i

EVALUATION

REPORT

UNICEF MALAWI

UNICEF MALAWI'S

CHILD-FRIENDLY

SCHOOLS

CONSTRUCTION

COMPONENT

ii

Evaluation of UNICEF Malawi’s Child-Friendly Schools Construction Component

© United Nations Children’s Fund, 2017

United Nations Children’s Fund

This evaluation report was prepared by independent consultants Nitika Tolani and Jeffrey Davis

of Management Systems International. Mekonnen Ashenafi Woldegorgis, Research and

Evaluation Specialist, UNICEF Malawi, managed and led the overall evaluation process in close

collaboration with Education Section and PME Section, UNICEF Malawi.

The copyright for this report is held by the United Nations Children’s Fund. Permission is

required to reprint/reproduce/photocopy or in any other way to cite or quote from this report in

written form. UNICEF has a formal permission policy that requires a written request to be

submitted. For non-commercial uses, the permission will normally be granted free of charge.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of UNICEF.

Suggested citation: UNICEF Malawi (2017) Evaluation of UNICEF Malawi’s Child-Friendly

Schools Construction Component

For further information, please contact:

PME Section

UNICEF Malawi

lilongwe@unicef.org

iii

Evaluation of UNICEF Malawi’s Child-Friendly

Schools Construction Component

Authors: Nitika Tolani and Jeffrey Davis Management Systems International Date: October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... vi

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Evaluation Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 6

3. Evaluation Design and Methodology ............................................................................................. 8

4. SCC-CFS Evaluation Findings ...................................................................................................... 22

5. Conclusions and Lessons Learned .............................................................................................. 52

6. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 56

References ................................................................................................................................................. 59

Annex A. Documents Provided by UNICEF for Review ........................................................................ 61

Annex B. School Construction Calendar by District and Construction Type .................................... 63

Annex C. School Construction Component of CFS Evaluation Matrix ............................................... 67

Annex D. Field Movement Plan ................................................................................................................ 73

Annex E. Qualitative Data Entry Tools .................................................................................................... 76

Annex F. Quantitative Data Entry Tools .............................................................................................. 104

Annex G. Qualitative Code System ....................................................................................................... 117

Annex H. Summary of Field Notes by School ..................................................................................... 127

Annex I. EMIS Dataset Codebook .......................................................................................................... 133

Annex J. DD and Regression Models ................................................................................................... 146

Annex K. DD Models Results ................................................................................................................. 147

Annex L. Regression Models Results ................................................................................................... 175

Annex M. School Construction Assessment Notes ............................................................................ 189

Annex N. Summary Statistics of the School Construction Assessment .......................................... 193

Annex O. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ................................................................................................. 212

Annex P. The Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 215

v

Acronyms

CFS Child-Friendly Schools Program

DD difference-in-differences

EIMU Education Infrastructure Management Unit

EMIS Education Management Information System

ESIP Education Sector Implementation Plan

FGD focus group discussions

IPC interviews with parents and community

MOE Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology

NESP National Education Sector Plan

PTA parent-teacher association

SCC School Construction Component

SIP school improvement plan

STW School Transect Walks

UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

VIP ventilated improved pit

vi

Executive Summary

Evaluation Objectives and Intended Audience

The main purpose of UNICEF’s school construction component of the Child-Friendly Schools program (SCC-CFS) is to put in place an appropriate response to improve access and quality of education through child-friendly spacesThe CFS concept in Malawi was introduced in 2011-2012 and is being implemented by the Ministry of Education in partnership with the Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO), Association of Christian Educators in Malawi (ACEM), and Creative Centre for Community Mobilization (CRECCOM), among others. The CFS’s school construction component’s objective is to ensure adherence to child-friendly principles in building design and construction of schools. The SCC of UNICEF’s CFS program in Malawi has supported 31 primary schools across five districts in Malawi—Blantyre, Lilongwe, Nkhatabay, Mangochi, Thyolo, and Phalombe—between March 2010 and September 2015 (see the detailed calendar of school construction in annex A). The SCC-CFS intervention’s diverse range of construction activities varies across districts and schools. The focus has been on constructing new classrooms—182 across the years for all the districts—followed by construction of new staff houses (81) and sanitation facilities (32).

The evaluation’s purpose is to determine the SCC-CFS program’s impact on schools with regard to three key outcomes: access to quality basic education for all, learning environment, and key learner outcomes. The evaluation examines the SCC-CFS program’s impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability and explores to what extent the program has increased key stakeholders’ capacity through participation, training, and guidelines. UNICEF Malawi, along with Malawi’s Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOE) are themain intended audience of the present evaluation to enable current and future programmatic changes and updates related to the SCC-CFS. The evaluation will also provide donors and development partners with relevant information about school construction programming.

The current evaluation report includes an introduction to the SCC-CFS, the evaluation’s purpose, and specific research questions. It then includes the overall evaluation design and methodology, including details on the sources, data collection, processing, and analytical strategies for both primary and secondary data. Finally, the report summarizes the findings from qualitative and quantitative analyses and primary and secondary data analyses by research question and ends with conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations. A detailed set of annexes are after the main report.

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation approach was guided by the OECD DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance. In order to measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the SCC-CFS program, the evaluation used a concurrent mixed-method, quasi-experimental design using a mix of primary and secondary data analyses. The quasi-experimental design—a matching difference-in-differences model—allows estimating the SCC-CFS program’s impact on enrollment, dropout rates, repetition rates, and passing rates. The secondary data component of the evaluation’s design complements the quasi-experimental design with both quantitative and qualitative analyses on school infrastructure, safety, efficiency and sustainability, stakeholder perceptions of education and infrastructure quality, and stakeholder capacity.

The secondary data component of the evaluation uses Education Management Information System (EMIS) data to conduct the quasi-experimental evaluation. The evaluation’s primary data component relies on qualitative and quantitative data collected during December 2016 in both intervention and comparison schools at the school and community level. School-level primary data include semistructured focus group discussions with the head teachers and teachers, in-depth interviews with parents and community members, student surveys, on-site construction assessments, and participatory school transect walks (STW). An STW is a student-led systematic walk along a defined path within the school environment during which members of the research team document their observations and discussions. District-level primary data include key informant interviews of two officials.

vii

Key Findings

The following key findings resulted from the evaluation:

The SCC-CFS program had a limited impact on increasing enrollment, but had a statistically

significant effect on decreasing dropout rates.

MSI also found that the male, female, and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1

students and the overall school-level dropout rates decreased in Blantyre/Lilongwe districts.

In the remaining districts sampled in this evaluation, the SCC-CFS program decreased the female

and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1 students; the male and female dropout

rates of grade 4 students; the female and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 5

students; the male and female dropout rates of grade 7 students; and the female school-level

dropout rates.

The SCC-CFS program had no impact on increasing enrollment of students with disabilities,

but it helped improved access to classrooms and toilets for these students.

The SCC-CFS program had a modest impact on the education quality outcomes of repetition

rates and in the Primary School Leaving Examination’s passing rates.

The SCC-CFS program led to a perception of increased quality of education in the schools and

communities.

Stakeholders report a high level of satisfaction with school infrastructure and note the SCC-CFS

program as an activity affecting student and teacher attendance and overall education quality

positively.

Mother’s groups are a pivotal community organization with numerous positive effects in

equitable access and quality of education.

The SCC-CFS program had a positive impact on the following that was shown to contribute

to the program’s effectiveness and efficiency: overall school infrastructure, accessibility,

aesthetics, safety and security, the participatory design process, utilization of local materials

and know-how, user satisfaction with the construction process and results, operational

efficiency and utilization, environmental conditions, sustainability, and structural integrity.

The SCC-CFS schools’ infrastructure is sustainable, but there could be alternatives to

improve it, particularly improving the follow-up to school construction and rehabilitation

activities.

The SCC’s inputs and processes increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the SCC-CFS

program, particularly by developing and strengthening the relationship between community

members and schools.

The SCC-CFS program has a strong relationship with leaderships’ decision-making process, the

overall participatory decision-making process, and inclusiveness in schools.

The way to and from school and schools that lack fences relates to student safety.

The SCC-CFS program has a strong relationship with children’s physical and emotional safety.

Schools have guidelines delineating education-for-all policies and teacher-student behavior, and

guidelines related to violence reporting because of the SCC-CFS program. However, the

implementation and monitoring of these guidelines offer areas of opportunity.

The SCC-CFS overall cost-effectiveness is considerably low due to the high upfront costs

and the limited and impact of the program in terms of increased access and quality (in terms of

enrollment, dropout, repetition and passing rates indicators).

Main Conclusions

Results for enrollment and dropout rates suggest that the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities are keeping students who are already in school from dropping out, but not incentivizing students who would not usually enroll in school to actually enroll.

The SCC-CFS program’s impact on decreasing dropout rates is higher in provinces that finzliez the construction more recently Mangochi, Nkhata Bay, Phalombe, and Thyolo, suggesting the effects of the construction might decrease over time.

Construction of teachers’ living facilities is a relevant factor, even if the SCC-CFS did not focus on improving the supply of teachers.

viii

Better teacher and staff training would improve access for students with disabilities.

The factors related to access to education do not necessarily relate to quality of education as well, as the SCC-CFS had only a modest impact on other indicators of education quality.

The SCC-CFS inputs, processes, and overall intervention improved stakeholders’ perceptions of access and quality, as well as their involvement in school activities, especialy related to school infrastructure.

SCC-CFS has a high sustainability factor, having allowed the development of a strong culture of

community participation in terms of maintaining and monitor infrastructure facilities.

SCC-CFS has a strong relationship to children’s physical and emotional safety, but outside school factors still remain a risk for (such as their way to and from school, as well as the lack of a school fence).

Main Recommendations

MSI presents strategic recommendations for the current SCC-CFS program team and for future iterations of the CFS program more broadly, specifically focused on monitoring and evaluation and strategic partnerships. MSI has prioritized recommendations that are actionable, practical, and achievable in UNICEF’s next strategy period. All recommendations are grounded strongly in the evaluation findings, and data sources are noted next to each recommendation.

Launch enrollment campaigns—including a special component to enroll children with

disabilities—every time school construction and rehabilitation activities take place.

Target learners’ education outcomes by increasing education support in classrooms through

partnerships with teachers’ assistants and other teacher training activities within the

community.

Build on the existing community support at schools to continue promoting education for all

through the creation and rehabilitation of child-friendly spaces.

Develop community-based monitoring systems to identify, monitor, and follow up on schools’

infrastructure-related needs in real time.

Increase the number of teacher housing construction activities.

Include a fence and/or other school perimeter delimitations as a component of the school

construction activities.

Provide more training on governance, leadership, and child protection more frequently as part of

the CFS program.

Provide training for teachers and staff to work with students with disabilities and material

appropriate for these students.

Establish a program that encourages students to walk to and from school in groups led by a head

teacher or volunteer parent from their communities.

Monitor and evaluate both the outcomes and processes of future and ongoing school construction

and infrastructure rehabilitation efforts.

Develop strategic partnerships with other programs and actors in Malawi, such as programs

promoting awareness on girls’ education and ending child marriages, targeting water and

electricity sources, and feeding programs.

Include in the CFS program training and guidelines on how to proceed after a violent act has

taken place among students or between teachers and students. Reporting mechanisms on

violence against children (VAC) in schools can be strengthened through enhancing the linkages

between school staff and available community action groups (i.e. GBV/police victim support units

among other structures).

1

1. Introduction

In this section, MSI presents context within which UNICEF Malawi’s SCC-CFS program is situated. After

a description of the national education scenario within Malawi, this report details extant evidence on

effects and effectiveness of previous evaluations on school construction and rehabilitation interventions,

followed by a detailed description of UNICEF’s SCC-CFS program.

1.1 Malawi Education Context

Access to quality, basic education in Malawi has numerous barriers. These include infrastructure-related factors, such as physical access to the learning environment and long distances from school to home, as well as social factors, including persistent discrimination of vulnerable populations (e.g., girls, HIV-positive children, children with disabilities, and orphaned children), limited family income, child labor, and prevalence of violence and insecurity in schools. Children’s educational experiences at school are not free of challenges for many reasons: many schools lack a safe drinking water source and hygiene facilities; teachers are scarce and unequally distributed; the official curriculum’s relevance is often contested; schools lack educational material; vulnerable populations face discrimination in school; and so on.

Malawi’s gross enrollment rate for primary and secondary education has increased dramatically from 73 percent for primary education and 16 percent for secondary education in 1990 to 146 percent and 43 percent, respectively, in 2014.1 The net enrollment rate for primary education increased from 58 percent in 1992 to 83 percent in 2015. The differences between the gross and net enrollment rates for both primary and secondary education highlights the significant percentage of overage children enrolled in schools.

For primary education, an estimated 13 percent of enrolled children are on time and age appropriate, 7 percent are underage, and about 80 percent are overage. The high percentage of overage children suggests possible infrastructure challenges, such as overcrowded schools (due to high gross enrollment rates) and age-inappropriate classrooms; facilities that affect children’s experiences in schools and classrooms (e.g., desks that are too small), and challenges in educational planning and teachers’ capacity to teach in diverse classrooms.

A growing body of empirical evidence points to the importance of the relationship between a learning environment’s physical infrastructure and student enrollment, attendance, and learning. The lack of quality school buildings is one of the major factors leading to student absenteeism, repetition, and dropouts. Within this issue are a lack of (1) involving children and teachers (the client/end-users) in the thinking and design process of school construction and maintenance of school environments; (2) quality site, school, and ground design; and (3) maintenance and timely repair after new construction to ensure that buildings and water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities stay in good operational condition. At the same time, the unique effect of a learning environment’s infrastructure on student learning is difficult to disentangle from other factors affecting education because multiple changes—e.g., more teachers, less distance to school—can accompany improved infrastructure.

At a policy level, the National Education Sector Plan (NESP) 2008–2017 guides Malawi’s education sector. The NESP is the Malawi Government’s fourth educational plan since its independence in 1964. It draws on the Policy and Investment Framework and Vision 2020: The National Long-Term Development Perspective for Malawi, among other key development policies. The NESP sets out the Government’s approach for achieving the national education goals and objectives between 2008 and 2017. The plan reflects the Government’s aim to improve the access, equality, quality, relevance, governance, and

1 Gross enrollment rate is the total number of students attending a particular education level regardless of their age, expressed as a percentage of the official primary school–age population.

2

management of the country’s education system, with a special focus on ensuring that “students with disabilities live an independent and comfortable life.”

To support the NESP implementation, the Government developed the Education Sector Implementation Plan (ESIP I) 2008–2012/13 and ESIP II 2013/14–2017/18. The aim of ESIP I is to translate the NESP’s broad development objectives into implementation plans with detailed objectives, targets, activities, and budgets. Therefore, ESIP I and II are viewed as the implementation tool at every level of the education system.

The NESP supports the Government of Malawi’s commitment to the realization of the Malawi Growth Development Strategy and to both regional (i.e., Southern African Development Community and the African Union) and international protocols arising from Education for All, the Millennium Development Goals, and now Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (particularly Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities) moving forward. The NESP fits within the overall medium-term national development strategy and the Malawi Growth Development Strategy II, and calls for stronger coordination among public and private sector actors to ensure quality basic and secondary education, teacher education for basic and secondary education, technical education and vocational training, and higher education.

1.2 Evidence on the Effects and Effectiveness of School Construction and Rehabilitation Interventions

The body of educational research contains a significant amount of research on the effectiveness of different strategies for improving school-based education in the developing world. An intricate set of institutional, social, and structural determinants shapes both children’s educational access and attainment. Interventions that target education quality in developing countries can be sorted into three broad categories: (1) supply-side policies that target the capabilities of education institutions, (2) demand-side policies that seek to influence the behavior of teachers, households, and students, and (3) bottom-up and top-down participatory and community management interventions (Maisno and Niño-Zarazúa 2016).

Supply-side interventions aim to improve education by targeting infrastructure (improving physical infrastructure) or non-infrastructure (more learning materials or extra teachers) deficiencies. These type of interventions were extremely popular in many African nations during the 1970s and 1980s, and much of the aid focused on building schools and refurbishing classrooms (Maisno and Niño-Zarazúa 2016). In the early 1990s, aid and public policies began shifting toward demand-side policies focused on improving both access and quality of education, and so the focus in school construction and rehabilitation interventions moved quickly toward interventions focused on influencing stakeholders’ decisions and community management. Consequently, recent and robust evidence on the impact of school building and rehabilitation is sparse. In fact, a recent systematic review with strong standards to evaluate the validity of the evidence analyzed found a very small set of robust evaluations of school construction and rehabilitation interventions. The report concludes that the construction of new schools and infrastructure improvement is a promising strategy to improve education outcomes, it might work only in some contexts and in a subset of larger-scale interventions. (Snilstveit et al. 2016).

The available research points out to a modest and positive relationship between school building and/or infrastructure construction and/or rehabilitationand education access and quality. Studies from Ghana, India, and Tanzania find a relationship between school accessibility and building quality and attainment measured as enrollment rates (Glewwe and Kremer 2006). Hanushek (1997) found that only 9 percent of 91 correlational studies exploring the relationship between quality infrastructure and student performance reported a statistically significant positive relationship, and 5 percent reported a statistically significant negative relationship.2 However, these studies do not tackle important methodological issues such as omitted variable biases and endogenous intervention placement. In fact, the evidence on school construction and rehabilitation is still weak, and more high-quality research is needed to understand

2 The followed methodology in Hanushek (1997), though robust, does not estimate causal effects and uses data from developed countries. It is possible to argue that the strength of these relationships could be even lower in developing contexts where access to other factors also affecting education is severely constrained in comparison.

3

relationship, causality, and mechanisms involved in these interventions (Cuesta, Glewwe, and Krause 2016).

The sparcity of recent and robust research on the effects of school construction and rehabilitation is also due to the methodological complexities that its estimation entails. First, evidence from school construction and rehabilitation is difficult to gather and compare because of considerable variation in the scope of construction and rehabilitation interventions. These interventions range from minor improvements (like painting walls or repairing wall cracks) to major rehabilitation and construction, such as new classrooms, administrative buildings, or complete new school constructions. In fact, most of the evidence from robust impact studies focuses mainly on evaluating the construction of new classrooms and complete schools, not on the rehabilitation of existing learning environments.

Second, the unique effect of a learning environment’s infrastructure on student learning is difficult to disentangle from other factors affecting education. Most of the research focusing on school construction mainly explores the relationship with access using outcomes such as enrollment and attendance. Such research is often not linked to quality, using outcomes such as achievement and/or repetition rates.3 Although the construction of classrooms in regions and/or districts with greater need have reported a positive relationship with enrollment, there is less evidence on whether the improvement of facilities alone can lead to better learning (Smawfield and Du 2006).

As the evidence on the effects of school construction/rehabilitation, the evidence on its cost-effectiveness is also sparce. The lack of cost-effectiveness analysis is widespread in education research and not particular to school construction/rehabilitation. In fact, a meta-analysis of what works in improving learning in primary schools of developing countries reviewed the most recent cutting-edge evidence on education research and found that authors report insufficient data to judge the relative cost-effectiveness of a diverse range of education interventions (McEwan 2015). More specifically, other reviews have also concluded that the evidence is insufficient to show the cost-effectiveness of construction and rehabilitation interventions (Krishnaratne, White, and Carpenter 2013).

Some argue that encouraging demand-side education policies rather than supply-side (building schools and improving school infrastructure) ones is a much more cost-effective strategy, as the former are generaly less costly, and they have an more straightforward estimation of effects than the latter Orazem, Glewwe, and Patrinos 2008). School construction and rehabilitationinvolve particularly large up-front costs, construction can take a long time to finalize, and benefits are usually seen in the medium or long term. Furthermore, school construction and rehabilitation interventions may have very limited effects if the quality and access to other teaching and human resources are low. The current evaluation is focused on obtaining valid and reliable data and evidence on the effects and cost-effectiveness of school construction that would lead to actionable and relevant recommendations for UNICEF Malawi during the next strategy period.

1.3 Description of the Malawi SCC-CFS Program

Given the infrastructure needs in Malawi and the relevance of infrastructure in education outcomes, ESIP II (2013/14–2017/18) aims to construct at least 20,000 classrooms to meet the increasing population of school-age children. School infrastructure development typically includes building classrooms, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, libraries, laboratories, teachers’ offices, and teachers’ houses, and provision of potable water. The Education Infrastructure Management Unit (EIMU) within Malawi’s Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOE) coordinates school construction. The EIMU develops, coordinates, and manages the implementation of the MOE’s educational infrastructure program.

3 Duflo (2001) used a difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate a major new school construction program in Indonesia that doubled the number of primary schools and found a statistically significant but small (3 percent) increase in average attainment in a six-year period. The paper focuses on the construction of new schools in zones with limited access to education, so there is little reason to believe the same effects would be found for school rehabilitation.

4

According to ESIP II (2013), the MOE started implementing a primary construction program through the Local Development Fund in the second part of the 2011–2012 financial year.

UNICEF’s CFS approach is a holistic model to guide programmatic efforts to improve the school environment, partly through better school infrastructure. The main mechanism to improve education access and quality is safe spaces for children that improve their in-school educational experience and promote attendance and learning outcomes (UNICEF 2009).

The CFS concept in Malawi was introduced in 2011–2012 and is being implemented by the Ministry of Education in partnership with Voluntary Services Overseas, the Association of Christian Educators in Malawi, and the Creative Centre for Community Mobilization, among others. The strength of the CFS framework in Malawi is that it provides learners with the best start to life, supports their holistic development, and encourages their active and meaningful participation in their education and interaction with their school environment.

The purpose of UNICEF’s school infrastructure development component under the CFS program is to contribute to improving access to equitable education and to improved and relevant quality education.

The UNICEF-developed CFS principles, norms, and standards are incorporated in the Malawi National Education Sector Plan (2009–2017). Child-friendly schools are a means of translating the concept of child rights into classroom practice and school management in Malawi and globally. According to UNICEF EAPRO (2006), the CFS framework consists of five broad dimensions:

Inclusiveness

Effectiveness (relevance and quality)

Health, safety, and protection

Gender-friendliness

Involvement of students, families, and communities.

Table 1.1. Dimensions of the CFS Framework

CFS Dimension Description/Central Question

Inclusive of children Are all children in the families with school children attending school,

including those who should be in pre-school, and are they included and

participating in classroom learning?

Academically

Effective

Are we seeing declines in student failure, absenteeism, and dropout, as

well as increases in teaching-learning time?

Healthy, safe, and

protective of children

Is the health and nutritional status of our children improving, including a

reduction in drug or alcohol use? Are we seeing declines in dropouts that

may be caused by the need for children to work?

Gender sensitive Are girls and boys learning at equitable levels? Are they attending school

at the same rate, or are girls absent more often than boys? Are the

materials we are using free of gender bias?

Student, family, and

community

participation

Do schools work with children, families, and communities on action

projects designed to make communities and schools more child-friendly?

Source: Adapted from UNICEF EAPRO (2006).

According to UNICEF’s 2006 draft Construction Guidance Note, “Construction projects provide ample ways to play a strong role in the overall plan: ensuring community participation in the process; ensuring adherence to child-friendly principles in building design and construction; and ensuring that the end results contribute to realizing goals for children and women. Education agencies that decide to engage in construction, therefore, must go beyond the mere ‘bricks and mortar’ aspects, and also take into account ‘software’ aspects in the planning. These include the maintenance and use of facilities, the quality of services, how the community is mobilized, the extent and nature of community participation. All of these

5

should be determinants of success for agency-assisted construction projects. In short, whether or not to engage in construction is a programmatic decision.”

Research has shown a strong correlation between increased education levels and reduced mortality rates, improved health, and socioeconomic well-being. In emergencies such as natural disasters, restoring provision of education has also been observed to have a strong and positive impact on overall social stability. Although assessing existing educational facilities is a complex task, child-friendly schools provide an opportunity to rethink how schools are planned, designed, and built so that they contribute to the learners’ well-being beyond providing merely a traditional physical space for learning. This is particularly crucial for developing countries like Malawi that have lagged behind in provision of quality education and thus need to consider innovative interventions to address these gaps.

Building new classrooms often leads to increased enrollment, which can have the unintended negative consequence of stretching staff capacity to maintain quality teaching standards (e.g., Naotcha School,

where enrollment rose from 2,500 to nearly 5,000 after UNICEF built eight classrooms). It is UNICEF Malawi’s opinion that the MOE should be encouraged to establish ceilings for how much a single school can expand before a new school must be developed. Furthermore, according to UNICEF Malawi, the traditional classroom-model (shoebox) has existed for many years—innovations would need to aim at providing pavilion schools consisting of good concrete floors, steel columns, a steel roof with deep eaves to provide shade, and so on. An additional innovation could include building a storage room between the two pavilion schools where school furniture could be stored for the night.

The SCC of UNICEF’s CFS Program in Malawi has supported 31 primary schools across five districts in Malawi—Blantyre, Lilongwe, Nkhatabay, Mangochi, Thyolo, and Phalombe—between March 2010 and September 2015 (see the detailed calendar of school construction in Annex A). The SCC-CFS intervention’s diverse range of construction activities varies across districts and schools. The focus has been on constructing new classrooms—182 across the years for all the districts—followed by construction of new staff houses (81) and sanitation facilities (32). The Blantyre district has the highest concentration of construction activities with 84 classrooms, 44 staff houses, and 15 sanitation facilities made, followed by Lilongwe with 34 classrooms, three staff houses, and five sanitation facilities. Mangochi received 30 classrooms, 15 staff houses, and five sanitation facilities, and Nkhata Bay received 18 classrooms, 15 staff houses, and five sanitation facilities. The lowest concentrations of construction activities are in two districts: Thyolo (10 classrooms, one sanitation facility, and four staff houses) and Phalombe (four classrooms and one sanitation facility). Figure 1.1 shows the five districts.

Regarding school construction, the UNICEF Malawi CFS Handbook

and Training Manual lists specific priorities for location, facility

design, and upgrading or new construction. UNICEF Malawi noted a

concern that these priorities miss environmental and climatic comfort

planning of the school site and schoolyard, including space for play and sports activities, extracurricular

activities, school gardens, and shaded outdoor learning spaces.

It is anticipated that schools will serve greater social and communal functions as designs are adapted to incorporate local culture while offering learners inspiring facilities based on proven, world-class strategies.

Figure 1.1. Malawi Map

Source: Google Maps (with shading added).

6

2. Evaluation Purpose

2.1 Timeline, Indended Audience,and Conflict of Interest

UNICEF contracted MSI in June 2016. Between June 2016 and December 2016, MSI maintained continuous communication with UNICEF regarding the project’s scope and objectives. MSI completed a range of administrative and design activities in close collaboration with UNICEF Malawi, including a two-week scoping mission in Malawi, submission of an ethical clearance application, enumerator recruitment and training, and data collection. MSI received two key pieces of information for the analysis in May 2017: Education Management and Information System (EMIS) data from the Ministry and a list of dates for new school construction projects from UNICEF. The analyses concluded in June 2017.

UNICEF Malawi, along with Malawi’s Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MOE) are the is the main intended audience of the present evaluation to enable current and future programmatic changes and updates related to the SCC-CFS. The evaluation will also provide donors and development partners with relevant information about school construction programming.

The MSI evaluation team has no conflict of interest and worked independently from UNICEF during the analyses to sustain the current evaluation’s impartiality and credibility.

2.2 Key Evaluation Questions and Integration of CFS Framework

The overarching purpose of the evaluation is to determine how the SCC-CFS program affects target schools in three key areas:

Access to quality basic education for all (e.g., student enrollment and dropout as a function of the

SCC-CFS program)

Learning environment (e.g., quality of infrastructure-related improvements and beneficiary

satisfaction with them)

Key learner outcomes (e.g., passing rates).

As specified in UNICEF’s Request for Proposal, the current evaluation addresses five main research questions (table 2.1). These key evaluation questions are grounded within the CFS framework outlined previously in this report. Data collection and analyses necessarily reflected this framework. The table below presents how MSI responded to each of the OECD DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance in this evaluation. Definitions for these criteria are provided following the table.

Table 2.1. Research Questions, CFS Principles, and Evaluation Criteria

Research Question CFS Principles DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance

1. To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased equitable access and quality of education?

Inclusiveness; effectiveness (relevance and quality)

Relevance; effectiveness; impact

2. To what extent have the inputs and processes of the school construction component increased effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the SCC-CFS program?

Effectiveness (relevance and quality)

Relevance; efficiency; effectiveness; sustainability

7

3. To what extent has the SCC-CFS program affected key outputs and standards of the CFS framework?

Inclusiveness; effectiveness (relevance and quality); health, safety, and protection; gender friendliness; student/family/community involvement

Relevance; effectiveness

4. To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased capacity of key stakeholders through participation, training, and guidelines?

Inclusiveness; effectiveness (relevance and quality); student/family/community involvement

Relevance; effectiveness; sustainability

5. To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased school safety and inclusiveness of the school environment?

Inclusiveness; effectiveness (relevance and quality); health, safety, and protection

Relevance; effectiveness

Evaluation criteria were drawn from the OECD’s Development Assitance Committee. 4 The definitions of

the Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance are.

Relevance: The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor.

Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives.

Efficiency: Efficiency measures the outputs -- qualitative and quantitative -- in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results.

Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial conditions.

Sustainability: Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable.

4 Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

8

3. Evaluation Design and Methodology

3.1 Evaluability of the SCC-CFS Program in Malawi

MSI conducted an evaluability assessment in conjunction with the scoping mission at the outset of this evaluation. The two-week scoping mission was productive and included the following activities:

Meetings with UNICEF Education Section (Shota Hatakeyama and Eva Hardardottir), Planning,

Monitoring, and Evaluation Section (Mekonnen Woldegorgis), Construction program (Rogers

Banda and Rene Dierkx), Child Protection Section (Nankali Maksud), and Social Policy Section

(Janet Liabunya and Sophie Shawa)

Two school visits in Lilongwe Rural (Malembe and Mchuchu) to observe inputs, such as

classroom refurbishments, provision of teaching and learning materials, innovations in desk

materials and design, new latrine and classroom construction, and landscaping. These visits also

provided an opportunity for brief discussions with head teachers about changes in the school

environment with SCC-CFS, observed changes in learner attendance, and achievement

Introductions with the MOE EMIS unit

Collecting more than 30 documents from UNICEF to inform the inception report

Interviewing and recruiting eight enumerators for the data collection team

Finalizing the sample

Refining the evaluation design and data collection activities.

Two key challenges in the SCC-CFS program’s evaluability were related to the lack of baseline data when the SCC-CFS program began in 2012 and to the robust approach to select a comparison group. Comparison groups are needed to establish the counterfactual, or what would have happened had the SCC-CFS program not occurred, and thus help to strengthen the validity of program effects in observational studies.

MSI experienced some delays, but when the Ministry of Education made national EMIS data available to UNICEF and MSI, MSI conducted a thorough review and analysis of available secondary data to identify information gaps and other evaluability challenges and discuss solutions. Using information available during evaluation planning, MSI used 2012 EMIS data to generate propensity scores to match SCC-CFS schools in five districts with potential comparison schools in the same five districts. Comparison schools were selected in the same five districts and matched on key 2012 variables, such as student pass rates, enrollment rates, dropout rates, social/demographic characteristics of student population, and district.

The evaluability assessment also determined the extent to which the SCC-CFS project can be evaluated reliably and credibly so that MSI can produce valid, reliable, and useful information for UNICEF. The results of the current evaluation will inform UNICEF’s next education sector strategy and contribute to a broader assessment of the value of continued investment in SCC-CFS or similar infrastructure-focused programs. In implementing the evaluability assessment, MSI addressed the following three main issues:

Project design (e.g., the relevance and evaluability of the CFS theory of change)

Availability of information (e.g., availability of project baseline data or national EMIS data,

presence of comparison group, critical data for all indicators available, and potential to

disaggregate by gender or other key variables)

Institutional context (e.g., timing of evaluation, accessibility to stakeholders, resources available, and ethical compliance or other issues).

UNICEF Malawi provided more than 30 documents to MSI, including baseline studies, progress reports, construction costs, and other financial data for the SCC-CFS program. UNICEF also included documentation related to the Teacher Training College, UNICEF education and child protection strategies for the current strategy period (including UNICEF country program documents), school improvement plan (SIP) documents, CFS manuals, and monitoring and evaluation manuals (including for infrastructure. Annex C is a complete list of UNICEF-provided documents.

9

THEORY OF CHANGE

MSI also consulted with key stakeholders (primarily UNICEF and the MOE) during this process to identify the boundaries of the SCC-CFS program and this evaluation (what this evaluation will not cover). This evaluation is not designed to document and assess the results of the broader CFS approach, but rather will isolate the unique effects of the SCC-CFS program on key learner outcomes (as much as possible given the evaluation’s methodological, timing, and resource constraints). UNICEF Malawi has not developed a theory of change specifically for the SCC-CFS program. However, according to a draft strategy paper describing the school infrastructure support strategy for UNICEF Malawi (UNICEF Support to Quality Basic Education through Child Friendly School Environments), “A broadly envisaged theory of change based on the CFS framework and pillars guides the construction component as a key intervention toward achieving more equitable access and quality education in Malawi. School construction falls most clearly under the CFS pillar of ‘safe, protective, and healthy school’ as it is critical for creating safe spaces, including sanitation facilities for girls and boys, and improving the learning environment. Other associated factors to school construction such as maintenance and accountability of stakeholders can also be associated with the four remaining pillars of the CFS framework.” Figure 3.1 represents the model described in the strategy paper.

Figure 3.1. Pillars of the CFS Framework

MSI recommends that UNICEF Malawi use this evaluation’s results to develop a more detailed and contextualized theory of change for any future iteration of the SCC-CFS program, one that specifies the expected strength, magnitude, and direction of programmatic inputs with outcomes and impacts for students, teachers, and other key stakeholders.

Constraints

The evaluability assessment resulted in the development of an evaluation matrix that UNICEF approved before the start of this evaluation (Annex B). This matrix summarizes the research questions, indicators, and data sources for this evaluation based on the availability and quality of national and school-level education data for the SCC-CFS schools in Malawi. The data gathered were comprehensive in scope, but several resource and time constraints influenced the current evaluation.

Although the lack of baseline and ongoing project monitoring data is a key methodological constraint for this evaluation, MSI worked closely with UNICEF to design a comprehensive set of qualitative and

• Classroom construction

• Sanitation facilities

Safe, protective and healthy school

• Collective and clear accountability for maintanance of structures and environment

Community linkages and partnerships • Classroom to pupil

ratio at school level

• Classrooms with "talking walls"

Effective school

• Disability friendly classrooms and sanitation facilities

A rights based and inclusive school

• Gender senstitive sanitation facilities

Gender responsive, equity and equality promoting school

10

quantitative data collection tools. These tools ask respondents to reflect on the changes seen in their school environments and the effects of those changes on key outcomes of interest for this evaluation.

A third key constraint related to the SCC-CFS program’s evaluability is the timing of this evaluation, which occurred when schools were closed for the summer holiday in Malawi. Although direct observations of classroom teaching and learning techniques were not possible, MSI developed comprehensive data collection tools to determine the relationships between SCC-CFS activities and key outcomes from students, teachers, parents, and community members at each school. This allowed MSI to triangulate data from multiple perspectives and develop a more reliable and valid understanding of the SCC-CFS program’s impact. Furthermore, the relevant school authorities arranged for the evaluation team to interact with the learners (during their school break) in each of the selected schools. Constraints related to EMIS data availability and quality and the lack of baseline data for the SCC-CFS program are presented in the next section.

3.2 Evaluation Design

MIXED-METHODS, QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

To measure the impact of the SCC-CFS program in Malawi between 2012 and 2015, the current evaluation used a concurrent mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design using a mix of primary and secondary data analyses. Primary data were both qualitative and quantitative in nature and reflected the student, teachers, head teachers, parents, and community members’ perspectives on school environments and the SCC-CFS program’s key principles.

Table 2.1 in Section 2.2 maps evaluation criteria against each of the research questions guiding this evaluation. As specified in the SCC-CFS Evaluation Matrix submitted with MSI’s Inception Report (Annex O), the key research questions are explored through a mixture of primary (both qualitative and quantitative) and secondary data sources. Specifically, the evaluation matrix presents data collection sources and research questions for the four SCC-CFS project objectives:

School data on student enrollment, dropout, and pass rates

Outputs and standards of the CFS framework

Capacity of institutions and key stakeholders

Safety and inclusiveness of the school environment.

Although the impact assessment is a significant component of this evaluation, substantial qualitative and quantitative data were collected through school visits. Primary qualitative data included semistructured interviews with parents, community members, teachers, and head teachers; school transect walks with students; and in-depth interviews with key informants. Primary quantitative data included a school construction assessment and a student survey. Secondary data included a document review and EMIS data on school-level indicators on enrollment, repetition, and dropout rates, and teacher and school infrastructure characteristics. Ongoing SCC-CFS project monitoring data were not available for inclusion in this evaluation. Annex C is a complete list of documents provided by UNICEF for review during this evaluation.

As expected with a concurrent mixed-methods design, qualitative and qualitative analyses were timed simultaneously and both types of analyses completed separately. The results of both sets of analyses were then compared, with each given equal weight or priority when drawing conclusions (Tashakori and Teddlie 2003). Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches is relatively common in evaluation studies, but the current approach is innovative because it combines mixed methods and quasi-experimental techniques (Lynch et al. 2007). The combination of multiple data types—qualitative and quantitative, primary and secondary—allows for triangulation of multiple sources to investigate the findings’ consistency. It also helps provide rich, qualitative descriptions of the contextual factors that might constrain or enable the impact of SCC-CFS on target schools. The next sections explain the process for obtaining a valid counterfactual and provide details on primary and secondary data collection and analysis methodologies (both descriptive and inferential) used in the current evaluation.

11

Figure 3.2. Concurrent Mixed-Method Design

INCORPORATION OF UNEG AND HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH STANDARDS

For the evaluation’s technical design, implementation, analyses, and reporting, MSI followed the 2005 United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Standards for Evaluation (UNEG 2005) and human rights-based approach guidelines, as follows:

People are recognized as key actors in their development rather than passive recipients of

commodities and services, and the development process is owned locally.

Both outcomes and processes are monitored and evaluated.

Programs focus on marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded groups, and programs aim to

reduce disparity.

Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are used in synergy.

Situation analysis is used to identify immediate, underlying, and basic causes of development

problems.

Measureable goals and targets are important in programming.

Strategic partnerships are developed and sustained.

Programs support accountability to all stakeholders, and analysis includes all stakeholders.

Regarding equality, MSI investigated the extent to which the SCC-CFS project promoted human rights without discrimination of any kind, including sex, ethnicity, language, religion, disability, or other status. MSI also focused particularly on how effectively the SCC-CFS program promoted the human rights of traditionally marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded groups. All data (quantitative and qualitative) were disaggregated and analyzed by gender.

3.3 Matching of Comparison and Intervention Schools

One of the main objectives of the evaluation’s analytical strategy is to estimate the causal relationship of the SCC-CFS and the educational outcomes of interest. Finding a valid group of comparison schools is important to this objective.

MSI used a propensity score matching technique, selecting 30 comparison schools located in the same districts as the 30 primary schools supported directly by the SCC-CFS program (the intervention schools).5 The propensity score matching technique’s aim was to equate (or balance) the distribution of covariates in both the intervention and comparison schools. MSI implemented a two-step procedure: (1) defining “closeness” by the distance measure used to determine whether an individual comparison school is a good match for an intervention school; and (2) implementing a matching method, given the measure of closeness.

5 UNICEF initially shared a list of 30 schools during evaluation strategy planning. However, MSI identified 31 schools as part of the SCC-CFS program after receiving the calendar of school construction.

Quantitative Qualitative

Quantitative analysis Qualitative analysis

Quantitative data Qualitative data

+

12

To define “closeness,” MSI examined EMIS data to determine which covariates to include in a distance measure. The EMIS data lacked many of the variables typically included in such measures. MSI relied on variables available from the 2012 EMIS data. Distance was defined as a measure of the similarity between one intervention school and one comparison school. MSI calculated the distance for Mahalanobis because it works well when there are relatively few covariates—fewer than eight, for example (Rubin 1973; Zhao 2004). However, it does not perform as well when the covariates are not normally distributed or there are many covariates (Gu and Rosenbaum 1993). After calculating the distance measures, MSI matched schools using the nearest neighbor method within each district to select a comparison school for each intervention schools (Rubin 1973).

To confirm whether statistical inferences based on a sample size of 60 schools (30 intervention and 30 comparison) would have adequate power to draw definitive conclusions about the program impacts, MSI statisticians conducted a power analysis and calculated the effect on the minimum detectable effect with a reduced sample size.6 With 60 sample schools, MSI detected a minimum of 0.28 standard deviation difference between intervention and comparison schools on the outcome variables with 80 percent power for a two-tailed test of statistical significance of 0.05 (alpha level). This permits statistically acceptable comparisons of the treatment and comparison groups. A standard deviation of 0.28 is relatively higher than that of most educational evaluation studies. Generally, educational researchers use a standard deviation of 0.10 to 0.25 (Gertler, Patrinos, and Rubio-Codina 2007). For the determination of the sample size, MSI sought a balanced solution between acceptable statistical power and the costs associated with obtaining the required sample size.

The matching strategy was crucial to implementing the quasi-experimental impact component of the evaluation, but the list of intervention and comparison schools was also used for descriptive analyses—i.e., summary statistics of other quantitative data such as the school construction assessment and the student survey—and qualitative analyses, in line with the concurrent mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design of the evaluation.

3.4 Primary Data

The primary qualitative data sources included semistructured interviews because of their strength and flexibility in encouraging fruitful reflection and responses from participants while permitting analysis against emerging themes (Birks and Mills 2011). Data sources also included school transect walks because of their innovative approach to collecting children’s perceptions of their school environment, and in-depth interviews with district-level key informants to better understand the policy environment that hinders or enables effective implementation of the SCC-CFS program.

SOURCES AND INSTRUMENTS

Data collection activities planned for this evaluation included the following:

Semistructured focus group discussions with the head teacher and two additional teachers (one

male and one female)

In-depth interviews with two parents and community members (one male and one female) from

each school

Participatory school transect walks (STW) with six students (three girls and three boys) in upper

primary grades and six students (three girls and three boys) in lower primary grades7

6 The original sample size was estimated at 70 schools, which included 35 intervention schools and 35 comparison schools. Revised project documentation and school lists suggested a reduced sample size.

7 A transect walk is a student-led systematic walk along a defined path (transect) within the school environment,

during which members of the research team document their observations and discussions. With such activities, the consultative and inclusive process is as useful (when documented properly) as the resulting maps for program evaluations.

13

Student surveys for six students (three girls and three boys) per school measuring students’

perceptions of safety in and around their school environment and the degree to which their

physical environment affected their enrollment, attendance, and achievement at school

On-site construction assessments by each field team in all SCC-CFS schools and by the

construction specialist at a subsample of selected schools

Key informant interviews with two district education officers and a range of stakeholders at the

national level, such as private sector partners in construction and Ministerial officials.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected in six districts: Blantyre, Lilongwe, Mangochi, Nkhata Bay, Phalombe, and Thyolo. Three field teams of three enumerators each conducted school-level data collection activities after an intensive, week-long training facilitated by MSI project manager Steven Robison, field research specialist Dr. Donald Makoka, and construction specialist Washington Chimuzu, with support from MSI’s Home Office Education team. The training introduced enumerators to the data collection systems and the evaluation tools, such as the construction assessment, transect walk, parent-teacher association focus group discussions, and a student survey. The training also included general sessions on qualitative data collection techniques, such as focus group facilitation and obtaining informed consent. The training was a crucial opportunity for the data collection team to review and revise the draft instruments developed at MSI Home Office and to practice using the instruments at nearby schools. UNICEF Malawi representatives also attended and participated in some training sessions. Annex D contains details of the field teams’ Field Movement Plan during data collection.

PROCESSING

Each team spent about two weeks visiting schools and another two weeks transcribing and entering data into MSI-designed data entry templates. Annexes E and F include details on the quantitative and qualitative data entry templates, respectively.

PLANNED AND FINAL SAMPLES

Overall, MSI collected qualitative data from 627 individuals across 58 schools (313 male respondents and 305 female respondents). Gender information was missing for nine respondents. The data collected includes the following:

Schools. MSI collected qualitative data from 58 of 60 schools in the original plan. All the schools

involved in the SCC-CFS program have data, and the two schools missing qualitative data are

comparison schools.

Focus group discussions with teachers and head teachers. 138 teachers were included in

the sample from 51 different schools—67 teachers from intervention schools and 71 from

comparison schools, which provided qualitative data from teachers at 85 percent of the schools.

Discussions and in-depth interviews with parents and community members. MSI

interviewed 88 parents and community members from 52 different schools—44 parents from

intervention schools and 44 from comparison schools.

School transect walks. Field enumerators walked through schools and gathered responses from

398 students (198 from intervention schools and 200 from comparison schools). Qualitative

student data comes from 52 schools (approximately 87 percent) in the sample.

Student survey. The final student survey dataset includes 54 students, all from different schools.

On-site construction. The dataset includes 45 schools (25 from the intervention group and 20

from the comparison group).

Key informant interviews. MSI conducted two semistructured interviews with district education

officers from the Blantyre and Mangochi districts.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR PRIMARY DATA

14

Qualitative methods and analysis provided an in-depth understanding of the processes, emotions, and experiences of stakeholders associated with and affected by the SCC-CFS interventions (e.g., students’ attitudes toward quality of education and school environment). Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions allowed stakeholders (teachers, parents and community members, and students) to express their attitudes and perceptions regarding equitable access, school environment, and quality of education related to the CFS program’s school construction effort. These qualitative activities also captured stakeholders’ overall satisfaction level with school construction processes and procedures.

Issue-focused analysis (Weiss 1994) is a qualitative approach often used for learning about specific issues, events, or processes from the study participants. The issue-focused analysis of interview material involved coding, sorting, local integration, and inclusive integration.

MSI developed a list of initial themes and codes as part of the coding process, which were then applied during the qualitative data analysis using the software MAXQDA (MAX Qualitative Data Analysis). Themes were paired with specific codes and organized in a codebook that was used as a reference for the qualitative analysis team to code all participant’s responses. MSI revised and modified the initial codebook list according to the themes and topics that emerged from the qualitative data.

MSI used MAXQDA to sort the documents by:

Type of informant (teachers and head teachers, parents and community, students, and key

informants),

Type of school (part of intervention or comparison groups),

District of school,

Gender of the respondent, and

Respondent’s age (for teachers and community members) or grade level (upper grades for grade

5–8 students and lower grades for grade 1–4 students).

MSI coded documents using a code system under the four themes listed in table 3.1. Then, during the local integration step, MSI summarized the qualitative data for each sorting division (the themes and results indicated by the students in the intervention schools versus the comparison schools). Annex G contains the complete code system. Qualitative data were analyzed using crosstabs and quote matrixes and through examining code relationships. MSI considered both the number and substance of comments. Representative quotes and percentages were investigated by theme within and across codes and disaggregated by respondent type, district, and gender. Finally, the inclusive integration step requires melding the theories emerging from the local integration into a single coherent theory summarizing the findings of the qualitative analysis across informants, schools, regions, or other key categories. This theory was applied to the research questions and led the analysis team to produce concrete, actionable, data-driven recommendations for UNICEF Malawi.

Table 3.1. Codebook Themes and Explanations

Theme Definition

Education outcomes Construction effects on students and teachers’ attendance and performance

at the school level

School management and

supporting organizations

Attitudes and perceived roles of groups and organizations toward education,

construction, and overall school environment

School infrastructure and

construction

Physical changes and current status of school environment, maintenance,

and future infrastructure needs

Safety and inclusion

Sense of security and inclusion provided by school environment and

construction

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR PRIMARY DATA

15

Student Survey

The student survey summary describes students’ perceptions of safety and well-being in and around the school. MSI used descriptive statistics to compile, analyze, and summarize the quantitative survey data collected by the field teams in both intervention and comparison schools. Survey items included in the student survey were classified and analyzed separately in two categories: (1) related to stakeholders’ capacity (participation, training, and guidelines), and (2) related to school safety and inclusiveness.

School Construction Assessment

MSI used descriptive statistics to compile, analyze, and summarize the quantitative data collected by the field teams and the school construction specialist. Using the school construction assessments (conducted by the school construction specialist and the enumerators), MSI analyzed the schools’ infrastructure relative to the following:

Accessibility

Aesthetics

Safety and security

Participatory design process

Utilization of local materials and know-how

User satisfaction with construction process and results

Operational efficiency and utilization

Environmental conditions

Sustainability

Structural integrity.

Additionally, using the field team’s notes from the school construction assessment and triangulating information from other primary sources (such as the qualitative collected data and the student survey), MSI compiled a set of notes by school that reflect some of the schools’ more immediate needs, and useful information to understand the contextual situation of each particular school (Annex H).

LIMITATIONS

The strongest limitation to the qualitative data is the reliability of the documents received from the field team. Some errors occurred as the field team transcribed interviews into document templates. For example, some documents were named incorrectly, or duplicate information was copied into more than one document. Consequently, many documents had to be transcribed again, sometimes more than once. MSI discovered this issue while coding documents that contained the same responses. The MSI Home Office alerted the field team, which responded promptly with revised documents (some with multiple revisions). Some qualitative data might have lost its richness because of the multiple revisions, but MSI and the field team worked to mitigate this issue as much as possible.

The main limitation to the collected quantitative data is that only one randomly selected child of those participating of the STW was asked to fill out the student survey. The limited data did not allow inferential analyses or disaggregation of students’ responses by age or gender, and therefore results are disaggregated only by treatment and comparison schools in the descriptive analyses performed. All other quantitative data sources were disaggregated by gender.

A second limitation is that the school construction assessment item data did not have enough variance in the responses to run a principal component analysis for each questionnaire category (equitable access, effectiveness and sustainability of the school construction, outputs and standards of the CFS framework, capacity of key stakeholders, and safety and inclusiveness of school environment). Because of this, MSI could not create a four-point subscale for rating each school (from highly satisfactory to highly unsatisfactory). However, using data triangulation from all primary data, MSI compiled a list of notes by school that reflects some of the most pressing school characteristics and context affecting the SCC-CFS program’s development.

The information collected by the field teams might be susceptible to social acceptance bias, i.e., the process may lead respondents to provide socially acceptable answers. The information might also be

16

susceptible to sponsor bias, which occurs when respondents know who is sponsoring the research and they provide answers that they think the sponsors might want to know. MSI reviewed responses and triangulated information from the different respondent types (students, teachers, parents, and so on) to minimize these biases.

Finally, urban/rural disaggregation was not originally delineated in the Inception Report and research questions guiding this evaluation. All urban schools in this sample served as control schools; thus, comparisons between treatment and control were not feasible.

3.5 Ethical Considerations and Safeguards

Consistent with UNEG Standard 3.15, which states that evaluations should be conducted in an professional and ethical manner, MSI’s evaluation team executed the evaluation with full protections to research subjects according to the principles of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. Respect for persons requires that individuals have full autonomy to make informed decisions to participate, and that individuals with diminished capacity must be given additional protections. Beneficence requires research studies to maximize benefit and minimize risk as much as possible for all study participants. Justice requires equitable distribution of research burdens and benefits across individuals or groups participating in the study.

The MSI evaluation team provided respect for persons through informed consent forms that participants signed before any data collection activities took place. By signing the consent forms, participants acknowledged that participation was voluntary and not coerced, that withdrawal from any activity at any time was fully allowed without penalty, and that the respondent was free to refuse to answer any question. The team developed informed consents for key informants, parents of students participating in the evaluation, and students. These forms ensured that before agreeing to participate and having their discussions audio recorded, all participants understood the evaluation’s objectives and how their data would be used and shared after the evaluation period. Furthermore, MSI reminded participants of their rights, which include confidentiality (data are stored in locked file cabinets and shared only with the evaluation team), anonymity (names are not used, and all participants are assigned an alphanumeric ID code), and the right to refuse to answer any question or to withdraw from the evaluation entirely without any penalty from UNICEF or MSI. The forms detail the procedures in place in case of any disclosures of abuse, violence, or other forms of harm. These informed consents were translated before data collection.

3.6 Secondary Data

SOURCES

The evaluation uses two types of secondary data: SCC-CFS documentation provided by UNICEF Malwi and Malawi’s data on education indicators provided by the Education Management Information System (EMIS). MSI received, reviewed and used as sources for the Inception Report a list of document related to the SCC-CFS program and guidelines. The documents that were most pertinent and useful for the evaluation are also cited as references in the present Evaluation Report. The quantitative secondary data used in this report are from Malawi’s Education Management Information System (EMIS). In July 2016, UNICEF Malawi shared with MSI its EMIS data for 2012 and 2013. However, as specified in the inception report, a difference-in-differences (DD) model requires data from the intervention and comparison groups from two or more different periods, from before and after the intervention. In January and May 2017, UNICEF Malawi provided the EMIS data from 2010 and 2011, and from 2014 to 2016.

UNICEF Malawi provided MSI with 141 Excel files with information by indicator and by school on the total number of enrolled, dropped out, repeaters, and orphaned children by grade; the number of teachers and their characteristics; and school infrastructure indicators, such as the number of classrooms and sanitary, water, and electricity provisions.

PROCESSING

17

MSI cleaned, reshaped, and appended the EMIS data files from UNICEF Malawi.8 During the data cleaning process, MSI ensured that each file included the MOE identification code for each school. For files that lacked an MOE code, MSI used a text-matching technique using the school name and district to ensure that all schools were identifiable. In other cases, the Excel files had multiple types of formatting for the identification code, which had to be recoded. During data cleaning, MSI also worked on naming and formatting the variables consistently across years.

The second data processing step involved reshaping all of the files. In most cases, Malawi EMIS data were in a long format, i.e., containing more than one unique observation per school depending on the disaggregation categories by indicator. MSI reshaped these files to a wide format so that each dataset included a unique number of rows (one per school with columns for each indicator’s disaggregation). The final step was to append all the reshaped files to get a final panel dataset needed to conduct the impact evaluation.

PLANNED AND FINAL SAMPLES

The final appended data included 559 variables and 417 observations, including information of 60 schools (treatment and comparison) for each year from 2010 to 2016. The final dataset codebook is in Annex I.

The planned sample was to have 420 observations (60 schools for a seven-year period). However, three schools were missing data from 2010, 2014, and 2015: Maranatha Institute (comparison school, MOE code 506007), Kande Care and Gardens (comparison school, MOE code 505898), and Bilal Darul Uloom (comparison school, MOE code 505658). MSI believes EMIS data were not collected in these schools, given the data were systematically missing for all of the files for those particular years.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY OF SECONDARY DATA

SCC-CFS effects

In the Inception Report, MSI proposed using a robust, quasi-experimental analytic technique called difference-in-differences (DD) to estimate the effects of the program. The DD estimator is a model commonly used for impact evaluations, particularly those relying on observational designs (versus randomized controlled trials), such as the current study. To estimate the causal effect, the DD compares the outcomes of the intervention and comparison schools (selected through the matching technique) before and after the intervention.

A DD requires the following to maintain the validity of the causal estimations:

Data measured from the intervention group and a comparison group from two or more different

time periods, from before and after the intervention, and

The same timing of intervention for all the treated units.

MSI asked for UNICEF EMIS data from 2010–2016 and a calendar of program implementation (a school construction calendar) to ensure the rigor and validity of the estimation and comply with these DD requirements. The calendar showed that the SCC-CFS program was not implemented simultaneously in all of the intervention schools. Construction began in 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014 and varied by district. The evaluation team had originally planned to consider 2012 as the first year for the SCC-CFS intervention and use 2011 as pretreatment data for all the schools. However, this would have resulted in a significant loss in validity of the study results because it would not comply with the second DD requirement.

To avoid compromising causal estimation and account for multiple intervention periods, MSI divided the sample into two subsamples according to when the intervention concluded: (1) Blantyre and Lilongwe districts, and (2) the rest of the districts. For Blantyre/Lilongwe, years 2010–2012 were considered pre-intervention and 2013–2016 as post-intervention; for the rest of the districts, 2010–2011 were considered

8 All Excel files were imported to Stata, the statistical software used to process the information.

18

pre-intervention and 2015–2016 as post-intervention (see the Calendar of School Construction in Annex A). All models were run separately using either the Blantyre/Lilongwe or Rest of Districts subsamples to preserve the validity of the DD modelling.

Additionally, MSI performed a comparison between whole intervention and comparison schools (not disaggregated by phase of construction) using, as originally planned, 2012 as a baseline for all schools regardless of when construction started in each of them. These models show whether intervention schools have statistically significant differences in key outcomes when compared with the comparison schools, controlling for baseline covariates. However these comparisons do not capture the SCC-CFS program’s causal effect on the outcomes – such effects are captured through DD modelling by phases of construction. Results from both the DD modelling by phases of construction and the regression results, comparing 2016 results for both intervention and comparison schools, are reported. Annexes K and L provide full tables of results. Although results from both set of models might differ, only those from the DD models estimate the SCC-CFS program’s causal effect.

The outcomes of interest in the SCC-CFS evaluation were:

1. Enrollment: the total number of students enrolled by grade and sex, and total number of students

with special needs by grade and sex

2. Dropout rates: by grade and sex, calculated for each year by grade by the ratio of the total

number of students that did not returned to school the following year out of the total number of

students enrolled by grade (consistent with UNESCO guidelines). Further, Malawi EMIS data

provided 11 explanatory categories for student drop out: family responsibilities, pregnancy,

marriage, fees (unable to pay), employment, sickness, poor facilities, availability of teachers, long

distances, violence, and other reasons. MSI also used these variables as an outcome to

understand the reasons behind student dropouts better.9

3. Repetition rates: by grade and sex, calculated by the ratio of the total number of repeaters by

grade out of the total number of students enrolled by year

4. Rates of the Primary School Leaving Examination: by sex, calculated by the ratio of students that

failed or passed out of the total of grade 8 students.

Models predicting each of these outcomes were run independently because of the multicollinearity of the outcomes of interest.

SCC-CFS cost-effectiveness

In general terms, the methodology of conducting cost effectiveness analysis (CEA), consists of four steps: (1) identify the program/intervention to be evaluated, (2) identify the resources used in the intervention, and estimate their costs, (3) identify the results of the program/intervention, and (4) measure the ratio of the costs of a program to the effects in the desired outcomes. In practice, however, there is a wide range of alternative methodologies for computing each step that vary by sector, intervention type, outcomes, and available information. The strategy followed for this report is detailed below.

Identification of the intervention to be evaluated

MSI has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Child Friendly Schools’ school construction component only, not the CFS program as a whole. Second, we focused on the cost of the implementation of the component, as included in the database of costs and the calendar of school construction provided by UNICEF Malawi. The information provided includes the number of new classrooms, new library/administration blocks, new staff houses, sets of sanitation facilities and the number of rehabilitated classooms by school, as well as each school’s project start and completion dates.

9 Samples are too small to have reliable estimates if the reasons are disaggregated by gender or grade, so disaggregating dropout rates by reason was done only at the school level.

19

A comparative CEA compares multiple program’s cost-effectiveness ratios that share the same

effectiveness measure (for example, effect in enrollment rates) and compares the effectiveness of

different interventions from several studies. Though this is a powerful tool that can guide stakeholders

and donors’ decisions, comparing different interventions with the SCC-CFS is outside the scope of the

present study.

Identification of the intervention’s costs

There are various accounting frameworks for making the cost estimates. Costs can be broadly divided into the following three main categories: overhead costs (management and staff salaries, program design, and evaluation costs); direct costs (infrastructure construction, teacher salaries, training, food cash transfers, equipment, and monitoring); and imputed costs (volunteer time and opportunity costs).

Data made available by UNICEF Malawi includes the 2014 costs for the following items: Double

classroom block (disaggregated by SSB and bricks-type), Administration block (disaggregated by SSB

and bricks-type), Staff houses (disaggregated by urban and rural), Four, two and single hole pit latrine

(dissagregated by male and female), Urinal (disaggregated by girls and boys), and of a Borehole drilling &

installation of Afridev pump.10

MSI followed the following steps for the cost analysis:

1. Estimate nominal prices for the whole years of implementation.

UNICEF shared the nominal costs of the constructin items i.e. the prices in terms of 2014 only. However,

according to the school construction provided by UNICEF, construction activities in schools ranged from

2008 to 2015, so we estimated the nominal prices for the 2008-2015 period, adjusting the prices by

inflation using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator in constant local currency Malawi Kwacha

(MK).

2. Inflation adjustment

Using the estimated nominal prices, MSI estimated the real prices, i.e.we translated each year’s nominal

prices to 2016 base year prices. 2016 was selected as a base year so that the prices can be considered

temporally relevant for this evaluation and because it was also the most recent year of available EMIS

data.

Costs are generally estimated discounting the value of future obligations, and, particularly for

infrastructure costs, as they depreciate in value each year of usage. However, as the calendar provided

by UNICEF Malawi does not detail exactly the year in which each of the construction components were

finalized, it is not possible to know the number of years that should be discounted (or the exact degree of

depreciation).

In cost-benefit analysis, the outcomes are monetized (for example, the monetary value of one more year

of education is estimated to place a value on the dropout rate outcome) and discounted to obtain present

values. For CEA analysis, however, the discounting of outcomes is not compulsory.

3. Currency adjustment

10 Additionaly, it provided the 2013 cost Double classroom block (Bricks), Administration block (Bricks), and Staff house (rural).

20

Finally, we also converted the MK real 2016 prices to USD using the official exchange rate (local currency

units per US$) for 2016, to facilitate UNICEF Malawi’s comparison with other interventions.

We made the following assumptions for the cost analysis:

- Type sanitation facilities. The database of costs includes information for different type of

sanitation facilities such as girls and boys urinals, four pir latrine, two hole pit latrine, single pit

hole, etc. However, the calendar of school construction includes the category “Sets of sanitation

facilities” but not details for each, so we assume the cost is the sum of a girls and boys urinals.

- Type of classroom construction. The database of costs includes the costs for a double classroom,

block as a standard shoe box (SSB) and for a double classroom block with bricks. However, the

calendar of school construction does not detail the type of classroom construction conducted, so

we assume the cost of a double classroom block with bricks.

- Cost of classroom rehabilitation. The database of costs includes item-cost information for a

classroom construction i.e.substructure, roof, external and internal walls, windows and doors, etc.

However, the calendar of school construction does not include the set of items renovated for each

classroom rehabilitation, so we assume the cost of a classroom rehabilitation is half the cost of a

double classroom block with bricks.

- Average cost of the items during the years of construction. The calendar does not provide the

exact month/year when each of the components were constructed. For example, Mkomadzi

Primary school had 3 classrooms rehabilitated, 4 new classrooms, 3 staff houses, and 1 set of

sanitation facilities constructed from September 2011 to December 2012. As it is not possible to

know if the costs were in 2011 or 2012 prices for each of these infrastructural improvements, we

computed the average 2011-2012 costs of classrooms, staff houses, sanitation facilities

construction and classroom rehabilitation to estimate the average program costs for that school.

We follow this procedure for all the intervention schools.

Identification of the intervention’s effects to be evaluated under the CEA

In a cost-effectiveness context and following the DAC evaluation criteria, effectiveness refers to the measures that show the changes in outcomes due to the implemented program – the program effects. The analytical strategy of the present evaluation delineated earlier in this section, allows us to estimate the causal effect of the program by phases of construction – the DD analysis estimates for the Blan & Lilo and Rest of Districts intervention and comparison subsamples –and the overall change in the intervention and comparison schools – the regression analysis estimates for both groups.

The outcomes estimated through both of these strategies included several indicators (enrollment, dropout rates, repetition rates and passing rates) and their disaggregated values (grade, sex). However, one of the limitations of any cost-effectiveness analysis is that it can only examine one type of outcome at a time. It is recommended to select one outcome as reporting cost-effectiveness in terms of multiple outcomes can be misleading and/or confounding as outcomes usually interact among them. For example, a reduction in dropout rate might be closely related to a reduction in the repetion rates, which in turn can be related to passing rates. Also, following the guidance for CEA in educational settings, we focus only on statistically significant effects at the 10% level of significance (Levin and McEwan 2001).

Cost-effectiveness estimation

Once we have selected the the statistically significant outcome that better reflects the program objectives,

the overall program effect will be selected as unit of effectiveness to conduct the cost-effectiveness

estimation. We estimate cost-effectiveness ratios using the total cost of the program along all years of

intervention and X number of unit of effectiveness:

Cost-effectiveness ratio = Total cost / Unit of effectiveness

21

Because the present evaluation studies school-level outcomes (changes in enrollment and dropout,

repetition, and enrollment rates by grade and gender), we do not estimate the cost-effectiveness by

student, but rather, the cost-effectiveness by school in terms of the desired outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Both the estimation of the SCC-CFS effects and cost-effectiveness have limitations, as does any analytical strategy. For the estimation of effects, although the matching technique to obtain a set of comparison schools was developed to create a valid comparison or counterfactual group, differences between intervention and the selected comparison schools could still be present outside the variables used during the propensity score matching methodology. For example, qualitative tools and surveys showed that some of the comparison schools received some type of construction and/or infrastructure either from self-funding efforts or with help from other donors. This might have affected the study’s internal validity, but it was not possible to foresee this limitation. However, MSI dealt with this limitation by triangulating quantitative and qualitative data and findings along the evaluation and report.

For the quasi-experimental estimation, MSI created two subsamples of schools based on the date by which schools were more likely to have completed SCC-CFS activity. This strategy allowed for the overall estimation of the SCC-CFS impact in all districts and for the two created subsamples.

The construction component included the construction of classrooms, library facilities, and teacher housing facilities, and these components varied within districts and schools. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the impact of each of these different infrastructure developments, but rather of the SCC-CFS school construction as a whole.

The DD model relied completely on EMIS data, which has quality and continuity issues as reported by a comprehensive analysis of the EMIS and Ministry of Education local capacity.11

The main limitation of the cost-effectiveness analysis was incomplete information in the implementation calendar, such as the exact dates and construction items for each of the schools. To mitigate this issue, we took the assumptions noted above. Also, given the scope of this evaluation, MSI conducted a cost effectiveness estimate of the construction component of the CFS program only, and did not consider program administration and implementation costs of the overall CFS program in Malawi.

11 “In Malawi, now that USAID is no longer supporting the national EMIS but focusing just at the district level, capacity

at the national level is limited. . .When EQUIP2 [Educational Quality Improvement Program 2] ended in 2008, the MOE could not finance the continuation of the EMIS. With key staff turnover, only one person with the required technical skills was left in the EMIS unit to run the EMIS, leaving serious doubts regarding prospects for sustainability.” Bernbaum and Moses 2011

22

4. SCC-CFS Evaluation Findings

The following sections summarize the results for the primary and secondary data analyses by research question. As noted previously and in the Evaluation Matrix presented in Annex B, evaluation criteria are embedded to varying degrees within each of the research questions. Findings are categorized by topic area and type of analysis (quantitative and qualitative) for ease of presentation, to generate actionable recommendations for UNICEF Malawi, and to ensure that each recommendation is grounded strongly in evaluation findings.

4.1 To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased equitable access and quality of education? (Relevance, Effectiveness, Impact)

The section draws from the DAC relevance, effectiveness and impact criteria as it delves into the extent to which the intervention is suited to the CFS principles of inclusiveness and effectiveness. It reports the positive and negative effects of the program on the desired outcomes, as estimated by the quasi-experimental impact evaluation, and the evidence from qualitative analyses, particularly the School Transect Walks (STW) and focus group discussions with teachers and head teachers.SCC-CFS Impact in Enrollment and Dropout Rates

Access to school is a child’s fundamental right. The SCC-CFS program sought to contribute to increasing access to school for all children. The following subsections present the results of the regression and DD models, as well as from the qualitative analyses.

DIFFERENCE-IN-DIFFERENCES RESULTS BY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION

The SCC-CFS program was found to have no significant impact in enrollment at any grade for the subsample of Blantyre and Lilongwe districts. For the remaining districts subsample, however, the SCC-CFS showed a positive and significant effect on grade 1 female enrollment. No impact was found on the enrollment of children with special needs at any grade by gender for either of the two subsamples (Blantyre/Lilongwe or the Rest of Districts).12

However, analysis of the impact of SCC-CFS on dropout rates found that male, female, and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1 students and the overall school-level dropout rates decreased for the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample because of the program. MSI found that the impact of SCC-CFS in the Rest of Districts subsample had an effect across multiple grades. The SCC-CFS program decreased:

Female and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1 students

Male and female dropout rates of grade 4 students

Female and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 5 students

Male and female dropout rates of grade 7 students

Female school-level dropout rates.13

When disaggregating the dropout rates by reason, MSI found that the SCC-CFS helped decrease school-level dropout rates due to poor facilities for both subsamples. The SCC-CFS also had helped decrease school-level dropout rates due to limited availability of teachers for the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample.14

12 See the DD Models Results with enrollment as an outcome variable disaggregated by sex and grade in Annexes

D–K.

13 MSI also found that SCC-CFS had a positive impact in the male dropout rate of grade 8 students. This result

should not be a major cause for concern because when doing multiple comparisons, it is possible to get a false positive error (type I error) by chance. Overall, results suggest the SCC-CFS decreased dropout rates.

14 See the DD Models Results with dropout rates as an outcome variable disaggregated by sex and grade in Annexes

D–K.

23

Regression Results

The regression models show that intervention schools had statistically significant higher female grade 4 enrollment in 2016 than in 2012 and the opposite for female grade 7 enrollment of students with special needs, though these are not causal estimates.

The regression models also show that intervention schools had statistically significant lower dropout rates for grade 1 male, female, and overall (male and female), for grade 7 males, and school-level dropout rates due to poor facilitiesin 2016 than in 2012.

Qualitative Results

The qualitative tools were designed to compile students, teachers, head teachers, parents, and community members’ perceptions of the factors affecting educational access for students. The students, parents, and teachers mentioned general infrastructure improvements as the main factor in increasing enrollment in their schools. Of the 49 comments from the qualitative data related to infrastructure influence on dropout rates, 41 comments were from schools involved in the SCC-CFS program and the other eight comments were from comparison schools. One teacher from Blantyre district spoke for many in saying, “UNICEF has helped a lot with school blocks and this has made many students to come to school, and the enrollment has increased.”

Similarly, many respondents agreed with the following sentiment that dropout rates were reducing over time partly because of infrastructure improvements:

“The drop-out rate has decreased significantly probably because of the new classroom blocks and facilities. In the past more learners would drop out as they would learn under a tree and sometimes and during the day it would become unbearably hot. Thus, more learners would drop out. We had insufficient number of classroom blocks. Now we only have two classes that still don’t have classroom blocks but these come in the afternoon shift. For two to three years we have had no dropout. The introduction of the School feeding program has also impacted in a way because learners who were failing to come to school due to hunger are now able to come to school.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

When asked about other factors related to dropout rates, respondents mentioned poverty, pregnancy and marriage, and lack of interest by parents and children, along with the necessity to do household work and employment as the most prevalent causes. These factors were spread evenly across districts, respondent types, and across both comparison and intervention schools (figure 4.1). In line with the DD results, some respondents mentioned older students, or students in senior grades dropping out more than younger students or students in lower grades as well.

24

Figure 4.1. Number of Respondents Mentioning Factors as Increasing Dropout Rates

All respondent types had comments about the reasons why students drop out of school, though teachers and parents across different districts mentioned the following:

Blantyre District

“The first reason. . .is poverty. The learners lack clothes, exercise books, food and other basic necessities and that is why they go for casual labour work. The second one is the pregnancy issue among girls.” (Teacher, Blantyre).

“Lack of interest from parents or students guardian lead to students drop out. Apart from the market near the school that makes a lot of students go to watch movies we have a problem of early pregnancies by mostly young girls in the age ranges of 14–18.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Mangochi District

“For the junior classes, especially during the rainy season, the parents pick the toddlers to their farms where they spend some months guarding their produce against monkeys.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

Nkhata Bay District

“The lake Malawi has been a hitch really that most student [w]ould drop out and start fishing although it is now reducing a little bit because of interventions the community and police have taken.” (Teacher, Nkhata Bay)

Lilongwe District

“As earlier said poverty is one of the factors that contribute to children not attending school, for instance there is a certain fees that is supposed to be contribute by learners, because of this some parents can not afford to contribute, so some learners do indeed miss classes. In addition early

0

5

10

15

20

25

Po

vert

y

Pre

gnan

cy

Earl

y m

arri

age

Lack

of

par

enta

l su

pp

ort

/hel

p…

Emp

loym

ent

Lack

of

inte

rest

by

stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

in s

enio

r gr

ades

(6

-8)

Old

er

stu

den

ts

Dis

tan

ce t

o s

cho

ol

Lack

of

sch

oo

l fe

edin

g…

Inad

aqu

ate

cla

ssro

om

s

Stu

de

nts

in lo

wer

gra

des

(1

-5)

Pee

r p

ress

ure

Inad

aqu

ate

lear

nin

g m

ater

ials

Par

ents

re

loca

tio

n

Lack

of

role

mo

del

Pu

ber

ty

Co

mm

un

ity

do

es

no

t va

lue…

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts M

enti

on

ing

Fact

or

Intervention Schools

Comparison Schools

25

pregnancy has led to school dropout but with the program called back to school learners are able to continue with their education after giving birth.” (Teacher, Lilongwe)

Equity: Boys and Girls

To explore the issue of equitable access to school (specifically differences by gender), MSI examined responses that mention either girls or boys directly. Among factors affecting boys and girls differentially, pregnancy was the most commonly cited factor affecting girls’ dropout rates, and employment was the factor most affecting boys’ dropout rates. One teacher from Blantyre summarized both these factors:

“The high dropout rates is for girls, last term almost 24 girls drop out from school because of early pregnancies and other girls opted to marry instead of going to school (early marriages) and also due to poverty they end up getting married. When we talk of the boys they drop out from school and look for a job.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Respondents often mentioned the focus on employment for boys with reference to their location. A teacher in Mangochi remarked on their location:

“The second thing is that most boys travel to work in South Africa. So the parents weigh, to have their child stay in school here for 15 years or travel to South Africa and within a short time begin to send them some goods. The third reason is the border effect. We are close to Mozambique. During the growing season they travel to Mozambique because there are fertile soils that side which do not require fertilisers. As they go they pick with them their children and this is what is causing the dropout rates to be 25 percent.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

The comments about girls dropping out because of pregnancy (36 mentions) and early marriage (33 mentions) were particularly widespread. Some schools have succeeded in bringing girls back to school mainly through mothers’ clubs, a factor that emerged from parents and teachers’ responses as closely related to access and attendance and girls’ retention. Mothers’ clubs are organizations of mothers from the community who volunteer for several tasks: protecting children in their homes and school, assisting schools in tracking student attendance and dropouts, counseling children (especially girls), and encouraging girls to stay in school or go back to school. The following responses are how some mothers describe the groups:

“[M]any girls drop out from school because of the area which they are coming from their [sic] not encouraged to go to school but there [sic] being encouraged to get married because when they get married the man will pay dourly [sic] in so the parents will have money so that’s why they are being encouraged to get married. However, the teacher and mother groups have been trying to bring back girls to school for example there was a certain girl who got married but after the mother group care spoke to the parents of the girl they went to get her back and as I am speaking now the girl is back to school.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

“[The] mother group role is to encourage learners especially girl not to get married before they finish school and they move around the villages looking for those who like missing classes encourage them not to miss classes.” (Parents/Community, Mangochi)

“More girls drop out of school more than boys. Sometime, you wonder to see girls being sent to the market to sell some commodities during school time. The other factor is the issue of early pregnancies and marriage and lack of parental care. For example in 2012, a 13 year old girl who was in Standard 7 from Chimwanya Village became pregnant and left school; in 2013, another girl from Area 25 Sector 2 also became pregnant and dropped out of school. There were also issues of pregnancy and drop-out in 2014 and 2015. Nonetheless, the Mother Group encourages readmission of the teen-mothers. Through this initiative, three girls returned to school and two of them were selected to secondary schools where they are continuing with their education.” (Parents/Community, Lilongwe)

Many of the gender-specific factors related to girls, but behavior change was a factor that emerged from the parent interviews as affecting boys. One parent described the issue:

26

“Behaviour change in boys, for example, boys smoking indian hemp contributes to children dropping out of school and early pregnancies in girls.” (Parents/Community, Blantyre)

Equity: Students with Disabilities

Teachers and parents also commented that improvements in accessibility to classrooms and toilets relate to enrollment of children with disabilities. The topic was particularly relevant in intervention schools—67 percent of the respondents who raised the topic came from intervention schools (59 of 88 respondents). This highlights an increased awareness that physical provisions specifically for students with disabilities are important for attendance. However, this might not necessarily mean that physical provisions for these students have improved. A teacher and a student described the issue:

“All students have equal access in getting unto the School since the infrastructures are so child friendly. There ramps in all the entries of every building to eaze [sic] up entry and existing.” (Teacher, Phalombe)

“The new constructions have the ramps that even learners with physical disabilities can easily use and also the classes have enough light so now children with disabilities have access to all facilities at this school.” (Student, Blantyre)

Both intervention and comparison teachers and parents highlighted the need for teachers’ training, teaching materials, and equipment relevant to students with disabilities, along with a general lack of staff to cover these students’ needs and help them to access schools. They commented:

Teachers Needed for Students with Special Needs

“As for children with disabilities, there has been a slight improvement. For those using wheelchairs have access to classrooms. However, for the children with visual and hearing impairments, the school has no special teacher to handle them. So, it is hard to talk about equal access to education for children with disabilities.” (Parents/Community, Blantyre)

“To say the truth our structures like toilets and school blocks are disability friendly and encourage those at home to come to school and as I already said, the only problem is we do not have teachers who can help those with hearing impairment meaning once special needs teachers are here it will also encourage parents to send children to school.” (Parents/Community, Blantyre)

Access Issues Persist

“In real sense yes. They do have problems in accessing the school most especially during rainy season or sunny days where the parent are busy and the fellow children do run away from rains. They sometimes don’t come to School since there is no one to help them.” (Teacher, Nkhata Bay)

Access to schools is still a barrier for children with disabilities, but conditions improved through the SCC-CFS program, giving these children a chance to succeed in ways they previously could not. Eight different schools from the intervention and comparison groups reported that students with disabilities are among their highest performers:

“As for the children with disabilities, they are sometimes among the good performers. So we cannot really distinguish one’s performance in reference the form of disability. We have an example of a young girl with hearing impairment who is in standard 5 but is performing better than other children without disabilities including boys.” (Teacher, Phalombe)

Respondents were also asked for their perceptions on changes in enrollment and dropout rates. Thirty-eight respondents claimed that dropout rates were higher for girls, and four respondents thought that boys’ dropout rates were higher. Those commenting on attendance rates for girls and boys were evenly divided on which gender they believe attends school more often.

27

SCC-CFS IMPACT ON ATTENDANCE

As delineated in the Methodology section, due to the lack of data on attendance, we cannot estimate the effect of the SCC-CFS using causal quantitative methdos. To delve into attendance outcomes, we rely on primary survey data. Respondents who were asked about the factors increasing attendance cited general infrastructure most often. Other factors respondents mentioned include new classrooms, an active mothers’ club, and school feeding programs. Factors they identified as decreasing attendance rates include poverty, early marriage, and lack of parental support.

All respondents identified these general factors as closely related to changes in attendance, but the relative importance of each factor was different for students, parents, and teachers. Students mentioned new classrooms most often when describing influences on attendance, followed by general infrastructure improvements, and new desks and toilets. Parents and teachers rated parental support as a key influencer in student attendance and identified general infrastructure improvements, a feeding program, poverty, and the role of mothers’ clubs as major factors. Parents also cited student interest as one of the most important factors. Along with parental support, teachers mentioned early marriage when discussing attendance (a factor also mentioned as affecting dropout rates) and new classrooms (table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Ranking of Factors Affecting Student Attendance, by Respondent Type

Student Respondents Teacher Respondents Parent/Community Respondents

1. New classrooms (18) 1. Parental support (29) 1. Poverty (24)

2. General infrastructure

improvements (6)

2. General infrastructure

improvements (19)

2. Parental support (21)

3. New desks (5) 3. New classrooms (19)

4. Poverty (15)

5. Feeding program (15)

3. Feeding program (16)

4. New toilets (5) 6. Early marriage (11)

7. Mothers’ clubs (11)

4. General infrastructure

improvements (12)

5. Mothers’ clubs (11)

6. Student interest (11)

Note: The number of comments from the qualitative tools is in parentheses. Factors with the same number of mentions by respondent have the same ranking number.

Respondents cited general infrastructure improvements most as a factor in increasing attendance. Other factors mentioned often include new classrooms, mothers’ clubs, and school feeding programs. Respondents identified poverty, early marriage, and lack of parental support as factors that decrease attendance rates. Across different respondent types, all types of stakeholders perceived the SCC-CFS program from UNICEF as increasing school attendance. A teacher and a student captured the sentiments of many:

“It is praise to UNICEF, Classroom blocks have helped to have more time for learning regardless of what time of the year we are into. In the past during the rainy season we would send the learners home as we did not have a place well protected from rain where we would teach them. The attendance has changed tremendously as we have even seen transfers of learners from other schools to this school due to the new structures and results.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

“We were learning outside under the trees and our attention was always disturbed by those passing in the road but now we have no disturbance. Also, when it was raining, it was so hard to learn

28

outside and with the classrooms that we had, all of us could not have fit but now things are okay even if it rains.” (Student, Blantyre)

Equity: Boys and Girls

MSI examined factors that disrupt access by gender. Reported factors impeding girls’ attendance include pregnancy and early marriage, housework, poverty, and traditional ceremonies. A teacher described the role of ceremonies:

“I will point it out the traditional ceremonies that is held at ti[m]es during school calendar. There is a tendency that if girls don’t attend such ceremonies, they are mos[t] likely to have challenges in marriage that force parents to send them over there. Distance is another disadvantage to most students not to attain quality education.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

Verbal abuse and safety precautions also affect attendance and relate specifically to girls, but these were mentioned rarely in relation to attendance. More discussion of safety issues is in section 3.5 covering research question 5.

29

Figure 4.2. Factors Affecting Student Attendance, by Respondent Type

30

SCC-CFS IMPACT ON REPETITION AND PASSING RATES

The following subsections present the results of the regression and DD models and the qualitative analyses.

Difference-in-Differences Results by Phase of Construction

The DD models using repetition rates as outcomes found that SCC-CFS helped decrease the male grade 8 students’ repetition rates for the Blantyre/Lilongwe districts subsample, and the grade 2 male and overall (male and female) repetition rates for the “rest of district” subsample. Annexes D to K present all the models by grade and by sex using repetition rates as outcomes.15

The DD models using passing rates of the Primary School Leaving Examination as outcomes found no effect for the Blantyre/Lilongwe districts subsample. However, they showed a positive effect of the SCC-CFS program in the male and overall (male and female) passing rates for the Rest of Districts subsample. Annexes D to K present all the models by grade and by sex using passing rates as outcomes.

Regression Results

The regression models show that intervention schools had statistically significant higher male grade 7 repetition rates in 2016 than in 2012, though this estimation is not causal.

Qualitative Results

Of all the factors cited as influential in increasing school passing rates, general infrastructure improvements was cited in the qualitative data more than anything else as a motivating factor and a factor keeping students in classrooms for longer (for both boys and girls). One student said:

“[L]earners are now knocking off at the right time we are now able to finish learning what teachers planned to teach for the day without disturbance of rains and too much sun than it was before.” (Student, Thyolo)

SCC-CFS IMPACT ON TEACHER ATTENDANCE

Students, teachers, and parents mentioned teachers’ housing as a factor for increasing teacher attendance more than any other factor. Respondents from 21 different schools equally distributed among schools and comparison schools mentioned it as an effective strategy to increase teacher attendance. One student commented:

“[T]he teachers’ houses have helped us in that some teachers who were traveling long distances were coming to school late this was affecting our learning as they would start teaching late and within a few minutes their allocated time for the subject would end therefore not learning all what the teacher had prepared for the lesson.” (Student, Nkhata Bay)

A teacher noted:

“I came here in 2010 we were renting outside the community and on rainy season I was not coming to school regularly because where I was staying it was far but now I stay here in the house which UNICEF constructed, thanks to UNICEF it made our life easier and everything is going on well.” (Teacher, Nkhata Bay)

15 For the Rest of Districts subsample, SCC-CFS was found to have a positive impact in the male repetition rate of

grade 7 students. This result should not be a major cause for concern because when doing multiple comparisons, it is possible to get a false positive error (type I error) by chance. It would be concerning if more results like these were found, but this was the only case found when using repetition rates as outcome.

31

PERCEPTION OF EDUCATION QUALITY

Overall, improvement in the quality of education over time emerged as a theme from all respondents interviewed as part of this evaluation. Notably, 84 percent of informants that had positive perceptions of improvements in education quality were from intervention schools (61 of 73 mentions of this topic across all respondents). The following is a representative response:

“The enrollment has increased since the construction of the new buildings, because the school looks beautiful and children are attracted to this School. Children’s performance is also increasing as we now have resources to teach our children in a suitable environment. Most learners are coming to school regularly because they are motivated they have a good learning place with desks in the classrooms.” (Parents/Community, Nkhata Bay)

Furthermore, three teachers from comparison schools spoke of education quality getting worse. One respondent who mentioned declining educational quality cited the school’s physical structures as a reason for the decline. This evidence supports the positive impact of the project in perceptions of educational quality by all stakeholder respondents and the difference in this perception between treatment and comparison schools.

Stakeholders commented on the improvement in quality associated with learning indoors compared with learning outdoors and in a less-crowded classroom and noted it as a positive effect of the SCC-CFS.

Students

“[W]e have stopped learning outside where our attention was divided to what was happening outside and what the teacher was teaching.” (Student, Mangochi)

“[T]he classrooms have helped in reducing congestion in classrooms that was affecting our education in that teachers were failing to control a huge class as such some learners were making noise this affected those who we were concentrating at what the teachers was teaching them at the end of the lesson learners were not gaining anything from the lesson” (Student, Mangochi)

Parents/Community

“The coming of the program has brought an increase in the enrolment and has reduced dropout rates. In the past, during the rainy season most learners would drop out because there were no classroom structures but now the situation has changed a lot.” (Parents/Community, Lilongwe)

“With the coming of this project pass rate has increased, as earlier said that number of learners who got selected to a national secondary school and general pass has increased. It because there is no congestion in classrooms hence learners are able to hear what teachers are teaching”. (Parents/Community, Blantyre)

Furthermore, both students and teachers commented about the impact of the library and the increased number of books on the quality of the education in their schools:

“[T]he library has helped us a lot we now have a quiet place where we read after classes, before the library was constructed it was hard to read at home as children were making noise and also parents giving us chores while you are studying this was disturbing our studies.” (Student, Mangochi)

“[T]he library has helped learners improving their vocabulary, as they read different stories and whenever they came across a new word they ask their teacher for the meaning of the word thereby, learning new words every day.” (Student, Mangochi)

“The library built by UNICEF stocks different types of books which the students can borrow, this has been an improvement as students are looking forward to reading. Our Government does not have resources to reach out to every school in the district hence we thank UNICEF for being a motivation to our students as well as teachers.” (Teacher Nkhata Bay)

32

4.2 To what extent have the inputs and processes of the school construction component increased effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the SCC-CFS program? (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability)

The section is aligned to the DAC relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability criteria as it explores the extent to which the intervention outputs are related to the inputs, as it draws from the school construction assessment and qualitative analyses referencing infrastructure needs and changes (detailed in the SCC-CFS Evaluation Matrix in Annex B). It also delves into the financial programmatic costs and how they relate to the program impact detailed in section 4.1.

SCC-CFS AND NON-SCC-CFS SCHOOLS CURRENT SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

The school construction assessment was originally planned to evaluate SCC-CFS only through DD analysis. However, the field team also collected information on a sample of comparison schools, allowing for comparisons with SCC-CFS intervention schools. This section summarizes the findings from the school construction assessment with regard to accessibility, aesthetics, safety and security, the participatory design process, utilization of local materials and know-how, user satisfaction with the construction process and results, operational efficiency and utilization, environmental conditions, sustainability, and structural integrity. The assessment includes 25 intervention schools and 20 comparison schools.

Annexes M and N present the descriptive statistics by assessment question from the field team and the school construction specialist, and a detailed list of comparisons between intervention and comparison schools.

Accessibility

Intervention schools are more difficult to access from the main road than comparison schools, though all are accessible with motor vehicles.

However, regarding accessibility to school infrastructure, intervention schools have more access to sanitation facilities and ramps to classrooms and bathrooms. Eighty-four percent of intervention and comparison schools have classrooms available for all levels of education. Notably, all the intervention schools have teacher housing compared with 85 percent of the comparison schools.

Aesthetics

Generally, intervention schools reported better aesthetics than comparison schools. Very few of both the intervention and comparison schools have painted external walls, but more intervention schools (96 percent) have painted internal walls than comparison schools (75 percent). Furthermore, 92 percent of comparison schools have well-marked rooms and doors compared with 63 percent of comparison schools.

Intervention schools also have more windows with glass and less visible cracks in floors than comparison schools. An important difference is that all intervention schools have lighting in classrooms and sanitation facilities, but only 50 percent of the comparison schools have proper lighting in these zones. All doors and windows are hinged securely in intervention schools compared with 80 percent of doors and windows in comparison schools.

Comparison schools outranked intervention schools only in well-managed landscaping, but the difference between them was marginal (40 percent and 56 percent, respectively). There was clear appreciation for the improved aesthetics in the intervention schools.

“As a way of thanking UNICEF we are planting trees [to] enhance the school environment. Our school now looks [more] beautiful than before.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

33

“As a human being we will never be satisfied we will always need some more so say am satisfied it might be wrong what I can say to UNICEF is thank you very much for this and we will always be grateful as it has made our community to be proud we have beautiful school with a modern look and our learners are no longer using trees as classroom. Apart from that some way back learners use to beg from houses surrounding the school for toilets because the school had few toilets but now [that is] history.” (Parent, Mangochi)

Safety and Security

Generally, intervention schools’ construction was safer than comparison schools. For example, more intervention schools reported having nighttime security (76 percent), marked emergency assembly areas with direction signs (71 percent), and toilets with locks (92 percent) than comparison schools (60 percent, 55 percent, and 45 percent, respectively). Very few schools reported having a perimeter fences and fire extinguishers, but about 85 percent of schools have visible safety guidelines posted on their walls.

Participatory Design Process

Significantly more intervention schools had positive remarks for the variables analyzed relating to the participatory design process. Eighty percent of intervention schools have a projects committee compared with 41 percent of comparison schools. Furthermore, 77 percent of intervention schools have projects committees that meet regularly with stakeholders compared with 47 percent of comparison schools, and 78 percent of intervention schools monitor projects implemented in their schools compared with 50 percent of comparison schools.

Overall, few schools have an infrastructure master plan and a technical file with details and drawings of infrastructure projects displayed visibly.

Utilization of Local Materials and Know-How

Considerably more intervention schools have used local labor (92 percent) and materials (96 percent) than comparison schools (68 percent and 75 percent, respectively), but very few schools have locally available building materials (12 percent of intervention schools versus 5 percent of comparison schools). Furthermore, slightly more comparison schools (95 percent) have hardware shops within 30 kilometers of the school than intervention schools (88 percent).

User Satisfaction with the Construction Process and Results

More intervention schools (92 percent) have usable facilities than comparison schools (70 percent), but a larger fraction of comparison schools have facilities that are easy to maintain than intervention schools. Both intervention and comparison schools have about that same percentage of availability of maintenance records (44 percent of comparison schools versus 48 percent of intervention schools), but few schools have copies of completed certificates from contractors.

Operational Efficiency and Utilization

Both intervention and comparison schools reported similar operating hours (approximately 7 hours), but significantly more intervention schools (44 percent) have afternoon or evening classes than comparison schools (10 percent), and more intervention schools (92 percent) use facilities for extracurricular activities than comparison schools (75 percent). However, very few schools have community activities in their facilities.

Environmental Conditions

More intervention schools have difficult geographic conditions than comparison schools. About two-thirds of the intervention schools are on hilltops, they are farther away from the nearest river on average (4.6 kilometers versus 1.2 kilometers for comparison schools), and are twice as far away from towns than the comparison schools on average (8 kilometers versus 4 kilometers).

34

Regarding school infrastructure environmental conditions, almost all intervention schools (96 percent) have well-lit and well-ventilated classrooms and toilets compared with comparison schools (35 percent). All intervention schools with roofs have a better quality of roofing (steel sheets) compared with only 70 percent of the comparison schools.

Sustainability

More intervention schools than comparison schools reported positive activities and variables relating to sustainability. For example, in addition to those schools that use electricity, 40 percent of intervention schools use solar energy, but the same percentage of comparison schools do not have power at all. Comparison schools had to pay much more on average for their electricity bills than intervention schools, and more intervention schools reported having a faulty working water source or working well water source than comparison schools. Furthermore, 96 percent of intervention schools reported having a sanitation committee that meets regularly compared with 80 percent of comparison schools.

Structural Integrity

Intervention schools reported marginally better infrastructure with regard to structural integrity than comparison schools. For example, considerably fewer intervention schools have cracks on walls (12 percent) and cracks or depressions in the floor (17 percent) than comparison schools (55 percent for walls and 55 percent for floors). All of the intervention schools have reinforced concrete ring beams and lintels compared with 90 percent of the comparison schools. Drainage conditions were rated as either poor or fair by 100 percent of respondents in comparison schools versus 64 percent in intervention schools.

Tremors or earthquakes have occurred in the majority of the schools from 2012 to 2017, with no difference between intervention and comparison schools. The percentages of intervention and comparison schools experiencing damage from fires, heavy winds, or floods was about the same as comparison schools (12 percent of intervention schools versus 15 percent of comparison schools).

Data Validation from the School Construction Specialist

In addition to data collected by the field teams, the School Construction Specialist compiled information on a subsample of 13 schools (Annex D, Movement Plan details). MSI triangulated on-site school construction assessment data collected by the field teams and the School Construction Specialist to identify discrepancies. On average, the differences in reported data between the two sources were minimal. The difference between the average score of the school construction assessment from both sources was 0.086, indicating the data collected by the field team were reliable.16 Annexes M and N present the data collected by the School Construction Specialist.

SCC-CFS CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, AND SUSTAINABILITY

Schools reported an active and constant involvement in the maintenance and care of the newly renovated facilities. Many schools mentioned that learners cleaned the facilities weekly or daily as part of their infrastructure maintenance plan. Other community members mentioned that in some cases different community members shared maintenance and care activities—teachers and parents described during interviews their willingness to work together to maintain the school. An equal number of respondents felt their infrastructure was well maintained regardless of whether they participated in the SCC-CFS program.

“Parents and community members, when we see a problem at this school, for example maintaining the classrooms, we mobilize ourselves and recourses e.g., Sand, quarry and bricks to do maintenance or construction of whatever is needed like what we did with the toilets.” (Parent/Community, Mangochi)

16 MSI excluded the variables “total number of students at school” and “average monthly energy bill” from the computation of these differences because of the high variability in the responses to these questions. The field teams noted that schools did not report reliable answers for these sections of the school construction assessment.

35

“As parents we do get involved in the teachings and activities at this school, for example Parents managed to build a toilet for our own boys, because the one they were using collapsed.” (Parent/Community, Lilongwe)

“They have been successful an example could be this room where we are staying, the floor was bad and had so many crucks, … we decided to fix it and now here we are stepping on a good floor.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

However, when analyzing the sustainability of the interventions, follow-up to activities and maintenance after the construction are still needed. Two schools reported that the contractor started some classroom blocks but did not finish them. Additionally, two schools reported that newly constructed toilets collapsed after they were completed. Schools also reported leaky classrooms during the rainy season and infrastructure that had flooded.

Table 4.2. Specific Sustainability Needs Reported by SCC-CFS Schools

Sustainability Need District School

Classroom not finished Nkhata Bay Chiomba Nkhata Bay Chilala Toilet collapsed

Lilongwe Yepa

Lilongwe Chimpumbulu

Toilet doors stolen or broken

Blantyre Likulu

Mangochi Lusalumwe

Blantyre Nasiyaya

SCC-CFS CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectiveness is one type of program cost analysis along with cost-benefit, cost-utility, and cost-feasibility. The objective of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is to relate the costs of a specific project to its specific outcomes, so it turns to be a powerful tool for decision making that can help guide programmatic changes and investment strategies.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness and the costs-benefits associated with the implementation of school construction and rehabilitation interventions is a highly complex task. Moroever, they usualy yield to either negative or minimal cost-effectiveness when compared along its impact. As pointed out earlier in the report, these type of interventions involve particularly large up-front costs, take a long time to finalize, and benefits are usually seen in the medium or long term. Moroever, they may have very limited effects if the quality and access to other teaching and human resources are low.

Reviews of existing literature on this subject show there is insufficient evidence to show the cost-effectiveness of construction and rehabilitation interventions or to identify complementary interventions that may be required for construction and rehabilitation interventions to be successful in different settings (Krishnaratne, White, and Carpenter 2013).

After following the methodology detailed in section 3.6 of this report, we estimate the total cost of the school construction component using the documentation and cost information provided by UNICEF Malawi. The estimated cost includes all types of construction activities (classrooms, sanitation facilities, libraries, and teacher houses) of the CFS program during the implementation (March 2008 to September 2015, see calendar of implementation) in terms of 2016 prices is $ 2,189,063,349 MK equivalent to $ 3,066,575 USD.

Table 4.3. Construction and Rehabilitation Activities and Total Cost by District

District Construction and rehabilitation activities Total cost

36

Number of New Classrooms

Number of Library/ Administration Blocks

Number of Rehabilitated Classroom

Number of New Staff House

Sets of Sanitation Facilities

2016 MK prices 2016 USD prices

Lilongwe 34 0 0 3 5 $ 164,375,356 $ 230,267

Blantyre 86 0 6 44 15 $ 684,221,779 $ 958,500

Phalombe 4 0 0 0 1 $ 51,851,559 $ 72,637

Thyolo 10 1 0 4 1 $ 173,649,648 $ 243,259

Nkhatabay 18 5 1 15 5 $ 491,198,627 $ 688,101

Mongochi 30 5 0 15 5 $ 623,766,380 $ 873,810

Total 182 11 7 81 32 $ 2,189,063,349 $ 3,066,575

Source: Own estimations using calendar of construction and cost database.

As delineated in the methodology section, MSI selected one of the statistically significant impacts

attributable to the SCC-CFS that aligned with the overall SCC-CFS program objectives and the DAC

evaluation criteria. As the objective is to estimate the the CEA of the whole program, we select an impact

estimated through the the regression modelling that uses the whole sample of SCC-CFS schools instead

of the DD modelling that use the Blan & Lilo and Rest of Districts sub-samples.

In line with previous evidence, the CEA of the SCC-CFS is not very promising. After a total investiment in construction of $ 3,066,575 USD (an approximate of $ 72,968,778 MK or $102,219 USD per school) only during the complete span of the program (Mach 2008 – September 2015), and all the schools intervnened (30 schools), the SCC-CFS only achieved anan increase of 16 more girls enrolled in grade 4 in schools, 0.04 percentage points (pp) decrease in dropout rates of grade 1 male and female, 0.04 pp decrease of garde 7 male students, and a 0.01 pp decrease of the school-level dropout rate due to poor facilities. 17 These results do not take into account the depreciation of the construction facilities nor makes a yearly estimate (which would be even lower, for example, an average around 3 more girls enrolled per year).18 Note we were not able to calculate lifetime costs for the varying construction/rehabilitation activities supported by UNICEF Malawi through SCC-CFS as specific dates/timelines for construction of individual schools was not provided. It must be noted that this analysis is limited to the implementation of the construction component of the CFS. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the overall CFS program would report even lower estimates as it would include overhead and other indirect costs such as program administration costs (i.e. costs of all UNICEF Malawi staff throughout all the phases of the project inclundig design and monitoring, along with targeting and monitoring costs, all costs incurred in target schools, as well as costs incurred to provide oversight, monitoring and/or tracking the program’s progress and results).

4.3 To what extent has the SCC-CFS program affected key outputs and standards of the CFS framework? (Relevance, Effectiveness)

The section reports on the satisfaction and infraestructude needs and is aligned to the DAC relevance and effectiveness criteria as it delves into the extent to which the intervention outputs are related to the

17 Regression results reported in section 4.1.

18 As stated in the methodology section, this includes only the nominal expense in construction, and we

do not estimate the depreciation of the classrooms, sanitation facilities, libraries and teacher housing construction and rehabilitation during their effective lifetime, as each would have a different and confounding life duration. Moreover, information shared by UNICEF Malawi does not provide the specific date of when each classroom or building was either constructed or rehabilitated – as such we cannot calculate an accurate depreciation estimation.

37

inputs, drawing from the evidence collected through the qualitative tools surveying the stakeholders of the CF-CFS intervention.

SATISFACTION WITH SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

Overall and as expected, respondents in the intervention schools showed a high level of satisfaction with the infrastructure in general, not just the SCC-CFS. A total of 108 comments about all types of stakeholder satisfaction with infrastructure were from intervention schools compared with 22 comments from the comparison schools. Comments on the stakeholder satisfaction were positive, and following are select comments:

Comments from Students

“I like the newly constructed classrooms with support from UNICEF. They enable us to learn in a good environment without being disturbed by rains or excessive sunlight and stormy winds.” (Student, Blantyre)

“Before the new classes, we were learning under the trees so when it was raining, it was so hard to learn outside and with the classrooms that we had, all of us could not have fit but now things are okay even if it rains. In addition, we have be saved from the scorching sun that we used to experience when we were learning outside.” (Student, Blantyre)

Comments from Teachers

“We are greatly humbled and satisfied to have these construction since our friends are lacking them. Almost the whole community was involved in one way or the other from equipment storage to man power assistance.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

“All the other learners were learning in temporary structures (shucks). The coming in of UNICEF to construct the school block has helped a lot in the improvement of the school. UNICEF also constructed Toilet blocks, one for boys, one for girls and one for the members of staff. The school also received desks for each class. The classroom blocks each have an office which is used as staff room.” (Teacher, Lilongwe)

Comments from Parents and Community Members

“We appreciate the work UNICEF has done at this school. They built classroom blocks school from standard 1 up to standard 8 as well as teachers houses and toilets.” (Parent/Community, Mangochi)

“We are happy and very satisfied with the new developments that has happened at this school and it’s all thanks to UNICEF for remembering our school but we cannot say that these are enough but we are grateful still.” (Parent/Community, Nkhata Bay)

Comments from Key Informants

“The constructions have improved the school environment in the schools where UNICEF has constructed these classrooms. The schools now look beautiful. They now have adequate sanitation facilities and they even constructed new water points for the learners. The learners and the teachers are all happy that their schools are now beautiful. We wished this was done in all the schools in the district.” (Key informant, Mangochi)

Different themes emerge when comparing the characteristics respondents used to identify and refer to the infrastructure in their schools. The word clouds in figures 4.3 and 4.4 were generated from the statements made about toilets at the intervention and comparison schools. The words “good,” “lockable,” and “disabilities” stand out from interviews and focus group discussions with informants at SCC-CFS schools.

38

Figure 4.3. SCC-CFS Schools Toilet Comment Word Cloud

Figure 4.4. Comparison Schools Toilet Comment Word Cloud

Seven different respondents, including students, teachers, and parents across four different districts, commented positively on the presence of a changing room for girls. Six of those respondents were from schools involved in the program, and one was from a comparison school. Fifteen additional people mentioned the need for such a changing room. One student said:

“In the past some girls when they have started their monthly period while at school they would go home and don’t come back for that day, this was making them to miss what their friends have learned, but now with the change room girls who have started period while at school bathe and change there and attend classes after cleaning themselves, they don’t miss much than it was before.” (Student, Blantyre)

“Now with the new structures more learners especially girls attend school. A changing room we have bilt [sic] helps girls a lot during their menstrual flow.” (Teacher, Thyolo)

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

39

Although intervention schools reported a high level of satisfaction with the infrastructure provided, stakeholders of intervention schools still expressed needs related to infrastructure. Additionally, many respondents from comparison schools shared infrastructure needs in their interviews. Respondents among all respondent groups (teachers, parents, and students) and across schools in both the program and the comparison group asked for classrooms more than any other type of infrastructure.

Comparison respondents mentioned three different requests for infrastructure more than the respondents from UNICEF SCC-CFS schools did. These include toilets, disability-friendly toilets, and disability-friendly classrooms. Fewer schools involved in the program mentioned needing toilets, thus highlighting a success in the UNICEF SCC-CFS program.

Figure 4.5. Reported Infrastructure Needs by Respondent Type and Comparison and Intervention Schools

4.4 To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased capacity of key stakeholders through participation, training, and guidelines? (Relevance, Effectiveness, Sustainability)

This section details stakeholder’s participation and increased capacity as a result of the SCC-CFS program. It is aligned to the DAC critera of relevance, effectiveness, and sustanability as it reports on how the program is consistent with the the CFSprinciples of inclusiveness and student/family/community involvement, drawing from the evidence of the qualitative analyses and the student survey on items related to participation and guidelines.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Collaboration among parents and community members was a theme that emerged very clearly from the qualitative analyses in both the intervention and comparison schools. Parents reported involvement in many projects, including construction and maintenance, cooking for the feeding program, mothers’ clubs, parent-teacher associations (PTA), volunteering on school development committees—including those related to the School Improvement Plan (SIP)—and making financial contributions. Despite the high-level involvement, many parents advocated for further strengthening the relationship between their community

40

and schools and suggested regular meetings. One teacher in Nkhata Bay summarized many other’s thoughts when saying the relationship between the community and the school “could be strengthened by conducting regular meetings.” Another teacher in Mangochi added, “Great collaboration, respect, and coordination really helps in progressing.”

Teachers and students also mentioned the involvement of stakeholders in their comments evenly across the intervention and comparison schools. One teacher commented on the role of parents:

“They are very supportive in development work at this school. The help in moulding bricks and collection of sand whenever there is some construction work at this school. On top of that they make financial and material support.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Many men from the parent and community interviews mentioned being involved in the construction or maintenance of the school, and this is related directly to the SCC-CFS program. Other schools also took ownership of the infrastructure through continuous construction progress monitoring, keeping the construction schedule on track. A teacher commented:

“The contractors were really friendly that they were even inviting us go and check on the progress of the work. So we created a roster on who goes on such day and time to inspect the project.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Although both the comparison and intervention schools reported perceptions that community involvement in the schools was increasing, this theme is stronger in SCC-CFS than in comparison schools—88 percent of these comments were from intervention schools (15 of 17). There were no comments of perceived decline in the community-schools relationships from either the intervention or the comparison schools. Two parents commented:

“So, in short, parents and the community are fully involved development and monitoring of SIP. The head teacher that we have now is very open and transparent. It is unlike in the past when the school was isolated and detached from the community in its activities. In addition, various non-governmental organizations have been conducting training sessions for teachers and various community committees. This has also contributed to the improved the working relationship between the school and the community.” (Parent/Community, Lilongwe)

“We sit down with the teachers and plan on what to be done. We as parents have always been involved but now it’s really good and better. We work well with the teachers to use and maintain the school. We have managed to maintain the school toilets, we have bought doors to make sure that the school is still in a good condition.” (Parent/Community, Mangochi)

“Parents are active in participating in children education, for example all teacher’s houses were built by parents in this community.” (Parent/Community, Nkhata Bay)

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS’ PARTICIPATION

The student survey further explored student’s perception of stakeholders’ participation. The results for the comparison schools were slightly lower than for intervention schools. In both comparison and intervention schools, all families were encouraged to participate in decision making (100 percent and 89 percent respectively), and families were involved in particular decisions that keep children safe (89 percent and 86 percent respectively). However, less children in comparison schools (73 percent) reported that adults in the community (such as local leaders and nearby business owners) know what goes on inside their school than did those from intervention schools (89 percent).

The majority of students in both the intervention and comparison schools felt the principal or other school leaders make good decisions (96 percent and 92 percent, respectively). However, when asked if, overall, stakeholders involved in these schools made decisions according to what is best for students, more students in the intervention schools agreed that they do than students in comparison schools (96 percent and 88 percent, respectively).

Involving children in school decisions in a participatory process is also part of the SCC-CFS framework. About three-quarters of children in both the intervention and comparison schools feel that children can

41

provide feedback on their school environment and that they are encouraged to participate in the in-school management. However, 82 percent of children in intervention schools acknowledged that their school has a formal system in place for students to report and discuss changes they would like in their physical school environment compared with only 70 percent of children in comparison schools.

Children from intervention schools also had more inclusive perceptions of student participation. Although 93 percent of children from intervention schools agreed that boys and girls and students from all ethnic backgrounds have equal opportunities to participate in school management decisions, only 79 percent of children from comparison schools shared the same opinion.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF GUIDELINES AND TEACHER-PARENT COMMUNICATION

The majority of students reported that their schools have written guidelines on educating all students, but a slightly larger percentage of students in comparison schools agreed compared with students in intervention schools (97 percent and 92 percent, respectively). However, students’ perceptions on whether teachers adhere to those guidelines varied between intervention and comparison schools (96 percent and 88 percent, respectively).

Students’ perceptions at both the intervention and comparison schools are the same on whether stakeholders know the teacher-student behavior guidelines (86 percent and 85 percent, respectively) and on whether the school contacts parents with concerns about students’ learning or behavior (100 percent for both).

Note disaggregations by gender were not possible due to small sample size of the student survey described earlier in this report.

42

Figure 4.6. Students’ Perception of Stakeholder Participation by Intervention and Comparison Schools

Note: The x-axis is fixed to divide negative (strongly disagree and disagree) and positive answers (agree and strongly agree). Percentages lower than 10 percent are not displayed in the figure’s value label. B&G = boys and girls; SM = School Management.

11%

11%

15%

11%

21%

11%

43%

54%

54%

54%

52%

64%

44%

43%

43%

39%

46%

32%

23%

38%

41%

32%

52%

39%

32%

50%

Adults know what happens inside the school

Families are involved in decisions that keep children safe

Students are encouraged to participate in SM

B&G have equal opportunity to participate in SM

Students from all ethnic backgrounds can participate in SM

Decisions are made on what's best for students

Principal makes good decisions

There is a system for students to report changes in physical

Children can provide feedback on their school environment

All families are encouraged to participate in decision-making

Intervention

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

22%

11%

19%

17%

21%

19%

15%

38%

48%

43%

50%

48%

67%

48%

37%

41%

63%

35%

41%

30%

29%

30%

21%

44%

33%

33%

37%

Adults know what happens inside the school

Families are involved in decisions that keep children safe

Students are encouraged to participate in SM

B&G have equal opportunity to participate in SM

Students from all ethnic backgrounds can participate in SM

Decisions are made on what's best for students

Principal makes good decisions

There is a system for students to report changes in physical

Children can provide feedback on their school environment

All families are encouraged to participate in decision-making

Comparison

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

43

Figure 4.7. Student’s Perception of Inclusiveness Guidelines and School-Parents Relationships by Intervention and Comparison Schools

Note: The x-axis is fixed to divide negative (strongly disagree and disagree) and positive answers (agree and strongly agree). Percentages lower than 10 percent are not displayed in the figure’s value label.

25%

14%

43%

21%

29%

32%

43%

57%

54%

57%

64%

54%

School contacts parents w/concerns on student's learningor behavior

When students are absent, teachers contact families

All teachers, students, and parents know policy on teacher-student behavior

Teachers adhere to schools written policy

There is written policy on educating all students

Intervention

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

44

COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL COLLABORATION

Feeding Programs

Feeding programs were mentioned often when describing factors related to student attendance and as a community activity to support school activities. Although some students mentioned safety concerns around the distribution of porridge, many were enthusiastic supporters of the program and cited it as a reason to attend school, enroll in school, and remain in school. Some even saw the feeding program as a reason to choose one school over another. Fifteen schools across both the comparison and SCC-CFS program groups reported not having a school feeding program. The feeding program is an opportunity for community members to be involved in the school, and it gives students the nourishment needed to focus on their studies. One parent summarized the thoughts of many concerning schools without a feeding program:

“We want our students to start eating porridge just like other schools do. Introducing the school feeding programme will increase enrollment as well as attendance because more children will be attracted to come to school to learn and eat as well.” (Parent/Community, Nkhata Bay)

Mothers’ Clubs

The role of mothers’ clubs in comments about parental involvement, enrollment, dropout rates, and community welfare cannot be overstated. Respondents made 130 comments (mainly from teachers and parents) about mothers’ clubs and their role in schools. More respondents from schools involved in the SCC-CFS program mentioned mothers’ clubs than respondents from control groups—80 comments from program schools and 50 from comparison schools. Respondents described some of the mothers’ clubs’ roles as counseling students, protecting students in their homes and schools, and working to help female students who dropped out of school to return to school (the role most often mentioned). One parent describes this specific role:

“However, the teacher and mother groups have been trying to bring back girls to school for example there was a certain girl who got married but after the mother group care spoke to the parents of the girl they went to get her back and as I am speaking now the girl is back to school.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

School Management Committees

Parents are involved in committees that are often called School Management Committees, which are set up at the school for school development. These parent-teacher collaborative committees make decisions about school development, often working with the School Improvement Plan (SIP). A teacher and a parent/community member commented:

“Parents take leading roles in different committees that help the SIP move on smoothly without any hussles.” (Teacher, Mangochi).

“The children in our community are safe because the community has put in place safety and security mechanisms such as community policing forum which ensures peace, calm and security in the area. The chiefs also speak regularly on the need for every citizen to be watchful of any suspicious acts by people in their community and report them to authorities accordingly.” (Parent/Community, Lilongwe)

Parents and teachers commonly mentioned the involvement of the chief and the police in school-related matters and activities. The chief’s involvement was mentioned more in SCC-CFS schools —20 respondents from the program schools discussed the chief’s involvement, but only 10 respondents mentioned this type of involvement in the comparison schools. Police involvement was mentioned equally as often in schools within the intervention and comparison schools groups. Teacher, parent, and community comments described how the chief has been involved:

“Chiefs in the Villages has passed on a strong by law to minimize and penalize who so ever is fond harassing any student even after.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

45

“Cases of physical violence was so high past three years before it was highly sensitized in all communities of the dangers. Chiefs do emphasize on this time and time again during his gatherings.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

“We discuss and encourage student to come to school and also the chief is involved whereby they agreed that even if the girl is pregnant and after the delivery she can go back to school she has a right to education.” (Parent/Community, Blantyre)

SCC-CFS’ AND OTHERS’ TRAINING

Regarding training, 115 comments emerged related to involvement in training during the previous 12 months, and only 35 comments indicated that there had been no training. These responses were about the same in intervention and comparison schools. However, of those who responded positively, only six specifically referenced the program-related training sessions. One teacher from Blantyre district said:

“It has increased the knowledge base of most of the Teachers through there trainings they conducted on governance, leadership and child protection before handing over the infrastructures.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Other respondents commented on taking their own initiative to organize training. These respondents were at both the program schools and the comparison schools. One teacher from a comparison school reported:

“At both Primary and Secondary school, we organize ourselves and they took advantage of me because I was in the government system. We organize in-service trainings and sometimes we invite some officials from the ministry of education. We had it in July they came to talk about the National Standards of education and the areas we have to follow. So that whatever is happening here is what is happening in the government.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Parents also commented on teacher-organized training. One parent from Blantyre said:

“We had a meeting because children were not reading and taking care of the books that were given to them so the teachers advised us to make sure our children are reading but also to check their work as a way of making sure they do well in school. The teachings were very helpful our children performance has improved. But some children can’t really get it despite the efforts given to help them work.” (Parent/Community, Blantyre)

Many respondents asked for additional training on a wide range of topics, including security, health, and safety. However, most teacher respondents mentioned training for the National Reading Program, which was also mentioned several times in relation to increasing students’ pass rates. Other training teachers mentioned attending in the previous 12 months include Theater for Change, Life Skills, and a Save the Children training on child rights.

4.5 To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased school safety and inclusiveness of the school environment? (Relevance, Effectiveness)

This section is aligned to the DAC critera of relevance and effectiveness as it reports how the improvements in school environment as a result of the SCC-CFS program are consistent with the CFS principles of inclusiveness and safet/protection drawing from the student survey items related to students’ perceptions on safety and inclusiveness and from qualitative analyses. Note again that responses cannot be meaningfully disaggregated by gender due to the small sample size.

PHYSICAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL

Both qualitative and quantitative tools asked about physical safety in the schools. In the qualitative tools, students, parents, and teachers from both intervention and comparison schools reported a generally positive opinion of children’s physical safety in the schools. However, in the student survey, 54 percent of

46

students in the intervention schools disagreed that violence is a major concern in the school compared with 41 percent in intervention schools.

In the qualitative tools, fighting was the most commonly reported negative behavior related to students’ physical safety, cited by 43 respondents from control schools and 39 respondents from SCC-CFS program schools with equally distributed mentions across students, teachers, and parents’ responses. The second most reported negative behavior related to physical safety was sexual activities, including assault and rape. Students, parents, and teachers (regardless of gender) reported these activities equally, and they were also reported equally between intervention and comparison schools.

Stealing and bullying or harassment were other commonly mentioned violent acts. Respondents in comparison schools made almost three times as many references to stealing (mainly among students) as respondents in intervention schools. Respondents from comparison schools made 20 mentions of stealing, but only seven mentions came from intervention schools. In the student survey, a similar percentage of children in intervention and comparison schools agreed that teachers hit children (65 percent and 67 percent, respectively).

Students surveyed reported details on the perpetrators and actors involved in violence. In comparison schools, 48 percent of students agreed that boys and girls engaged in violence with each other, but in intervention schools, only 32 percent agreed that boys and girls engaged in such violence. Twenty-six percent of children in comparison schools also agreed that children with disabilities experienced violence compared with only 11 percent of children in intervention schools sharing this perception.

Children’s perception of gender and ethnic-based violence also varied between intervention and comparison schools. Fifty-four percent of children in intervention schools strongly disagreed that ethnic violence happened in their schools compared with 22 percent of children in comparison schools. Sixty-eight percent of children in intervention schools did not believe that girls faced an increased risk of violence in the school, but only 48 percent of children in comparison schools shared this belief.

Students at both intervention and comparison schools reported knowing the procedure for reporting violence in school and being encouraged to report violent acts. However, children and teachers in comparison schools feel less encouraged to report violence to the school administration. More children in comparison schools (50 percent) than in intervention schools (30 percent) reported that teachers who report violence to the school administration experienced negative treatment afterward. Forty-eight percent of children in comparison schools strongly agreed that children are encouraged to report violence, and 57 percent of children in intervention schools agreed. Children in intervention schools also shared this belief in the qualitative tools, with comments such as:

“We don’t report because even if report an incident, they do nothing to help us” (Student, Mangochi)

The lack of a school fence was the most commonly mentioned non-classroom infrastructure safety issue in both intervention and comparison schools. One student commented:

“Learners don’t feel safe outside the class rooms since we don’t have a fence so others come and smoke around the school premises and even beating up students.” (Student, Lilongwe)

Teachers commented equally on the topic, and a teacher from Lilongwe remarked:

“Yes violence is so high. School doesn’t have a fence, anyone can pass by and do anything they want either stealing School property or beating our students as well whenever they are told that there is no way.” (Teacher, Lilongwe).

Other comments noted that pedestrian, automobile, and bicycle traffic interfered with the school because of the lack of fences. One parent even commented:

“Trucks pass through [the] school yard on a daily basis. Which makes it unsafe for the children, and because other children learn outside the class because of few classrooms, so it is very dangerous for them.” (Parent/Community, Thyolo)

Overall, stakeholders recognize the impact of SCC-CFS on improving children’s’ safety:

47

“SCC-CFS has helped a lot in terms of Children safety. The premises are now looking much Beautiful and healthier. Teachers and Student are not using the bush anymore. Even the Chief has thanked the whole community for minimized cases of child violence.” (Teacher, Lilongwe)

EMOTIONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL

There is no doubt that experiencing physical violence also affects children’s emotional well-being. MSI also explored direct mentions of students’ emotional safety on parents and teachers’ qualitative tools and found that references to bullying, harassment, and obscene language were distributed evenly over intervention and comparison schools.

Generally, parents and teachers shared a positive view of children’s emotional safety at schools, and mentions were distributed evenly across intervention and comparison schools. Regarding children’s emotional safety, mothers’ clubs were mentioned once again as a positive force for supporting students with their emotional safety needs. A teacher from Nkhata Bay commented:

“It’s true we meet children with emotional safety but it is teachers’ responsibilities [sic] whereby when they meet such as children they counsel and also they call the guardian and have a chat on the matter. there are mother groups care who visits and counsel the children or the parents.” (Teacher, Nkhata Bay)

However, results from the student survey showed that children in intervention schools have a more positive perception of their own emotional safety at school than children at comparison schools. Fifty percent of students from intervention schools disagreed that students are ridiculed at school, but only 27 percent disagreed in comparison schools. Forty-one percent of children from intervention schools also disagreed that students are generally afraid to go to school, but only 25 percent of children in comparison schools disagreed.

SAFETY OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL

When asked about their own safety, 41 percent of students in the comparison schools strongly agreed that children were unsafe when traveling to and from school, and only 21 percent of students in intervention school shared this perception. In qualitative tools, comparison schools also mentioned greater concerns about students accessing school and coming to and from school more than intervention schools, though both intervention and comparison schools reported incidents affecting students. One teacher commented on a threat that many respondents mentioned:

“That used to happen along the way where there is bushy and some people been smoking [I]ndian hemp. When our students pass by they were harassed and forced to give them pocket money or food stuffs.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

To keep students safe while walking to and from school, almost all schools noted encouraging students to walk in groups and older students to walk with younger students. Parents expressed concern for girls on walking to school or home from school. A parent from the Lilongwe district voiced a common concern:

“We just hear rumors of sexual abuse but we do not know how they end. When you ask the children themselves, they deny any violence done to them. So it is difficult to trace. But all in all, yes, children, more especially girls experience some forms of violence on their way to and from school.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

In addition to finding physical threats such as attackers along the way, several respondents commented about natural dangers, such as flooded rivers. Comparison schools reported concerns about natural dangers more often than intervention schools. One teacher in Mangochi remarked:

“We have Nasenga River which is so dangerous when it is raining here. There is no bridge that Students may use mostly girls and other young students. They have to wait till water comes down.” (Teacher, Mangochi)

48

The reports of how these natural threats affected children varied according to the children’s age. One teacher from Blantyre commented:

“All students are advised to be at home when it rains since the river gets flooded. Young students in grades 1 to 4 stay home while those in grades 5 to 8 do come once rains stop.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

SAFE PLACES WITHIN SCHOOLS

Safety perceptions can vary across different locations within the school. Analyses exploring the differences reported variations in safety among different school places, and many respondents remarked that the safest place at school is in the classroom. Children from intervention schools and those in comparison schools that had classrooms built commented that the additional classrooms contributed to their safety at school. One student from Nkhata Bay reported:

“I like the newly constructed classroom block by UNICEF because they are spacious and well ventilated and they enable us to enjoy being in class.” (Student, Nkhata Bay)

One teacher from an intervention school in Blantyre said:

“Students used to learn under trees which was prone to many disturbuses [sic] like heavy sunshine and rainy. It proved a burden on some disabled children when rains pour and they had to run away.” (Teacher, Blantyre)

Generally, classrooms were identified most often as a safe place on the school grounds, but some respondents across students, teachers, and community members also commented that classrooms were unsafe because of overcrowding, inadequate desks, lack of cleanliness, and unsafe infrastructure. These factors were mentioned more in comparison schools than in intervention schools. A teacher from Nkhatabay mentioned:

“We have an abandoned school Block which is at the verge of collapse. Even the Classroom for the STD 1 Learners is not in a good shape as such it can collapse on the learners.” (Teacher, Nkhata Bay)

In comparison schools, outdoor learning spaces were most often mentioned as unsafe places—stakeholders made 14 comments about students’ lack of safety because of learning outdoors, but intervention schools recorded only three comments. A parent from Blantyre and one from Mangochi commented:

“Just to add on the classrooms the children learn outside now when something unusual happens the children run to that side to see and since the children are many one teacher may not be able to control them all. Now the children may injure each other while running toward the scene they are going to watch. This is a rainy season and its really windy thus making children unsafe.” (Parent/Community, Blantyre)

“The other unsafe place is the outside. Some classes are conducted outside as such learners are on the sun and in the rainy season they are disrupted by rainfall so generally school doesn’t go well in the rain.” (Parent, Mangochi)

49

Figure 4.8. Safety Perceptions of Students by Intervention and Comparison Schools

Note: The x-axis is fixed to divide negative (strongly disagree and disagree) and positive answers (agree and strongly agree). Percentages lower than 10 percent are not displayed in the figure’s value label. B&G = boys and girls.

15%

11%

19%

22%

31%

24%

30%

15%

41%

11%

22%

33%

44%

39%

27%

24%

30%

11%

52%

37%

15%

48%

48%

26%

26%

30%

15%

36%

37%

38%

41%

15%

41%

30%

33%

19%

22%

7%

22%

27%

16%

30%

54%

48%

Children are unsafe when traveling to and from school

Violence is major concern

B&G engage in violence and harm

Different age children engage in violence

Children w/disabilities experience violence

Children of certain ethnic background experience violence

Girls face increased risk of violence

Students are ridiculed

Students are afraid to come at school

Teachers hit me

There is a procedure for students to report violence

Students are encouraged to report violence

Teacher who report violence experience negative treatment

Comparison

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

50

INCLUSIVENESS AT SCHOOL

Overall, children at both intervention and comparison schools reported positive perceptions of inclusiveness within their schools, but children at intervention schools reported more positive views on inclusiveness.

All the children from intervention schools (100 percent) believe their school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights, and 93 percent believe their school is welcoming to all children compared with 92 percent and 82 percent of children in comparison schools, respectively. Furthermore, 25 percent of children in intervention schools believe some students are treated better than others compared with 45 percent of children in comparison schools.

Students’ perceptions of teacher-student and student-student relationships also help understand inclusiveness at school. Most children at intervention schools (96 percent) believe teachers treat students with respect, but only 89 percent of children in comparison schools shared this positive view. Although 89 percent of children in intervention schools believe students treat each other with respect, only 50 percent of children in comparison schools had a positive view of relationships among students.

To understand inclusiveness at intervention and comparison schools better, MSI examined which minorities received better treatment. When asked about gender inclusiveness, 57 percent of children in intervention schools strongly agreed that teachers treat boys and girls equally, and 52 percent said that boys and girls participate in the same activities. However, the percentages of children in comparison schools who shared those views were 40 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Furthermore, 64 percent of children at intervention schools strongly agreed that boys and girls had equal opportunities at school, but only 52 percent of children in comparison schools strongly agreed.

Similar percentages of children in intervention and comparison schools believe that children with disabilities are not excluded from activities (77 percent and 70 percent, respectively), but 26 percent of children from comparison schools and only 4 percent of children from intervention schools believe that students with disabilities are excluded from classes. The same percentage of children in intervention and comparison schools (77 percent) believes that children of particular ethnic backgrounds are not excluded from classes.

MSI also explored whether children believe schools are welcoming to their parents. Although most children in both intervention and comparison schools had a positive perception (97 percent and 96 percent, respectively), 65 percent of children in comparison schools strongly agreed compared with 54 percent of children in intervention schools.

51

Figure 4.9. Inclusiveness Perception of Students in Intervention and Comparison Schools

Note: The x-axis is fixed to divide negative (strongly disagree and disagree) and positive answers (agree and strongly agree). Percentages lower than 10 percent are not displayed in the figure’s value label. B&G = boys and girls.

52

5. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

This chapter on conclusions and lessons learned is presented in terms of main results from the evaluation. Selected findings at the end of each section are framed as “promising avenues,” a term the World Bank uses to identify possible initiatives that could be expanded to achieve better results, such as in increased enrollment and decreased dropouts (Lockheed and Verspoor 1991).

5.1 SCC-CFS Equitable Access and Quality Conclusions

SCC-CFS had a limited impact on increasing enrollment but a significant effect on decreasing dropout rates. Overall, the SCC-CFS project showed modest and statistically insignificant increases in enrollment but significant decreases in dropout rates through infrastructure improvements. More specifically, the DD models show that the SCC-CFS program had no significant impact on enrollment at any grade for the Blantyre/Lilongwe districts subsample and a relatively small, positive, and significant effect on grade 1 female enrollment for the Rest of Districts subsample. MSI also found that the male, female, and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1 students and the overall school-level dropout rates decreased in the Blantyre/Lilongwe districts subsample. For the Rest of Districts subsample, the SCC-CFS program decreased the female and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 1 students; the male and female dropout rates of grade 4 students; the female and overall (male and female) dropout rates of grade 5 students; the male and female dropout rates of grade 7 students; and the female school-level dropout rates.

This suggests that the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities are keeping students who are already in school from dropping out, but not incentivizing students who would not usually enroll in school to actually enroll. Another plausible explanation is that the schools have a stable number of students enrolled in schools across all years because of active policies to cap the number of children they serve to avoid overcrowding or highlighting the already high enrollment rates in Malawian schools.

Furthermore, finding a significant effect of SCC-CFS on dropout rates across more grades for the Rest of Districts subsample than in the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample suggests that the SCC-CFS program’s impact on reducing dropout rates is stronger in the more recent school construction activities, as in Mangochi, Nkhata Bay, Phalombe, and Thyolo. It is possible that lessons were learned and applied as the program progressed.

However, the program’s effect on decreasing dropout rates was limited because of lack of availability of teachers (SCC-CFS had a significant effect on decreasing school-level dropout rates due to limited availability of teachers only for the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample). Even if the SCC-CFS did not focus on improving the supply of teachers, construction of teachers’ living facilities could help, and the Blantyre and Lilongwe districts received an important share of the program’s new staff and teachers’ housing (see the calendar of construction in Annex A). Furthermore, stakeholders shared the belief that teachers’ houses also had a positive relationship with teacher attendance.

MSI did not find an SCC-CFS impact on the enrollment of students with disabilities, but stakeholders had a perception of better access to classrooms and toilets for students with disabilities. One plausible explanation for these findings is the need for better teacher and staff training to turn the perception of better access for students with disabilities into reality.

SCC-CFS had a modest impact on repetition rates and passing rates. MSI found that SCC-CFS helped decrease the male grade 8 students’ repetition rates for the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample and for the grade 2 male and overall (male and female) repetition rate for the Rest of Districts subsample. Regarding the Primary School Leaving Examination’s passing rates, MSI found no effect for the Blantyre/Lilongwe subsample and a positive effect on the male and overall (male and female) passing rates for the Rest of Districts subsample.

These results are in line with the overall finding across the literature on international education: the factors related to access to education do not necessarily relate to quality of education as well. Although the SCC-CFS showed significant positive effects on dropout rates, it had only a modest impact on other

53

indicators of education quality, such as repetition and passing rates. This might be due to other school factors beyond infrastructure that would affect education quality.

Stakeholders perceived that the SCC-CFS had a positive impact on student and teacher attendance and on overall education quality. Overall, stakeholders perceived an improvement in the quality of education over time, particularly stakeholders from intervention schools. Infrastructure improvements and new classrooms were also mentioned as key factors increasing attendance, according to all respondent types. These findings suggest the SCC-CFS had a potentially positive effect on student and teacher attendance and on overall education quality, though such effects were not generally found in the evaluation and might take a longer-term program to become a reality.

More specifically, stakeholders commented that the quality of education improved considerably after moving from outdoor learning in unsafe conditions to indoor learning. It also improved with newly renovated libraries and from increased teacher attendance (a result of more teacher and staff housing facilities). There were also major positive comments on infrastructure improvements for children with disabilities.

LESSONS LEARNED

Mothers’ clubs. Mothers’ clubs are a pivotal community organization with numerous positive

effects in equitable access and quality of education, as well as assisting in attendance and

dropout rates. Mothers’ clubs can also play a powerful role in mitigating issues related to lower

attendance among girl students, such as menstrual hygiene management related constraints.

Increased access to classrooms and toilets for students with disabilities. Major

improvements have been made to classroom facilities and toilets.

Overall perception of increased quality of education. Parents and teachers share a positive

perception of the quality of education and it has had a positive trend in recent years.

5.2 SCC-CFS Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability, and Standards Conclusions

The SCC’s inputs and processes have increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the SCC-CFS program. The SCC-CFS inputs, processes, and infrastructure relating to accessibility, aesthetics, safety and security, the participatory design process, utilization of local materials and know-how, user satisfaction with the construction process and results, operational efficiency and utilization, environmental conditions, sustainability, and structural integrity were shown to contribute to the program’s effectiveness and efficiency.The school construction assessment was collected in all schools to compare these factors between intervention and comparison schools. As expected, intervention schools outranked comparison schools in most of the evaluated indicators.

SCC-CFS schools’ infrastructure is sustainable, but there might be alternatives to improve it. Building new classrooms could increase enrollment—even though the current evaluation did not find evidence of this relationship, it is still a plausible consequence as seen in other developing contexts. However, increased enrollment can have the unintended negative consequence of stretching staff capacity. Regarding sustainability, it is UNICEF Malawi’s opinion that the MOE should be encouraged to establish ceilings for how much a single school can expand before a new school must be developed.

Stakeholders report a high level of satisfaction with school infrastructure. Overall, and as expected, respondents in the intervention schools showed a high level of satisfaction with the infrastructure in general. The SCC-CFS program has alleviated some of the need for toilets and disability-friendly infrastructure, but real infrastructure needs remain at schools in Malawi.

While the SCC-CFS has classroom construction per square meter costs comparable to the region, the overall cost-effectiveness is low. In line with previous studies on the cost effectiveness of school construction programs, the cost-effectiveness of the SCC-CFS is considerably low. Cost-effectiveness of construction and rehabilitation efforts is usually low due to large up-front costs, and somewhat limited effects in terms of access and quality. Such is the case with SCC-CFS, given its limited and modest impacts in terms of enrollment and dropout, repetition, and passing rates. Given the cost-

54

effectiveness results, UNICEF Malawi is on the right path in focusing not only on school construction and rehabilitation efforts, but also including other interventions more traditionally associated with improving education outcomes under its current portfolio.

Lessons Learned

1. Willingness of community members to support school maintenance. Parents and

community members at all schools are interested in school maintenance and are investing in

helping with it.

2. Sanitation facilities exist in all schools. All schools have basic facilities for students and

teachers.

3. Strong culture of maintaining and monitor infrastructure facilities. Many schools—

including twice as many intervention schools—reported having a projects committee that

meets regularly and establishes duty rosters and scheduled days for maintaining the school’s

infrastructure and physical environment.

4. High level of satisfaction with school infrastructure despite continuing needs.

Stakeholders asked for additional classrooms more than any other type of infrastructure. Other

necessities reported include toilets by gender and disability-friendly facilities (classrooms and

toilets).

5. The overall cost effectiveness of school construction activites was low though

participants consulted through this evaluation were quite satisfied with the infrastructure in

general, suggesting potential for long term sustainability and other gains that could mitigate

the low cost effectiveness.

5.3 SCC-CFS and Stakeholders Capacity Conclusions

Community participation is significant overall and worked particularly well for infrastructure activities among intervention schools. Community members are a considerable asset to schools through their involvement in construction and maintenance, feeding programs, mothers’ clubs, and school management committees. Community involvement is perceived to be increasing, particularly in intervention schools, suggesting that the school construction and rehabilitation activities help develop and deepen the relationship between schools and their immediate community. Some parents described this cooperation as a new development and credited the SCC-CFS program as an encouraging factor that improved collaboration between schools and their community.

Children from both intervention and comparison schools reported that all families are encouraged to participate in decision-making processes at school and that they are involved in particular decisions that keep children safe. However, children from intervention schools had stronger positive views than children from comparison schools did.

Training is an area of opportunity for SCC-CFS. Many respondents at both the school and community level asked for additional training on a wide range of topics, including security, health, and safety.

SCC-CFS provides a structure for the decision-making process in the schools’ operations and improvement plans. The overwhelming difference between students from intervention and comparison schools and their perceptions on whether schools make decisions according to what is best for students suggests that the SCC-CFS program has affected the decision making of schools’ leadership.

Children in both intervention and comparison schools believe that children can provide feedback on their school environment and that children are encouraged to participate in school management. More children in intervention schools than in comparison schools acknowledged that their school has a formal system in place for students to report and discuss changes they would like in their physical school environment, which suggests that the SCC-CFS program has developed a decision-making process at schools that is more participatory.

The perceptions of children from intervention schools on students’ participation are more inclusive, and they believe that boys and girls and students from all ethnic backgrounds have equal opportunities to participate in school management decisions.

55

Schools have guidelines promoting equity and establishing norms for teacher-student behaviors. Although the majority of students reported that their schools have written guidelines on educating all students, a slightly larger percentage of students in intervention schools agreed with promoting equity at schools. Considerably more students from intervention schools believed that teachers adhere to the guidelines on teacher-student behaviors.

LESSONS LEARNED

1. Mothers’ clubs. Mothers’ clubs are also a pivotal organization related to improvements in

stakeholder’s capacity building and community participation .

2. Community participation. Intervention schools enjoyed the strong involvement of

community members in the SCC-CFS through collaborative construction and informal

monitoring of the infrastructure activities.

3. Parent participation. Children reported that all families are encouraged to participate in

decision-making processes at school and that families are involved in particular decisions that

keep children safe.

4. Community leadership. Leaders in many communities were involved in encouraging

attendance and safety at school.

5.4 SCC-CFS and School Safety and Inclusiveness Conclusions

SCC-CFS has a strong relationship with children’s physical and emotional safety. Overall, the student survey suggested that the SCC-CFS program had a positive effect on children’s physical safety. The SCC-CFS program can be seen as successful in improving classroom conditions, which were important in promoting safety.

Negative behavior related to students’ physical safety, such as fighting, stealing, bullying, and harassment, were more prevalent in comparison schools. Sexual activities, including assault and rape, were reported equally by students, parents, and teachers (regardless of gender) in intervention and comparison schools, suggesting a widespread gender violence problem that goes beyond the school environment.

There was no doubt that experiencing physical violence also affected children’s emotional well-being. Parents and teachers’ reports on bullying, harassment, and obscene language were evenly distributed over intervention and comparison schools. Students’ perceptions suggest that the SCC-CFS program has improved children’s emotional safety because fewer children at intervention schools felt ridiculed at school or were afraid to go to school. An area of opportunity that arose during the evaluation is in developing guidelines on how to respond to the reported negative behaviors among children and between teacher and children.

SCC-CFS is related to more willingness to report violence. Students at both intervention and comparison schools reported knowing the procedures for reporting violence in school and being encouraged to report violent acts. Children and teachers in comparison schools felt less encouraged to report violence to the school administration.

A lack of safety during transit to and from school and the lack of a fence around the school contributed towards students’ sense of physical safety. . Both intervention and comparison schools shared some of the negative consequences of not having a school fence (and the intrusion of community members on school property) and the prevalence of dangers students face when traveling alone to and from schools unaccompanied by caregivers (such as sexual harassment or abuse, bullying).

LESSONS LEARNED

1. Classrooms make students feel safe. The school construction activities have provided

children with more places to feel safe.

2. Stakeholders recognize the SCC-CFS program’s impact on improving children’s safety.

Schools involved in the program have fewer student safety problems and fewer classrooms

that have unsafe conditions.

56

6. Recommendations

In this final chapter, MSI presents strategic recommendations for the current SCC-CFS program team and for future iterations of the CFS program, with a specific focus on monitoring and evaluation and strategic partnerships. MSI prioritized recommendations that are actionable, practical, and achievable in UNICEF’s next strategy period. All recommendations are grounded in the evaluation findings, and data sources are noted next to each recommendation.

6.1 UNICEF’s School Construction Component of the CFS Program

Recommendations in this section are based on school construction assessments conducted by the evaluation team, interviews with head teachers, focus group discussions with teachers, parents, and community members, and a review of project documentation received from UNICEF Malawi. These recommendations can be considered short-term or immediately achievable, depending upon agency priorities and funding.

Develop a Theory of Change. In 2017, UNICEF Malawi’s Monitoring and Evaluation Section

should collaborate with the Education Section to develop a more detailed and contextualized

theory of change for any future iterations of the SCC-CFS program using the results of this

evaluation. This theory of change should specify the expected strength, magnitude, and direction

of programmatic inputs with outcomes and impacts for students, teachers, and other key

stakeholders. This recommendation is based on a review of project documentation received from

UNICEF Malawi.

Conduct School Infrastructure Follow-Up. In 2017, UNICEF Malawi’s SCC-CFS program team

should provide direct follow-up with evaluation sample schools that reported having problems with

infrastructure, such as collapsed toilets and doors (see Annex H for the Field Summary Notes by

school).

Develop a Workplan to Perform Lower Cost Infrastructural Improvements. This team can

also construct a workplan to perform lower cost infrastructural improvements across all schools (if

needed) based on the results of the school construction assessments. The timing of these

improvements will depend upon available budget and agency priorities but should include the

following:

o Build a fence and/or other school perimeter-delimiting activities as a component of the

school construction activities.

o Increase the number of teachers’ housing construction activities, especially in schools

that are more difficult to access and those more likely to be affected by adverse

environmental conditions, such as flooding and fires.

Identify Comparison Schools for Follow-On Qualitative Work. UNICEF Malawi’s Monitoring

and Evaluation section should also identify comparison schools that reported receiving school

infrastructure aid or improvements, and collect their perceptions of other donors’ construction

developments to learn about their positive and negative results to build on UNICEF’s strategy.

This recommendation to conduct qualitative follow-on work to this evaluation is based on the

results of teacher focus group discussions (see Annex H for the Field Summary Notes by school).

The timing of this work will depend upon agency priorities and funding but should be considered

an immediate priority.

6.2 UNICEF’s CFS Program

Recommendations in this section are based on transect walks conducted with students, construction assessment data, interviews with head teachers, focus group discussions with teachers, parents, and community members, and a review of project documentation received from UNICEF Malawi. These recommendations can be considered medium-term (achievable within the next strategy period, dependent upon agency funding and priorities).

57

Launch School Enrollment Campaigns. If such campaigns are not already conducted, UNICEF

Malawi’s Education section should consider launching school enrollment campaigns—including a

special component to enroll children with disabilities. Such campaigns could be timed around

when school construction and rehabilitation activities take place to target children who would

likely not enroll otherwise and to raise community awareness and support for UNICEF Malawi’s

SCC CFS program.

Increase Access via In-Classroom Support. UNICEF Malawi’s SCC CFS program focuses

primarily on infrastructural improvements in an effort to increase students’ access to quality

education. Future iterations of this program could target learner education outcomes by

increasing education support in classrooms through partnerships with teacher’s assistants and

other teacher training activities within the community. This recommendation can be achieved

through consistent, strengthened collaboration between SCC CFS and CFS program teams

throughout the next strategy period.

During this next strategy period, UNICEF Malawi’s CFS program team should:

Conduct Training on Governance, Leadership, and Child Protection. Provide school level

stakeholders with ongoing training that is more consistent on governance, leadership, and child

protection as part of the CFS program. This should be at a basic level of training that can be

delivered to all teachers and complement the training with strategies to help encourage high -

functioning students with disabilities.

Implement a Walking Safety Program. Establish a program that encourages students to walk to

and from school in groups led by a head teacher or volunteer parent from their communities to

improve children’s safety on the road.

Train Beneficiaries to Respond to Violence Against Children. Include in the CFS program

training and guidelines on how to proceed after a violent act has taken place among students or

between teachers and students. Reporting mechanisms on violence against children (VAC) in

schools can be strengthened through enhancing the linkages between school staff and available

community action groups (i.e. GBV/police victim support units among other structures).

Conduct Teacher-Student Behavior Workshops. UNICEF could conduct workshops on

teacher-student behavior guidelines at schools so that all head teachers, teachers, students, and

parents have comprehensive knowledge of these guidelines.

Assess Material Access for Students with Disabilities. UNICEF could conduct an assessment

on the equipment and materials needed for students with disabilities, and develop a workplan to

provide schools with these equipment and materials.

6.3 UNICEF’s CFS Monitoring and Evaluation

These recommendations are based on interviews with head teachers, focus group discussions with teachers, and a review of project documentation received from UNICEF Malawi. Implementation of these recommendations can be considered medium to longer term, and are dependent upon agency priorities and funding.

UNICEF Malawi’s Monitoring and Evaluation section should partner with the SCC CFS program team to:

Train Vounteers to Conduct School Construction Assessments. Train parent volunteers to

conduct school construction assessments and to communicate information to UNICEF that will

build an up-to-date and reliable monitoring and evaluation mechanism.

Implement a Yearly Student Survey. This would serve as a monitoring system and compile

student’s perceptions on physical and emotional safety and inclusiveness at school.

Continue Monitoring and Follow-Up on the SCC-CFS Program. Use this evaluation’s

information as a baseline in the future to monitor and follow up on the SCC-CFS program in

Malawi.

Review Schools’ Level of Infrastructure. Use the compiled EMIS data and, in partnership with

the Ministry, review and establish whether schools have reached a basic level of infrastructure—

e.g., if each school should have a minimum of eight classrooms and whether this indicator is

58

pertinent—at the national and district levels to inform both UNICEF and the Ministry’s future

programmatic strategies.

6.4 UNICEF’s CFS Strategic Partnerships

Recommendations in this section are based on a review of project documentation received from UNICEF Malawi, discussions with UNICEF Malawi personnel, and national and district interviews. These recommendations are likely achievable over a longer term, such as the next strategy period, and will depend upon agency priorities and funding. Specifically, UNICEF’s SCC CFS program team should:

Expand UNICEF Partnerships for School Feeding. Consider additional and expanded

partnerships with school feeding programs in Malawi, such as the World Food Programme and

nongovernmental organizations.

Conduct Advocacy through Partner UN Organizations. Advocate to include the schools

involved in the SCC-CFS program in the UN Joint Programme on Girls Education (implemented

by UNICEF), the UN Population Fund, and the World Food Programme to promote awareness on

girls’ education.

Coordinate with Other Agencies with Similar Mandate. Coordinate with other programming

and interventions related to school construction through intersectoral integration with other

agencies implementing similar programs. For example, the SCC-CFS program could work with

Malawian commissions focusing on the Accelerated Child Survival and Development Strategy

and Malawi’s National Sanitation Policy that target the construction, rehabilitation, and repair of

nonfunctioning water points in communities and schools.

59

References

Bernbaum, Marcia, and Kurt Moses. 2011. EQUIP2 Lessons Learned in Education: Education Management Information Systems. Washington, DC: USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development).

Birks, Melanie, and Jane Mills. 2011. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cuesta, Ana, Paul Glewwe, and Brooke Krause. 2016. “School Infrastructure and Educational Outcomes: A Literature Review, with Special Reference to Latin America.” Economia 17 (1): 95–130.

Duflo, Esther. 2001. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment.” American Economic Review 91 (4): 795–813.

Gertler, Paul, Harry Anthony Patrinos, and Marta Rubio-Codina. 2007. “Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of School-Based Management Reforms.” Doing Impact Evaluation No. 10, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Glewwe, Paul, and Michael Kremer. 2006. “Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries.” In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 2, edited by Eric A. Hanushek and Finis Welch, 945–1017. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Gu, Xing Sam, and Paul R. Rosenbaum. 1993. “Comparison of Multivariate Matching Methods: Structures, Distances, and Algorithms.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2 (4): 405–420.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1997. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update.” Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis 19 (2): 141–164.

Krishnaratne, Shari, Howard White, and Ella Carpenter. 2013. “Quality Education for All Children? What Works in Education in Developing Countries.” 3ie (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation) Working Paper 20, 3ie, New Dehli.

Lockheed, Marlaine E., and Adriaan M. Verspoor. 1991. Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press (for the World Bank).

Lynch, Sharon, Michael Szesze, Curtis Pyke, and Joel Kuipers. 2006. “Scaling Up Highly Rated Middle Science Curriculum Units for Diverse Student Populations: Features that Affect Collaborative Research and Vice Versa.” In Scale-Up in Education: Issues in Practice, Volume 2, edited by Barbara Schneider and Sarah-Kathryn McDonald, 91–122. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Maisno, S, and M Niño-Zarazúa. 2016. “What Works to Improve the Quality of Student Learning in Developing Countries?” International Journal of Educational Development 48 (May): 53–65.

McEwan, P. 2015. “Improving Learning in Primary Schools of Developing Countries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments.” Review of Educational Research 85 (3): 353–394.

Orazem, Peter F., Paul Glewwe, and Harry Patrinos. 2008. “The Challenge of Education.” Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Education Challenge Paper (April 2008), Copenhagen Consensus Center, Tewksbury, MA.

Rubin, Donald B. 1973. “Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies.” Biometrics 29 (1): 159–183.

Smawfield, David, and Yongfeng Du. 2006. Building Children's Schools: Transforming the Learning Environment, Volume 2: The Gansu Basic Education Project Experience and Beyond. Lanzhou, Beijing, London, and Cambridge: DFID (U.K. Department for International Development) and Cambridge Education.

Snilstveit, Berta, Jennifer Stevenson, Radhika Menon, Daniel Phillips, Emma Gallagher, Maisie Geleen, Hannah Jobse, Tanja Schmidt, and Emmanual Jimenez. 2016. “The Impact of Educational Programmes on Learning and School Participation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Systematic Review Summary 7, 3ie, London.

60

Tashakori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

UNEG (United Nations Evaluation Group). 2005. “Standards for Evaluation in the UN System.” Foundation Document (April 2005), UNEG, New York.

UNICEF. 2009. Child-Friendly Schools Manual. New York: UNICEF.

UNICEF EAPRO (East Asia and Pacific Regional Office). 2006. Assessing Child-Friendly Schools: A Guide for Programme Managers in East Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: UNICEF EAPRO.

Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.

61

Annex A. Documents Provided by UNICEF for Review

1. 100 School Report, Final Version (no other publication information provided)

2. Form A: Statistical Returns for Primary Schools (EMIS 2012). Produced by Malawi Government, Ministry of Education.

3. Reference Toolkit for Child-Friendly Schools Initiative. Produced by Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.

4. Education Management Information System - Education Statistics Bulletin, 2012. Department of Education Planning, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

5. Education Management Information System - Education Statistics Bulletin, 2013. Department of Education Planning, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

6. Education Management Information System - Education Statistics Bulletin, 2014. Department of Education Planning, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

7. Education Management Information System - Education Statistics Bulletin (DRAFT), 2015. Department of Education Planning, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

8. Education Management Information System - Implementation Progress Report, 2013/14. Education Planning, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

9. Education Sector Implementation Plan II (ESIP II) (2013/14 – 2017/18): Towards Quality Education – Empowering the School. Produced May 2014 by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

10. Malawi Girls Education Communication Strategy. Produced May 2012, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

11. UNICEF Child Friendly Schooling in Malawi - Baseline Survey 2011. Second draft produced May 2012. Authors: Dorothy Nampota, Catherine Jere, Lizzie Chiwaula, Elizabeth Meke and Esme Kadzamira, Centre for Educational Research and Training.

12. Conceptual Framework for Girls Education Strategy – Draft report produced by UNICEF Malawi. (date and author not available).

13. Identifying and Promoting Good Practice in Equity and Child-Friendly Education. Produced for UNICEF Education Section in Dec 2013 by Sheldon Shaeffer.

14. Long text for all grants that support Child Friendly Schools – Prepared by UNICEF Malawi Education Section, June 2016.

15. Assessment of the capacity of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to identify, prevent and respond to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect and the development of specific frameworks for violence prevention for children attending primary and secondary schools in Malawi. Produced in December 2013 by Kirsten Anderson, Jorun Arndt and Liz Yarrow with the Coram Children’s Legal Centre.

16. Malawi MDG [Millennium Development Goal] Endline Survey (MES). Produced in June 2015 by the National Statistics Office as part of the global MICS program.

62

17. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Child Friendly Schools in Malawi. Produced by UNICEF. (DRAFT).

18. National Strategy on Inclusive Education: Towards an inclusive education system (2016-2020). Malawi Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (DRAFT).

19. Primary School Improvement Plan: Performance Based Financing (PBF) Baseline Survey Report. Produced November 2015 by Dr. Mike Nkhoma for Malawi Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

20. Child Friendly Schools Infrastructure, Standards and Guidelines: Primary and Tronc Commune Schools. Produced in 2009 for the Rwanda Ministry of Education. Lead authors: Seki Hirano and Luca Ginoulhiac.

21. School Improvement Planning Guidance and Training Notes. Produced March 2010 by the Malawi Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

22. 2014/15 Education Sector Performance Report. Produced by the Malawi Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

23. 2015 Basic Education and Gender Equality Sectoral and/or Thematic Report. Prepared March 2016 by UNICEF Malawi.

24. UNICEF Support to Quality Basic Education through Child Friendly School Environments in Malawi. (DRAFT).

25. Teacher Training for Child Friendly Learning: Operational Phase of Chiradzulu Teacher Training College. Progress Report to the Swiss National Committee of UNICEF. Prepared February 2015 by UNICEF Malawi.

26. Situation Analysis of Children with Disabilities, From Exclusion to Inclusion: Promoting the Rights of Children with Disabilities in Malawi. Authors: Alister Munthali, Maxton Tsoka, James Milner, and Peter Mvula. Centre for Social Research, Malawi.

27. Database (Excel file) of UNICEF unit costs of school buildings (ECD, Primary and Secondary Schools, Teacher Training Colleges).

28. The Safe Schools Program: A Qualitative Study to Examine School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Malawi. Prepared in 2008 by USAID.

63

Annex B. School Construction Calendar by District and Construction Type

Blantyre Rural and Urban

School

Name

Project Start

Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Mbengwe September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Macheka September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Mkomadzi

September

2011

December

2012 4 - 4 3 1

Nkaladzi

September

2011

December

2012 6 - 2 3 1

Nanjere September

2011

December

2012 4 - - 3 1

Namiwiyo

September

2011

December

2012 8 - - 3

-

Likulu

September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Mpapa

September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Nasiyaya

September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Namaera

September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

St. James

September

2011

December

2012 4 - - 3 1

Manyonwe

September

2011

December

2012 6 - - 3 1

Nancholi

September

2011

December

2012 8 - - 3 1

64

School

Name

Project Start

Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Naotcha

September

2011

December

2012 10 - - 5 3

Blantyre Total n=14 86 0 6 44 15

Lilongwe Rural East and West

School

Name

Project Start

Date

Completion

Date

New

Classrooms

Library

Administration

Blocks

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

New Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

MCHUCHU March 2008 December,

2008 8 - -

- 1

Malembe October 2010 March 2012

10 - -

- 1

Chimpumbulu October 2010 March 2012 4 - - 1 1

Yepa October 2010 March 2012 6 - - 1 1

Chamtambe October 2010 March 2013 6 - - 1 1

Lilongwe Total (n=5) 34 0 0 3 5

Phalombe

School

Name

Project Start

Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Dzanjo September

2014

February

2015 4 - - - 1

Phalombe Total (n=1) 4 0 0 0 1

Thyolo

65

School

Name

Project Start

Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Goliati May 2013 March 2014

10 1

-

4

1

Thyolo Total (n=1) 10 1 0 4 1

Nkhatabay

School

Name

Project

Start Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classroom

Number

of New

Staff

House

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Chiomba September

2014

January

2015 4 1 -

3 1

Mdyaka II September

2014

January

2015 3 1 -

3 1

Chilala September

2014

January

2015 4 1 -

3 1

Chikale September

2014

January

2015 3 1 1

3 1

Chilundwe September

2014

January

2015 4 1 -

3 1

Nkhatabay Total (n=5) 18 5 1 15 5

Mangochi

School

Name

Project

Start Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Lusalumwe December

2014

September

2015 6 1 -

3 1

66

School

Name

Project

Start Date

Completion

Date

Number of

New

Classrooms

Number of

Library/Administration

Blocks

Number of

Rehabilitated

Classrooms

Number

of New

Staff

Houses

Sets of

Sanitation

Facilities

Mdinde December

2014

September

2015 6 1 -

3 1

Malindi II December

2014

September

2015 6 1 -

3 1

Lufalu December

2014

September

2015 6 1 -

3 1

Nandembo December

2014

September

2015 6 1 -

3 1

Mangochi Total (n=5) 30 5 0 15 5

Source: Shared by UNICEF with MSI (May 2017).

67

Annex C. School Construction Component of CFS Evaluation Matrix Evaluation

questions

Indicator Data sources

Document

review and

secondary

data

analysis

(e.g. EMIS

database)

National

interviews

Districts

interviews (e.g.

education

managers)

HT/

Teacher Interviews

(N=1 HT/school; 2

teachers/school)

Pupil Survey

(n = 6

children in gr

6-8)

School Observation/

Construction

Assessment (only for

SCC CFS Schools)

Pupil

FGD/

Mappin

g

Activity

(N=6

children

in gr 5-

8;

mappin

g with 6

children

in gr 1-

3)

Com

mun

ity

Mem

ber/

Pare

nt

Inter

view

s

(N=2

/sch

ool)

To what extent has

the SCC-CFS

program increased

equitable access

and quality of

education?

Enrolment

(boys and girls;

children with special

needs/disabilities)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Drop out

(boys and girls;

children with special

needs/disabilities)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Pass

rates/Repetition

rates (boys and

girls; children with

special

needs/disabilities)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Teacher attendance

rate (males and

females)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Stakeholder

perceptions of

changes to

education quality

√ √ √ √ √ √

68

resulting from the

SCC-CFS program

To what extent

have the inputs

and processes of

the school

construction

component

increased

effectiveness,

efficiency, and

sustainability of

the SCC-CFS

program?

Accessibility

√

Aesthetics √

Safety and Security

(e.g., ratio of

latrines, school has

duly assigned

personnel in charge

of securing its

premises, properties

and those of pupils

and teachers)

√

Participatory Design

Process

√

Utilization of Local

Materials and Know How

√

User Satisfaction with

construction process and

results

√

Operational Efficiency and

Utilization

√

Environmental Conditions

– Heat/Ventilation, Light,

Sound

√

Sustainability – Energy

and Water

√

Structural Integrity √

To what extent has

the SCC-CFS

program affected

key outputs and

standards of the

CFS framework?

Schools should

School has a well-defined

vision/mission/motto which

does not discriminate

students in any way due to

gender, beliefs, socio-

economic status,

language, disabilities etc

√ √ √ √ √

69

achieve 5 CFS

principles:

1. Rights based and inclusive

2. Effectively provide relevant quality education

3. Safe, protective and healthy school

4. Gender responsive, equity and equality promoting school

5. Builds school/ community linkages and partnerships

School enforces policy on

protection of girls and

disadvantaged children

against sexual and other

abuse and exploitation

√ √ √ √ √

Proportion of teachers who

had in-service training in

the last 12 months

√ √ √

Teacher-learner ratio √ √ √

Proper record

keeping

(administrative,

academic, finance &

stores) to ensure

that documents are

in the best interest

of the learner

Textbook-learner ratio in

all subjects

√ √ √

School undertakes

advocacy related to

inclusive education

√ √ √ √ √

Availability of

adequate learning

materials for all

learners. E.g.

Writing materials

equally available for

both boys and girls.

√ √ √ √ √

School is easily

accessible to

catchment

population of

learners

√ √ √ √ √

Availability of

disability friendly

facilities, resources

and equipment (e.g.

ramps, toilets,

Braille materials,

hearing aids, clearly

defined paths etc...)

√ √ √ √ √

70

To what extent has

the SCC-CFS

program increased

capacity of key

stakeholders

through

participation,

training, and

guidelines?

Fully constituted

SMC, PTA

√ √ √ √

Functioning

Mother’s Groups

√ √ √ √

Community and

parents involved in

development,

implementation and

monitoring of the

School

Improvement Plan

(SIP)

√ √ √ √

School has

functioning

structures (SMC,

PTA, school

discipline

committee, students

council) which

addresses problems

affecting learners

√ √ √ √

Parents are

interested in and

support pupil’s

learning at home,

and discuss pupils’

work with teachers

√ √ √ √

Outreach activities

done by school to

the community

√ √ √ √

Linkages with other

NGOs or

cooperative partners

on key outcomes

such as improving

school safety and

inclusiveness,

improving student

achievement, and

reducing student

dropout

√ √ √ √ √

To what extent has

the SCC-CFS

Number of

classrooms with

√

71

program increased

school safety and

inclusiveness of

the school

environment?

proper ventilation,

lighting and

adequate learning

space for children

Code of conduct

ensuring respectful

relationships

between students

and teachers is in

place and adhered

to

√ √ √ √

Maintenance of

newly constructed

or rehabilitated

elements of school

environment

√ √ √ √

Stakeholder

perceptions of

changes to school

safety and

infrastructure

resulting from the

SCC-CFS program

√ √ √ √ √ √

Safety measures in

place: (i.e. First Aid

Kits, school fence)

etc.

√ √ √ √ √

Ratio of latrines to

children (girls/boys)

√

School facility for

students with

disability

√

School enforces a

policy on prevention

of violence and

bullying and

corporal punishment

through positive

disciplining

√ √ √ √

Classrooms have

talking walls that

√

72

address different

capabilities of

learners

Access to safe

clean water for

drinking and

washing

√ √ √ √ √

Cleanliness of

school environment,

including latrines,

classrooms,

grounds/landscape

√

73

Annex D. Field Movement Plan

Field Movement Plan—School Construction Assessment

Day District Zone School Name Contact

Sunday Travel to Blantyre

Monday,

Dec 12

Thyolo/Phalombe Khongolo Dzanjo Charles Tembo, 0885-813-089

Blantyre Naotcha Manyowe LEA School Alex Gama, 0888-360-290

Blantyre Dziwe Mbengwe School Raphael Phiri, 0884-354-445

Tuesday,

Dec 13

Blantyre Nankumba Chipwepwete School

Kalulu M., 0884-430177. Call through

PEA.School HeadTeacher Number

doesn’t go through.

Blantyre Nankumba Mandimu School George Kapalamula 0991103535

Blantyre Nankumba Namaela/Khunju School George Kapalamula 0991-103-535

Wed,

Dec 14 Blantyre Mpapa Mpapa FP School Grace Khondovera 0999-682-076

Blantyre Lirangwe Nanjere JP School Martin Walani, 0994-444-271

Blantyre Dzunga Nkaladzi School Grant Kambani, 0888-701-142

Thursday,

Dec 15

Travel to Mangochi

Mangochi Mdinde Lusalumwe School Paul Jamu, 0999-766-770

Mangochi Mkumba Nandembo School Peter Chaoneka, 0999-371-023

Friday,

Dec 16

Travel to Lilongwe

Lilongwe Chiwoko Chilinde School Mr A. Hawuya 0999-456-213

Lilongwe Dzenza Malembe School Christina Kadzombe; 0999-203-788

74

Field Movement Summary—Collection of Student, Teacher, Parent, and Community Member Data Team 1 Team 219 Team 3

Date District Zone School Name Date District Zone School Name Date District Zone School Name

12/3 Lilo Dzenza Malembe

School 12/2 Lilo Dzenza

Chamtambe

School 12/2 Lilo Dzenza Yepa JP School

12/5 Blan Naotcha Nancholi

School 12/5 Blan Naotcha Naotcha School 12/3 Lilo Dzenza Chimpumbulu

12/6 Blan Dziwe Macheka

School 12/5 Blan Mpapa

Nasiyaya FP

School 12/6 Blan Bangwe Bilal Darul Uloom

12/6 Blan Mpapa Mpapa FP

School 12/6 Blan Chigumuk

Chigodi II

School 12/6 Blan Lunzu Likulu School

12/7 Blan Lunzu Namwiyo LEA

School 12/6 Blan Chilomoni Yorodani 12/6 Blan Limbe

St Maria Goretti

Girls

12/8 Blan Mpapa Mwayi FP

School 12/7 Blan Dzunga

Mkomadzi

School 12/7 Blan Naotcha

Manyowe LEA

School

12/8 Blan Dzunga Nkaladzi

School 12/7 Blan Lirangwe

Nanjere JP

School 12/7 Blan Nankumba

Namayera/Khunju

School

12/8 Blan Nankumba St James 12/8 Blan Chilomoni Mayere 12/9 Blan Zingwang Namasimba Primary

School

12/9 Blan Nankumba Chipwepwete

School 12/9 Blan Zingwang

Catholic

Institute Scho 12/12 Thyo Goliati Goliat School

12/9 Blan Madziaba Nankhufi 12/9 Blan Lirangwe Lirangwe FP

School 12/12 Thyo Luchenza Gunda School

12/12 Blan Lunzu Chiraweni

School 12/9 Mang Chilipa

Masakasa

School 12/14 Mang Mkumba Malindi JP School

12/12 Phal Migowi Migowi CCAP

School 12/12 Blan Nankumba

Mandimu

School 12/14 Mang Mdinde Mdinde School

12/14 Mang Thema Chantulo

School 12/12 Blan Bangwe

Namatapa

School 12/15 Mang Mkumba Nandembo School

12/14 Mang Monkey B Funwe 12/14 Mang Mkumba Lufalu J. P 12/19 Nkha Chombe Chilundwe

School/Chiwondwe

12/15 Mang Thema Thema 1

School 12/14 Mang Mdinde

Lusalumwe

School 12/20 Nkha Chombe Chombe School

19 Team 2 visited two schools that were not originally planned. These schools are highlighted in red.

75

Team 1 Team 219 Team 3

12/19 Nkha Ching'om Chiole School 12/14 Phal Khongolo Dzanjo 12/20 Nkha Chikwina Mgonapasi J.P.

School

12/19 Nkha Ching'om Mdyaka

School 12/15 Mang Chimwala

Chimwalire JP

School 12/23 Lilo Chiwoko Chiwoko School

12/20 Nkha Ching'om Chilala

School 12/18 Nkha Kachere

Chiomba JP

School 1/5 Blan Limbe Namame School

12/20 Nkha Bandawe Munkhokwe

School 12/18 Nkha Kachere

Kande Care

and Gardens

12/22 Lilo Mkukula Mkukula

School 12/19 Nkha St Maria

Chikale F.P.

School

12/23 Lilo Mvunguti Kalambo 12/23 Lilo Chiwoko Chilinde School

76

Annex E. Qualitative Data Entry Tools

Focus Group Discussions with Teachers and Head Teachers Date of data entry: [Today’s date] Guidelines of this format: Please, fill this form with you notes next to you. You should type your answers in the sections with [grey color] only. When you finish, please, review your answers. Save and name this document with the corresponding district and school name using the format: FGD_District_SchoolName Overall Information

Facilitator: [Facilitator’s Name] Note taker: [Note-taker’s Name] Date of focus group: [Date] District: [Choose a district from list] Zone: [Choose a zone from list] School Name: [Choose a school from list] Traditional Authority:[Click here to enter text] School contact information:[Enter here school contact information such as name and phone number of school’s point of contact.] Additional notes: [Enter any additional notes regarding the quality and availability of this interview’s information.]

Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Respondent 3

1 Respondent ID [Number ID] [Number ID] [Number ID]

2 Job title [Job title] [Job title] [Job title]

3 Grade taught (if applicable)

[Grade nmbr] [Grade nmbr] [Grade nmbr]

4 Gender [Gender] [Gender] [Gender]

5 Age [Age in years] [Age in years] [Age in years]

1 Are you from this community?

[Yes/No] [Yes/No] [Yes/No]

2 How long have you been teaching or working?

[Nmbr. Years] [Nmbr. Years] [Nmbr. Years]

3 What is your position at the school?

[Position] [Position] [Position]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 77

Please, read the guidelines for filling out the section: The following section includes the questions of the Discussion section. Please, fill the table i.e. the answers of Respondent 1 in the first table C.1, the answers of Respondent 2 in the first table C.2, etc. At the beginning of each new table, a link to the details of the Respondent will be available for guidance.

[Respondent 1 section]

B1 Discussion Questions of Respondent 1 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

1 Are you from the community? [Type answer here]

2

How long have you been

teaching or working at this

school?

[Type answer here]

3 What is your position within this

school?

[Type answer here]

C1 Discussion Questions of Respondent 1 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

A How many students (boys/girls) are

currently enrolled in this school?

[Type answer here]

B How many teachers (male/female) work

here?

[Type answer here]

C

What are the drop-out rates for students in this school? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities?

[Type answer here]

D

What are the achievement or pass rates for students in this school by key subjects such as math, reading? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities? How does this school’s performance differ from other schools in this district?

[Type answer here]

E What about repetition rates for students by grade in this school?

[Type answer here]

2

Among children who are currently enrolled in this school, how regular is their attendance? (Probe on attendance by gender, disability etc.)

[Type answer here]

A What factors contribute to children not attending school? Or dropping out? (Probe: What are the key

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 78

issues children face in getting to school, staying in school, obtaining a high quality education)? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

3 Are there children in this school from different ethnic backgrounds?

[Type answer here]

A Different religious backgrounds (if appropriate)?

[Type answer here]

B Different economic backgrounds? [Type answer here]

C Do you see/think they are treated differently by either teachers or other students?

[Type answer here]

4

Are there students with disabilities or other special needs in your class, or in this school? (Probe for types of disabilities or other special needs and how teachers identify/know this information)

[Type answer here]

A

If so, do you feel that teachers, school staff, and other students treat them the same way or differently as children without disabilities or special needs?

[Type answer here]

B

Are there experiences accessing this school any different compared with students who do not have disabilities? How? (Probe for specific examples including any resources or remedial actions that are taken to support these students. What specific equipment exists to support students with special needs or disabilities?)

[Type answer here]

5 What steps does this school take to ensure the physical safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

A What steps does this school take to ensure the emotional safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

B

What types of policies exist? Is there a school vision or mission statement, and if so, what is it? Is there a code of conduct and if so, what are some examples of rules in the CoC?

[Type answer here]

C What trainings are provided to ensure children’s physical safety? What other measures are in place?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 79

6 Are there certain areas within the school that are more/less safe than others?

[Type answer here]

A How this vary by differences between children’s physical safety and children’s emotional safety?

[Type answer here]

B How does this vary by time of day; children’s age, sex and other characteristics?

[Type answer here]

7

Describe the school environment and how it has changed since 2012. What has been newly built? What has been rehabilitated or refurbished? What elements of the school environment have remained the same? (probes: latrine construction for children with disabilities, landscaping of school grounds; fence construction; new desks, blackboards or other teaching and learning materials)

[Type answer here]

A

Where do children go to the bathroom? Are these locked or usually unlocked? Does this differ for girls or boys? Accessible to children with disabilities? Does the community have access to these facilities?

[Type answer here]

B

Where do you and your students get drinking water from on a daily basis? Have there been any cases of water-borne diseases

[Type answer here]

C

How happy or satisfied are you with these construction efforts or refurbishments? To what extent were you involved in the design, planning and construction supervision?

[Type answer here]

D What could be done to further improve the school environment? What are your priorities?

[Type answer here]

8 In your opinion, how do these changes to the school environment impact on:

[Type answer here]

A

Equitable access to the school? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

B how well children perform in school (e.g. day to day performance, or on annual examinations)?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 80

C

how often they will come to school and class attendance. (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

D

children’s emotional, social and physical well-being? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

E

your own attendance and participation in school activities, and enthusiasm for teaching? (Probe: Can you tell me about the last time you were absent from school? When was this? What was the reason? Does this happen often or with other teachers?)

[Type answer here]

9

Do you address the need for/maintenance of classrooms, latrines, school grounds, and other aspects of the school environment as part of your curriculum or teaching activities?

[Type answer here]

A What percentage of your annual budget goes towards school development activities?

[Type answer here]

B Are these activities standardized across the school or only for certain grades?

[Type answer here]

C

How successful have each of these activities been? How do you know? For example, have you noticed changes in students’ behaviors inside and outside the classroom after the activities or curricula?

[Type answer here]

10

Do children experience any forms of violence (including bullying, unwanted, aggressive behavior that can be either physical or psychological) or safety issues while at school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

11

How do students typically get to school? (Probe: How far do they typically travel? Do they come on their own or with others? Does this vary by children of different ages? By boys or girls? Other characteristics? Please describe)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 81

12

Do children experience any forms of violence or other safety issues while traveling to and from school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

13

How has the SCC-CFS program enhanced or improved the safety of children against common forms of violence? What has changed?

[Type answer here]

14

What forms of community support exist for improving and maintaining this school environment? (Probe first on whether each of these groups exists: School Management Committee, Parent-Teacher Associations, Mothers’ Clubs. Then probe on the specific responsibilities of these groups, and the relationship of these groups with teaching staff and school administrators)

[Type answer here]

A What works well about these forms of support?

[Type answer here]

B In what ways could they be strengthened?

[Type answer here]

C

In what ways does the school involve parents and families in promoting the safety and protection of children, and children’s education?

[Type answer here]

D Is there a community policing forum?

[Type answer here]

15

To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased capacity of the key stakeholders through participation, training, and guidelines? (Probe: key stakeholders can include parents and community members, mother’s group members, teachers and the head teacher).

[Type answer here]

16

Are there any teachers who have had any in-service training in the last 12 months? Please describe the types of in-service training you or they have received? (Probes: Who managed these trainings? What were the topics? How long were these trainings? Are these trainings sufficient for teachers to

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 1)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 82

understand these topics or are more trainings needed? Why?)

A

Were any trainings provided prior to the UNICEF SCC-CFS program? (Probes: We want to understand any differences in training opportunities and in-service teacher support provided before and during the SCC-CFS program. As questions such as: What types of trainings? What were the topics? Were these trainings sufficient for teachers to understand these topics or were more trainings needed?)

[Type answer here]

17

To what extent are the community and parents involved in development, implementation and monitoring of the School Improvement Plan (SIP)? How different was the situation prior to the SCC-CFS program (i.e. in 2012)?

[Type answer here]

18

How has the SCC-CFS Program affected the quality of education in your school? (Probe on equitable access (enrollment and attendance) to this school for all children, including children with special needs and disabilities, any ethnic minority students, etc. Probe also on the quality of education such as the impact of the SCC-CFS program on children’s achievement, teacher attendance, teacher enthusiasm for teaching, etc.)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 83

[Respondent 2 section]

B2 Discussion Questions of Respondent 2 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

1 Are you from the community? [Type answer here]

2

How long have you been

teaching or working at this

school?

[Type answer here]

3 What is your position within this

school?

[Type answer here]

C2 Discussion Questions of Respondent 2 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

A How many students (boys/girls) are

currently enrolled in this school?

[Type answer here]

B How many teachers (male/female) work

here?

[Type answer here]

C

What are the drop-out rates for students in this school? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities?

[Type answer here]

D

What are the achievement or pass rates for students in this school by key subjects such as math, reading? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities? How does this school’s performance differ from other schools in this district?

[Type answer here]

E What about repetition rates for students by grade in this school?

[Type answer here]

2

Among children who are currently enrolled in this school, how regular is their attendance? (Probe on attendance by gender, disability etc.)

[Type answer here]

A

What factors contribute to children not attending school? Or dropping out? (Probe: What are the key issues children face in getting to school, staying in school, obtaining a high quality education)? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

3 Are there children in this school from different ethnic backgrounds?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 84

A Different religious backgrounds (if appropriate)?

[Type answer here]

B Different economic backgrounds? [Type answer here]

C Do you see/think they are treated differently by either teachers or other students?

[Type answer here]

4

Are there students with disabilities or other special needs in your class, or in this school? (Probe for types of disabilities or other special needs and how teachers identify/know this information)

[Type answer here]

A

If so, do you feel that teachers, school staff, and other students treat them the same way or differently as children without disabilities or special needs?

[Type answer here]

B

Are there experiences accessing this school any different compared with students who do not have disabilities? How? (Probe for specific examples including any resources or remedial actions that are taken to support these students. What specific equipment exists to support students with special needs or disabilities?)

[Type answer here]

5 What steps does this school take to ensure the physical safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

A What steps does this school take to ensure the emotional safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

B

What types of policies exist? Is there a school vision or mission statement, and if so, what is it? Is there a code of conduct and if so, what are some examples of rules in the CoC?

[Type answer here]

C What trainings are provided to ensure children’s physical safety? What other measures are in place?

[Type answer here]

6 Are there certain areas within the school that are more/less safe than others?

[Type answer here]

A How this vary by differences between children’s physical safety and children’s emotional safety?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 85

B How does this vary by time of day; children’s age, sex and other characteristics?

[Type answer here]

7

Describe the school environment and how it has changed since 2012. What has been newly built? What has been rehabilitated or refurbished? What elements of the school environment have remained the same? (probes: latrine construction for children with disabilities, landscaping of school grounds; fence construction; new desks, blackboards or other teaching and learning materials)

[Type answer here]

A

Where do children go to the bathroom? Are these locked or usually unlocked? Does this differ for girls or boys? Accessible to children with disabilities? Does the community have access to these facilities?

[Type answer here]

B

Where do you and your students get drinking water from on a daily basis? Have there been any cases of water-borne diseases

[Type answer here]

C

How happy or satisfied are you with these construction efforts or refurbishments? To what extent were you involved in the design, planning and construction supervision?

[Type answer here]

D What could be done to further improve the school environment? What are your priorities?

[Type answer here]

8 In your opinion, how do these changes to the school environment impact on:

[Type answer here]

A

Equitable access to the school? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

B how well children perform in school (e.g. day to day performance, or on annual examinations)?

[Type answer here]

C

how often they will come to school and class attendance. (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

D children’s emotional, social and physical well-being? (Probe: how

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 86

does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

E

your own attendance and participation in school activities, and enthusiasm for teaching? (Probe: Can you tell me about the last time you were absent from school? When was this? What was the reason? Does this happen often or with other teachers?)

[Type answer here]

9

Do you address the need for/maintenance of classrooms, latrines, school grounds, and other aspects of the school environment as part of your curriculum or teaching activities?

[Type answer here]

A What percentage of your annual budget goes towards school development activities?

[Type answer here]

B Are these activities standardized across the school or only for certain grades?

[Type answer here]

C

How successful have each of these activities been? How do you know? For example, have you noticed changes in students’ behaviors inside and outside the classroom after the activities or curricula?

[Type answer here]

10

Do children experience any forms of violence (including bullying, unwanted, aggressive behavior that can be either physical or psychological) or safety issues while at school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

11

How do students typically get to school? (Probe: How far do they typically travel? Do they come on their own or with others? Does this vary by children of different ages? By boys or girls? Other characteristics? Please describe)

[Type answer here]

12

Do children experience any forms of violence or other safety issues while traveling to and from school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 87

do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

13

How has the SCC-CFS program enhanced or improved the safety of children against common forms of violence? What has changed?

[Type answer here]

14

What forms of community support exist for improving and maintaining this school environment? (Probe first on whether each of these groups exists: School Management Committee, Parent-Teacher Associations, Mothers’ Clubs. Then probe on the specific responsibilities of these groups, and the relationship of these groups with teaching staff and school administrators)

[Type answer here]

A What works well about these forms of support?

[Type answer here]

B In what ways could they be strengthened?

[Type answer here]

C

In what ways does the school involve parents and families in promoting the safety and protection of children, and children’s education?

[Type answer here]

D Is there a community policing forum?

[Type answer here]

15

To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased capacity of the key stakeholders through participation, training, and guidelines? (Probe: key stakeholders can include parents and community members, mother’s group members, teachers and the head teacher).

[Type answer here]

16

Are there any teachers who have had any in-service training in the last 12 months? Please describe the types of in-service training you or they have received? (Probes: Who managed these trainings? What were the topics? How long were these trainings? Are these trainings sufficient for teachers to understand these topics or are more trainings needed? Why?)

[Type answer here]

A

Were any trainings provided prior to the UNICEF SCC-CFS program? (Probes: We want to understand any differences in training opportunities and

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 2)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 88

in-service teacher support provided before and during the SCC-CFS program. As questions such as: What types of trainings? What were the topics? Were these trainings sufficient for teachers to understand these topics or were more trainings needed?)

17

To what extent are the community and parents involved in development, implementation and monitoring of the School Improvement Plan (SIP)? How different was the situation prior to the SCC-CFS program (i.e. in 2012)?

[Type answer here]

18

How has the SCC-CFS Program affected the quality of education in your school? (Probe on equitable access (enrollment and attendance) to this school for all children, including children with special needs and disabilities, any ethnic minority students, etc. Probe also on the quality of education such as the impact of the SCC-CFS program on children’s achievement, teacher attendance, teacher enthusiasm for teaching, etc.)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 89

[Respondent 3 section]

B3 Discussion Questions of Respondent 3 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

1 Are you from the community? [Type answer here]

2

How long have you been

teaching or working at this

school?

[Type answer here]

3 What is your position within this

school?

[Type answer here]

C3 Discussion Questions of Respondent 3 [Click here to go to Respondent 1 basic information as a reminder]

A How many students (boys/girls) are

currently enrolled in this school? [Type answer here]

B How many teachers (male/female) work

here? [Type answer here]

C

What are the drop-out rates for students in this school? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities?

[Type answer here]

D

What are the achievement or pass rates for students in this school by key subjects such as math, reading? Does this differ by grade? By gender? Other key characteristics such as students with special needs or disabilities? How does this school’s performance differ from other schools in this district?

[Type answer here]

E What about repetition rates for students by grade in this school?

[Type answer here]

2

Among children who are currently enrolled in this school, how regular is their attendance? (Probe on attendance by gender, disability etc.)

[Type answer here]

A

What factors contribute to children not attending school? Or dropping out? (Probe: What are the key issues children face in getting to school, staying in school, obtaining a high quality education)? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

3 Are there children in this school from different ethnic backgrounds?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 90

A Different religious backgrounds (if appropriate)?

[Type answer here]

B Different economic backgrounds? [Type answer here]

C Do you see/think they are treated differently by either teachers or other students?

[Type answer here]

4

Are there students with disabilities or other special needs in your class, or in this school? (Probe for types of disabilities or other special needs and how teachers identify/know this information)

[Type answer here]

A

If so, do you feel that teachers, school staff, and other students treat them the same way or differently as children without disabilities or special needs?

[Type answer here]

B

Are there experiences accessing this school any different compared with students who do not have disabilities? How? (Probe for specific examples including any resources or remedial actions that are taken to support these students. What specific equipment exists to support students with special needs or disabilities?)

[Type answer here]

5 What steps does this school take to ensure the physical safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

A What steps does this school take to ensure the emotional safety of all students?

[Type answer here]

B

What types of policies exist? Is there a school vision or mission statement, and if so, what is it? Is there a code of conduct and if so, what are some examples of rules in the CoC?

[Type answer here]

C What trainings are provided to ensure children’s physical safety? What other measures are in place?

[Type answer here]

6 Are there certain areas within the school that are more/less safe than others?

[Type answer here]

A How this vary by differences between children’s physical safety and children’s emotional safety?

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 91

B How does this vary by time of day; children’s age, sex and other characteristics?

[Type answer here]

7

Describe the school environment and how it has changed since 2012. What has been newly built? What has been rehabilitated or refurbished? What elements of the school environment have remained the same? (probes: latrine construction for children with disabilities, landscaping of school grounds; fence construction; new desks, blackboards or other teaching and learning materials)

[Type answer here]

A

Where do children go to the bathroom? Are these locked or usually unlocked? Does this differ for girls or boys? Accessible to children with disabilities? Does the community have access to these facilities?

[Type answer here]

B

Where do you and your students get drinking water from on a daily basis? Have there been any cases of water-borne diseases

[Type answer here]

C

How happy or satisfied are you with these construction efforts or refurbishments? To what extent were you involved in the design, planning and construction supervision?

[Type answer here]

D What could be done to further improve the school environment? What are your priorities?

[Type answer here]

8 In your opinion, how do these changes to the school environment impact on:

[Type answer here]

A

Equitable access to the school? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

B how well children perform in school (e.g. day to day performance, or on annual examinations)?

[Type answer here]

C

how often they will come to school and class attendance. (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

D

children’s emotional, social and physical well-being? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 92

E

your own attendance and participation in school activities, and enthusiasm for teaching? (Probe: Can you tell me about the last time you were absent from school? When was this? What was the reason? Does this happen often or with other teachers?)

[Type answer here]

9

Do you address the need for/maintenance of classrooms, latrines, school grounds, and other aspects of the school environment as part of your curriculum or teaching activities?

[Type answer here]

A What percentage of your annual budget goes towards school development activities?

[Type answer here]

B Are these activities standardized across the school or only for certain grades?

[Type answer here]

C

How successful have each of these activities been? How do you know? For example, have you noticed changes in students’ behaviors inside and outside the classroom after the activities or curricula?

[Type answer here]

10

Do children experience any forms of violence (including bullying, unwanted, aggressive behavior that can be either physical or psychological) or safety issues while at school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

11

How do students typically get to school? (Probe: How far do they typically travel? Do they come on their own or with others? Does this vary by children of different ages? By boys or girls? Other characteristics? Please describe)

[Type answer here]

12

Do children experience any forms of violence or other safety issues while traveling to and from school? (Probe: What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 93

13

How has the SCC-CFS program enhanced or improved the safety of children against common forms of violence? What has changed?

[Type answer here]

14

What forms of community support exist for improving and maintaining this school environment? (Probe first on whether each of these groups exists: School Management Committee, Parent-Teacher Associations, Mothers’ Clubs. Then probe on the specific responsibilities of these groups, and the relationship of these groups with teaching staff and school administrators)

[Type answer here]

A What works well about these forms of support?

[Type answer here]

B In what ways could they be strengthened?

[Type answer here]

C

In what ways does the school involve parents and families in promoting the safety and protection of children, and children’s education?

[Type answer here]

D Is there a community policing forum?

[Type answer here]

15

To what extent has the SCC-CFS program increased capacity of the key stakeholders through participation, training, and guidelines? (Probe: key stakeholders can include parents and community members, mother’s group members, teachers and the head teacher).

[Type answer here]

16

Are there any teachers who have had any in-service training in the last 12 months? Please describe the types of in-service training you or they have received? (Probes: Who managed these trainings? What were the topics? How long were these trainings? Are these trainings sufficient for teachers to understand these topics or are more trainings needed? Why?)

[Type answer here]

A

Were any trainings provided prior to the UNICEF SCC-CFS program? (Probes: We want to understand any differences in training opportunities and in-service teacher support provided before and during the SCC-CFS program. As questions such as: What

[Type answer here]

Form type: Focus group/Discussion (FDG) with Head teachers and Teachers (Respondent 3)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 94

types of trainings? What were the topics? Were these trainings sufficient for teachers to understand these topics or were more trainings needed?)

17

To what extent are the community and parents involved in development, implementation and monitoring of the School Improvement Plan (SIP)? How different was the situation prior to the SCC-CFS program (i.e. in 2012)?

[Type answer here]

18

How has the SCC-CFS Program affected the quality of education in your school? (Probe on equitable access (enrollment and attendance) to this school for all children, including children with special needs and disabilities, any ethnic minority students, etc. Probe also on the quality of education such as the impact of the SCC-CFS program on children’s achievement, teacher attendance, teacher enthusiasm for teaching, etc.)

[Type answer here]

Form type: Interviews with Parents and Community

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 95

Interviews with Parents and Community Date of data entry: [Today’s date] Parent ID (# survey): [Type here partent ID]

Guidelines of this format: Please, fill this form with your notes next to you. You should type your answers in the sections with [grey color] only. When you finish, please, review your answers. Save and name this document with the corresponding district, village and parent ID using the format: IPC_District_Zone_parentID

A. Overall Information

Interviewer: [Interviewer’s Name] Date of interview: [Date of interview] District: [Choose a district from list] Zone: [Choose a zone from list] Time Started: [Type time in format HH:MM] Time ended: [Type time in format

HH:MM] About the person interviewed:

Parent ID (# survey): [Type here partent ID] Age: [Age in years] Sex: [Gender]

Q B. Introductory

4 What is your occupation? [Type answer here]

5 How many children do you have? How old are they? Do you have boys, girls or both

[Type answer here]

6 How long have you been living in this community?

[Type answer here]

B. Focus Group Discussion/Interview

1 How do students typically get to school? Please describe.

[How far do they typically travel? Do they come on their own? Does this vary by children of different ages? By

boys or girls? Other characteristics?]

2

Are there children attending the school in this community from different social/economic/religious/other (e.g. ethnic) backgrounds?

[Type answer here]

a Do you see/think they are treated differently by either teachers or other students?

[Type answer here]

3 Are there children in this school with disabilities?

[Type answer here]

a If so, do you feel that they are offered opportunities to access this school without

[Type answer here]

Form type: Interviews with Parents and Community

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 96

any problems? Are they offered opportunities to receive a quality education? Are they treated poorly by teachers, school staff, and other students?

b

What specific resources, equipment, or remedial help are offered to students with disabilities?

[Type answer here]

4

What steps does this school take to ensure that it is safe for all students? Please describe differences in steps for children’s physical safety and children’s emotional safety

[Type answer here. Describe differences in steps for children´s physical and emotional safety.]

a

What types of policies exist? What trainings are provided? What other measures are in place?

[Type answer here]

b

Do children experience any forms of violence while at school, or around school property? If so, please describe.

[What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other

characteristics?]

c

Do children experience any forms of violence while traveling to and from school? If so, please describe

What forms of violence do children experience? Where do these acts occur? Who are the perpetrators? How do these occurrences vary by children’s age, sex, and other

characteristics?]

d

What happens to teachers who commit any acts of violence, bullying, harassment or abuse against children in this school and community? What happens to students if they commit any acts of violence, bullying, harassment or abuse against other students? Or against teachers?

[Type answer here]

5

Are there certain areas within the school that are more/less safe than others? Please describe differences for children’s physical safety and children’s emotional safety.

[How does this vary by time of day; children’s age, sex and other characteristics?]

6 How would you describe your home/neighborhood?

[Do parents feel their homes are safe, unsafe, when considering children’s physical safety? Children’s

Form type: Interviews with Parents and Community

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 97

emotional safety? Why?) Please provide some specific examples.]

7

What factors contribute to children not attending school in this community? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics

[Type answer here]

a

What factors contribute to children dropping out of school? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics

[Type answer here]

b

What factors contribute to children doing well in school? How does this vary by children’s age, sex, and other characteristics?

[Type answer here]

8

Have you ever received any form of training on how to support your children or children in this community to do well in school? If so, please describe.

[Type answer here]

a How effective was this training?

[Type answer here]

b

What could be done to strengthen the relationship between parents and community members and schools?

[Type answer here]

9

Describe the school environment and how it has changed since 2012. What has been newly built? What has been rehabilitated or refurbished? What elements of the school environment have remained the same?

[Latrine construction for children with disabilities, landscaping of school grounds; fence construction; new

desks, blackboards or other teaching and learning materials]

a

Where do children go to the bathroom? Are these locked or usually unlocked? Accessible to children with disabilities?

[Type answer here]

b Where do you and your students get drinking water from on a daily basis?

[Type answer here]

c How happy or satisfied are you with these construction efforts or refurbishments?

[Type answer here]

d What could be done to further improve the school

[Type answer here]

Form type: Interviews with Parents and Community

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 98

environment? What are your priorities? Please describe

9 In your opinion, how do these changes to the school environment impact on

a children’s enrollment in school

[How does this vary by children’s age, sex, or other characteristics?]

b how well children perform in school.

[Day to day performance, or on annual examinations)? (Probe: how does this vary by children’s age, sex, or

other characteristics?]

c how often they will come to school and attend classes

[How does this vary by children’s age, sex or other characteristics?]

d children’s emotional, social and physical well-being

[How does this vary by children’s age, sex or other characteristics?]

e

your own involvement and

participation in school activities,

and enthusiasm for children’s

education?

[Type answer here]

10

In what ways are parents or community members involved with the teaching and learning activities ongoing at this school, or management of activities at this school?

[Maintenance of classrooms, latrines, school grounds, and other aspects of the school environment, school

feeding program]

11

In your opinion, what programs, policies, or other activities could your children’s school adopt in order to improve the quality of education offered at this school? To reduce dropout? To improve/increase enrolment and attendance?

[Type answer here]

12

What forms of community support exist for improving and maintaining this school environment?

[For example, the role of School Management Committee, Parents-Teachers’ Associations, Mother

Groups, etc.]

13

To what extent are the community and parents involved in development, implementation and monitoring of the School Improvement Plan (SIP)? How different was the situation prior to the SCC-CFS program (i.e. in 2012)? Please, provide specific examples.

[Type answer here]

Form type: Interviews with Parents and Community

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 99

14

How has the SCC-CFS Program affected the quality of education in your school?

[On equitable access (enrollment and attendance) to this school for all children, including children with special

needs and disabilities, any ethnic minority students, etc. Probe also on the quality of education such as the impact

of the SCC-CFS program on children’s achievement, teacher attendance, teacher enthusiasm for teaching,

etc.]

Form type: School Transect Walk

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 100

School Transect Walk with Students Date of data entry: [Today’s date]

Guidelines of this format: Please, fill this form with you notes next to you. You should type your answers in the sections with

[grey color] only.

When you finish, please, review your answers. Save and name this document with the corresponding

district, school name, and student form number using the format: STW_District_SchoolName

A. Overall Information

Facilitator: [Facilitator’s Name]

Note-taker: [Facilitator’s Name]

District: [Choose a district from list] Zone: [Choose a zone from list] Name of school: [Choose a school from list] Date of interview: [Date] Time Started: [Type time in format HH:MM] Time ended: [Type time in format

HH:MM]

Respondent Nmbr.

Respondent ID Age Sex Grade3

1 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

2 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

3 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

4 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

5 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

6 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

7 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

8 [Number ID] [Age in years] [Gender] [Grade nmbr]

B. Responses

1 What do you like about your school?

and would like to have more of?

[Probe: classrooms, playground,

toilets, teachers, friends, sports;

specific subjects, etc.]. Why?

[Type answer here]

2 What do you least like about your

school? Why? [Type answer here]

3 Are there any places within this school

where:

a. Most learners feel

very safe? Why? [Type answer here]

b. Most learners feel

very unsafe? Why?

[Type answer here]

Form type: School Transect Walk

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 101

4 If learners feel unsafe, who do they

report to? [Type answer here]

5 Can you show us any recently built

structures that have been built at this

school? [Probe: classrooms, toilets,

boreholes, playground, landscaping,

etc.].

[Type answer here]

6 How have the new structures/materials

promoted your learning?

[Type answer here]

a. Classrooms;

b. Latrines;

c. Change room for girls;

d. Borehole/tapped

water;

e. New desks;

f. New books

[Type answer here]

7 How has the new infrastructure

promoted access to education for

children with disabilities and other

special needs? [Show us availability of

ramps to toilets/classrooms]

[Type answer here]

8 What type of toilet facilities does the

school have for learners/pupils?

1. Flush toilet [Choose Yes or

No]

2. VIP latrine [Choose Yes

or No]

3. Permanent latrine (with

cement/iron sheets). [Choose

Yes or No]

4. Temporary (with mud &

thatch) [Choose Yes or No]

5. Urinals only [Choose Yes

or No]

6. None [Choose Yes or No]

7. Other (describe) [Type

answer here]

[Type answer here]

9 Do most toilet facilities have

doors/door shutters for privacy?

[Choose Yes or No] c

10 Number of toilet facilities for girls and

boys that have recently been

constructed under UNICEF?

Girls only

[Type number]

Boys only

[Type number]

Joint/Not separate [Type

number]

Total

[Type number]

[Type answer here]

Number of toilet facilities for girls and

boys in total at the moment.

Girls only

[Type number] [Type answer here]

Form type: School Transect Walk

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 102

Boys only

[Type number]

Joint/Not separate [Type

number]

Total

[Type number]

9 Have any of the toilet facilities been

adapted to assist children with

disabilities?

[Choose Yes or No]

[Type answer here]

10 Number of toilet facilities for teachers Female teachers only [Type

number]

Male teachers only [Type

number]

Not separate [Type

number]

Total [Type

number]

[Type answer here]

11

[Interviewer: Please collect data from

the head teacher on enrolment for

boys and girls, to be able to calculate

the toilet:pupil ratio, LATER]. What is

the ratio of pupils to toilets? (see note

below table)

How many girls to one girls’ toilet?

How many boys to one boys’ toilet?

THIS CAN BE CALCULATED USING

SCHOOL PROFILE DATA ON

NUMBERS OF PUPILS AND

NUMBERS OF TOILETS

Girls per one girls toilet:

[Type number]

Boys per one boys toilet:

[Type number]

[Type answer here]

12 In general, are the toilets for girls in

good (not blocked, with door, clean)

condition?

Choose an item for condition.

[Type answer here]

13 In general, are the toilets for boys in

good (not blocked, with door, clean)

condition?

Choose an item for condition.

[Type answer here]

14 What is your perception of the

durability of the newly built UNICEF-

funded classroom blocks?

Choose an item for durability. [Type answer here]

15 What is your perception of the

durability of the newly built UNICEF-

funded toilets?

Choose an item for durability. [Type answer here]

16 What is your perception of the

durability of the newly built UNICEF-

funded water points (e.g. borehole,

piped water, etc.)?

Choose an item for

durability. [Type answer here]

Form type: School Transect Walk

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 103

17 Do learners take very good care of the

newly built facilities? [Type answer here]

18 Is there anything you would like to

change about your school

environment?

[Type answer here]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 104

Annex F. Quantitative Data Entry Tools

Student Questionnaire

Date of data entry: [Today’s date] Student form Number: [1, ,2, 3, etc.]

Guidelines of this format: Please, fill this form with you notes next to you. You should type your answers in the sections with

[grey color] only. For section B, please fill the [ ] with x for the column with the applicable answer.

When you finish, please, review your answers. Save and name this document with the corresponding

district, school name, and student form number using the format:

Student_District_SchoolName_FormNumber.

A. Overall Information

Interviewer: [Interviewer’s Name]

Date of interview: [Date]

District: [Choose a district from list] Village: [Choose a village from list]

About the child interviewed:

Gender: [Gender] Age: [Age in years]

School Name: [Choose a school from list] Grade: [Choose a grade from list]

B. Perceptions of Children’s Safety and Well-being In and Around School

Q Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

1 I feel safe at my school [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

2 My friends are safe within this school. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

3 The school is a welcoming place for my parents [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

4 My parents encourage me to take school seriously

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

5 Adults in the community (e.g. local leaders, nearby business owners) know what goes on inside this school.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

6 Families are involved in making decisions that protect children (help us feel safe and good) at this school

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

7 There are instances where children are unsafe when traveling to and from school.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

8 Violence is a major concern at this school.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 105

9 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

10 Some students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

11 This school is a welcoming place for all types of children, including children with disabilities. Sukuluyi ndivomera ophunzira aliyense kuphatikizapo wolumala

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

12 At this school, students treat one another with respect. Pa sukulu pano ana a sukulu amalemekezana

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

13 Teachers treat students with respect in this school.

Aphunzitsi amalemekeza ana a sukulu pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

14 This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights. (e.g. participating in decisions/matters related to their wellbeing; can speak freely in class)) Ma ufulu a ophunzira amalemekezedwa pa sukulu pano.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

15 There are cases of boys and girls engaging in various forms of violence or harm against one another in this school. Pali nthawi zina pamene ophunzira amachitirana nkhaza pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

16 There are cases of students of different ages engaging in various forms of violence or harm against one another in this school. Pali nthawi zina pamene ana ophunzira okulirapo mu zaka amachitira nkhaza ophunzira ocheperapo mu zaka.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

17 Children with disabilities are at an increased risk of experiencing various forms of violence, harm or exclusion within this school. Ana olumala ali pa chiopsezo chokumana ndi nkhaza monga kusalidwa pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

18 Children of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds are at an increased risk of experiencing various forms of violence, harm or exclusion within this school. Ophunzira azipemphezo kapena mtundu ali pa chiopsezo cha nkhaza zoyinasiyana monga kusalidwa

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

19 Girls face an increased risk of certain forms of violence, abuse or exploitation within this school as compared to boys [R] Astikana ali pa chiopsezo chachikulu chopangidwa nkhaza pa sukulu pano kusiyana ndi anyamata

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 106

20 Students are ridiculed and humiliated at this school. (R ) Ophunzira amasekedwa ndikunyozedwa pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

21 Students are encouraged to participate in school management (e.g. planning school activities). Ophunzira amalimbikisidwa kutenga nawo mbali pa kayendesedwe ka zinthu pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

22 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to participate in school management. Ophunzira onse amapasidwa mwayi wotengapo mbali pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

23 Students of all ethnic or religious backgrounds can participate in school management activities. Ana azipembezo zosiyana si=yama kapena mitundu yosiyanasiyana amaloledwa kutengapo mbali pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

24 Students are afraid to come to this school. (R ) Ophunzira amakhala ndi matha pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

25 At school, decisions are made based on what is best for students. Ziganizo zimapangidwa zokomera ophunzira pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

26 The principal (school director) and other leaders in this school make good decisions. A head ndi akuluakulu ena pa sukulu pano amapanga ziganizo zabwino pa sukulu pano.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

27 Teachers at times hit me to make me behave. [R] Aphunzitsi amandimenya ndikalakwitsa kuti ndisinthe chikhalidwe

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

28 Boys and girls participate in the same school activities/academic classes as one another. Anyamata ndi asikana amatenga mbali mofanana pa zochitika za pasukulu komanso mkalasi

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

29 Boys and girls are treated with equal respect by teachers, and given equal opportunites by teachers as one another Anyamata ndi Atsikana amapasidwa ulemu ndi mwayi wofanana kuchokera kwa aphunzisi

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

30 My school has a written policy on educating all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion. Pasukulu pano pali malamulo ofanana loti azitiphunzitsa tonse mofanana posatengera kusiyana pa zipembezo, kochokera, ulumali etc.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 107

31 Teachers adhere to my school's written policy on educating all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion. Aphunzisi amalemekeza lamulo loti azitiphunzisa mofanana posatengera kusiyana pa zipembezo, kochokera, ulumali etc.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

32 Students with disabilities are excluded from certain classes within this school [R] Ophunzira olumala samaloledwa kuphunzira nawo pasukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

33 Students with disabilities are excluded from school activities compared with other students. [R] Ophunzira olumala amasalidwa pa zochitika zina pa sukulu pano kuyelekeza ophunzira a lunga

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

34 Students of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds are sometimes excluded from classes or activities within this school [R] Ophunzira a zipemphezo zina kapena mitundu ina amasalidwa nthawi zina potenga nawo mbali pa zochitika za mkalasi ndi zina zochitika pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

35 All teachers, students and parents have been told about this school's policy on teacher-student behavior. Aphunzisi, ophunzira ndi Makolo anauzina za lamulo la chikhalidwe cha aphunzisi ndi ophunzira pa sukulu pano.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

36 There is a procedure in place for students to report instances of violence, exploitation or abuse from teachers or other adults. Pali ndondomeko zomwe zinakhakisidwa kuti ana azikanena akachitilidwa nkhaza.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

37 Students are encouraged to make use of the reporting system for any violence they may experience at this school. Ana ophunzira amalimbikisidwa kugwirisa kugwilisa ntchito ndondomeko zomwe zinakhazikisidwa kukanana za nkhaza zomwe akukumana nazo pa sukulu pano

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

38 The school has a system in place for students to report and discuss changes they would like to in their physical school environment. Pa sukulu pali njira zomwe zinakhazikisidwa kuti ophunzira azipereka maganizo awo ndi kukambirana pa zinthu zomwe akufuna kuti zisithe pa sukulupa.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

39 Children at this school are able to provide teachers with feedback on physical changes to their school environment and their satisfaction with these changes. Ophunzira ali ndimwayi wopereka

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 108

maganizo awo pa maonekedwe a sukulu ndi mmene akhutisidwira ndi kusinthako.

40 Teachers who report cases of violence, abuse and exploitation against children may experience stigma or other negative treatment from others at the school or in the community. (R ) Aphunzisi amene amakanena za nkhaza zochitidwa kwa ana amatha kusalidwa pa sukulu kapena mmudzi

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

41 All types of families are encouraged to participate in decision-making at this school, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion. Makolo amalimbikisidwa kutengapo mbali pa sukulu pano posatengera mtundu, kochokera, chilankhulo, ulumali, chipembezo ndi zina.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

42 When students are absent from school for more than a few days, our teachers make direct contact with their families to find out what the problem is and to facilitate the child‘s return to school as soon as possible. Ophunzira akajomba/kukhala ku sukulu kwa masiku ochuluka aphunzisi amalumukizana ndi makolo kuti aziwe chifukwa zojombera ndikuthandizira kuti ophunzirayo abwelere mwamsanga

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

43 School staff contact parents if there are concerns about a student‘s learning or behavior. Aphunzitsi amalumikizana ndi makolo a ophunzira pamaphunziro ndi chikhalidwe chawo.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

44 Physical changes to my school environment (such as new classrooms, new desks, latrines) have increased how often students [see categories below] come to this school and attend classes. Zosintha za pasukulu pano monga makalasi, madesiki ndi zimbuzi zasopano zathandiza kuti ophunzira monga awa azibwela kusukulu molimbika;

Older students (ophunzira akuluakulu)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Younger students (ophunzira aang`ono)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Students with disabilities (ophunzira olumala)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Male students (ophunzira aamuna)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Female students (ophunzira aakazi)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Children from different ethnic backgrounds (mitundu yosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 109

Children from different religious backgrounds

(ophunzira ku zipemphezo zosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Other (please specify):

Type here other category, if needed.

45 Physical changes to my school environment (such as new classrooms, new desks, latrines) have helped children [see categories below] to perform better in their classes.

Older students (ophunzira akuluakulu)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Younger students (ophunzira aang`ono)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Students with disabilities (ophunzira olumala)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Male students (ophunzira aamuna)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Female students (ophunzira aakazi)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Children from different ethnic backgrounds (mitundu yosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Children from different religious backgrounds (ophunzira ku zipemphezo zosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Other (please specify):

Type here other category, if needed.

46 Physical changes to my school environment (such as new classrooms, new desks, or latrines) have stopped children [see categories below]. from dropping out at this school.

Older students (ophunzira akuluakulu)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Younger students (ophunzira aang`ono)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Students with disabilities (ophunzira olumala)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Male students (ophunzira aamuna)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Female students (ophunzira aakazi)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Children from different ethnic backgrounds (mitundu yosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Children from different religious backgrounds (ophunzira ku zipemphezo zosiyana siyana).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Other (please specify):

Type here other category, if needed.

How does each type of physical improvement to my school affect:

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 110

Q Latrines Borehole/ Watertap Desks Classrooms

Playground / recreation

area

Books and other learning

materials

No construction at my school

A Your enrolment in school [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

B Your attendance in school

and classes (how often you

come to school)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

C How well you perform in

school (e.g. day to day

performance, or on annual

examinations)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

D Your teacher's excitement

about teaching? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

E Your emotional wellbeing (e.g.

whether you feel happy or sad

in school or at home, your

sense of safety in the school

environment)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

F Your physical wellbeing (e.g.

your physical safety, health,

development)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

G Your social wellbeing (e.g.

your relationships with other

children in your class or

grade)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 111

School Construction Assessment

ACCESIBILITY

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1

Distance

of

school

from

main

road

Maximum

distance

walked

by

students

to school

Time

taken by

students

to reach

school

School is

accessed

by

vehicles

and non-

motorized

transport

School is

accessed

by foot

only?

Availability

of

classrooms

for all

classes

(Standard

1 to 8)?

Availability

of

permanent

sanitation

facilities

Availability

of access

ramps to

classrooms

Availability

of access

ramps to

toilets

School has

provision of

accommodation

for teachers?

District Zone School KM KM Minutes

> 0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

AESTHETICS

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.1

External

walls are

painted

Internal

walls are

painted

Windows

have

glasses

in good

order

Floor

has no

visible

cracks

Doors

and

windows

hinged

securely

Adequate

lighting in

classrooms

Adequate

lighting in

sanitation

facilities

School has

well

managed

landscaping

including

woodlot and

playgrounds

School is

generally

clean

and has

bins or

provision

for waste

disposal

School has

well marked

posts and

labeled

rooms/doors?

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 112

District Zone School Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

SAFETY AND SECURITY

3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.1

School

has

perimeter

fence

and gate

School

has duly

assigned

personnel

in charge

of day

time

security

School

has duly

assigned

personnel

in charge

of night

time

security

Toilets

have

doors

with

locks

Toilets are

visible from

classrooms

and/or

teachers’

offices

School has

marked

Emergency

Assembly

Area and

direction

signs

Serviced fire

extinguishers

available

Visible

display of

teachers

on duty

on

display

board

Roofing

sheets

well

secured

to

trusses

School

has written

rules or

guidelines

for safety

and

security on

visible

board

District Zone School Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 113

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS UTILIZATION OF LOCAL MATERIALS AND KNOW HOW

4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06

School

has

infrastruc

ture

master

plan

displayed

visibly

School

has

projects

committ

ee with

diverse

member

ship

Projects

committ

ee

meets

regularly

with

other

stakehol

ders

School

maintai

ns

technic

al file

with

details

and

drawing

s of

projects

underta

ken

Project

s

committ

ee

monitor

s all

works

being

underta

ken

Locall

y

availa

ble

skille

d and

qualifi

ed

artisa

ns,

builde

rs

and

forem

en

Local labour used

in

construction/maint

enance works by

project committee

Local labour used

in

construction/maint

enance works by

others

Availab

ility of

buildin

g

materia

ls

locally

(cemen

t, paint,

bricks,

sand

and

quarry)

Availab

ility of

buildin

g

hardwa

re

shops

within

30KM

of

school

Availab

ility of

timber

locally

supplie

d

Distr

ict

Zo

ne School

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes -

1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

USER SATISFACTION WITH CONSTRUCTION

PROCESS AND RESULTS OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION

6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 114

Availability of

copies of

completed

certificates from

contractors/consult

ants

Ease of

operati

on of

facilities

(doors

and

window

s open

easily,

etc.)

Ease of

maintenan

ce of

facilities

Availability

of

maintenanc

e records

Total

floor area

of

classroo

ms

Total

number

of

students

at school

School

operating hours

Availabili

ty of

afternoo

n or

evening

classes

Usage

of

facilitie

s for

extra-

curricul

ar

activitie

s

Usage of

facilities

for

communi

ty

activities

Distri

ct

Zon

e

Scho

ol

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Easy - 1 /

Moderate-

2 / Difficult-

3 /

Complicate

d-4

Yes - 1

No -0

square

meters

>0

number

of

students

>0

open

time

close

time

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - Heat/Ventilation, Light, Sound

8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09

Average

rainfall

for the

district

Temperature

range for the

district

School

has

woodlot

Geographic

position of

school

Approximate

distance of

school from

nearest river

Do

facilities

have

ceilings?

Type of window

Type of

roofing

materials

Distance of

school from

trading

center,

entertainment

centers,

religious

facilities

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 115

District Zone School unit>0 unit>0 Yes - 1

No -0

hill top - 0 /

valley - 1 /

near

stream - 2

KM>0 Yes - 1

No -0

none- 0 / hollow

concrete blocks -

1 / steel grills -2 /

glazed steel

frames - 3 /

timber frames - 4

/ other-5

none -0 /

steel sheets -

1 / concrete

roofing tiles -

2 / grass

thatched - 3

KM

SUSTAINABILITY - ENERGY AND WATER

8.1 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05

Are

classrooms

and toilets

well lit and

well

ventilated?

Source of

power

Average

monthly

energy bill

(per

category of

ESCOM,

generator

fuel,

firewood)

Responsibility

for payment of

electricity bills

Source of

potable

water

Quality of potable water

District Zone School Yes - 1

No -0

none - 0 /

ESCOM

mains -1 /

solar -2 /

generator -

3

$>0 school -1 / DEM

- 2 / other -3

none - 0 /

borehole -

1 / piped

water -2

if scent=yes

- 1, if no - 0

if

turbidity=

yes -1, if

no - 0

if taste for

saltiness=yes -

1, if no - 0

School Construction

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 116

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

9.06 9.07 9.08 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09

Conditi

on of

water

source

and

system

Is there

a Water

and

Sanitatio

n

committ

ee which

meets

regularly

?

Does

the

school

provide

water

buckets

for

student

s?

Any

visible

vertical

or

horizont

al

cracks

on

walls?

Any

visible

cracks or

depressio

ns in

floor?

Type

and

conditio

n of

roof

trusses

?

Facilitie

s have

reinforc

ed

concrete

ring

beam

and

lintels?

Conditi

on of

drainag

e

around

facilities

Cavities or

settlement

around

building

foundation

s?

Ease

of

remov

al of

mortar

Occurrenc

e of

tremors or

earthquak

es in past

5 years

Occurren

ce and

extent of

damage

due to

fire,

heavy

winds or

floods

Distri

ct

Zon

e

Scho

ol

damage

d - 0 /

working

well - 1

/ faulty

but

working

- 2

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Timber

poles -

1 /Steel

- 2 /

Treated

timber

- 3

Yes - 1

No -0

Poor -

0 / Fair

-1 /

Needs

clearing

- 2

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Yes - 1

No -0

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 117

Annex G. Qualitative Code System Code System

Quotes

Education Outcomes

Attendance rate

Factors decreasing attendance

Lack good source of water

Harvest time

Younger attend less

Family childcare

Physical appearance

Employment

Illness

Lack of teachers

Lack of learning and engagement

Age

Violence from teacher

Fighting

Menstruation

Mobility issues for disabled learners

Pregnancy

Overcrowding

Lack of school feeding/hunger

Lack of role models

Location of school (Close to Lake)

Unable to access school due to weather (flooding etc)

Distance

Peer pressure

Lack of interest by students(do other things, play, movies, mar

Emotional violence

Traditional ceremonies

Separation and divorce

Lack of interest by parents/help with house work

Early marriage

Poverty

Inadequate learning materials

Insufficient teacher houses

Inadequate toilets/illness

Inadequate classrooms/getting dirty/weather

Factors increasing attendance

Provide for those in need

Role Models

Rules for parents

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 118

Code System

Special needs teachers

Activities (sports etc)

Mother's groups

Hardworking staff

Teacher taking attendance with follow up

Feeding program

Parental/community encouragement/involvement

Disability friendly infrastructure

General infrastructure improvements

Girls changing room

Classrooms

Toilets

Desks

Learning materials (books)

Improved Performance

Fence

Student attendance by gender

Boys better attendance

Girls better attendance

Factors affecting girls

Factors affecting boys

Enrollment

Factors decreasing enrollment

Low educational quality

Lack of feeding program

Factors increasing enrollment

Access to learning materials

Teacher commitment

Feeding program

General infrastructure improvements/CFS

Toilets

Classrooms

Enrollment by gender

Factors affecting girls

Drop-outs

Factors decreasing drop-outs

Type of learning

Bright students

Teacher encouragement

Community support

Mother's Groups

Hardworking Staff

Rules for Parents

Activities (sports, theatre etc)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 119

Code System

Feeding Program

General Infrastructure Improvements

Factors increasing drop-outs

Inadequate teacher houses

Lack of policies

Puberty

Struggling students (in terms of performance)

Bullying

Inadequate toilets

Community does not value education

Parents relocation/Orphans

Access to school due to weather and distance (flooding etc)

Peer pressure

Lack of role model

Separation and divorce

Inadequate classrooms/getting dirty/weather

Lack of school feeding/hunger

Inadequate learning materials

Employment

Traditional ceremonies

Older students

Pregnancy

Lack of interest by students (do other things, play, movies, ma

Location of school (close to lake)

Lack of interest by parents/help with house work

Early Marriage

Distance

Poverty

Students in senior grades (6-8)

Students in lower grades (1-5)

Drop-outs by gender

Drop out same for boys and girls

Factors affecting boys

Factors affecting girls

More boys drop out

More girls drop out

Pass rates

General bad

General good

Factors decreasing pass rates

Absenteeism

Location of school

Pregnancy

Distance

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 120

Code System

Understaffing

Part time learning

Overage students

Lack of role models

Community does not value education

Students with disabilities performing poorly

No time to study at home/household chores

Lack of infrastructure

Lack of toilets

No teacher houses (travel long distances)

Puberty

Switch from home language to English

Feeding program causes drowsiness

Lack of school feeding/hunger

No Learning materials at home

Negative peer pressure

Lack of interest by students

Factors increasing pass rates

Monitoring by school management committee

Establishing a standard 8 class

Extra classes

Community support

Awards/Competitions

Time to study

Role Models

Uniform

Feeding program

Parent Interest and support

Migrants

Teacher learner relationship

Absence of prejudice

Quiz every term

EGRA and NRP

Strong curriculum (exercises)

Activities (sports etc)

Students with disability performing well

Lower grades better

Upper grades better

Student Interest (hardworking, bright)

Hardworking staff/teachers

Learning materials (books)

General Infrastructure Improvements (motivating)

Toilets

Teacher's Houses

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 121

Code System

Classrooms

Desks

Bribery

Pass rates by gender

Lower grades boys pass more

Higher grades girls pass more

Higher grades boys pass more

Lower grades girls pass more

Equal achievement boys and girls

Boys pass more

Girls pass more

Factors affecting girls

Repetition rates

Underage due to lack of Kinder

improving

General high

Factors decreasing repetition

EGRA/ Reading

General infrastructure improvements

Parent interest and support

Feeding program

Student interest (hardworking)

Role model visits

Attendance

Factors increasing repetition

Understaffing

Underage Lack of Nursery School (grade below 1)

Lack on concentration by students

Lack of interest from parents

Lower grades repeat more

Lack of infrastructure

Lack of classrooms

Lack of teacher's house

Unfamiliar subjects

Switching from home language to English

Absenteeism

Repetition rates by gender

Lower grades boys repeat more

Upper grades boys repeat more

Boys repeat more

Girls repeat more

Teachers

Teacher gender

Teacher attitude

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 122

Code System

Teacher attendance/working rates

Factors decreasing teacher attendance/working

Teacher's housing

Factors increasing teacher attendance/working

Teacher's housing

Teacher attendance/working rates by gender

Effective provision of relevant quality education

Changes in education quality

Perceptions of worsening

Perceptions of improvement

Relevance of learning materials (+)

Quality of teaching

Negative quality of teaching

Positive quality of teaching

School Management and Supporting Organizations

School Management

Community financial contributions

School dev activities SIP (School improvement plan)

Dissatisfaction

School needs/Non-infrastructure needs

Limit on enrollment

Cleaning supplies

Help for disabled learners

Landscaping/Planting trees

School-parent communication and training

School feeding program

Sports equipment

School uniforms and soap for needy learners

Teachers

Books/Exercise Books/Pencils

Desks

Security Guard

Capacity of Stakeholders

Community involvement

Community/teacher dissatisfaction in relationship

Ways to strengthen relationship between comm. & school

Police involvement

Community involvement in building/construction

SMCs/PTAs/MothersClubs/Parents

Mother's club protects children (homes and school)

Mother's club for attendance/drop outs

Mother's club gender specific role/Malawi Girl Guides

Mother's clubs as counselors

Peer guidance/student council

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 123

Code System

Community involvement increasing/improving

Community involvement decreasing/worsening

Community participation in school safety/Community policing

Chief involvement

Linkages w/ other Programs/NGOs/Cooperatives

Trainings

Attended UNICEF training related to project

Trained ourselves

No trainings

School Infrastructure and Construction

Provisions for disabled children

Eye checks

Learn separate from other children

Welfare committee

Lack staff training

Lack equipment and materials

Lack physical provisions (toilets or infrastructure)

given extra time

Staffing and training provisions

Equipment and materials

Physical provisions (ramps, increased light, blackboard etc)

Quality of infrastructure

Stakeholder satisfaction

Stakeholder dissatisfaction/Infrastructure Needs

Playground/Sports grounds

Library needs

Disability infrastructure needs

disability friendly classrooms

Disability knowledgeable staff

Disability toilets

Water access needs

Fence Need

Toilet needs

Teacher Houses needs

Classroom Needs

Additional Infrastructure needs not listed

Girls changing room (+)

Absence of girls changing room

Access to Water

Toilets (+)

Incomplete

Using alternative spaces due to lack of toilets

Septic tank unsafe

Not disability friendly

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 124

Code System

Have no toilets

Without doors

Unlocked and used by community

Unsafe

Collapsed poor condition

In an unsafe area

Writing on wall

Unclean

Maintenance of infrastructure

Ownership/parents maintenance

Not finished

In poor condition

Not well maintained (or only some take care)

Well maintained

Percent of SIP/SIG for maintenance and school development

Safety and Inclusion

Teacher-student interaction

Emotional safety/inclusiveness

Sports, activities, and clubs

General negative emotional safety

Fear

Embarrassment

Vandalizing

Failure to report for futility

Lack of privacy

Verbal humiliation

obscene language

bullying/teasing/harassment

stealing

Favoritism/discrimination

General positive emotional safety

Role models speak

all coexist well

Assistance from teachers

Favorite subjects

Students are not treated differently/treated equally

Emotionally safe space

Treatment of students based on age

Treatment of students of different socio-economic backgrounds

Treatment of children with disabilities

Generally +

Treatment of children based on gender

Desks easier to answer questions

Treatment of children based on religion

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 125

Code System

Treatment of children based on ethnicity/tribe

Physical safety/inclusiveness

Safety with feeding/cooking porridge (+)

Feeding program unsafe

General positive physical safety

No unsafe place

Due to security guards doing their job

General negative physical safety

Need for security

Violence from teacher

Forced marriage

Tabaco use/Alcohol

Sexual activities/assault/rape

Lack of any safe space

Unclean

fighting

Safety by place

Additional classrooms helped safety

Roads/access to school (+)

Working before school/instead of school

Bullying and fighting to/from school

Outsiders accessing school (lack of fence)

Students accessing school/coming to school

Road Unsafe

Community surrounding school

Safety in Classroom

Unsafe due to classroom condition

Unsafe in classroom due to outside influences

Unsafe in classrooms due to crowding

Unsafe in classroom due to inadequate desks

Unsafe in classroom due to teacher

Unsafe in classroom due to cleanliness

Safety on school grounds outdoors (+)

Unsafe due to overcrowding

Unsafe bullies

Unsafe lack of toilet

Unsafe climbing trees

Unsafe outdoors generally

Unsafe woodlot

Unsafe playground

Unsafe due to ditches/holes

Unsafe learning outdoors

Unsafe at water access point

Safety in offices/staffrooms

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 126

Code System

Safety in Library

Safety in teacher's houses

Unsafe teacher's houses

Inclusive Safety

Safety by gender

Gender separated toilets

Safety based on different socio-economic background

Safety by religion

Safety by age

Safety based on ethnicity/tribe

Safety for disabled children

Handwashing

Safe protective and healthy school

Behavior of children

making noise

Lack discipline

playing and running around

Disciplining of students

Code of Conduct/Mission Statement

Lack of policies

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 127

Annex H. Summary of Field Notes by School

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

Blan Bangwe Bilal Darul Uloom

Limited mobility at school, affected the STW.

Muslim boarding school, learners are recruited

from across the country’s Madrassah’s through

aptitude tests.

Blan Zingwang Catholic Institute Scho

School is accessible by all means. There are 5

houses for teachers. Locally supplies timber is

close to school. Completed certificates from

contractors were shown and approved. Has a

disability resource center

Blan Chigumuk Chigodi II School

School is accessible by all means. Classrooms

are available for all classes. Projects

committeess are not active. Facilities

maintenance follows the old model. No source

of power

Blan Lunzu Chiraweni School Also have new classrooms and toilets, not

from this project

Blan Lunzu Likulu School

Standard 4 uses a church as a classroom.

Three classrooms have been constructed.

There is a pit for waste disposal. Projects

committee is comprised of men and women

from SMC and PTA. Projects committee is

building a temporary block. There is no

designated source of potable water.

Blan Lirangwe Lirangwe FP School

School is close to the main road. School is

accessible by all means. Few classrooms have

ramps. There are 3 teacher houses. Only Std 1

through 6 have toilets with locks. Local labour

was used in construction.

Blan Dziwe Macheka School

UNICEF has constructed 6 classes. There are

4 teacher houses. Construction of facilities are

not yet complete. School opens at 7:30 and

cloeses at 15:30 (3:30 PM)

Blan Nankumba Mandimu School

Standard 6 has two blocks. There are 8

permanent sanitation facilities. School is very

hilly. There is no power source.

Blan Naotcha Manyowe LEA School

Hilly terrain between the school and main road.

There is housing for 5 teachers. Onlythe offices

have glass windows. The teacher houses have

power. The terrain of the school and the

location of the classes are not disability

friendly.

Blan Zingwang Maranatha Institute Private school, advised not to conduct

interviews

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 128

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

Blan Dziwe Mbengwe School School was inaccessible due to a collapsed

bridge

Blan Dzunga Mkomadzi School

School is very far from main road. Sanitation

facilities are very clean. Total flood area of

classrooms is hard to measure.

Blan Mpapa Mpapa FP School

Only STD8 class room has ESCOM lighting,

other classrooms use solar energy. School

uses a pit and incinerator for waste disposal.

No data for temperature in the district.

Blan Nankumba Namaela/Namaera/Khunju

School

Std 1 and 2 learn outdoors and there are very

few books. 3 teacher houses are built by

UNICEF and 1 by the government. Only office

windows have glass. Pit available for waste

disposal. School is open from 7:30 to 14:30.

No information about school wood lot. School

is in a valley. School is 1km from a river.

School is 1km from trading centre,

entertainment centres, religious facilities. There

is power in teacher's houses. STW was not

possible because heavy rain.

Blan Limbe Namame School

Some classrooms have painted internal walls.

School is open from 7:30 to 14:30. Roof is

covered with tiles. Disability unfriendly and has

an unreliable water source

Blan Zingwang Namasimba Primary

School

Potable water has normal quality. Listed as

comparison school but had received an earlier

intervention from UNICEF where classrooms

were constructed. Roofing tiles had been

reportedly fallen on learners under heavy storm

conditions.

Blan Bangwe Namatapa School

There is adequate lighting in some places in

the sanitation facilities. Brick fence around

school perimeter is damaged. School opens at

7:30 and closes at 15:30. Only the teacher

houses have good ceilings.

Blan Lunzu Namwiyo LEA School

Paint on internal walls is in good condition.

School has pit and incinerator for waste

disposal. No data for average rainfall in district.

Blan Naotcha Nancholi School

There are 4 houses for teachers. School opens

at 7:30 and closes at 15:30. Doesn't know the

average rainfall in the district.

Blan Lirangwe Nanjere JP School

Most students live on the main road. School

can be accessed by vehicles, but with

difficulties. There are 3 teacher houses. The

interior walls are in good condition. Staff offices

have glass windows. Lighting comes from

windows. The landscaping is done poorly.

There are pits for waste disposal. Marked

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 129

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

posts and labeled doors are in good condition.

Average rainfall is high.

Blan Naotcha Naotcha School Teacher housing for 2 of the 85 teachers. Paint

on external and internal walls is faint.

Blan Mpapa Nasiyaya FP School

School is very far from main road. There are no

toilets available for adult girls. School has 3

houses for teachers. The staff houses have

structural damage

Blan Dzunga Nkaladzi School

Paint on internal walls is in good condition.

Only sunlight in classrooms. Projects

committee has both men and women. No data

for average rainfall in district.

Blan Nankumba St James No data for average rainfall in district.

Blan Limbe St Maria Goretti Girls

Some students use buses to get to school.

School opens at 7:30 and closes at 15:30.

Potable water has normal quality. Listed as

comparison school but had received an earlier

intervention from UNICEF where classrooms

were constructed. Roofing tiles had been

reportedly fallen on learners under heavy storm

conditions*

Lilo Dzenza Chamtambe School

School is accessible by all means. Three

teacher houses. Staff rooms have glass

windows. School landscape is very bumpy.

Projects committee has members of PTA and

SMC. Used local skilled and qualified artisans,

builders and foremen. No specific source of

potable water, it depends on the wells.

Drainage system in facility is nice.

Lilo Chiwoko Chilinde School

School is close to the main road. School is

accessible by all means. Only a few blocks

have ramps. There are three teachers houses.

Internal wall paint is faint. The floor was built by

DFID. Waste disposal bins were stolen. A few

toilets have doors with locks. Written rules or

guidelines for safety and security are

displayed.

Lilo Dzenza Chimpumbulu Teacher’s toilets collapsed before they were

in use.

Lilo Chiwoko Chiwoko School

Teachers were reported under a training under

the National Reading Program thus we only

interviewed the Deputy Head teacher who

temporarily withdrew from the training to

accommodate us.

Lilo Mvunguti Kalambo There are 3 teacher houses. External and

internal walls are partly painted. No information

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 130

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

on copies of completed certificates from

contractors/consultants. NO data for average

rainfall in the district. No data for temperature

range in district.

Lilo Dzenza Yepa JP School

Boys Toilets at the school were reported to

have collapsed a few days after they had been

constructed. So far, they have not been

reconstructed.

Mang Thema Chantulo School There are pits for waste disposal. Water source

and system is working.

Mang Chimwala Chimwalire JP School

The road between the main road and school is

hilly. School is accessible by vehicle, but it is

difficult. School is acceptable by foot and

vehicle. DFID built the accomodations for

teachers. There was damage for a natural

disaster in the last year.

Mang Monkey B Funwe

Internal wall paint condition is very good. There

are pits for waste disposal. Not sure about the

availability of completed contract certificates.

Not sure about the availability of maintenance

records. No data for average rainfall in district.

No data for temperature range in district.

Average monthly energy bill is not applicable

for the school. Responsibility for the payment

of electrical bill is not applicable.

Mang Mkumba Lufalu J. P

A whistle is blown in a safety or security

emergency. Solar panels are part of the

maintenance of the school. School opens at

7:30 and closes at 15:30.

Mang Mdinde Lusalumwe School

School is accessible by all means. The posts

and room labels look smart. Town with building

hardward shops are too far. The facilities are

easy to use. Power source is not applicable.

The water and sanitation committee is very

active.

Mang Mkumba Malindi JP School UNICEF built three of the teacher houses. The

only lightsource is sunlight from the windows.

Mang Chilipa Masakasa School There is housing for 1 teacher only. School

posts and room labels faded with rains.

Mang Mdinde Mdinde School

School has a playground. There is a pit for

waste disposal. Projects committee has SMC

members. Projects committee meets with the

PTA Mothers Group. Projet committee meets

monthly. Does not have a water point. It uses a

water point belonging to the community located

about 300m from the school

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 131

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

Mang Mkumba Nandembo School

Proejct committee includes, teachers, SMC

and PTA members. Projects committee meets

with other stakeholders monthly.

Mang Thema Thema 1 School

There are few teacher accomodations. Not

sure about the availability of construction

contracts. Not sure about the availability of

maintenance records. School opens at 7:30

and closes at 14:30. No data for average

rainfall in district. No data for temperature

range in district. Source of power is not

applicable. Average energy bill is not

applicable. Responsibility for payment of

energy bill is not applicable. Quality of potable

water is good. Previous construction program

with classroom ramps for learners with

disabilities

Nkha St Maria Chikale F.P. School

There are three teacher houses. No funds for

night time security personnel. Only the unicef

toilets have doors with locks. No afternoon or

evening classes. Grounds are not used for

extra-curricular activities. Classes are used for

community events. Only teacher houses have

ceilings. Power is available in teacher houses.

Nkha Ching'om Chilala School School opens at 7:30 and closes at 15:30.

Nkha Chombe Chilundwe

School/Chiwondwe

Some teachers including the head teacher’s

lives were under threat for trying to curb early

Marriages. located in the remotest area with a

very bad road and terrain

Nkha Ching'om Chiole School

Standards 1, 7, and 8 have ramps. Only

accomodations for head teacher. Window

glass in good condition. There are pits for

waste disposal. Boys toilets are visible from

classrooms. Also has new infrastructure not

related to this program

Nkha Kachere Chiomba JP School

School is accessible by all means. There is

adequate lighting in sanitation facilities. Power

comes from a charged battery. No damage due

to fire, heavy winds or floods.

Nkha Chombe Chombe School

Some teachers including the head teacher’s

lives were under threat for trying to curb early

Marriages. School in bad shape. This is a

plantation school.

Nkha Kachere Kande Care and Gardens

School is accessible by all means. There are

two houses for teachers. There are large

cracks on the floors. There are no windows in

sanitation facilities. Toilets are too dark. Not

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 132

District Zone School Name Compiled Notes

enough cash to provide water buckets to

students. has some boarding students

Nkha Ching'om Mdyaka School

Windows are built with no glass fittings. No

data for average rainfall in district. School has

a wood lot. Only the teacher houses have

power, but it does not work.

Nkha Chikwina Mgonapasi J.P. School

The road was bad as such we could not reach

the school. The school has three teachers only

and has classes up to STD6. The Head

teacher was met at Chikwina TDC where he

was interviewed. He did not have most of the

school data with him.

Nkha Bandawe Munkhokwe School

Internal wall paint in good condition. There are

pits for waste disposal. Also has new

infrastructure not related to this program

Phal Khongolo Dzanjo

No data for average rainfall in district. No data

for temperature range in district. Energy source

is not from ESCOM, Solar or generator.

Responsibility for payment of electricty bill is

not applicable.

Phal Migowi Migowi CCAP School Built new classroom block and toilets from the

Local Development Fund

Thyo Goliati Goliat School

Not enough housing to accommodate all

teachers. Windows provide lighting in the

classrooms. Only pits are available for waste

disposal. Needs cleaning. Also has new

construction, not from this project. One of the

schools that was equipped with a resource

center for learners with disabilities

Thyo Luchenza Gunda School

There is an average amount of time for

students to reach the school. There is only

housing for the head teacher. There are pits for

waste disposal. This was a control school.

However, it had received an intervention in an

earlier UNICEF project where several

classrooms were built.

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 133

Annex I. EMIS Dataset Codebook EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

Id school_num MOE code

id year Year

b18 org_status1 Org: Community - Status

b18 org_meetfreq1 Org: Community - Meet freq

b18 org_status2 Org: PTA - Status

b18 org_meetfreq2 Org: PTA - Meet freq

b18 org_status3 Org: SMC - Status

b18 org_meetfreq3 Org: SMC - Meet freq

b18 org_status4 Org: Mother group - Status

b18 org_meetfreq4 Org: Mother group - Meet freq

c1 enroll_age_g1_m_total Enrollment: g1 male

c1 enroll_age_g1_f_total Enrollment: g1 female

c1 enroll_age_g1_mf_total Enrollment: g1 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g2_m_total Enrollment: g2 male

c1 enroll_age_g2_f_total Enrollment: g2 female

c1 enroll_age_g2_mf_total Enrollment: g2 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g3_m_total Enrollment: g3 male

c1 enroll_age_g3_f_total Enrollment: g3 female

c1 enroll_age_g3_mf_total Enrollment: g3 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g4_m_total Enrollment: g4 male

c1 enroll_age_g4_f_total Enrollment: g4 female

c1 enroll_age_g4_mf_total Enrollment: g4 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g5_m_total Enrollment: g5 male

c1 enroll_age_g5_f_total Enrollment: g5 female

c1 enroll_age_g5_mf_total Enrollment: g5 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g6_m_total Enrollment: g6 male

c1 enroll_age_g6_f_total Enrollment: g6 female

c1 enroll_age_g6_mf_total Enrollment: g6 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g7_m_total Enrollment: g7 male

c1 enroll_age_g7_f_total Enrollment: g7 female

c1 enroll_age_g7_mf_total Enrollment: g7 male & female

c1 enroll_age_g8_m_total Enrollment: g8 male

c1 enroll_age_g8_f_total Enrollment: g8 female

c1 enroll_age_g8_mf_total Enrollment: g8 male & female

c1 enroll_age_gall_m_total Enrollment: Total male

c1 enroll_age_gall_f_total Enrollment: Total female

c1 enroll_age_gall_mf_total Enrollment: Total male & female

c3 orp_g1_m_total Orphans: g1 male

c3 orp_g1_f_total Orphans: g1 female

c3 orp_g1_mf_total Orphans: g1 male & female

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 134

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

c3 orp_g2_m_total Orphans: g2 male

c3 orp_g2_f_total Orphans: g2 female

c3 orp_g2_mf_total Orphans: g2 male & female

c3 orp_g3_m_total Orphans: g3 male

c3 orp_g3_f_total Orphans: g3 female

c3 orp_g3_mf_total Orphans: g3 male & female

c3 orp_g4_m_total Orphans: g4 male

c3 orp_g4_f_total Orphans: g4 female

c3 orp_g4_mf_total Orphans: g4 male & female

c3 orp_g5_m_total Orphans: g5 male

c3 orp_g5_f_total Orphans: g5 female

c3 orp_g5_mf_total Orphans: g5 male & female

c3 orp_g6_m_total Orphans: g6 male

c3 orp_g6_f_total Orphans: g6 female

c3 orp_g6_mf_total Orphans: g6 male & female

c3 orp_g7_m_total Orphans: g7 male

c3 orp_g7_f_total Orphans: g7 female

c3 orp_g7_mf_total Orphans: g7 male & female

c3 orp_g8_m_total Orphans: g8 male

c3 orp_g8_f_total Orphans: g8 female

c3 orp_g8_mf_total Orphans: g8 male & female

c3 orp_gall_m_total Orphans: Total male

c3 orp_gall_f_total Orphans: Total female

c3 orp_gall_mf_total Orphans: Total male & female

c4 spec_g1_m_total Special needs: g1 male

c4 spec_g1_f_total Special needs: g1 female

c4 spec_g1_mf_total Special needs: g1 male & female

c4 spec_g2_m_total Special needs: g2 male

c4 spec_g2_f_total Special needs: g2 female

c4 spec_g2_mf_total Special needs: g2 male & female

c4 spec_g3_m_total Special needs: g3 male

c4 spec_g3_f_total Special needs: g3 female

c4 spec_g3_mf_total Special needs: g3 male & female

c4 spec_g4_m_total Special needs: g4 male

c4 spec_g4_f_total Special needs: g4 female

c4 spec_g4_mf_total Special needs: g4 male & female

c4 spec_g5_m_total Special needs: g5 male

c4 spec_g5_f_total Special needs: g5 female

c4 spec_g5_mf_total Special needs: g5 male & female

c4 spec_g6_m_total Special needs: g6 male

c4 spec_g6_f_total Special needs: g6 female

c4 spec_g6_mf_total Special needs: g6 male & female

c4 spec_g7_m_total Special needs: g7 male

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 135

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

c4 spec_g7_f_total Special needs: g7 female

c4 spec_g7_mf_total Special needs: g7 male & female

c4 spec_g8_m_total Special needs: g8 male

c4 spec_g8_f_total Special needs: g8 female

c4 spec_g8_mf_total Special needs: g8 male & female

c4 spec_gall_m_total Special needs: Total male

c4 spec_gall_f_total Special needs: Total female

c4 spec_gall_mf_total Special needs: Total male & female

c5 rep_g1_m Repeaters: g1 male

c5 rep_g1_f Repeaters: g1 female

c5 rep_g2_m Repeaters: g2 male

c5 rep_g2_f Repeaters: g2 female

c5 rep_g3_m Repeaters: g3 male

c5 rep_g3_f Repeaters: g3 female

c5 rep_g4_m Repeaters: g4 male

c5 rep_g4_f Repeaters: g4 female

c5 rep_g5_m Repeaters: g5 male

c5 rep_g5_f Repeaters: g5 female

c5 rep_g6_m Repeaters: g6 male

c5 rep_g6_f Repeaters: g6 female

c5 rep_g7_m Repeaters: g7 male

c5 rep_g7_f Repeaters: g7 female

c5 rep_g8_m Repeaters: g8 male

c5 rep_g8_f Repeaters: g8 female

c5 rep_gall_m Repeaters: Total male

c5 rep_gall_f Repeaters: Total female

c5 rep_g1_mf Repeaters: g1 male & female

c5 rep_g2_mf Repeaters: g2 male & female

c5 rep_g3_mf Repeaters: g3 male & female

c5 rep_g4_mf Repeaters: g4 male & female

c5 rep_g5_mf Repeaters: g5 male & female

c5 rep_g6_mf Repeaters: g6 male & female

c5 rep_g7_mf Repeaters: g7 male & female

c5 rep_g8_mf Repeaters: g8 male & female

c5 rep_gall_mf Repeaters: Total male & female

c7 trans_g1_m_total Transfers: g1 male

c7 trans_g1_f_total Transfers: g1 female

c7 trans_g1_mf_total Transfers: g1 male & female

c7 trans_g2_m_total Transfers: g2 male

c7 trans_g2_f_total Transfers: g2 female

c7 trans_g2_mf_total Transfers: g2 male & female

c7 trans_g3_m_total Transfers: g3 male

c7 trans_g3_f_total Transfers: g3 female

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 136

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

c7 trans_g3_mf_total Transfers: g3 male & female

c7 trans_g4_m_total Transfers: g4 male

c7 trans_g4_f_total Transfers: g4 female

c7 trans_g4_mf_total Transfers: g4 male & female

c7 trans_g5_m_total Transfers: g5 male

c7 trans_g5_f_total Transfers: g5 female

c7 trans_g5_mf_total Transfers: g5 male & female

c7 trans_g6_m_total Transfers: g6 male

c7 trans_g6_f_total Transfers: g6 female

c7 trans_g6_mf_total Transfers: g6 male & female

c7 trans_g7_m_total Transfers: g7 male

c7 trans_g7_f_total Transfers: g7 female

c7 trans_g7_mf_total Transfers: g7 male & female

c7 trans_g8_m_total Transfers: g8 male

c7 trans_g8_f_total Transfers: g8 female

c7 trans_g8_mf_total Transfers: g8 male & female

c7 trans_gall_m_total Transfers: Total male

c7 trans_gall_f_total Transfers: Total female

c7 trans_gall_mf_total Transfers: Total male & female

c8 drop_g1_m_total Dropout: g1 male

c8 drop_g1_f_total Dropout: g1 female

c8 drop_g1_mf_total Dropout: g1 male & female

c8 drop_g2_m_total Dropout: g2 male

c8 drop_g2_f_total Dropout: g2 female

c8 drop_g2_mf_total Dropout: g2 male & female

c8 drop_g3_m_total Dropout: g3 male

c8 drop_g3_f_total Dropout: g3 female

c8 drop_g3_mf_total Dropout: g3 male & female

c8 drop_g4_m_total Dropout: g4 male

c8 drop_g4_f_total Dropout: g4 female

c8 drop_g4_mf_total Dropout: g4 male & female

c8 drop_g5_m_total Dropout: g5 male

c8 drop_g5_f_total Dropout: g5 female

c8 drop_g5_mf_total Dropout: g5 male & female

c8 drop_g6_m_total Dropout: g6 male

c8 drop_g6_f_total Dropout: g6 female

c8 drop_g6_mf_total Dropout: g6 male & female

c8 drop_g7_m_total Dropout: g7 male

c8 drop_g7_f_total Dropout: g7 female

c8 drop_g7_mf_total Dropout: g7 male & female

c8 drop_g8_m_total Dropout: g8 male

c8 drop_g8_f_total Dropout: g8 female

c8 drop_g8_mf_total Dropout: g8 male & female

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 137

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

c8 drop_gall_m_total Dropout: Total male

c8 drop_gall_f_total Dropout: Total female

c8 drop_gall_mf_total Dropout: Total male & female

c8 drop_gall_mf_1 Dropout: Total male & female, Family responsibilities

c8 drop_gall_mf_2 Dropout: Total male & female, Pregnancy

c8 drop_gall_mf_3 Dropout: Total male & female, Marriage

c8 drop_gall_mf_4 Dropout: Total male & female, Fees (unable to pay)

c8 drop_gall_mf_5 Dropout: Total male & female, Employment

c8 drop_gall_mf_6 Dropout: Total male & female, Sickness

c8 drop_gall_mf_7 Dropout: Total male & female, Poor Facilities

c8 drop_gall_mf_8 Dropout: Total male & female, Availability of

Teachers

c8 drop_gall_mf_9 Dropout: Total male & female, Long distances

c8 drop_gall_mf_10 Dropout: Total male & female, Violence

c8 drop_gall_mf_11 Dropout: Total male & female, Other

c9 exam_entered_m Exam: entered male

c9 exam_entered_f Exam: entered female

c9 exam_sat_m Exam: sat male

c9 exam_sat_f Exam: sat female

c9 exam_failed_m Exam: failed male

c9 exam_failed_f Exam: failed female

c9 exam_passed_m Exam: passed male

c9 exam_passed_f Exam: passed female

c9 exam_selected_m Exam: selected male

c9 exam_selected_f Exam: selected female

d1a buil_inusecompletep_1 Building: Classroom, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_1 Building: Classroom, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_1 Building: Classroom, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_1 Building: Classroom, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_1 Building: Classroom, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_1 Building: Classroom, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_2 Building: Special needs room, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_2 Building: Special needs room, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_2 Building: Special needs room, In construcc &

permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_2 Building: Special needs room, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_2 Building: Special needs room, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_2 Building: Special needs room, Required perm (exc

under construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_3 Building: Libraries, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_3 Building: Libraries, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_3 Building: Libraries, In construcc & permanent

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 138

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_3 Building: Libraries, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_3 Building: Libraries, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_3 Building: Libraries, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_4 Building: Store room, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_4 Building: Store room, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_4 Building: Store room, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_4 Building: Store room, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_4 Building: Store room, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_4 Building: Store room, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_5 Building: Workshop, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_5 Building: Workshop, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_5 Building: Workshop, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_5 Building: Workshop, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_5 Building: Workshop, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_5 Building: Workshop, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_6 Building: HT office, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_6 Building: HT office, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_6 Building: HT office, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_6 Building: HT office, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_6 Building: HT office, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_6 Building: HT office, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_7 Building: General Office, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_7 Building: General Office, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_7 Building: General Office, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_7 Building: General Office, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_7 Building: General Office, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_7 Building: General Office, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_8 Building: Staff Rooms, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_8 Building: Staff Rooms, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_8 Building: Staff Rooms, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_8 Building: Staff Rooms, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_8 Building: Staff Rooms, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_8 Building: Staff Rooms, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_9 Building: Rec Hall, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_9 Building: Rec Hall, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_9 Building: Rec Hall, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_9 Building: Rec Hall, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_9 Building: Rec Hall, Require rehabilitation

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 139

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

d1a buil_required_9 Building: Rec Hall, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_10 Building: Kitchen, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_10 Building: Kitchen, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_10 Building: Kitchen, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_10 Building: Kitchen, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_10 Building: Kitchen, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_10 Building: Kitchen, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1a buil_inusecompletep_11 Building: Teacher Houses, Completed & in use

d1a buil_inusecompletet_11 Building: Teacher Houses, Completed & temp

d1a buil_inuseincompletep_11 Building: Teacher Houses, In construcc & permanent

d1a buil_inuseincompletet_11 Building: Teacher Houses, In construcc & temp

d1a buil_rehab_11 Building: Teacher Houses, Require rehabilitation

d1a buil_required_11 Building: Teacher Houses, Required perm (exc under

construction)

d1b sani_flushtoiletsused_1 Sanitary: Girls, Flush Toilets, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsuc_1 Sanitary: Girls, Flush Toilets, In const

d1b sani_pitimpused_1 Sanitary: Girls, Pit Latrine, In use

d1b sani_pitimpuc_1 Sanitary: Girls, Pit Latrine, In const

d1b sani_pitbas_1 Sanitary: Girls, Pit Basic, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpused_1 Sanitary: Girls, Urinal Improved, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpuc_1 Sanitary: Girls, Urinal Improved, In const

d1b sani_urinalbas_1 Sanitary: Girls, Urinal Basic, In const

d1b sani_washimpused_1 Sanitary: Girls, Hand Wash Improved, In use

d1b sani_washimpuc_1 Sanitary: Girls, Hand Wash Improved, In const

d1b sani_washbas_1 Sanitary: Girls, Hand Wash Basic, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsused_2 Sanitary: Boys, Flush Toilets, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsuc_2 Sanitary: Boys, Flush Toilets, In const

d1b sani_pitimpused_2 Sanitary: Boys, Pit Latrine, In use

d1b sani_pitimpuc_2 Sanitary: Boys, Pit Latrine, In const

d1b sani_pitbas_2 Sanitary: Boys, Pit Basic, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpused_2 Sanitary: Boys, Urinal Improved, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpuc_2 Sanitary: Boys, Urinal Improved, In const

d1b sani_urinalbas_2 Sanitary: Boys, Urinal Basic, In const

d1b sani_washimpused_2 Sanitary: Boys, Hand Wash Improved, In use

d1b sani_washimpuc_2 Sanitary: Boys, Hand Wash Improved, In const

d1b sani_washbas_2 Sanitary: Boys, Hand Wash Basic, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsused_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Flush Toilets, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsuc_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Flush Toilets, In const

d1b sani_pitimpused_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Pit Latrine, In use

d1b sani_pitimpuc_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Pit Latrine, In const

d1b sani_pitbas_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Pit Basic, In use

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 140

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

d1b sani_urinalimpused_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Urinal Improved, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpuc_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Urinal Improved, In const

d1b sani_urinalbas_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Urinal Basic, In const

d1b sani_washimpused_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Hand Wash Improved, In use

d1b sani_washimpuc_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Hand Wash Improved, In

const

d1b sani_washbas_3 Sanitary: Female Staff, Hand Wash Basic, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsused_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Flush Toilets, In use

d1b sani_flushtoiletsuc_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Flush Toilets, In const

d1b sani_pitimpused_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Pit Latrine, In use

d1b sani_pitimpuc_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Pit Latrine, In const

d1b sani_pitbas_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Pit Basic, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpused_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Urinal Improved, In use

d1b sani_urinalimpuc_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Urinal Improved, In const

d1b sani_urinalbas_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Urinal Basic, In const

d1b sani_washimpused_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Hand Wash Improved, In use

d1b sani_washimpuc_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Hand Wash Improved, In const

d1b sani_washbas_4 Sanitary: Male Staff, Hand Wash Basic, In use

d2a perm_g1_1 Classroom: g1 Permanent

d2a perm_g2_1 Classroom: g2 Permanent

d2a perm_g3_1 Classroom: g3 Permanent

d2a perm_g4_1 Classroom: g4 Permanent

d2a perm_g5_1 Classroom: g5 Permanent

d2a perm_g6_1 Classroom: g6 Permanent

d2a perm_g7_1 Classroom: g7 Permanent

d2a perm_g8_1 Classroom: g8 Permanent

d2a perm_gall_1 Classroom: Total Permanent

d2a perm_g1_2 Classroom: g1 Temporary

d2a perm_g2_2 Classroom: g2 Temporary

d2a perm_g3_2 Classroom: g3 Temporary

d2a perm_g4_2 Classroom: g4 Temporary

d2a perm_g5_2 Classroom: g5 Temporary

d2a perm_g6_2 Classroom: g6 Temporary

d2a perm_g7_2 Classroom: g7 Temporary

d2a perm_g8_2 Classroom: g8 Temporary

d2a perm_gall_2 Classroom: Total Temporary

d2a perm_g1_total Classroom: g1 Total

d2a perm_g2_total Classroom: g2 Total

d2a perm_g3_total Classroom: g3 Total

d2a perm_g4_total Classroom: g4 Total

d2a perm_g5_total Classroom: g5 Total

d2a perm_g6_total Classroom: g6 Total

d2a perm_g7_total Classroom: g7 Total

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 141

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

d2a perm_g8_total Classroom: g8 Total

d2a perm_gall_total Classroom: Total Total

d2b open_g1 Open air classroom: g1

d2b open_g2 Open air classroom: g2

d2b open_g3 Open air classroom: g3

d2b open_g4 Open air classroom: g4

d2b open_g5 Open air classroom: g5

d2b open_g6 Open air classroom: g6

d2b open_g7 Open air classroom: g7

d2b open_g8 Open air classroom: g8

d2b open_gall Open air classroom: Total

d7a1 fstudent_damag_1 Furniture Students:Desk Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_1 Furniture Students:Desk Required

d7a1 fstudent_damag_3 Furniture Students:Stool Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_3 Furniture Students:Stool Required

d7a1 fstudent_damag_5 Furniture Students:Bench Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_5 Furniture Students:Bench Required

d7a1 fstudent_damag_7 Furniture Students:Forms Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_7 Furniture Students:Forms Required

d7a1 fstudent_damag_9 Furniture Students:Tables Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_9 Furniture Students:Tables Required

d7a1 fstudent_damag_11 Furniture Students:Chair Damaged

d7a1 fstudent_req_11 Furniture Students:Chair Required

d7a1 fstudent_total_1 Furniture Students:Desk Total

d7a1 fstudent_total_3 Furniture Students:Stool Total

d7a1 fstudent_total_5 Furniture Students:Bench Total

d7a1 fstudent_total_7 Furniture Students:Forms Total

d7a1 fstudent_total_9 Furniture Students:Tables Total

d7a1 fstudent_total_11 Furniture Students:Chair Total

d7a2 fteach_damag_2 Furniture Teachers:Desk Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_2 Furniture Teachers:Desk Required

d7a2 fteach_damag_4 Furniture Teachers:Stool Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_4 Furniture Teachers:Stool Required

d7a2 fteach_damag_6 Furniture Teachers:Bench Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_6 Furniture Teachers:Bench Required

d7a2 fteach_damag_8 Furniture Teachers:Forms Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_8 Furniture Teachers:Forms Required

d7a2 fteach_damag_10 Furniture Teachers:Tables Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_10 Furniture Teachers:Tables Required

d7a2 fteach_damag_12 Furniture Teachers:Chair Damaged

d7a2 fteach_req_12 Furniture Teachers:Chair Required

d7a2 fteach_total_2 Furniture Teachers:Desk Total

d7a2 fteach_total_4 Furniture Teachers:Stool Total

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 142

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

d7a2 fteach_total_6 Furniture Teachers:Bench Total

d7a2 fteach_total_8 Furniture Teachers:Forms Total

d7a2 fteach_total_10 Furniture Teachers:Tables Total

d7a2 fteach_total_12 Furniture Teachers:Chair Total

e1 book_gall_2

e1 book_gall_3

e1 book_gall_4

e1 book_gall_5

e1 book_gall_6

e1 book_gall_7

e1 book_gall_8

e1 book_gall_9

e1 book_gall_11

e1 book_gall_12

e1 book_gall_13

e1 book_gall_14

e1 book_g1_total

e1 book_g2_total

e1 book_g3_total

e1 book_g4_total

e1 book_g5_total

e1 book_g6_total

e1 book_g7_total

e1 book_g8_total

e1 book_gall_total

e2 guide_gall_1

e2 guide_gall_2

e2 guide_gall_3

e2 guide_gall_4

e2 guide_gall_5

e2 guide_gall_6

e2 guide_gall_7

e2 guide_gall_8

e2 guide_gall_9

e2 guide_gall_11

e2 guide_gall_12

e2 guide_gall_13

e2 guide_gall_14

e2 guide_g1_total

e2 guide_g2_total

e2 guide_g3_total

e2 guide_g4_total

e2 guide_g5_total

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 143

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

e2 guide_g6_total

e2 guide_g7_total

e2 guide_g8_total

e2 guide_gall_total

f1 filled_m_1 Teachers: filled, PT4(TL), male

f1 filled_f_1 Teachers: PT4(TL) female

f1 filled_mf_1 Teachers: PT4(TL) male & female

f1 filled_m_2 Teachers: PT3(TK) male

f1 filled_f_2 Teachers: PT3(TK) female

f1 filled_mf_2 Teachers: PT3(TK) male & female

f1 filled_m_3 Teachers: PT2(TJ) male

f1 filled_f_3 Teachers: PT2(TJ) female

f1 filled_mf_3 Teachers: PT2(TJ) male & female

f1 filled_m_4 Teachers: PT1(TI) male

f1 filled_f_4 Teachers: PT1(TI) female

f1 filled_mf_4 Teachers: PT1(TI) male & female

f1 filled_m_5 Teachers: P8(TH) male

f1 filled_f_5 Teachers: P8(TH) female

f1 filled_mf_5 Teachers: P8(TH) male & female

f1 filled_m_6 Teachers: Temporary Teachers male

f1 filled_f_6 Teachers: Temporary Teachers female

f1 filled_mf_6 Teachers: Temporary Teachers male & female

f1 filled_m_7 Teachers: Month to Month male

f1 filled_f_7 Teachers: Month to Month female

f1 filled_mf_7 Teachers: Month to Month male & female

f1 filled_m_8 Teachers: Volunteers male

f1 filled_f_8 Teachers: Volunteers female

f1 filled_mf_8 Teachers: Volunteers male & female

f1 filled_m_9 Teachers: Private Sch Teachers male

f1 filled_f_9 Teachers: Private Sch Teachers female

f1 filled_mf_9 Teachers: Private Sch Teachers male & female

f1 filled_mf_gall Teachers: Total male & female

f5 teach_teach_num Teachers: Total

f5 teach_female Teachers: Total Female

f5 teach_periodswk Teachers: Total Teache rperiods /week

f5 teach_academicqual Teachers: Total teachers' periods /week

f5 teach_teachertrain Teachers: Avg teachers' trainning

f5 teach_female_per Teachers: Perc Female

f5 teach_periods_perc Teachers: Periods

f5 teach_hrsday Teachers: Hours/day

we water Water

we elec Electricity

reprate_g1_m Repetition rate: g1 male

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 144

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

reprate_g1_f Repetition rate: g1 female

reprate_g2_m Repetition rate: g2 male

reprate_g2_f Repetition rate: g2 female

reprate_g3_m Repetition rate: g3 male

reprate_g3_f Repetition rate: g3 female

reprate_g4_m Repetition rate: g4 male

reprate_g4_f Repetition rate: g4 female

reprate_g5_m Repetition rate: g5 male

reprate_g5_f Repetition rate: g5 female

reprate_g6_m Repetition rate: g6 male

reprate_g6_f Repetition rate: g6 female

reprate_g7_m Repetition rate: g7 male

reprate_g7_f Repetition rate: g7 female

reprate_g8_m Repetition rate: g8 male

reprate_g8_f Repetition rate: g8 female

reprate_gall_m Repetition rate: Total male

reprate_gall_f Repetition rate: Total female

reprate_g1_mf Repetition rate: g1 male & female

reprate_g2_mf Repetition rate: g2 male & female

reprate_g3_mf Repetition rate: g3 male & female

reprate_g4_mf Repetition rate: g4 male & female

reprate_g5_mf Repetition rate: g5 male & female

reprate_g6_mf Repetition rate: g6 male & female

reprate_g7_mf Repetition rate: g7 male & female

reprate_g8_mf Repetition rate: g8 male & female

reprate_gall_mf Repetition rate: Total male & female

droprate_g1_m Dropout rate: g1 male

droprate_g1_f Dropout rate: g1 female

droprate_g1_mf Dropout rate: g1 male & female

droprate_g2_m Dropout rate: g2 male

droprate_g2_f Dropout rate: g2 female

droprate_g2_mf Dropout rate: g2 male & female

droprate_g3_m Dropout rate: g3 male

droprate_g3_f Dropout rate: g3 female

droprate_g3_mf Dropout rate: g3 male & female

droprate_g4_m Dropout rate: g4 male

droprate_g4_f Dropout rate: g4 female

droprate_g4_mf Dropout rate: g4 male & female

droprate_g5_m Dropout rate: g5 male

droprate_g5_f Dropout rate: g5 female

droprate_g5_mf Dropout rate: g5 male & female

droprate_g6_m Dropout rate: g6 male

droprate_g6_f Dropout rate: g6 female

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 145

EMIS

Indicator Variable name Label

droprate_g6_mf Dropout rate: g6 male & female

droprate_g7_m Dropout rate: g7 male

droprate_g7_f Dropout rate: g7 female

droprate_g7_mf Dropout rate: g7 male & female

droprate_g8_m Dropout rate: g8 male

droprate_g8_f Dropout rate: g8 female

droprate_g8_mf Dropout rate: g8 male & female

droprate_gall_m Dropout rate: Total male

droprate_gall_f Dropout rate: Total female

droprate_gall_mf Dropout rate: Total male & female

droprate_gall_mf_1 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Family

responsabilities droprate_gall_mf_2 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Pregnancy

droprate_gall_mf_3 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Marriage

droprate_gall_mf_4 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Fees (unable to

pay) droprate_gall_mf_5 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Employment

droprate_gall_mf_6 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Sickness

droprate_gall_mf_7 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Poor Facilities

droprate_gall_mf_8 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Availability of

Teachers droprate_gall_mf_9 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Long distances

droprate_gall_mf_10 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Violence

droprate_gall_mf_11 Dropout rate: Total male & female, Other

examra_failed_m Exam rates: failed male

examra_failed_f Exam rates: failed female

examra_passed_m Exam rates: passed male

examra_passed_f Exam rates: passed female

examra_selected_m Exam rates: selected male

examra_selected_f Exam rates: selected female

examra_failed_mf Exam rates: failed male & female

examra_selected_mf Exam rates: selected male & female

examra_passed_mf Exam rates: passed male & female

exam_passed_mf Exam: passed male & female

exam_entered_mf Exam: entered male & female

exam_sat_mf Exam: sat male & female

exam_failed_mf Exam: failed male & female

exam_selected_mf Exam: selected male & female

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 146

Annex J. DD and Regression Models

Difference-in-Differences Models by phase of construction

Enrollment ratei = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + β3 Postt + β4 (SCC CFS*Post)it + ε

Dropout ratei = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + β3 Postt + β4 (SCC CFS*Post)it + ε

Repetition ratei = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + β3 Postt + β4 (SCC CFS*Post)it + ε

Passing ratei = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + β3 Postt + β4 (SCC CFS*Post)it + ε

Where:

SCC CFS is a dummy variable, with 1 = if the school is part of the treatment group,

Post is a dummy variable with 1 = post-intervention years according to the phases of the school

construction,

β4 = the coefficient of interest – i.e. the one that captures the causal effect of the SCC-CFS, the interaction

between the treatment and the post-intervention dummies.20

Regression Models

Enrollment ratei-2016 = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + Enrollment ratei-2012 + ε

Dropout ratei -2016= β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + Dropout ratei -2012 + ε

Repetition ratei-2016 = β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + Repetition ratei-2012 + ε

Passing ratei -2016= β1 + β2 SCC CFSi + Passing ratei -2012+ ε

Where:

SCC CFS is a dummy variable, with 1 = if the school is part of the treatment group and the coefficient of

interest fro the regression models with the baseline data as a controlling variable. .

20 In regular regression analyses, including additional controls to the models tend to improve the explanatory power. However, in the DD context none of these contribute to the causal estimation as the only coefficient with causal explanatory power is β4.

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 147

Annex K. DD Models Results

In this Annex includes the tables of results of all the models estimating the impact of SCC-CFS on enrollment, dropout rates, repetition rates, and

passing rates disaggregated by sex and by grade (when possible) for both of the sub-samples by phases of construction: 1) Blantyre/Lilongwe and

2) Rest of the districts. Grades are identified by the columns g1, g2, g3, etc. Sex disaggregation is indicated by _m for male, _f for female and _mf

for the combined samples of male and females. The coefficient of interest indicating the causal impact of the SCC-CFS program can be found in

the Diff-in-diff row, significant results are bolded.

Enrollment by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Time 2013 -3.891 -10.35 -14.24 -2.493 1.191 -1.301 11.04 63.33 74.37 2.581 8.035 10.62

(16.71) (17.53) (32.38) (16.68) (19.30) (33.59) (17.66) (51.98) (59.87) (17.58) (20.46) (35.86)

SCC-CFS -33.87* -56.76*** -90.63*** -56.89*** -79.60*** -136.5*** -45.20** -84.28 -129.5** -64.15*** -91.25*** -155.4***

(17.80) (18.67) (34.49) (17.76) (20.56) (35.78) (18.81) (55.37) (63.77) (18.72) (21.79) (38.20)

Diff-in-diff 8.729 15.93 24.66 15.66 14.76 30.42 3.384 -48.71 -45.33 15.56 15.94 31.49

(23.54) (24.68) (45.60) (23.49) (27.18) (47.31) (24.87) (73.21) (84.32) (24.75) (28.81) (50.50)

Constant 138.7*** 163.0*** 301.8*** 136.9*** 163.2*** 300.2*** 128.0*** 166.3*** 294.3*** 132.3*** 159.5*** 291.7***

(12.65) (13.26) (24.50) (12.62) (14.60) (25.42) (13.36) (39.34) (45.30) (13.30) (15.48) (27.14)

Observations 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

R-squared 0.025 0.060 0.046 0.067 0.104 0.098 0.052 0.043 0.060 0.080 0.124 0.114

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 148

Enrollment by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Time 2013 9.387 24.28 33.66 7.021 15.60 22.62 26.50* 42.85* 11.42 15.47* 26.89

(17.51) (19.31) (34.91) (14.51) (16.07) (29.28) (14.06) (24.85) (8.317) (8.888) (16.60)

SCC-CFS -64.38*** -76.54*** -140.9*** -55.10*** -69.54*** -124.6*** -57.32*** -101.2*** -32.16*** -37.22*** -69.38***

(18.65) (20.57) (37.18) (15.46) (17.11) (31.18) (14.98) (26.47) (8.859) (9.467) (17.68)

Diff-in-diff 15.73 -4.009 11.72 17.96 11.15 29.11 0.505 8.328 4.020 0.368 4.388

(24.66) (27.20) (49.16) (20.44) (22.63) (41.23) (19.81) (35.00) (11.71) (12.52) (23.37)

Constant 122.6*** 139.9*** 262.5*** 98.53*** 113.3*** 211.8*** 89.49*** 165.4*** 52.55*** 55.98*** 108.5***

(13.25) (14.61) (26.41) (10.98) (12.16) (22.15) (10.64) (18.80) (6.293) (6.725) (12.56)

Observations 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

R-squared 0.086 0.131 0.119 0.085 0.126 0.115 0.143 0.135 0.115 0.146 0.139

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 149

School Enrollment by Sex (Blan & Lilo) (24) (25) (26)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Time 2013 51.42 144.0 195.5

(115.6) (137.4) (238.2)

SCC-CFS -395.6*** -552.5*** -948.1***

(123.2) (146.4) (253.7)

Diff-in-diff 88.86 5.947 94.80

(162.9) (193.6) (335.5)

Constant 885.5*** 1,051*** 1,936***

(87.51) (104.0) (180.2)

Observations 250 250 250

R-squared 0.075 0.125 0.113

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 150

Enrollment of Students with Special Needs by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Time 2013 -0.188 -0.338 -0.526 0.124 0.223 0.348 0.904 0.607 1.511 0.138 -0.108 0.0303

(0.401) (0.388) (0.701) (0.357) (0.345) (0.622) (0.572) (0.571) (1.055) (0.452) (0.606) (0.982)

SCC-CFS -0.613 -0.573 -1.186 -0.435 -0.416 -0.851 -0.102 -0.0482 -0.150 -0.529 -1.037 -1.566

(0.427) (0.414) (0.747) (0.381) (0.367) (0.663) (0.609) (0.608) (1.124) (0.481) (0.645) (1.045)

Diff-in-diff 0.447 0.648 1.095 0.149 0.254 0.402 -0.390 -0.607 -0.997 0.811 1.219 2.030

(0.564) (0.547) (0.987) (0.503) (0.486) (0.876) (0.805) (0.804) (1.486) (0.636) (0.853) (1.382)

Constant 2.075*** 1.943*** 4.019*** 1.509*** 1.453*** 2.962*** 1.491*** 1.604*** 3.094*** 1.566*** 1.981*** 3.547***

(0.303) (0.294) (0.531) (0.270) (0.261) (0.471) (0.433) (0.432) (0.799) (0.342) (0.458) (0.743)

Observations 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

R-squared 0.009 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.009 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.019

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 151

Enrollment of Students with Special Needs by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Time 2013 0.698 0.409 1.107 -0.0348 0.685 0.650 0.551* 0.731** 1.281** 0.274 0.458 0.733

(0.505) (0.639) (1.057) (0.424) (0.521) (0.845) (0.286) (0.298) (0.528) (0.224) (0.310) (0.468)

SCC-CFS -0.00769 -0.386 -0.393 -0.526 -0.522 -1.048 -0.234 -0.0259 -0.260 -0.177 0.0119 -0.166

(0.538) (0.681) (1.126) (0.452) (0.555) (0.900) (0.305) (0.317) (0.562) (0.238) (0.331) (0.498)

Diff-in-diff -0.299 -0.187 -0.486 0.326 0.468 0.795 -0.00459 -0.0453 -0.0499 -0.0705 -0.0371 -0.108

(0.711) (0.900) (1.489) (0.597) (0.733) (1.191) (0.403) (0.419) (0.743) (0.315) (0.437) (0.659)

Constant 1.415*** 1.830*** 3.245*** 1.415*** 1.189*** 2.604*** 0.660*** 0.396* 1.057*** 0.585*** 0.358 0.943***

(0.382) (0.484) (0.800) (0.321) (0.394) (0.640) (0.216) (0.225) (0.399) (0.169) (0.235) (0.354)

Observations 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

R-squared 0.011 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.028 0.018 0.035 0.045 0.047 0.017 0.016 0.019

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 152

School enrollment of Students with Special Needs (Blan & Lilo)

(51) (52) (53)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Time 2013 2.466 2.668 5.134

(2.199) (2.582) (4.575)

SCC-CFS -2.624 -2.995 -5.620

(2.343) (2.750) (4.873)

Diff-in-diff 0.969 1.712 2.681

(3.098) (3.636) (6.443)

Constant 10.72*** 10.75*** 21.47***

(1.664) (1.954) (3.462)

Observations 250 250 250

R-squared 0.022 0.021 0.023

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 153

Enrollment by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Time 2015 -8.480 -11.91 -20.38 -1.180 -2.316 -3.496 8.472 1.924 10.40 8.415 8.087 16.50

(20.24) (21.18) (41.06) (13.78) (15.69) (28.95) (13.23) (14.46) (27.45) (11.07) (12.22) (23.02)

SCC-CFS 1.162 0.0113 1.173 0.978 -0.674 0.304 -4.336 -6.801 -11.14 -0.801 -2.438 -3.240

(15.33) (16.04) (31.10) (10.44) (11.88) (21.93) (10.02) (10.95) (20.79) (8.383) (9.252) (17.43)

Diff-in-diff 43.92 51.07* 94.99 10.02 16.63 26.65 2.294 14.84 17.14 -2.282 -0.312 -2.594

(28.58) (29.92) (58.00) (19.47) (22.16) (40.90) (18.69) (20.42) (38.78) (15.64) (17.26) (32.51)

Constant 110.3*** 113.3*** 223.6*** 77.31*** 81.44*** 158.7*** 70.15*** 73.03*** 143.2*** 57.08*** 57.29*** 114.4***

(10.88) (11.39) (22.08) (7.412) (8.436) (15.57) (7.117) (7.775) (14.76) (5.953) (6.570) (12.38)

Observations 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.026 0.029 0.028 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.006

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 154

Enrollment by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Time 2015 10.17 10.77 20.94 9.208 12.10 21.31 10.43 18.72 7.117 7.235 14.35

(9.418) (11.41) (20.60) (7.271) (8.161) (15.21) (6.670) (13.16) (5.912) (5.250) (10.94)

SCC-CFS -8.712 -12.27 -20.98 -5.900 -5.055 -10.95 -7.777 -13.26 -8.325* -5.540 -13.86*

(7.132) (8.644) (15.60) (5.506) (6.180) (11.52) (5.051) (9.962) (4.477) (3.976) (8.282)

Diff-in-diff 11.59 3.810 15.40 1.567 -7.320 -5.754 -5.015 -10.08 -4.383 -7.627 -12.01

(13.30) (16.12) (29.10) (10.27) (11.53) (21.49) (9.421) (18.58) (8.350) (7.416) (15.45)

Constant 48.75*** 52.10*** 100.8*** 35*** 34.27*** 69.27*** 27.61*** 57.49*** 25.51*** 20.39*** 45.90***

(5.064) (6.138) (11.08) (3.910) (4.388) (8.180) (3.586) (7.074) (3.179) (2.823) (5.881)

Observations 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.043 0.029 0.034 0.031 0.027 0.028 0.046 0.036 0.047 0.042 0.046

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 155

School Enrollment by Sex (Rest of Districts) (24) (25) (26)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Time 2015 42.01 36.33 78.34

(77.48) (84.50) (161.5)

SCC-CFS -31.42 -40.54 -71.96

(58.68) (64.00) (122.3)

Diff-in-diff 57.67 66.08 123.7

(109.4) (119.4) (228.1)

Constant 453.9*** 459.5*** 913.4***

(41.67) (45.44) (86.83)

Observations 167 167 167

R-squared 0.012 0.011 0.012

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 156

Enrollment of Children with Special Needs by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Time 2015 0.306 0.203 0.510 0.00424 0.931 0.936 0.221 0.855 1.076 0.487 0.104 0.590

(1.107) (1.319) (2.365) (1.072) (1.391) (2.399) (0.861) (0.829) (1.631) (0.748) (0.689) (1.352)

SCC-CFS 2.023** 1.503 3.527* 0.821 1.590 2.411 0.963 0.964 1.926 0.495 0.212 0.707

(0.838) (0.999) (1.791) (0.812) (1.053) (1.817) (0.652) (0.627) (1.235) (0.566) (0.522) (1.024)

Diff-in-diff -2.231 -1.212 -3.443 -1.279 -1.965 -3.244 -0.588 -1.672 -2.260 -0.245 -0.295 -0.540

(1.564) (1.863) (3.340) (1.514) (1.965) (3.389) (1.216) (1.170) (2.303) (1.056) (0.974) (1.910)

Constant 1.610*** 1.797** 3.407*** 1.746*** 1.610** 3.356** 1.237*** 1.186*** 2.424*** 1.305*** 1.271*** 2.576***

(0.595) (0.709) (1.271) (0.576) (0.748) (1.290) (0.463) (0.446) (0.877) (0.402) (0.371) (0.727)

Observations 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.041 0.015 0.026 0.011 0.014 0.012 0.014 0.017 0.015 0.008 0.001 0.004

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 157

Enrollment of Children with Special Needs by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (Rest of Districts)

(39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Time 2015 0.410 0.157 0.568 -0.310 0.220 -0.0897 -0.0325 -0.131 -0.163 -0.0897 0.467 0.377

(0.545) (0.694) (1.167) (0.489) (0.579) (1.008) (0.683) (0.934) (1.559) (0.415) (0.375) (0.752)

SCC-CFS 0.519 -0.0675 0.451 -0.318 0.270 -0.0480 -0.166 -0.789 -0.955 -0.431 -0.125 -0.556

(0.413) (0.526) (0.884) (0.370) (0.438) (0.763) (0.518) (0.707) (1.181) (0.314) (0.284) (0.569)

Diff-in-diff -0.310 1.026 0.716 0.568 0.0213 0.590 0.249 0.456 0.705 0.306 -0.417 -0.110

(0.770) (0.981) (1.648) (0.690) (0.818) (1.423) (0.965) (1.319) (2.202) (0.586) (0.530) (1.062)

Constant 0.881*** 1.051*** 1.932*** 1.102*** 0.780** 1.881*** 0.949** 1.339*** 2.288*** 0.881*** 0.492** 1.373***

(0.293) (0.373) (0.628) (0.263) (0.311) (0.542) (0.368) (0.502) (0.838) (0.223) (0.202) (0.404)

Observations 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.004 0.012 0.016 0.011

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 158

School Enrollment of Children with Special Needs by Sex (Rest of Districts)

(51) (52) (53)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Time 2015 0.996 2.808 3.804

(4.700) (5.434) (10.02)

SCC-CFS 3.905 3.558 7.463

(3.559) (4.115) (7.585)

Diff-in-diff -3.530 -4.058 -7.588

(6.638) (7.676) (14.15)

Constant 9.712*** 9.525*** 19.24***

(2.527) (2.922) (5.386)

Observations 167 167 167

R-squared 0.008 0.005 0.006

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 159

Dropout Rates by Grade 1- 4 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

VARIABLE

S

drop_g1_

m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Time 2013 -0.00756 0.00388 -0.00111 -0.0148 -0.0104 -0.0118 -0.00925 -0.0158 -0.0128 -0.0254 -0.0153 -0.0145

(0.0200) (0.0212) (0.0193) (0.0155) (0.0151) (0.0144) (0.0164) (0.0131) (0.0132) (0.0165) (0.0168) (0.0135)

SCC-CFS 0.0379* 0.0495** 0.0452**

0.0422**

*

0.0416**

*

0.0433**

*

0.0462**

*

0.0373**

*

0.0405**

* 0.0148

0.0478**

* 0.0368**

(0.0208) (0.0224) (0.0203) (0.0161) (0.0159) (0.0152) (0.0170) (0.0138) (0.0139) (0.0171) (0.0177) (0.0142)

Diff-in-diff -0.0481*

-

0.0609**

-

0.0542** -0.0290 -0.0326 -0.0317 -0.0260 -0.0166 -0.0200 0.00576 -0.0307 -0.0181

(0.0274) (0.0295) (0.0268) (0.0212) (0.0210) (0.0201) (0.0224) (0.0182) (0.0184) (0.0225) (0.0233) (0.0188)

Constant 0.0581***

0.0505**

*

0.0517**

*

0.0357**

*

0.0338**

*

0.0331**

* 0.0257**

0.0313**

*

0.0283**

*

0.0417**

* 0.0310**

0.0301**

*

(0.0152) (0.0161) (0.0146) (0.0118) (0.0115) (0.0110) (0.0124)

(0.00993

) (0.0100) (0.0125) (0.0127) (0.0103)

Observation

s 237 244 244 237 244 244 237 244 244 237 244 244

R-squared 0.039 0.035 0.040 0.064 0.055 0.065 0.055 0.069 0.069 0.028 0.062 0.061

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 160

Dropout Rates by Grade 5- 6 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Time 2013 -0.0145 -0.0182 -0.0155 -0.0187* -0.0708** -0.0282* -0.000548 0.0342 0.0145 -0.00370 -0.00448 0.000552

(0.0180) (0.0146) (0.0142) (0.0108) (0.0358) (0.0167) (0.0124) (0.0227) (0.0136) (0.0197) (0.117) (0.0332)

SCC-CFS 0.0326* 0.0274* 0.0306** -0.0128 -0.0224 0.0275 0.0146 0.0545** 0.0302* -0.0152 0.00740 -0.00205

(0.0190) (0.0157) (0.0153) (0.0128) (0.0432) (0.0203) (0.0151) (0.0274) (0.0168) (0.0245) (0.148) (0.0423)

Diff-in-diff 0.00507 0.00823 0.00656 0.0261 0.0528 -0.00518 -0.0163 -0.0334 -0.0261 0.0533* 0.231 0.0827

(0.0250) (0.0205) (0.0201) (0.0162) (0.0541) (0.0255) (0.0186) (0.0336) (0.0208) (0.0303) (0.182) (0.0521)

Constant 0.0307** 0.0359*** 0.0318*** 0.0388*** 0.0967*** 0.0490*** 0.0230** 0.0141 0.0210* 0.0203 0.0454 0.0270

(0.0136) (0.0111) (0.0108) (0.00817) (0.0272) (0.0127) (0.00986) (0.0182) (0.0108) (0.0153) (0.0914) (0.0258)

Observations 234 240 241 222 222 229 197 196 204 167 166 175

R-squared 0.038 0.049 0.054 0.016 0.019 0.038 0.008 0.033 0.017 0.041 0.039 0.053

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 161

School Dropout Rates by Sex (Blan & Lilo) (25) (26) (27)

VARIABLES all_m all_f all_mf

Time 2013 -0.0125 -0.0101 -0.0111

(0.0121) (0.0131) (0.0119)

SCC-CFS 0.0359*** 0.0459*** 0.0413***

(0.0128) (0.0138) (0.0127)

Diff-in-diff -0.0245 -0.0319* -0.0283*

(0.0169) (0.0182) (0.0168)

Constant 0.0376*** 0.0388*** 0.0376***

(0.00919) (0.00993) (0.00904)

Observations 243 244 250

R-squared 0.070 0.081 0.079

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 162

Dropout Rates by Reason of Dropout (Blan & Lilo) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)

VARIABLES

all_mf_1 all_mf_2 all_mf_3 all_mf_4 all_mf_5 all_mf_6

all_mf_7 all_mf_8 all_mf_9 all_mf_10

all_mf_11

Time 2013 -0.00495 0.000656* 9.78e-05

-

0.000281*

-

0.000975** -0.000323 9.58e-05 0.000259 0.00142

0.000422*

* -0.00748

(0.00542

) (0.000335)

(0.000644

) (0.000165) (0.000471) (0.000369)

(0.00394

) (0.00102) (0.00320) (0.000192) (0.00840)

SCC-CFS 0.00892 0.000407

0.00183**

* -0.000281 -9.99e-05 -1.11e-05

0.0121**

* 0.00213*

0.00719*

* 5.65e-05 0.00903

(0.00578

) (0.000357)

(0.000686

) (0.000175) (0.000502) (0.000393)

(0.00420

) (0.00108) (0.00341) (0.000205) (0.00895)

Diff-in-diff

-7.62e-

05 -0.000266 -0.00106 0.000301 0.000574 0.000386 -0.0107* -0.00249* -0.00708 -0.000303 -0.00757

(0.00764

) (0.000472)

(0.000907

) (0.000232) (0.000664) (0.000520)

(0.00555

) (0.00143) (0.00450) (0.000271) (0.0118)

Constant 0.00637

0.000501*

* 0.00103**

0.000281*

* 0.00131***

0.000552*

* 0.000377 9.48e-05 0.00240 1.39e-05 0.0246***

(0.00410

) (0.000254)

(0.000487

) (0.000125) (0.000357) (0.000279)

(0.00298

)

(0.000770

) (0.00242) (0.000145) (0.00636)

Observation

s 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

R-squared 0.029 0.025 0.038 0.015 0.022 0.006 0.047 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.019

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 163

Dropout Rates by Grade 1- 4 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (1) (10) (19) (2) (11) (20) (3) (12) (21) (4) (13) (22)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Diff-in-diff -0.0482 -0.0644** -0.0578* 0.0191

-

0.000108 0.00965 0.00824

-9.85e-

07 0.00303 -0.0556** -0.0676* -0.0579*

(0.0307) (0.0297) (0.0293) (0.0241) (0.0266) (0.0245) (0.0229) (0.0236) (0.0209) (0.0280) (0.0367) (0.0295)

SCC CFS 0.00422 0.0179 0.0113 0.0125 0.0226 0.0168 0.00127 0.00740 0.00416 0.0112 0.0285 0.0196

(0.0165) (0.0159) (0.0157) (0.0129) (0.0143) (0.0131) (0.0123) (0.0127) (0.0112) (0.0150) (0.0197) (0.0158)

Time 2015 0.0265 0.0400* 0.0349* -0.0121 0.00534 -0.00307 -0.0104 -0.0107 -0.00933 0.0403** 0.0278 0.0317

(0.0217) (0.0210) (0.0207) (0.0171) (0.0189) (0.0173) (0.0162) (0.0167) (0.0148) (0.0198) (0.0260) (0.0209)

Constant

0.0511**

*

0.0407**

*

0.0455**

*

0.0318**

* 0.0280***

0.0296**

*

0.0384**

*

0.0383**

*

0.0374**

*

0.0334**

*

0.0412**

*

0.0366**

*

(0.0117) (0.0113) (0.0112)

(0.00919

) (0.0101)

(0.00931

)

(0.00870

)

(0.00900

)

(0.00797

) (0.0106) (0.0140) (0.0112)

Observation

s 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.018 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.022 0.020 0.003 0.008 0.005 0.029 0.023 0.024

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 164

Dropout Rates by Grade 5- 6 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (5) (14) (23) (6) (15) (24) (7) (16) (25) (8) (17) (26)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Diff-in-diff -0.0335 -0.0840** -0.0482*

-

0.000898 -0.0353 -0.0260

-

0.0778*** -0.0775* -0.0461 0.0454* 0.0521 0.0198

(0.0271) (0.0372) (0.0253) (0.0337) (0.0508) (0.0330) (0.0273) (0.0426) (0.0442) (0.0237)

(0.0774

) (0.0323)

SCC CFS 0.0207 0.00929 0.0160 0.0147 0.0252 0.0273 0.0253

0.0890**

* 0.0250 0.00699 -0.0220 0.00316

(0.0146) (0.0201) (0.0136) (0.0189) (0.0285) (0.0185) (0.0160) (0.0250) (0.0259) (0.0136)

(0.0445

) (0.0186)

Time 2015 0.0370*

0.0756**

* 0.0481*** 0.0435* 0.0148 0.0380 0.0477** 0.0174 0.00837 -0.0208 -0.0416 -0.00981

(0.0192) (0.0263) (0.0178) (0.0239) (0.0360) (0.0234) (0.0192) (0.0300) (0.0311) (0.0174)

(0.0567

) (0.0237)

Constant

0.0331**

*

0.0504**

* 0.0389*** 0.0322**

0.0705**

*

0.0412**

* 0.0268**

0.0596**

*

0.0683**

* 0.0355*** 0.118***

0.0601**

*

(0.0103) (0.0141)

(0.00959

) (0.0135) (0.0203) (0.0132) (0.0116) (0.0183) (0.0188)

(0.00964

)

(0.0315

) (0.0131)

Observation

s 165 165 165 140 140 140 123 122 123 108 108 108

R-squared 0.028 0.054 0.043 0.051 0.006 0.031 0.067 0.107 0.014 0.069 0.006 0.008

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 165

School Dropout Rates by Sex (Rest of Districts) (9) (18) (27)

VARIABLES all m all f all mf

Diff-in-diff -0.0228 -0.0384* -0.0304

(0.0206) (0.0219) (0.0209)

SCC CFS 0.0119 0.0226* 0.0171

(0.0110) (0.0117) (0.0112)

Time 2015 0.0169 0.0214 0.0193

(0.0146) (0.0155) (0.0148)

Constant 0.0371*** 0.0403*** 0.0386***

(0.00783) (0.00833) (0.00795)

Observations 167 167 167

R-squared 0.011 0.027 0.018

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 166

Dropout Rates by Reason of Dropout (Rest of Districts) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)

VARIABLES all mf_1 all mf_2 all mf_3 all mf_4 all mf_5 all mf_6 all mf_7 all mf_8 all mf_9 all mf_10 all mf_11

Diff-in-diff -0.0128 0.000265 -0.00236 -0.000201 0.00230 -0.000262 -0.00457*** 0.000350 -0.00994 -0.000455 -0.00436

(0.0161) (0.000754) (0.00147) (0.000151) (0.00484) (0.00183) (0.00110) (0.000549) (0.00708) (0.000368) (0.00936)

SCC CFS 0.0123 -0.000295 0.00112 -1.12e-05 2.65e-05 -0.000884 0.000237 -0.000350 0.00129 -0.000254 0.00390

(0.00850) (0.000398) (0.000776) (7.98e-05) (0.00259) (0.000979) (0.000590) (0.000294) (0.00380) (0.000197) (0.00502)

Time 2015 0.00165 0.000115 0.000372 0.000127 -0.00222 -0.000362 0.00423*** -0.000350 0.00393 0.000455* 0.0129*

(0.0116) (0.000542) (0.00106) (0.000109) (0.00342) (0.00129) (0.000780) (0.000389) (0.00501) (0.000261) (0.00662)

Constant 0.0127** 0.00153*** 0.00274*** 8.50e-05 0.00411** 0.00175** 0.000112 0.000350* 0.00497* 0.000254* 0.0100***

(0.00604) (0.000283) (0.000551) (5.67e-05) (0.00184) (0.000695) (0.000419) (0.000209) (0.00270) (0.000140) (0.00356)

Observations 165 165 165 165 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.015 0.006 0.026 0.017 0.003 0.010 0.174 0.011 0.014 0.049 0.035

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 167

Repetition Rates by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Diff-in-diff -0.00767 -0.0237 -0.0167 0.000322 -0.0532 -0.0258 -0.0347 -0.0158 -0.0146 0.0371 0.0195 0.0262

(0.0421) (0.0443) (0.0407) (0.0398) (0.0417) (0.0379) (0.0430) (0.0446) (0.0402) (0.0397) (0.0389) (0.0351)

SCC CFS 0.0523* 0.0773** 0.0687** 0.0236 0.0650** 0.0459* 0.0164 0.0516 0.0333 -0.00718 0.0339 0.0172

(0.0298) (0.0314) (0.0289) (0.0282) (0.0296) (0.0269) (0.0305) (0.0316) (0.0285) (0.0281) (0.0276) (0.0249)

Time 2013 -0.00819 -0.000432 -0.00435 -0.00865 0.00283 -0.00218 0.0156 -0.00865 -0.00267 -0.0341 -0.0178 -0.0254

(0.0307) (0.0319) (0.0293) (0.0290) (0.0300) (0.0273) (0.0314) (0.0321) (0.0289) (0.0289) (0.0280) (0.0252)

Constant 0.190*** 0.166*** 0.173*** 0.187*** 0.168*** 0.172*** 0.208*** 0.193*** 0.196*** 0.201*** 0.161*** 0.174***

(0.0218) (0.0226) (0.0208) (0.0206) (0.0213) (0.0194) (0.0223) (0.0228) (0.0205) (0.0206) (0.0199) (0.0179)

Observations 203 209 209 203 209 209 203 209 209 203 209 209

R-squared 0.028 0.044 0.044 0.008 0.030 0.020 0.003 0.022 0.010 0.009 0.026 0.019

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 168

Repetition Rates by Grades 5 – 6 and Sex (Blan & Lilo) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Diff-in-diff 0.0772 0.0215 0.0375 -0.0844 0.0396 -0.125 -0.0465 -0.0701 -0.0589 -0.133** -0.0290 -0.0829

(0.0672) (0.0470) (0.0472) (0.0565) (0.0605) (0.0882) (0.0472) (0.0581) (0.0465) (0.0543) (0.0800) (0.0512)

SCC CFS -0.0339 0.00719 0.00140 0.114*** -0.0181 0.154** 0.0743** 0.0936** 0.0905** 0.124*** 0.0740 0.0976**

(0.0479) (0.0336) (0.0337) (0.0423) (0.0456) (0.0661) (0.0362) (0.0448) (0.0357) (0.0414) (0.0615) (0.0392)

Time 2013 -0.0576 -0.0225 -0.0278 0.00342 -0.0395 -0.00416 -0.0157 -0.0229 -0.0113 0.0547 0.00343 0.0346

(0.0484) (0.0335) (0.0335) (0.0381) (0.0404) (0.0584) (0.0317) (0.0392) (0.0306) (0.0356) (0.0519) (0.0330)

Constant 0.241*** 0.195*** 0.199*** 0.148*** 0.197*** 0.151*** 0.150*** 0.162*** 0.142*** 0.0621** 0.105*** 0.0720***

(0.0342) (0.0238) (0.0237) (0.0269) (0.0287) (0.0413) (0.0236) (0.0297) (0.0228) (0.0259) (0.0379) (0.0239)

Observations 200 205 206 187 187 193 163 162 169 137 137 144

R-squared 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.046 0.005 0.036 0.043 0.049 0.055 0.064 0.016 0.044

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 169

School Repetition Rates by Sex (Blan & Lilo) (25) (26) (27)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Diff-in-diff -0.00659 -0.00667 -0.00688

(0.0310) (0.0306) (0.0298)

SCC CFS 0.0365* 0.0452** 0.0476**

(0.0219) (0.0217) (0.0211)

Time 2013 -0.00994 -0.0127 -0.0106

(0.0223) (0.0220) (0.0212)

Constant 0.179*** 0.171*** 0.167***

(0.0158) (0.0156) (0.0150)

Observations 208 209 214

R-squared 0.026 0.041 0.044

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 170

Repetition Rates by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

Diff-in-diff -0.0367 0.0178 -0.0102 -0.0898* -0.0572 -0.0719* 0.0362 -0.00335 0.0165 0.0510 0.00778 0.0327

(0.0482) (0.0496) (0.0450) (0.0468) (0.0474) (0.0421) (0.0484) (0.0472) (0.0428) (0.0499) (0.0438) (0.0425)

SCC-CFS -0.0855*** -0.0902*** -0.0885*** 1.85e-05 0.00183 0.00196 -0.0607** -0.0342 -0.0491** -0.0432 -0.00407 -0.0252

(0.0258) (0.0266) (0.0241) (0.0251) (0.0254) (0.0226) (0.0259) (0.0253) (0.0229) (0.0268) (0.0235) (0.0228)

Time 2015 0.125*** 0.0920*** 0.109*** 0.0990*** 0.109*** 0.105*** 0.0534 0.0665** 0.0607** 0.0466 0.0795** 0.0586*

(0.0341) (0.0351) (0.0319) (0.0331) (0.0336) (0.0298) (0.0343) (0.0334) (0.0303) (0.0353) (0.0310) (0.0301)

Constant 0.305*** 0.297*** 0.300*** 0.214*** 0.197*** 0.202*** 0.249*** 0.226*** 0.237*** 0.208*** 0.162*** 0.186***

(0.0183) (0.0189) (0.0171) (0.0178) (0.0181) (0.0160) (0.0184) (0.0180) (0.0163) (0.0190) (0.0167) (0.0162)

Observations 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167

R-squared 0.196 0.160 0.204 0.061 0.076 0.082 0.082 0.059 0.089 0.063 0.082 0.078

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 171

Repetition Rates by Grades 5 – 6 and Sex (Rest of Districts) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

VARIABLES g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_m g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

Diff-in-diff 0.0561 0.0299 0.0446 0.0504 0.0489 0.0553 0.127** 0.0425 0.0897 0.00235 0.0572 0.0238

(0.0532) (0.0576) (0.0508) (0.0815) (0.0586) (0.0627) (0.0593) (0.0628) (0.0561) (0.0693) (0.0836) (0.0666)

SCC-CFS -0.0581** -0.00527 -0.0349 -0.0181 -0.0230 -0.0224 -0.0187 -0.0321 -0.0248 -0.0356 -0.0484 -0.0403

(0.0287) (0.0311) (0.0274) (0.0461) (0.0331) (0.0354) (0.0349) (0.0372) (0.0331) (0.0407) (0.0491) (0.0391)

Time 2015 0.0571 0.0978** 0.0766** 0.0585 0.0648 0.0601 0.0624 0.0421 0.0587 -0.00341 0.0128 0.00284

(0.0376) (0.0407) (0.0359) (0.0583) (0.0419) (0.0448) (0.0420) (0.0447) (0.0398) (0.0499) (0.0601) (0.0479)

Constant 0.217*** 0.167*** 0.192*** 0.195*** 0.186*** 0.189*** 0.172*** 0.211*** 0.187*** 0.247*** 0.243*** 0.243***

(0.0202) (0.0219) (0.0193) (0.0329) (0.0237) (0.0253) (0.0255) (0.0273) (0.0241) (0.0288) (0.0347) (0.0276)

Observations 165 165 165 141 141 141 124 123 124 110 110 110

R-squared 0.081 0.088 0.094 0.033 0.069 0.060 0.163 0.040 0.119 0.010 0.018 0.012

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 172

School Repetition Rates by Sex (Rest of Districts) (25) (26) (27)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

Diff-in-diff 0.00926 0.00433 0.00771

(0.0319) (0.0310) (0.0297)

SCC-CFS -0.0492*** -0.0346** -0.0422***

(0.0171) (0.0166) (0.0159)

Time 2015 0.0782*** 0.0772*** 0.0774***

(0.0226) (0.0219) (0.0211)

Constant 0.240*** 0.222*** 0.231***

(0.0122) (0.0118) (0.0113)

Observations 167 167 167

R-squared 0.187 0.165 0.193

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 173

Passing Rates by Sex (Blan & Lilo)

(1) (2) (4) (5) (7) (8)

VARIABLES failed_m passed_m failed_f passed_f failed_mf

passed_mf

Diff-in-diff 0.112 0.0516 0.357 0.230 0.0871 0.0176

(0.0816) (0.130) (0.334) (0.264) (0.0903) (0.113)

SCC CFS -0.0577 -0.158 -0.316 -0.383* -0.0402 -0.173*

(0.0662) (0.105) (0.272) (0.216) (0.0734) (0.0920)

Time 2013 -0.0114 -0.181** -0.352 -0.429** -0.0301 -0.182**

(0.0531) (0.0847) (0.215) (0.170) (0.0576) (0.0722)

Constant 0.231*** 0.822*** 0.628*** 1.019*** 0.265*** 0.805***

(0.0413) (0.0658) (0.168) (0.133) (0.0447) (0.0561)

Observations 167 167 167 167 175 175

R-squared 0.018 0.065 0.019 0.067 0.007 0.110

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 174

Passing Rates by Sex (Rest of Districts)

(1) (2) (4) (5) (7) (8)

VARIABLES failed_m passed_m failed_f passed_f failed_mf

passed_mf

Diff-in-diff 0.0242 0.301* 0.242 0.176 0.102 0.221*

(0.169) (0.158) (0.183) (0.141) (0.153) (0.131)

SCC CFS -0.0521 -0.238** -0.0912 -0.128 -0.0636 -0.169**

(0.0991) (0.0930) (0.107) (0.0828) (0.0899) (0.0768)

Time 2015 -0.0770 -0.176 -0.145 -0.0264 -0.102 -0.0882

(0.121) (0.114) (0.132) (0.101) (0.110) (0.0940)

Constant 0.378*** 0.778*** 0.529*** 0.550*** 0.428*** 0.645***

(0.0701) (0.0657) (0.0759) (0.0585) (0.0636) (0.0543)

Observations 110 110 110 110 110 110

R-squared 0.009 0.061 0.017 0.031 0.010 0.047

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

msiworldwide.com

Annex L. Regression Models Results In this Annex includes the tables of results of all the regression models estimating the difference between intervention and comparison schools on

enrollment, dropout rates, repetition rates, and passing rates disaggregated by sex and by grade (when possible) using the baseline 2012 value as

controlling covariate for the whole sample of schools. Grades are identified by the columns g1, g2, g3, etc. Sex disaggregation is indicated by _m

for male, _f for female and _mf for the combined samples of male and females. c indicating whether there is a difference among intervention and

comparison schools can be found in the SCC-CFS row, significant results are bolded.

Enrollment by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (1) (9) (18) (2) (10) (19) (3) (11) (20) (4) (12) (21)

VARIABLES g1_m g1_f g1_mf g2_m g2_f g2_mf g3_m g3_f g3_mf g4_m g4_f g4_mf

SCC-CFS 21.55 24.88 47.45 10.01 8.006 20.01 -1.694 7.427 7.343 6.628 16.42* 22.45

(13.39) (15.84) (28.53) (8.942) (11.47) (16.85) (9.957) (11.47) (17.84) (7.454) (9.556) (16.02)

Baseline 0.845*** 0.755*** 0.807*** 0.843*** 0.857*** 0.882*** 0.793*** 0.843*** 0.850*** 0.898*** 0.927*** 0.910***

(0.0761) (0.0836) (0.0806) (0.0509) (0.0570) (0.0475) (0.0533) (0.0583) (0.0487) (0.0428) (0.0466) (0.0440)

Constant 15.43 20.11 32.87 8.916 19.37* 20.81 25.75*** 20.62* 39.33** 13.42* 10.02 24.27

(13.24) (16.06) (29.05) (8.520) (10.83) (16.43) (8.967) (10.82) (16.80) (6.746) (8.628) (14.73)

Observations 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

R-squared 0.684 0.589 0.638 0.829 0.803 0.860 0.798 0.793 0.846 0.888 0.879 0.887

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 176

Enrollment by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex

(5) (13) (22) (6) (14) (23) (15) (24) (7) (16) (25)

g5_m g5_f g5_mf g6_m g6_f g6_mf g7_f g7_mf g8_m g8_f g8_mf

SCC-CFS 15.87 -2.424 14.26 7.371 -1.359 5.327 6.658 5.686 -10.66 -13.68 -23.12

(11.14) (11.75) (19.72) (8.810) (10.96) (18.97) (9.032) (14.63) (7.933) (8.922) (16.18)

Baseline 1.046*** 1.047*** 1.056*** 0.789*** 0.917*** 0.849*** 1.129*** 1.057*** 0.849*** 0.895*** 0.901***

(0.0679) (0.0599) (0.0569) (0.0572) (0.0688) (0.0620) (0.0680) (0.0588) (0.104) (0.114) (0.110)

Constant 8.719 14.11 20.94 19.89** 23.82** 44.71*** 11.28 27.96** 23.18*** 24.97*** 45.71***

(9.990) (10.53) (17.95) (7.522) (9.449) (16.40) (7.703) (12.58) (6.931) (7.593) (14.19)

Observations 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

R-squared 0.810 0.852 0.864 0.775 0.771 0.777 0.836 0.857 0.588 0.566 0.589

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 177

School Enrollment by Sex (8) (17) (26)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

SCC-CFS 60.66 68.87 128.5

(38.83) (46.43) (82.46)

Baseline 0.946*** 0.994*** 0.973***

(0.0334) (0.0361) (0.0348)

Constant 81.71** 70.44 150.5*

(36.07) (43.48) (78.10)

Observations 60 60 60

R-squared 0.935 0.933 0.934

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 178

Enrollment of Students with Special Needs by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (27) (28) (29) (30) (36) (37) (38) (39) (45) (46) (47) (48)

VARIABLES

g1_m g2_m g3_m g4_m g1_f g2_f g3_f g4_f g1_mf g2_mf g3_mf g4_mf

SCC-CFS -0.286 -0.278 0.621 0.884 0.799 -0.448 -0.375 -0.0625

0.456 -0.713 0.248 0.812

(0.555) (0.393) (0.547) (0.678) (0.569) (0.449) (0.583) (0.730) (0.945) (0.712) (0.976) (1.188)

Baseline 0.206** 0.122** 0.170** 0.0661 0.367*** 0.156***

0.131 0.0591 0.327*** 0.140*** 0.156** 0.0540

(0.0781) (0.0461) (0.0652

) (0.113) (0.0776) (0.0433

) (0.0825

) (0.101) (0.0720) (0.0383) (0.0656) (0.0937)

Constant 1.478*** 1.398*** 0.720* 1.405***

0.394 1.408***

1.491***

1.641***

1.713** 2.799*** 2.199*** 3.074***

(0.434) (0.299) (0.408) (0.505) (0.464) (0.332) (0.433) (0.553) (0.774) (0.535) (0.730) (0.899)

Observations

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

R-squared 0.113 0.124 0.127 0.034 0.283 0.200 0.048 0.007 0.266 0.208 0.092 0.012

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 179

Enrollment of Students with Special Needs by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (31) (32) (33) (34) (40) (41) (42) (43) (49) (50) (51) (52)

VARIABLES

g5_m g6_m g7_m g8_m g5_f g6_f g7_f g8_f g5_mf g6_mf g7_mf g8_mf

SCC-CFS 0.361 0.221 -0.190 -0.0570 0.262 0.125 -0.634* -0.0911 0.669 0.406 -0.827 -0.134

(0.777) (0.484)

(0.348) (0.328) (0.851) (0.625) (0.363) (0.717) (1.497) (0.916) (0.593) (0.933)

Baseline 0.253 0.125 -0.0336

0.145 0.279** 0.134 0.114*** 0.634 0.297** 0.167* 0.0569* 0.497**

(0.163) (0.102

) (0.047

4) (0.127) (0.132) (0.103) (0.0318) (0.440) (0.142) (0.0878

) (0.0319) (0.236)

Constant 1.127* 0.891**

0.978***

0.780***

1.379** 1.148** 1.195*** 1.110** 2.391** 1.927***

2.155*** 1.720**

(0.622) (0.367

) (0.253) (0.244) (0.647) (0.468) (0.261) (0.523) (1.175) (0.693) (0.429) (0.693)

Observations

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

R-squared 0.041 0.027 0.013 0.023 0.072 0.029 0.233 0.036 0.071 0.060 0.091 0.073

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 180

School Enrollment of Students with Special Needs (35) (44) (53)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

SCC-CFS 1.637 0.183 1.649

(2.600) (3.394) (5.394)

Baseline 0.223*** 0.304*** 0.257***

(0.0712) (0.0783) (0.0683)

Constant 7.684*** 8.251*** 16.18***

(2.068) (2.645) (4.253)

Observations 60 60 60

R-squared 0.149 0.212 0.199

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 181

Dropout Rates by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (1) (2) (3) (4) (10) (11) (12) (13) (19) (20) (21) (22)

VARIABLES

g1_m g2_m g3_m g4_m g1_f g2_f g3_f g4_f g1_mf g2_mf g3_mf g4_mf

SCC-CFS -0.0434**

0.0145 0.00951 -0.0173 -0.0412*

*

0.00207 0.00560

-0.0133 -0.0425**

0.00746

0.00676 -0.0132

(0.0170) (0.0137

) (0.0110

) (0.0200) (0.0195

) (0.0154) (0.0114

) (0.0173

) (0.0179) (0.0135

) (0.0104) (0.0178)

Baseline 0.240*** 0.131** 0.0916**

0.0913 0.196** 0.164*** 0.178***

0.0879 0.228*** 0.154***

0.135*** 0.0999

(0.0698) (0.0520

) (0.0347

) (0.0980) (0.0761

) (0.0567) (0.0482

) (0.0654

) (0.0734) (0.0514

) (0.0405) (0.0834)

Constant 0.0495***

0.0143 0.0210**

0.0418***

0.0535***

0.0231** 0.0137 0.0369***

0.0505***

0.0184* 0.0174** 0.0370***

(0.0125) (0.00967)

(0.00791)

(0.0143) (0.0137)

(0.0108) (0.00832)

(0.0121)

(0.0128) (0.00945)

(0.00743)

(0.0125)

Observations

58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

R-squared 0.222 0.144 0.138 0.024 0.135 0.140 0.210 0.035 0.182 0.162 0.186 0.029

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 182

Dropout Rates by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (5) (6) (7) (8) (14) (15) (16) (17) (23) (24) (25) (26)

VARIABLES

g5_m g6_m g7_m g8_m g5_f g6_f g7_f g8_f g5_mf g6_mf g7_mf g8_mf

SCC-CFS 0.00656 0.0103 -0.0401*

*

0.0309* -0.0175

0.00665 -0.0183 0.0316 -0.0015

0

0.00376 -0.0257 0.0200

(0.0182) (0.0260) (0.0191

) (0.0177) (0.029

8) (0.0201) (0.0229) (0.0367

) (0.0192

) (0.0225

) (0.0193) (0.0224)

Baseline 0.0715 0.487** 0.0834 0.175 0.263**

0.0197 0.261*** -0.0159 0.155* 0.0290 0.168* 0.183

(0.0622) (0.183) (0.0986

) (0.241) (0.121) (0.0673) (0.0805) (0.207) (0.0824

) (0.0685

) (0.0891) (0.348)

Constant 0.0356***

0.0236 0.0467***

0.00426 0.0472**

0.0373***

0.0415***

0.0443 0.0390***

0.0387**

0.0444***

0.0213

(0.0130) (0.0191) (0.0132

) (0.0132) (0.022

0) (0.0138) (0.0150) (0.0269

) (0.0137

) (0.0151

) (0.0128) (0.0178)

Observations

58 48 40 34 59 47 40 34 59 49 41 35

R-squared 0.030 0.137 0.111 0.095 0.079 0.005 0.222 0.024 0.061 0.005 0.100 0.032

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 183

School Dropout Rates by Sex (9) (18) (27)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

SCC-CFS -0.00978 -0.0137 -0.0117

(0.0118) (0.0132) (0.0121)

Baseline 0.151*** 0.196*** 0.177***

(0.0556) (0.0592) (0.0567)

Constant 0.0331*** 0.0347*** 0.0336***

(0.00837) (0.00923) (0.00846)

Observations 59 59 60

R-squared 0.117 0.164 0.146

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 184

Dropout Rates by Reason of Dropout (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (36) (37) (38)

VARIABLES gall_mf_1 gall_mf_2 gall_mf_3 gall_mf_4 gall_mf_5 gall_mf_6 gall_mf_7 gall_mf_9 gall_mf_10

gall_mf_11

SCC-CFS 0.00465 7.54e-05 -0.00107 -8.48e-05 -0.000741 -0.000278 -0.00145 -0.00591* -0.000566 -0.00542

(0.00723) (0.000462) (0.000751) (8.09e-05) (0.000653) (0.000547) (0.00105) (0.00326) (0.000399) (0.00670)

Baseline 0.0585 0.160 0.174* -0.0320 0.482*** -0.0275 -0.00822 0.125** 0.0821 0.259***

(0.0494) (0.117) (0.0929) (0.0990) (0.0280) (0.101) (0.104) (0.0619) (0.312) (0.0531)

Constant 0.00539 0.00104*** 0.00159*** 8.48e-05 0.000579 0.000575 0.00173** 0.00629*** 0.000627** 0.0156***

(0.00509) (0.000355) (0.000534) (5.84e-05) (0.000457) (0.000394) (0.000736) (0.00229) (0.000285) (0.00478)

Observations 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 60

R-squared 0.037 0.033 0.072 0.020 0.840 0.006 0.034 0.102 0.038 0.294

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 185

Repetition Rates by Grades 1 – 4 and Sex (1) (2) (3) (4) (10) (11) (12) (13) (19) (20) (21) (22)

VARIABLES

g1_m g2_m g3_m g4_m g1_f g2_f g3_f g4_f g1_mf g2_mf g3_mf g4_mf

SCC-CFS -0.0244 -0.0497 -0.0502

-0.00562 -0.0078

8

-0.0318 0.00926 0.0132 -0.0165 -0.0351 -0.0087

3

0.00662

(0.0424) (0.0418) (0.046

1) (0.0375) (0.0443

) (0.0368) (0.0397

) (0.033

7) (0.0410) (0.0343) (0.038

2) (0.0339)

Baseline 0.133 0.0443 0.341* 0.165 0.0988 0.104 0.317** -0.0218 0.115

0.116 0.373** 0.154

(0.137) (0.206) (0.180) (0.112) (0.152) (0.146) (0.143) (0.154

) (0.144) (0.172) (0.155

) (0.146)

Constant 0.253*** 0.259*** 0.216***

0.175*** 0.249***

0.221*** 0.167***

0.186***

0.250*** 0.227*** 0.170***

0.165***

(0.0427) (0.0461) (0.050

3) (0.0366) (0.0453

) (0.0390) (0.0416

) (0.032

8) (0.0422) (0.0391) (0.042

6) (0.0357)

Observations

58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

R-squared 0.023 0.027 0.087 0.040 0.008 0.026 0.081 0.003 0.014 0.029 0.097 0.020

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 186

Repetition Rates by Grades 5 – 8 and Sex (5) (6) (7) (8) (14) (15) (16) (17) (23) (24) (25) (26)

VARIABLES g5_m g6_m g7_m g8_m g5_f g6_f g7_f g8_f g5_mf g6_mf g7_mf g8_mf

SCC-CFS 0.0329 0.0267 0.111* 0.0146 0.0376 0.0431 0.0177 0.0680 0.0302 0.0395 0.0734 0.0482

(0.0418) (0.0383) (0.0552) (0.0588) (0.0408) (0.0448) (0.0429) (0.0664) (0.0374) (0.0360) (0.0461) (0.0479)

Baseline 0.402** 0.490** -0.0181 0.158 0.339* 0.313 0.278 0.00918 0.427** 0.618*** 0.150 0.135

(0.182) (0.183) (0.267) (0.153) (0.194) (0.239) (0.197) (0.0133) (0.187) (0.200) (0.234) (0.0839)

Constant 0.176*** 0.115*** 0.162*** 0.136*** 0.160*** 0.149*** 0.163*** 0.154*** 0.161*** 0.0999*** 0.156*** 0.127***

(0.0441) (0.0359) (0.0519) (0.0480) (0.0397) (0.0437) (0.0397) (0.0452) (0.0396) (0.0357) (0.0438) (0.0361)

Observations 58 48 40 34 59 47 40 34 59 49 41 35

R-squared 0.082 0.145 0.101 0.034 0.068 0.053 0.054 0.041 0.091 0.186 0.068 0.091

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 187

School Repetition Rates by Sex (9) (18) (27)

VARIABLES gall_m gall_f gall_mf

SCC-CFS 0.00650 0.00769 0.0105

(0.0292) (0.0297) (0.0283)

Baseline 0.519*** 0.397** 0.505***

(0.174) (0.180) (0.174)

Constant 0.133*** 0.149*** 0.130***

(0.0388) (0.0393) (0.0373)

Observations 59 59 60

R-squared 0.138 0.079 0.129

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 188

Passing Rates by Sex (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

VARIABLES passed_m

passed_m

selected_m failed_f passed_f selected_f

failed_mf passed_mf

selected_mf

Treatment/Comparison ID -0.0195 -0.0790 -0.00720 -0.0301 0.0139 0.0357 -0.0174 -0.0290 0.00445

(0.0734) (0.104) (0.0705) (0.0973) (0.111) (0.0748) (0.0750) (0.0888) (0.0645)

Baseline 0.300*** -0.0660 0.204 0.0271 -0.0211 0.00589 0.275** 0.166 0.312**

(0.105) (0.163) (0.179) (0.0223) (0.0378) (0.0281) (0.113) (0.151) (0.146)

Constant 0.164*** 0.801*** 0.264*** 0.331*** 0.665*** 0.282*** 0.199*** 0.582*** 0.215***

(0.0582) (0.128) (0.0731) (0.0673) (0.0832) (0.0525) (0.0613) (0.119) (0.0638)

Observations 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35

R-squared 0.212 0.024 0.042 0.053 0.012 0.008 0.160 0.044 0.129

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 189

Annex M. School Construction Assessment Notes This Annex includes a detailed list of differences in construction for intervention and comparison schools.

It draws from the information collected by the field teams using the school construction assessment. The

details for questions with a binary response (yes/no) include the mean number of Yes responses, the

standard deviation, and with the maximum and minimum values by response. Details for questions with

categorical values (such as types of roof) include the mean response by type by question.

Accessibility Intervention schools are further away from main roads on average (10.4 km vs. 3.9 km)

Students walking to school walk longer distances to school on average to intervention schools

(5.8km vs. 3.4 km) and it takes longer for students to reach intervention schools though the

difference with those in comparison is marginal (52 min vs 45.6 min)

All schools can be accessed by motor vehicles.

Informants at 2 schools reported that their properties are usually accessed by foot, but they also

said vehicles can access them (1 comparison, 1 intervention).

On average, classes are available for all levels 84% of the time in intervention schools and 83%

of comparison schools.

100% of intervention schools have permanent sanitation facilities while 80% of comparison

schools do.

68% of intervention schools have ramps to classrooms and 65% of comparison schools do.

Two-thirds of the intervention schools have ramps to the bathrooms while less than half (45%) of

comparison schools do

All intervention schools have teacher housing while 85% of the comparison schools do.

Aesthetics Very few schools have painted external walls (4% intervention, 10% comparison).

96% of internal walls are painted in intervention schools and 75% of internal walls are painted in

comparison schools.

60% of the windows in intervention schools have glass in good order compared with half of the

comparison schools have glass in good order.

More comparison schools have visible cracks in the floor than intervention schools (85%

comparison, 72% intervention).

All doors and windows are hinged securely in intervention schools and 80% of doors and

windows are hinged securely in comparison schools.

Almost all intervention schools have lighting in classrooms (100%) and sanitation facilities (96%),

while only 50% of the comparison schools have lighting in these spaces

Intervention schools have better managed landscaping than comparison schools, but only

marginally (56% vs 40%)

More intervention schools are generally clean and have bins for waste disposal compared with

the comparison schools, but only marginally (76% vs 70%)

92% of intervention school have well marked rooms/doors while 63% of comparison schools do

Safety and Security More comparison schools have perimeter fence and gate but very few schools overall have any

(25% comparison schools, 12% intervention)

More comparison schools have assigned daytime security than intervention schools (45%

comparison, 16% intervention)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 190

But more intervention schools have night time security than comparison schools (76%

intervention, 60% comparison)

Almost all intervention schools have toilets with locks while less than half of comparison schools

do (92% intervention, 45% comparison)

Marginally more intervention schools have visible toilets than comparison schools (58%

intervention, 50% comparison)

More intervention schools have marked emergency assembly areas with direction signs while

only about half of comparison schools do (71% intervention, 55% comparison)

Very few schools have fire extinguishers at all, with marginally more comparison schools having

them (10% comparison, 8% intervention)

Most of the schools have a display of teachers on duty, with marginally more in intervention

schools (88% intervention, 85% comparison)

Most of the schools have secured roofing sheets with marginally more intervention schools

having them (96% intervention, 85% comparison)

About 85% of all schools have visible rules or guidelines for safety

Participatory Design Process Few schools have a infrastructure master plan displayed visibly, but more intervention schools do

than comparison schools (32% vs 20%)

Twice as many intervention schools have a projects committee than comparison schools (80% vs

41%)

Much more intervention school projects committees meet regularly with stakeholders than the

school projects committees in intervention schools (77% vs 47%)

Projects committees in intervention schools also monitor more the works being undertaken than

those in comparison schools (78% vs 50%)

Fewer intervention schools maintain a technical file with details and drawings of projects than

comparison schools (40% intervention, 50% comparison)

Utilization of Local Materials and Know-How 92% of intervention schools have locally available skilled labor while 68% of comparison schools

do

96% of intervention schools used local labor in works (either undertaken by project committee

and/or by others) while 75% of comparison schools did

Very few schools have locally available building materials (5% comparison schools, 12%

intervention schools) and marginally more comparison schools have hardware shops within 30km

of the school than intervention schools (95% comparison, 88% intervention)

Almost all comparison schools have locally supplied timber available (95%) while less than two-

thirds of intervention schools do (64%)

User Satisfaction with Construction Few schools have copies of completed certificates from contractors but more comparison schools

do than intervention schools (18% comparison, 8% intervention)

More intervention schools have easily usable facilities than comparison schools (92% vs 70%)

In maintaining facilities, a larger fraction of comparison schools find it easy than intervention

schools, but while 16% of comparison schools find complicated to maintain the facilities, not one

of the intervention schools find it complicated

Both types of schools have about that same percentage of availability of maintenance records

(44% comparison, 48% intervention)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 191

Operational Efficiency and Utilization Comparison schools have slightly larger floor area on average and more students on average

compared with intervention schools (2014 vs 1247)

Both types of schools have similar operating hours at around 7hrs

Much more intervention schools have afternoon or evening classes, but still less than half (44%

vs 10%) and the majority of the schools use facilities for extra-curricular activities (75%

comparison, 92% intervention)

But very few schools have community activities in their facilities (20% comparison, 0% of

intervention)

Environmental Conditions Both types of Schools have same percentage of woodlots (63% comparison, 65% intervention)

Two-thirds of the intervention schools are on hill tops, while there is a more even distribution of

geographic location in comparison schools

Intervention schools are further away from nearest river on average (4.6 km vs. 1.2 km for

comparison school) and are twice as far away from towns than the comparison schools on

average (8km vs 4km)

Very few facilities have ceilings at all (15% comparison, 12% intervention) but all intervention

schools with roofs have better quality of roofing as they use steel sheets for roofing while 70% of

comparison schools do

Majority of the schools use steel grills on windows with a larger distribution of them in intervention

schools

Almost all intervention schools have classrooms and toilets that are well lit and well ventilated

while a little over a third of comparison schools have the same (96% vs 35%)

Sustainability 40% of intervention schools use solar energy for power while 40% of comparison schools do not

have power. A greater share of comparison schools use ESCOM versus intervention schools

Comparison schools had to pay much more on average for their electricity bills than intervention

schools. However, only a handful of schools responded to this question. Out of 6 comparison

schools, the average was 16,000 and out of 7 intervention schools, the average was 2,800.

Only 13 schools responded who was the responsible for paying the electricity bill and all of them

responded the school does.

A greater amount of intervention schools got their water from a borehole than comparison schools

(80% vs 60%)

Most comparison schools said there was saltiness in the water quality (58%) while most

intervention schools said there was turbidity in the water (70%)

Fewer intervention schools had faulty but working and more said they have a source of water

working well than comparison schools (88% vs 70%)

Majority of the schools have a water and sanitation committee which meets regularly, but

marginally more intervention schools do (96% vs 80%)

More intervention schools provide students with water buckets than comparison schools (71% vs

60%)

Structural integrity Much fewer intervention schools have cracks on walls and cracks/depressions in the floor

compared with over half of the comparison schools (walls - 12% vs 55%; floors - 17% vs. 55%).

Less than half of all schools have cavities or settlement around the foundations, but marginally

more intervention schools do than comparison schools (46% vs 40%)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 192

Majority of the intervention schools use timber poles for roof trusses (70%) while a majority of

comparison schools use treated timber (60%).

Almost all schools have reinforced concrete ring beam and lintels (100% intervention, 90%

comparison).

Drainage conditions in comparison schools are 50-50 between poor and fair while 12% of

intervention schools are poor, 52% are fair and 36% need clearing.

More than half of the intervention schools have easily removable mortar while very few

comparison schools do (54% vs 15%)

Tremors or earthquakes have happened in majority of the schools in the past 5 years (90%

comparison, 84% intervention)

Fewer intervention schools have had damage due to fire, heavy winds or floods than comparison

schools, but overall numbers are low (12% intervention, 15% comparison)

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 193

Annex N. Summary Statistics of the School Construction Assessment

All schools

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std. Dev Min Max

ACCESSIBILITY

Distance of school from main road 45 7.51 14.0 0.1 70

Maximum distance walked by students to school 45 4.78 5.0 0.1 30

Time taken by students to reach school 45 49.78 21.7 20 105

School is accessed by vehicles and non-motorised transport 45 100% 0.0 0 1

School is accessed by foot only? 45 4% 0.0 0 1

Availability of classrooms for all classes (Standard 1 to 8)? 43 84% 0.1 0 1

Availabity of permanent sanitation facilities 45 91% 0.0 0 1

Availability of access ramps to classrooms 45 67% 0.1 0 1

Availability of access ramps to toilets 44 57% 0.1 0 1

School has provision of accommodation for teachers? 44 93% 0.0 0 1

AESTHETICS

External walls are painted 45 7% 0.0 0 1

Internal walls are painted 45 87% 0.1 0 1

Windows have glasses in good order 45 56% 0.1 0 1

Floor has no visible cracks 45 78% 0.1 0 1

Doors and windows hinged securely 45 91% 0.0 0 1

Adequate lighting in classrooms 45 78% 0.1 0 1

Adequate lighting in sanitation facilities 44 75% 0.1 0 1

School has well managed landscaping including woodlot and playgrounds 45 49% 0.1 0 1

School is generally clean and has bins or provision for waste disposal 45 73% 0.1 0 1

School has well marked posts and labeled rooms/doors? 43 79% 0.1 0 1

SAFETY AND SECURITY

School has perimeter fence and gate 45 18% 0.1 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of day time security 45 29% 0.1 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of night time security 45 69% 0.1 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 194

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std. Dev Min Max

Toilets have doors with locks 45 71% 0.1 0 1

Toilets are visible from classrooms and/or teachers offices 44 55% 0.1 0 1

School has marked Emergency Assembly Area and direction signs 44 64% 0.1 0 1

Serviced fire extinguishers available 45 9% 0.0 0 1

Visible display of teachers on duty on display board 44 86% 0.1 0 1

Roofing sheets well secured to trusses 45 91% 0.0 0 1

School has written rules or guidelines for safety and security on visible board 45 84% 0.1 0 1

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

School has infrastructure master plan displayed visibly 45 27% 0.1 0 1

School has projects committee with diverse membership 42 64% 0.1 0 1

Projects committee meets regularly with other stakeholders 41 63% 0.1 0 1

School maintains technical file with details and drawings of projects undertaken 45 44% 0.1 0 1

Projects committee monitors all works being undertaken 43 65% 0.1 0 1

UTILIZATION OF LOCAL MATERIALS AND KNOW HOW

Locally available skilled and qualified artisans, builders and foremen 44 82% 0.1 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by project committee 45 87% 0.1 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by others 45 84% 0.1 0 1

Availability of building materials locally (cement, paint, bricks, sand and quarry) 45 9% 0.0 0 1

Availability of building hardware shops within 30KM of school 45 91% 0.0 0 1

Availability of timber locally supplied 45 78% 0.1 0 1

USER SATISFACTION WITH CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND RESULTS

Availability of copies of completed certificates from contractors/consultants 41 12% 0.1 0 1

Ease of operation of facilities (doors and windows open easily, etc) 45 82% 0.1 0 1

Ease of maintenance of facilities 44

Easy 23 52%

Moderate 14 32%

Difficult 4 9%

Complicated 3 7%

Availability of maintenance records 43 47% 0.1 0 1

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION

Total floor area of classrooms 42 238.7 365.3 54 2134

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 195

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std. Dev Min Max

Total number of students at school 40 1572.7 1293.7 419 5468

School operating hours 45 7.2 0.4 7 8

Availability of afternoon or evening classes 45 29% 0.1 0 1

Usage of facilities for extra-curricular activities 45 84% 0.1 0 1

Usage of facilities for community activities 43 9% 0.0 0 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - Heat/Ventilation, Light, Sound

Average rainfall for the district * 12 92% 0.1 0 1

Temperature range for the district ** 1

School has woodlot 42 64% 0.1 0 1

Geographic position of school 41

Hill Top 22 54%

Valley 11 27%

Near stream 8 20%

Approximate distance of school from nearest river 42 3.1 5.9 0.2 25

Do facilities have ceilings?

Type of window 45 13% 0.1 0 1

None 1 2%

Hollow concrete blocks 12 27%

Steel grills 27 60%

glazed steel frames 2 4%

timber frames 2 4%

Other 1

Type of roofing materials 45

None 1 2%

Steel Sheets 39 87%

Concrete roofing 5 11%

Distance of school from trading centre, entertainment centres, religious facilities 45 6.1 9.4 0.1 40

Are classrooms and toilets well lit and well ventilated? 45 69% 0.1 0 1

SUSTAINABILITY - ENERGY AND WATER

Source of power 45

None 15 33%

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 196

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std. Dev Min Max

ESCOM mains 14 31%

Solar 15 33%

Generator 1 2%

Average monthly energy bill (per category of ESCOM, generator fuel, firewood) 13 8846.5 12816.3 2 40000

Responsibility for payment of electricity bills 13

School 13 100%

DEM 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Source of potable water 45

None 5 11%

Borehole 32 71%

Piped water 8 18%

Quality of potable water 42

Scent 7 17%

Turbidity 20 48%

Taste of saltiness 15 36%

Condition of water source and system 45

Damaged 2 4%

Working well 36 80%

Faulty, but working 7 16%

Is there a Water and Sanitation committee which meets regularly? 45 89% 0.0 0 1

Does the school provide water buckets for students? 44 66% 0.1 0 1

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Any visible vertical or horizontal cracks on walls? 45 31% 0.1 0 1

Any visible cracks or depressions in floor? 44 34% 0.1 0 1

Type and condition of roof trusses? 43

Timber Poles 23 53%

Steel 1 2%

Treated Timbers 19 44%

Facilities have reinforced concrete ring beam and lintels? 45 96% 0.0 0 1

Condition of drainage around facilities 45

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 197

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std. Dev Min Max

Poor 13 29%

Fair 23 51%

Need cleaning 9 20%

Cavities or settlement around building foundations? 44 43% 0.1 0 1

Ease of removal of mortar 44 36% 0.1 0 1

Occurrence of tremors or earthquakes in past 5 years 45 87% 0.1 0 1

Occurrence and extent of damage due to fire, heavy winds or floods 45 13% 0.1 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 198

SCC-CFS schools

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

ACCESSIBILITY

Distance of school from main road 25 10.396 17.77 0.1 70

Maximum distance walked by students to school 25 5.828 5.96 0.2 30

Time taken by students to reach shool 25 52.4 21.07 30 105

School is accessed by vehicles and non-motorised transport 25 100% 0.00 0 1

School is accessed by foot only? 25 4% 0.04 0 1

Availability of classrooms for all classes (Standard 1 to 8)? 25 84% 0.07 0 1

Availabity of permanent sanitation facilities 25 100% 0.00 0 1

Availability of access ramps to classrooms 25 68% 0.09 0 1

Availability of access ramps to toilets 24 67% 0.10 0 1

School has provision of accommodation for teachers? 24 100% 0.00 0 1

AESTHETICS

External walls are painted 25 4% 0.04 0 1

Internal walls are painted 25 96% 0.04 0 1

Windows have glasses in good order 25 60% 0.10 0 1

Floor has no visible cracks 25 72% 0.09 0 1

Doors and windows hinged securely 25 100% 0.00 0 1

Adequate lighting in classrooms 25 100% 0.00 0 1

Adequate lighting in sanitation facilities 24 96% 0.04 0 1

School has well managed landscaping including woodlot and playgrounds 25 56% 0.10 0 1

School is generally clean and has bins or provision for waste disposal 25 76% 0.09 0 1

School has well marked posts and labeled rooms/doors? 24 92% 0.06 0 1

SAFETY AND SECURITY

School has perimeter fence and gate 25 12% 0.06 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of day time security 25 16% 0.07 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of night time security 25 76% 0.09 0 1

Toilets have doors with locks 25 92% 0.05 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 199

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Toilets are visible from classrooms and/or teachers offices 24 58% 0.10 0 1

School has marked Emergency Assembly Area and direction signs 24 71% 0.09 0 1

Serviced fire extinguishers available 25 8% 0.05 0 1

Visible display of teachers on duty on display board 24 88% 0.07 0 1

Roofing sheets well secured to trusses 25 96% 0.04 0 1

School has written rules or guidelines for safety and security on visible board 25 84% 0.07 0 1

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

School has infrastructure master plan displayed visibly 25 32% 0.09 0 1

School has projects committee with diverse membership 25 80% 0.08 0 1

Projects committee meets regularly with other stakeholders 22 77% 0.09 0 1

School maintains technical file with details and drawings of projects undertaken 25 40% 0.10 0 1

Projects committee monitors all works being undertaken 23 78% 0.09 0 1

UTILIZATION OF LOCAL MATERIALS AND KNOW HOW

Locally available skilled and qualified artisans, builders and foremen 25 92% 0.05 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by project committee 25 96% 0.04 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by others 25 96% 0.04 0 1

Availability of building materials locally (cement, paint, bricks, sand and quarry) 25 12% 0.06 1 2

Availability of building hardware shops within 30KM of school 25 88% 0.06 0 1

Availability of timber locally supplied 25 64% 0.10 0 1

USER SATISFACTION WITH CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND RESULTS

Availability of copies of completed certificates from contractors/consultants 24 8% 0.06 0 1

Ease of operation of facilities (doors and windows open easily, etc) 25 92% 0.05 0 1

Ease of maintenance of facilities 25 0 0

Easy satisf_ease_maint 0%

Moderate 11 44%

Difficult 12 48%

Complicated 2 8%

Availability of maintenance records 25 48% 0.10 0 1

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION

Total floor area of classrooms 23 219.04 230.68 54 864

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 200

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Total number of students at school 23 1246.70 1081.29 448 5468

School operating hours 25 732% 0.48 7 8

Availability of afternoon or evening classes 25 44% 0.10 0 1

Usage of facilities for extra-curricular activities 25 92% 0.05 0 1

Usage of facilities for community activities 23 0% 0.00 1 2

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - Heat/Ventilation, Light, Sound

Average rainfall for the district * 2 50% 0.35 0 1

Temperature range for the district **

School has woodlot 23 65% 0.10 0 1

Geographic position of school 24

Hill Top 16 67%

Valley 5 21%

Near stream 3 13%

Approximate distance of school from nearest river 23 4.64 7.63 0.2 25

Do facilities have ceilings? 25 12% 0.06 0 1

Type of window 25

None 1 4%

Hollow concrete blocks 5 20%

Steel grills 17 68%

glazed steel frames 2 8%

timber frames 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Type of roofing materials 2-

None 0 0%

Steel Sheets 25 100%

Concrete roofing 0 0%

Distance of school from trading centre, entertainment centres, religious facilities 0 0 0.00 0 0

Are classrooms and toilets well lit and well ventilated? 0 0% 0.00 0 0

SUSTAINABILITY - ENERGY AND WATER

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 201

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Source of power 20

None 7 28%

ESCOM mains 7 28%

Solar 10 40%

Generator 1 4%

Average monthly energy bill (per category of ESCOM, generator fuel, firewood) 7 2786.00 1775.64 2 5000

Responsibility for payment of electricity bills 6

School 6 100%

DEM 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Source of potable water 25

None 3 12%

Borehole 20 80%

Piped water 2 8%

Quality of potable water 23

Scent 3 13%

Turbidity 16 70%

Taste of saltiness 4 17%

Condition of water source and system 25

Damaged 1 4%

Working well 22 88%

Faulty, but working 2 8%

Is there a Water and Sanitation committee which meets regularly? 25 96% 0.04 0 1

Does the school provide water buckets for students? 24 71% 0.09 0 1

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Any visible vertical or horizontal cracks on walls? 25 12% 0.06 0 1

Any visible cracks or depressions in floor? 24 17% 0.08 0 1

Type and condition of roof trusses? 23

Timber Poles 16 70%

Steel 0 0%

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 202

Question/Item Obs (N) Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Treated Timbers 7 30%

Facilities have reinforced concrete ring beam and lintels? 25 100% 0.00 0 1

Condition of drainage around facilities 25

Poor 3 12%

Fair 13 52%

Need cleaning 9 36%

Cavities or settlement around building foundations? 24 46% 0.10 0 1

Ease of removal of mortar 24 54% 0.10 0 1

Occurrence of tremors or earthquakes in past 5 years 25 84% 0.07 0 1

Occurrence and extent of damage due to fire, heavy winds or floods 25 12% 0.06 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component

Comparison schools

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev

Mi

n Max

ACCESSIBILITY

Distance of school from main road 20 3.91 5.60

0.

1 20

Maximum distance walked by students to school 20 3.475 2.98

0.

1 11

Time taken by students to reach shool 20 46.5 22.54 20 90

School is accessed by vehicles and non-motorised transport 20 100% 0.00 0 1

School is accessed by foot only? 20 5% 0.05 0 1

Availability of classrooms for all classes (Standard 1 to 8)? 18 83% 0.09 0 1

Availabity of permanent sanitation facilities 20 80% 0.09 0 1

Availability of access ramps to classrooms 20 65% 0.11 0 1

Availability of access ramps to toilets 20 45% 0.11 0 1

School has provision of accommodation for teachers? 20 85% 0.08 0 1

AESTHETICS

External walls are painted 20 10% 0.07 0 1

Internal walls are painted 20 75% 0.10 0 1

Windows have glasses in good order 20 50% 0.11 0 1

Floor has no visible cracks 20 85% 0.08 0 1

Doors and windows hinged securely 20 80% 0.09 0 1

Adequate lighting in classrooms 20 50% 0.11 0 1

Adequate lighting in sanitation facilities 20 50% 0.11 0 1

School has well managed landscaping including woodlot and

playgrounds 20 40% 0.11 0 1

School is generally clean and has bins or provision for waste

disposal 20 70% 0.10 0 1

School has well marked posts and labeled rooms/doors? 19 63% 0.11 0 1

SAFETY AND SECURITY

School has perimeter fence and gate 20 25% 0.10 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of day time

security 20 45% 0.11 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of night time

security 20 60% 0.11 0 1

Toilets have doors with locks 20 45% 0.11 0 1

Toilets are visible from classrooms and/or teachers offices 20 50% 0.11 0 1

School has marked Emergency Assembly Area and direction

signs 20 55% 0.11 0 1

Serviced fire extinguishers available 20 10% 0.07 0 1

Visible display of teachers on duty on display board 20 85% 0.08 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 204

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev

Mi

n Max

Roofing sheets well secured to trusses 20 85% 0.08 0 1

School has written rules or guidelines for safety and security on

visible board 20 85% 0.08 0 1

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

School has infrastructure master plan displayed visibly 20 20% 0.09 0 1

School has projects committee with diverse membership 17 41% 0.12 0 1

Projects committee meets regularly with other stakeholders 19 47% 0.11 0 1

School maintains technical file with details and drawings of

projects undertaken 20 50% 0.11 0 1

Projects committee monitors all works being undertaken 20 50% 0.11 0 1

UTILIZATION OF LOCAL MATERIALS AND KNOW HOW

Locally available skilled and qualified artisans, builders and

foremen 19 68% 0.11 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by project

committee 20 75% 0.10 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by others 20 70% 0.10 0 1

Availability of building materials locally (cement, paint, bricks,

sand and quarry) 20 5% 0.05 0 1

Availability of building hardware shops within 30KM of school 20 95% 0.05 0 1

Availability of timber locally supplied 20 95% 0.05 0 1

USER SATISFACTION WITH CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

AND RESULTS

Availability of copies of completed certificates from

contractors/consultants 17 18% 0.09 0 1

Ease of operation of facilities (doors and windows open easily,

etc) 20 70% 0.10 0 1

Ease of maintenance of facilities 19 0 0

Easy 12 63%

Moderate 2 11%

Difficult 2 11%

Complicated 3 16%

Availability of maintenance records 18 44% 0.12 0 1

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION

Total floor area of classrooms 19 262.39 487.69 64 2134

Total number of students at school 17

2013.6

5

1453.4

4

41

9 4788

School operating hours 20 715% 0.37 7 8

Availability of afternoon or evening classes 20 10% 0.07 0 1

Usage of facilities for extra-curricular activities 20 75% 0.10 0 1

Usage of facilities for community activities 20 20% 0.09 0 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - Heat/Ventilation, Light,

Sound

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 205

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev

Mi

n Max

Average rainfall for the district * 10 100% 0.00 0 1

Temperature range for the district **

School has woodlot 19 63% 0.11 0 1

Geographic position of school 17

Hill Top 6 35%

Valley 6 35%

Near stream 5 29%

Approximate distance of school from nearest river 19 1.23 0.89

0.

2 3.5

Do facilities have ceilings? 20 15% 0.08 0 1

Type of window 20

None 0 0%

Hollow concrete blocks 7 35%

Steel grills 10 50%

glazed steel frames 0 0%

timber frames 2 10%

Other 1 5%

Type of roofing materials 2-

None 1 5%

Steel Sheets 14 70%

Concrete roofing 5 25%

Distance of school from trading centre, entertainment centres,

religious facilities 20 3.76 7.01

0.

1 30

Are classrooms and toilets well lit and well ventilated? 20 35% 0.11 0 1

SUSTAINABILITY - ENERGY AND WATER

Source of power 20

None 8 40%

ESCOM mains 7 35%

Solar 5 25%

Generator 0 0%

Average monthly energy bill (per category of ESCOM,

generator fuel, firewood) 6

15917.

17

16703.

97 3

4000

0

Responsibility for payment of electricity bills 7

School 7 100%

DEM 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Source of potable water 20

None 2 10%

Borehole 12 60%

Piped water 6 30%

Quality of potable water 19

Scent 4 21%

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 206

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev

Mi

n Max

Turbidity 4 21%

Taste of saltiness 11 58%

Condition of water source and system 20

Damaged 1 5%

Working well 14 70%

Faulty, but working 5 25%

Is there a Water and Sanitation committee which meets

regularly? 20 80% 0.09 0 1

Does the school provide water buckets for students? 20 60% 0.11 0 1

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Any visible vertical or horizontal cracks on walls? 20 55% 0.11 0 1

Any visible cracks or depressions in floor? 20 55% 0.11 0 1

Type and condition of roof trusses? 20

Timber Poles 7 35%

Steel 1 5%

Treated Timbers 12 60%

Facilities have reinforced concrete ring beam and lintels? 20 90% 0.07 0 1

Condition of drainage around facilities 20

Poor 10 50%

Fair 10 50%

Need cleaning 0 0%

Cavities or settlement around building foundations? 20 40%

0.1095

45 0 1

Ease of removal of mortar 20 15%

0.0798

44 0 1

Occurrence of tremors or earthquakes in past 5 years 20 90%

0.0670

82 0 1

Occurrence and extent of damage due to fire, heavy winds or

floods 20 15%

0.0798

44 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 207

School Construction Specialist

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

ACCESSIBILITY

Distance of school from main road 12 6.0 6.85 1.0 25.0

Maximum distance walked by students to school 13 3.5 1.46 1.5 6.0

Time taken by students to reach shool 13 70.0

44.9

1 30.0

180.

0

School is accessed by vehicles and non-motorised transport 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

School is accessed by foot only? 13 15% 0.10 0 1

Availability of classrooms for all classes (Standard 1 to 8)? 13 69% 0.13 0 1

Availabity of permanent sanitation facilities 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Availability of access ramps to classrooms 13 77% 0.12 0 1

Availability of access ramps to toilets 13 77% 0.12 0 1

School has provision of accommodation for teachers? 12 83% 0.11 0 1

AESTHETICS 13 0% 0.00 0 1

External walls are painted 13 92% 0.07 0 1

Internal walls are painted 11 91% 0.09 0 1

Windows have glasses in good order 13 77% 0.12 0 1

Floor has no visible cracks 13 69% 0.13 0 1

Doors and windows hinged securely 13 92% 0.07 0 1

Adequate lighting in classrooms 13 92% 0.07 0 1

Adequate lighting in sanitation facilities 13 62% 0.13 0 1

School has well managed landscaping including woodlot and

playgrounds 13 92% 0.07 0 1

School is generally clean and has bins or provision for waste

disposal 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

School has well marked posts and labeled rooms/doors? 13 0% 0.00 0 1

SAFETY AND SECURITY 13 0% 0.00 0 1

School has perimeter fence and gate 13 8% 0.07 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of day time

security 13 85% 0.10 0 1

School has duly assigned personnel in charge of night time

security 11 73% 0.13 0 1

Toilets have doors with locks 13 31% 0.13 0 1

Toilets are visible from classrooms and/or teachers offices 13 15% 0.10 0 1

School has marked Emergency Assembly Area and direction

signs 13 0% 0.00 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 208

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Serviced fire extinguishers available 13 38% 0.13 0 1

Visible display of teachers on duty on display board 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Roofing sheets well secured to trusses 13 77% 0.12 0 1

School has written rules or guidelines for safety and security on

visible board 13 0% 0.00 0 1

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

School has infrastructure master plan displayed visibly 13 15% 0.10 0 1

School has projects committee with diverse membership 13 38% 0.13 0 1

Projects committee meets regularly with other stakeholders 13 54% 0.14 0 1

School maintains technical file with details and drawings of

projects undertaken 12 25% 0.13 0 1

Projects committee monitors all works being undertaken 12 83% 0.11 0 1

UTILIZATION OF LOCAL MATERIALS AND KNOW HOW

Locally available skilled and qualified artisans, builders and

foremen 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by project

committee 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Local labour used in construction/maintenance works by others 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Availability of building materials locally (cement, paint, bricks,

sand and quarry) 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Availability of building hardware shops within 30KM of school 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Availability of timber locally supplied 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

USER SATISFACTION WITH CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

AND RESULTS

Availability of copies of completed certificates from

contractors/consultants 13 8% 0.07 0 1

Ease of operation of facilities (doors and windows open easily,

etc) 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Ease of maintenance of facilities 13 - - - -

Easy 9 69% - - -

Moderate 2 15% - - -

Difficult 2 15% - - -

Complicated 0 0% - - -

Availability of maintenance records 13 15% 0.10 0 1

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION N

A NA NA NA NA

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 209

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Total floor area of classrooms 13

1351

.1

1035

.8 175

338

6

Total number of students at school 13 7:23 0.02 6:00 7:30

School operating hours

13

14:4

8 0.03

14:3

0

17:0

0

Availability of afternoon or evening classes 13 69% 0.13 0 1

Usage of facilities for extra-curricular activities 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Usage of facilities for community activities 13 85% 0.10 0 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - Heat/Ventilation, Light,

Sound

Average rainfall for the district * NA NA NA NA NA

Temperature range for the district ** NA NA NA NA NA

School has woodlot 13 69% 0.13 0 1

Geographic position of school 6 - - - -

Hill Top 0 0% - - -

Valley 6

100

% - - -

Near stream 0 0% - - -

Approximate distance of school from nearest river 9

1.12

22 0.53 0.5 2

Do facilities have ceilings? 13 8% 0.07 0 1

Type of window 13 - - -

None 0 0% - - -

Hollow concrete blocks 1 8% - - -

Steel grills 12 92% - - -

glazed steel frames 0 0% - - -

timber frames 0 0% - - -

Other 0 0% - - -

Type of roofing materials 12 - - - -

None 0 0% - - -

Steel Sheets 12

100

% - - -

Concrete roofing 0 0% - - -

Distance of school from trading centre, entertainment centres,

religious facilities 11

4.36

36 3.05 1.5 10

Are classrooms and toilets well lit and well ventilated? 12

100

% 0.00 0 1

SUSTAINABILITY - ENERGY AND WATER

Source of power 10 - - -

None 1 10% - - -

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 210

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

ESCOM mains 2 20% - - -

Solar 7 70% - - -

Generator 0 0% - - -

Average monthly energy bill (per category of ESCOM, generator

fuel, firewood) 1 4000 NA

400

0

400

0

Responsibility for payment of electricity bills 2 - - -

School 1 50% - - -

DEM 0 0% - - -

Other 1 50% - - -

Source of potable water 13 - - -

None 0 0% - - -

Borehole 11 85% - - -

Piped water 2 15% - - -

Quality of potable water NA NA NA NA NA

Scent NA NA NA NA NA

Turbidity NA NA NA NA NA

Taste of saltiness NA NA NA NA NA

Condition of water source and system 13 - - - -

Damaged 0 0% - - -

Working well 13

100

% - - -

Faulty, but working 0 0% - - -

Is there a Water and Sanitation committee which meets

regularly? 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Does the school provide water buckets for students? 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 13 8% 0.07 0 1

Any visible vertical or horizontal cracks on walls? 13 15% 0.10 0 1

Any visible cracks or depressions in floor? 13 - - - -

Type and condition of roof trusses? 5 38% - - -

Timber Poles 0 0% - - -

Steel 8 62% - - -

Treated Timbers 13

100

% 0.00 0 1

Facilities have reinforced concrete ring beam and lintels? 12 - - - -

Condition of drainage around facilities 0 0% - - -

Poor 10 83% - - -

Fair 2 17% - - -

Need cleaning 13 0% 0.00 0 1

Cavities or settlement around building foundations? 13 0% 0.00 0 1

Ease of removal of mortar 13 15% 0.10 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 211

Question/Item

Ob

s

(N)

Mean Std.

Dev Min Max

Occurrence of tremors or earthquakes in past 5 years 11 64% 0.15 0 1

Occurrence and extent of damage due to fire, heavy winds or

floods 13 8% 0.07 0 1

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component

Annex O. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Table 1. Cost of SCC-CFS intervention by school

Cost estimation

District School Name Project Start Date

Completion Date New Classrooms

Library/Admin Rehabilited clasrooms

New Staff Houses

Sanitation Sets

Total

Lilongwe East & West

MCHUCHU March, 2008 December, 2008 $ 19,900,849

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ 763,701

$ 20,664,550

Lilongwe East & West

Malembe October, 2010 March, 2012

$ 43,501,649

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ 1,335,510

$ 44,837,159

Lilongwe East & West

Chimpumbulu October, 2010 March, 2012

$ 17,400,659

$ -

$ -

$ 3,978,377

$ 1,335,510

$ 22,714,547

Lilongwe East & West

Yepa October, 2010 March, 2012

$ 26,100,989

$ -

$ -

$ 3,978,377

$ 1,335,510

$ 31,414,877

Lilongwe East & West

Chamtambe October, 2010 March, 2013

$ 37,175,651

$ -

$ -

$ 5,666,404

$ 1,902,168

$ 44,744,223

Blantyre Mbengwe

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre Macheka

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre Mkomadzi

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 19,999,969

$ -

$ 19,999,969

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 55,252,949

Blantyre Nkaladzi

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ 9,999,985

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 55,252,949

Blantyre Nanjere

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 19,999,969

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 35,252,979

Blantyre Namiwiyo

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 39,999,939

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ -

$ 53,717,940

Blantyre Likulu

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre Mpapa

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 213

Blantyre Nasiyaya

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre Namaera

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre St. James

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 19,999,969

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 35,252,979

Blantyre Manyonwe

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 29,999,954

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 45,252,964

Blantyre Nancholi

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 39,999,939

$ -

$ -

$ 13,718,001

$ 1,535,009

$ 55,252,949

Blantyre Naotcha

September, 2011

December, 2012 $ 49,999,924

$ -

$ -

$ 22,863,335

$ 4,605,026

$ 77,468,285

Phalombe Dzanjo

September, 2014

February, 2015 $ 48,206,456

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ 3,645,104

$ 51,851,559

Thyolo Goliati May, 2013 March, 2014 $ 113,730,940

$ 14,847,806

$ -

$ 41,604,361

$ 3,466,541

$ 173,649,648

Nkhatabay Chiomba September, 2014

January, 2015 $ 48,206,456

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 100,650,048

Nkhatabay Mdyaka II September, 2014

January, 2015 $ 36,154,842

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 88,598,434

Nkhatabay Chilala September, 2014

January, 2015 $ 48,206,456

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 100,650,048

Nkhatabay Chikale September, 2014

January, 2015 $ 36,154,842

$ 15,733,628

$ 12,051,614

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 100,650,048

Nkhatabay Chilundwe September, 2014

January, 2015 $ 48,206,456

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 100,650,048

Mongochi Lusalumwe December, 2014

September, 2015 $ 72,309,683

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 124,753,276

Mongochi Mdinde December, 2014

September, 2015 $ 72,309,683

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 124,753,276

Mongochi Malindi II December, 2014

September, 2015 $ 72,309,683

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 124,753,276

Mongochi Lufalu December, 2014

September, 2015 $ 72,309,683

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 124,753,276

Mongochi Nandembo December, 2014

September, 2015 $ 72,309,683

$ 15,733,628

$ -

$ 33,064,861

$ 3,645,104

$ 124,753,276

Note: Not all schools had the same intervention components, thus the blank cells. See the School Construction Calendar (Annex A) for details.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 214

Table 2. Total cost of SCC-CFS intervention by district

District 2016 MK prices 2016 USD prices

Lilongwe East & West $ 164,375,356 $ 230,267

Blantyre $ 684,221,779 $ 958,500

Phalombe $ 51,851,559 $ 72,637

Thyolo $ 173,649,648 $ 243,259

Nkhatabay $ 491,198,627 $ 688,101

Mongochi $ 623,766,380 $ 873,810

Total $ 2,189,063,349 $ 3,066,575

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 215

Annex P. The Terms of Reference

1. Background and objectives

School infrastructure development component under the child friendly schools programme of

the current UNICEF MCO country programme has been designed to contribute chiefly to two key

components of the national Education Sector Implementation Plan (ESIP)

I. improved access to equitable education

II. improved and relevant quality education

The education sector in Malawi also aims to establish standards, norms and effective processes

for school improvement generally through the national Primary School Improvement Programme

(PSIP). In that framework, school construction is meant to enhance participation, capacity,

sustainability and efficiency of the sector. Access and quality of education in Malawi has long

been affected by an extreme shortage of classrooms. While primary enrolment increased by 45%

between 2004 and 2013, the number of primary classrooms rose by only 12%. A recent study

(USAID, 2014) identified classroom shortage as one of the major factor leading to student

absenteeism, repetition and dropouts. Analysis of PET-QSD Survey data also confirms this. Hence,

the target of the Malawian education sector as laid out in the ESIP II (2013/14 – 2017/18) is to

construct at least 20,000 classrooms to meet increasing population of school age children.

It is within, and in response to, this context that the Basic Education and Youth Development

(BEYD) section seeks to meet the objectives of improved educational access and quality for all

children through a broad School Construction component contributing to both volume and

quality of school infrastructure in Malawi. School infrastructure development includes multiple

inputs such as building of classrooms, latrines and teachers houses as well as contribution to the

development of school construction norms and standards including capacity for school

construction. The proposed evaluation is important in assessing the extent to which the School

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 216

Construction Component enables UNICEF Malawi to contribute to those broad objectives for key

learner outcomes in education.

UNICEF has utilised the Child Friendly School (CFS) quality framework as guidance to meet the

MCO commitment to the education sector. This includes emphasizing the importance of

inclusiveness and equity for marginalised children. In the context of Malawi this has reflected in

a strong focus on girls’ education due to the many factors related to school environment and

infrastructure that hinder girls from enrolling, enjoying and completing basic education. As an

example girls drop out of school in large numbers when reaching puberty due to lack of adequate

water and sanitation facilities. The CFS framework also highlights the need to consider school

infrastructure as a holistic approach to improved learning environment; including both hard-ware

and soft-ware aspects.21

This evaluation will assess the extent to which the School Construction component of the Child

Friendly Schools Programme has contributed to a) the development of standards, and capacity

for their implementation within the wider BEYD goals of strengthening institutional capacity and

b) the learning environment. The specific objectives are:

1. To assess the contribution of the school construction component to the BEYD

programme objectives of improving access22 to quality basic education for all, especially

of the most vulnerable and girls

2. To assess the achievement of the school construction component in contributing to the

child friendly education approach23 in in focus areas and targeted schools;

21 Hard-ware aspects include building of classrooms while soft-ware aspects include issues such as maintenance and attitudes towards the school environment. 22 By access and quality in education, this means direct learner outcomes including: enrollment, dropout and completion with an equity dimension. 23 Child friendly Approach means child friendly environments, standards and related capacity enhancement objectives.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 217

3. To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the inputs and process of the school

infrastructure project in meeting the above leaner outcomes, standards and capacity

enhancement objectives;

4. To identify lessons learnt and make recommendations for the new country programme

(2017-2021).

2. Scope of Work

Within the OECD evaluation framework (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and

sustainability) the key dimensions to be evaluated will be threefold focusing on expected outputs

linked to learner outcomes; processes; and the chosen inputs and particularly the child friendly

education and the school improvement approach.

The impact evaluation is to focus mainly on 35 primary schools constructed in 5 districts of

Malawi under the BEYD Child Friendly Schools Programme between 2012 and 2015. Whereas the

type and level of construction and subsequent interventions vary between school sites, the

consultant will have to apply relevant and applicable assessment, examination and review

methods as appropriate in order to fulfil the outlined scope of work. Each dimension is laid out

below with key supporting questions and tasks intended to assist and guide (but not limited to)

the evaluator in their approach.

Relevance:

Were the programme objectives appropriate in the overall problem context; needs and priorities?

What value (and for whom) did the School Construction add relative to other education initiatives?

Given progress to date, are the School Construction objectives still relevant?

To what extent is the School Construction Component (SCC) linked with others so that they form a synergistic set that is relevant to achieve programme results, especially for the most vulnerable children? In other words, is the SCC strategy used within the most relevant set of strategies?

To what extent did the original SCC strategy evolve and transform itself into other strategy in the selected programme areas/districts?

To what extent is the SCC strategy relevant for and aligned with the needs of the national stakeholders, especially the most relevant children and women?

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 218

To what extent has the SCC programme been implemented in partnership with the relevant stakeholders?

Efficiency:

How well has the SCC programme implementation been managed in the programme districts/areas?

To what extent is the SCC programme cost efficient? Could the same results have been achieved using different strategies and with less resources?

To what extent did the various activities transform the available resources into the intended SCC outputs in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness

How well did the various activities transform the available resources into results?

What measures were taken to ensure cost-effectiveness in procurement and implementation?

What measures were taken to ensure effective financial implementation, monitoring and reporting?

How well did the School Construction predict and react to risks?

Effectiveness:

To what extent has the SCC programme contributed to achieving (or not) the expected outcome and output level results in the programme areas?

To what extent was the SCC strategy more (or less) effective due to the synergies with other strategies in the framework of the Country Programme (especially with the other Nutrition components as well as Health and WASH interventions)?

To what extent has the SCC strategy contributed to reducing bottlenecks and barriers that determine equity gaps affecting vulnerable children in the programme areas?

What have been the main factors that promoted or hindered the effectiveness of the SCC approach?

What difference did SCC make, as measured by how far the intended beneficiaries really benefited from the products or services

To what extent did the School Construction deliver expected results?

To what extent has the design enabled the improvement of the school environment?

How well has the School Construction component contributed to the improvement of standards and systems; especially in terms of institutional capacity?

What are the key factors most likely to provide an understanding of success or bottlenecks associated with the implemented interventions in the targeted schools?

Impact:

To what extent was progress made against improving access and quality (or lack thereof) of education in terms of, increased enrolment, decreased drop out, Improved pass rates, and Completion rates ( boys and girls)?

To what extent has the intervention contributed to reducing the equity gaps in the programme areas in favour of the most vulnerable children?

What are the unintended consequences (positive and negative) of the SCC intervention?

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 219

Sustainability:

To what extent has the programme developed the capacities of stakeholders and ensured ownership including participation, maintenance and monitoring.

To what extent did the project enable local participation and ownership of the project?

To what extent will maintenance be sustained by local partners/beneficiaries once the funding comes to an end?

To what extent has the programme contributed to establishment of systems/institutional

capacity?

Application of human right based approach (HRBA)

To what extent has the HRBA, including equity focus and gender mainstreaming been applied?

How well did stakeholders (head teachers, teachers, school management committee members and students) in the targeted schools participate in the process; by providing leadership harmonization, utilization and maintenance of the built environment?

The evaluation shall include an overall performance rating for each of the above five evaluation

criteria (see scope of work) – on the basis of the following scale:

Highly satisfactory (fully according to plan or better)

More than satisfactory ( More or less according to plan, positive aspects far

outweighing negative aspects

Satisfactory (on balance according to plan, positive aspects outweighing negative

aspects);

Less than satisfactory (not sufficiently according to plan, taking account of the

evolving context; a few positive aspects, but outweighed by negative aspects):

Highly unsatisfactory (seriously deficient, very few or no positive aspects). Each rating

should be stated as part of the conclusions for each of the five criteria.

METHODOLOGY

Improving access and quality education and achieving a child friendly school environment can

never depend on infrastructure or school construction alone. It relies on multiplicity of

interrelated in and out-of-school factors that are socio-economic and cultural in nature. When

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 220

attempting to evaluate the impact of certain factors or environment and not others it is

important to be able to apply methods that take into account and control for variables known to

be directly related to the quality of education. This can include variables such as availability of

qualified teachers, access to teaching and learning materials, socio-economic background and

other relevant factors within the context of Malawi. The methodology of the evaluation will have

to take this into consideration. The overall evaluation approach will therefore be based on the

specific theory of change for the SCC intervention. The evaluation report should identify how the

SCC has been understood to address the identified problems. This can include a results chain or

other logic models such as a logframe. It will include inputs, outputs, outcomes as well as impacts.

The model needs to be clearly described and explained. To this end, the evaluation will be guided

by the global CFS conceptual framework/strategy and the country specific SCC/CFS logic models

and results frameworks which will need to be discussed and made explicit in the initial stage of

the evaluation. In addition, the evaluation will also need to apply a systems evaluation approach

to examine SCC implementation / management aspects. In light of the purposive selection of

programme beneficiaries, the evaluation will have to use a non-experimental design approach.

Triangulation of data (combining quantitative and qualitative data as well as data from a range

of stakeholders) will have to be considered to increase reliability and validity of the findings and

conclusions.

The consultants are expected to present, in detail, their approach, methodology and tools, with

an action plan and time frame that addresses the expected outputs, with reference to the overall

and specific objectives as well as budget. The following are to be taken into consideration:

1. Evaluability Assessment: At the inception stage, the evaluators are expected to conduct a

thorough review and analysis of a wide range of available secondary data in order to identify

information gaps and other evaluability challenges and discuss solutions to address them. It’s

anticipated that the available programme and secondary data and the envisaged qualitative

data collection will address most of the evaluation criteria and the corresponding questions,

except some aspects of the impact criteria (e.g. the challenge to form a valid comparison

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 221

group). In such cases, the evaluation team will, at the inception stage, consult with the

evaluation reference group for alternative approaches, including additional data collection to

complement what cannot be assessed through desk review or the use of less rigorous

evaluation approaches or agreeing on a set of evaluation questions that can be reasonably

assessed.

2. Related to evaluability assessment described above, the consultant will undertake a desk

review24 of construction related education programmes in Malawi to better understand and

document the educational context; including challenges and best practices that arise with

school construction. The consultant will have to be become well acquainted with all the

materials which UNICEF provides. It will have to draw up questionnaire and interview

questions, coding plans, and how he/she will analyse the data (analytical framework). This

review will provide for a necessary bottleneck analysis that explains the relationship between

school infrastructure and key domains of education quality such as access, demand, enabling

environment and overall learning outcomes.

3. Taking into consideration that there are numerous and multiple factors that can influence the

outcome of a programme a mixed method approach which uses both qualitative and

quantitative data collection and analysis is recommended. While quantitative methods and

analysis acknowledges the fact that there are objective realities that can impact directly on

particular outcomes. Qualitative methods and analysis acknowledges the fact that processes,

emotions and experiences are real and play a crucial role in the way people interact and make

use of institutions, cultures and social structures. The balance between the two methods is

vital for improved understanding and learning of the subject. The evaluation will therefore

need to:

analyse fixed outcomes and factors through correlations and patterns providing a

quantitative analysis of impact and results (quantitative)

24 The consultant to ensure all key documents are taken into consideration. The following specific documents are particularly recommended: UNICEF strategies; Sector policy and strategies including ESIP documents; School Improvement Programme documents; school quality standards including those for school infrastructure; MCO/UNICEF country programme documents; Review and evaluation studies;, etc.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 222

provide a deeper understanding of the outcome through in-depth interviews and

perspectives of the actual beneficiaries of the programme (qualitative)

Quantitative data collection and analysis: When choosing a quantitative data collection

method the consultant needs to consider that i) control groups were not establish for the

programme in the beginning of the programme ii) some school sites have ongoing

construction and interventions due to the fact that the country programme has one year to

go. The consultant will therefore need to choose a valid method25 that fits the scope of work

in order to be able to assess inputs, outcomes and impact of school construction.

Data is to be collected from 35 primary schools and should focus on capturing the relationship

between the built environment (school construction) and the following (but not limited to)

key education indicators:

Enrolment; boys and girls, OVC and SNE

Dropout; boys and girls, standards 5 and 8

Pass rates; boys and girls

Completion rates; boys and girls

It is important to note that there may be some challenges in data reliability and

disaggregation of data by gender, age group, etc. It is proposed that some of the risks could

be mitigated through triangulation, cross-referencing, focus group discussions and other

means.

Qualitative data collection and analysis: Whereas the evaluation is to assess processes of

work, its contribution to standards, norms and the success of capacity building along with

attitudes and participation of stakeholders it is vital to make use of qualitative data collection

and analysis.

25 Methods such as ‘before and after’ comparison or ‘with-without’ comparison making use of regression analysis are for example valid ways of performing impact evaluations.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 223

Data is to be collected through informative interviews and focus groups from all key

stakeholders26 at national, district and school level involved in the School Construction. The

consultant is also encouraged to make use of onsite observations in order to assess

maintenance, cleanliness and utilization of the built environment.

4. Ethical clearance - the consultants are expected to identify all relevant ethical issues (i.e.

consent from parents when discussing with children; gender related issues and issues of

power balance) from the proposed methodology and seek ethical clearance as appropriate

from the National Committee on Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (NCRSH) in

accordance with the rules and regulations of conducting research in Malawi.

5. Limitations – the consultant needs to take into consideration and provide workable solutions

to the following challenges and possible limitation of the evaluation:

a. A baseline survey was not undertaken. In utilising a before and after approach the

consultant (s) school take into consideration that some children and staff may not

have been at the school before the construction started.

b. Some school sites have ongoing construction, as such the evaluation criteria may not

be applicable in all schools

c. Control groups were not established in the beginning of the programme making it

difficult to compare outcomes. Hence, the consultant is expected to propose a

methodology that works around this issue.

The consultancy is expected to develop the above into a robust methodology and draw up a work

plan for visiting all relevant sites and stakeholders to collect all relevant and necessary data.

3. Deliverables and payment schedule

26 Including MoEST, EIMU, and Education Managers at district and school level, Head Teachers, Teachers, Community Members and Students.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 224

Intermediary deliverables

1. Inception report (including evaluability assessment) and power point presentation to

validate the methodology to be used in the evaluation.

2. Field report after data collection and PowerPoint presentation for validation and feedback.

3. A preliminary report highlighting major findings from the assessment and key

recommendations shared and reviewed.

4. Power Point presentation on the preliminary findings with UNICEF, government and

stakeholders

5. Final evaluation report

A Final evaluation Report which shall be compliant with the UNICEF - Adapted UNEG standards

(to be provided to successful consultants) should include - but is not limited to - the following

components:

Executive Summary. • Description of the SCC programme (including theory of change and relevant information)

Purpose of the evaluation, evaluation scope and evaluation criteria • Description of the evaluation methodology (including evaluability assessment, limitations and

ethical issues)

• Findings broken down by evaluation criteria

• Conclusions and lessons learned

• Recommendations

Appendices should include:

Terms of Reference

List of people interviewed

List of documents consulted

Methodological details and data collection instruments

A tightly-drafted, to-the-point and free-standing Executive Summary is an essential component.

It should be short and not more than five pages. It should focus mainly on the key purpose or

issues of the evaluation, outline the main analytical points, and clearly indicate the main

conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. The Executive Summary shall

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 225

include the Performance Rating of the main 5 evaluation criteria. Cross-references should be

made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows.

The Recommendations should be the subject of a separate final chapter. Wherever possible, for

each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommendation. The key points of the

conclusions will vary in nature but will often cover aspects of the key evaluation criteria (including

performance ratings). Key results from the evaluation should be:

Program review that results in evidence for future interventions and programmes on

child friendly school environment

Final report that will influence policy and programmatic decisions relating to

enhancement of quality education within Malawi at national, sub-national and

school levels

The final report will be shared widely with Government partners through the Ministry of

Education, donors and cooperating partners. The following activities will be implemented in this

regard:

1) Report will be printed and widely distributed to key stakeholders

2) At national level, report will be presented in all relevant technical working groups as

well as for development partners;

3) At district level. The report will be utilized for review and planning session including at

sub district levels.

4) Finally, the report will be used as part of knowledge sharing and management process

initiated by the basic education programme.

Final deliverables

As final outputs three sets of documents will be required (electronic copies in Word & PDF)-(1)

Final evaluation report, (2) Micro data in soft copy.

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 226

BUDGET

The consultant should provide an overall budget for the activity of the evaluation.

Payment will be based on deliverables as follows

• Inception report and presentation 30%

• Field report and presentation 20%

• Draft report and presentation 20%

• Final report and data sets 30%

Standard UNICEF procedures will apply for invoicing and all other financial management

requirements set out in the contract. Standard penalty clauses will also apply for late and poor

quality deliverables.

4. Management and oversight

The consultants will report to a reference group including the Chief of Education, Chief of PME,

and Research and Evaluation Specialist as well as relevant government and civil society

stakeholders. A reference group is responsible for quality assurance of the evaluation at each

stage providing the consultant with the criteria for the evaluation of the quality of each

deliverable. A technical team will provide required logistical support, available research,

documents, studies and evaluation relevant to the exercise

5. Qualification requirements

A qualified team leader and one or two experts with at least 8 years relevant background and

experience in programme evaluation, research, extensive work with the education sector and

school infrastructure:

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 227

Team leader

PhD in Education or the Social Science

8-10 years’ experience in programme evaluation within the field of Education

sector, or social development in Malawi or sub-Saharan Africa;

Proven capacity to conduct research at a national scale, including capacity to

work with national level partners as well as management, analysis, and

interpret large sets of data

Excellent analytical and writing skills.

Excellent communication and negotiation skills and fluency in English written

and verbal

Construction and/or Environmental Specialist (s)

Advanced or Master’s degree in Built Environmental Studies and Psychology;

Architecture or Engineering with a focus on schools environment and links to

learning of children;

8 years knowledge and experience in construction design and engineering in

Malawi or Sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on the comprehensive range of

school infrastructure, and school ground planning and development;

Skills in building economics, quantity surveying, and comparative cost analysis

and experience in value for money and technical audits;

Proven capacity to conduct research, the management, statistical analysis and

interpretation of large sets of data, at a national scale, including capacity to

work with national level partners;

Excellent analytical, writing and communication skills with. Fluency in English

both written and verbal is essential.

6. Evaluation criteria

Criteria Points

School Construction Reliability Exercise

Final Evaluation Report—UNICEF CFS Construction Component 228

1. Overall Response 10 - Completeness of response - Overall concord between RFP requirements and proposal.

2. Proposed Methodology and Approach 40 3. Experience and qualifications of key personnel inclusive of: 30

- Qualitative and quantitative research & related fields as outlined in the ToR - Detailed knowledge of issues related to Environmental Studies and Psychology; Architecture or Engineering with a focus on schools environment and links to learning

of children

Total technical 80

Financial Proposal 20

Only proposals which receive a minimum of 58 points under a technical evaluation will be

considered technically compliant.

7. Content of technical proposal

The technical proposal must include the following:

introductory note

company or team profile

list of projects delivered within the field of education evaluations and research

CVs of individuals proposed for the assignment

Outline of methodology to be employed

supporting certificates

financial statements for financial stability

organogram

Gantt chart