Endline Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey in Kathmandu District Under Community-Based Alternative Schooling Programme (CASP)

Final Report

Endline Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey in Kathmandu District under Community-Based Alternative Schooling Programme (CASP)

Submitted to Community-based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) Non-formal Education Centre (NFEC) Sano Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal

By Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) P O Box 2254, Kathmandu Phone: 00977-1-4371006/4378831 Fax: 00977-1-4378809 E-mail: [email protected]

August 2009 Acknowledgements

Children constitute the future of any country. Therefore, enhancing their access to education is a moral obligation of the state. Unfortunately, many children do not have such access since their parents and guardians either do not realise the value of education or cannot afford their education, or both. This survey captures the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of parents and guardians in relation to their children’s education after the completion of pilot activities on operational models of community mobilization by Community-based Alternative Schooling Programme (CASP).

The Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) wishes to express its gratitude to the Community-based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) for entrusting this survey to it. It also wishes to express its thankful to Mr. Sushil Pandey, Mr. Laxman Khanal, Mr. Diwakar Awasti and Mr. Pramod Sharma, the Director, Deputy Director, Deputy Director, and Section Officer, respectively, of Non-formal Education Centre (NFEC) for providing the IIDS research team with the overall guidance to accomplish this study. Mr. Shigenobu Handa of CASP provided very intensive guidance in all phases of this study and, therefore, the team gratefully acknowledges his help.

Ms. Yasuko Oda, Mr. Madhav Raj Dahal, and Ms. Radha Pradhananga provided support to the study team in many forms. The team is, therefore, very thankful to all of them. Finally, the team wishes to thank Mr. Gyanee Yadav, the District Education Officer of Kathmandu district, for providing comments on research tools and for providing field surveyors.

IIDS Research Team September 2009

i Contents

Acknowledgements i Contents ii List of Tables iv Acronyms and Abbreviations vi Survey Team Members vii Executive Summary viii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives of the survey 2 1.3 Key definitions 2 1.4 Assumptions of the survey 2 1.5 Methodology of the survey 3 1.6 Analysis 4 1.7 Limitations of the study 4 1.8 Organization of the report 5

Chapter 2: Summary of Past KAP Surveys under CASP 6 2.1 Summary of baseline KAP survey in Dhading and Siraha 6 2.2 Summary of baseline KAP survey in Kathmandu 8 2.3 Summary of endline KAP survey in Dhading and Siraha 10

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Study Communities and Households Surveyed 13 3.1 Social characteristics 13 3.2 Economic characteristics 15 3.3 Priorities to community development 17

Chapter 4: Schooling of Children 18 4.1 Average number of children 18 4.2 Birth registration 18 4.3 Children attending SOP/FSP 19 4.4 Children completing SOP/FSP 19 4.5 Reason for sending children to SOP/FSP 21 4.6 Provision of information about SOP/FSP 21

ii Chapter 5: Selected Characteristics of Partner NGOs 24 5.1 Clarity in the Terms of Reference 24 5.2 Duration of involvement of partner NGOs 24 5.3 Activities implemented by partner NGOs 24 5.4 Other NGOs working in the programme community 24 5.5 Willing to run SOP/FSP in the future with own resources 25 5.6 Efforts made to institutionalise SOP/FSP 25 5.7 Perceptions of their role in the future 25

Chapter 6: Knowledge of Respondents on Child Education 28 6.1 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities 28 6.2 Knowledge of child rights issues 28

Chapter 7: Attitude of Respondents on Child Education 35 7.1 Agreement with the child rights issues 35 7.2 Responsibility to make children educated 36 7.3 Willingness to participate in SOP/FSP activities 38 7.4 Willingness to send children to SOP/FSP classes 42 7.5 Willingness to send children to formal school 43

Chapter 8: Practice of Respondents Regarding Child Education 49 8.1 Participation in SOP/FSP activities 49 8.2 Encouragement to children to become educated 53 8.3 Discussions with children about child education 57 8.4 Discussions with family members about child education 61 8.5 Discussions with neighbours about child education 65 8.6 Sources of inspiration to make positive attitude and behaviour about child education 69

Chapter 9: Other Relevant Issues 71 9.1 Invitation in CMC meeting 71 9.2 Issues discussed in CMC meeting 72 9.3 Decision making process in CMC meeting 72 9.4 Institutionalisation of SOP/FSP 73 9.5 Usefulness of NGO activities 74

Chapter 10: Suggestions of Respondents on Improving KAP of Parents 77 10.1 Suggestions of the respondents to implement SOP 77 10.2 Suggestions of the respondents to implement FSP 78

iii 10.3 Summary of suggestions to implement SOP and FSP 79

Chapter 11: Conclusion and Recommendations 80 11.1 Key conclusions 80 11.2 Key Recommendations 81

References Annexes Annex 1: Questionnaires for parents Annex 2: Questionnaires for partner NGOs Annex 3: Changes in KAP indicators by programme and community Annex 4: Methodology for estimating odds ratio Annex 5: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by programme type (SOP vs FSP) Annex 6: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by NGO term of implementation (full vs partial) Annex 7: Odds ratio for selected KAP indicators by package of activities implemented by partner NGO (comprehensive vs partial) Annex 8: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by the presence or absence of other NGOs Annex 9: Matrix of correlation coefficients based on odds ratio of selected KAP indicators by programme type (SOP vs. FSP) Annex 10: Matrix of correlation coefficients based on odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by NGO term of implementation (full vs. partial) Annex 11: Matrix of correlation coefficients based on odds ratio for selected KAP indicators by package of activities implemented by partner NGO (comprehensive vs. partial) Annex 12: Matrix of correlation coefficients based on odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by the presence or absence of other NGOs Annex 13: Usefulness of activities implemented by partner NGOs

Annex 14: Situations of Sangla by selected indicators/questions

iv List of Tables

Table 1.1 Sample size of the survey 4 Table 3.1 Caste/ethnicity distribution of respondents 13 Table 3.2 Percentage distribution of respondents by caste and ethnicity 13 Table 3.3 Literacy of respondents (in percentage) 14 Table 3.4 Interrelationship between literacy and social status of respondents (in percentage) 14 Table 3.5 Residential status of respondents (in percentage) 14 Table 3.6 Duration of residence among temporarily residents 15 Table 3.7 Time distance to reach mother school (in minutes) 15 Table 3.8 Time distance to reach SOP/FSP classes (in minutes) 15 Table 3.9 Sources of livelihood (in percentage) 16 Table 3.10 Ability of the respondents to support family by background characteristics (in percentage) 16 Table 3.11 First priorities of respondents in community development (in percentage) 17 Table 4.1 Average number of children per household by programme type 18 Table 4.2 Birth registration (in percentage) 18 Table 4.3 Children attending SOP/FSP by selected background characteristics (in percentage) 19 Table 4 .4 Children completing SOP/FSP (in percentage) 20 Table 4.5 Reasons for not completing SOP/FSP (dropout) in percentage 20 Table 4.6 Reasons for sending children to alternative school (in percentage) 21 Table 4.7 Provision of information to respondents to send children to SOP/FSP at first time (in percentage) 22 Table 4.8 Persons informing respondents to send children to SOP/FSP at first time (in percentage) 22 Table 5.1 Summary of findings from NGO’s survey 26

Table 6.1 Percentage of respondents having knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (in percentage) 28 Table 6.2 Percentage of respondents with the knowledge of key rights issues (in percentage) 31 Table 6.3 Comparison of baseline and end line data on knowledge of key child rights issues (in percentage) 33 Table 6.4 Source of knowledge of child rights issues (in percentage) 33 Table 7.1 Percentage of respondents agreeing very much with key rights issues (in percentage) 35 Table 7.2 Responsible person to make children educated (in percentage) 37 Table 7.3 Willingness to participate in SOP/FSP activities (yes only) in percentage 39 Table 7.4 Willingness to send children to SOP/FSP classes 41 Table 7.5 Willingness of respondents to send children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP (in percentage) 43 Table 7.6 Degree of willingness to send children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP (in percentage) 44 Table 7.7 Willingness to send children to formal school (very much) in percentage by activity 46 Table 7.8 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the percentage of respondents with their perception on selected issues 48 Table 8.1 Participation in SOP/FSP activities (in percentage) 49 Table 8.2 Participation in SOP/FSP activities by type of activity (in percentage) 51

Table 8.3 Encouragement to children to become educated 53 Table 8.4 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of encouragement provided to child about education (in percentage) 54 Table 8.5 Activities influential in motivating respondents to encourage children to become educated (in percentage) 55

v Table 8.6 Discussions with children about child education (in percentage) 57 Table 8.7 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with children about child education (in parentage) 58 Table 8.8 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with children (in percentage) 59 Table 8.9 Discussions with family members about child education (in percentage) 61 Table 8.10 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with family members about child education (in percentage) 62 Table 8.11 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with family members about child education (in percentage) 63 Table 8.12 Discussions with neighbours about child education (in percentage) 65 Table 8.13 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with neighbours about child education (in percentage) 66 Table 8.14 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with neighbours about child education (in percentage) 67 Table 8.15 Sources of inspiration to make positive attitude and behaviour (in percentage) 70 Table 9.1 Invitation in CMC meetings (in percentage) 71 Table 9.2 Issues discussed in CMC meeting (in percentage) 73 Table 9.3 Decision making processes in CMC meeting (in percentage) 73 Table 9.4 Attempts made to institutionalise SOP/FSP (in percentage) 73 Table 9.5 Usefulness of NGO activities 75 Table 10.1 Suggestions to implement SOP (in percentage) 77 Table 10.2 Suggestions to implement FSP (in percentage) 78 Table 10.3 Suggestions to implement SOP and FSP (in percentage) 79

Annexes

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASP Alternative Schooling Programme CASP Community-based Alternative Schooling Project CMC Class Management Committee DEO District Education Office EV Education Volunteer FSP Flexible Schooling Programme GON Government of Nepal JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice N Number NFEC Non-formal Education Centre NGO Non-governmental Organization RP Resource Person SOP School Outreach Programme VDC Village Development Committee

vii Survey Team members

Dr. Khim Kabi Sharma Team Leader Mr. Ashwasthama Pokhrel Senior Data Analyst Mr. Manoj Pyakurel Field Supervisor Mr. Deepeshor Thapa Field Researcher Mr. Baikuntha Subedi Field Researcher Mr. Prakash Sapkota Field Researcher Mr. Harihar Bhandari Field Researcher Mr. Birendra Jung Thapa Field Researcher Mr. Yadunath Sharma Field Researcher Mr. Ram Narayan Shah Field Researcher Mr. Basudev Regmi Field Researcher Mr. Tirth Parajuli Field Researcher

viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

The Community-based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) was initiated in Nepal in 2004 with the technical support of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for developing an operational model of community-based alternative schooling project. For this purpose, it used the materials prepared by the Non-formal Education Centre (NFEC). This project had two distinct components: School Outreach Programme (SOP) and Flexible Schooling Programme (FSP). The SOP intended to provide grade 1-3 primary education to the 6-8-year-old children at proximate locations so that they could enroll in 4th grade of formal primary school after completing the three-year programme. On the other hand, the FSP aimed to provide a condensed form of primary education, grade 1 to 5, to the 8-14-year-old out-of-school children in three years. Both these programmes constituted part of alternative schooling programme of the Government of Nepal (GON) designed to increase the educational access of those groups of children who had no have access to formal education. The major strategy of CASP consisted of institutional strengthening of SOP and FSP, community mobilization and support, and networking among stakeholders.

2. Objectives of end line KAP survey

The objectives of the End line KAP Survey of Kathmandu were as follows: 1. To assess the level of knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding child education among the parents in the target communities through the Pilot Activities including community mobilization and participation under the CASP, especially considering the different characteristics between SOP and FSP, 2. To identify the determining factors of parental knowledge, attitudes and practices related to child education in the target communities especially considering the different characteristics between SOP and FSP, and 3. To provide recommendations for potential interventions.

3. Methodology of the survey

The end line KAP survey was conducted by IIDS in the targeted areas of Kathmandu districts from the second week of June to the third week of June 2009. This study period coincided with the time when new sessions in the government schools had just begun. This survey adopted the same methodology as was adopted in the baseline and end line KAP surveys of Dhading and Siraha districts and the baseline survey of Kathmandu.

ix The study first interviewed nine implementing NGOs. It then covered 127 parents/respondents of nine geographic areas of Kathmandu district where CASP was piloted.

The survey was carried out by using semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 1) developed by IIDS in collaboration with CASP, NFEC and DEO. The questionnaires covered information on the background characteristics of respondents, including their social, economic and literacy status, information relating to the schooling of children and the KAP of respondents on many children’s education issues. The questionnaire was also designed to solicit suggestions from the respondents on the ways to effectively increase the KAP of respondents. The questionnaires varied slightly from one community to another depending on the activities which the partner NGO implemented in each community. The NGOs were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 2).

4. Analysis

This study analyses the various KAP issues by several background characteristics of respondents (indigenous or structural factors) and the many activities done by CASP (intervention factors). This was done to assess the association of these factors and the KAP related indicators under investigation. Software such as dBase and SPSS were used to enter and analyse the data.

5. Key findings

The key findings of the study are as follows:

Structural factors • Most of the parents of children attending FSP were non-residents of respective communities. • Parents of Dalit children and the parents of children attending FSP were relatively illiterate. • Wage labour was the major occupation of all parents in general and of those sending their children to FSP in particular. • The Dalits, the illiterates and those depending on wage labour as the major source of livelihood (i.e. the parents of children attending FSP) supported their family with great difficulties. • While the parents of children who sent their children to FSP classes rated well on the knowledge and attitude indicators, the rating was not so good on the practice indicators including the institutionalisation of SOP/FSP. This kind of KAP gap among them can be attributed to their non-residential status, illiteracy, their occupation as wage labourer and their abject poverty.

Intervention factors • All the KAP indicators were better in communities where the partner NGO implemented their full term, introduced comprehensive set of community mobilization activities and other NGOs also worked. • Provision of contribution in labour, provision of contribution in cash and kind and organisation of orientation meetings were found as the important activities that made SOP more important than FSP as indicated by a larger sum of odds ratio. In contrast, organisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights, formation of child club and organisation of CMC were found as important activities that made FSP relatively important as indicated by their smaller sum of odds ratios (Annex 4). • Provision of incentives for best students, provision of encouragement to send children to school through door-to-door visits and organisation of parent’s visiting day were found as the important activities that had highly influenced the KAP of parents in communities where the partner NGOs completed their full term (Annex 5). • Provision of contribution in labour, provision of contribution in cash and kind and provision of incentives for best students were found as the important activities that had highly influenced the KAP of parents in communities where the partner NGOs implemented the comprehensive set of community mobilisation activities (Annex 6). • Provision of incentives for best students, provision of door-to-door visits encouraging parents to send children to school and organisation of parents visiting days were found as the important activities that had highly influenced the KAP of parents in communities where other NGOs also worked (Annex 7).

Synchronisation among indicators

Based on the review of matrices of correlation coefficients (Annex 8-11) which were derived by using the table of odds ratios as inputs for correlation analysis, the synchronization among the KAP indicators can be summarized as follows: • There was good correlation between the knowledge and attitude indicators, but their correlation with the practice indicators was only moderate (Annex 8-10). • When the synchronization among the indicators were examined with respect to the odds ratios between communities served or not served by other NGOs, the KAP indicators were found well synchronized (Annex 11).

Outcome assessment

xi classes. The dislike of children to go to school and the need to work for living especially among the girls were found as the secondary reasons for dropout. • All KAP indicators evolved well over time except for Sangla where the programme was terminated soon after it was implemented because of the withdrawal of the partner NGO. • Prompt enrolment of children in formal schools in case the partner NGOs cannot work effectively as in Sangla may cause positive perception of the formal school among the parents and prevents their children’s educational wastages (Annex 14). • As compared to the time of baseline survey, the impact of structural factors on the KAP of parents was found to have been reduced.

6. Key Recommendations

The key recommendations that emanate from the findings of the study are as follows: 1. SOP and FSP have brought about tangible results when it comes to the educational access of children who were deprived of it. Thus, it is strongly recommended that the SOP and FSP programmes be continued. The SOP classes should be particularly continued in communities where there are deserving children of appropriate age and the FSP classes should also be scaled up to ensure the educational access of out-of-school children to lower secondary and secondary schools. 2. To discourage the educational wastage of FSP children resulting from the migration of parents, the programme should focus on the children of poor urban parents who live, for example, permanently in the slum areas. 3. If the activities of NGOs are terminated before completing the full term, they cannot make the desirable impacts on the KAP of parents. Therefore, clarity should be ensured in the Terms of Reference before partnership is forged between the two institutions. 4. NGOs should implement a comprehensive set of activities to yield tangible results. 5. In the future, the SOP/FSP classes should be run in communities where other NGOs also work in relevant thematic areas (i.e. education, income generation) to realize synergy in the programmes in general and to uplift the economic status of parents in particular. 6. Provision of incentives for best students need to be prioritised in the future as it has the ability to influence the KAP of parents. 7. The SOP/FSP classes should be managed well to make them child friendly and regular. 8. Parents should be invited in CMC meetings to realise ownership of programme among them. 9. Finally, the suggestions offered by the parents with respect to the provision of incentives (school dress, meals, etc), physical facilities and skill-based education should be honoured as much as possible to ensure that the programme also becomes demand driven in the meantime. It is believed if CASP is tied up with the other programmes of government and donor communities (e.g. school feeding

xii programme, scholarship and incentive programme, pro-poor programmes) it can be even more effective in the future.

xiii Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

In Nepal, both the community and institutional schools have emerged in the course of time. According to the Three-Year Interim Plan (National Planning Commission, 2007), the number of government and private schools are 28,296 in the country.

According to the same source, the net enrolment of children in primary schools is 87.4 per cent. The percentage of girls among the school-going children is 48.0, that of the children of indigenous/ ethnic groups is 38.0, that of Dalits is 18.0 and that of handicapped children is 1.0. As of this Interim Plan, 13 per cent of children are still deprived of primary education and, even among those who go to school, the class repetition and dropout rates are high. The Plan targets to increase literacy of the children of 6 plus years of age to 76 percent. Similarly it targets to increase the gross enrolment rate, net enrolment rate and participation of female children in primary schools to 104 per cent, 96 per cent and 50 percent, respectively, by its end. The Plan has also set a target of 75 per cent in relation to the gross enrolment rate of children in the lower secondary schools.

The Community-based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) was initiated in Nepal in 2004 with the technical support of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for developing an operational model of community-based alternative schooling project. For this purpose, it used the materials prepared by the Non-formal Education Centre (NFEC). This project had two distinct components: School Outreach Programme (SOP) and Flexible Schooling Programme (FSP). The SOP intended to provide grade 1-3 primary education to the 6-8-year-old children at proximate locations so that they could enroll in 4th grade of formal primary school after completing the three-year programme. On the other hand, the FSP aimed to provide a condensed form of primary education, grade 1 to 5, to the 8-14-year-old out-of-school children in three years. Both these programmes constituted part of alternative schooling programme of the Government of Nepal (GON) designed to increase the educational access of those groups of children who had no access to formal education. The major strategy of CASP consisted of institutional strengthening of SOP and FSP, community mobilization and support, and networking among stakeholders.

1 The SOP and FSP classes were first implemented in Nepal in April 2005 on pilot basis in four VDCs of each of Dhading and Siraha district. In 2006, the classes were also introduced in nine locations of Kathmandu. The locations where FSP classes were introduced were Jorpati VDC, Gongabu VDC and Santi Nagar, Tinchule and Koteshor of Kathmandu municipality and those where the SOP classes were introduced were Chhaimale, Sangla, Talku Dudechaur and Sundarijal.

A number of partner NGOs implemented the social mobilization activities in those areas. However, some of them did not complete their full term. As a result, the programme was completely terminated as in Sangla, or taken care by Class Management Committee as in Sundarijal or by new partner NGOs as in Gongabu and Jorpati. It is also noteworthy while a number of the partner NGOs implemented a comprehensive set of activities, some others did not implement all of them. For example, the NGO working in Sangla was not instrumental in the formation of child club. Some other NGOs also were not instrumental with respect to the provision of cash, kind and labour by the local people.

1.2 Objectives of end line KAP survey

1.3 Key definitions

In contemporary research, the term ‘knowledge’ is popularly used in KAP surveys. KAP is a standard term in which the word ‘knowledge’ is implicitly used as a proxy for awareness. In this report, the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘awareness’ are, thus, used interchangeably. The term ‘attitude’ is used to refer to the perception or way of thinking and ‘practice’ to refer to the actions or behaviour relating to children’s education.

1.4 Assumptions of the survey

The broad assumptions underlying this end line survey are as follows:

2 1. Positive KAP of parents/respondents regarding child education are developed by the pilot activities including community mobilisation and participation under CASP (intervention factors), and 2. The degree of development of KAP is also influenced by the characteristics of target communities (structural or indigenous factors) as demographical, social, and economic factors in addition to CASP activities.

The specific assumptions underlying this survey are as follows: 1. The higher the ones' socio-economic status (i.e. literate, higher caste, relatively better off economically), the better the ones' knowledge, attitude and practice relating to child education. Conversely, the lower the ones socio-economic status, the worse the ones knowledge, attitude and practice. 2. Knowledge, attitude and practice change over time with the interventions, but the higher the ones socio-economic status, the faster the change in the indicators of knowledge, attitude and practice, Conversely, the lower the ones socio-economic status, the slower the change in the indicators of knowledge, attitude and practice, and 3. The indicators can be positive or as desired only if the partners NGOs complete their full term in the implementation of social mobilization activities, the set of activities they implement is comprehensive and other NGOs or programmes also work in the area to complement the programme.

1.5 Methodology of the survey

The end line KAP survey was conducted by IIDS in the targeted areas of Kathmandu districts from the second week of June to the third week of June 2009. This study period coincided with the time when new sessions in the government schools had just begun. This survey adopted the same methodology as was adopted in the baseline and endline KAP surveys of Dhading and Siraha districts and the baseline survey of Kathmandu.

1.5.1 Target groups of survey and survey sites The survey first interviewed nine implementing NGOs. It then covered 127 parents/respondents of nine geographic areas of Kathmandu district where CASP was piloted (Table 1.1).

3 Table 1.1: Sample size of the survey Programme VDC/municipality Number of parents Number of enrolled students in interviewed mother school (as per CASP data) FSP 1. Jorpati 17 17 2. Gongabu (Balaju Bus 12 7 Park) 3. Santinagar 13 10 4. Boudha (Tinchule) 8 8 5. Koteshor (Jadibuti Chowk) 11 6 Total 67 SOP 1. Chhaimale 16 20 2. Sangla 13 3. Talku Dudechowr 19 23 4. Sundarijal 18 17 Total 66 Grand Total 9 127 108

1.5.2 Research instruments The survey was carried out by using semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 1) developed by IIDS in collaboration with CASP, NFEC and DEO. The questionnaires covered information on the background characteristics of respondents, including their social, economic and literacy status, information relating to the schooling of children and the KAP of respondents on many children’s education issues. The questionnaire was also designed to solicit suggestions from the respondents on the ways to effectively increase the KAP of respondents. The questionnaires varied slightly from one community to another depending on the activities which the partner NGO implemented in each community. The NGOs were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 2).

1.6 Analysis

This study analyses the various KAP issues by several background characteristics of respondents (indigenous or structural factors) and the many activities done by CASP (intervention factors). This was done to assess the association of these factors and the KAP related indicators under investigation. Softwares such as dBase and SPSS were used to enter and analyse the data.

1.7 Limitations of the study

This report contains many data tables, each with several pieces of information. In this report, only the major patterns that had emerged from the data tables are discussed in a parsimonious way. The readers are encouraged to find additional patterns from the tables

4 as per their specific needs and interest.

It is possible that the study could have suffered from the bias of respondents while answering a particular question. However, the study is unable to control such biases, if any.

1.8 Organization of report

This report has been organized into eleven chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of CASP and its purposes. It then outlines the objectives of the survey, defines some concepts, and spells out the assumptions of the study. It also casts light on the methodology, data analysis processes, the limitations of the survey and the organization of the report.

Chapter 2 describes the main findings of past KAP surveys under CASP. Chapter 3 provides the background characteristics of both the study communities and the respondents. This description is made to familiarize the readers with the socio-economic conditions and the interrelationships that exist among them. Chapter 4 presents some basic demographics of children from the household roster. This chapter then examines the situation of children in relation to their schooling in general and in relation to their enrolment in SOP/FSP programmes and the completion of the SOP/FSP classes in particular.

Chapter 5 presents the selected characteristics of NGOs. Chapter 6 presents the findings of this survey on the knowledge dimension, Chapter 7 on the attitude dimension and chapter 8 on the practice dimension. Chapter 9 discusses selected issues that relate to SOP/FSP. Chapter 10 is devoted to presenting the suggestions of the respondents on improving the alternative schooling programmes. Chapter 11 presents the conclusions based on findings and makes recommendations for consideration by the programme stakeholders. The report is annexed with the questionnaires of the study, summary of selected indicators, odds ratios and correlation matrix.

5 Chapter 2 Summary of Past KAP Surveys under CASP

This chapter summarizes the key findings of the past KAP surveys under CASP. The intention is to make the audience familiar with the past findings under different conditions.

2.1 Summary of baseline KAP survey in Dhading and Siraha

Before implementing the programmes, it was essential to measure the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of parents vis-à-vis education and their cultural and economic determinants in order to help define precisely the locally-relevant programme strategies from the standpoint of community mobilization, establishment of baseline data on KAP indicators and incorporation of survey results into the community mobilization activities of CASP. Accordingly a baseline KAP survey was done in four VDCs of each of Dhading and Siraha districts where the CASP was planned for piloting.

In the survey, a total of 333 parents/respondents from 17 settlements of the two districts were covered. Information was collected through the use of semi-structured questionnaires. The key findings of the study were as follows.

Educational participation of children In the survey districts, nearly 50 per cent of these children had, in fact, never joined schools and nearly 500 out of 651 school-age children were not currently enrolled in school. This means, the majority of survey respondents were not accustomed to sending their children to schools.

The dropout rate from schools was reasonably high. The reasons for dropout among girls were lack of school nearby and the need of children to work at home for living. The reasons for dropout among boys were lack of school nearby and lack of desire to study. The reasons for dropout as found in Dhading were lack of school nearby and the need of children to work at home for living. The reasons for dropout as found in Siraha were lack of desire among children to study and poor economic conditions of respondents. In Dhading the reasons were lack of school nearby and the need of children to work at home for living. In the case of Siraha, the need of children to work at home for living, lack of desire among children to study, non-availability of educational materials and lack of school nearby were found as the major reasons for their non-enrolment in schools.

6 Knowledge of parents The parents were asked about their knowledge of six child rights statements. Knowledge of key child rights issues was found largely influenced by the social, literacy and economic status of the parents. Generally, the lower the status the lower was the level of awareness of these issues. Majority of the parents were aware that child education was the responsibility of parents, but their level of awareness on the issue that it was illegal to send children labor force was very low. In Dhading, schoolteachers and mass media were the key sources of knowledge and information. In Siraha, the elite of community and mass media were the key sources of knowledge and information.

Attitudes of parents Attitudes to key rights issues were found largely influenced by positive level of awareness of such issues. But social, economic and literacy status were found as co- factors influencing their attitudes. The better these factors the better were the positive attitudes. Since the socio-economic conditions and levels of awareness of key child rights issues of the parents of Siraha were less favorable and positive, their attitudes were also found less positive than those of Dhading.

Parents of both districts expressed the need of ASP and willingness to participate in the programme very highly. Those who expressed more needs of ASP were those who had positive attitudes towards the child rights issues. In Dhading availability of classes at convenient locations was the major factors. In the case of Siraha, provision of free education at convenient locations was the major factor influencing willingness to participate in the programmes. Great majority of the parents expressed willingness to send their children to formal school after the completion of programme. As far the willingness of the parents to participate in different activities of SOP and FSP were concerned, those of Dhading expressed willingness to make contributions in labor while most of those from Siraha expressed willingness to give time in meeting. Majority of the parents also opined that out-of-school children should be sent to school through provision of ASP and other educational incentives.

The parents of both Dhading and Siraha considered the responsibility of educating child largely of those of parents, schools and teachers. But those of Dhading also considered the government as one of the major providers of education. Majority of the parents of both districts valued education in terms of its ability to brighten the future of their children in one or the other ways.

7 Practices of parents Majority of the parents also reported to have encouraged their children to study. But those of Siraha encouraged more than those of Dhading. Positive associations were found between the literacy, economic status of parents, their level of awareness of key child rights issues and the level of encouragement. Advising the children on the value of education was the most commonly adopted type of encouragement. Coaxing was also one of the forms of encouraging children to study as found more commonly in Dhading. Parents who were found aware of and who agreed with the child rights issues were found more discussing with their children about their education. Value of education constituted the central theme of discussion in both districts. Those who did not discuss with children reported lack of their own education, as in the case of Siraha, and lack of time as the major reasons for not discussing with children. A large percentage of parents were also found discussing with their families and neighbors about the education of their children. Those who agreed with the key child rights issues discussed more with their families and neighbours than those who disagreed with them.

As a conclusion, The three components--knowledge, attitude and practice--of child education were found positively correlated and all these components were shaped by three major factors, namely the literacy status, social status and economic status of parents. The study found that, among the structural factors, the enabling structural factors were higher social, economic and literacy status, whereas the constraining structural factors were lower social, economic and literacy status. Lack of desire to study, distant location of school, need to work at home for living and misbehaviour of classmates were the modifying factors influencing the education of children. Knowledge, attitude and practices were the results of these structural and modifying factors. Surprisingly, majority of the parents were not used to sending their children to school despite their relatively high level of awareness, positive attitude, practices and concerns. In other words, such positive attributes were unable to produce optimum behavioural changes when it came to sending their children to school.

2.2 Summary of Baseline KAP survey in Kathmandu

Schooling of children Of the total 295 children belonging to the 6-14 years age group, as recorded in the household roster, a large number (45 per cent) did not have their birth registered. Similarly, about 73 per cent of them did not go to school. Out of those who did not go to school, 33 per cent had dropped out of school, whereas the rest, i.e. 67 per cent, had

8 never attended school. No significant differences existed in the enrolment rate of children by background characteristics. But the dropout rates were found high among the children of illiterate parents, wage labourers, those experiencing difficulty in supporting their families and not having membership of community groups.

The major reason for dropping out of school was poverty. This was followed by the unwillingness of children to go to school and relatively long distance to school. Similarly, the major reason for not ever attending school was poverty. This was followed by reasons such as long distance to school, unavailability of school uniforms, inappropriate age of child (under- or over-age) and lack of interest in the child to go to school.

Knowledge of parents An overwhelming majority of the respondents were aware of one or the other alternative schooling programmes (ASPs), like SOP and FSP, and also of the basic child rights issues. The major sources of knowledge of such child rights issues were the mass media, largely the radio, newspapers and television.

Attitude of parents Those who had knowledge of the child rights issues had positive views on them. Most of the respondents believed that the responsibility of child education was primarily that of parents or guardians and then of the government.

Practice of parents A large majority of the respondents (84 per cent) across both SOP and FSP communities encouraged their children to study. Similarly, about two-thirds of them discussed the subject of their education with their children. However, the practice of holding such discussions was more prevalent among the respondents of FSP (74 per cent) than those of SOP (60 per cent). The discussions were more common in the families of those parents who were in business, were more literate, could support the family rather easily and were members of community groups. The discussions were mostly centred on the need to study hard (81 per cent), followed by different values of education (65 per cent). Some of those who did not hold such discussions were those who were illiterate or were very busy in making a living.

To sum up, structural factors such as social status, literacy, ability or inability to support family and membership of community groups largely influenced the parents’ awareness,

9 perceptions and practices of important child rights issues. In other words, the study found the parent's knowledge, perceptions and practices positive when these structural factors were favourable, and vice versa.

2.3 Summary of Endline KAP survey in Dhading and Siraha

Knowledge of parents

The respondents' knowledge of six child rights as considered by the programme was lower in Dhading than in Siraha at the time of baseline survey. Over time, the knowledge of those rights jumped in both districts. However, Siraha still lagged behind Dhading in the knowledge of the prohibition of child marriage (Dhading 77.8 per cent versus Siraha 71.2 per cent) and prohibition of child in labour force (Dhading 76.6 per cent versus Siraha 68.4 per cent at the time of endline survey).

Mass media, schoolteacher, neighbours and inner self constituted major sources of knowledge of the child rights at the time of baseline survey in Dhading. Even at the time of endline survey, mass media continued to be the dominant source of information followed by neighbours and inner self there. In Siraha, elite of community and mass media had major role in the past in this regard. However, elite of community was found as being gradually replaced by mass media and inner self over time. Regarding knowledge of SOP/FSP activities facilitators followed by own child and members of CMC constituted major sources in Dhading and facilitators constituted major source in Siraha at the time of endline survey.

Attitude of parents

Drastic improvements were realized in both districts in the respondents' agreement with the six child rights over time. However, the rate of improvements were much higher in Dhading than in Siraha with respect to agreement on the right of every child to go to school (Dhading from 82.7 per cent to 97.7 per cent and Siraha from 85.8 per cent to 96.6 per cent), the right of girls to go to school as much as boys (Dhading from 82.1 per cent to 98.7 per cent and Siraha from 79.1 per cent to 94.4 per cent), the prohibition of child marriage (Dhading from 68.9 per cent to 93.7 per cent and Siraha from 68.7 per cent to 78 per cent), the right of handicapped children to go to school (Dhading from 74.5 per cent to 97.7 per cent and Siraha from 79.9 per cent to 92.7 per cent) and child care as the responsibility of parents (Dhading from 92.9 per cent to 98.7 per cent and Siraha from 96.3 per cent to 98.8 per cent).

With respect to the responsible person or institution to educate children, the percentage of respondents expressing the responsibility of those of parents had increased in Dhading (from 89.3 per cent to 91.8 per cent) but decreased in Siraha (from 98.5 per cent to 90.4 per cent). On the contrary, the percentage of respondents expressing the responsibility of government and of the community had decreased in Dhading but increased in Siraha.

10 With respect to willingness to send children to SOP/FSP classes in the future, there had been an increase in the percentage of respondents of Dhading (from 84.2 per cent to 99.4 per cent), but a decrease of those of Siraha (from 97 per cent to 84.7 per cent). With respect to the percentage of respondents very much willing to send their children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP classes, there had been an increase in both districts. However, the rate of increase was slightly higher in Siraha than in Dhading (Dhading from 82.6 per cent to 91 per cent and Siraha from 66.1 per cent to 98.9 per cent). With respect to the percentage of respondents reporting the existence of out-of school children in the community, there had been a drastic decrease in Dhading (Dhading from 98.5 per cent to 29.7 per cent), but the rate of decrease was very low in Siraha (Siraha from 97 per cent to 82.5 per cent).

Practice of parents

The participation of respondents in the SOP/FSP activities with respect to making contribution in cash (Dhading from 36.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent and Siraha from 42.6 per cent to 3.1 per cent), labour (Dhading from 97.5 per cent to 2.2 per cent and Siraha from 68.1 per cent to 1 per cent) and educational materials (Dhading from 1.3 per cent to 0.7 per cent and Siraha from 14.9 per cent to 0.0 per cent) had drastically reduced in both districts from the time of baseline survey. But the percentage of respondents not participating in these activities because of poverty had increased in Dhading and decreased in Siraha (Dhading from 7.7 per cent to 15.8 per cent and Siraha from 48.3 per cent to 39.7 per cent). The reason for not participating in the activities because of inability to give time had increased in both districts (Dhading from 10.3 per cent to 63.2 per cent and Siraha from 5.7 per cent to 79 per cent).

The percentage of respondents encouraging their children to go to school/become educated had grown faster in Dhading than in Siraha (Dhading from 73.5 per cent to 100 per cent and Siraha from 88.1 per cent to 97.2 per cent). Similarly there had been an increase in both districts in the percentage of respondents discussing with their children (Dhading from 59 per cent to 96.8 per cent and Siraha from 54.6 per cent to 89.8 per cent), family members (Dhading from 71.4 per cent to 82.2 per cent and Siraha from 73.1 per cent to 78.5 per cent) and neighbours (Dhading from 28.6 per cent to 80.4 per cent to and Siraha from 26.9 per cent to 76.3 per cent) about child education.

Community mobilization activities under CASP

The study found community mobilisation activities, namely provision of incentives for best students, organization of interactive programme between community people and children, provision of support on physical infrastructure by the community, formation of child club, organization of sensitisation meetings on child rights and interactive programmes among the stakeholders, as contributing most to bring positive changes in the KAP of parent as indicated by their high odds ratios. It was particularly believed that while provision of incentives for best students served the needs of the marginalised groups of parents to get incentives and duly honored their children, formation of child

11 club made the school environment more child-friendly, thus, minimizing drop out rate among children who did not like to go to school. It was further believed that while provision of support on physical infrastructure paved way to exchanges of ideas among community people, it also increased the sense of ownership of the programme among them. Additionally it was believed that interaction programmes among community people, children, community people and stakeholders largely enforced the value of education in the community.

The study also found high correlation between the knowledge of child rights issues, attitudes towards those issues and the accompanying changes in their behaviour.

12 Chapter 3 Characteristics of Study Communities and Households Surveyed

This chapter describes the characteristics of study communities and households. This description is made with a view to familiarize the readers with the socio-economic conditions and the interrelationships that existed among them. It is important to note that all data tables in this and the subsequent chapters are in percentage to allow the comparison of data or facts in relative term and that they are examined against a number of relevant background variables to help identify the associations between the factors and a particular response or outcome.

3.1 Social characteristics

3.1.1 Caste and ethnicity

This survey shows that great majority of the respondents/parents1 surveyed were from the intermediate class. Next to it were the parents from the high caste group. As is evident, therefore, the percentage of Dalit and Muslims parents was very low (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Caste/ethnicity distribution of respondents Group Associated caste N % High Brahmin, Chhetri 28 22.0 Intermediate Newar, Tamang, Magar, Gurung, Rai, 90 70.9 Kumar, Chaudhari, Majhi, Limbu, Sherpa, Danuwar) Low Damai, Kami, Chamar 8 6.3 Muslim Muslim 1 0.8 End line Total 127 100.0

However, it has been found that the parents sending children to SOP classes were relatively high from the intermediate caste group. Next to it were parents from the high caste group (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 Percentage distribution of respondents by caste and ethnicity Caste/ethnicity SOP FSP Total N N % N % End line total 66 52.0 61 48.0 127 High 11 16.7 17 27.9 28 Intermediate 55 83.3 35 57.4 90 Low 8 13.1 8 Muslim 1 1.6 1

1 The terms parents and respondents are used interchangeably throughout this report.

3.1.2 Literacy

As has been found, great majority of the parents sending their children to SOP and FSP classes were illiterate. This applied particularly to those parents who sent their children to SOP/FSP classes (Table 3.3)

Table 3.3 Literacy of respondents (in percentage) Literacy SOP FSP Total N N % N % End line total 66 52.0 61 48.0 127 Literacy Illiterate 23 34.8 26 42.6 49 Can read only 12 18.2 5 8.2 17 Can read and write somehow 21 31.8 25 41.0 46 Can read and write well 10 15.2 5 8.2 15

This study further found that the lower the ones social status the higher the illiteracy. Conversely, the higher the ones social status, the higher the literacy (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 Interrelationship between literacy and social status of respondents (in percentage) Social status Literacy group Illiterate Can Can read Can read and Total read and write write well/ do N only somehow calculations End line total 38.6 13.4 36.2 11.8 127 Higher 35.7 14.3 21.4 28.6 28 Intermediate 37.8 14.4 40.0 7.8 90 Lower/Dalit 62.5 37.5 8 Muslim 100.0 1

3.1.3 Residential status

As has been found, almost all parents sending their children in SOP classes were permanent residents of respective communities. In contrast, majority of those sending their children to FSP classes were temporary residents (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Residential status of respondents (in percentage Background characteristics Total SOP FSP N N % N % End line total 66 52.0 61 48.0 127 Residential status Permanent 66 100.0 23 37.7 89 Temporary 38 62.3 38

14 As far the duration of the residence of those living temporarily is concerned, majority of the parents sending their children to FSP classes were found living in respective communities for 5-8 years (Table 3.6). . Table 3.6 Duration of residence among temporary residents Duration of residence N % 1-4 year 7 20.0 5-8 year 22 62.9 9+ Year 5 17.1 End line average (in year) 6.45

3.1.4 Time distance to reach mother school and SOP/ FSP classes

The time distance to reach mother school was found highest in Chhaimale. It was found lowest in Sangla (Table 3.7)

Table 3.7 Time distance to reach mother school (in minutes) SOP FSP Distance Distance End line average 30.67 End line average 13.89 Chhaimale 62.81 Jorpati 18.06 Sangla 8.77 Gongabu 10.42 Talku Dudechowr 15.79 Santinagar 10.00 Sundarijal 33.61 Boudha 15.63 Koteshor 14.55

The time distance to reach SOP/FSP classes was found highest in Chhaimale. It was found lowest in Talku Dudechaur. (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8 Time distance to reach SOP/FSP classes (in minutes) SOP FSP Distance Distance Endline average 17.42 Endline average 10.05 Chhaimale 44.4 Jorpati 8.3 Sangla 9.8 Gongabu 10.4 Talku Dudechowr 6.5 Santinagar 5.4 Sundarijal 10.6 Boudha 14.6 Koteshor 14.5

3.2 Economic characteristics

3.2.1 Sources of livelihood Wage labour was found the dominant source of livelihood for a great majority of the parents. This held particularly true among the parents of children attending the FSP classes. Business/industry was found as the next important sources of livelihood (Table 3.9)

Table 3.9 Sources of livelihood (in percentage) Sources of livelihood SOP FSP Total N % N % N % End line total 66 52.0 61 48.0 127 100.0 Agriculture (food grains) 7 10.6 7 5.5 Agriculture (vegetable farming, fruit farming, livestock raising) 3 4.5 3 2.4 Service 7 10.6 3 4.9 10 7.9 Business/industry 5 7.6 14 23.0 19 15.0 Wage labor 39 59.1 42 68.9 81 63.8 Pension 1 1.5 1 0.8 Traditional occupation 1 1.5 1 0.8 Remittance 3 4.5 3 2.4 Others 2 3.2 2 1.6

3.2.2 Ability to support family by background characteristics In aggregate, majority of the parents were found supporting their family with some difficulty. On the contrary, the percentage of those who supported their families easily was relatively low. Particularly, the parents who sent their children to FSP classes were found to have supported their families with greater difficulties (Table 3.10).

Table 3.10 Ability of the parents to support family by background characteristics (in percentage) Ability Background characteristics With some With With very Easily N % difficulty difficulty difficulty End line total 18.1 32.3 28.3 21.3 127 100.0 Programme SOP 31.8 39.4 22.7 6.1 66 52.0 FSP 3.3 24.6 34.4 37.7 61 48.0 Social status Higher status 7.1 25.0 42.9 25.0 28 22.0 Intermediate 23.3 35.6 24.4 16.7 90 70.9 Lower status/Dalits 12.5 25.0 62.5 8 6.3 Muslim 100.0 1 0.8 Literacy Illiterate 8.2 26.5 26.5 38.8 49 49.0 Can read only 23.5 29.4 35.3 11.8 17 17.0 Can read and write somehow 17.4 37.0 32.6 13.0 46 46.0 Can read and write well 46.7 40.0 13.3 15 15.0 Major sources of family income Agriculture (food grains) 14.3 57.1 28.6 7 5.5 Agriculture (vegetable farming, fruit farming, livestock raising) 66.7 33.3 3 2.4 Service 50.0 40.0 10.0 10 7.9 Business/industry 26.3 36.8 26.3 10.5 19 15.0

16 Wage labor 11.1 32.1 30.9 25.9 81 63.8 Pension 100.0 1 0.8 Traditional occupation 100.0 1 0.8 Remittance 66.7 33.3 3 2.4 Others 100.0 2 1.6

3.3 Priorities to community development

In aggregate, education, literacy and awareness were the most prioritized activity. But when data were further disaggregated, road construction and maintenance was found as the most prioritized activity among parents sending their children to SOP, and education, literacy and awareness was found as the most prioritized activity among parents sending their children to FSP (Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 Priorities of respondents in community development (in percentage) Priorities SOP FSP Total N % N % N % End line total 66 52.0 61 48.0 127 100.0 Agriculture, livestock and vegetable farming 10 15.2 11 18.0 21 16.5 Road construction/ maintenance 25 37.9 1 1.6 26 20.5 Irrigation and river control 1 1.5 1 0.8 Forest development and conservation 4 6.1 4 3.1 Electricity 1 1.5 1 0.8 Health and sanitation 2 3.0 5 8.2 7 5.5 Education, literacy and awareness 13 19.7 26 42.6 39 30.7 Physical structure/ community buildings Drinking water 4 6.1 1 1.6 5 3.9 Income generation activities 4 6.1 14 23.0 18 14.2 Saving and Credit 1 1.5 1 0.8 Control of Alcohol 2 3.3 2 1.6 Anti trafficking Others (specify) 1 1.5 1 1.6 2 1.6 Don’t know

17 Chapter 4 Schooling of Children

This chapter presents different scenario relating to the education of children. These include children's demography, birth registration, completion of alternative schooling programmes, and reasons for drop out from the SOP/FSP. In addition, this chapter examines the reasons for sending children to the alternative schooling programmes and the sources of information about sending children to such programmes.

4.1 Average number of children

The average number of children among households with children going to FSP was found relatively low. The same held true with respect to 6-17 year old children. Birth registration was found particularly low among parents that supported their families with great difficulty (Table 4.1). Table 4.1 Average number of children per household by programme type Indicator SOP FSP Total Children 1. Average number of children (0-17 years) 2.8 2.3 321 2. Average number of children (6-17 years)2 2.3 2.1 274

4.2 Birth registration

Majority of the children had their birth registered. This applied particularly among the children who attended SOP (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Birth registration (in percentage) Yes No Don’t know Total N N N Background characteristics % % % % End line average 153 55.8 92 33.6 29 10.6 274 Programme SOP 127 85.2 19 12.8 3 2.0 149 FSP 26 20.8 73 58.4 26 20.8 125 Sex of child Female 77 57.0 45 33.3 13 9.6 135 Male 76 54.7 47 33.8 16 11.5 139 Social status of respondents Higher status 41 63.1 19 29.2 5 7.7 65 Intermediate status 104 54.5 67 35.1 20 10.5 191 Lower status/Dalits 8 50.0 4 25.0 4 25.0 16 Muslim 2 100.0 2 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 51 43.2 49 41.5 18 15.3 118 Can read only 25 67.6 12 32.4 37 Can read and write somehow 55 60.4 27 29.7 9 9.9 91 Can read and write well 22 78.6 4 14.3 2 7.1 28

2 274 was the total number of children who were ever enrolled in the SOP/FSP programme from among the households that were interviewed at the time of this end line survey.

Ability of respondents to support family Easily 42 89.4 4 8.5 1 2.1 47 With some difficulty 54 62.1 22 25.3 11 12.6 87 With difficulty 39 49.4 26 32.9 14 17.7 79 With very difficulty 18 29.5 40 65.6 3 4.9 61

4.3 Children attending SOP/FSP

In the surveyed households, the percentage of children attending FSP was relatively high. It was also relatively high among the Dalit households (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Children attending SOP/FSP by selected background characteristics (in percentage) Yes No Total Background characteristics N % N % N Endline total 171 62.4 103 37.6 274 Programme3 SOP 88 59.1 61 40.9 149 FSP 83 66.4 42 33.6 125 Sex of child Female 87 64.4 48 35.6 135 Male 84 60.4 55 39.6 139 Social status of respondents Higher status 39 60.0 26 40.0 65 Intermediate status 119 62.3 72 37.7 191 Lower status/Dalits 12 75.0 4 25.0 16 Muslim 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 76 64.4 42 35.6 118 Can read only 21 56.8 16 43.2 37 Can read and write somehow 55 60.4 36 39.6 91 Can read and write well 19 67.9 9 32.1 28 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 30 63.8 17 36.2 47 With some difficulty 54 62.1 33 37.9 87 With difficulty 48 60.8 31 39.2 79 With very difficulty 39 63.9 22 36.1 61

4.4 Children completing SOP/FSP

Class completion rate was slightly high among children attending SOP. It was also relatively high in families of children that supported their family relatively easily (Table 4.4).

3 Literature shows that a large number of parents who sent their children to FSP had migrated away from respective communities. Identical dropout rates between the two groups of children could be due to the presence of such parents in the community at the time of interview.

19 Table 4 .4 Children completing SOP/FSP (in percentage) Background characteristics Yes No (dropout) Total N N % N % End line total 135 78.9 36 21.1 171 Programme SOP 70 79.5 18 20.5 88 FSP 65 78.3 18 21.7 83 Sex of child Female 68 78.2 19 21.8 87 Male 67 79.8 17 20.2 84 Social status of respondents Higher status 22 56.4 17 43.6 39 Intermediate status 105 88.2 14 11.8 119 Lower status/Dalits 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 57 75.0 19 25.0 76 Can read only 19 90.5 2 9.5 21 Can read and write somehow 47 85.5 8 14.5 55 Can read and write well 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 28 93.3 2 6.7 30 With some difficulty 45 83.3 9 16.7 54 With difficulty 34 70.8 14 29.2 48 With very difficulty 28 71.8 11 28.2 39 The dominant reason for not completing SOP/FSP classes was found as the irregularity of classes. This was followed by dislike of children to go to school, the need to work for living and bad facilitators (Table 4.5). Table 4.5 Reasons for not completing SOP/FSP (dropout) in percentage Distance to mother school Sex of child Age of child (minutes) Programme F M 5-8 9-14 0-30 30+ SOP FSP Total Reasons Respondents surveyed (N) 19 17 10 26 34 2 18 18 36 Child did not like to go to alternative school 15.8 11.8 10.0 15.4 14.7 5.6 22.2 5 Child needed to work at home for living 15.8 11.8 19.2 14.7 5.6 22.2 5 Child was little too young/old to attend school 17.6 11.5 5.9 50.0 5.6 11.1 3 The alternative school was irregular 15.8 17.6 30.0 11.5 17.6 33.3 6 Child did not understand what teacher taught 5.9 3.8 2.9 5.6 1 Tiffin was not provided free 5.9 3.8 2.9 5.6 1 We could not prepare meal/feed child in time 5.3 5.9 10.0 3.8 5.9 5.6 5.6 2 Facilitator not good 15.8 11.8 20.0 11.5 14.7 22.2 5.6 5 Lack of place to teach 15.8 10.0 7.7 8.8 5.6 11.1 3 Didn’t know that it was necessary to complete class 11.8 7.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 2 Child went another school 5.3 11.8 10.0 7.7 5.9 50.0 11.1 5.6 3 Marriage of facilitators 10.5 10.0 3.8 5.9 11.1 2 Others 5.3 5.9 10.0 3.8 5.9 11.1 2

20 4.5 Reasons for sending children to ASP Organization of class in convenient location was found as the major reason for sending of the children to SOP classes. This was followed by provision of free education among them. It is particularly noteworthy that provision of free education was the major reason among parents who sent their children to FSP classes. This was followed by the information that they would be provided with incentives (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Reasons for sending children to alternative school (in percentage) Class was held Class was Education Information that Children It was easy to As advised Poverty Others in convenient held in was free incentives will were taught understand by location convenient be provided by local what teachers communit Background time facilitators taught y N characteristics

End line total 42.7 16.6 63.0 28.3 22.8 16.5 0.8 14.2 7.9 127 Programme SOP 80.3 19.7 53.0 28.8 42.4 31.8 6.1 1.5 66 FSP 11.5 13.1 73.8 27.9 1.6 9.8 29.5 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 14.3 10.7 75.0 42.9 3.6 3.6 7.1 3.6 17.9 28 Intermediate status 61.1 20.0 56.7 25.6 31.1 22.2 8.9 11.1 90 Lower status/Dalits 100.0 12.5 37.5 8 Muslim 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 44.9 24.5 65.3 34.7 16.3 10.2 6.1 18.4 49 Can read only 52.9 5.9 64.7 35.3 41.2 23.5 11.8 17 Can read and write somehow 45.7 13.0 65.2 19.6 17.4 13.0 10.9 2.2 13.0 46 Can read and write well 53.3 13.3 46.7 26.7 40.0 40.0 13.3 6.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 82.6 8.7 43.5 43.5 60.9 34.8 4.3 23 With some difficulty 68.3 29.3 61.0 17.1 26.8 22.0 9.8 2.4 41 With difficulty 27.8 16.7 66.7 30.6 5.6 5.6 2.8 2.8 8.3 36 With very difficulty 11.1 3.7 77.8 29.6 7.4 7.4 14.8 51.9 27 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

4.6 Provision of information about SOP/FSP

The percentage of parents reporting that they were provided with information about SOP/FSP at the beginning of the programme was high among those who had sent their children to SOP. As the data further show, a high percentage of parents from all socio- economic groups received such information (Table 4.7).

21 Table 4.7 Provision of information to respondents to send children to SOP/FSP at first time (in percentage) Yes No Background characteristics N % N % N Endline total 111 87.4 16 12.6 127 SOP 64 97.0 2 3.0 66 FSP 47 77.0 14 23.0 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 23 82.1 5 17.9 28 Intermediate status 81 90.0 9 10.0 90 Lower status/Dalits 6 75.0 2 25.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 44 89.8 5 10.2 49 Can read only 17 100.0 17 Can read and write somehow 39 84.8 7 15.2 46 Can read and write well 11 73.3 4 26.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 91.3 2 8.7 23 With some difficulty 34 82.9 7 17.1 41 With difficulty 32 88.9 4 11.1 36 With very difficulty 24 88.9 3 11.1 27

EVs followed by members of CMC were the most important sources of such information. However, as has been found, members of CMC were relatively less important when it came to the provision of information to parents sending their children to FSP classes (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Persons informing respondents to send children to SOP/FSP at first time (in percentage) Persons informing to send children to SOP/FSP at first time Members EVs Facilita School People RPs Other Neigh Others Background characteristics of CMC tors teachers from elite bours N NGOs of comm unity End line total 39.8 52.2 26.5 20.4 34.5 15.9 12.4 21.2 1.8 113 Programme SOP 60.0 61.5 41.5 10.8 41.5 27.7 18.5 21.5 3.1 65 FSP 12.5 39.6 6.3 33.3 25.0 4.2 20.8 48 Social status of respondents Higher status 12.5 54.2 8.3 25.0 29.2 8.3 12.5 24 Intermediate status 50.0 51.2 34.1 18.3 36.6 22.0 14.6 25.6 2.4 82 Lower status/Dalits 66.7 33.3 16.7 6 Muslim 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 40.0 44.4 17.8 24.4 42.2 6.7 13.3 26.7 2.2 45 Can read only 47.1 58.8 29.4 11.8 29.4 29.4 23.5 17 Can read and write somehow 35.9 53.8 30.8 17.9 30.8 12.8 17.9 20.5 39 Can read and write well 41.7 66.7 41.7 25.0 25.0 41.7 8.3 8.3 12

Ability of respondents to support family Easily 59.1 68.2 40.9 22.7 31.8 31.8 27.3 13.6 4.5 22 With some difficulty 61.8 50.0 38.2 14.7 50.0 26.5 14.7 35.3 34 With difficulty 21.2 33.3 15.2 30.3 21.2 3.0 9.1 18.2 3.0 33 With very difficulty 16.7 66.7 12.5 12.5 33.3 4.2 12.5 24 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

Chapter 5 Selected Characteristics of Partner NGOs

This chapter briefly describes the selected characteristics of NGOs. This description is intended to familarise the audience with the situation under which the social mobilisation activities were implemented, the activities the NGOs implemented, the thematic areas or fields in which other NGOs worked and, finally, their perceptions of their role in the future.

5.1 Clarity in the Terms of Reference

Except for the partner NGOs working in Chhaimale and Jorpati, all other partner NGOs reported that the Terms of Reference regarding the implementation of social mobilisation activities was not very clear. They were particularly unclear about the need to implement a broad range of activities in a fully professional manner with a small amount of money.

5.2 Duration of involvement of partner NGOs

The partner NGOs working in Chhaimale, Talku Dudechaur, Tinchule, Koteshor and Santinagar worked for three years and completed their term fully. On the other hand, those working in Sangla, Gongabu, Jorpati and Sundarijal did not complete their full term. Therefore, their involvement in the implementation of social mobilisation activities was only partial (Table 5.1).

5.3 Activities implemented by partner NGOs

Partner NGOS working in Chhaimale, Talku Dudechaur, Sundarijal and Koteshor implemented all social mobilization activities. In other words they implemented the comprehensive set of activities. The rest of the NGOs implemented only the partial set of activities in respective communities. The activities that were not implemented by some of the partner NGOs included formation of child club, provision of community support on physical infrastructure and contribution in cash, kind and labour (Table 5.1).

5.4 Other NGOs working in the programme community

Through the interviews of partner NGOs, it was further revealed that some other NGOs also worked in the programme communities. Examples include the involvement of other NGOs working in the area of orphaned children in Jorpati, education/school in Chhaimale, child health/feeding programme in Santinagar, women’s upliftment programme in Tinchule, literacy programme in Koteshor and income generation programme in Talku Dudechaur (Table 5.1).

5.5 Willing to run SOP/FSP in the future with own resources Except for the partner NGO working in Chhaimale which reported to have already contacted the DEO for more facilitators and organised fund-raising campaign to run

24 SOP/FSP in the future, all other partner NGOs reported that they were willing to run SOP/FSP in the future, but subject to the condition that there was external support.

5.6 Efforts made to institutionalise4 SOP/FSP

Except for the NGO working in Chhaimale, Talkududechaur and Sundarijal5, all other partner NGOs reported that they had not made any attempts to institutionalise the SOP/FSP.

5.6.1 Support from VDC/municipality6 Except for the partner NGO working in Chhaimale which has already received support from DDC and partner NGO of Talkududecahur which has received support from VDC to pay a teacher, all other partner NGOs reported that they had not received any support from the VDCs and municipalities.

5.6.2 Coordination with others to institutionalize SOP/FSP Except for NGO working in of Chhaimale7, Talkudedechaur and Sundarijal, all other NGOs reported that they had not coordinated with other institutions or persons with respect to the institutionalisation of SOP/FSP.

5.7 Perceptions of their role in the future

The NGOs provided the following perspectives regarding their role in the context of implementing the SOP/FSP in the future. • Work in consultation with community • Get along with community • Be service oriented rather than money oriented • Monitor programme effectively • Get opportunity for capacity building • Increase financial capacity of parents • Implement demand driven programme and reach the needy • Be transparent • Work only as facilitator • Serve as a bridge between the project and people • Select local NGO to implement programme

4 Institutionalisation refers to the sustainability of SOP/FSP through local initiatives. 5 Proposal of the Sundarijal community for institutionalisation was turned down by DEO as the community did not have its own building to run the classes. 6 Request of NGO working in Tinchule was turned down by the municipality. 7 PIRE working in Chhaimale rates well on many indicators as described in this Chapter. Based on the interview with its Focal Person, it has been further revealed that there has been the development of leadership there at the local level and this combined with clarity in Terms of Reference, completion of full term in the implementation of social mobilisation activities and ability to implement the whole set of such activities is adjudged to have paved way to the sustainability of SOP/FSP in Chhaimale.

25 Table 5.1 Summary of findings from NGO survey VDC/ ASP Name of Duration of Activities not Other NGO Activities of other Municipality partner NGO conducted by NGOs8 that worked in NGOs NGO involvement the area Chhaimale SOP PIRE 3 • SER • Health • CARE • Education • Plan • Agriculture • Watch • Group formation • Income generation • Toilet construction • Drinking water • School

Sangla SOP GAN 1 Ac 4, Ac 11, Ac 12 NA Talku SOP MSK 3 NA • Agriculture Dudechowr • Cooperative

Sundarijal SOP WSEC 2.5 NA NA Jorpati FSP FORSE 2 Ac 12, Ac 13 • Lions Club • Support orphaned Nepal Help 1 • Buddhist children Orphan • Provide Center scholarship to poor

Gongabu FSP Darsan 1 Ac 12, Ac 13 NA NA VIN 2 Santinagar FSP RCCWD 3 Ac 11, Ac 12, Ac 13 NA • Provide supplemental food to children

Tinchule FSP JP 3 • Women’s • Women’s Foundation Forum empowerment • Savings and credit

Koteshor FSP SID 3 • Kathmandu • Literacy Municipal programme Committee

8 The activities implemented by the partner NGOs include: Ac1: Organisation of orientation meetings, Ac2: Organisation of CMC Ac3: Identification of EVs Ac4: Formation of child club Ac5: Incentives for best students Ac6: Organisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights Ac7: Organisation of parents visiting day Ac8: Provision of encouragement to send children to school through door- to-door visits Ac9: Interactive programme among stakeholders Ac10: Interactive programme between community people and children Ac11: Provision of support by community people on physical infrastructure Ac12: Contribution in cash and kind Ac13: Contribution in labour

Chapter 6 Knowledge of Respondents on Child Education Issues

This chapter first describes the awareness of respondents about the implementation of the SOP and FSP activities at the community levels. It then describes their awareness of selected child rights statements and the sources of knowledge of such statements.

6.1 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities

Among all the activities, knowledge of provision of incentives was found highest and this held particularly true among parents sending their children to FSP. Knowledge of this activity was particularly high among intermediate and literate groups of people. This was followed by provision of door- to -door visit to send children to school. Knowledge of making contribution in cash, kind and labour was very low and this held particularly true among parents sending their children to FSP classes (Table 6.1).

6.2 Knowledge of child rights issues

The respondents were then asked if they had heard the six key child-rights related statements. The statements were: 1. It is the right of every child to go to school; 2. It is the right of every girl child to go to school as much as boys; 3. Nepalese law prohibits child marriage; 4. It is illegal to send children to labour force; 5. Handicapped children have the same right as normal children to go to school; and 6. Childcare is the responsibility of parents.

In this context, a relatively high percentage of parents sending their children to FSP classes were found to have their knowledge. However, the knowledge was not found to have varied much by other background characteristics of parents. However, the knowledge was found relatively good in areas where the partner NGOs completed the full term, launched comprehensive activities and the other NGOs worked (Table 6.2).

This study has further found that the percentage of parents having knowledge of the key child rights has gone up as compared to the time of baseline survey. It is noteworthy that most of the knowledge-related indicators have either met the targets or even exceeded them (Table 6.3).

27 Table 6.1 Percentage of respondents having knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (in percentage) Organiz Organiz Identificatimation of Provisio Organizati Organizati Provision of Interacti Interactive Provis Campaign campaign Total N ation of ation of on of EVsild club n of on of on of encourageme ve program ion of to to orientati CMC incentiv sensitizati parents nt to send program with suppo encourage encourage on es for on visiting child to among communit rt by contributiocontributio meeting best meetings days school stakehol y people comm n in cash n in labour Background s students on child through ders and unity and kind characteristics rights door-to-door children on visits attending physic SOP/FSP al infrast ructur e

End line total 78.0 78.0 76.4 72.4 81.9 74.0 78.7 80.3 72.4 72.4 68.5 41.7 47.2 127 Programme SOP 80.3 77.3 69.7 69.7 81.8 68.2 75.8 80.3 68.2 68.2 75.8 68.2 80.3 66 FSP 75.4 78.7 83.6 75.4 82.0 80.3 82.0 80.3 77.0 77.0 60.7 13.1 11.5 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 53.6 50.0 67.9 46.4 60.7 67.9 50.0 60.7 60.7 67.9 35.7 7.1 10.7 28 Intermediate status 87.8 86.7 76.7 82.2 90.0 77.8 85.6 87.8 76.7 75.6 81.1 55.6 62.2 90 Lower status/Dalits 50.0 75.0 100.0 50.0 62.5 50.0 100.0 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 8 Muslim 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 81.6 75.5 75.5 67.3 85.7 69.4 81.6 79.6 59.2 67.3 63.3 30.6 38.8 49 Can read only 76.5 76.5 76.5 82.4 70.6 64.7 58.8 82.4 76.5 76.5 76.5 52.9 58.8 17 Can read and write somehow 76.1 80.4 78.3 71.7 82.6 80.4 84.8 80.4 87.0 76.1 69.6 45.7 50.0 46 Can read and write well 73.3 80.0 73.3 80.0 80.0 80.0 73.3 80.0 66.7 73.3 73.3 53.3 53.3 15 Ability of respondents to support family

28 Easily 95.7 91.3 73.9 87.0 100.0 91.3 91.3 95.7 91.3 87.0 95.7 78.3 95.7 23 With some difficulty 78.0 78.0 80.5 82.9 90.2 73.2 80.5 95.1 70.7 68.3 85.4 61.0 61.0 41 With difficulty 63.9 69.4 69.4 55.6 58.3 61.1 63.9 55.6 69.4 72.2 55.6 16.7 19.4 36 With very difficulty 81.5 77.8 81.5 66.7 85.2 77.8 85.2 77.8 63.0 66.7 37.0 14.8 22.2 27 ** Based on elaborative tables, the major sources of knowledge in this regard include facilitators, education volunteers, members of CMC and neighbors.

29 Table 6.2 Percentage of respondents with the knowledge of key rights issues (in percentage) It is the It is the Nepalese It is Handicapped Child care is Total right of right of law illegal to children have the N every child every girl prohibits send the same responsibility to go to child to child children right as of parents Background characteristics school go to marriage to normal school as labour children to much as force go to school boys End line total 95.3 95.3 92.1 92.9 95.3 93.7 127 Programme SOP 92.4 92.4 84.8 87.9 92.4 89.4 66 FSP 98.4 98.4 100.0 98.4 98.4 98.4 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 85.7 85.7 85.7 82.1 82.1 85.7 28 Intermediate status 97.8 97.8 93.3 96.7 100.0 96.7 90 Lower status/Dalits 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 8 Muslim 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 95.9 95.9 89.8 91.8 93.9 93.9 49 Can read only 94.1 94.1 82.4 88.2 100.0 94.1 17 Can read and write somehow 97.8 97.8 100.0 95.7 95.7 95.7 46 Can read and write well 86.7 86.7 86.7 93.3 93.3 86.7 15 NGO involvement Full term 98.5 98.5 95.5 98.5 100.0 98.5 67 Partial 91.7 91.7 88.3 86.7 90.0 88.3 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 98.4 98.4 93.8 96.9 100.0 96.9 64 Partial 92.1 92.1 90.5 88.9 90.5 90.5 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 98.8 98.8 96.4 98.8 100.0 98.8 84 No 88.4 88.4 83.7 81.4 86.0 83.7 43 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 100.0 100.0 95.7 95.7 100.0 95.7 23 With some difficulty 97.6 95.1 90.2 95.1 97.6 95.1 41 With difficulty 86.1 88.9 86.1 88.9 91.7 91.7 36 With very difficulty 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.6 92.6 92.6 27 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only)9 Organization of orientation meetings 98.0 99.0 93.9 96.0 98.0 96.0 99 Organization of CMC 97.0 99.0 93.9 97.0 98.0 97.0 99 Identification of EVs 99.0 96.9 94.8 93.8 95.9 94.8 97 Formation of child club 98.9 98.9 95.7 96.7 98.9 96.7 92 Incentives for best students 96.2 97.1 93.3 96.2 98.1 96.2 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 98.9 97.9 93.6 93.6 94.7 93.6 94 Organization of parents visiting day 97.0 99.0 95.0 97.0 99.0 97.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 98.0 98.0 94.1 96.1 98.0 95.1 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 98.9 97.8 95.7 95.7 96.7 94.6 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 97.8 95.7 93.5 93.5 95.7 95.7 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 98.9 98.9 96.6 96.6 98.9 96.6 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 98.1 98.1 94.3 98.1 100.0 96.2 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 98.3 98.3 95.0 95.0 98.3 95.0 60

9 Answers like "No" and "Don’t know" can be taken as the negative/mirror image of "Yes" answers and, therefore, are not examined separately in this and subsequent data tables.

30 Table 6.3 Comparison of baseline and end line data on knowledge of key child rights issues (in percentage) Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline Endline Target Baseline Endline Target

Percentage of respondents 75.5 92.4 94.8 91.4 98.4 97.8 who know about the right of every children to go to school Percentage of 83.6 92.4 97.1 92.8 98.4 97 respondents who know about equal right between girls and boys Percentage of respondents 72.8 84.8 91.3 90.9 100.0 95.6 who know about prohibition of child marriage Percentage of 78.6 87.9 91.3 82.4 98.4 88.6 respondents who know about prohibition of child labor force Percentage of respondents 78.9 92.4 92.5 92.9 98.4 96.4 who know about equal right between handicapped/disabled children and normal children Percentage of respondents 80.3 89.4 91.5 95.0 98.4 98.8 who know about parents’ responsibility for child care

6.2.1 Source of knowledge of child rights issues

The major source of knowledge about the child rights issues was found to be mass media. The other important sources included knowledge/awareness coming from inner self, EVs, facilitators and teachers (Table 6.4).

31 Table 6.4 Source of knowledge of child rights issues (in percentage) Issues and sources SOP FSP Average 1. It is right of every child to go to school N % N % Members of CMC 10 16.4 10 8.3 EVs 2 3.3 1 1.7 3 2.5 Facilitators 8 13.3 8 6.6 School teachers 4 6.6 2 3.3 6 5.0 People from NGOs Resource persons Other elite of community 4 6.6 2 3.3 6 5.0 Neighbours 1 1.7 1 0.8 Mass media 32 52.5 28 46.7 60 49.6 From inner self 7 11.5 15 25.0 22 18.2 Programme itself Own child 3 5.0 3 2.5 Other 2 3.3 2 1.7

2. It is right of every girl child to go to school as much as boys Members of CMC 5 8.2 5 4.1 EVs 3 4.9 3 2.5 Facilitators 4 6.6 9 15.0 13 10.7 School teachers 6 9.8 4 6.7 10 8.3 People from NGOs Resource persons Other elite of community 3 4.9 3 5.0 6 5.0 Neighbours 3 4.9 2 3.3 5 4.1 Mass media 25 41.0 22 36.7 47 38.8 From inner self 9 14.8 18 30.0 27 22.3 Programme itself Own child 2 3.3 2 3.3 4 3.3 Other 1 1.6 1 0.8

3. Nepalese law prohibits child marriage Members of CMC 1 1.8 1 0.9 EVs 3 5.4 3 2.6 Facilitators 1 1.6 1 0.9 School teachers 2 3.6 3 4.9 5 4.3 People from NGOs 1 1.8 1 1.6 2 1.7 Resource persons 4 7.1 4 3.4 Other elite of community 4 7.1 3 4.9 7 6.0 Neighbours 1 1.8 1 0.9 Mass media 34 60.7 48 78.7 82 70.1 From inner self 5 8.9 3 4.9 8 6.8 Programme itself Own child 2 3.3 2 1.7 Other 1 1.8 1 0.9

4. It is illegal to send children to labor force Members of CMC EVs 2 3.4 2 1.7 Facilitators 1 1.7 4 6.7 5 4.2 School teachers 1 1.7 5 8.3 6 5.1 People from NGOs Resource persons 5 8.6 5 4.2 Other elite of community 3 5.2 1 1.7 4 3.4 Neighbours 1 1.7 3 5.0 4 3.4 Mass media 25 43.1 36 60.0 61 51.7 From inner self 16 27.6 9 15.0 25 21.2 Programme itself 2 3.4 2 1.7 Own child 1 1.7 2 3.3 3 2.5 Other 1 1.7 1 0.8

5. Handicapped children have the same right as normal child to go to school Members of CMC 1 1.6 1 1.7 2 1.7 EVs 4 6.6 4 3.3 Facilitators 2 3.3 6 10.0 8 6.6 School teachers 1 1.6 8 13.3 9 7.4 People from NGOs 1 1.6 1 0.8 Resource persons 2 3.3 2 1.7 Other elite of community 4 6.6 2 3.3 6 5.0 Neighbours Mass media 25 41.0 25 41.7 50 41.3 From inner self 17 27.9 15 25.0 32 26.4 Programme itself 1 1.6 1 0.8 Own child 2 3.3 3 5.0 5 4.1 Other 1 1.6 1 0.8

6. Child care is the responsibility of parents Members of CMC 2 3.4 2 1.7 EVs 4 6.8 4 3.4 Facilitators 1 1.7 13 21.7 14 11.8 School teachers 1 1.7 1 0.8 People from NGOs Resource persons 1 1.7 1 1.7 2 1.7 Other elite of community Neighbours 1 1.7 1 1.7 2 1.7 Mass media 11 18.6 3 5.0 14 11.8 From inner self 34 57.6 36 60.0 70 58.8 Programme itself 1 1.7 1 1.7 2 1.7 Own child 3 5.1 4 6.7 7 5.9 Other 1 1.7 1 0.8

33 Chapter 7 Attitudes of Respondents on Child Education

This chapter presents the attitudes of respondents on selected indicators of child education. The attitudes are presented in terms of their perceptions of the child rights statements, participation in the SOP/FSP activities, responsibility to make children educated and willingness to send children to ASP and formal schools.

7.1 Agreement with the child rights issues

The major finding in this regard is that great majority of the parents agreed on the child rights issues. But agreement on the prohibition of child marriage and child labour was relatively low. It is further noteworthy that the variations are minor by the type of programmes to which the parents sent their children and by differences in their socio- economic characteristics. Still, the indicators are better where partner NGOs completed the term, introduced comprehensive activities and other NGOs worked (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Percentage of respondents agreeing very much with key rights issues (in percentage) It is the It is the Nepalese It is Handicapped Child care Total N right of right of law illegal to children have is the every child every girl prohibits send the same responsibil to go to child to child children right as ity of Background characteristics school go to marriage to normal parents school as labour children to much as force go to school boys End line total 96.1 94.5 83.5 74.0 92.9 96.1 127 Programme SOP 97.0 93.9 78.8 75.8 95.5 98.5 66 FSP 95.1 95.1 88.5 72.1 90.2 93.4 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 96.4 100.0 28 Intermediate status 96.7 94.4 77.8 67.8 93.3 96.7 90 Lower status/Dalits 75.0 75.0 87.5 62.5 75.0 75.0 8 Muslim 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 91.8 87.8 75.5 65.3 89.8 91.8 49 Can read only 94.1 94.1 76.5 70.6 88.2 100.0 17 Can read and write somehow 100.0 100.0 91.3 78.3 95.7 97.8 46 Can read and write well 100.0 100.0 93.3 93.3 100.0 100.0 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 100.0 100.0 95.7 91.3 100.0 100.0 23 With some difficulty 95.1 95.1 68.3 65.9 92.7 95.1 41 With difficulty 97.2 91.7 88.9 72.2 88.9 94.4 36 With very difficulty 92.6 92.6 88.9 74.1 92.6 96.3 27 NGO involvement Full term 100.0 98.5 86.6 76.1 100.0 100.0 67 Partial 91.7 90.0 80.0 71.7 85.0 91.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 96.9 93.8 79.7 76.6 95.3 98.4 64 Partial 95.2 95.2 87.3 71.4 90.5 93.7 63

34 Other NGO in the area Yes 100.0 98.8 88.1 72.6 96.4 100.0 84 No 88.4 86.0 74.4 76.7 86.0 88.4 43 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only)10 Organization of orientation meetings 96.0 93.9 80.8 73.7 92.9 96.0 99 Organization of CMC 96.0 93.9 82.8 73.7 92.9 96.0 99 Identification of EVs 94.8 92.8 84.5 75.3 91.8 95.9 97 Formation of child club 96.7 94.6 81.5 71.7 93.5 96.7 92 Incentives for best students 96.2 94.2 81.7 72.1 93.3 97.1 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 94.7 92.6 86.2 75.5 90.4 94.7 94 Organization of parents visiting day 95.0 93.0 82.0 70.0 92.0 96.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 97.1 96.1 82.4 72.5 95.1 97.1 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 96.7 94.6 85.9 77.2 92.4 95.7 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 95.7 93.5 85.9 77.2 92.4 95.7 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 94.3 93.1 79.3 66.7 90.8 95.4 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 96.2 94.3 79.2 73.6 96.2 100.0 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 96.7 95.0 80.0 76.7 96.7 100.0 60

7.2 Responsibility to make children educated

In response to the question asked about the responsible institution or person to make the children educated, a relatively high percentage of respondents reported that parents and families were the most responsible institutions to educate children. This was followed by schools and teachers. The percentage of parents who considered the responsibility as those of parents and families was found very high in communities where partner NGOs worked full term, introduced comprehensive package and other NGOs also worked (Table 7.2).

10 Answers like "No" and "Don’t know" can be taken as the negative/mirror image of "Yes" answers and, therefore, are not examined separately in this and subsequent data tables.

35 Table 7.2 Responsible person to make children educated (in percentage) Background characteristics Responsibility Parents Schools Governm Commu NGOs Total and and ent nity/soc or other Family Teacher iety aid s organisa tions End line total 96.1 74.0 52.8 21.3 7.9 127 Programme SOP 97.0 92.4 62.1 24.2 7.6 66 FSP 95.1 54.1 42.6 18.0 8.2 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 92.9 78.6 46.4 10.7 3.6 28 Intermediate status 97.8 74.4 55.6 24.4 7.8 90 Lower status/Dalits 87.5 62.5 50.0 12.5 25.0 8 Muslim 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 91.8 77.6 53.1 12.2 12.2 49 Can read only 100.0 58.8 58.8 35.3 17 Can read and write somehow 100.0 73.9 43.5 26.1 4.3 46 Can read and write well 93.3 80.0 73.3 20.0 13.3 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 95.7 78.3 52.2 39.1 8.7 23 With some difficulty 95.1 78.0 68.3 19.5 2.4 41 With difficulty 97.2 66.7 36.1 2.8 5.6 36 With very difficulty 96.3 74.1 51.9 33.3 18.5 27 NGO involvement Full term 98.5 83.6 43.3 26.9 10.4 67 Partial 93.3 63.3 63.3 15.0 5.0 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 98.4 90.6 57.8 23.4 7.8 64 Partial 93.7 57.1 47.6 19.0 7.9 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 98.8 70.2 46.4 22.6 8.3 84 No 90.7 81.4 65.1 18.6 7.0 43 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 98.0 70.7 54.5 24.2 8.1 99 Organization of CMC 98.0 71.7 52.5 23.2 9.1 99 Identification of EVs 95.9 72.2 52.6 22.7 8.2 97 Formation of child club 96.7 67.4 56.5 26.1 8.7 92 Incentives for best students 97.1 73.1 52.9 25.0 7.7 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 95.7 71.3 53.2 25.5 6.4 94 Organization of parents visiting day 97.0 71.0 57.0 25.0 9.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 95.1 74.5 54.9 25.5 6.9 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 96.7 67.4 52.2 26.1 7.6 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 94.6 69.6 53.3 26.1 7.6 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 96.6 71.3 65.5 18.4 8.0 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 100.0 88.7 64.2 28.3 7.5 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 98.3 90.0 63.3 25.0 6.7 60

36 7.3 Willingness to participate in SOP/FSP activities

With respect to their willingness to participate in the SOP/FSP activities, majority of the parents reported that they were willing to participate in all activities. However, the willingness was found particularly high where partner NGOs completed full term, introduced full package and other NGOs also worked (Table 7.3).

37 Table 7.3 Willingness to participate in SOP/FSP activities (yes only) in percentage

Organi Organi Identifi Format Provision Orga Organiza Provision Interact Interactive Suppo Contri Contributi N zation zation cation ion of of nizat tion of of ive program rt on bution on in of of of EVs child incentives ion parents encourage progra with physi in labor orientat CMC club for best of visiting ment to m communit cal cash ion students sensi days send child among y people infrast and meetin tizati to school stakeho and ructur kind Background gs on through lders children e characteristics meet door-to- attending ings door visits SOP/FSP on child right s

End line total 81.9 74.0 71.7 78.0 85.0 75.6 87.4 84.3 75.6 72.4 79.5 68.5 83.5 127 Programme SOP 83.3 72.7 71.2 72.7 83.3 68.2 84.8 81.8 68.2 68.2 80.3 68.2 83.3 66 FSP 80.3 75.4 72.1 83.6 86.9 83.6 90.2 86.9 83.6 77.0 78.7 68.9 83.6 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 64.3 57.1 60.7 71.4 71.4 75.0 75.0 57.1 57.1 67.9 64.3 71.4 64.3 28 Intermediate status 87.8 80.0 76.7 82.2 90.0 75.6 93.3 93.3 82.2 73.3 82.2 67.8 92.2 90 Lower status/Dalits 75.0 62.5 50.0 50.0 75.0 87.5 62.5 75.0 75.0 75.0 100.0 75.0 62.5 8 Muslim 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 77.6 59.2 59.2 69.4 75.5 67.3 79.6 81.6 73.5 63.3 79.6 59.2 81.6 49 Can read only 76.5 82.4 76.5 82.4 88.2 76.5 88.2 88.2 76.5 64.7 76.5 76.5 94.1 17 Can read and write somehow 91.3 84.8 80.4 84.8 93.5 82.6 93.5 89.1 80.4 84.8 84.8 71.7 87.0 46 Can read and write well 73.3 80.0 80.0 80.0 86.7 80.0 93.3 73.3 66.7 73.3 66.7 80.0 66.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 95.7 91.3 95.7 95.7 100.0 95.7 95.7 95.7 87.0 95.7 95.7 78.3 87.0 23 With some difficulty 92.7 82.9 73.2 75.6 85.4 65.9 97.6 85.4 68.3 68.3 78.0 70.7 82.9 41 With difficulty 66.7 58.3 58.3 61.1 75.0 69.4 72.2 69.4 63.9 52.8 63.9 63.9 80.6 36 With very difficulty 74.1 66.7 66.7 88.9 85.2 81.5 85.2 92.6 92.6 85.2 88.9 63.0 85.2 27

NGO involvement Full term 91.0 83.6 74.6 86.6 91.0 80.6 95.5 92.5 79.1 77.6 94.0 73.1 91.0 67 Partial 71.7 63.3 68.3 68.3 78.3 70.0 78.3 75.0 71.7 66.7 63.3 63.3 75.0 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 92.2 82.8 82.8 84.4 95.3 78.1 96.9 92.2 79.7 76.6 93.8 71.9 93.8 64 Partial 71.4 65.1 60.3 71.4 74.6 73.0 77.8 76.2 71.4 68.3 65.1 65.1 73.0 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 88.1 83.3 76.2 85.7 91.7 81.0 94.0 94.0 78.6 76.2 88.1 73.8 91.7 84 No 69.8 55.8 62.8 62.8 72.1 65.1 74.4 65.1 69.8 65.1 62.8 58.1 67.4 43 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 91.9 79.8 77.8 83.8 88.9 77.8 93.9 88.9 77.8 77.8 82.8 65.7 88.9 99 Organization of CMC 88.9 83.8 77.8 84.8 88.9 76.8 90.9 87.9 75.8 73.7 83.8 64.6 84.8 99 Identification of EVs 86.6 78.4 80.4 84.5 91.8 80.4 91.8 87.6 76.3 75.3 84.5 68.0 87.6 97 Formation of child club 89.1 85.9 82.6 87.0 92.4 80.4 95.7 91.3 79.3 76.1 85.9 72.8 92.4 92 Incentives for best students 86.5 78.8 75.0 82.7 91.3 80.8 93.3 89.4 79.8 76.0 84.6 70.2 87.5 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 86.2 76.6 80.9 84.0 89.4 80.9 92.6 88.3 81.9 78.7 80.9 66.0 85.1 94 Organization of parents visiting day 86.0 77.0 73.0 79.0 89.0 78.0 92.0 88.0 80.0 77.0 84.0 70.0 87.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to- door visits 86.3 80.4 77.5 82.4 89.2 78.4 95.1 93.1 80.4 76.5 84.3 71.6 86.3 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 84.8 79.3 80.4 83.7 89.1 81.5 93.5 89.1 82.6 78.3 80.4 70.7 89.1 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 83.7 78.3 82.6 84.8 92.4 84.8 93.5 88.0 83.7 78.3 82.6 69.6 85.9 92

39 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 83.9 78.2 77.0 80.5 89.7 79.3 93.1 89.7 80.5 73.6 83.9 72.4 89.7 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 90.6 84.9 79.2 84.9 96.2 79.2 98.1 92.5 79.2 79.2 96.2 73.6 94.3 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 90.0 83.3 80.0 85.0 93.3 76.7 93.3 93.3 78.3 78.3 93.3 71.7 93.3 60

40 7.4 Willingness to send children to SOP/FSP classes

In response to the question asked about their willingness to send their child to SOP/FSP classes in the future, majority of the parents reported that they were very much willing. Generally, parents sending their children to FSP and parents of those areas where partner NGOs worked full term, introduced comprehensive package and other NGOs also worked were found more willing to do so (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Willingness to send children to SOP/FSP classes Background characteristics Willing very much only Somewhat willing Only little willing Total N % N % N % N End line total 118 92.9 8 6.3 1 0.8 127 Programme SOP 60 90.9 6 9.1 66 FSP 58 95.1 2 3.3 1 1.6 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 25 89.3 2 7.1 1 3.6 28 Intermediate status 85 94.4 5 5.6 90 Lower status/Dalits 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 45 91.8 4 8.2 49 Can read only 15 88.2 2 11.8 17 Can read and write somehow 44 95.7 2 4.3 46 Can read and write well 14 93.3 1 6.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 91.3 1 4.3 1 4.3 23 With some difficulty 41 100.0 41 With difficulty 31 86.1 5 13.9 36 With very difficulty 25 92.6 2 7.4 27 NGO involvement Full term 65 97.0 2 3.0 67 Partial 53 88.3 6 10.0 1 1.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 59 92.2 5 7.8 64 Partial 59 93.7 3 4.8 1 1.6 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 82 97.6 2 2.4 84 No 36 83.7 6 14.0 1 2.3 43 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 91 91.9 7 7.1 1 1.0 99 Organization of CMC 92 92.9 6 6.1 1 1.0 99 Identification of EVs 91 93.8 5 5.2 1 1.0 97 Formation of child club 87 94.6 4 4.3 1 1.1 92 Incentives for best students 99 95.2 4 3.8 1 1.0 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 87 92.6 6 6.4 1 1.1 94 Organization of parents visiting day 93 93.0 6 6.0 1 1.0 100

41 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 97 95.1 4 3.9 1 1.0 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 85 92.4 6 6.5 1 1.1 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 85 92.4 6 6.5 1 1.1 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 83 95.4 3 3.4 1 1.1 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 50 94.3 3 5.7 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 56 93.3 4 6.7 60

7.5 Willingness to send children to formal school

In response to the question asked about whether or not they were willing to send their children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP classes, great majority of the parents reported that they were either very much willing to send them to formal school or had already sent them children to such school (Table 7.5).

As has been additionally found, parents of children who attended the FSP classes were very much willing in this regard as compared to the parents of children who attended SOP classes (Table 7.6).

The willingness to send children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP was found influenced mostly by the organization of parent’s visiting day. It was further found influenced by the interactive programme among stakeholders and provision of incentives for best students (Table 7.7).

Table 7.5 Willingness of respondents to send children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP (in percentage) Yes Child has already started to go No N Background characteristics to formal school N % N % N % End line total 66 52.0 59 46.5 2 1.6 127 Programme SOP 32 48.5 32 48.5 2 3.0 66 FSP 34 55.7 27 44.3 61 Social status of respondents Higher Status 17 60.7 9 32.1 2 7.1 28 Intermediate status 42 46.7 48 53.3 90 Lower status/Dalits 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 31 63.3 17 34.7 1 2.0 49 Can read only 7 41.2 9 52.9 1 5.9 17 Can read and write somehow 19 41.3 27 58.7 46

42 Can read and write well 9 60.0 6 40.0 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 9 39.1 14 60.9 23 With some difficulty 24 58.5 17 41.5 41 With difficulty 11 30.6 23 63.9 2 5.6 36 With very difficulty 22 81.5 5 18.5 27 NGO involvement Full term 32 47.8 35 52.2 67 partial 34 56.7 24 40.0 2 3.3 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 31 48.4 33 51.6 64 Partial 35 55.6 26 41.3 2 3.2 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 33 39.3 51 60.7 84 No 33 76.7 8 18.6 2 4.7 43 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 53 53.5 45 45.5 1 1.0 99 Organization of CMC 50 50.5 48 48.5 1 1.0 99 Identification of EVs 52 53.6 45 46.4 97 Formation of child club 49 53.3 43 46.7 92 Incentives for best students 55 52.9 48 46.2 1 1.0 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 50 53.2 43 45.7 1 1.1 94 Organization of parents visiting day 53 53.0 47 47.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 54 52.9 48 47.1 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 46 50.0 46 50.0 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 45 48.9 46 50.0 1 1.1 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 42 48.3 45 51.7 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 28 52.8 25 47.2 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 30 50.0 30 50.0 60

Table 7.6 Degree of willingness to send children to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP (in percentage) Very much willing Somewhat Not willing N Background characteristics willing N % N % N % Endline total 119 95.2 6 4.8 125 Programme SOP 59 92.2 5 7.8 64 FSP 60 98.4 1 1.6 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 26 100.0 26 Intermediate status 85 94.4 5 5.6 90 Lower status/Dalits 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 45 93.8 3 6.3 48 Can read only 16 100.0 16 Can read and write somehow 43 93.5 3 6.5 46

43 Can read and write well 15 100.0 15 Ability to support family Easily 21 91.3 2 8.7 23 With some difficulty 38 92.7 3 7.3 41 With difficulty 33 97.1 1 2.9 34 With very difficulty 27 100.0 27 NGO involvement Full term 66 98.5 1 1.5 67 partial 53 91.4 5 8.6 58 NGO activity Comprehensive 60 93.8 4 6.3 64 Partial 59 96.7 2 3.3 61 Other NGO in the area Yes 83 98.8 1 1.2 84 No 36 87.8 5 12.2 41 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 92 93.9 6 6.1 98 Organization of CMC 93 94.9 5 5.1 98 Identification of EVs 93 95.9 4 4.1 97 Formation of child club 89 96.7 3 3.3 92 Incentives for best students 98 95.1 5 4.9 103 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 88 94.6 5 5.4 93 Organization of parents visiting day 95 95.0 5 5.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to- door visits 97 95.1 5 4.9 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 88 95.7 4 4.3 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 87 95.6 4 4.4 91 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 82 94.3 5 5.7 87 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 49 92.5 4 7.5 53 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 56 93.3 4 6.7 60 Note: Children who are already admitted to formal school after the completion of SOP/FSP are included in the category of very much willing to send them to formal school.

44 Table 7.7 Willingness to send children to formal school (very much) in percentage by activity Organi Organi Identifi Format Provisi Organi Organiza Provision Interact Interactive Suppo Contri Contrib N zation zation cation ion of on of zation tion of of ive program rt on bution ution of of of EVs child incenti of parents encourage progra with physi in in orientat CMC club ves for sensitiz visiting ment to m communit cal cash labor Background ion best ation days send child among y people infrast And characteristics meetin student meetin to school stakeho and ructur kind gs s gs on through lders children e child door-to- attending rights door visits SOP/FSP 11 End line total 82.4 74.8 73.1 79.8 86.6 75.6 89.9 77.3 86.6 73.1 80.7 68.1 84.9 9 Programme SOP 84.7 72.9 72.9 74.6 84.7 66.1 88.1 69.5 84.7 69.5 83.1 66.1 84.7 59 FSP 80.0 76.7 73.3 85.0 88.3 85.0 91.7 85.0 88.3 76.7 78.3 70.0 85.0 60 Social status of respondents Higher status 65.4 57.7 65.4 76.9 73.1 73.1 80.8 61.5 61.5 73.1 69.2 69.2 65.4 26 Intermediate status 88.2 80.0 76.5 82.4 90.6 75.3 94.1 82.4 94.1 72.9 82.4 67.1 92.9 85 Lower status/Dalits 71.4 71.4 57.1 57.1 85.7 100.0 71.4 85.7 85.7 71.4 100.0 85.7 71.4 7 Muslim 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 77.8 60.0 62.2 73.3 77.8 68.9 84.4 77.8 86.7 64.4 82.2 60.0 86.7 45 Can read only 81.3 87.5 81.3 87.5 93.8 75.0 93.8 81.3 93.8 68.8 81.3 75.0 93.8 16 Can read and write somehow 90.7 83.7 79.1 83.7 93.0 81.4 93.0 79.1 88.4 83.7 83.7 69.8 86.0 43 Can read and write well 73.3 80.0 80.0 80.0 86.7 80.0 93.3 66.7 73.3 73.3 66.7 80.0 66.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 95.2 90.5 95.2 95.2 100.0 95.2 95.2 85.7 95.2 95.2 95.2 76.2 85.7 21 With some difficulty 92.1 84.2 73.7 76.3 86.8 65.8 100.0 68.4 86.8 65.8 76.3 71.1 84.2 38 With difficulty 69.7 60.6 63.6 66.7 78.8 69.7 78.8 69.7 75.8 57.6 69.7 63.6 84.8 33 With very difficulty 74.1 66.7 66.7 88.9 85.2 81.5 85.2 92.6 92.6 85.2 88.9 63.0 85.2 27 NGO involvement Full term 90.9 83.3 74.2 86.4 90.9 80.3 95.5 78.8 92.4 77.3 93.9 72.7 90.9 66 Partial 71.7 64.2 71.7 71.7 81.1 69.8 83.0 75.5 79.2 67.9 64.2 62.3 77.4 53 NGO activity Comprehensive 91.7 81.7 81.7 83.3 95.0 76.7 96.7 78.3 91.7 75.0 93.3 70.0 93.3 60 Partial 72.9 67.8 64.4 76.3 78.0 74.6 83.1 76.3 81.4 71.2 67.8 66.1 76.3 59 Other NGO in the area Yes 88.0 83.1 75.9 85.5 91.6 80.7 94.0 78.3 94.0 75.9 88.0 73.5 91.6 83 No 69.4 55.6 66.7 66.7 75.0 63.9 80.6 75.0 69.4 66.7 63.9 55.6 69.4 36 Knowledge of SOP/FSP activities (yes only) Organization of orientation meetings 92.4 80.4 79.3 85.9 90.2 78.3 96.7 79.3 91.3 78.3 83.7 65.2 91.3 92 Organization of CMC 89.2 84.9 79.6 87.1 90.3 77.4 93.5 77.4 90.3 74.2 84.9 64.5 87.1 93 Identification of EVs 86.0 78.5 80.6 84.9 92.5 80.6 92.5 76.3 88.2 74.2 83.9 67.7 88.2 93 Formation of child club 88.8 85.4 82.0 86.5 92.1 79.8 95.5 78.7 91.0 75.3 85.4 71.9 92.1 89 Incentives for best students 86.7 78.6 75.5 83.7 91.8 80.6 94.9 80.6 90.8 76.5 85.7 69.4 88.8 98

45 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 85.2 76.1 81.8 85.2 89.8 80.7 94.3 83.0 89.8 78.4 80.7 64.8 86.4 88 Organization of parents visiting day 86.3 77.9 73.7 80.0 90.5 78.9 93.7 81.1 89.5 76.8 84.2 70.5 88.4 95 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to- door visits 86.6 80.4 77.3 82.5 89.7 78.4 95.9 80.4 93.8 76.3 84.5 71.1 86.6 97 Interactive programme among stakeholders 84.1 78.4 79.5 83.0 88.6 80.7 93.2 81.8 88.6 77.3 79.5 69.3 88.6 88 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 82.8 77.0 82.8 85.1 92.0 83.9 94.3 83.9 88.5 78.2 82.8 67.8 86.2 87 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 82.9 78.0 76.8 80.5 90.2 79.3 93.9 80.5 90.2 72.0 82.9 72.0 90.2 82 Campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 89.8 83.7 77.6 83.7 95.9 77.6 98.0 77.6 91.8 77.6 95.9 71.4 93.9 49 Campaign to encourage contribution in labour 89.3 82.1 78.6 83.9 92.9 75.0 92.9 76.8 92.9 76.8 92.9 69.6 92.9 56

46 To sum up, all the attitude indicators were found to have evolved well from the time of baseline survey. They were also found to have exceeded the targets (Table 7.8).

Table 7.8 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the percentage of respondents with their perception on selected issues Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline Endline Target Baseline Endline Target

Percentage of respondents who 83.9 90.9 88.0 91.3 95.1 94.6 agree very much with parent's’ responsibility for child care Percentage of respondents who are 68.5 97.0 80.8 62.4 100.0 81.6 willing very much to send children to formal school after completion of FSP/SOP

47 Chapter 8 Practice of Parents Regarding Child Education

This chapter discusses the practices of parents regarding child education. The scopes of practices are limited to the participation of parents in different types of SOP/FSP activities, encouragements they provide to their children and the discussions they make with their children, family members and neighbours about their children’ education.

8.1 Participation in SOP/FSP activities

The major finding in this regard is that parents’ participation in SOP/FSP activities was relatively low. In particular, the participation was relatively low among parents who sent their children in FSP classes. However, the parent’s participation was relatively high in those communities where the partner NGOs completed full term, introduced comprehensive activity and other NGOs also worked (Table 8.1).

Table 8.1 Participation in SOP/FSP activities (in percentage) Yes No Total N Background characteristics N % N % End line total 73 57.5 54 42.5 127 Programme SOP 50 75.8 16 24.2 66 FSP 23 37.7 38 62.3 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 9 32.1 19 67.9 28 Intermediate status 61 67.8 29 32.2 90 Lower status/Dalits 3 37.5 5 62.5 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 27 55.1 22 44.9 49 Can read only 10 58.8 7 41.2 17 Can read and write somehow 26 56.5 20 43.5 46 Can read and write well 10 66.7 5 33.3 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 91.3 2 8.7 23 With some difficulty 27 65.9 14 34.1 41 With difficulty 11 30.6 25 69.4 36 With very difficulty 14 51.9 13 48.1 27 NGO involvement Full term 44 65.7 23 34.3 67 Partial 29 48.3 31 51.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 48 75.0 16 25.0 64 Partial 25 39.7 38 60.3 63 Other NGO in the area

48 Yes 51 60.7 33 39.3 84 No 22 51.2 21 48.8 43 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization Of orientation meetings 62 62.6 37 37.4 99 Organization Of CMC 62 62.6 37 37.4 99 Identification of EVs 58 59.8 39 40.2 97 Formation of child club 62 67.4 30 32.6 92 Incentives for best students 66 63.5 38 36.5 104 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 56 59.6 38 40.4 94 Organization of parents visiting day 62 62.0 38 38.0 100 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 65 63.7 37 36.3 102 Interactive programme among stakeholders 55 59.8 37 40.2 92 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 56 60.9 36 39.1 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 58 66.7 29 33.3 87 Contribution in cash 41 77.4 12 22.6 53 Contribution in labour 47 78.3 13 21.7 60

As was further found, the actual participation of parents who sent their children in FSP classes was relatively low in almost all activities. Those who participated, their participation was mostly realised in the contribution in labour and physical infrastructure (Table 8.2).

49 Table 8.2 Participation in SOP/FSP activities by type of activity (in percentage) Organizati Organ Identi Form Incentiv Organi Orga Provision of Interact Interactive Provisio Contr Contr N on of izatio ficati ation es for zation nizati encouragem ive program n of ibutio ibutio orientation n Of on of of best of on of ent to send progra with support n in n in meetings CMC EVs child students sensitiz paren child to m communit by cash labor Background characteristics club ation ts' school among y people commu and meetin visiti through stakeho and nity on kind gs on ng door-to- lders children physical child day door visits attending infrastr rights SOP/FSP ucture End line total 80.8 75.3 75.3 76.7 75.3 79.5 84.9 84.9 75.0 75.3 86.3 80.8 95.8 72 Programme

SOP 88.0 80.0 78.0 80.0 74.0 80.0 88.0 88.0 73.5 78.0 88.0 82.0 100.0 49 FSP 65.2 65.2 69.6 69.6 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 69.6 82.6 78.3 87.0 23 Social status of respondents

Higher status 77.8 77.8 66.7 88.9 77.8 55.6 77.8 77.8 88.9 77.8 100.0 88.9 87.5 8 Intermediate status 82.0 75.4 78.7 75.4 73.8 83.6 86.9 85.2 76.7 77.0 85.2 80.3 96.7 61 Lower status/Dalits 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 100.0 66.7 66.7 100.0 33.3 66.7 66.7 100.0 3 Literacy of respondents

Illiterate 63.0 81.5 63.0 70.4 63.0 70.4 85.2 77.8 74.1 74.1 81.5 77.8 96.3 27 Can read only 90.0 70.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 90.0 100.0 66.7 60.0 90.0 70.0 100.0 10 Can read and write somehow 92.3 73.1 80.8 76.9 84.6 88.5 80.8 88.5 69.2 80.8 88.5 84.6 92.3 26 Can read and write well 90.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 100.0 80.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 9 Ability to support family

Easily 95.2 71.4 90.5 85.7 81.0 90.5 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 90.5 81.0 100.0 21 With some difficulty 85.2 77.8 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 85.2 85.2 69.2 63.0 92.6 85.2 96.2 26 With difficulty 81.8 72.7 72.7 72.7 81.8 81.8 90.9 81.8 72.7 90.9 81.8 90.9 100.0 11 With very difficulty 50.0 78.6 57.1 71.4 64.3 71.4 78.6 85.7 71.4 71.4 71.4 64.3 85.7 14 NGO involvement

Full term 79.5 77.3 65.9 72.7 65.9 72.7 79.5 81.8 72.1 75.0 86.4 81.8 95.5 44 Partial 82.8 72.4 89.7 82.8 89.7 89.7 93.1 89.7 79.3 75.9 86.2 79.3 96.4 28 NGO activity

Comprehensive 87.5 79.2 77.1 79.2 72.9 81.3 87.5 87.5 72.3 77.1 87.5 83.3 100.0 48

50 Partial 68.0 68.0 72.0 72.0 80.0 76.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 72.0 84.0 76.0 87.5 24 Other NGO in the area

Yes 78.4 76.5 68.6 72.5 70.6 76.5 80.4 80.4 74.0 74.5 86.3 80.4 94.1 51 No 86.4 72.7 90.9 86.4 86.4 86.4 95.5 95.5 77.3 77.3 86.4 81.8 100.0 21 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 84.6 73.8 78.5 73.8 76.9 81.5 84.6 87.7 78.1 75.4 87.7 84.6 96.9 65 Organization of CMC 85.2 73.8 78.7 73.8 75.4 82.0 83.6 88.5 78.3 75.4 88.5 83.6 96.7 61 Identification of EVs 83.1 78.0 83.1 78.0 81.4 86.4 84.7 86.4 83.1 76.3 86.4 81.4 96.6 58 Formation of child club 83.6 73.8 78.7 82.0 77.0 86.9 85.2 86.9 80.0 83.6 85.2 82.0 95.0 60 Incentives for best students 83.6 76.1 79.1 79.1 79.1 82.1 86.6 86.6 75.8 76.1 86.6 80.6 97.0 66 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 81.4 74.6 79.7 76.3 83.1 84.7 81.4 86.4 81.4 76.3 88.1 81.4 96.6 59 Organization of parents visiting day 81.4 74.3 74.3 75.7 74.3 80.0 84.3 85.7 73.9 74.3 87.1 82.9 95.7 69 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 80.0 71.7 81.7 76.7 78.3 86.7 83.3 86.7 78.3 80.0 83.3 78.3 95.0 60 Interactive programme among stakeholders 82.9 74.3 77.1 77.1 75.7 82.9 84.3 87.1 75.4 77.1 85.7 80.0 95.7 69 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 81.4 72.9 78.0 76.3 76.3 83.1 83.1 89.8 81.4 76.3 88.1 83.1 96.6 59 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 81.0 77.8 73.0 76.2 74.6 77.8 84.1 87.3 74.2 74.6 87.3 82.5 98.4 63 Contribution in cash 80.0 72.7 76.4 80.0 80.0 81.8 87.3 87.3 72.2 76.4 87.3 81.8 96.3 54 Contribution in labour 82.4 73.5 76.5 76.5 77.9 79.4 86.8 88.2 73.1 76.5 88.2 83.8 97.1 68

51 8. 2 Encouragement to children to become educated With regard to encouragement to become educated, great majority of the parents reported that they encouraged their children to become educated. However, provision of encouragement was reported more by the parents of children attending FSP than SOP. As was additionally found, the percentage of parents reporting to have provided the encouragement were relatively high in communities where the partner NGOs completed the term, introduced comprehensive package and other NGOs also worked (Table 8.3). Table 8.3 Encouragement to children to become educated Background characteristics Yes No Total N N % N % End line total 121 95.3 6 4.7 127 Programme SOP 60 90.9 6 9.1 66 FSP 61 100.0 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 23 82.1 5 17.9 28 Intermediate status 89 98.9 1 1.1 90 Lower status/Dalits 8 100.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 47 95.9 2 4.1 49 Can read only 17 100.0 17 Can read and write somehow 45 97.8 1 2.2 46 Can read and write well 12 80.0 3 20.0 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 23 100.0 23 With some difficulty 39 95.1 2 4.9 41 With difficulty 32 88.9 4 11.1 36 With very difficulty 27 100.0 27 NGO involvement Full term 67 100.0 67 Partial 54 90.0 6 10.0 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 63 98.4 1 1.6 64 Partial 58 92.1 5 7.9 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 84 100.0 84 No 37 86.0 6 14.0 43 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 101 97.1 3 2.9 104 Organization of CMC 92 97.9 2 2.1 94 Identification of EVs 89 97.8 2 2.2 91 Formation of child club 98 99.0 1 1.0 99 Incentives for best students 105 97.2 3 2.8 108 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 95 99.0 1 1.0 96 Organization of parents visiting day 108 97.3 3 2.7 111 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 96 100.0 96 Interactive programme among stakeholders 106 99.1 1 0.9 107 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 91 98.9 1 1.1 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 100 99.0 1 1.0 101 Contribution in cash 84 96.6 3 3.4 87 Contribution in labour 105 99.1 1 0.9 106

At this juncture it is also noteworthy that as compared to the situation of baseline survey, the percentage of parents who encouraged their children to become educated was found much higher. The results of data analysis also show that this indicator evolved well over time and even exceeded the target (Table 8.4).

Table 8.4. Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of encouragement provided to child about education (in percentage) Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline Endline Target Baseline Endline Target

Percentage of respondents encouraging their children to 83.9 90.9 88.0 91.3 100.0 94.6 become educated

With regard to the activities which were possibly influencing this kind of encouragement, provision of contribution in labour, provision of support on physical infrastructure by the community, organisation of parent’s visiting day and provision of door-to-door visits to send children to school were found relatively important (Table 8.5).

53 Table 8.5 Activities influential in motivating respondents to encourage children to become educated (in percentage) Orga Orga Identi For Incen Organi Orga Provision Intera Interact Prov Cont Contrib N nizati nizat ficatio mati tives zation nizati of ctive ive ision ribut ution in on of ion n of on of for of on of encourage progr progra of ion labor orien Of EVs child best sensitiz paren ment to am m with supp in tation CM club stude ation ts' send child amon commu ort cash meeti C nts meetin visiti to school g nity by and ngs gs on ng through stake people com kind Background characteristics child day door-to- holde and mun rights door visits rs childre ity n on attendi phys ng ical SOP/F infra SP struc ture Endline total 80.6 75.0 75.0 76.4 75.0 79.2 84.7 84.7 74.6 75.0 86.1 81.9 95.8 72 Programme SOP 87.8 79.6 77.6 79.6 73.5 79.6 87.8 87.8 72.9 77.6 87.8 83.7 100.0 49 FSP 65.2 65.2 69.6 69.6 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 78.3 69.6 82.6 78.3 87.0 23 Social status of respondents Higher status 100. 100. 75.0 75.0 62.5 87.5 75.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 87.5 75.0 0 0 87.5 8 Intermediate status 82.0 75.4 78.7 75.4 73.8 83.6 86.9 85.2 76.7 77.0 85.2 80.3 96.7 61 Lower status/Dalits 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 100.0 66.7 66.7 100.0 33.3 66.7 66.7 100.0 3 Muslim Literacy of respondents Illiterate 63.0 81.5 63.0 70.4 63.0 70.4 85.2 77.8 74.1 74.1 81.5 77.8 96.3 27 Can read only 90.0 70.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 90.0 100.0 66.7 60.0 90.0 70.0 100.0 10 Can read and write somehow 92.3 73.1 80.8 76.9 84.6 88.5 80.8 88.5 69.2 80.8 88.5 84.6 92.3 26 Can read and write well 100. 88.9 66.7 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 77.8 100.0 77.8 88.9 0 100.0 9 Ability to support family Easily 95.2 71.4 90.5 85.7 81.0 90.5 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 90.5 81.0 100.0 21 With some difficulty 84.6 76.9 73.1 73.1 73.1 73.1 84.6 84.6 68.0 61.5 92.3 88.5 96.2 26 With difficulty 81.8 72.7 72.7 72.7 81.8 81.8 90.9 81.8 72.7 90.9 81.8 90.9 100.0 11 With very difficulty 50.0 78.6 57.1 71.4 64.3 71.4 78.6 85.7 71.4 71.4 71.4 64.3 85.7 14 NGO involvement Full term 79.5 77.3 65.9 72.7 65.9 72.7 79.5 81.8 72.1 75.0 86.4 81.8 95.5 44 Partial 82.1 71.4 89.3 82.1 89.3 89.3 92.9 89.3 78.6 75.0 85.7 82.1 96.4 28 NGO activity Comprehensive 87.5 79.2 77.1 79.2 72.9 81.3 87.5 87.5 72.3 77.1 87.5 83.3 100.0 48 Partial 66.7 66.7 70.8 70.8 79.2 75.0 79.2 79.2 79.2 70.8 83.3 79.2 87.5 24 Other NGO in the area Yes 78.4 76.5 68.6 72.5 70.6 76.5 80.4 80.4 74.0 74.5 86.3 80.4 94.1 51 No 85.7 71.4 90.5 85.7 85.7 85.7 95.2 95.2 76.2 76.2 85.7 85.7 100.0 21 Attitude towards SOP/FSP activities (positive only)

54 Organization of orientation meetings 84.6 73.8 78.5 73.8 76.9 81.5 84.6 87.7 78.1 75.4 87.7 84.6 96.9 65 Organization of CMC 85.2 73.8 78.7 73.8 75.4 82.0 83.6 88.5 78.3 75.4 88.5 83.6 96.7 61 Identification of EVs 82.8 77.6 82.8 77.6 81.0 86.2 84.5 86.2 82.8 75.9 86.2 82.8 96.6 58 Formation of child club 83.3 73.3 78.3 81.7 76.7 86.7 85.0 86.7 79.7 83.3 85.0 83.3 95.0 60 Incentives for best students 83.3 75.8 78.8 78.8 78.8 81.8 86.4 86.4 75.4 75.8 86.4 81.8 97.0 66 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 81.4 74.6 79.7 76.3 83.1 84.7 81.4 86.4 81.4 76.3 88.1 81.4 96.6 59 Organization of parents visiting day 81.2 73.9 73.9 75.4 73.9 79.7 84.1 85.5 73.5 73.9 87.0 84.1 95.7 69 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 80.0 71.7 81.7 76.7 78.3 86.7 83.3 86.7 78.3 80.0 83.3 78.3 95.0 60 Interactive programme among stakeholders 82.6 73.9 76.8 76.8 75.4 82.6 84.1 87.0 75.0 76.8 85.5 81.2 95.7 69 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 81.4 72.9 78.0 76.3 76.3 83.1 83.1 89.8 81.4 76.3 88.1 83.1 96.6 59 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 81.0 77.8 73.0 76.2 74.6 77.8 84.1 87.3 74.2 74.6 87.3 82.5 98.4 63 Contribution in cash 79.6 72.2 75.9 79.6 79.6 81.5 87.0 87.0 71.7 75.9 87.0 83.3 96.3 54 Contribution in labour 82.4 73.5 76.5 76.5 77.9 79.4 86.8 88.2 73.1 76.5 88.2 83.8 97.1 68 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

55 8.3 Discussion with children about child education

The study has additionally found that great majority of the children discussed with their children about child education. Such discussions were made by a slightly higher percentage of parents sending their children to SOP than FSP classes. As has been further found, the percentage of parents making such discussions was relatively high among intermediate and lower caste groups, among the illiterate parents and among parents of those communities where the partner NGOs completed full term and introduced comprehensive package (Table 8.6).

Table 8.6 Discussions with children about child education (in percentage) Background characteristics Yes No Total N N % N % Endline total 110 86.6 17 13.4 127 Programme SOP 59 89.4 7 10.6 66 FSP 51 83.6 10 16.4 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 23 82.1 5 17.9 28 Intermediate status 78 86.7 12 13.3 90 Lower status/Dalits 8 100.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 44 89.8 5 10.2 49 Can read only 13 76.5 4 23.5 17 Can read and write somehow 40 87.0 6 13.0 46 Can read and write well 13 86.7 2 13.3 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 23 100.0 23 With some difficulty 37 90.2 4 9.8 41 With difficulty 26 72.2 10 27.8 36 With very difficulty 24 88.9 3 11.1 27 NGO involvement Full term 66 98.5 1 1.5 67 Partial 44 73.3 16 26.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 59 92.2 5 7.8 64 Partial 51 81.0 12 19.0 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 73 86.9 11 13.1 84 No 37 86.0 6 14.0 43 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 93 89.4 11 10.6 104 Organization of CMC 84 89.4 10 10.6 94 Identification of EVs 79 86.8 12 13.2 91 Formation of child club 86 86.9 13 13.1 99 Incentives for best students 93 86.1 15 13.9 108 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 85 88.5 11 11.5 96 Organization of parents visiting day 96 86.5 15 13.5 111 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 84 87.5 12 12.5 96 Interactive programme among stakeholders 92 86.0 15 14.0 107 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 81 88.0 11 12.0 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 90 89.1 11 10.9 101 Contribution in cash 76 87.4 11 12.6 87 Contribution in labour 91 85.8 15 14.2 106 56

Over time, this indicator evolved positively and even exceeded the target (Table 8.7).

Table 8.7 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with children about child education (in parentage)

Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline Endline Target Baseline Endline Target

Percentage of respondents who discuss with 58.6 89.4 67.3 73.0 83.6 83.0 their children about child education

With regard to the activities that influenced this indicator, provision of contribution in labour, provision of support on the physical infrastructure by the community, organization of parents visiting days, provision door-to-door visits to send children to school and organization of sensitisation meetings were the dominant ones (Table 8.8).

Table 8.8 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with children (in percentage) Orga Orga Identi For Incen Organi Orga Provision Interacti Interactive Provi Contribu Contrib N nizati nizat ficatio mati tives zation nizati of ve program sion tion in ution in on of ion n of on of for of on of encourage program with of cash and labor orien Of EVs child best sensitiz paren ment to among community supp kind tation CM club stude ation ts' send child stakehol people and ort meeti C nts meetin visiti to school ders children by ngs gs on ng through attending com Background characteristics child day door-to- SOP/FSP muni rights door visits ty on physi cal infras truct ure Endline total 84.1 73.0 76.2 79.4 74.6 77.8 85.7 84.1 75.8 76.2 88.9 84.1 96.8 63 Programme SOP 91.1 77.8 80.0 82.2 75.6 80.0 88.9 86.7 77.3 77.8 91.1 86.7 100.0 45 FSP 66.7 61.1 66.7 72.2 72.2 72.2 77.8 77.8 72.2 72.2 83.3 77.8 88.9 18 Social status of respondents Higher status 100. 71.4 71.4 71.4 85.7 71.4 42.9 71.4 71.4 85.7 71.4 0 100.0 85.7 7 Intermediate status 86.8 73.6 79.2 79.2 73.6 83.0 88.7 84.9 78.8 79.2 88.7 83.0 98.1 53 Lower status/Dalits 100. 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 0 66.7 66.7 100.0 33.3 66.7 66.7 100.0 3 Muslim Literacy of respondents Illiterate 66.7 79.2 66.7 70.8 62.5 66.7 87.5 75.0 75.0 70.8 83.3 83.3 95.8 24 Can read only 100. 100. 0 62.5 75.0 87.5 75.0 75.0 87.5 100.0 85.7 62.5 0 75.0 100.0 8 Can read and write somehow 95.7 73.9 78.3 82.6 82.6 87.0 82.6 91.3 65.2 87.0 91.3 82.6 95.7 23 Can read and write well 87.5 62.5 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 100.0 75.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 8 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 95.2 71.4 90.5 85.7 81.0 90.5 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 90.5 81.0 100.0 21 With some difficulty 87.0 78.3 73.9 82.6 69.6 73.9 91.3 87.0 68.2 65.2 95.7 91.3 100.0 23 With difficulty 85.7 57.1 71.4 71.4 85.7 71.4 85.7 71.4 71.4 100.0 85.7 85.7 100.0 7 With very difficulty 58.3 75.0 58.3 66.7 66.7 66.7 75.0 83.3 75.0 66.7 75.0 75.0 83.3 12 NGO involvement Full term 79.1 76.7 67.4 74.4 65.1 72.1 81.4 81.4 71.4 74.4 86.0 81.4 95.3 43 Partial 95.0 65.0 95.0 90.0 95.0 90.0 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 95.0 90.0 100.0 20 NGO activity Comprehensive 90.9 77.3 79.5 81.8 75.0 81.8 88.6 86.4 76.7 77.3 90.9 86.4 100.0 44 Partial 68.4 63.2 68.4 73.7 73.7 68.4 78.9 78.9 73.7 73.7 84.2 78.9 89.5 19 Other NGO in the area

58 Yes 80.0 75.6 68.9 75.6 66.7 73.3 82.2 80.0 70.5 75.6 86.7 80.0 95.6 45 No 94.4 66.7 94.4 88.9 94.4 88.9 94.4 94.4 88.9 77.8 94.4 94.4 100.0 18 Attitude towards SOP/FSP activities (positive attitudes only) Organization of orientation meetings 87.9 72.4 79.3 77.6 74.1 81.0 86.2 87.9 77.2 77.6 89.7 86.2 98.3 58 Organization of CMC 88.9 72.2 79.6 77.8 72.2 81.5 85.2 88.9 77.4 77.8 90.7 85.2 98.1 54 Identification of EVs 86.3 76.5 84.3 82.4 78.4 86.3 86.3 86.3 82.4 78.4 88.2 84.3 98.0 51 Formation of child club 86.5 71.2 80.8 84.6 76.9 84.6 86.5 86.5 80.4 84.6 86.5 84.6 96.2 52 Incentives for best students 87.7 73.7 80.7 82.5 78.9 80.7 87.7 86.0 76.8 77.2 89.5 84.2 98.2 57 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 84.6 73.1 80.8 80.8 80.8 84.6 82.7 86.5 80.8 78.8 90.4 82.7 98.1 52 Organization of parents visiting day 83.6 72.1 75.4 78.7 73.8 78.7 85.2 85.2 75.0 75.4 90.2 85.2 96.7 61 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 84.9 69.8 83.0 81.1 79.2 86.8 84.9 86.8 81.1 83.0 86.8 81.1 96.2 53 Interactive programme among stakeholders 86.7 71.7 78.3 80.0 75.0 81.7 85.0 86.7 76.3 78.3 88.3 83.3 96.7 60 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 84.6 69.2 78.8 78.8 75.0 82.7 82.7 88.5 82.7 76.9 90.4 84.6 96.2 52 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 85.7 75.0 75.0 78.6 73.2 76.8 83.9 85.7 74.5 75.0 91.1 85.7 98.2 56 Contribution in cash 83.3 68.8 77.1 83.3 77.1 81.3 87.5 85.4 70.2 77.1 89.6 85.4 95.8 48 Contribution in labour 86.4 71.2 78.0 79.7 78.0 78.0 88.1 88.1 74.1 78.0 91.5 86.4 98.3 59 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

59 8.4 Discussion with family members about child education

With respect to the discussion of parents with family members about child education, a relatively high percentage of parents who sent their children to FSP were found to have discussed more with their family members than those who sent their children to SOP. Those who could read and write well and supported their family easily were also found to have discussed more. In addition, parents of communities where the partner NGOs completed full term introduced comprehensive activities and other NGOs worked were also found to have discussed more with their family members about their children’s education (Table 8.9).

Table 8.9 Discussions with family members about child education (in percentage) Background characteristics Yes No Total N N % N % Endline total 111 87.4 16 12.6 127 Programme SOP 56 84.8 10 15.2 66 FSP 55 90.2 6 9.8 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 22 78.6 6 21.4 28 Intermediate status 81 90.0 9 10.0 90 Lower status/Dalits 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 43 87.8 6 12.2 49 Can read only 12 70.6 5 29.4 17 Can read and write somehow 44 95.7 2 4.3 46 Can read and write well 12 80.0 3 20.0 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 22 95.7 1 4.3 23 With some difficulty 38 92.7 3 7.3 41 With difficulty 29 80.6 7 19.4 36 With very difficulty 22 81.5 5 18.5 27 NGO involvement Full term 62 92.5 5 7.5 67 Partial 49 81.7 11 18.3 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 60 93.8 4 6.3 64 Partial 51 81.0 12 19.0 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 77 91.7 7 8.3 84 No 34 79.1 9 20.9 43 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 97 93.3 7 6.7 104 Organization of CMC 87 92.6 7 7.4 94 Identification of EVs 86 94.5 5 5.5 91 Formation of child club 91 91.9 8 8.1 99 Incentives for best students 100 92.6 8 7.4 108 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 89 92.7 7 7.3 96 Organization of parents visiting day 99 89.2 12 10.8 111 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 85 88.5 11 11.5 96 Interactive programme among stakeholders 95 88.8 12 11.2 107 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 84 91.3 8 8.7 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 94 93.1 7 6.9 101 Contribution in cash 77 88.5 10 11.5 87 Contribution in labour 96 90.6 10 9.4 106 60

As is the case of many other indicators as discussed above, this indicator also evolved very well over time and exceeded the target (Table 8.10).

Table 8.10 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with family members about child education (in percentage) Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline Endline Target Baseline Endline Target

Percentage of respondents who 50.8 84.8 65.0 65.9 90.2 77.2 discuss with their family members about child education

The activities that were found to have motivated the parents to discuss with their family members about their children’s education were provision of contribution in labour, provision of support by community on physical infrastructure, provision of contribution in cash ands kind, provision of encouragement to send children to school through door-to door visits, organization of parent’s visiting day, organisation of orientation meetings and provision of incentives for best students (Table 8.11).

8.11 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with family members about child education (in percentage) Orga Organ Iden For Incen Organi Orga Provision Intera Interactive Provi Contri Contrib N nizati ization tific mati tives zation nizati of ctive program sion bution ution in on of Of atio on of for of on of encourage progr with of in labor orien CMC n of child best sensitiz paren ment to am community supp cash tation EVs club stude ation ts' send child amon people and ort and meeti nts meetin visiti to school g children by kind ngs gs on ng through stake attending com Background characteristics child day door-to- holde SOP/FSP muni rights door visits rs ty on physi cal infras truct ure Endline Total 84.4 75.0 76.6 76.6 78.1 81.3 84.4 85.9 79.4 75.0 89.1 85.9 96.9 64 SOP 91.1 77.8 77.8 80.0 75.6 82.2 86.7 86.7 77.3 77.8 91.1 86.7 100.0 45 FSP 68.4 68.4 73.7 68.4 84.2 78.9 78.9 84.2 84.2 68.4 84.2 84.2 89.5 19 Social status of respondents Higher status 75.0 75.0 62.5 87.5 75.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 87.5 75.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 8 Intermediate status 85.2 74.1 79.6 75.9 77.8 85.2 85.2 87.0 81.1 75.9 88.9 85.2 98.1 54 Lower status/Dalits 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 2 Muslim Literacy of respondents Illiterate 69.6 87.0 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.6 87.0 78.3 78.3 73.9 87.0 82.6 100.0 23 Can read only 100.0 57.1 71.4 85.7 71.4 85.7 85.7 100.0 83.3 57.1 100.0 71.4 100.0 7 Can read and write somehow 92.0 72.0 80.0 76.0 84.0 88.0 80.0 92.0 72.0 80.0 88.0 88.0 92.0 25 Can read and write well 88.9 66.7 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 77.8 100.0 77.8 88.9 100.0 100.0 9 Ability to support family Easily 95.0 70.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 95.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 90.0 80.0 100.0 20 With some difficulty 88.0 76.0 72.0 76.0 72.0 76.0 84.0 84.0 70.8 64.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 25 With difficulty 77.8 66.7 66.7 66.7 88.9 77.8 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 77.8 100.0 100.0 9 With very difficulty 60.0 90.0 70.0 70.0 80.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 80.0 70.0 90.0 10 NGO involvement Full term 82.5 80.0 67.5 72.5 67.5 75.0 80.0 82.5 71.8 75.0 87.5 82.5 97.5 40 Partial 87.5 66.7 91.7 83.3 95.8 91.7 91.7 91.7 91.7 75.0 91.7 91.7 95.8 24 NGO activity Comprehensive 90.9 77.3 77.3 79.5 75.0 84.1 86.4 86.4 76.7 77.3 90.9 86.4 100.0 44 Partial 70.0 70.0 75.0 70.0 85.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 85.0 70.0 85.0 85.0 90.0 20 Other NGO in the area Yes 80.4 78.3 69.6 71.7 71.7 78.3 80.4 82.6 75.6 73.9 87.0 82.6 95.7 46 No 94.4 66.7 94.4 88.9 94.4 88.9 94.4 94.4 88.9 77.8 94.4 94.4 100.0 18 Attitude towards SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 85.5 74.2 77.4 75.8 77.4 83.9 83.9 87.1 78.7 75.8 88.7 85.5 96.8 62

62 Organization of CMC 86.2 74.1 77.6 75.9 75.9 84.5 82.8 87.9 78.9 75.9 89.7 84.5 96.6 58 Identification of EVs 83.9 76.8 82.1 78.6 80.4 89.3 83.9 85.7 83.9 76.8 87.5 83.9 96.4 56 Formation of child club 85.5 72.7 80.0 81.8 81.8 87.3 83.6 87.3 81.5 81.8 87.3 85.5 96.4 55 Incentives for best students 85.2 73.8 78.7 78.7 80.3 83.6 85.2 86.9 80.0 75.4 88.5 85.2 96.7 61 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 83.6 74.5 80.0 76.4 81.8 89.1 81.8 87.3 85.5 78.2 89.1 83.6 96.4 55 Organization of parents visiting day 85.2 73.8 75.4 75.4 77.0 82.0 83.6 86.9 78.3 73.8 90.2 88.5 96.7 61 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 84.6 71.2 84.6 76.9 82.7 90.4 82.7 88.5 84.6 80.8 86.5 82.7 96.2 52 Interactive programme among stakeholders 86.9 73.8 78.7 77.0 78.7 85.2 83.6 88.5 80.0 77.0 88.5 85.2 96.7 61 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 84.9 73.6 79.2 77.4 79.2 86.8 83.0 90.6 84.9 77.4 90.6 84.9 98.1 53 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 84.5 79.3 74.1 77.6 75.9 81.0 84.5 86.2 77.2 75.9 89.7 84.5 98.3 58 Contribution in cash 83.7 71.4 77.6 79.6 79.6 85.7 87.8 89.8 75.0 77.6 89.8 87.8 98.0 49 Contribution in labour 85.2 73.8 77.0 77.0 80.3 82.0 86.9 88.5 78.3 77.0 90.2 86.9 96.7 61 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

63 8.5 Discussion with neighbours about child education

This endline survey shows that the percentage of parents discussing with neighbours about child education was relatively high among those who sent their children to SOP. This survey also shows that the percentage of parents making such discussions was relatively high among parents from ethnic groups and among those who those able to support their family easily. The survey additionally shows that in communities where the partner NGO worked full term and introduced comprehensive activities the percentage of parents making such discussions was high (Table 8.12). Table 8.12 Discussions with neighbours about child education (in percentage) Background characteristics Yes No Total N N % N % Endline total 88 69.3 39 30.7 127 Programme SOP 53 80.3 13 19.7 66 FSP 35 57.4 26 42.6 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 15 53.6 13 46.4 28 Intermediate status 66 73.3 24 26.7 90 Lower status/Dalits 6 75.0 2 25.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 34 69.4 15 30.6 49 Can read only 12 70.6 5 29.4 17 Can read and write somehow 32 69.6 14 30.4 46 Can read and write well 10 66.7 5 33.3 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 91.3 2 8.7 23 With some difficulty 33 80.5 8 19.5 41 With difficulty 15 41.7 21 58.3 36 With very difficulty 19 70.4 8 29.6 27 NGO involvement Full term 52 77.6 15 22.4 67 Partial 36 60.0 24 40.0 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 51 79.7 13 20.3 64 Partial 37 58.7 26 41.3 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 58 69.0 26 31.0 84 No 30 69.8 13 30.2 43 Attitude to participate in SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 78 75.0 26 25.0 104 Organization of CMC 71 75.5 23 24.5 94 Identification of EVs 65 71.4 26 28.6 91 Formation of child club 70 70.7 29 29.3 99 Incentives for best students 75 69.4 33 30.6 108 Organization of sensitization meetings on child rights 69 71.9 27 28.1 96 Organization of parents visiting day 78 70.3 33 29.7 111 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 71 74.0 25 26.0 96 Interactive programme among stakeholders 77 72.0 30 28.0 107 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 68 73.9 24 26.1 92 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 75 74.3 26 25.7 101 Contribution in cash 60 69.0 27 31.0 87 Contribution in labour 76 71.7 30 28.3 106 64 Data further suggest that this indicator also evolved well over time. However, the evolution was particularly good with respect to SOP (Table 8.13).

Table 8.13 Comparison of baseline and end line data on the level of discussion with neighbours about child education (in percentage) Indicator SOP FSP

Baseline End line Target Baseline End line Target

Percentage of respondents who 49.2 80.3 69.5 37.2 57.4 66.3 discuss with their neighbours about child education

Provision of contribution in labour, contrition in cash and kind, organisation of parent’s visiting day, organization of door-to-door visits to encourage parents to send their children to school and organization of orientation meeting were found as the important factors to have influenced such discussions (Table 8.14).

65 Table 8.14 Activities influential in motivating respondents to discuss with neighbours about child education (in percentage) q. 35

Orga Organ Identi Forma Incen Organi Orga Provision Intera Interactive Provision of Contrib Contribution N nizati ization ficati tion of tives zation nizati of ctive program support by ution in in labor on of Of on of child for of on of encourage progr with community on cash orien CMC EVs club best sensitiz paren ment to am community physical Background characteristics tation stude ation ts' send child amon people and infrastructure meeti nts meetin visiti to school g children ngs gs on ng through stake attending child day door-to- holde SOP/FSP rights door visits rs Endline total 81.7 75.0 75.0 76.7 78.3 78.3 85.0 83.3 76.3 73.3 86.7 83.3 96.7 60 Program SOP 91.1 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 86.7 86.7 75.0 75.6 88.9 84.4 100.0 45 FSP 53.3 66.7 66.7 73.3 80.0 80.0 80.0 73.3 80.0 66.7 80.0 80.0 86.7 15 Social status of respondents Higher status 60.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 80.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 Intermediate status 84.6 75.0 76.9 75.0 76.9 82.7 86.5 84.6 78.4 76.9 86.5 82.7 96.2 52 Lower status/Dalits 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 100.0 66.7 66.7 100.0 33.3 66.7 66.7 100.0 3 Muslim Literacy of respondents Illiterate 61.9 85.7 57.1 66.7 66.7 66.7 85.7 71.4 71.4 71.4 81.0 81.0 95.2 21 Can read only 88.9 66.7 77.8 77.8 77.8 66.7 88.9 100.0 75.0 55.6 88.9 66.7 100.0 9 Can read and write somehow 95.5 72.7 81.8 81.8 86.4 90.9 81.8 90.9 72.7 81.8 90.9 86.4 95.5 22 Can read and write well 87.5 62.5 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 100.0 75.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 8 Ability to support family Easily 95.2 71.4 90.5 85.7 81.0 90.5 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 90.5 81.0 100.0 21 With some difficulty 87.0 78.3 73.9 73.9 73.9 69.6 82.6 82.6 68.2 56.5 91.3 87.0 95.7 23 With difficulty 83.3 66.7 66.7 66.7 83.3 66.7 83.3 83.3 83.3 100.0 83.3 100.0 100.0 6 With very difficulty 40.0 80.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 80.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 90.0 10 NGO involvement Full term 80.0 77.5 62.5 72.5 70.0 75.0 82.5 80.0 69.2 75.0 85.0 82.5 97.5 40 Partial 85.0 70.0 100.0 85.0 95.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 70.0 90.0 85.0 95.0 20 NGO activity Comprehensive 90.9 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.3 79.5 86.4 86.4 74.4 75.0 88.6 84.1 100.0 44 Partial 56.3 68.8 68.8 75.0 81.3 75.0 81.3 75.0 81.3 68.8 81.3 81.3 87.5 16 Other NGO in the area Yes 79.1 76.7 65.1 72.1 72.1 76.7 81.4 79.1 71.4 74.4 86.0 81.4 95.3 43 No 88.2 70.6 100.0 88.2 94.1 82.4 94.1 94.1 88.2 70.6 88.2 88.2 100.0 17 Attitude towards SOP/FSP activities (positive attitude only) Organization of orientation meetings 85.7 75.0 78.6 75.0 78.6 82.1 85.7 85.7 76.4 75.0 87.5 83.9 98.2 56 Organization of CMC 86.8 75.5 79.2 75.5 77.4 83.0 84.9 86.8 76.9 75.5 88.7 83.0 98.1 53 Identification of EVs 83.7 79.6 83.7 79.6 83.7 87.8 85.7 83.7 81.6 75.5 85.7 81.6 98.0 49 Formation of child club 85.7 73.5 79.6 83.7 81.6 87.8 85.7 83.7 81.3 83.7 85.7 83.7 95.9 49 Incentives for best students 85.2 75.9 79.6 79.6 83.3 81.5 87.0 85.2 77.4 74.1 87.0 83.3 98.1 54 Organization of sensitization meetings 81.6 75.5 79.6 77.6 85.7 85.7 81.6 85.7 81.6 75.5 87.8 81.6 98.0 49

66 on child rights Organization of parents visiting day 82.5 73.7 73.7 75.4 77.2 78.9 84.2 84.2 75.0 71.9 87.7 86.0 96.5 57 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 81.6 71.4 81.6 77.6 83.7 87.8 83.7 85.7 81.6 79.6 83.7 79.6 95.9 49 Interactive programme among stakeholders 84.2 73.7 77.2 77.2 78.9 82.5 84.2 86.0 76.8 75.4 86.0 82.5 96.5 57 Interactive programme with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 81.6 73.5 77.6 77.6 79.6 83.7 83.7 87.8 81.6 75.5 87.8 81.6 98.0 49 Provision of support by community on physical infrastructure 83.3 77.8 74.1 77.8 77.8 77.8 85.2 85.2 73.6 74.1 88.9 83.3 100.0 54 Contribution in cash 80.4 73.9 76.1 80.4 80.4 80.4 87.0 87.0 71.1 76.1 87.0 82.6 97.8 46 Contribution in labour 83.9 73.2 76.8 76.8 82.1 78.6 87.5 87.5 74.5 75.0 89.3 85.7 98.2 56 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

8.6 Sources of inspiration to make positive attitude and behaviour about child education

To assess once again the relative importance of sources that motivated parents to make positive attitude and behaviour, the parents were asked a question about it. In response, majority of the parents reported that facilitators were the important sources of such inspiration. This was followed by inspiration coming from inner self and mass media/hoarding board (Table 8.15).

68 Table 8.15 Sources of inspiration to make positive attitude and behaviour (in percentage) Background characteristics Sources Total N Members of Education Facilitators School People Other Elite Neighb Mass Knew Others Class Volunteers Teachers from of ors media from Management NGOs Community (hoard inner Committee ing self board etc) End line total 1.6 3.1 35.4 14.2 11.8 0.8 2.4 12.6 17.3 0.8 127 Programme SOP 3.0 6.1 33.3 6.1 10.6 1.5 3.0 9.1 25.8 1.5 66 FSP 37.7 23.0 13.1 1.6 16.4 8.2 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 25.0 17.9 7.1 3.6 17.9 25.0 3.6 28 Intermediate status 2.2 4.4 37.8 13.3 13.3 1.1 2.2 11.1 14.4 90 Lower status/Dalits 50.0 12.5 12.5 25.0 8 Muslim 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 4.1 2.0 34.7 12.2 24.5 2.0 4.1 4.1 10.2 2.0 49 Can read only 41.2 17.6 11.8 11.8 17.6 17 Can read and write somehow 6.5 32.6 13.0 2.2 2.2 21.7 21.7 46 Can read and write well 40.0 20.0 13.3 26.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 4.3 4.3 47.8 8.7 4.3 13.0 17.4 23 With some difficulty 7.3 29.3 12.2 14.6 2.4 7.3 9.8 17.1 41 With difficulty 2.8 19.4 27.8 5.6 16.7 27.8 36 With very difficulty 55.6 3.7 22.2 11.1 3.7 3.7 27 NGO involvement Full term 1.5 1.5 46.3 1.5 22.4 1.5 3.0 6.0 16.4 67 Partial 1.7 5.0 23.3 28.3 1.7 20.0 18.3 1.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 1.6 6.3 50.0 4.7 10.9 1.6 3.1 6.3 15.6 64 Partial 1.6 20.6 23.8 12.7 1.6 19.0 19.0 1.6 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 1.2 1.2 36.9 10.7 17.9 1.2 2.4 15.5 13.1 84 No 2.3 7.0 32.6 20.9 2.3 7.0 25.6 2.3 43

69 Chapter 9 Other Relevant Issues

This chapter describes the many other relevant issues that are related to SOP/FSP. Such a discussion is intended to help understand the situation under which the CMC operated, people made attempts to institutionalize the programme and the parents’ perceptions of the NGO activities.

9.1 Invitation in CMC meeting

As has been found, a higher percentage of parents sending their children to SOP than those sending to FSP were invited in the CMC meetings. There were no clear variations in terms ones socio-economic status. However, the percentage of parents who were invited in the CMC meeting were relatively high from communities where partner NGOs completed full term and implemented full package (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1 Invitation in CMC (in percentage) Yes No Total N Background characteristics N % N % End line Total 96 75.6 31 24.4 127 Programme SOP 60 90.9 6 9.1 66 FSP 36 59.0 25 41.0 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 20 71.4 8 28.6 28 Intermediate status 70 77.8 20 22.2 90 Lower status/Dalits 6 75.0 2 25.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 38 77.6 11 22.4 49 Can read only 13 76.5 4 23.5 17 Can read and write somehow 33 71.7 13 28.3 46 Can read and write well 12 80.0 3 20.0 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 91.3 2 8.7 23 With some difficulty 34 82.9 7 17.1 41 With difficulty 18 50.0 18 50.0 36 With very difficulty 23 85.2 4 14.8 27 NGO involvement Full term 62 92.5 5 7.5 67 Partial 34 56.7 26 43.3 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 61 95.3 3 4.7 64 Partial 35 55.6 28 44.4 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 62 73.8 22 26.2 84 No 34 79.1 9 20.9 43

70 9.2 Issues discussed in CMC meeting

According to the reports of parents, the major issues discussed in the CMC meetings included the regularity of student. The other issues discussed were very few (Table 9.2).

Table 9.2 Issues discussed in CMC meeting (in percentage) Background characteristics About Others regularity of About (furniture, children in external sports, SOP/FSP support sanitation) Total N N % N % N % End line Total 89 94.7 2 2.1 3 3.2 94 Programme SOP 55 91.7 2 3.3 3 5 60 FSP 34 100.0 34 Social status of respondents Higher status 15 78.9 1 5.3 3 15.8 19 Intermediate status 69 98.6 1 1.4 70 Lower status/Dalits 5 100.0 5 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 33 91.7 2 5.6 1 2.8 36 Can read only 12 92.3 1 7.7 13 Can read and write somehow 32 97.0 1 3.0 33 Can read and write well 12 100.0 12 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 21 100.0 21 With some difficulty 34 100.0 34 With difficulty 14 77.8 2 11.1 2 11.2 18 With very difficulty 20 95.2 1 4.8 21 NGO involvement Full term 60 100.0 60 Partial 29 85.3 2 5.9 3 8.8 34 NGO activity Comprehensive 61 100.0 61 Partial 28 84.8 2 6.1 3 9.1 33 Other NGO in the area Yes 60 100.0 60 No 29 85.3 2 5.9 3 8.8 34

9.3 Decision making process in CMC meeting

The survey has revealed that most decisions in the CMC meetings were made in consensus. Only a very small percentage of the participants reported that they were made by the chairperson himself/herself (Table 9.3).

71 Table 9.3 Decision making process in the CMC meeting (in percentage) Background characteristics Decision making process Total N By chairperson In consensus with other Others himself/herself CMC members N % N % N % End line Total 4 4.3 87 92.6 3 3.2 94 Programme SOP 3 5.0 55 91.7 2 3.3 60 FSP 1 2.9 32 94.1 1 2.9 34 Social status of respondents Higher status 1 5.3 17 89.5 1 5.3 19 Intermediate status 3 4.3 65 92.9 2 2.9 70 Lower status/Dalits 5 100.0 5 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 3 8.3 32 88.9 1 2.8 36 Can read only 13 100.0 13 Can read and write somehow 1 3.0 31 93.9 1 3.0 33 Can read and write well 11 91.7 1 8.3 12 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 1 4.8 19 90.5 1 4.8 21 With some difficulty 1 2.9 32 94.1 1 2.9 34 With difficulty 2 11.1 15 83.3 1 5.6 18 With very difficulty 21 100.0 21 NGO involvement Full term 1 1.7 57 95.0 2 3.3 60 partial 3 8.8 30 88.2 1 2.9 34 NGO activity Comprehensive 2 3.3 57 93.4 2 3.3 61 Partial 2 6.1 30 90.9 1 3.0 33 Other NGO in the area Yes 1 1.7 57 95.0 2 3.3 60 No 3 8.8 30 88.2 1 2.9 34

9.4 Institutionalisation of SOP/FSP

In response to the question asked about whether or not the respondent made attempts to institutionalize the programme, great majority of the parents sending their children to SOP classes reported positively. However, in the case of FSP, the majority of the parents reported negatively. Those who were more literate and more able to support their family easily mostly reported positively (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4 Attempts made to institutionalize SOP/FSP (in percentage) Yes No Total N Background characteristics N % N % End line total 58 45.7 69 54.3 127 Programme SOP 47 71.2 19 28.8 66 FSP 11 18.0 50 82.0 61 Social status of respondents Higher status 11 39.3 17 60.7 28 Intermediate status 45 50.0 45 50.0 90 Lower status/Dalits 2 25.0 6 75.0 8 Muslim 1 100.0 1 Literacy of respondents Illiterate 18 36.7 31 63.3 49 Can read only 9 52.9 8 47.1 17

72 Can read and write somehow 20 43.5 26 56.5 46 Can read and write well 11 73.3 4 26.7 15 Ability of respondents to support family Easily 19 82.6 4 17.4 23 With some difficulty 23 56.1 18 43.9 41 With difficulty 12 33.3 24 66.7 36 With very difficulty 4 14.8 23 85.2 27 NGO involvement Full term 26 38.8 41 61.2 67 Partial 32 53.3 28 46.7 60 NGO activity Comprehensive 41 64.1 23 35.9 64 Partial 17 27.0 46 73.0 63 Other NGO in the area Yes 30 35.7 54 64.3 84 No 28 65.1 15 34.9 43

9.5 Usefulness of NGO activities

In response to the question asked about the usefulness of NGO activities, majority of the respondents reported that they were useful. However, the percentage of respondents who responded positively was relatively low with respect to contribution in cash and kind and contribution in labour (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5 Usefulness of NGO activities Organization Organiz Identif Forma Prov Organi Organ Provisio Interac Interact Sup Cont Contri N of ation of ication tion of ision zation izatio n of tive ive port ribut bution orientation CMC of EVs child of of n of encourag Progra Progra on ion in meetings club ince sensiti parent ement to m m with phys in labour ntive zation s send among commu ical s for meetin visitin child to stakeh nity infra cash Background best gs on g days school olders people struc and characteristics stude child through and ture kind nts rights door-to- childre door n visits attendi ng SOP/F SP Endline total 89.0 90.4 82.2 86.3 78.1 87.7 74.0 71.2 68.5 75.3 69.9 56.2 52.1 73 Programme SOP 88.0 88.0 78.0 82.0 76.0 86.0 70.0 66.0 66.0 72.0 80.0 82.0 76.0 50 FSP 91.3 95.7 91.3 95.7 82.6 91.3 82.6 82.6 73.9 82.6 47.8 23 Social status of respondents Higher status 88.9 77.8 66.7 77.8 55.6 66.7 66.7 66.7 55.6 66.7 44.4 9 Intermediate status 90.2 91.8 83.6 86.9 80.3 90.2 73.8 75.4 70.5 78.7 75.4 67.2 62.3 61 Lower status/Dalits 100. 66.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 66.7 33.3 33.3 3 Muslim Literacy of respondents Illiterate 85.2 88.9 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.5 66.7 70.4 77.8 77.8 74.1 44.4 48.1 27 Can read only 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 90.0 80.0 60.0 60.0 70.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 60.0 10 Can read and write somehow 92.3 92.3 84.6 92.3 73.1 96.2 80.8 73.1 57.7 76.9 61.5 57.7 53.8 26 Can read and write well 90.0 90.0 80.0 90.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 10 Ability to support family Easily 100.0 100.0 85.7 85.7 81.0 90.5 76.2 81.0 81.0 81.0 85.7 76.2 76.2 21 With some difficulty 88.9 88.9 85.2 85.2 77.8 92.6 70.4 66.7 51.9 63.0 74.1 70.4 66.7 27 With difficulty 72.7 72.7 54.5 81.8 63.6 81.8 63.6 63.6 72.7 90.9 54.5 36.4 27.3 11 With very difficulty 85.7 92.9 92.9 92.9 85.7 78.6 85.7 71.4 78.6 78.6 50.0 14.3 7.1 14 NGO involvement Full term 93.2 97.7 81.8 86.4 84.1 88.6 77.3 70.5 68.2 75.0 70.5 59.1 59.1 44 Partial 82.8 79.3 82.8 86.2 69.0 86.2 69.0 72.4 69.0 75.9 69.0 51.7 41.4 29 NGO activity Comprehensive 89.6 91.7 81.3 85.4 79.2 89.6 72.9 68.8 68.8 75.0 83.3 85.4 79.2 48 Partial 88.0 88.0 84.0 88.0 76.0 84.0 76.0 76.0 68.0 76.0 44.0 25 Other NGO in the area Yes 92.2 96.1 82.4 88.2 84.3 90.2 76.5 74.5 68.6 78.4 68.6 51.0 51.0 51 No 81.8 77.3 81.8 81.8 63.6 81.8 68.2 63.6 68.2 68.2 72.7 68.2 54.5 22 Actual participation in SOP/FSP activities (Yes only) Organization of orientation 60.0 meetings 95.4 95.4 86.2 87.7 83.1 93.8 75.4 75.4 70.8 76.9 72.3 56.9 65 Organization of CMC 95.1 95.1 86.9 86.9 82.0 93.4 75.4 75.4 68.9 75.4 72.1 57.4 54.1 61 Identification of EVs 93.2 93.2 86.4 86.4 81.4 91.5 74.6 79.7 74.6 78.0 71.2 55.9 54.2 59 Formation of child club 93.4 95.1 83.6 88.5 80.3 88.5 77.0 77.0 75.4 80.3 70.5 54.1 50.8 61 Incentives for best 58.2 students 92.5 92.5 83.6 89.6 79.1 88.1 74.6 74.6 70.1 77.6 71.6 53.7 67 Organization of 52.5 sensitization meetings on child rights 93.2 93.2 84.7 89.8 83.1 93.2 76.3 79.7 74.6 79.7 72.9 50.8 59 Organization of parents 57.1 visiting day 88.6 91.4 82.9 87.1 78.6 88.6 74.3 71.4 68.6 75.7 70.0 52.9 70 Provision of 55.0 encouragement to send child to school through door-to-door visits 90.0 91.7 83.3 90.0 83.3 91.7 75.0 76.7 76.7 80.0 70.0 51.7 60 Interactive programme 57.1 among stakeholders 90.0 91.4 82.9 88.6 81.4 90.0 74.3 72.9 70.0 77.1 70.0 52.9 70

74 Interactive programme 54.2 with community people and children attending SOP/FSP 91.5 94.9 86.4 88.1 79.7 89.8 76.3 76.3 72.9 76.3 69.5 49.2 59 Provision of support by 61.9 community on physical infrastructure 92.1 93.7 85.7 87.3 82.5 90.5 74.6 71.4 68.3 74.6 74.6 58.7 63 Contribution in cash 94.5 92.7 81.8 87.3 81.8 96.4 74.5 74.5 63.6 74.5 74.5 54.5 52.7 55 Contribution in labour 89.7 91.2 82.4 86.8 77.9 88.2 73.5 72.1 69.1 76.5 70.6 57.4 52.9 68 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

75 Chapter 10 Suggestions of Respondents on Improving the KAP of Parents

This chapter presents the suggestions of respondents on how their KAP could be improved. In other words, it solicits suggestions from them to make CASP more effective in the future.

10.1 Suggestions to implement SOP

A number of suggestions were offered by parents who sent their children to SOP. The major suggestions include the provision of dress, meals, drinking water and sports facilities as in the case of Chhaimale and the need to help parents in income generation as in the case of Sangla and Sundarijal (Table 10.1).

Table 10.1 Suggestions to implement SOP (in percentage) SN Suggestions Chhaimale Talku Sangla Sundarijal 1 Class building should be good 7.7 15.8 2 Dress, meals should be provided; there should be drinking water and sports facility 81.3 31.6 5.6 3 Something should be done for income generation of parents also 6.3 21.1 22.2 4 Awareness programme should be lunched 12.5 15.4 5 People of VDC should be made active 10.5 11.1 6 Everyone should know about programme 7.7 5.3 5.6 7 Add SOP/FSP classes 15.4 8 All facilities should provided 7.7 5.3 5.6 9 Uneducated people should be advised/convinced 15.8 38.9 10 Children should be given prize/scholarship 12.5 11 There should be a doctor 5.6 12 There should be more facilitator 13 Provide more incentives to facilitator 15.4 5.6 14 Form child club 6.3 5.3 15 Provide skill based education to children 12.5 15.4 21.1 16.7 16 Extend the programme 7.7 5.3 5.6 17 Use trustworthy NGO 16.7 18 VDC should monitor programme 5.6 19 Help to families with many children 11.1 20 Provide training on farming 5.6 21 Involve smart people 5.6 22 Provide advising from knowledgeable persons 5.3 5.6 23 Involve elite in the meeting 11.1 24 Run participatory programme 5.3 25 Provide opportunity for other children as well 26 The class should cover other children 27 Inform about the programme in advance 5.3 28 The meeting should be regular 29 Create good environment so children do not leave school 30 Make good environment in school 31 Make parents capable to raise children 32 Hire good teachers 33 Provide opportunity for orphans 34 Make local organizations active for help 12.5 15.8 35 Don’t know 46.2 Total N 16 13 19 18 Percentage adds up to more than 100 due to multiple response

76 10.2 Suggestions to implement FSP

The major suggestions to implement the FSP better in the future included provision of incentives as in the case of Jorpati and Koteshor, provision of class building as in the case of Koteshor, launching awareness programme as in the case of Koteshor, provision of all facilities as in the case of Jorpati, providing skill based education as in the case of Koteshor and provision of information about programme in advance as in the case of Tinchule and Shantinagar (Table 10.2).

Table 10.2 Suggestions to implement FSP (in percentage) SN Suggestions Jorpati Gongabu Tinchule Koteshor Shantinagar 1 Class building should be good 5.9 25.0 2 Dress, meals should be provided; there should be drinking water and sports facility 70.6 8.3 50.0 9.1 3 Something should be done for income generation of parents also 11.8 8.3 12.5 4 Awareness programme should be lunched 17.6 15.4 25.0 5 People of VDC should be made active 11.8 6 Everyone should know about programme 17.6 7 Add SOP/FSP classes 5.9 8.3 8 All facilities should provided 23.5 7.7 9 Uneducated people should be advised/convinced 5.9 10 Children should be given prize/scholarship 5.9 9.1 11 There should be a doctor 5.9 12 There should be more facilitator 5.9 13 Provide more incentives to facilitator 14 Form child club 15 Provide skill based education to children 8.3 50.0 9.1 16 Extend the programme 7.7 17 Use trustworthy NGO 18 VDC should monitor programme 19 Help to families with many children 20 Provide training on farming 21 Involve smart people 22 Provide advising from knowledgeable persons 23 Involve elite in the meeting 24 Run participatory programme 7.7 18.2 25 Provide opportunity for other children as well 7.7 9.1 26 The class should cover other children 7.7 25.0 27 Inform about the programme in advance 16.7 76.9 90.9 28 The meeting should be regular 8.3 29 Create good environment so children do not leave school 8.3 30 Make good environment in school 8.3 31 Make parents capable to raise children 8.3 32 Hire good teachers 8.3 33 Provide opportunity for orphans 8.3 9.1 34 Make local organizations active for help 35 Don’t know 16.7 Total N 17 12 13 8 11

77 10.3 Summary of suggestions to implement SOP and FSP

In aggregate, the major suggestions were provision of dress, meals, drinking water and sports facilities in schools; provision of skill based education; and provision of information about the programme in advance (Table 10.3).

Table 10.3 Suggestions to implement SOP and FSP (in percentage) SN Suggestions N % 1 Class building should be good 7 5.5 2 Dress, meals should be provided; there should be drinking water and sports facility 38 29.9 3 Something should be done for income generation of parents also 13 10.2 4 Awareness programme should be lunched 11 8.7 5 People of VDC should be made active 6 4.7 6 Everyone should know about programme 6 4.7 7 Add SOP/FSP classes 4 3.1 8 All facilities should provided 8 6.3 9 Uneducated people should be advised/convinced 11 8.7 10 Children should be given prize/scholarship 4 3.1 11 There should be a doctor 2 1.6 12 There should be more facilitator 1 0.8 13 Provide more incentives to facilitator 3 2.4

14 Form child club 2 1.6 15 Provide skill based education to children 17 13.4 16 Extend the programme 4 3.1 17 Use trustworthy NGO 3 2.4 18 VDC should monitor programme 1 0.8 19 Help to families with many children 2 1.6 20 Provide training on farming 1 0.8 21 Involve smart people 1 0.8 22 Provide advising from knowledgeable persons 2 1.6 23 Involve elite in the meeting 2 1.6 24 Run participatory programme 4 3.1 25 Provide opportunity for other children as well 2 1.6 26 The class should cover other children 3 2.4 27 Inform about the programme in advance 23 18.1 28 The meeting should be regular 1 0.8 29 Create good environment so children do not leave school 1 0.8 30 Make good environment in school 1 0.8 31 Make parents capable to raise children 1 0.8 32 Hire good teachers 1 0.8 33 Provide opportunity for orphans 2 1.6 34 Make local organizations active for help 5 3.9 35 Don’t know 8 6.3 Total N 127 100.0 Percentage ads up to more than 100 due to multiple responses.

78 Chapter 11 Conclusion and Recommendations

This chapter first draws key conclusions. Based on those conclusions, it makes a series of recommendations regarding the future course of actions to be taken by CASP.

11.1Key Conclusion

The key conclusions of the study are as follows:

11.1.1 Determinants of KAP

79 • Provision of incentives for best students, provision of door-to-door visits encouraging parents to send children to school and organisation of parents visiting days were found as the important activities that had highly influenced the KAP of parents in communities where other NGOs also worked (Annex 7).

Synchronisation among indicators

Outcome assessment

The key outcomes of ASP can be assessed as follows: • Provision of SOP/FSP was highly valued by parents as it helped to increase the educational access of their children by providing free education in convenient locations and time. • In addition to migration of parents, irregularity of SOP/FSP classes was found as the dominant reasons underlying the dropout of children from the SOP/FSP classes. The dislike of children to go to school and the need to work for living especially among the girls were found as the secondary reasons for dropout. • All KAP indicators evolved well over time except for Sangla where the programme was terminated soon after it was implemented because of the withdrawal of the partner NGO. • Prompt enrolment of children in formal schools in case the partner NGOs cannot work effectively as in Sangla may cause positive perception of the formal school among the parents and prevents their children’s educational wastages (Annex 14). • As compared to the time of baseline survey, the impact of structural factors on the KAP of parents was found to have been reduced.

6. Key Recommendations

80 3. If the activities of NGOs are terminated before completing the full term, they cannot make the desirable impacts on the KAP of parents. Therefore, clarity should be ensured in the Terms of Reference before partnership is forged between the two institutions. 4. NGOs should implement a comprehensive set of activities to yield tangible results. 5. In the future, the SOP/FSP classes should be run in communities where other NGOs also work in relevant thematic areas (i.e. education, income generation) to realize synergy in the programmes in general and to uplift the economic status of parents in particular. 6. Provision of incentives for best students need to be prioritised in the future as it has the ability to influence the KAP of parents. 7. The SOP/FSP classes should be managed well to make them child friendly and regular. 8. Parents should be invited in CMC meetings to realise ownership of programme among them. 9. Finally, the suggestions offered by the parents with respect to the provision of incentives (school dress, meals, etc), physical facilities and skill-based education should be honoured as much as possible to ensure that the programme also becomes demand driven in the meantime. It is believed if CASP is tied up with the other programmes of government and donor communities (e.g. school feeding programme, scholarship and incentive programme, pro-poor programmes) it can be even more effective in the future.

81 References

CASP. 2004. Terms of Reference for Local NGOs to Implement Pilot Activities under the Community- based Alternative Schooling Project. Kathmandu.

CASP. 2009. Workshop on Policy Recommendations from CASP Experience. Kathmandu. IIDS. 2005. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) Survey under Community-based Alternative Schooling Project in Dhading and Siraha Districts. Kathmandu.

IIDS. 2006. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) Survey under Community-based Alternative Schooling Project in Kathmandu District. Kathmandu.

IIDS. 2009. Endline Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey in Dhading and Siraha Districts under Community-based Alternative Schooling. Kathmandu.

National Planning Commission. 2007. Three Year Interim Plan. National Planning Commission. Kathmandu

82 Annex 1: Questionnaires for parents Endline Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey in Kathmandu District Under Community Based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) Institute for Integrated Development Studies (2009)

Background

1. Program type 1.1 School Outreach Program (SOP) for 6-8 year old children 1.2 Flexible Schooling Program (FSP) for 8-14 year old children

2. Location of Programme 1. Jorpati 2. Gongabu 3. Santinagar 4. Tinchule 5. Koteshor 6. Chhaimale 7. Sangla 8. Talkududechaur 9. Sundarijal 3. Travel time to reach mother school______4. Travel time to reach the SOP/FSP classes (in minutes) ______

Household information

5. Caste/ethnicity 1. Brahmin 2. Chhetry 3. Newar 4.Tamang 5. Bhujel 6. Mager 7. Gurung 8. Rai 9.Chepang/Praja 10. Damai 11. Sarki 12. Kami 13. Sunuwar 14. Kumal 15. Chaudhary 16. Majhi 17. Others (specify) 6. Literacy of respondent 1. Illiterate 2.Can read only 3. Can read and write somehow 4. Can read and write well/ do calculations

7. Residential status in this tole 1. Permanent 2. Temporary

8. If temporary, did you migrate here from other place? 1. Yes 2. No

9. If yes, how long have you been here? Year_____ Month______

10. What are the main sources of your family income 1. Agriculture (food grains) 2. Agriculture (vegetable farming, fruit farming, livestock raising) 3. Service 4. Business/industry 5. Wage labor 6. Pension

83 7. Traditional occupation 8. Remittance 9 Others (specify)

11 How easily are you able to support your family? 1. Easily 2. With some difficulty 3. With difficulty 4. With very difficulty

12. What are the things that you prioritize for the development of this community? (Rank three main priorities) 1. Agriculture, Livestock and Vegetable Farming 2. Road Construction/maintenance 3. Irrigation and River Control 4. Forest Development and Conservation 5. Electricity 6. Health and Sanitation 7. Education, Literacy and Awareness 8. Physical structure/community Buildings 9. Drinking Water 10. Income Generation Activities 11. Saving and Credit 12. Control of Alcohol 13. Anti trafficking 14. Others (specify) 15. I don’t know

84 Family Demography and Schooling of Children

13. How many children aged 0-17 do you have in the family?______

14. Please provide information on the children 6 to 17 years of age regarding their schooling. S.N Name of child Age .Sex Is the child's birth Did the child attend alternative Did the child complete the three If child dropped out from M=1 registered? school/class for children 6-8 years of year class or drop out in the the middle of SOP/FSP F=2 Yes=1 age (SOP ) or for children 8-14 years middle? course, why? (Write codes No=2 of age (FSP)? from those listed below) (Explain alternative school if 1=Completed the course necessary) 2=Dropped out in the middle

1= Yes for 6-8 years of age 2= Yes for 8-14 years of age (SOP) 3= No

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 2 3 4

Codes for column (7) :Reasons for dropout 1. Child did not like to go to alternative school (SOP/FSP) 2. Child needed to work at home for living 3. Child was little too young/old to attend 4. The location of alternative school class was too far 5. The time of alternative school was not convenient 6. The alternative school was irregular 7. Child did not understand what teacher taught 8. Classmates did not behave well/downplayed 9. The physical facilities were bad 10. Dress was not provided free 11. Tiffin was not provided free 12. Educational materials (notebooks, pens) were not provided free 13. Scholarship money was not provided 14. The child was married 15. We could not prepare meal/feed child in time 16. Parents married another person 17. Others (specify)

15. Why did you send your child to alternative school (SOP/FSP) and not to formal school? (Explain formal school if necessary) (multiple response) 1. Class was held in convenient location 2. Class was held in convenient time 3. Education was free 4. School uniform, tiffin and scholarship money were available free 5. Children were taught by local facilitators 6. It was easy to understand what the teachers taught 7. Other s (specify)

16. Did some people tell you to send your children to SOP/FSP at first time?

85 1. Yes 2.No (Go to Q 18)

17. If yes, who were they? (multiple response) 1. Members of Class Management Committee (CMC) 2. Education Volunteers 3. Facilitators 4. School Teachers 5. People from NGOs 6. Resource Persons 7. Other Elite of Community 8. Neighbors 9. Others (specify)

Knowledge/Awareness of Parents on Child Education

18. Did you know whether the following interventions were conducted in your community to encourage the educational participation of 6-8 and 8-14 year old children who did not go to formal school ? (Ask the questions below in view of the activities done by NGO) Knowledge of Interventions interventions (Now ask the following questions to the respondent) 1=Yes 2=No 3=Don’t know/not sure

1. Did you know that there was organization of introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP (program for children not going to formal school) targeting community leaders, parents, formal school teachers, employees of working children and other relevant stakeholders? 2. Did you know that there was organization of Class Management Committee (CMC) comprising of parents, formal school teachers, community people, and the facilitator and its activities? (Explain class management committee if necessary) 3. Did you know that there was identification of Education Volunteers (EVs) in the target communities or nearby communities (e.g. retired teachers, educated youth and educated community people) and their activities to assist Facilitators and SOP/FSP students? 4. Did you know that there was Child Club in each class to carryout various extracurricular activities such as sports, cleanliness, song and dance, Deusi-Bhailo and wall posters

86 5. Did you know that there was provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities? 6. Did you know that there was organization of a series of sensitization meetings or workshops regarding education for all including SOP/FSP and child rights through such means as role-play, video, flip charts, and talk show? 7. Did you know that there was arrangement of Parents’ Visiting Day in each class? 8 Did you know that there was provision of encouragement to the parents to continue to send their children to classes through door-to-door visits? 9. Did you know that there was interactive program among community people, CMC, mother school, School Management Committee (SMS) and Parent Teacher Association (PTA), such as role play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama? 10. Did you know that there was interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children, such as role-play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama? 11. Did you know that there was provision for providing support on physical facility by the community in matters such as making buildings making arrangement for drinking water and toilet?. 12. Did you know that there was campaign to encourage contribution in cash and kind 13. Did you know that there was campaign to encourage contribution in labour?

19. Were you invited in the Class Management Committee meeting? 1. Yes 2.No

20. If yes, what issues were discussed in the meeting? 1. About regularity of children in SOP/FSP 2. About EVs and facilitators 3. About CMC fund mobilization 4. About external support 5. Others (specify) 21. How was the decision made in the CMC meeting? 1. By chairperson himself/herself 2. In consensus with other CMC members 3. Others (specify)

22. Did you hear the following statements before? (Prompt all statements listed below) 1=Yes 22b Statements 2= No If yes, from what source did you hear about them? (use only one major source) 1. Members of Class Management Committee (CMC) 2. Education Volunteers 3. Facilitators 4. School Teachers 5. People from NGOs 6. Resource Persons (RP Sir) 7. Other Elite of Community 8. Neighbors 9. Mass media (hoarding board etc) 10. Knew from inner self 11. Program itself 12. Own child 13. Others (specify)

1. It is the right of every child to go to school 2. It is the right of every girl child to go to school as much as boys 3. Nepalese law prohibits child marriage 4. It is illegal to send children to labor force 5. Handicapped/disabled children have same right as the normal children to go to school 6. Child care is the responsibility of parents

Attitude of Parents on Child Education

23. Please tell us about the extent to which you agree with the following statements (Read all statements listed below). 1 = Agree very much Statements 2 = Agree only to some extent 3 = Do not agree 1.It is the right of every child to go to school 2.It is the right of every girl child to go to

88 school as much as boys 3.Nepalese law prohibits child marriage 4.It is illegal to send children to labor force 5.Handicapped/disabled children have same right as the normal children to go to school 6.Child care is the responsibility of parents

24. In your opinion, whose responsibility is it to educate children? (multiple response) 1. Parents and Family 2. Schools and Teachers 3. Government 4. Community/society 5. NGOs or other aid organizations 6. Others (specify)

25. If you are requested, will you do the following activities in the future? (Ask all questions below) 1=Yes Activity related questions 2 = No 3= Don’t know/not sure 1.Will you participate in introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP targeting community leaders, parents, formal school teachers, employees of working children and other relevant stakeholders? 2. Will you participation in Class Management Committee (CMC) comprising of parents, formal school teachers, community people, and the facilitator and its activities? 3. Will you serve as an Education Volunteer (EV) in the target communities or nearby communities to assist Facilitators and SOP/FSP students? 4. Will you facilitate Child Club in each class to carryout various extracurricular activities such as sports, cleanliness, song and dance, Deusi-Bhailo and wall posters? 5. Will you cooperate with the provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities? 6. Will you participate in sensitization meetings or workshops regarding education for all including SOP/FSP and child rights through such means as role-play, video, flip charts and talk show?

89 7. Will you participate in Parents’ Visiting Day in your child’s class? 8 Will you participate in encouraging the other parents to send or continue to send their children to schools including alternative schools? 9. Will you participate in interactive program among community people, CMC ,mother school, School Management Committee (SMS) and Parent Teacher Association (PTA), such as role-play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama? 10. Will you participate in interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children, such as role-play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama? 11. Will you cooperate in providing support on physical facility by the community in matters such as making buildings making arrangement for drinking water and toilet? 12. Will you contribute in cash and kind? 13. Will you contribute in labor? 26. How much will you be willing to send other child of yours, who do not go to alternative school or mother school, to alternative schools if the alternative schooling programs are continued in the future as well? 1. Very much willing 2. Somewhat willing 3. Only little willing 4. Not willing

27. Are you willing to send your child to formal school after the completion of alternative school program? 1. Yes 2. My child has already started going to formal school 3. No (Go to Q 29)

28. If you are willing to send your child to formal school after the completion of alternative schooling program, how much are you willing? 1. Very much willing 2. Somewhat willing 3. Only little willing 4. Not willing

29.If you are not willing or have not sent your child to formal school, why? 1. Education is not necessary 2. Child does not like to go to school 3. Child is handicapped 4. Child needs to work at home for living 5. Child is little too young/old to go to school 6. There is no school nearby/school is too far 7. Child likes to play more than study 8. School is irregular

90 9. It is heard that teachers do not teach well 10. Physical facilities are poor 11. Classmates do not behave well/downplay 12. Do not provide notebooks, pencils, tiffin, etc 13. It is not a good thing to send girls to school as they become member of other family after marriage 14. It is not a good thing to send girls to school as they wind up in kitchen work after they become married 15. Security situation is not good 16. Behavior of teacher are discouraging (rude, cruel, discriminatory, etc) 17. We cannot prepare meal/feed child in time 18. Political bias (civil war) 19. Others (specify)

Practice of Parents on Child Education 30 Did you or any member of the family participate in any activities related with alternative schooling program? Yes=1, No=2 (Go to Q 32)

31. If yes, what kind of activities did you do (multiple response) (Do not prompt)?

Activities (Note that activities as stated above are abbreviated here) 1. Participated in introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP 2. Participated in Class Management Committee (CMC 3. Served as an Education Volunteer (EV) to assist Facilitators 4. 5. Cooperated in the provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities? 6. Participated in a series of sensitization meetings or workshops about child rights 7. Participated in Parents’ Visiting Day in child’s class 8 Encouraged other parents to send or continue to send their children to schools (including SOP/FSP classes) 9. Participated in interactive program among community people 10. Participated in interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children 11. Provided support on physical infrastructure by community

12. Contributed in cash and kind

13. Contributed in labour

32.Did you encourage your child to become educated? 1. Yes 2.No

91 33. Have you ever talked with your children about their education? 1.Yes 2.No 34. Have you ever talked with your family members about your children's education? 1. Yes 2. No 35. Have you ever talked with your neighbors/community members about child education? 1. Yes 2. No

36. Who is most important person or what is the most important source that inspired you to think and act positively about your children's education?

1. Members of Class Management Committee (CMC) 2. Education Volunteers 3. Facilitators 4. School Teachers 5. People from NGOs 6. Resource Persons (RP Sir) 7. Other Elite of Community 8. Neighbors 9. Mass media (hoarding board etc) 10. Knew from inner self 11. Program itself 12. Own child 13. Others (specify)

37. Did you make any efforts for the institutionalization of SOP/FSP program? (i.e. to convert SOP/FSP classes into permanent schools)

Other issues 38. Will you prefer educating your child in SOP/FSP classes or in a mother school? 1. SOP/FSP classes 2. Mother school

39. Please give reasons for your answer. 1. Because it is close 2. Because education is good 3. Because education is free 4. Others (specify)______

40. Was there any problem after your child was transferred to mother school and admitted there? 1. Yes 2. No

41. If yes, what was the problem?

1. 2. 3.

42. Did the NGO work after your child was sent to mother school? 1. Yes 2. No

43. If yes, what did it do? (Tick mark those that NGO did)

1. Organization of introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP targeting community leaders, parents, formal school teachers, employees of working children and other relevant stakeholders 2. Organization of Class Management Committee (CMC) 3. Identification of Education Volunteers (EVs) 4. Formation of child club 5. Provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities 6. Organization of a series of sensitization meetings or workshops regarding education for all including SOP/FSP and child rights through such means as role- play, video, flip charts, and talk show 7. Arrangement of Parents’ Visiting Day in each class 8 Provision of encouragement to the parents to continue to send their children to classes through door-to-door visits 9. Interactive program among community people, CMC, mother school, School Management Committee (SMS) and Parent Teacher Association (PTA), such as role play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama 10. Interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children, such as role-play, 1 day discussion, use of flip chart, Bhajan, lecture and street drama 11. Encouragement to contribute to physical infrastructure by the community 12. Encouragement to contribute in cash and kind 13. Encouragement to contribute in labour

44. Which activities conducted by NGOs were useful to you and why?

Activity (Tick mark if (one major reasons) useful)

1. Organization of introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP 2. Formation of Class Management Committee (CMC 3. Identification of Education Volunteer (EV) to assist Facilitators

93 4. Formation of child club 5. Provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities 6. Organization of series of sensitization meetings or workshops about child rights 7. Organization of Parents’ Visiting Day in child’s class 8 Program to encourage other parents to send or continue to send their children to schools (including SOP/FSP classes) 9. Organization of interactive program among community people 10. Organization of interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children 11. Encouragement to contribute to physical infrastructure by the community 12. Encouragement to contribute in cash and kind 13. Encouragement to contribute in labour

Recommendations

45. What should be done to make the alternative schooling program even more effective in the future? Please give two major recommendations.

Time taken for interview:______Starting time:______Completion time:______Name of interviewer:______Name of supervisor:______Date:______(Thank the respondent for giving valuable time)

94 Annex 2: Questionnaires for NGOs End line Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Survey in Kathmandu District Under Community Based Alternative Schooling Project (CASP) Institute for Integrated Development Studies (2009)

Name of NGO:______Location: ______Phone: ______Email:______Name of respondent: ______Position:______

1. How many months did you work as a CASP partner NGO? 2. How much clear did you find the CASP terms of reference? 3. If some terms of references were unclear, what were they? 4. Which of the following activities did you do and which you did not do?

Activities done Done Not done 1. Organized introductory (orientation) meetings of SOP/FSP 2. Formed Class Management Committee (CMC 3. Helped identify Education Volunteer (EV) to assist Facilitators 4. Helped in the formation of child club 5. Helped in the provision of some incentives/awards for selected best students of the class and winners of the extracurricular activities? 6. Helped in the organization of a series of sensitization meetings or workshops about child rights 7. Helped in organizing Parents’ Visiting Day in child’s class 8 Encouraged other parents to send or continue to send their children to schools (including SOP/FSP classes) 9. Helped in organizing interactive program among community people 10. Helped in organizing interactive program between community people and SOP/FSP children 11. Helped in motivating community people to make provision of support on physical facility by the community

12. Encouraged them to contribute in cash and kind

13. Encouraged them to contribute in labor

14. Encouraged them to contribute in educational materials for handicraft, etc 95

15. Others (specify)

5. How much successful you think the SOP/FSP programmes were? 6. Please give reasons for your answer. 7. What should be the role of NGOs in the future as a social mobiliser? 8. How should it perform its role? 9. Are there any NGOs who work in your programme area? 10. If yes, how long have they been working 11. What do they do? 12. Whom do they target? 13. Are you willing to run classes like SOP and FSP in the future with your own resources? 14. Have you received the support of VDC from its social service program? 15. Did you make any efforts for the institutionalization of SOP/FSP program? (i.e. to convert SOP/FSP classes into permanent schools) 16. Have you coordinated with others in this matter?

Time taken for interview:______Starting time:______Completion time:______Name of interviewer:______Date:______(Thank the respondent for giving valuable time)

96 Annex 3: Changes in KAP indicators by programme and community

I: Indicator of knowledge and awareness regarding child education among parents

Baselin Endline Baselin Endline Baselin Endline I Indicator District Target I Indicator District Target I Indicator District Target e data data e data data e data data

1 Ratio of KTM_SOP 75.5% 92.4% 94.8% 2 Ratio of KTM_SOP 83.6% 92.4% 97.0% 3 Ratio of KTM_SOP 72.8% 84.8% 91.3% parents who parents who parents who 94.4% 100.0% 96% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 83.3% 87.5% 90% know about Chhaimale know about Chhaimale know about Chhaimale children’s Sangla 53.3% 61.5% 85% equal right Sangla 53.3% 61.5% 90% prohibition Sangla 40.0% 53.8% 80% right to go between of child Talku 60.0% 100.0% 98% Talku 86.7% 100.0% 98% Talku 73.3% 94.7% 95% to school girls and marriage Dudechour Dudechour Dudechour boys 94.4% 100.0% 100% 94.4% 100.0% 100% 94.4% 94.4% 100% Sundarijal Sundarijal Sundarijal KTM_FSP 91.4% 98.4% 97.8% KTM_FSP 92.8% 98.4% 97.0% KTM_FSP 90.9% 100.0% 95.6% Jorpati 80.0% 100.0% 90% Jorpati 86.7% 100.0% 95% Jorpati 93.3% 100.0% 100% Gongabu 92.9% 100.0% 100% Gongabu 92.9% 100.0% 100% Gongabu 92.9% 100.0% 100% Shantinagar 100.0% 100.0% 100% Shantinagar 100.0% 100.0% 100% Shantinagar 94.4% 100.0% 98% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Koteswor 84.2% 90.9% 99% Koteswor 84.2% 90.9% 90% Koteswor 73.7% 100.0% 80%

4 Ratio of KTM_SOP 78.6% 87.9% 91.3% 5 Ratio of KTM_SOP 78.9% 92.4% 92.5% 6 Ratio of KTM_SOP 80.3% 89.4% 91.5% parents who parents who parents who 100.0% 100.0% 100% 94.4% 100.0% 95% 100.0% 100.0% 100% know about Chhaimale know about Chhaimale know about Chhaimale prohibition Sangla 46.7% 53.8% 80% equal right Sangla 46.7% 61.5% 80% parents’ Sangla 53.3% 61.5% 90% of child between responsibili Talku 73.3% 94.7% 85% Talku 80.0% 100.0% 95% Talku 73.3% 94.7% 76% labor force handicappe ty for child Dudechour Dudechour Dudechour d/disabled care Sundarijal 94.4% 94.4% 100% children Sundarijal 94.4% 100.0% 100% Sundarijal 94.4% 94.4% 100% and normal KTM_FSP 82.4% 98.4% 88.6% KTM_FSP 92.9% 98.4% 96.4% KTM_FSP 95.0% 98.4% 98.0% children Jorpati 86.7% 100.0% 90% Jorpati 100.0% 100.0% 100% Jorpati 100.0% 100.0% 100% Gongabu 78.6% 91.7% 85% Gongabu 85.7% 91.7% 92% Gongabu 85.7% 91.7% 95% Shantinagar 83.3% 100.0% 98% Shantinagar 94.4% 100.0% 100% Shantinagar 100.0% 100.0% 100% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Tinchule 100.0% 100.0% 100% Koteswor 63.2% 100.0% 70% Koteswor 84.2% 100.0% 90% Koteswor 89.5% 100.0% 95%

II: Indicator of attitude regarding child education among parents

Baselin Endline Baselin Endlin Indicator District Target Indicator District Target e data data e data e data

1 Ratio of KTM_SOP 83.9% 97.0% 88.0% 2 Ratio of KTM_SOP 68.5% 89.4% 80.8% parents who parents who perceive that Chhaimale 86.7% 100.0% 88% are willing Chhaimale 63.6% 100.0% 75% parents Sangla 88.9% 92.3% 99% very much Sangla 72.2% 76.9% 95% should take to send Talku 60.0% 94.7% 65% Talku 53.8% 94.7% 58% responsibili children to ty to Dudechour formal Dudechour educate Sundarijal 100.0% 100.0% 100% school after Sundarijal 84.2% 83.3% 95% children 91.3% 95.1% 94.6% completion 62.4% 98.4% 81.6% KTM_FSP of FSP/SOP KTM_FSP Jorpati 100.0% 100.0% 100% Jorpati 30.8% 100.0% 60% Gongabu 94.4% 75.0% 98% Gongabu 83.3% 91.7% 90% Shantinagar 94.4% 100.0% 100% Shantinagar 72.2% 100.0% 98% Tinchule 78.6% 100.0% 85% Tinchule 57.1% 100.0% 70% Koteswor 88.9% 100.0% 90% Koteswor 68.8% 100.0% 90%

99 III: Indicator of practice regarding child education among parents

Baselin Endline Baselin Endline Baselin Endline Indicator District Target Indicator District Target Indicator District Target e data data e data data e data data

1 Ratio of KTM_SOP 75.0% 90.9% 88.8% 2 Ratio of KTM_SOP 58.6% 89.4% 67.3% 3 Ratio of KTM_SOP 50.8% 84.8% 65.0% parents who parents who parents 77.8% 100.0% 80% 46.7% 100.0 55% 40.0% 100.0 50% encourage Chhaimale practice to Chhaimale who Chhaimale children to talk with % practice to % become Sangla 53.3% 61.5% 90% children Sangla 77.8% 84.6% 95% talk with Sangla 44.4% 53.8% 80% educated Talku 80.0% 100.0% 90% about their Talku 46.7% 94.7% 50% family Talku 40.0% 94.7% 45% Dudechour education Dudechour members Dudechour about Sundarijal 88.9% 94.4% 95% Sundarijal 63.2% 77.8% 69% Sundarijal 78.9% 83.3% 85% children’s KTM_FSP 89.5% 100.0% 95.1% KTM_FSP 73.0% 83.6% 83.0% education KTM_FSP 65.9% 90.2% 77.2%

Jorpati 60.0% 100.0% 85% Jorpati 33.3% 41.2% 50% Jorpati 73.3% 88.2% 80% 92.9% 100.0% 96% 88.9% 100.0 95% 88.9% 100.0 96% Gongabu Gongabu Gongabu % % 100.0% 100.0% 100% 55.6% 100.0 80% 77.8% 92.3% 90% Shantinagar Shantinagar Shantinagar % 94.4% 100.0% 94% 92.9% 100.0 92.9% 28.6% 62.5% 50% Tinchule Tinchule Tinchule % 100.0% 100.0% 100% 94.4% 100.0 97% 61.1% 100.0 70% Koteswor Koteswor Koteswor % %

4 Ratio of 49.2 80.3% 69.5% parents who KTM_SOP % practice to 46.7 87.5% 60% talk with Chhaimale neighbors/c % ommunity 22.2 46.2% 80% members Sangla about % Talku 33.3 100.0% 40% children’s education Dudechour % 94.7 77.8% 98% Sundarijal % 37.2 57.4% 66.3% KTM_FSP % 20.0 35.3% 50% Jorpati % 83.3% 30% Gongabu 5.6%

100 38.9 53.8 80% Shantinagar % 71.4 100.0% 71.4% Tinchule % 50.0 63.4% 100% Koteswor %

Note: As the baseline data differs from SOP and FSP, it was agreed among the Partner NGOs and the DEO officials concerned that the average value in each program was considered as the target respectively.

101 Annex 4: Methodology for estimating odds ratios

The odds ratio shows how much likely is an event to occur in the programme area/group as compared to the control area/group. It is derived by dividing the product of the multiplication of cell A with D by the product of the multiplication of cell B with C. To calculate the odds of the knowledge of SOP/FSP activities by organization of sensitization meetings in Annex 5, 6, 7 and 8, data in the cells were as follows:

Estimation of odds Estimation of odds ratio Estimation of odds ratio Estimation of odds ratio between ratio between SOP and between full and partial between comprehensive communities with other NGOs FSP as shown in Annex terms of programme and partial implementation and without such NGOs as 5 implementation as shown of activities as shown in shown in Annex 8 in Annex 6 Annex 7 Group Response Group Response Group Response Group Response Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No SOP 53 A 13 B Full 56 A 11 B Compre 58 A 8 B Presence 69 A 15 B hensive of other NGO FSP 46 C 15 D Partial 43 C 17 D Partial 43 C 20 D Absence of 30 C 13 D other NGOs Odds ratio= 1.32 Odds ratio=2.01 Odds ratio=3.25 Odds ratio=1.99

Odds ratio in the case of SOP/FSP was calculated as 53*15/46*13=1.32 and can be expressed as "the respondents sending their children to SOP are 1.3 times more likely than those sending their children to FSP to have knowledge of SOP/FSP activities due to organization of sensitization meetings". When the odds ratio is 1, there is no difference or association. When it is more than 1 then the association is as expected or positive. When it is less than 1, the relation is negative.

102 Annex 5: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by programme type (SOP vs. FSP) Knowl Knowl Knowl Knowl Knowl Knowl Knowl Willin Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Willin Actual Encour Discus Discus Discus edge of edge of edge of edge of edge of edge of edge of gness on on on on on on gness partici ageme sion sion sions SOP/F right to same prohibi prohibi rights child to right to same prohibi prohibi rights child to send pation nt to with with with SP go to right tion of tion of of the care as partici go to right tion of tion of of the care as child in study childre family neighb activiti school for child child handic parents pate in school for child child handic parents to SOP/F n membe ours es girls marria labour apped respon SOP/F girls marria labour apped respon formal SP rs ge sibility SP ge sibility school activiti activiti es Activities es Total Organisation of orientation meetings 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 31.1 Organisation of CMC 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.9 20.5 Identification of EVs 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.6 13.6 Formation of child club 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.3 13.4 Incentives for best students 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.4 28.2 Orgamisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 11.0 Organisation of parents visiting day 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.9 21.4 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door to door visits 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.3 20.2 Interactive programme among stakeholders 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 13.5 Interactive programme between community people and children 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 15.6 Provision of support on physical infrastructure by community 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.9 2.5 30.8 Contribution in cash and kind 14.2 21.3 21.3 19.9 20.4 18.3 17.5 1.0 12.8 13.1 10.9 7.3 12.6 13.8 14.8 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.9 225.1 Contribution in Labour 31.5 59.6 59.6 64.3 47.3 43.7 42.1 1.0 28.6 30.4 25.0 18.7 29.1 31.5 37.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.6 3.6 559.5 Total 55.0 92.4 92.8 96.1 80.7 74.1 71.2 10.8 50.6 52.5 44.6 34.5 51.0 54.6 61.5 17.1 14.9 12.9 14.8 21.9 1004.0

103 Annex 6: Odds ratio for selected KAP indicators by NGO term of implementation (full vs. partial) Knowledg Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Willingn Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Willing Actual Encoura Discussi Discussi Discussi e of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of ess to on right on same on on on rights on child ness to particip gement on with on with ons with SOP/FSP right to same prohibiti prohibiti rights of child participa to go to right for prohibiti prohibiti of the care as send ation in to study children family neighbo activities go to right for on of on of the care as te in school girls on of on of handica parents child to SOP/FS member urs school girls child child handica parents SOP/FS child child pped responsi formal P s marriage labour pped responsi P marriage labour bility school activitie bility activitie s Activities s Total Organisation of oreintation meetings 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 4.0 2.1 2.1 3.0 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.9 50.0

Organisation of CMC 2.4 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.8 2.9 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 3.4 50.6

Identification of EVs 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.2 22.5

Formation of child club 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.8 2.2 2.7 1.8 2.3 30.2 Incentives for best students 8.1 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 4.1 8.1 8.2 7.4 6.3 8.3 7.9 6.9 1.4 3.2 4.5 5.8 3.7 121.9 Orgamisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 19.6 Organisation of parents visiting day 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 8.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 6.1 6.3 8.1 5.7 16.4 81.7 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door to door visits 4.5 4.7 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.6 4.8 4.7 5.5 7.0 4.8 4.5 4.3 1.5 2.8 4.3 2.7 5.3 82.7 Interactive programme among stakeholders 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 18.3 Interactive programme between community people and children 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.0 19.8 Provision of support on physical infrastructure by community 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 8.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 3.7 6.4 7.8 6.7 5.7 49.5

Contribution in cash 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.6 1.6 4.2 4.0 4.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 4.4 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 60.4

Contribution in Labour 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.9 4.9 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.2 1.0 2.3 4.2 2.9 2.3 68.6

Total 33.1 28.4 27.8 25.2 26.1 28.2 28.6 45.2 34.7 34.3 37.9 36.3 34.7 32.7 32.6 23.3 35.3 44.8 37.9 48.8 675.8

104 Annex 7: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by package of activity implemented by partner NGO (Comprehensive vs. partial) Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Willingn Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Willingn Actual Encoura Discussi Discussi Discussi dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of ess to on right on same on on on rights on child ess to participa gement on with on with ons with SOP/FS right to same prohibiti prohibiti rights of child participa to go to right for prohibiti prohibiti of the care as send tion in to study children family neighbo P go to right for on of on of the care as te in school girls on of on of handicap parents child to SOP/FS member urs activities school girls child child handicap parents SOP/FS child child ped responsi formal P s marriage labour ped responsi P marriage labour bility school activities Activity bility activities Total Organisation of oreintation meetings 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 4.7 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 7.3 4.0 7.1 5.2 18.8 89.6 Organisation of CMC 3.3 3.6 3.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 4.9 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.6 2.2 2.6 3.5 2.4 9.7 68.6

Identification of EVs 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.5 3.2 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.7 4.2 2.6 4.8 40.8 Formation of child club 2.2 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.9 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.8 3.8 2.1 3.3 44.5 Incentives for best students 8.5 7.2 7.0 6.5 6.6 7.1 6.9 7.8 8.3 8.0 6.8 7.1 8.2 8.1 7.0 4.4 6.2 8.1 4.9 9.4 144.1 Orgamisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.7 1.0 2.3 27.3 Organisation of parents visiting day 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 11.0 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 8.2 8.4 10.8 7.3 19.6 95.8 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door to door visits 4.7 5.0 4.3 4.2 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.4 6.0 7.9 7.1 8.2 7.9 5.9 3.9 4.1 3.5 4.5 2.8 7.9 101.5 Interactive programme among stakeholders 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.3 3.3 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 30.2 Interactive programme between community people and children 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.1 2.7 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 42.1 Provision of support on physical infrastructure by community 5.7 4.5 5.1 5.4 4.9 5.3 4.9 7.3 5.8 6.7 4.5 5.6 7.3 7.3 4.7 6.8 8.0 13.8 6.7 20.0 140.3 Contribution in cash ** 303.5 274.2 274.2 285 291.2 274.6 274.6 1.4 278.2 300 256.7 175.5 290.7 312.7 262.8 0.7 1.4 1.7 1.5 2.5 3852.8 Contribution in Labour 294.8 266.0 266.0 302.5 513.3 541.3 522.7 5.5 270.7 319.0 243.8 189.2 308.0 330.6 256.5 3.1 3.8 5.7 3.9 3.2 4649.8

Total 635.1 527.6 572.3 617.5 834.4 848.2 818.6 54.1 587.2 659.0 540.2 408.9 640.5 682.8 551.4 42.9 47.0 67.8 42.5 85.4 9327.2 ** Some empty cells were replaced by 1 to estimate odds ratios.

105 Annex 8: Odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by presence or absence other NGOs in the programme communities (presence vs. absence) Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Knowle Willingne Agre Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Willing Actual Encou Discuss Discuss Discuss dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of dge of ss to e on on on on on on ness to participa ragem ion ion ions SOP/F right to same prohibit prohibit rights child participat right same prohibit prohibit rights child send tion in ent to with with with SP go to right ion of ion of of the care as e in to go right ion of ion of of the care as child to SOP/FS study childre family neighb activiti school for child child handica parents SOP/FSP to for child child handica parents formal P n membe ours es girls marriag labour pped respons activities scho girls marriag labour pped respons school activitie rs Activities e ibility ol e ibility s Total Organisation of oreintation meetings 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 3.2 2.1 2.2 3.2 3.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.4 45.7 Organisation of CMC 2.9 3.1 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.1 4.0 3.2 3.3 3.9 4.3 3.5 3.2 3.8 2.8 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.6 62.7 Identification of EVs 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 28.3 Formation of child club 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 3.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.5 0.8 2.6 3.2 2.3 2.6 35.9 Incentives for best students 5.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.1 5.7 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.1 6.1 5.1 4.5 1.8 4.3 6.0 9.5 4.8 97.7 Orgamisation of sensitisation meetings on child rights 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 23.3 Organisation of parents visiting day 2.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.4 8.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.4 4.7 5.9 7.2 5.0 5.8 68.4 Provision of encouragement to send child to school through door to door visits 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.9 6.2 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.4 1.2 4.7 5.7 4.4 5.8 74.6 Interactive programme among stakeholders 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.6 1.0 0.8 23.9 Interactive programme between community people and children 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 25.3 Provision of support on physical infrastructure by community 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 4.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.7 2.8 4.7 3.8 3.4 36.1 Contribution in cash 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.4 29.4 Contribution in Labour 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.3 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.6 3.5 4.5 4.3 2.2 39.1 Total 26.9 21.2 21.0 19.4 19.7 22.3 22.3 49.4 29.0 29.1 31.6 32.7 30.9 27.7 26.3 20.6 36.7 44.8 42.0 37.1 590.5

106 Annex 9: Correlation matrix based on odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by programme type (SOP vs. FSP) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Willingne Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Willingne Actual Encourag Discussio Discussio Discussio e of e of right e of same e of e of e of rights e of child ss to right to go same right prohibitio prohibitio rights of child care ss to send participa ement to n with n with ns with SOP/FSP to go to right for prohibitio prohibitio of the care as participate to school for girls n of child n of child the as parents child to tion in study children family neighbour activities school girls n of child n of child handicapp parents in marriage labour handicapp responsibi formal SOP/FSP members s marriage labour ed responsibi SOP/FSP ed lity school activities lity activities 1. 1 .997(**) .997(**) .992(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .232 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .997(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.042 .410 .346 .315 .689(**)

2. .997(**) 1 1.000(**) .999(**) .998(**) .998(**) .999(**) .218 .997(**) .998(**) .997(**) .999(**) .998(**) .997(**) .999(**) -.024 .419 .335 .314 .695(**)

3. .997(**) 1.000(**) 1 .999(**) .998(**) .998(**) .999(**) .223 .997(**) .998(**) .997(**) .999(**) .998(**) .997(**) .999(**) -.018 .423 .340 .318 .699(**)

4. .992(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1 .994(**) .995(**) .995(**) .216 .992(**) .994(**) .993(**) .997(**) .994(**) .993(**) .997(**) -.006 .428 .335 .317 .702(**)

5. 1.000(**) .998(**) .998(**) .994(**) 1 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .232 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.032 .416 .345 .318 .693(**)

6. 1.000(**) .998(**) .998(**) .995(**) 1.000(**) 1 1.000(**) .232 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) -.028 .419 .345 .320 .695(**)

7. .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) .995(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1 .231 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) -.028 .418 .344 .318 .694(**)

8. .232 .218 .223 .216 .232 .232 .231 1 .229 .227 .213 .190 .224 .228 .226 .727(**) .903(**) .922(**) .895(**) .773(**)

9. 1.000(**) .997(**) .997(**) .992(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .229 1 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .997(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.042 .409 .344 .313 .688(**)

10. 1.000(**) .998(**) .998(**) .994(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .227 1.000(**) 1 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) -.039 .412 .342 .314 .691(**)

11. 1.000(**) .997(**) .997(**) .993(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .999(**) .213 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1 .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.051 .397 .334 .304 .682(*)

12. .997(**) .999(**) .999(**) .997(**) .998(**) .998(**) .998(**) .190 .997(**) .998(**) .998(**) 1 .998(**) .998(**) .999(**) -.044 .393 .313 .298 .676(*)

13. 1.000(**) .998(**) .998(**) .994(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .224 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1 1.000(**) 1.000(**) -.041 .409 .340 .313 .689(**)

14. 1.000(**) .997(**) .997(**) .993(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .228 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1 .999(**) -.041 .411 .345 .316 .691(**)

15. .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) .997(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .226 .999(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) 1 -.031 .417 .343 .316 .695(**)

16. -.042 -.024 -.018 -.006 -.032 -.028 -.028 .727(**) -.042 -.039 -.051 -.044 -.041 -.041 -.031 1 .752(**) .647(*) .765(**) .535

17. .410 .419 .423 .428 .416 .419 .418 .903(**) .409 .412 .397 .393 .409 .411 .417 .752(**) 1 .854(**) .940(**) .899(**)

18. .346 .335 .340 .335 .345 .345 .344 .922(**) .344 .342 .334 .313 .340 .345 .343 .647(*) .854(**) 1 .908(**) .861(**)

19. .315 .314 .318 .317 .318 .320 .318 .895(**) .313 .314 .304 .298 .313 .316 .316 .765(**) .940(**) .908(**) 1 .854(**)

20. .689(**) .695(**) .699(**) .702(**) .693(**) .695(**) .694(**) .773(**) .688(**) .691(**) .682(*) .676(*) .689(**) .691(**) .695(**) .535 .899(**) .861(**) .854(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Numbers in the first column correspond with the variable number and name in the first row.

107 Annex 10: Correlation matrix based on odds ratio for selected KAP indicators by NGO term of implementation (full vs. partial) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Knowled Knowled Knowled Knowled Knowled Knowled Knowled Willingne Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Willingn Actual Encourag Discussio Discussio Discussio ge of ge of ge of ge of ge of ge of ge of ss to right to same prohibitio prohibitio rights of child care ess to participa ement to n with n with ns with SOP/FSP right to same prohibitio prohibitio rights of child care participat go to right for n of child n of child the as parents send tion in study children family neighbou activities go to right for n of child n of child the as parents e in school girls marriage labour handicap responsib child to SOP/FS members rs school girls marriage labour handicap responsib SOP/FSP ped ility formal P Variable ped ility activities school activities 1 1 .982(**) .995(**) .998(**) .990(**) .994(**) .989(**) .068 .999(**) 1.000(**) .969(**) .885(**) .998(**) .997(**) .978(**) -.038 .079 .186 .368 .077 2 .982(**) 1 .994(**) .980(**) .965(**) .968(**) .970(**) .040 .987(**) .985(**) .987(**) .944(**) .981(**) .982(**) .982(**) -.042 .059 .162 .319 .063 3 .995(**) .994(**) 1 .995(**) .986(**) .989(**) .989(**) .060 .998(**) .996(**) .985(**) .914(**) .992(**) .991(**) .989(**) -.036 .073 .182 .343 .079 4 .998(**) .980(**) .995(**) 1 .990(**) .995(**) .992(**) .071 .998(**) .998(**) .972(**) .881(**) .995(**) .995(**) .984(**) -.019 .083 .185 .367 .092 5 .990(**) .965(**) .986(**) .990(**) 1 .998(**) .994(**) .067 .990(**) .987(**) .967(**) .848(**) .981(**) .979(**) .978(**) -.052 .071 .194 .357 .069 6 .994(**) .968(**) .989(**) .995(**) .998(**) 1 .996(**) .079 .994(**) .992(**) .967(**) .851(**) .987(**) .985(**) .982(**) -.026 .085 .201 .368 .093 7 .989(**) .970(**) .989(**) .992(**) .994(**) .996(**) 1 .101 .992(**) .988(**) .972(**) .873(**) .983(**) .981(**) .983(**) .004 .104 .226 .366 .139 8 .982(* .914(* .840(* .068 .040 .060 .071 .067 .079 .101 1 .065 .065 .028 .020 .079 .096 .071 .902(**) .991(**) *) *) *) 9 .999(**) .987(**) .998(**) .998(**) .990(**) .994(**) .992(**) .065 1 .999(**) .978(**) .896(**) .996(**) .995(**) .986(**) -.031 .077 .185 .355 .088 10 1.000(**) .985(**) .996(**) .998(**) .987(**) .992(**) .988(**) .065 .999(**) 1 .971(**) .893(**) .998(**) .998(**) .980(**) -.034 .078 .182 .363 .082 11 .969(**) .987(**) .985(**) .972(**) .967(**) .967(**) .972(**) .028 .978(**) .971(**) 1 .929(**) .962(**) .962(**) .988(**) -.039 .046 .148 .292 .062 12 .885(**) .944(**) .914(**) .881(**) .848(**) .851(**) .873(**) .020 .896(**) .893(**) .929(**) 1 .896(**) .896(**) .888(**) -.022 .038 .140 .233 .116 13 .998(**) .981(**) .992(**) .995(**) .981(**) .987(**) .983(**) .079 .996(**) .998(**) .962(**) .896(**) 1 .999(**) .971(**) -.018 .091 .195 .375 .107 14 .997(**) .982(**) .991(**) .995(**) .979(**) .985(**) .981(**) .096 .995(**) .998(**) .962(**) .896(**) .999(**) 1 .972(**) .003 .109 .209 .394 .119 15 .978(**) .982(**) .989(**) .984(**) .978(**) .982(**) .983(**) .071 .986(**) .980(**) .988(**) .888(**) .971(**) .972(**) 1 .014 .088 .185 .338 .106 16 .844(* .758(* .924(* -.038 -.042 -.036 -.019 -.052 -.026 .004 .902(**) -.031 -.034 -.039 -.022 -.018 .003 .014 1 .909(**) *) *) *) 17 .963(* .920(* .821(* .079 .059 .073 .083 .071 .085 .104 .991(**) .077 .078 .046 .038 .091 .109 .088 .909(**) 1 *) *) *) 18 .916(* .825(* .186 .162 .182 .185 .194 .201 .226 .982(**) .185 .182 .148 .140 .195 .209 .185 .844(**) .963(**) 1 *) *) 19 .916(* .368 .319 .343 .367 .357 .368 .366 .914(**) .355 .363 .292 .233 .375 .394 .338 .758(**) .920(**) 1 .673(*) *) 20 .825(* .077 .063 .079 .092 .069 .093 .139 .840(**) .088 .082 .062 .116 .107 .119 .106 .924(**) .821(**) .673(*) 1 *) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Numbers in the first column correspond with the variable number and name in the first row.

108

Annex 11: Correlation matrix based on odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by package of activity implemented by partner NGO (comprehensive vs. partial)

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Willingne Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Willingne Actual Encourage Discussio Discussio Discussio e of e of right e of same e of e of e of rights e of child ss to right to go same right prohibitio prohibitio rights of child care ss to send participat ment to n with n with ns with SOP/FSP to go to right for prohibitio prohibitio of the care as participate to school for girls n of child n of child the as parents child to ion in study children family neighbour activities school girls n of child n of child handicapp parents in marriage labour handicapp responsibi formal SOP/FSP members s marriage labour ed responsibi SOP/FSP ed lity school activities lity activities 1 1 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .952(**) .936(**) .935(**) -.101 1.000(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) -.234 -.171 -.170 -.118 -.241 2 1.000(**) 1 1.000(**) .999(**) .952(**) .936(**) .935(**) -.103 1.000(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) -.234 -.172 -.172 -.120 -.242 3 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1 .999(**) .952(**) .936(**) .935(**) -.102 1.000(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) -.234 -.171 -.171 -.119 -.241 4 .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1 .966(**) .952(**) .952(**) -.089 .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.225 -.162 -.160 -.108 -.240 5 .952(**) .952(**) .952(**) .966(**) 1 .999(**) .999(**) -.015 .955(**) .966(**) .949(**) .968(**) .966(**) .966(**) .953(**) -.171 -.108 -.102 -.047 -.227 6 .936(**) .936(**) .936(**) .952(**) .999(**) 1 1.000(**) .000 .939(**) .952(**) .931(**) .954(**) .952(**) .951(**) .937(**) -.158 -.095 -.088 -.033 -.222 7 .935(**) .935(**) .935(**) .952(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) 1 .001 .939(**) .952(**) .931(**) .954(**) .951(**) .951(**) .936(**) -.157 -.095 -.088 -.033 -.221 8 -.101 -.103 -.102 -.089 -.015 .000 .001 1 -.099 -.088 -.109 -.089 -.088 -.088 -.101 .853(**) .963(**) .894(**) .946(**) .776(**) 9 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .955(**) .939(**) .939(**) -.099 1 .999(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) -.232 -.168 -.168 -.116 -.240 10 .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .966(**) .952(**) .952(**) -.088 .999(**) 1 .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) -.224 -.161 -.159 -.107 -.239 11 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) .949(**) .931(**) .931(**) -.109 1.000(**) .998(**) 1 .997(**) .998(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) -.238 -.177 -.178 -.125 -.243 12 .998(**) .998(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) .968(**) .954(**) .954(**) -.089 .999(**) 1.000(**) .997(**) 1 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) -.223 -.162 -.161 -.109 -.241 13 .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .966(**) .952(**) .951(**) -.088 .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1 1.000(**) .999(**) -.224 -.160 -.159 -.107 -.238 14 .999(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .966(**) .951(**) .951(**) -.088 .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1 .999(**) -.224 -.161 -.159 -.107 -.238 15 1.000(**) 1.000(**) 1.000(**) .999(**) .953(**) .937(**) .936(**) -.101 1.000(**) .999(**) 1.000(**) .998(**) .999(**) .999(**) 1 -.233 -.170 -.170 -.118 -.241 16 -.234 -.234 -.234 -.225 -.171 -.158 -.157 .853(**) -.232 -.224 -.238 -.223 -.224 -.224 -.233 1 .878(**) .883(**) .948(**) .657(*) 17 -.171 -.172 -.171 -.162 -.108 -.095 -.095 .963(**) -.168 -.161 -.177 -.162 -.160 -.161 -.170 .878(**) 1 .971(**) .967(**) .865(**) 18 -.170 -.172 -.171 -.160 -.102 -.088 -.088 .894(**) -.168 -.159 -.178 -.161 -.159 -.159 -.170 .883(**) .971(**) 1 .964(**) .823(**) 19 -.118 -.120 -.119 -.108 -.047 -.033 -.033 .946(**) -.116 -.107 -.125 -.109 -.107 -.107 -.118 .948(**) .967(**) .964(**) 1 .759(**) 20 -.241 -.242 -.241 -.240 -.227 -.222 -.221 .776(**) -.240 -.239 -.243 -.241 -.238 -.238 -.241 .657(*) .865(**) .823(**) .759(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Numbers in the first column correspond with the variable number and name in the first row.

109 Annex 12: Correlation matrix based on odds ratios for selected KAP indicators by presence or absence other NGOs in the programme communities (presence vs. absence) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Knowledg Willingne Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Agree on Willingne Actual Encourage Discussio Discussio Discussio e of e of right e of same e of e of e of rights e of child ss to right to go same right prohibitio prohibitio rights of child care ss to send participat ment to n with n with ns with SOP/FSP to go to right for prohibitio prohibitio of the care as participate to school for girls n of child n of child the as parents child to ion in study children family neighbour activities school girls n of child n of child handicapp parents in marriage labour handicapp responsibi formal SOP/FSP members s marriage labour ed responsibi SOP/FSP ed lity school activities lity activities 1 1 .962(**) .997(**) .993(**) .985(**) .986(**) .980(**) .544 .994(**) .994(**) .946(**) .921(**) .996(**) .990(**) .951(**) .303 .616(*) .600(*) .855(**) .697(**) 2 .962(**) 1 .971(**) .967(**) .915(**) .923(**) .918(**) .510 .966(**) .965(**) .975(**) .967(**) .961(**) .961(**) .985(**) .321 .605(*) .534 .777(**) .698(**) 3 .997(**) .971(**) 1 .993(**) .983(**) .986(**) .976(**) .559(*) .997(**) .995(**) .948(**) .921(**) .996(**) .989(**) .962(**) .318 .636(*) .612(*) .857(**) .716(**) 4 .993(**) .967(**) .993(**) 1 .970(**) .982(**) .973(**) .563(*) .987(**) .989(**) .949(**) .924(**) .988(**) .989(**) .964(**) .375 .639(*) .608(*) .855(**) .720(**) 5 .985(**) .915(**) .983(**) .970(**) 1 .991(**) .977(**) .578(*) .981(**) .979(**) .902(**) .859(**) .984(**) .965(**) .910(**) .299 .638(*) .645(*) .897(**) .692(**) 6 .986(**) .923(**) .986(**) .982(**) .991(**) 1 .985(**) .592(*) .984(**) .985(**) .912(**) .878(**) .987(**) .981(**) .930(**) .359 .653(*) .645(*) .872(**) .714(**) 7 .980(**) .918(**) .976(**) .973(**) .977(**) .985(**) 1 .639(*) .975(**) .972(**) .908(**) .875(**) .975(**) .972(**) .917(**) .369 .693(**) .679(*) .857(**) .749(**) 8 .544 .510 .559(*) .563(*) .578(*) .592(*) .639(*) 1 .559(*) .540 .527 .427 .544 .539 .567(*) .757(**) .981(**) .967(**) .754(**) .902(**) 9 .994(**) .966(**) .997(**) .987(**) .981(**) .984(**) .975(**) .559(*) 1 .998(**) .956(**) .928(**) .999(**) .992(**) .959(**) .311 .640(*) .614(*) .840(**) .732(**) 10 .994(**) .965(**) .995(**) .989(**) .979(**) .985(**) .972(**) .540 .998(**) 1 .959(**) .935(**) .999(**) .994(**) .959(**) .309 .622(*) .591(*) .831(**) .717(**) 11 .946(**) .975(**) .948(**) .949(**) .902(**) .912(**) .908(**) .527 .956(**) .959(**) 1 .986(**) .956(**) .954(**) .976(**) .391 .627(*) .539 .752(**) .738(**) 12 .921(**) .967(**) .921(**) .924(**) .859(**) .878(**) .875(**) .427 .928(**) .935(**) .986(**) 1 .929(**) .938(**) .960(**) .316 .528 .426 .661(*) .650(*) 13 .996(**) .961(**) .996(**) .988(**) .984(**) .987(**) .975(**) .544 .999(**) .999(**) .956(**) .929(**) 1 .992(**) .956(**) .308 .625(*) .598(*) .839(**) .714(**) 14 .990(**) .961(**) .989(**) .989(**) .965(**) .981(**) .972(**) .539 .992(**) .994(**) .954(**) .938(**) .992(**) 1 .957(**) .327 .613(*) .591(*) .811(**) .720(**) 15 .951(**) .985(**) .962(**) .964(**) .910(**) .930(**) .917(**) .567(*) .959(**) .959(**) .976(**) .960(**) .956(**) .957(**) 1 .449 .668(*) .574(*) .782(**) .743(**) 16 .303 .321 .318 .375 .299 .359 .369 .757(**) .311 .309 .391 .316 .308 .327 .449 1 .772(**) .653(*) .470 .702(**) 17 .616(*) .605(*) .636(*) .639(*) .638(*) .653(*) .693(**) .981(**) .640(*) .622(*) .627(*) .528 .625(*) .613(*) .668(*) .772(**) 1 .944(**) .770(**) .945(**) 18 .600(*) .534 .612(*) .608(*) .645(*) .645(*) .679(*) .967(**) .614(*) .591(*) .539 .426 .598(*) .591(*) .574(*) .653(*) .944(**) 1 .825(**) .906(**) 19 .855(**) .777(**) .857(**) .855(**) .897(**) .872(**) .857(**) .754(**) .840(**) .831(**) .752(**) .661(*) .839(**) .811(**) .782(**) .470 .770(**) .825(**) 1 .753(**) 20 .697(**) .698(**) .716(**) .720(**) .692(**) .714(**) .749(**) .902(**) .732(**) .717(**) .738(**) .650(*) .714(**) .720(**) .743(**) .702(**) .945(**) .906(**) .753(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Numbers in the first column correspond with the variable number and name in the first row.

110 111 Annex 13: Usefulness of activities implemented by NGOs Activities N % 1. Organisation of orientation meetings 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 19 19.6 2. All became aware, was a good source of information possible, all participated 14 14.4 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 3 3.1 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 3 3.1 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 5 5.2 6. Ensured quality education, ensured good facilitator 1 1.0 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 3 3.1 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 1 1.0 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information about budget and programme 4 4.1 16. Not sure 1 1.0 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 1 1.0 20. Helped in community mobilization 1 1.0 23. Helped in information dissemination and problem solving 1 1.0 2. Organisation of CMC 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 10 10.0 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 5 5.0 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 3 3.0 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 6 6.0 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 1 1.0 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 2 2.0 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 3 3.0 11. Ensured meeting with people, was entertaining, ensured extracurricular 2 2.0

112 activities 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 4 4.0 16. Not sure 14 14.0 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 1 1.0 30. Helped discussion of next programme 1 1.0 3. Identification of EVs 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 13 14.0 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 3 3.2 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 6 6.5 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 16 17.2 6. Ensured quality education, ensured good facilitator 3 3.2 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 4 4.3 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 3 3.2 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 1 1.1 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 1 1.1 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 1 1.1 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information about budget and programme 1 1.1 16. Not sure 13 14.0 20. Helped in community mobilization 1 1.1 22. Class was run despite absence of facilitator 1 1.1 4. Formation of child club 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 12 12.6 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 2 2.1 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 8 8.4 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 1 1.1 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 3 3.2 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about 2 2.1

113 programme 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 1 1.1 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 3 3.2 11. Ensured meeting with people, was entertaining, ensured extracurricular activities 7 7.4 16. Not sure 7 7.4 19. Helped in sports and entertainment 2 2.1 25. Children did more than study 1 1.1 5. Provision of incentives for best students 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 11 11.8 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 3 3.2 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 12 12.9 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 6 6.5 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 2 2.2 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 3 3.2 11. Ensured meeting with people, was entertaining, ensured extracurricular activities 5 5.4 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 1 1.1 15. Helped in receiving books, stationary, dress, meals, place to study and cash and kind support 4 4.3 16. Not sure 4 4.3 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 1 1.1 19. Helped in sports and entertainment 4 4.3 21. Helped in distributing awards 2 2.2 26. Children did more than study 1 1.1 6. Organisation of sensitization meetings 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 4 4.3 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 12 12.9 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 4 4.3 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 13 14.0 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, 2 2.2

114 parents started coming to school 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 2 2.2 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 4 4.3 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 1 1.1 16. Not sure 4 4.3 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 2 2.2 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 1 1.1 23. Helped in information dissemination and problem solving 1 1.1 7. Arrangement for parents’ visiting day 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 4 4.8 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 7 8.3 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 5 6.0 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 6 7.1 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 8 9.5 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 2 2.4 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 1 1.2 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 1 1.2 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 7 8.3 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 1 1.2 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 1 1.2 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information about budget and programme 2 2.4 16. Not sure 6 7.1 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 1 1.2 8. Organisation of door-to-door visits to encourage parents to send children to school 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all 8 9.4

115 well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 2. All became aware, was a good source of information , all participated 15 17.6 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 7 8.2 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 5 5.9 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 10 11.8 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 7 8.2 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 1 1.2 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 1 1.2 11. Ensured meeting with people, was entertaining, ensured extracurricular activities 1 1.2 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 2 2.4 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 1 1.2 16. Not sure 2 2.4 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 3 3.5 29. Made aware about door-to-door visit programme 1 1.2 9. Interactive programme between stakeholders 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 3 3.6 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 7 8.4 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 1 1.2 4. Made school good, made children happy, motivated children, increased awareness about whether or not children went to school, increased self confidence among children, made teaching easy, class was regular, children remained clean and healthy 4 4.8 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 4 4.8 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 2 2.4 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 3 3.6 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 2 2.4 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; 1 1.2

116 help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information about budget and programme 3 3.6 16. Not sure 8 9.6 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 2 2.4 10. Interactive programme between community people and children 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 5 5.7 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 3 3.4 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 2 2.3 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 2 2.3 6. Ensured quality education, ensured good facilitator 1 1.1 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 1 1.1 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 2 2.3 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 3 3.4 12. It helped understand things easily, helped run class easily and on time 2 2.3 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information about budget and programme 1 1.1 16. Not sure 7 8.0 20. Helped in community mobilization 1 1.1 11. Provision of support on physical infrastructure by community 2. All became aware, was a good source of information , all participated 1 1.3 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 2 2.6 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 1 1.3 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 1 1.3 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 2 2.6 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 2 2.6 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 8 10.3 14. Increased awareness, helped ensure drinking water, gave information 1 1.3

117 about budget and programme 16. Not sure 6 7.7 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 1 1.3 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 3 3.8 23. Helped in information dissemination and problem solving 1 1.3 27. Children did more than study 1 1.3 12. Provision of contribution in cash and kind 1. Helped to send children to school, all were covered, all understood, all well motivated, children became happy, children became aware 1 1.9 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 3 5.6 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 1 1.9 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 1 1.9 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 2 3.7 8. Helped increase acquaintance, helped extend relationship with community people, all became helpful as they became aware, helped exchange of ideas 1 1.9 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme manageable 6 11.1 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 1 1.9 15. Helped in receiving books, stationary, dress, meals, place to study and cash and kind support 1 1.9 16. Not sure 2 3.7 17. Helped run class for 1 year, all were brought together and discussed about peoples participation and about regularity of class 1 1.9 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 1 1.9 24. Helped in information dissemination and problem solving 4 7.4 27. Children did more than study 3 5.6 13. Provision of contribution in labour 2. All became aware, was a good source of information, all participated 1 1.9 3. Lowered cost of education, children prospered, class became regular, children studied together 1 1.9 5. Parents became aware, parents became happy, children became regular, parents started coming to school 1 1.9 7. Informed well about programme, helped organize many meetings, helped install drinking water facility, children were made aware about programme 3 5.7 9. Ensured receipt of help, ensured good relationship with others, ensured increase in facility, made working environment good, made programme 3 5.7

118 manageable 10. Helped establish good interrelationship 6 11.3 13. Helped teacher in teaching; helped improve physical infrastructure; help in getting furniture, water facility and making school building 10 18.9 15. Helped in receiving books, stationary, dress, meals, place to study and cash and kind support 1 1.9 16. Not sure 3 5.7 18. Helped in making labour contribution, helped in community participation 3 5.7 19. Helped in sports and entertainment 1 1.9 24. Helped in information dissemination and problem solving 2 3.8 28. Helped develop infrastructure 1 1.9

119 Annex 14: Situations of Sangla by selected indicators/questions

Questions and responses

38. Will you prefer educating your child in SOP/FSP classes or in a mother school?

School type N % SOP/FSP classes 1 7.7 Mother school 12 92.3 Total 13 100.0

39. Please give reasons for your answer.

Reasons N % Because education is good 7 53.8 Because education is free 3 23.1 Others 3 23.1 Total 13 100.0

40. Was there any problem after your child was transferred to mother school and admitted there?

Responses N % Yes 1 7.7 No 12 92.3 Total 13 100.0

41. If yes, what was the problem?

Problem N % Stationary, etc not available 1 100.0 Total 1 100.0

120