provincial support fund

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 18 and inclusion on the agenda of monthly commune meetings. In August, the Bun Rany Hun Sen High School in Svay Rieng province held a community fund-raiser to renovate the leaking computer lab roof. The event--attended by the District Deputy Governor, POE and DOE representatives, local police, monks, school personnel and the PTA/community--raised one-third of the needed funds.

Responsibilities for Sustainable Operation of Computer Labs  The payment for the CL security guard will be responsibility of the community with daily security supported by local police posts.  The Commune Council will include the necessary budget in the Commune Investment Budget Plan, and mobilize resources for CL operation at the target schools.  POE and DOE committed to sustain CL operation by negotiating with MoEYS for an allocation of national budget for sustainable CL operation, and support school planning at target schools.  All participants to be active to discuss the plan for Group work on detailing the CL safety and management at each CL target responsibilities to sustain the CL operation. school.

Participation Rewards Both treatment and control schools are scheduled to receive a modest “reward” for participating in SDPP in 2013/2014 school year and undertaking the additional work it requires.3 Based on discussions with schools, the SDPP team determined that metal file cabinets and hole punches would be most appreciated by school personnel. These will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1, along with a thank-you letter. Certificates of appreciation for school personnel, PTA/community members, DOE and POE official who have provided outstanding support for SDPP will also be presented. India: School-based intervention activities for the Anandshala Program in FY14 spanned two school years: April 2013-March 2014 and April 2014-March 2015. During this period, the school calendar was interrupted by strikes and inclement weather. Over the two school years, SDPP reached 10,814 Grade 5 students. School Year 2013/14 Intervention Activities (October 2013-June 2014) Early Warning System: Implemented in all 113 treatment schools, the Early Warning System intervention identified approximately 4,213 at-risk students, known as “focus children” to avoid stigmatization, in school year 2013/14. During the remainder of the 2013/14 school year, SDPP strengthened student tracking and response activities. A new child tracking booklet (including child profile, monthly tracking, communication recording tool and case management) was introduced. The newly-designed attendance tracking register, which was prefilled with student names and SDPP ID numbers, allowed teachers to record absenteeism, early departure and tardiness in one place to get an overall picture of how individual at risk students were doing. In most schools, student class monitors are now taking over recording afternoon attendance. The Communications Recording Tool was used to record phone calls and home visits for treatment students.

3 While treatment schools already receive varying degrees of equipment, materials and services, in order to maintain “equivalence” between treatment and control schools, both groups receive the same annual incentive.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 19 School Open Houses were held in Quarters 1 and 2. The Open Houses provided an opportunity for parents and community members to visit the school and see their children’s work, within a “low-stakes” context. (Rare parental visits to the school are generally to respond to a problem.) A Parents’ Engagement Kit has been created for the Open Houses, comprising a board game and tracking poster. Open House attendance has increased over time, in part due to invitations sent through the Voice Messaging system. The Voice Messaging System broadcast messaged twice a week, with a month hiatus in January/February 2014 due to the contract renewal process. In Quarter 2, the storyboard and scripts for 20 new messages was approved by USAID, and recordings were completed in Quarter 3. In addition, messages were developed to publicize SDPP activities: invitations for Open Houses and SDPP trainings were broadcast. A review of the Voice Messaging Program showed that 81% of parents of Grade 5 students have phones, but only 56% received the voices messages. Reasons for not receiving messages included changed phone numbers, uncharged phones, and no answers. School capacity to support the EWS was reinforced by several training activities. In Quarter 1, a school planning exercise was conducted in each school to schedule case management meetings, open houses and other SDPP activities, and selected head teachers were engaged to participate in a workshop to develop content for head master training on planning and leadership. Separate trainings took place for Community Champions and teachers on their role, the process of tracking students, and first “responses.” Head teachers received training on how to integrate Anandshala activities into existing school processes. In Quarter 2, teachers participated in a review of the Anandshala program aimed at obtaining suggestions for strengthening implementation and preparing them to continue activities without the support of community champions. Head teachers participated in planning session for the upcoming school year. Enrichment Program: Session plan development for the Enrichment Program continued over the first two quarters, with the design of 18 session plans in sports, language and arts. Training teachers, Community Champions and Program Officers on session plans took place each quarter. 5532 students participated in the Enrichment activities. School Year 2014/15 Intervention Activities (April 2014 - September 2014) The 2014/15 school year began in Quarter 3, with 5,282 students in the treatment schools. Although the school year officially starts April 1, a long break in late May and June contributes to delayed enrollments and uneven attendance by students and teachers. Resumption of most SDPP school intervention activities did not take place until July (Quarter 4), when enrollment had stabilized sufficiently to complete identification of 4,130 at-risk students. The SDPP team used the interval to review and refine the interventions, materials and training modules. SDPP school-based activities were scheduled to end in October/November 2014, at which time final data collection would take place. However, SDPP support for schools was re-scheduled to continue through March 2015, in response to a request from the state and district educational authorities received in late FY2014. Final data collection took place in November as originally planned. Early Warning System: In Quarter 4, the 2014/15 school year resumed in earnest. The Focus Child Identification list for school year 2014/15 was finalized for each school, which also received a pre-filled attendance tracking register. A FCI data book (report card), which consolidates data on at-risk children, was developed and distributed to head teachers and classroom teachers. Phone calls and home visits to at- risk students resumed. Following the Hindi, Behavior and Enrichment Program assessment, the case management planning was initiated. The phone number list for the new 2014/15 Grade 5 student cohort was developed, including 82 percent of households. Voice messages were sent to parents, including invitations to the first Open House of the year in July. A change has been made in the service provider to ensure regular broadcasts.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 20 The first Open House, held in July at the 113 treatment school, was attended by 70 percent of Grade 5 students’ parents, as well as the village heads and government officials. A revised board game and poster were distributed. A second Open House was held in September for 70 schools (the remainder will participate in Open Houses in October 2015). It enjoyed a 75 percent participation rate by students and families. Completed school activities plans were displayed at the schools, and the development of a Head Teacher Journal was initiated to facilitate activity planning. Enrichment Program: In Quarter 3, the country team conducted a formative assessment of the session plan content. Feedback was positive: teachers like the clear statements of objectives, understood the content and liked the activities. Based on their comments that the illustrations were too numerous, the team developed a new template and began revising the session plans. In Quarter 4, 48 session plans had been revised to make them easier to read. Enrichment Program activities began in early May and continued until the school break at the end of the month. During the month, 9-10 sessions had been completed in most schools. Teachers and Head teachers are taking more responsibility from Community Champions for their implementation. Each Friday, teachers and Community Champions reflected on the week’s experience.

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (July 2014- September 2014) In Quarter 4, 210 Community Champions participated in a refresher training, aimed at redefining the role of Community Champions beyond the end of SDPP. They suggested ways they could continue to support the school, engage the community and promote anti-dropout activities. One day trainings were held for teachers on the EWS, head teachers on their responsibility for supporting Anandshala activities, and Community Champions on the Enrichment Program. Participation Rewards In Quarter 1, student seating mats were distributed to the 220 treatment and control schools as the reward for their first year of participation. In Quarter 4, procurement was begun for fabric classroom “attendance trees,” made locally, for the second year’s participation reward

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 21 Anandshala Open House and Enrichment Program Views and Voices

“Many students didn’t want to stay in school after midday meal, but now due to EP activity they enjoy and stay in school till the last period.” --Teacher “I learnt lot of things from Anandshala EP Program and due to this I got benefit during enrichment training organized by Department of Education and got A+ grade.” --Teacher “Whenever I attend the Open House I can see children developing all new things. I am convinces that my child too can do something worthwhile in near future.” --Parent “When we mark our SDPP journal, we can see how regular our children are at school. Our children enjoy the school, they tell us the activities that they do at school.” --Parent “My children want to attend school regularly because of Anandshala Program.. We feel so involved in the Open House program.” --Parent “I can’t really believe that our children can make such beautiful things. This community is really fond of your activities.” --Parent “Only the Anandshala Open House lets so many parents get together. My school has been recognized as the best school of Samastipur. Anandshala is a large reason for this.” --Parent Now I know why it is important for our children. Now I understand what SDPP is doing and how it benefits my child.” --Parent

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 22 Tajikistan: Intervention Activities (October 2013-May 2014) The second and final year of school-based intervention activities for the Stay in School Program were initiated in 82 treatment schools in September 2013 with the start of the 2013/2014 academic year. Early Warning System: In Quarter 1, identification of 1,753 at-risk students was finalized. The process compared favorably with the previous year: school personnel played a more active role in scoring the students. Teachers tracked the attendance, behavior and course work and used the information for case management. A revised EWS Toolkit was distributed to each treatment school, containing Monthly Case Management Meeting form, Behavior Tracking form, Homework Tracking form, Form Letter for Parents, Home Visit form and Letters, Home Visits and Meetings log. Throughout the year, homeroom teachers generally completed the EWS records and kept them organized. Some gaps remained that were addressed by the field monitors—for example, although Case Management Meeting forms listed student names and course marks, they did not present comments on the problems identified, actions taken or plans for follow-up, a key weakness substantiated by the Fidelity-of-Implementation research. At the beginning of the school year, the SDPP country team conducted training workshops for 1,940 parents and community members, including civic and religious leaders, police and local officials, to orient them to the SDPP activities, enlist their support and participation, and clarify roles and responsibilities. Participation exceeded expectations, so at several schools, two sessions were conducted. School-based EWS activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school year.

After-School Tutoring and Enrichment Program: By the first week of Quarter 1, SDPP has prepared and distributed a complete lesson plan packages to all 450 tutor to conduct lessons throughout the 2013/14 school year. The package consisted of: year-long calendars for tutoring lesson plans in all 10 subjects; 203 lesson plans4, organized by 10 core # FINALIZED TUTOR LESSON PLANS subjects; questionnaires for field program staff to gather feedback from parents and SUBJECT NUMBER students about the after school program; 1 English Language 30 lesson observation forms for field program staff to provide feedback to tutors; and 2 Russian Language 23 covers for binders that hold their lesson 3 Tajik Language and Literature 34 plans. 4 Geography 17 Approximately 1,300 Grade 9 students 5 History 18 participated in the after school program, 93 percent of the at-risk students in the 6 Law 17 full treatment group. To ensure a high 7 Biology 17 participation rate, parents were invited to observe the Afterschool Tutoring classes, 8 Physics 17 giving them an opportunity to see the 9 Chemistry 14 positive effect on the students’ attitude and attendance. As an added incentive to 10 General Math, Geometry and Algebra 16 encourage students to sit for the Grade 9 Total: 203 Lesson plans

4 SDPP received a total of 444 first-draft lesson plans from the module developers between June, 2012 and May, 2013. From those, the program team selected the best lesson plans for further development and revision. During revision, other lesson plans were eliminated from the pool. The final collection consisted of 203 lesson plans, in Tajik and English.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 23 leaving exam (SDPP’s proxy measure for completion and transition), tutors and students were given the option to use part of the tutoring hour to review content for the final exams in Quarter 3. For the most part, equipment and supplies remained in good shape, but in some cases more storage and minor repairs to designated Afterschool Tutoring room were required. Sport equipment was procured to round out the leisure program equipment, and proved popular with both girls and boys. Based on the previous years’ experience, ineffective tutors had been replaced, but some problems remained: some tutors continue to use traditional methods of instruction or some schools are unable to provide the subject teacher (most often in English). To strengthen tutor capacity to sue interactive teaching methods, SDPP organized demonstration classes in 78 treatment schools in Quarter 2. SDPP staff and master tutors modelled lessons, and tutors practiced with 1,284 Grade 9 students in practicums, receiving feedback on their efforts. Tutor participation was high—438 out of 450 tutors took part. Tutors so much liked the demonstration classes that they organized their own demonstration sessions in 68 schools in Quarter 3, inviting SDPP staff to attend as expert observers. Over 300 tutors participated. School-based Afterschool Tutoring activities were concluded in Quarter 3, with the end of the school year. Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014) In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued. In Quarter 4, the SDPP team worked to initiated activities to contribute to the sustainability of the program interventions. In light of the recently-announced MoES requirement that all program materials used in schools must undergo MoES and approval for nationwide use, a package of SDPP materials— already approved for use in the treatment schools—was submitted to MoES point-of-contact for review. The package included the EWS School Manual with forms, the Afterschool Tutoring and Enrichment Activities School Manual, all tutoring lesson plans, a booklet for parents, and copies of community awareness posters. In July, SDPP was instructed to send the materials to the Collegium—group of representatives from different MoES institutions—for approval. With COR approval, SDPP has engaged the head of the Academy of Education to review the package and provide suggestions for changes, which SDPP will make prior to submission. SDPP participated in a joint MoES-UNICEF working group on out-of-school children, which includes dropouts. The working group plans to develop an EWS and accelerated learning program for Grade 9. SDPP shared both its EWS tools and its lesson plans.

Participation Rewards The Consultative Group decided in Quarter 3 that the second year’s participation reward for treatment and control schools should again include a package of reading books, as this had proved very popular with schools, Districts and the MoES the previous year. In Quarter 4, the books were delivered to the 165 schools. The U.S. Ambassador handed over packages of books to the host school and officials at the SDPP-organized International Literacy Day celebration, held in Dangara district.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 24

U.S. Ambassador Susan Elliot presents books from the SDPP book rewards package to Ministry of Education and Sport representative Abdujabbor Aliev at the International Literacy Day celebration.

International Literacy Day Event Announcement (from the Tajikistan MoES website)

U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan Susan M. Elliott, together with the Chairman Hukumat of Danghara Mahmadullo Saidaliev, and the head of the pre-school and secondary education of the Ministry of Education Abdujabbor Aliev, participated at the ceremony of 48th anniversary of the International Literacy Day on Tuesday in Danghara district of Khatlon region.

According to the American Embassy in Tajikistan, who informed "Khovar," the U.S. Agency for International Development, in honor of International Literacy Day in 2014, gifted 7,260 books to 165 schools in the Khatlon region.

We remind you that in accordance with UNESCO, Literacy Day is celebrated around the world.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 25 Timor Leste: School Year 2014 Intervention Activities (October 2013-September 2014) School Year 2013 closed in late September 2013 to accommodate planned MoE teacher training. School year 2014—the second and final full year of SDPP school-based activities--started in January 2014 and concluded in September 2014. Early Warning and Response System: In Quarter 1, SDPP used the hiatus between school years to mobilized Stay in School community groups to conduct advocacy activities at the final exam results ceremonies in October. With the beginning of School Year 2014, the MoE issued a formal letter extending collaboration with SDPP for another school year, which SDPP staff helped to deliver to regional, district and school level authorities prior to the start of school-based activities. In Quarter 2, the at-risk child identification process was conducted and completed over a three-week period. Data was collected on all incoming Grade 4 students and Grades 5 and 6 transfer students. Of the 7,959 students enrolled in Grades 4, 5 and 6 in the treatment schools, 3,171 were identified as at-risk. To facilitate the process, refresher training was provided to SDPP field implementation staff and (separately) to 406 home room teachers, who received a branded binder in which to organize the EWS forms. While teachers generally track student attendance, schools have been less complaint in organizing regular case management meetings to allow teachers to review the progress of at-risk students and develop support strategies. In Quarter 3, only 41 percent of school held these meetings (although a significant improvement over the 7 percent of the previous year). In Quarter 4, SDPP filed staff supported the monthly case management meetings, with some qualified success. While most schools held monthly meeting in June, a few did in July, citing teacher absenteeism, teacher workload, lack of interest, or absence of the directors. In August, case management meetings were organized around the second trimester exam results, resulting in all but one school’s participation. Table 3: Community Activities in FY2014

Number done Activity school personnel Number done Jan – Sept 14 Objective of Activity with the community July14 – Sept 14 Cumulative for 2014 The school sends a postcard notification to the student's parents through the "Stay Send postcard in School" community volunteer, 253 620 notification providing an early warning if the child has missed 2 days of school or was late or left school early twice.

A community member visits the student’s Home visits by 226 620 home to discuss find out why the child community volunteers has not been at school

Community group members and the Field Officers hold meetings in the community Hold meetings in the to raise awareness about the importance 32 101 community of education and the parents' responsibility to send their children to school

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 26 Field staff sought to re-engage the Stay in School Community Groups, first by organizing them to follow- up on students who had not re-enrolled in school. Several groups decided to replace members who had not been active the previous year. Field staff provided orientation, often with experienced Community Group members, to refresh their knowledge of their role and share their experience of the prior year. Community volunteers continued to undertake home visits and deliver, postcards, which were revised slightly to enable the village head and school director to be more actively engaged in the process. The lack of postcards for community volunteers to take to households and time limitations for the volunteers has led some schools to reorganize the home visit process. In some cases, volunteers will visit a home only one time per week, which may reduce the speed of response to a student’s absence. Extracurricular activities: In preparation for the resumption of Extracurricular Activities (ECA) with the new school year in January 2014, two rounds of training were conducted for master SDPP ECA trainers, so they were better able to work with field staff and teachers in the new year. In Quarter 2, teachers were oriented and received refresher training on Extracurricular Activities. In some cases, MoE personnel took part in the training. ECA sessions began in February for Grade 5 and 6 students and in March for Grade 4 students. All schools had established the annual activity schedule and received new and revised ECA Activities Plan Manual, ECA Handbook with 40 session plans, and ECA “Starter Kits’ with stationary and supplies. In Quarter 3, a new poster—promoting courtesy and respect—was distributed to the schools, accompanied by instructions for its use by teachers and SDPP to raise awareness about positive classroom environments, free of bullying, harassment, teasing, aggression and violence. Table 4: Breakdown of ECA Sessions by District and Month of Implementation District Jan-Mar14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Grand Total Bobonaro 130 431 317 878 Ermera 182 460 292 934 Liquica 78 230 156 464 Manatuto 152 326 208 686 Viqueque 27 541 326 894 Grand Total 569 1988 1299 3,8565

In Quarter 4, delivery of ECA sessions were interrupted in August by the trimester exams and school break, which many school “unofficially” extended through the end of the month. As part of its on-going strategy to devolve ECA session leadership to teachers, SDPP staff played supporting roles only to teachers leading the session. While many teachers are taking responsibility for leading the ECA session and appreciate the “spillover” effects on their classes, some have not fully participated in the ECA session or maintain desk-bound or chalk-and-talk approaches to the activities or—worse—try to “grade” children on the ECA games and songs.

5 Figures may change following review and cleaning of field reports.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 27 Table 5: Number of Teacher-Led Sessions per District / Per Month (excluding breaks in April and August)

Follow-on Actions for Capacity Building and Sustainability (June 2014- September 2014) In May of Quarter 3, SDPP concluded its second year of school-based activities and its direct support for the interventions at the treatment schools, although data collection activities continued. Early Warning and Response System and Extracurricular Activities: In Quarter 4, SDPP country teams completed a series of final Reflection meetings with Community Groups, parents, PTA, community leaders, school personnel and –at times—MoE officials to assess the progress of EWS in individual schools. Games and energizers were used to get participants to think about approaches to working together to continue SDPP activities in the school after the program support ended in September. A final Field Implementation Team Reflection was held in September with 62 SDPP staff, drawing on their extensive experience to make practical recommendations to the MoE about the elements of the SDPP program that could be implemented immediately and future policy directions. Other activities: SDPP country representatives participated in the newly-instituted Local Education Working Group meeting for development partners in August, convened by the MoE. Senior MoE staff presented progress against the objectives of the 2014 Annual Action Plan. Mandatory government teacher training programs were on-going throughout the 2014 school year, which often took teachers away from school for weeks at a time and impeded SDPP’s EWS and Extracurricular activities.

SDPP representatives were among the 300 persons who attended the Second Dialogue of the Joint Action for Education in Timor Leste, held in August. SDPP staff consolidated inputs from the education development group partners to prepare a short presentation on monitoring at the national and school levels.

Participation Rewards In Quarter 4 procurement was initiated for the reward packages for all schools in the research sample. Reward packages were one of three types: for schools without adequate storage, schools will receive a metal filing cabinet, football and hole-punch; for schools with no lockable room, schools will receive a footlocker; for schools with complete office furniture, schools will receive a complete music package consisting of a guitar with strings and sports equipment. Rewards will be delivered in FY15 Quarter 1.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 28 Timor Leste Stakeholder Reflections School Coordinator of Central School EBC Bogoro – Sr. Vincente da Conçeição “I think the thing that we have learned this year is that we need to pay attention to two things. The first is that we should work to attract students to school, so that we do activities where students feel happy, and comfortable in school, and where they want to attend every day rather than staying at home. The second thing is that we need to pay attention to students’ attendance, and check where they are when they are absent for any period of time. I think that if we can continue to do these two things then we will be able to prevent dropout.”

Mother – Ana-Paula dos Santos “It is the responsibility of parents to send their children to school. Parents are the ones who must take moral responsibility for the education of their children, and it is their moral obligation to support their children’s education. I am happy with the activities that have happened in the school over the past year. I think the best situation is where students are dressed and wanting to leave the house early every morning because they want to be at school, and don’t want to lose any opportunity to play and learn with their friends.” Stay in School Community Group Member - Eduardo da Cruz (right) “There has been good progress this year. The number of students missing school has gone down, and students are only absent now if they are sick. Parents understand now that when children are sick they need to let the school know. There is more awareness of the importance of education now. Education is the key to a better future. If you have qualifications then you can get a good salary, so education is like an investment in the future of our children. We need to make sure that they get the best opportunity.”

Parents, community members and school personnel engage in games to help form their own strategy for development of dropout prevention activities in their school.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 29

Table 6: Selected SDPP Country Indicators for Quarter 4 (July-September), FY14 and Annual (October 13-September 14) Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor Leste Total SDPP Indicator SY 2013/14 SY 2013/14 SY 2013/14 SY 2014 (to date) Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14 Q4, FY14 Total FY14

Number of treatment and control schools  Treatment 215 treatment 215 treatment 113 treatment 113 treatment 0 82 treatment 97 treatment 97 treatment 425 treatment 507 treatment  Control 107 control 107 control 107 control 107 control 83 control 93 control 93 control 307 control 390 control  Total 322 Total 322 Total 220 Total 220 Total 165 Total 190 Total 190 Total 732 Total 897 Total Number of interventions 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 6 8 implemented Number of students 32,726 Grade 7 32,726 Grade 7 5282 Grade 5 5,532 Grade 5 0 3,746 Grade 9 3,029 Grade 4 3,029 Grade 4 15,244 23,430 enrolled in the target 25,414 Grade 8 25,414 Grade 8 (o/w 2806 girls) (o/w 2,871 girls) (o/w 1,739 3,706 Grade 5 3,706 Grade 5 Primary Primary grades in treatment 19,249 Grade 9 19,249 Grade 9 girls) 3,227 Grade 6 3,227 Grade 6 (o/w 7,696 (o/w 11,868 schools. 77,389 Total 77,389 Total 5,532 Grade 5 9,962 Total 9,962 Total girls) girls) (o/w 37,660 girls) (o/w 37,660 girls) exited from (o/w 4,885 (o/w 4,885 girls) SY2013 girls) 77,389 Lower 81,135 Lower (o/w 2871 girls) 2,654 G6 exited Secondary Secondary from SY 2013 (o/w 37,660 (o/w 39,399 10,814 Total (o/w 1,306 girls) girls) girls) (o/w 5,677 girls) 12,616 Total 92633 Total 104,565 Total (o/w 6,191 girls) (o/w 45,356 (o/w 51,267 girls) girls) Number of students 25,910 Grade 7 25,910 Grade 7 5282 Grade 5 5,532 Grade 5 0 1,753 Grade 9 3,029 Grade 4 3,029 Grade 4 15,244 23,430 benefitting from the 18,952 Grade 8 18,952 Grade 8 (o/w 2806 girls) (o/w 2871 girls) (o/w 714 girls) 3,706 Grade 5 3,706 Grade 5 Primary Primary program, i.e., receiving 14,409 Grade 9 14,409 Grade 9 3,227 Grade 6 3,227 Grade 6 (o/w 7,696 (o/w 11,868 some or all of the 59,271 Total 59,271 Total 5,532 Grade 5 9,962 Total 9,962 Total girls) girls) treatments. (o/w 27,348 girls) (o/w 27,348 girls) exited from (o/w 4,885 (o/w 4,885 girls) SY2013 girls) 59,271 Lower 61,024 Lower (o/w 2871 girls) 2,654 G6 exited Secondary Secondary from SY 2013 (o/w 27,348 (o/w 28,062 10,814 Total (o/w 1,306 girls) girls) girls) (o/w 5,677 girls) 12,616 Total 74,515 Total 84,454 Total (o/w 6,191 girls) (o/w 35,044 (o/w 39,930 girls) girls) Number of at-risk 19,072 Grade 7 19,072 Grade 7 4130 Grade 5 4,130 0 1,753 Grade 9 4,263 4,263 8,393 13,810 students receiving 12,644 Grade 8 12,644 Grade 8 (o/w 2157 girls) (o/w 2,157 girls) (o/w 714 girls) (o/w 1,939 (o/w 1,939 girls) Primary Primary EWS treatment 9,771 Grade 9 9,771 Grade 9 girls) (o/w 4,096 (o/w 6,820 41,487 Total 41,487 Total 4,213 G5 exited 1,204 G6 exited girls) girls) (o/w 17,211 girls) (o/w 17,211 girls) from SY 2013 in SY 2013 (o/w 2,170 girls) (o/w 554 girls) 41,487 Lower 43,240 Lower

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 30 Secondary Secondary 8,343 Total 5,467 Total (o/w 17,211 (o/w 17,925 (o/w 4,327 girls) (o/w 2,493 girls) girls) girls) 49,880 Total 57,050 Total (o/w 21,307 (o/w 24,745 girls) girls) Number of treatment 0 2,585 271 549 teachers, 0 897 251 (o/w 60 696 1,419 4,727 school teachers and (o/w 828 female) (o/w 130 female) HMs & CCs (o/w 448 female) (o/w 198 (o/w 190 (o/w 1,704 other school personnel (o/w 230 female) female) female) female) female) trained Number of PTAs or 0 215 111 113 0 246 3 5 114 579 other school support groups trained Number of community 0 931 5385 9979 0 1,940 29 46 5.414 12,896 members trained (o/w 113 female) (o/w 3600 female) (o/w 6,432 female) (o/w 800 (o/w 6 female) (o/w 11 female) (o/w 3,606 (o/w 7,356 female) female) female) Number of trainings 0 84 3 14 0 291 53 105 56 232 conducted for teachers, schools, communities Number of contacts 13,139 67,297 ND 24,646 0 4862 479 1241 13,618 98,046 (home visits, calls, letters/cards) to follow up at risk students Number of school and 4 641 111 426 1 649 32 135 148 1851 outreach events held Number of Consultative 1 2 1 5 0 1 1 4 3 12 Group meetings held. Number of manuals 0 3 0 13 0 4 0 2 0 22 developed and/or refined Number of 0 106 3 7 0 222 0 13 modules/tools developed/refined Number of impact 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 assessment data collection rounds conducted

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 31 i Adjusted totals due to review and correction of under-reporting of previous monitoring data ii Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. iii School-based activities were completed in Q3. iv Figures are presented for SY 2013/14 and SY 2014/15 as FY14 spans two school years. v Comprises 210 CCs, 23 HMs, and 38 Teachers vi Participants were estimated at demonstration lessons. Some participants might be double-counted; data being cleaned. vii Some teachers may be counted twice when they receive training for both EWRS and extracurricular activities on separate days; data being cleaned. vii Gender breakdown estimate. Data being processed. ix Comprises 90 parents & community workshops and 201 demo classes. x Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report. xi Comprises 1,717 phone calls to parents, 1,070 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 186 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 10,166 home visits made to parents xii Comprises11,842 phone calls to parents, 9,419 letters sent to parents after 3-day absence, 1,964 letters sent to parents after 10-day absence, 44,072 home visits made to parents xiii Data not yet available. xiv Q4 data not included. Comprises 9373 phone calls and 15273 home visits. xv Comprises 2,351 letters and 2,511 home visits xvi Comprises 253 Notification Cards and 226 Home Visits. xvii Comprises 620 Notification Cards and 621 Home Visits. xviii Data covers June-September 2014 as June data was not available for the previous quarterly report xix 4 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 176 people attended (of which 63 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in the quarter. xx 641 community meetings were held to raise awareness of the importance of education to which 24,735 people attended (of which 12,455 were female). The number of meetings and participants here does not include the Computer Lab safety and management meetings which were held in Quarter 4, 2014. xxi Comprises school posters reprinted. xxii Comprises board game, attendance tracking poster, attendance tracking register and student booklet, and school poster. xxiii Comprises 211 lesson plans, 8 qualitative research tools, and 3 FOI tools.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 32 The following requirements will be addressed in FY15. Nevertheless, some activities were undertaken this year which begin to address the requirements, as described below. Requirement 3.6: Produce and Distribute Reports of the Student Dropout Prevention Pilots in the Four Selected Countries In Quarter 1, a draft report combining baseline results with a preliminary analysis of outcome indicators from the Follow-up 1 data collection was prepared and shared with the COR. A final version was completed in Quarter 2. Following discussions with the COR, it was decided not to share the information beyond core country team members, as the analysis was based on incomplete data after only 4 months of implementation. A preliminary report on the analysis of Follow-up 2 data is scheduled for FY15 Quarter 1. Requirement 3.7: Present Findings of the Student Dropout Prevention Pilots The SDPP project website (www.schooldropoutprevention.com) is regularly updated and made compliant with USAID requirements as communicated through the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs (final approval was received in June 2012). Several documents have been posted on the website as well as submitted to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). In Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Creative, Mathematica, and STS) and 2-person country teams from Cambodia, India, Tajikistan and Timor Leste participated in the 2014 CIES Conference of the Comparative International Education Society (CIES) in Toronto, Canada. SDPP presented two panels:  Preventing Dropout: First Follow-Up Impact of the School Drop-Out Prevention Program Interventions, presented the initial findings from the midline impact assessment of the four-country School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program, comparing baseline and first follow-up data collection results. The panel examined the extent to which the program has affected student dropout and engagement in school, student attitudes and behaviors, and teacher knowledge, behaviors and attitudes, as well as methods and challenges of data collection on dropout. Also presented was the SDPP research methodology for data collection on dropout and related outcomes, and the Fidelity of Implementation design and experiences (and challenges) implementing FOI in the four SDPP countries.

 Involving Communities in Dropout Prevention: Experience from Cambodia, India, Tajikistan, and Timor Leste, examined the ways the four countries have engaged communities in dropout prevention activities, addressing: community attitudes towards dropout and schooling; community engagement with the school and their child’s schooling; community activities to prevent dropout; outreach efforts to engage community and parental action; effectiveness of community-supported dropout prevention activities; considerations and challenges with community-supported implementation. Also in Quarter 2, SDPP HQ (Mathematica) presented preliminary impact findings at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) 2014 spring conference in Washington, DC. Requirement 3.8: Student Dropout Prevention Programming Guide Developed and Distributed Throughout FY14, SDPP country teams revised and updated manuals and materials which will be incorporated into country toolkits. In Quarter, 4, SDPP met with the COR to identify and define the SDPP toolkits. It presented the findings of a review it prepared on different programming guide structures and approaches. With the COR, it was determined that SDPP would prepare two programming guides: (1) Early Warning System and (2) Enrichment and Afterschool Tutoring Programs. These toolkits will be generalized for use in any country, but will use SDPP country-specific examples. The toolkits will be translated into 10 languages; links to the country-specific manuals and materials will be in English and in the SDPP country language. Although not a deliverable, each country will assemble its materials into “toolkits,” which will be distributed locally.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 33 III. Project Management and Operations

A. Operations Operational support throughout the year focused on facilitating the programmatic and technical activities described above, including: supporting and monitoring ongoing interventions; multimedia package development; and data collection for follow-up impact assessments, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of implementation. Operations focused heavily on finalizing subcontract extensions and extension budgets for all existing partners, negotiating new subcontracts with research firms in Cambodia, India, and Tajikistan, shifting SDPP implementing partnership in India, and preparing a realigned project budget for submission to USAID in May 2014. During Quarter 4, SDPP project management staff focused on orienting and training new HQ team members, supporting country teams as in-school activities wound down, and planning for policy dialogues and other activities to take place during the final year of the project. Key staff and consultant actions are detailed in sections C. and D., and major procurements are described in section F. Other important management and operational actions of note include the following: Country Partnership Agreements: As FY 2013 closed, local Ministries of Education in all four countries were informed of the project extension and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was renewed in India and submitted for renewal in Timor Leste. By the second quarter of FY 2014, the MOE in Timor Leste granted SDPP permission to continue to operate in the target schools for the 2015 school year. In Quarter 1, the SDPP country teams began the process of renewing the MOUs with the local Ministries of Education in Cambodia and Tajikistan, updating the ministries on the program extension. In Cambodia, the draft MOU was submitted to the new MoEYS Minister for endorsement in Quarter 2, and was signed on April 4, 2014, extending the approval of the SDPP project in Cambodia through September 2015. In Tajikistan, USAID and SDPP submitted a Letter of Commitment (LOC) to the MoES in November, 2013. USAID, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the MOES briefly negotiated the terms and language in the LOC, until the process reached a standstill over a disagreement regarding a clause stating that the LOC does not legally bind USAID to any activity or funding. Despite the halted LOC process, SDPP was authorized to continue operations under a new Tajik project name (“The Student Motivation Learning Program”). In July, USAID decided to stop pursuing the LOC with the MoES, as the in-school pilot interventions had been completed. In September, however, USAID renewed efforts to locate the LOC and to complete the process, as the LOC must be submitted to the MoES at the closure of the program. SDPP currently has no news of its status. Implementing Partnership Agreements: SDPP sub-contractor agreements and budgets were modified and approved to accommodate the project extension and revised work plans, and to increase ceiling amounts. All subcontract extension budgets were finalized at the end of the first quarter for CARE, KAPE, STS, MPR, and SABRE. SDPP also worked closely with our partners in India to finalize the smooth transfer of implementation partnership from IDEAL to QUEST Alliance, the originally-proposed implementing partner for India. All QUEST Alliance staff (formerly IDEAL staff) were approved and QUEST’s subcontract began in mid-January. New subcontracts with data collection firms IRL, SUNAI and Zerkalo were prepared and approved by USAID. Partner Management Support: In the first two quarters, SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS made site visits to Cambodia, India, and Tajikistan to provide support for fidelity-of-implementation (FOI) monitoring and intervention review and general operational oversight during the budget realignment process. Creative and STS HQ staff also worked remotely with the Timor Leste team to revise and finalize their FOI tools and processes. Virtual support was provided by HQ staff to all countries on renewing MOUs with local ministries, developing and revising the data collection schedule to accommodate for the project extension, and addressing concerns regarding staffing and attrition. Significant efforts were also spent in preparing and supporting Follow-Up 2 data collection, which began

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 34 and was completed in India and Timor Leste in Quarter 2, and in Tajikistan and Cambodia in Quarter 3. Site visits were made by SDPP HQ staff from Creative and STS to Tajikistan in June to finalize and test Qualitative Research instruments, and train local staff in their use. Creative and STS HQ staff also continued to work with all countries on FOI checks in Quarters 3 and 4. Project Budget Realignment: During Quarter 3, the Creative HQ SDPP team worked to finalize the budget realignment to accommodate the project extension, and submit to USAID for approval. Upon receiving the extension, we focused our efforts in amending and extending subcontracts and revising the project work plan to reflect the new end date, in preparation for the budget realignment. Under this realigned budget, Creative closed all CLIN 1 activities and revised projections for CLINs 2 and 3. Remaining funds from CLINs 1 and 3 were moved to CLIN 2 to fund the remaining work that is anticipated to support CLIN 2 requirements. The budget was also revised to include increased subcontractor values approved during the second quarter. The budget was submitted to USAID for approval in Quarter 3 and was approved in Quarter 4. Multi-Media Packages: Filming for the SDPP multimedia packages was completed in Cambodia and Tajikistan in Quarter 3 and in Timor Leste and India in Quarter 4. The Creative communications team and SDPP program staff traveled to the four countries to conduct and film stakeholder and beneficiary interviews and to collect relevant background and program footage. Filming trips served the dual purpose of collecting positive anecdotal impact data, while also bolstering local support and enthusiasm for sustaining implementation of interventions beyond the close of the project. Meetings and interviews with local ministry officials, community leaders, and USAID Mission representatives went particularly well in all countries, with reiterated expressions of support and visible community and school-level change resulting from SDPP interventions. With robust guidance from HQ, local project staff provided preparatory support for the trips, selecting and preparing the schools and interviewees for the visits, ensuring all permissions forms were translated and completed, and pre-arranging logistics as necessary. HQ communications and program teams were accompanied by local staff and translators throughout the trips to ensure the most relevant and impactful material was captured. Post-production of the videos is now underway, and initial cuts are expected to be available by the end of next quarter. B. Key Meetings with USAID and Partners In each of the first three quarterly reports from FY2014, a detailed list was provided of the formal meetings held in Washington, DC and in the field with USAID, MOE, or other partners at which key decisions affecting the program were taken or major presentations made. Meetings held during Quarter 4 are as shown in Table 7.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 35 Table 7: Key meetings with USAID and partners in Quarter 4 Key client and/or Key Key SDPP Date(s) partner Topic/focus of meeting decisions/outcomes representative(s) representative(s) (if any) SDPP Headquarters/Washington 7/30/14 Karen Tietjen, Sakil Rebecca Adams, Team meeting to discuss Revised schedule for Malik, Zuhra Abhar, Laura Parrott impact assessment data, impact data and reports, Nicholas Hoekstra, Mary qualitative research options for 4 possible Calomiris (Creative), processes, instruments types of toolkits were Mary Lynd (STS), and planning, toolkits, discussed for further Nancy Murray, Kathy SDPP video production consideration Buek, Owen Schochet, updates, and policy Mark Strayer, Ali Protik dialogue plans (MPR), Lotte Renault (CARE) SDPP/Cambodia 7/7/14 Chea Kosal, Country Dr. Seema Agarwal- - Fact-finding about - ADB’s Advisor will Coordinator; Ouk Harding, Senior SDPP, specifically on meet again with the Sothira, Education Education Advisor, the EWS intervention EWS program team to Specialist; Lork Ratha, ADB’s School-Based since ADB was learn in more detail IMS Manager; Chea Enrichment Program; recommended by about the process of Tha, Kuoy Pharin, & her Assistant MoEYS to design an EWS and visit EWS Chhoeng Sina, Yos EWS-model project target schools Nara, & Sorn Khemra, -Presentation of an - SDPP shared the list KAPE staff Phnom Penh overview of SDPP of SDPP target schools (EWS & CL and contacts for SDPP intervention) provincial staff 7/21/14 Chea Tha & Kuoy Dr. Seema Agarwal- Presenting in more detail ADB’s Advisor will Pharin, EWS Program Harding, Senior on the process of EWS contact CAI’s Managers Education Advisor, Technical Director ADB’s School-Based Karen Tietjen for Enrichment Program; permission to share the & her Assistant SDPP tools and visit a few EWS target schools 8/25- Chea Kosal, CC; Ouk Attended 2-day Discussion on the Future -Presentation & 26/14 Sothira, Education Consultative Seminar Generation Schools and discussion on a wide Specialist of Improved Basic Best Practices of IBEC range of relevant Education in education topics. Cambodia (IBEC) -KAPE was encouraged project hosted by by MoEYS’ Minister to World Education at submit a proposal to KAPE-HQ. The ADB. seminar was chaired by MoEYS’ Minister (Dr. Hang Chuon Naron) 9/1/14 Ouk Sothira Educational Mr. Chhim Kumnith, Discussion on the next GSED agreed to submit Specialist & Chea Tha, Director of draft of the SDPP the Sustainability Plan EWS Program Manager Secondary Office Sustainability Plan and to the Cabinet Office of (General Secondary passage on to the MoEYS’ Secretary of Education Cabinet Office of State Department: GSED) MoEYS’ Secretary of

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 36 State 9/30/14 Chea Kosal, Country Ung Ngor Hok, - Report on the SDPP -GSED and TTD will Coordinator; Carole GSED Director; Mao progress send SDPP the list of Williams, Research, Samrithy, Deputy trainers from their -Discuss the planning for M&E Specialist; Ouk Director of Teacher departments. the national Sothira, Education Training Dept (TTD); dissemination workshop -SDPP/KAPE will Specialist; Chea Tha, Chhim Kumnith, on the SDPP propose to MoEYS to Kuoy Pharin, Chhoeng Deputy Secondary implementation host the national Sina, Yos Nara, Sorn Education Office; guideline after approval dissemination Khemra & Thol Buntha Meung Veasna, by MoEYS and the workshop on October Deputy Examination Training of Trainers 21-22, 2014 in Office; Pol Sorith, (ToT) to MoEYS Battambang province GSED Inspector; and the ToT in Pursat Nareth Polyvin, province in December Planning Office 2014. Official; Lim Chan Soeun, GSED Official; Sok Tha, Head ICT Office; Phel Phearoun, Information & ASEAN Affairs Dept; Chhoeung Rachana, Official of Dept of Planning SDPP/India Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Discussion on Teacher Approval Letter 7/1/14 DPO-SSA and Nodal Training and approval submitted to DPO-SSA Officer-SDPP office for further action 7/1/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Meeting for updates on The new District Mr. Brajesh Kumar SDPP activities and to Education Officer in Ojha, new DEO for schedule introductions Samastipur was Samastipur and Mr. with SDPP Staff in briefed on SDPP J N Srivastava, Samastipur activities as he has Outgoing DEO, recently transferred Samastipur from another District in Bihar. 7/17/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A courtesy call to share The DPO encouraged DPO-SSA and Nodal SDPP updates and greater involvement in Officer-SDPP observations from school the improvement of visits with the DPO classroom learning environments and wanted to be updated on school-related matters.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 37 8/9/14 Mr. Dipak Singh, Follow up discussion on Decisions regarding the Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Alternative & Training of Master training of master Innovative Education Trainers proposal in trainers will not be (AIE), Innovation – Samastipur District and made until discussions SC/ST,ECE, updates on the with Core Team Minority & Urban forthcoming members at BEPC, Deprived Communication Visit by Patna, can occur. Creative Associates Regarding the Communications Visit, it was suggested that the BEPC State Project Director’s approval be obtained. 8/22/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar Meetings about Officials expressed ; and Mr Nemi Kumar Ojha, District preparations for the their excitement to 9/01/14 Education Officer upcoming share their views and Mr. Sanjay Communication Visit during the forthcoming Kumar, DPO-SSA visit; the DEO and Nodal Officer- suggested that SDPP headmasters be present at schools on Sept 17/Sept 18 as schools are officially closed for holidays. 9/12/14 Mr. Sharique Mashhadi meeting with the SDO to The SDO shared his Mr. Sudhir Kumar, and Mr. Nemi Kumar update him regarding willingness to visit Sub Divisional SDPP and its schools in October as Magistrate (SDO), implementation aspects he was busy in Samastipur September. He will visit the SDPP Office and one or two treatment schools 9/18/14 Mr Sakil Malik and Ms A brief meeting with After the meeting, Mr Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Zuhra Abhar from District officials and Sakil Malik suggested DPO-SSA and Nodal Creative Associates and SDPP HQ staff that the State Head Officer-SDPP Mr Sharique Mashhadi update him regarding the point person at BEPC for SDPP. 9/18/14 Mr Sharique Mashhadi Mr Barjesh Kumar The focus of this Higher district level Ojha, District meeting was to ensure education officials Education Officer government officials agreed to share their and Mr. Sanjay visit treatment schools school visit schedule Kumar, DPO-SSA along with SDPP Staff with respective SDPP and Nodal Officer- Staff and a few SDPP and Block treatment schools to be Education Officers of visited jointly in the 11 Blocks of coming months. The Samastipur State Head will also join District Education Officer for school visits

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 38 9/29/14 Mr Sharique Mashhadi Meeting to Share Approval for these Mr Barjesh Kumar information regarding training will be done Ojha, District the forthcoming Head once dates are finalized Education Officer Masters Training and and Mr. Sanjay probable dates for final Kumar, DPO-SSA phase of Data Collection and Nodal Officer- SDPP SDPP/Tajikistan 7/2/14 Sayora Abdunazarova To discuss SDPP program Kholovna looked Irina Kholovna (Head (Education Specialist) materials to be submitted through the submitted of Academy of and further cooperation subject activities and Education) between Academy and talked about other SDPP programs working with at-risk students. She suggested more follow- up and team work. To provide each other Followed up with the 7/15/14 Wendi Carman (Deputy Katie MacDonald with insights and USAID regional adviser Country Coordinator) (USAID country experiences in the process by email to share further director), Rebekah of obtaining tax information on SDPP’s Eubanks (USAID exemption status experience earning tax Regional Legal exemption. Adviser), Mavjuda Nabieva (USAID Education Management Specialist), representatives from USAID implementing partners in Tajikistan To share SDPP program Soon afterwards, Lyla 7/18/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Lyla Andrews- updates completed her Bashan (USAID assignment and departed Team Leader for Tajikistan. Democracy & Governance, Health and Education) Discussed the review of Submitted package of 7/18/14 Sayora Abdunazarova Irina Kholovna all program materials, subject activity and (Education Specialist) (President of especially tutoring lesson other materials for Academy of plans revision and conclusion Education), Mavjuda Nabieva (USAID Education Management Specialist)

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 39 The accelerated learning 7/22/14 Wendi Carman (DCC), To provide the working program will be Sayora Abdunazarova group with technical organized by grade (Education Specialist) input on the cluster. The participants development of the were introduced to a curriculum for the framework for accelerated learning organizing the curricula, program beginning with Grade 9, to identify the core subjects to be included in the program. USAID/SDPP handed over two sets of Grade 9 lesson plans for the working group members’ reference. To share SDPP material Discussed the planned 7/24/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Leigh-Anne Ingram with the working group; accelerated learning (UNICEF to provide technical input program in more detail. international on the development of the UNICEF consultants consultant), accelerated learning agreed to keep SDPP Fayziddin Niyozov program apprised of progress in (UNICEF local their program design. consultant) To discuss SDPP plans 8/5/14 Sakil Malik (HQ), Irina Kholovna Kholovna explained the and the review and Gulguncha Naimova Karimova (Head of working group with approval of SDPP (Country Coordinator) the Academy of UNICEF and their program material Education) program on out of (manuals, lesson plans.) school children. SDPP material can be used as a support for the program and she will try to work with the three other institutions to get their feedback and MOES approval on the material. To share SDPP future Mavjuda suggested 8/5/14 Sakil Malik (HQ), Mavjuda Nabieva plans, Kulob satellite fewer workshops and Gulguncha Naimova (USAID Education office close-out, and participants that we (Country Coordinator), Management upcoming workshops and deliver the reward Sayora Abdunazarova Specialist) meetings with packages of books at the (Education Specialist) stakeholders International Literacy Day celebration, and that SDPP invite important stakeholders.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 40 To discuss how FU2 8/6/14 Sakil Malik (HQ), Qahramon Baqozoda Zerkalo team agreed went, and to plan for FU3 Gulguncha Naimova (Director of Zerkalo), that the training for (dates for training and (Country Coordinator) Soleh Sharipov Follow-Up3 should data collection, hiring (Zerkalo Manager), start earlier – from researchers) Parviz Yusupov October 15 – and they (Zerkalo Finance will plan other Manager) activities accordingly. They will try to hire the same researchers who worked for FU1 and FU2 To provide an overview Parvis mentioned that 8/6/14 Sakil Malik (HQ), Parviz Abduvahobov of SDPP achievements the approaches that Gulguncha Naimova (UNICEF Education and plans for future. To UNICEF is taking to (Country Coordinator) Specialist) get an understanding implement the program about UNICEF out of are different from school children program SDPP’s approaches, and therefore UNICEF cannot use the SDPP’s EWS material. To discuss problems Zerkalo representatives 9/3/14 Gulguncha Naimova Sharipov Soleh faced during the FU2 and assured that the (Country Coordinator), (Zerkalo Manager), scheduled activities for problems were solved Zarina Bazidova (M&E Olimov Rahimjon FU3 and they will take a RS) (Zerkalo Project better care of the data Coordinator) collectors this time. Also they asked if it is possible to hire SDPP former staff members. To discuss plans for Several meetings were 9/5, Gulguncha Naimova Saidahmad Umarov International Literacy held to discuss the 9/11, (Country Coordinator), (Head of local Day celebration location of the 9/15- Lutfullo Boziev authority device, International Literacy 16/14 (Program manager) Danghara district), Day Celebrations. They Amirshoeva asked us to send them Mahbuba (Deputy the agenda and the list of Governor of the participants as soon Danghara) as we get approval from the MOES. 9/15/14 Wendi Carman (DCC) Malika Bahovadinova, To discuss IOM’s Discussed the IOM (International proposed program, to program: Its aim is to Organization for share ideas for involving improve education Migration technical community and working opportunities for migrant adviser), Malika with government children in the Gharm Yarbabaeva (IOM counterparts area. Their program will labor migration include policy program manager) development, basic vocational/ technical training, community engagement and awareness-raising campaign.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 41 9/20/14 Saidahmad Umarov To discuss plans for the Gulguncha Naimova Met one last time, prior (Head of local International Literacy (Country Coordinator), to ceremony, to make authority device, Day celebration Lutfullo Boziev sure that everything is Danghara district), (Program Manager) set. Also SDPP team Amirshoeva decided to have the Mahbuba (Deputy ceremony at school #4 Governor of Danghara district and Danghara) lunch for the guests at Khurramshahr Tea House. SDPP/Timor Leste 7/15/14 Nicole Seibel (Country US Embassy Delegation Conducted US Scott Ticknor, Coordinator); Adelino visited the SDPP office Embassy visit to Charge d’Afaires US Guterres (Field in Viqueque to discuss Bahalara-Uain school Embassy; Kate Implementation the program. The District Modic, Politics and Coordinator) Director for Education First field trip visit to Economy Desk, US led the way for a school SDPP for new USAID Embassy; Pamala visit. Development Outreach Horugavye, and Communications Development Officer. Outreach and

Communications US Embassy reported Officer USAID/TL; that the school visit was Emidio Amaral, their “favorite part of Viqueque District the trip”. Director for Education Various Nicole Seibel (Country Cidálio Leite, Interviews with Local education 7/16/14 Coordinator), Michael Director General of Communications Team authorities expressed Zamba (HQ director of Primary and Basic continued enthusiasm communications), Mary Education, Alfredo for SDPP project Calomiris (HQ SDPP) de Araujo, National activities and look Director of Basic forward to using videos Education; Eduardo from communications Guterres, District visits to lobby for Director, Manatuto continued support for at-risk students. Various: Nicole Seibel (Country John Seong, Mission Interviews with The Mission Director 7/17/14 Coordinator), Michael Director, USAID in Communications Team as well as the activity Zamba (HQ director of Timor-Leste; Flavia Manager expressed communications), Mary da Silva and Milca enthusiasm for project Calomiris (HQ SDPP) Baptista, USAID in activities. The Timor-Leste Activities manager Personnel expressed interest in scheduling visits to intervention schools, which took place a few weeks later.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 42 8/18/14 Simplicio Barbosa, Education Updates from Confirmed MoE (Education Program Development Development Partners meetings on Aug 19 Manager); Nicole Partners meeting and presentation on and 22. Seibel, (Country chaired by Takaho status of World Bank Coordinator) Fukami, Chief of NZAID shared Management Education for information on Strengthening Project. UNICEF approved assistance in education including preschool, children’s magazine LAFAEK with CITL and planned work with PTAs. 8/19/14 Simplicio Barbosa, Bendito dos Santos Presented status of Planned to be held (Education Program Freitas, Minister of education as per annual quarterly as the Local Manager); Nicole Education; Dulce action plan. Open to Education Working Seibel, (Country Araujo Soares, Vice questions and dialogue Group (LEG) Coordinator) Minister of Education with development for Preschool and partners. Confirmed Basic Education ACETL dialogue on Aug. 22nd. 8/22/14 Simplicio Barbosa, Bendito dos Santos Second Dialogue of the Signed agreement (Education Program Freitas, Minister of Joint Action for following the dialogue Manager); Nicole Education; Dulce Education in Timor- on the two topics of Seibel, (Country Araujo Soares, Vice Leste (ACETL) discussion: Teacher Coordinator) Minister of Education performance and a for Preschool and district-level Basic Education mechanism for monitoring schools 8/25/14 Nicole Seibel, (Country Alfredo de Araujo, Briefing on program and Signed invitation for Coordinator) National Director of preparation for delivery Basic Education Coordination Body Meeting in September 9/19/14; Karen Tietjen, Creative; Alfredo de Araujo, Shared information on Courtesy visit, sharing 9/22/14 Lotte Renault, CARE- National Director of data collection Creative observation USA; Nicole Seibel Basic Education; including qualitative from field trip and (Country Coordinator); Flavia da Silva, data collection training; reviewing options for Saad Karim (Assistant USAID Timor-Leste Determined MoE future activities Country Director- Activity Manager interest in initial policy Programs) dialogue, possibly for early December;

C. Staff Actions At the end of the 2011 fiscal year, the three core SDPP staff—Country Coordinator, Education Specialist and M&E Specialist—were in place in all four countries, with the exception of the Education Specialist in India, who was hired and began work in quarter two of 2012. All of the core in-country staff were in position throughout the 2012 fiscal year, except for the Country Coordinator in Timor Leste, who resigned from the project and departed in April 2012. An interim Country Coordinator (Nicole Seibel) was hired and began work in May. Her contract was extended until August 10, in order to allow for overlap with the new, permanent replacement (Monzu Morshed), who began work in August, but soon after resigned for health reasons. CARE re-engaged Ms. Seibel as Country Coordinator for an additional period (September 17 – December 24, 2012), who was then approved as the permanent Country Coordinator. In June 2013 Sushant Verma, Country Coordinator for India, resigned from his position.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 43 Creative worked with its subcontractor in India, IDEAL, to identify Mr. Verma’s replacement, during which time the SDPP India Project Director, Aakash Sethi, served as interim Country Coordinator. In August 2013 Mr. Sethi was approved as the permanent Country Coordinator. Table 8 shows the status of the core SDPP positions in each country since the beginning of the project. Table 8: Field Office Core Staff Actions Core Staff Position Name and Start Date Name and Status (Departure Date) Replacement Date SDPP/Cambodia (KAPE) Country Coordinator Kosal Chea, 1/1/11 NA Filled Education Specialist Sothira Ouk, 1/1/11 NA Filled Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Carole Williams, 11/1/10 NA Filled SDPP/India (IDEAL) Country Coordinator Sushant Verma, Aakash Sethi, Filled (6/24/13) 8/14/13 Education Specialist Neha Parti, 1/9/12 NA Filled Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Vir Narayan, 10/18/11 NA Filled SDPP/Tajikistan (Creative) Country Coordinator Gulgunchamo Naimova, NA Filled 12/6/10 Education Specialist Sayora Andunazarova, NA Filled 11/15/10 Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Davlatmo Yusufbekova Zarina Bazidova Filled (2/10/11) 5/3/11 SDPP/Timor Leste (CARE) Country Coordinator Lorina Aquino, 4/19/11 Nicole Seibel, Filled (4/20/12) 5/18/12 – 8/10/12; Monzu Morshed, 8/3/12 9/10/12 – 12/5/12; (8/28/12) 12/5/12 Education Specialist Martin Canter, 3/12/11 NA Filled Monitoring, Evaluation & Research Specialist Shoaib Danish, 2/14/11 NA Filled In FY14, a total of 454 full- or part-time SDPP field and HQ staff were approved, including 17 in Cambodia, 292 in India, 13 in Tajikistan, 116 in Timor Leste, and 12 at HQ (7 at Mathematica, 3 at STS, and 5 at Creative). Two Creative HQ Program Associate vacancies that were not filled in FY13 due to uncertainty surrounding the SDPP extension were filled this year, in addition to a Creative HQ Research Associate position. A substantial number of staff approvals in FY14 were due to the transition from IDEAL to QUEST in India, which resulted in 269 staff approvals for QUEST, including 224 approvals for Community Champions. During Quarter 4, field staff actions include the following: In Cambodia, Creative granted approval for the replacement of a Guard in Phnom Penh and the IT Field Officer based in Prey Veng. Recruitment for a cleaner based in Prey Veng, DPO based in Pursat, and Admin/Finance Officer in Kampong Speu is still in progress. In India, four staff (Program Facilitation Officer, Database Manager, Program Monitoring Officer, and Systems Manager) resigned and three new Program Monitoring Officers were hired. In Tajikistan, the Accountant based in the Kulob office resigned in September. The management and finance team decided not to fill the vacancy, but rather that the Dushanbe finance team will support the Program Manager and Program Administrative Officer in Kulob with all finance duties until the closure of the Kulob office. The Finance & HR Officer in Dushanbe also resigned, effective October 13th. The finance department and management team determined that this position needs to be filled as soon as possible and Creative HQ agreed to an accelerated selection process which is underway.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 44 In Timor Leste, one Field Officer was replaced and three additional Field Officer positions subsequently became vacant. At Creative HQ, a Nicholas Hoekstra joined as a Research Associate and Jenna Frydman began full time on the project as a Program Associate. At Mathematica, Deputy Project Director and Survey Director, Kathy Buek, transitioned to part time status. Her roles as Deputy Project Director and Survey Director were assumed by the Emilie Bagby, Task Lead for Tajikistan and India, and her role as Task Lead for Timor Leste and Cambodia were assumed by Ali Protik, who also expanded her role in leading analysis and reporting. Kristine Johnson was also brought on to help fill some of the void left by Kathy Buek’s departure. Wesley Dunlap filled the vacant role of Contracts Specialist. At STS, Jennifer Ho joined as a Research Specialist and Elizabeth Fincham changed roles from Program Associate to Program Coordinator.

D. Consultants A total of 237 in-country consultants for SDPP were approved by USAID during the year: 228 in India, 1 in Cambodia, 3 in Tajikistan, 4 in Timor Leste, and 1 at SDPP HQ. These include community volunteers (“Community Champions”) supporting the intervention in India. Others included those hired to carry out data collection and entry, temporary drivers, etc. Table 9 summarizes the higher-level, professional consultancies of the project during the quarter. Additional longer-term consultancies, such as Community Champions in India are not shown. Table 9: Consultant Actions in FY14 Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place

Lorelei Brush July 15-Oct 31, 2014 Research Analysis Consultant Creative HQ

Mr. Gagan Sethi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 HR Consultant India

Ms. Gauri Sanghi Oct.10 2013 – Sept. 29, 2015 Program Consultant India

Mr. Path Sarwate June 24 - December 31, 2014 Development of leadership manual India and HM Master training

Enrichment Program Activities India Ms. Rochna Pant June 26, 2014 - July 29, 2015

Mr. Nuy Bora Feb-Mar, 2014 (9 days) Coordinate and document the SDPP Cambodia Training and Planning meeting in Sihanoukville Mr. Isaac Scarborough July 30, 2013 – September Edit English versions of program Tajikistan 29, 2015 (originally max. 50 manuals and lesson plans days, amended to max 80 days)

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 45 Consultant Dates of consultancy Activity/Assignment Place

Oral interpretation for U.S. September 19, 2014 – May Mukim Malaev Ambassador at the celebration of Tajikistan 31, 2015 International Literacy Day, September 23, 2015 Sarmento Wargas Feb 11-17, 2014 Translation of data collection Timor Leste training and instruments

Jose Manuel Sarmento Feb 10 – Mar 4, 2014 Design and layout for EWRS Timor Leste ‘Politeness and Respect’ poster Jose Manuel Sarmento July 15-31, 2014 Design of SY 2014 Certificates and Timor Leste reformat branding Sarmento Wargas Sept 29 – Oct 30, 2014 Translation Tetum-English of Film Timor Leste interviews for Creative Communication Team

E. Staff and Consultant International Travel

Visits by staff from the headquarters offices of Creative, Mathematica, STS (and in the case of Timor Leste, CARE) were made during the year to the four pilot countries, for providing technical and operational support to the field teams, conducting the follow up, qualitative assessment, and fidelity of implementation surveys, supporting in-school activities, and providing other technical and/or management support. Details of the international travel undertaken during the first three quarters to support SDPP field activities and operations are summarized in Table 10, with additional detail shown for travel during the fourth quarter. Table 10: HQ Staff and Consultants International Travel in FY13 Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Mary Calomiris Cambodia To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise, 11/12/13 – pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for 11/23/13 Cambodia. To provide operational support for the Cambodia finance and procurement teams in budget realignment. Mark Sweikhart; Cambodia To work with the SDPP Cambodia team to revise, 11/12/13 – Mark Lynd pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures for 11/23/13 Cambodia. Kathy Buek; Owen India 1/16/14 - 1/29/14 To assist the local SDPP country team with Schochet enumerator training and survey supervision. Mark Sweikhart; To work with the SDPP Tajikistan team to revise, Mark Lynd; Tajikistan 1/24/14 – 2/5/14 pilot-test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures. Amadou Bakayoko Mark Sweikhart; To work with the SDPP India team to revise, pilot- Mark Lynd; India 2/5/14 – 2/19/14 test, and finalize FOI tools and procedures Amadou Bakayoko Ebow Dawson- To assist the local SDPP country team with Timor Leste 2/13/14-2/27/14 Andoh enumerator training and survey supervision. Karen Tietjen, Sakil Malik, Mary Canada 3/9/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop Calomiris, Nancy Murray, Kathy

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 46 Name of Traveler Destination Dates of Travel Purpose of Trip Buek, Mark Lynd, Mark Sweikhart Zuhra Abhar Canada 3/14/14-3/17/14 CIES Conference and SDPP workshop To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data Owen Schochet; Tajikistan 4/1/14 – 4/28/14 collection, support data collection team training, Emilie Bagby and monitor data collection processes To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data Ebow Dawson- Cambodia 4/13/14 – 5/7/14 collection, support data collection team training, Andoh and monitor data collection processes Zuhra Abhar; To film and conduct interviews with program Jennifer Brookland; Tajikistan 5/9/14 – 5/18/14 beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia David Snyder packages. Mary Calomiris; To film and conduct interviews with program Michael Zamba; Cambodia 5/14/14 – 5/26/14 beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia Christopher packages. McMorrow To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative Mark Lynd; Karen Tajikistan 6/8/14 – 6/15/14 assessment instruments and procedures; to support Tietjen training of local staff in qualitative data collection To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative Karen Tietjen; Mark Cambodia 7/12/14 - 7/21/14 assessment instruments and procedures; to support Lynd training of local staff in qualitative data collection Mary Calomiris; To film and conduct interviews with program Michael Zamba; Timor Leste 7/7/14 - 7/18/14 beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia David Snyder packages. Mohammad Sakil; To provide operational support in preparation for Tajikistan 8/2/14 - 8/11/14 Aibek Allakhunov satellite office closing and close of activities To prepare training material for follow –up 2 data Ali Protik; Ebow Timor Leste 8/21/14 - 9/14/14 collection, support data collection team training, Dawson-Andoh and monitor data collection processes Zuhra Abhar; To film and conduct interviews with program Jennifer Brookland; India 9/12/14 - 9/28/14 beneficiaries and stakeholders for multimedia David Snyder packages. To support filming team and to provide operational Mohammad Sakil India 9/12/14 - 9/25/14 and supervisory support to the local SDPP team Technical visit to support data collection and close Lotte Renault Timor Leste 8/28/14 - 9/26/14 of activities, as well as qualitative assessment To develop, pilot, and finalize qualitative Karen Tietjen; Mark Timor Leste 9/10/14 - 9/25/14 assessment instruments and procedures; to support Lynd training of local staff in qualitative data collection

F. Procurements Creative HQ worked with field offices to procure essential office and program supplies, equipment and services, in accordance with established procurement regulations and requirements. Of particular note this year was the procurement of program materials (e.g. extracurricular activity materials, toolkit materials, printing of activities manuals), as well as rewards and incentive packages for participating schools. After extensive discussions regarding school needs assessments and consideration of potential impact of rewards on research results, different rewards packages for each country were identified for both control and treatment schools. In Cambodia, cabinets, hole punchers, and level arch files were chosen. In Tajikistan, each school received a package of literature books, selected for a range of ages, gender and reading level, which were distributed on International Literacy Day. In Timor Leste, all

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 47 schools received bulletin boards for the previous school year, and packages of guitars, sports equipment, filing cabinets, and metal storage trunks are being procured for the current school year. In India, the team is in the process of finalizing the contents of its rewards package and intends to procure and distribute the rewards packages in February 2015. In Quarter 4, the rewards/incentives packages were ordered in Cambodia and Timor Leste, and distributed in Tajikistan as part of the International Literacy Day celebration. In Cambodia and Timor Leste, certificates of appreciation were printed for all participating schools, thanking them for efforts in records maintenance and program implementation, and encouraging continued efforts throughout the program extension. In India, t-shirts and cotton bags were distributed to teachers, headmasters, and Community Champions for training workshops and to wear and carry on field visits. Procurements made during Quarter 4 which exceeded $5,000 are as noted in Table 11. Procurement of services related to training and logistics (venue, printing, stationary, transport of personnel, etc.) are not included in the table. For detailed lists of procurements made in Quarters 1-3, please see the Quarterly Reports submitted to USAID. Table 11: Procurements in Quarter 4 Field Office Description Amount* Status Cambodia School Reward Packages- Cabinets for 322 schools 30,846 Ordered India Bags and t-shirts for conference participants and Community 6,188 Delivered Champions Timor Leste 3 laptop computers 6,507 Delivered Timor Leste Extracurricular Activity Materials 13,906 Delivered Timor Leste Incentive Packages- Guitars, Sports Equipment, Filing 33,351 In process Cabinets

* $ amounts approximate

IV. Status of Contract Deliverables Table 12 provides an updated list of the contract deliverables completed and in process since the beginning of the project, as per section F.2(a) of the SDPP Task Order. Table 12: Contract Deliverables Approved Deliverable Requirement Delivery date by client date School dropout prevention identification and 1.1 10/12/10 Approved analysis plan 10/16/10 School dropout prevention identification and 1.1 10/12/10 Approved analysis methodology and criteria 10/16/10 School dropout prevention identification and 1.1 11/22/10 (presentation Approved analysis of 15 programs or interventions6 and written summary) 11/22/10 School dropout prevention identification and 1.2 3/10/11 Approved analysis draft report (including executive 3/28/11 summary, cost estimates, and conclusions) School dropout prevention identification and 1.2 5/24/11 (COTR); Approved draft analysis report 5/27/11 (AMs) version 3/28/11 200 print copies of school dropout prevention7 1.3 6/20/11 NA8 identification and analysis reports 50 reports for each pilot country in required 1.3 August 2011 NA

6 Thirty-four (34) programs were identified and analyzed. 7 Two hundred and fifty (250) reports were printed. 8 NA = client approval is not applicable to the deliverable.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 48 Approved Deliverable Requirement Delivery date by client date language 200 reports distributed to 4 pilot missions in 1.3 November 2011 NA English 5 presentations on report findings 1.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11, NA (presentation of all key findings) 11/15/11, 1/17/12, 10/28/11, 11/21/11, 1/27/12, 7/20/12, 8/20/12, 4/26/12 Power point summarizing findings of student 1.4 Complete for each dropout prevention identification and analysis country as per above dates; summary presentation developed List of assessment tools for each country 2.1 4/13/11 Approved 4/26/11 List of factors each assessment tool measures 2.1 4/13/11 Approved 4/26/11 4 in-depth country assessment plans9 10 2.2 4/19/11 Approved 4/19/11 4 in-depth country assessments 2.2 Completed May – NA October 2011 Inventory of existing programs 2.2 5/25/11 (draft); Approved 7/25/11 (final) 7/28/11 Grade levels and student populations most at 2.3 8/19/11 (Cambodia, Trend analysis risk of dropout identified in each country Timor Leste) reports approved 8/25/11 (Tajikistan) verbally 6/22/12; 12/22/11 (India) written approval: 9/9/13. 4 in-depth country assessment draft reports 2.3 Reports on trend Policies and analyses submitted as programs report above; report on approved policies and programs 7/28/11; Trend submitted 7/25/11; analysis reports report on situation approved as analysis submitted above 1 report with country comparisons 2.3 In process 4 in-depth country assessment reports 2.3 In process 4 power point presentations 2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11, NA 11/15/11, 1/17/12 1 power point presentation on all four 2.4 PowerPoint NA countries developed, presented, and submitted 3/1/12 5 presentations on the in-depth country 2.4 10/18/11, 11/14/11, NA assessment findings 11/15/11, 1/17/12, 10/28/11, 11/21/11, 1/27/12, 7/20/12, 8/20/12, 4/26/12 Risk factors and trends for each of the 4 2.4 Risk factors and trends NA

9 One plan was submitted, covering all four countries, rather than four country-specific plans. 10 Draft and final plans submitted and approved as one.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 49 Approved Deliverable Requirement Delivery date by client date countries identified and presented as above 8 (2 per country) program recommendations 2.4 Completed as outcome NA of workshops (below) 4 (1 per country) in-depth country assessment 2.4 In process findings summary 4 workshops on findings and 2.4 10/18-20/11 NA recommendations (Cambodia) 11/15-17/11 (Tajikistan 11/14-16/11 (Timor Leste) 1/17-19/12 (India) 4 language translations of in-depth country 2.5 6 local language NA assessment reports translations of trend analysis reports (Khmer 10/5/11, Tetum 9/16/11, Portuguese 9/13/11, Tajik 10/6/11, Russian 10/8/11, Hindi 12/28/11) and policies and programs inventory completed (Khmer 8/29/11, Tajik 8/29/11, Russian 9/6/11, Tetum 8/29/11, Portuguese 9/13/11, Hindi 1/14/12) 100 (400 total) in-depth country assessment 2.5 September 2011 to NA reports distributed January 2012 250 in-depth country assessment reports 2.5 September 2011 to NA distributed in English January 2012 650 CDs of in-depth country assessment 2.5 In process reports (for each hard copy report) 4 stakeholder lists 3.1 2/28/12 NA Areas of collaboration/conflict identified and 3.1 Included w/ report on (Approval resolved in each country Coordination Bodies, pending) submitted 7/3/12 4 SDPP project oversight bodies formed 3.1 Completed in all (Approval countries by March pending) 2012, described in report on Coordination Bodies, 7/3/12 4 (1 per country) communication plans 3.1 Submitted 9/13/12 (Approval pending) 1 scope of work for Coordination Body 3.1 Included as part of (Approval report on Coordination pending) Bodies, submitted 7/3/12 4 (1 per country) tailored draft pilot design 3.2 2/28/12 (Approval

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 50 Approved Deliverable Requirement Delivery date by client date plans pending) 4 (1 per country) site selection methodologies 3.2 Addressed in design (Approval plan, 2/28/12 pending) 4 (1 per country) design workshops 3.2 10/18-20/11 NA (Cambodia) 11/15-17/11 (Tajikistan 11/14-16/11 (Timor Leste) 1/17-19/12 (India) Target dates for all activities and outputs of 3.3 Submitted in annual the 4 pilot projects work plans Operational definitions for all variables in the 3.3 Submitted in research 4 country pilots design report 12 (3 per country) outcome indicators for the 3.3 Submitted in research 4 country pilots design report Data source descriptions for each of the 4 3.3 Submitted in research country pilot indicators design report 4 (1 per country) pilots launched 3.4 NA NA 4 (1 per country) pilot launch press releases 3.4 10/23/12 (Timor) 10/17/12 (Timor) 12/12/12 (Tajikistan) 12/10/12 2/26/13 (India) (Tajikistan) 3/6/13 (Cambodia) 2/13/13 (India) 3/13/13 (Cambodia) 1 implementation work plan annually 3.511 5/20/1112 5/31/11 6/4/1213 Approval 10/13 pending 10/14

V. Challenges and Actions Taken Major challenges and actions taken to address them during the year are as highlighted below. The project continues to work to identify solutions to these challenges, including through school-level consultation and consultation with district-, province- and national-level MOE representatives and the country coordination bodies. Early Project Delays: SDPP projects in all countries experienced delays early in fiscal year 2014 due to various causes. As a result of SDPP extension through September, 2015, subcontractor scopes-of-work and budgets required modifications that were not fully realized until the end of the first quarter. This led to delays in the renewal of staff contracts, hiring of new staff and disbursing of funds for project activities. Some training activities and meetings were delayed and uncertainty about job security caused some field staff to quit. In addition to delays caused by budget modifications, changes in the procedure for personnel approvals also slowed work early in the year. All personnel approvals now require the additional step of passing through Creative Contracts before submission to USAID. Delays resulted in some unfilled field positions.

11 Deliverables for Requirements 3.6-3.8 are not due until near end of project and are not included in this table. 12 For Fiscal Year 2011 13 For Fiscal Year 2012

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 51 Finally, weather played a part in major delays in schools across SDPP project countries. Flooding in Cambodia as well as winter rain and snow in India and Tajikistan led to delays in the start of the academic year (in Cambodia), the cancelation or low turn-out in teacher training (in India), and school closure and low attendance in tutoring/enrichment classes (in Tajikistan). SDPP staff took a variety of measures to limit the impact delays had on project implementation. Good communication was crucial on many levels to insure smooth coordination with contract and budget administration during contract renewals. Whenever possible, materials were prepared ahead of time so that staff could be deployed as soon as their contracts were approved. In Timor Leste, where delays caused especially high attrition rates of field staff, the SDPP Timor-Leste team made efforts to assure field staff that job uncertainty was only temporary and provided career development opportunities for staff members who remained with SDPP. In several instances, the restructuring of program activities was also necessary to limit the negative impact of delays caused by weather and the late start of classes. In India, teacher training was held in smaller sessions at the block level to limit the distance teachers had to travel to attend. In Timor-Leste, teacher orientation for the extra-curricular activities was broken down from a two-day training to several smaller modules that could be held after school while classes were in session. Finally, in Tajikistan, the SDPP team provided additional support to schools and rescheduled meetings so that project implementation could begin as quickly as possible when weather permitted. Staff retention/Teacher Motivation: As mentioned above, field staff retention was a concern during the early part of fiscal year 2014 due to delays in budget modification and contract renewals. Staff retention continued to be a concern, however, as program and field officers as well as M&E officers began preparing for SDPP in-country closeout by looking for new positions. SDPP HQ staff has responded to these concerns by working to streamline the personnel approval process as much as possible so that new staff may be quickly hired and, in the case of Timor-Leste, additional backup candidates have been identified and submitted for approval to replace vacancies as soon as they happen. Teacher and community motivation, especially regarding case management and record maintenance, has been a challenge across all project countries. In Timor-Leste, some teachers view their participation in extra-curricular activities as a burden that requires additional hours of work. Furthermore, teachers in Timor-Leste are resistant to cooperate with data collection schedules, especially at control schools. In India, teachers were engaged in election activities and school examinations and these activities restricted the time they would have otherwise spent on case management or focus child identification. SDPP response to problems of low motivation have focused on non-monetary supports. This consists in holding meetings with teachers and community representatives to discuss ways in which the community can support at-risk student identification processes as well as brainstorming about how to use community resources to prevent dropout. Inactive volunteers have been replaced and certificates of appreciation have been budgeted which will, hopefully, provide an incentive for ongoing work. Fidelity of Implementation: Initial fidelity of implementation (FOI) results showed some areas of poor compliance with project implementation. In Cambodia, for example, the first round of FOI results showed that in some schools the school personnel and teachers were not completing the EWS monthly case management forms. Similarly, FOI results in Timor-Leste shows specific areas of insufficient compliance of the completion and retention of EWS forms on the part of teachers, as mentioned above. These fidelity checks have allowed SDPP to respond with specific, on the spot, coaching and feedback. Security/Maintenance: Both security and maintenance have been ongoing concerns with computer labs in Cambodia. Due to excessive power demands from the use of peripheral computer equipment (printers, LCD projectors and speakers) solar batteries needed to power the computer labs were damaged in 17 schools. Effected schools were unable to provide adequate computer classes for a period of time. There have also been issues in other schools involving theft or broken equipment. In August, a school in Kampong Speu province reported the theft of 1 host computer, two monitors and three fans. In addition to these concerns in Cambodia, there was one case of fraud reported this year in Timor-Leste in which a

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 52 routine analysis of field accommodation expenses implicated three M&E staff members. More details can be found in quarterly reports from the year. Particular challenges noted in quarter 4 include: In Cambodia, it was announced in August that the start of the 2014-15 school year will be pushed back from October 1st to early November. This may be in part due to the fact that over 75% of grade 12 students failed the national exam and are being offered a re-sit. While SDPP activities focus on grade 7-9, this delay in the start to the school year will impact the collection of Follow-up 3 data. In Tajikistan, SDPP continues to wait for the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) to sign the Letter of Commitment (LOC) which is required for submission with other program documents by the end of the program. The LOC serves to demonstrate that SDPP activities were operating with the full knowledge and consent of government counterparts. The process of acquiring a signed LOC has been ongoing in Tajikistan and the USAID Activity Manager in Tajikistan is now working to review the latest version and revise language wherever possible to appease the MoES and expedite the process.

Saidzoda M., Governor of Dangara, and parents of SDPP students participate in International Literacy Day event.

VI. Major Activities Planned for Next Quarter Major activities planned for next quarter (October – December 2014) include:  Finalize modified subcontractor agreements and re-align budget.  Second and final round of Fidelity of Implementation checks to be conducted in India and Cambodia.  Complete the first part of the end line data collection in all countries  Compile program material for toolkits  Prepare for satellite office closeout in all countries  Organize policy dialogues for stakeholders to take place in December 2014 and January 2015  Finalize and submit FY14-15 Work Plan  Complete delivery of reward packages.  Hold quarterly Coordinating Body (CB) meetings.  Continue drafting country-specific assessment reports for all four countries, to include primary research results.

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 53 VII. Accrued Expenditures Expenditures accrued during the fourth quarter, by country and by line item, are as shown in Table 13 below. Table 14 shows annual and cumulative expenditures for each country through September 2014.

Table 13: Expenditures July – September 2014 (USD)

Country Description Cambodia India Tajikistan Timor-Leste TOTAL Direct Labor 17,861 22,550 87,783 31,840 160,034 Fringe Benefits 6,430 8,118 26,758 8,402 49,708 Travel and Per Diem 5,971 30 22,485 13,632 42,118 Allowances 0 0 10,900 0 10,900 ODCs 1,566 1,967 84,705 1,778 90,016 Subcontractor 454,899 221,861 61,115 439,028 1,176,903 Project Activities 0 0 28,215 0 28,215 Overhead 7,416 9,363 36,448 9,691 62,917 G&A 84,004 44,861 60,930 85,743 275,538 Fixed Fee 28,907 15,437 20,967 29,506 94,818 TOTAL 607,055 324,186 440,307 619,621 1,991,169

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 54 Table 14: Cumulative Expenditures Project Inception through September 2014 (USD) FY2011 FY2012 Timor- Total Timor- Total Description Cambodia India Tajikistan Cambodia India Tajikistan Leste FY2011 Leste FY2012 Direct Labor 135,092 141,771 262,211 122,692 661,765 192,098 157,985 467,632 123,325 941,040 Fringe Benefits 45,772 43,740 78,718 41,315 209,546 64,575 56,820 144,058 44,400 309,853 Travel and Per Diem 19,722 24,083 82,751 4,804 131,359 79,802 108,225 88,396 43,594 320,016 Allowances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,285 0 7,285 ODCs 8,031 7,762 156,238 5,609 177,640 11,932 10,709 236,506 8,601 267,748 Subcontractor 479,961 169,774 153,424 584,349 1,387,508 990,680 1,136,272 339,038 1,870,616 4,336,606 Project Activities 516 516 15,587 516 17,136 1,886,583 0 295,439 0 2,182,023 Overhead 52,668 50,716 100,233 47,652 251,269 74,477 65,533 192,882 51,206 384,098 G&A 126,099 74,522 144,358 137,179 482,158 561,026 261,042 301,108 364,096 1,487,272 Fixed Fee 43,393 25,644 49,676 47,206 165,920 193,056 89,832 103,618 125,291 511,797 TOTAL 911,255 538,527 1,043,196 991,322 3,484,300 4,054,229 1,886,418 2,175,961 2,631,129 10,747,738

FY2013 FY2014 Timor- Total Timor- Total Description Cambodia India Tajikistan Cambodia India Tajikistan Leste FY2013 Leste FY2014 Direct Labor 104,510 99,703 557,862 99,947 862,022 71,474 71,287 528,061 73,753 744,575 Fringe Benefits 37,625 35,893 164,952 35,980 274,450 25,731 25,663 157,318 23,491 232,203 Travel and Per Diem 28,149 25,830 33,108 9,622 96,708 26,890 7,666 62,953 17,192 114,700 Allowances 0 0 42,339 0 42,339 0 0 57,070 0 57,070 ODCs 101,946 6,099 191,067 5,800 304,912 73,192 6,377 202,961 4,766 287,296 Subcontractor 1,902,898 1,269,281 471,891 3,607,421 7,251,491 1,836,526 1,110,403 285,742 2,193,286 5,425,956 Project Activities 321,145 1808 633,844 1808 958,605 0 0 423,443 0 423,443 Overhead 43,395 41,398 231,361 41,500 357,654 29,676 29,598 218,096 27,093 304,463 G&A 431,743 251,602 395,496 646,355 1,725,198 350,793 212,669 328,265 397,729 1,289,455 Fixed Fee 148,570 86,581 136,095 222,422 593,669 120,714 73,183 112,962 136,865 443,724 TOTAL 3,119,981 1,818,196 2,858,016 4,670,855 12,467,048 2,534,996 1,536,847 2,376,870 2,874,174 9,322,887

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 55 Cumulative Expenditures Project Inception through September 2014 Timor- Description Cambodia India Tajikistan Total Leste Direct Labor 503,174 470,746 1,815,766 419,716 3,209,402 Fringe Benefits 173,703 162,117 545,045 145,186 1,026,051 Travel and Per Diem 154,562 165,804 274,462 75,211 670,039 Allowances 0 0 106,694 0 106,694 ODCs 195,192 31,038 786,862 24,867 1,037,959 Subcontractor 5,306,312 3,797,888 1,280,793 8,428,552 18,813,546 Project Activities 2,208,244 2,324 1,368,314 2,324 3,581,206 Overhead 200,216 187,244 742,573 167,451 1,297,484 G&A 1,486,039 818,918 1,175,694 1,574,764 5,055,416 Fixed Fee 511,369 281,806 404,576 541,904 1,739,656 TOTAL 10,738,811 5,917,886 8,500,781 11,379,975 36,537,453

School Dropout Prevention Pilot Program Summary Annual Progress Report (October 2013 – September 2014) Page 56