Lord Bates Stephen Twigg MP Minister of State Chair of the International Development Committee House of Commons Tel: +44(0)20 7023 0500 Fax: +44(0)20 7023 0732 7 Millbank London Email: [email protected] SW1P 3JA

February 2017

FOLLOW UP TO IDC HEARING ON ICAI’S REPORT ON UK AID’S SUPPORT TO MARGINALISED GIRLS’ EDUCATION

My colleagues Anna French, Anna Wechsberg and I appreciated the opportunity to give oral evidence to the International Development Committee on DFID’s response to the latest ICAI report, “Accessing, staying and succeeding in basic education – UK Aid’s support to marginalised girls”. We again apologise for the delay in getting our initial response to you. As promised, I would like to provide additional information on four key areas as I promised:

1. Support to secondary education

In 2014, the UK was the largest bilateral donor to secondary education (see Annex 1), and we will continue to make this a priority – particularly for its importance in reaching adolescent girls. We will also press others to give greater priority to secondary education, especially for girls. Secondary education is really important in improving girls’ life chances, preventing child marriage, reducing HIV infection, delaying early motherhood, and in girls having healthier children. Reaching the Global Goal commitment of quality primary and secondary education for every child by 2030 will require concerted international effort.

2. Equity and DFID’s VFM guidance

I wanted to take this opportunity to expand upon my answer to Fiona Bruce’s question on VfM. I agree that equity considerations need to be part of our approach, alongside economy, efficiency and effectiveness. We are doing this through updating our VfM guidance. As agreed, I will share an update on the education sector VfM guidance by Easter. I have also included the criteria for project selection that we used in phase 1 of the Girls Education Challenge, as well as the cost per targeted girl as an illustration of the approach we are seeking to take around equity and VfM (see Annex 2).

3. Avanti Communications () - i-mlango

Paul Scully asked for further information on the programme and education expertise of Avanti Communications, who are working as part of a consortium of partners to deliver the iMlango project in Kenya. The iMlango project, (£27.6m in funding which includes match funding from Avanti), delivers improved educational outcomes in maths, literacy and life skills for 55,000 marginalised girls in rural Kenya, by providing high speed internet connectivity for schools; tailored online maths and literacy tutoring; and electronic attendance monitoring. The selection of schools was not based solely on access to electricity but also social and economic factors.

The iMlango consortium includes partners with complementary skills and therefore benefits from a broad base of expertise. I am encouraged that this is being used to support the Ministry of Education to roll out the Kenyan Government’s Digital Literacy Programme and the early literacy reform programme, TUSOME, which you will have the opportunity to observe first hand during your visit to Kenya.

4. Evidence of what is working

Finally, we are collecting a large amount of evidence on the state of marginalised girls. Each project conducts evaluations which survey girls, their families, teachers, and community members, and undertakes literacy and numeracy assessments. In addition the GEC Evaluation Manager collects data and information to draw conclusions across the entire portfolio. Reports and data are available online (see annex 3).

LORD BATES

Annex 1

Annex 2: GEC value for money

Table 1: Selection criteria used in GEC phase 1 – Step Change Window

Organisation track record & capacity to implement the project Has the lead applicant demonstrated that it has the structures, processes and systems in place required to implement this project and managing the work of its partners? - Management (governance) capability 3 - Financial capability 3 Has the lead applicant demonstrated that it has the structures, processes and systems in place required to manage the performance of the project, learn from the delivery 2 process and report on its effectiveness, value for money and impacts? Does the proposed partnership include organisations which are not traditionally 2 involved in bilateral development projects? How strong and relevant is the lead applicant's experience in the areas below and to what extent does it demonstrate that the lead applicant is capable of implementing this project and managing the work of its partners? - in the country where the project will take place 1.5 - in the education sector? 2.5 To what extent does it demonstrate that the lead applicant is capable of implementing this project and managing the work of its partners? (If there are no implementing partners, assess the capabilities of the lead partner to deliver project activities.) - in the country where the project will take place 1.5 - in the education sector? 1.5 Has the lead applicant and its partners (both in terms of organisation(s) and key personnel) implemented other projects of similar nature and/or size? 3 Are the key personnel sufficiently experienced in leadership, management and in girls' education technical areas? What learning results have the lead applicant and its partners achieved for 3 marginalised girls in the past? Do the lead applicant and its partners demonstrate a clear understanding of and 2 commitment to gender equality and girls' empowerment? Sub Total 25 Expected results and impact Does the project clearly identify a group of marginalised girls who will benefit from a 2 full cycle of primary or lower secondary education through the project? How strong is the analysis of why these girls are marginalised, the barriers that they 2.5 face in accessing education and why they are being targeted for this project? Are both supply and demand side barriers considered and addressed? If only one of these is addressed by the project, has the applicant explained how the other will be 1.5 addressed? Is the number of marginalised girls who will benefit through the project a realistic and 1 credible estimate given the barriers that they face and the overall project context? Is the methodology used to estimate the number of marginalised girls reasonable? 0.5 How strong is the analysis of evidence to support that this type of intervention will produce the intended results among the target group? If there are evidence gaps, have 2.5 these been addressed sufficiently? To what extent does the theory of change describe a plausible and effective case for intervention, given associated assumptions and risks? Does it present a logical results 2.25 chain? How strong is the analysis of risks (as provided in the risk matrix)? 0.5 How innovative is the proposed intervention? 1 Will the project be ‘additional’? Does the project represent a new programme for the proposed partnership, rather than a continuation of existing programmes? Does the 0.75 project complement existing state and donor interventions, rather than overlap with them? How strong is the project’s plan for engaging and benefitting, where appropriate, other 2 stakeholders (e.g. boys, men, women, community groups)? How significant and feasible is the impact that the project will have on the target group of marginalised girls'? - retention in school 3 - learning outcomes? 4 How significant and feasible are the project's direct additional impacts on health outcomes and/or the economic and social status for the target group? Has the 2 potential for these additional benefits been analysed and addressed sufficiently in the project design? Is the plan for collecting and verifying baseline data sufficiently robust? Does the applicant describe how the baseline data will inform the design of the 1.5 programme? How strong is the applicant’s plan for measuring change within the target group, 1 including unintended outcomes? How strong is the methodology for tracking girls? 0.5 Is the lead applicant able to demonstrate an effective approach to monitoring, reporting 1 and evaluating the project? How strong is the plan for delivering independent verification of results? 0.5 Sub-total 30 Value for money How well do the project's unit costs (i.e. Percentage of the base cost of education provided by the project) and the expected results (i.e. Increased quantity of schooling 7.5 and increased outcomes) compare with other similar initiatives? What is the level of confidence that this project will deliver Value for Money (VfM) in terms of the ’3 Es’ of Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness along the three levels of the results chain – inputs, outputs and outcomes? - Economy 3 - Efficiency 2 - Effectiveness 2 How innovative is the project in terms of the ‘3 Es’ mentioned above? 0.5 What is the degree of match funding (in cash or in kind) provided by the applicant? To what extent does the match funding demonstrate the applicant’s confidence to deliver 1.5 results and commitment to risk sharing? How strong is the applicant's payment by results approach? To what extent does the approach demonstrate the applicant's confidence to deliver results and commitment to 3.5 share risk? Has the lead applicant demonstrated an effective approach to monitoring, reporting 5 and managing its project’s costs? Sub-total 25 Sustainability How robust is the applicant's plan to sustain the impact of the project on marginalised 6 girls after the GEC support ends? Is the plan realistic and based on evidence? Has the applicant incorporated mechanisms for all girls involved to continue a full cycle 6 of primary or lower secondary education? How innovative is the approach to sustainability? 1 Will the proposed partnership develop capacity of local partners and/or other local 2 bodies? How strong is the evidence that the relevant state authority will be supportive of the 2 project? Does the project fit within the education sector plan (or equivalent) of the country? 3 Sub-total 20 TOTAL 100

Table 2: Selection criteria used in GEC phase 1 – Innovation Window

1. Does the proposed team and organisation inspire confidence to implement a new and innovative approach in country? How strong and relevant is the experience of proposed team and lead organisation and its partners (if applicable) in the context where the proposed project will take 4 place? How strong is the experience of the proposed team and the lead organisation and its 3 partners (if applicable) in working with marginalised groups? How experienced are the proposed team in implementing new and innovative 5 projects? How strong is the lead organisation in terms of its management, systems, 3 measurement and monitoring capacity? Sub Total 15 2. What is the project’s expected impact? How does this project aim directly to improve learning and retention rate for marginalised girls? What will change for girls as a result of this project? How directly are the results linked to: increasing the inclusion of marginalised girls in schooling; Including and keeping 8 marginalised girls in education; Increasing their learning outcomes? Are the numbers provided for the marginalised girls who will directly benefit through the proposed project realistic and credible relative to the grant and time frame 2 requested? What evidence is there to show the project could work? 2 What is the likelihood that the pilot project could be taken to scale and or replicated in 5 other contexts? Are there other educational outcomes that will be achieved through this project, 2 directly or indirectly? Are there any additional impacts from the project on wider health, economic and social 1 situation for the target group? Can this be measured? Sub-total 20 3. To what extent does this project represent a new and innovative project and/ or partnership for DFID in education service delivery? What level of engagement/ funding has this organisation had previously with DFID, if 4 any? What level of engagement/ funding has this organisation had previously with other 2 donors, if any? How innovative is the approach proposed to deliver the expected results? (refer to 22 second tab for all the differnt tyes of innovation that might be featured) Will this project provide new approaches of using Payment by Results to increase Value for Money and achieve outcomes? Will it provide new approaches to measuring 2 education outcomes in ways that can inform approaches to Payment by Results? Sub-total 30 4. Value for Money How well do the project’s costs and the expected results compare with other similar 4 initiatives? (what is the VfM observed within this project?) Could this project change the way that VfM is viewed across the sector? Does it offer a better benchmark or new way of doing things that will drive down input costs and/or 4 increase the quality of outcomes in education more generally? Is the intervention genuinely ‘additional’ (i.e complement existing state and donor interventions, rather than overlap with them; does the project meet an unmet 5 demand?) Is there any match funding (in cash or in kind) provided by the applicant? 2 Sub-total 15 5. Relevance for future scale up and plans for post GEC funding Does the applicant identify sustainable exit routes from GEC funding and how feasible are these (e.g. graduating to state funding, to other external funding sources such as 10 donors or charitable foundations, or to a self-financing model)? Could the project be relevant in other contexts? 5 How likely it is that the project will receive endorsement and/or other support from the 5 relevant state authorities? Subtotal 20 TOTAL 100 Table 3: GEC phase 1 – Cost per girl – by project Target GEC budget Cost per Project Country Beneficiaries (£) girl (£) BRAC Afghanistan 150,100 16,482,943 110 IRC DRC 109,577 28,229,566 258 Save the Children UK 12,479 10,087,064 808 (Ethiopia) Save the Children Fund Mozambique 45,423 6,861,452 151 UK (Mozambique) Camfed International Zimbabwe / 171,640 29,314,279 171 WUSC Kenya 17,648 14,702,965 833 AKF Afghanistan 56,892 32,290,624 568 Childhope UK Ethiopia 14,502 3,928,190 271 ACTED Afghanistan 15,318 4,428,073 289 World Vision UK Zimbabwe 45,859 14,967,442 326 CFBT Kenya 95,821 17,122,623 179 Relief International Somalia 70,119 13,338,863 190 CARE International Somalia 28,866 13,844,921 480 Health Limited Rwanda 18,781 1,409,752 75 Link Community Ethiopia Development (LCD) 51,801 2,941,276 57 Ethiopia Red Een Kind South Sudan 4,722 991,839 210 Foundation (Help a Child) Viva 2,107 2,692,494 1,278 Mercy Corps Nepal 8,000 1,562,541 195 Leonard Cheshire Kenya 2,355 2,839,916 1,206 Disability I Choose Life – Kenya 9,170 3,758,614 410 BRAC Tanzania Tanzania 9,950 2,682,693 270 Voluntary Services Mozambique Overseas (VSO 5,965 1,102,337 185 Mozambique) VSO Nepal 7,429 1,871,123 252 Varkey Foundation Ghana 3,667 4,209,031 1,148 Raising Voices Uganda 17,280 1,837,709 106 Camfed Zambia Zambia 6,967 3,023,835 434 PEAS(Promoting Equality Uganda 150,100 3,152,363 640 in African Schools) Eco-Fuel Africa Limited Uganda 109,577 2,529,023 168 Cheshire Services Uganda 12,479 3,392,667 1,676 ChildFund Afghanistan 45,423 1,715,269 1,221 Theatre for a Change Malawi 171,640 2,781,648 309 (TfaC) Opportunity International Uganda 17,648 1,363,798 96 United Kingdom Discovery Ghana / Kenya 56,892 12,735,137 43 Communications / Nigeria Coca-Cola Nigeria 14,502 4,002,675 493 Avanti Communications Kenya 150,100 13,822,618 251 Ericsson Burma 109,577 3,917,851 356 PLAN International 2 12,479 3,690,726 219

Annex 3: Evidence

GEC baseline reports are available:  Step Change Window projects: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /425360/Step-change-window-full2.pdf  Innovation Window projects: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /425338/innovation-window-Baseline-Report-fulla2.pdf  Strategic Partnership Window projects: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /494679/Baseline-Strategic-Partnerships-Window-13January2016.pdf The data for these reports is also available: https://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/?sn=7736&type=Data%20catalogue