CSEF Independent Evaluation Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
November 15 2012 v.4 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY EDUCATION FUNDS – CSEF [GPE/EPDF grant n. TF094688] EVALUATION REPORT Antoni Verger (coordinator), Xavier Rambla, Xavier Bonal, Noemi Bertomeu, Clara Fontdevila, Àlex García-Alba, Míriam Acebillo, Brent Edwards, Claudia Talavera, Theo van Koolwijk [Globalization Education and Social Policies (GEPS). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Foreword (forthcoming) List of acronyms Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Methodology: A Realistic and Systemic Approach 3. CSEF System Review: Strategies, Steering Structures and Operational Management 4. CSEF Worldwide: a State of the Art in 45 Countries 5. CSEF in the Field: Focus on its Primary Processes and Impact 6. Discussion and Recommendations 7. References Appendixes 1. Methodology. Main dimensions, data sources and guiding questions 2. State of the art in 45 countries. Documents compilation and synthesis 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This evaluation has been possible due to the key support and important contributions of a wide range of people and institutions. We would like to start by giving a big thank you to the team of evaluators that joined us to carry out this work consisting of the review of, what we think, is an ambitious, innovative and important international development project. The high level of professionalism and enthusiasm of this team, together with their capacity to work under tight deadlines, have been crucial in carrying out this evaluation successfully. Thanks to the Global Campaign for Education (GCE) for their support in making the evaluation process easier. Specifically, Owain James and Kjersti Mowe, our GCE contact persons, have been of a great help when it came to sharing with us relevant documentation and putting us in touch with key actors and stakeholders in the context of the CSEF. Thanks also to CLADE, ASPABE and ANCEFA, to GCE board members and to several National Education Coalitions for giving their very useful feedback, from an insider perspective, to a first draft of the evaluation report. The country case studies would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the coordinators - and other staff members - of the national education coalitions from Cambodia, Mozambique, Senegal, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Bolivia and Mongolia. Our gratitude also goes to all of them for their valuable advice, for taking care of our evaluators once in the field and for providing them with access to key education actors, documents and other relevant sources of information. We would also like to give a big thank you to Caroline Schmidt and Sarah Beardmore for their support in conducting interviews at the GPE headquarters in Washington DC and for their insightful and detailed comments to a preliminary version of the report. We extend our appreciation to Mario Novelli (University of Sussex), Ian Macpherson (OSF) and Karen Mundy (University of Toronto) for their involvement in the evaluation as external reviewers, and for their very thoughtful comments, which have contributed importantly to improving this report. Last but not least, thanks to the partners, family and friends that have given us their support during the evaluation process in summer 2012, especially in the most intensive periods of writing this report. Antoni Verger. Globalisation, Education and Social Policies (GEPS) Barcelona, November 2012 3 FOREWORD(s) 4 LIST OF ACRONYMS AECID Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development ANCEFA Africa Network Campaign on Education for All ASPBAE Asia South Pacific Association of Basic and Adult Education AUSAID Australian Agency for International Development CEF Commonwealth Education Fund CLADE Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education CSEF Civil Society Education Fund CSO Civil Society Organization CSP Capacity Support Plan DFID Department for International Development EFA Education For All EFA FTI Education For All - Fast Track Initiative EI Education International EPDF Education Program Development Fund FC Funding Committee FIFA International Federation of Football Association FMA Financial Management Agencies GAW Global Action Week GCE Global Campaign for Education GDP Gross Domestic Product GER Gross Enrolment Rate GMR Global Monitoring Report GPE Global Partnership for Education HDI Human Development Index IMF International Monetary Fund INGO International Non-Governmental Organization LEG Local Education Group M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDGs Millennium Development Goals NCSEF National Civil Society Education Fund NEP National Education Plan NER Net Enrolment Rate NGO Non-Governmental Organization OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PPPs Public-Private Partnerships RC Regional Coalition SWAP Sector Wide Approach ToC Theory of Change UNESCO United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development WEF World Education Forum 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional and National Civil Society Education Funds (CSEF) project aims at providing support to the core work of civil society education coalitions, also known as national education coalitions (NECs), so that they can fully engage in the promotion of the Education for All (EFA) goals in those countries where they operate. NECs are networks of civil society actors that articulate local NGOs, teachers unions, women’s organizations, international NGOs, parents associations and grassroots’ organizations. According to the CSEF project, developing an active, well-organized and well-articulated civil society – linked together regionally and globally – that advocates the right to education and progressive policy change is one of the best ways to ensure that all children will have access to relevant and quality education. In its first stage, the CSEF project operated during two years, between mid- 2009 and mid-2011, and US$17.6 million were allocated to it. The project has been funded by the Education for All Fast Track Initiative, currently, the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), and runned by the Global Campaign for Education (GCE), the biggest and most active civil society transnational network advocating EFA. The CSEF was executed through the building of a multi-scalar organization. At the global level, the GCE acted as the executing agency and hosted a secretariat to have overall oversight of three regional CSEFs established in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The regional coalitions, which were already members of the GCE (ANCEFA in Africa, ASPBAE in Asia and CLADE in Latin America), hosted secretariats that were in charge of supporting NECs within this process in different ways. Three regional funding committees were established in each region, each one made up of credible individuals from across the region, to adopt decisions for the allocation of funds. And three financial management agencies were identified (Oxfam GB in Africa, Education International in Asia, Action Aid in Latin America) to ensure sound financial management. The CSEF supported NECs in 45 countries as a way to enable them to advocate the EFA goals more effectively and adopt an active role in GPE related policy processes. On the basis of a so-called ‘realist methodology’, this evaluation aims at understanding whether the CSEF has achieved its main goals and objectives, to what extent and why. Specifically, the main questions that have guided the evaluation are: a) Has the CSEF strengthened the role of NECs as credible/ fully recognized partners in education sector policy processes? b) Has the CSEF met the capacity needs of NECs that wish to establish and strengthen their roles and positions? c) Has the CSEF accelerated progress on the EFA agenda and if so to what extent, particularly at the country level? d) Was the CSEF successful in attracting additional funding at the global and national level? The evaluation shows that the CSEF has contributed to building stronger and more credible NECs in most countries that are part of the project. Specifically, NECs have improved substantially in terms of capacity building and advocacy, and have been able to design their own context-based strategies that, to a great extent, are highly consistent with the global CSEF strategy. Furthermore, to a 6 greater or lesser extent, coalitions have achieved political recognition in the contexts in which they operate. The development of capacities in terms of research and knowledge management has been much more modest. The CSEF project was better designed and planned in terms of core processes (budget tracking, advocacy, etc.) than in terms of support processes (finance, human resources management, M&E, etc.). This meant that several managerial issues that emerged while the project was being developed had to be solved ad hoc. Time constraints, uncertainty with the future of the programme and delays in funding delivery marked the trajectory of the project and, to some extent, the level of achievement of its goals. The institutional setting designed by the CSEF is sophisticated and could be set up in a relatively short time, despite the unfavourable circumstances it faced. The institutional design has raised a set of principal-agent and coordination problems, many of which could be addressed during the project cycle through the proactive role and leadership of the regional organisations. However, even then, these problems have blurred the efforts to steer the whole organisation towards common objectives, especially in relation to those