2011/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/40

Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011

The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education

Save the Children UK’s financial flows, programme choices, and the influences of the Rewrite the Future

Campaign

Janice Dolan with Susy Ndaruhutse

2010

This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2011 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011, The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education”. For further information, please contact efareport@unesco.org.

1

Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011

Save the Children UK’s financial flows, programme choices, and the influences of the Rewrite the Future Campaign

Authors: Janice Dolan and Susy Ndaruhutse

Contents Summary 1. Introduction

1.1 Save the Children UK 2. Education funding flows and sources

2.1. Growth in overall education expenditure 2.2. Growth in education expenditure in development and emergency contexts 2.3. Growth in education expenditure in conflict-affected countries 2.4. The Rewrite the Future Campaign – growth in income raised and sources of funding

3. Rewrite the Future Country programme and funding analysis

3.1. Programme priorities and activities 3.2. Programme funding and sources

4. Linkages between programme activities and funding

4.1. Difficulty in finding funds 4.2. Short-term nature of funding 4.3. Context and funding 4.4. Variety of funding sources 4.5. Emergencies funding, and linkages between emergencies and development funding

5. International advocacy on funding for conflict-affected countries 6. Conclusion References Appendices Appendix 1: Education Expenditure Appendix 2: Explanation of funding terms Appendix 3: Funding for Rewrite the Future Appendix 4: Analysis of funding and sources during Rewrite the Future Campaign period for

DRC, Liberia, Southern Sudan, and Somalia/Somaliland Appendix 5: Rewrite the Future in DRC

Rewrite the Future in Somalia/Somaliland

2

Summary In recent years, Save the Children, a non-governmental organisation, prioritised education for children affected by conflict through their Rewrite the Future Campaign. Through a significant scaling up of resources in programmes in conflict-affected countries the organisation has grown its education programmes in these contexts and enabled 1.3 million children to have new access to education and improved the quality of education for more than 10 million. As one member of the Save the Children alliance, Save the Children UK increased its expenditure in conflict-affected countries from less than $1.5m a year before 2005 to over $30 million by 2009. It has focused its attention on countries such as the DRC, Liberia, southern Sudan and Somalia as well as growing its education in emergencies programme. The Rewrite the Future Campaign also made an impact internationally through analysis and advocacy on the aid flows to conflict-affected countries which has helped to bring increased attention and willingness on the part of the international community to ensure access to education in these contexts as well. The paper highlights the achievements and challenges of the work of Save the Children UK in relation to funding volumes and sources of funding on country programme activities, and the influence of Save the Children’s international work on the global funding for countries affected by conflict. In addition the paper distills learning points in relation to how Save the Children and others could improve the impact of funding on education programmes through longer term, more predictable and context appropriate funding and ensuring NGOs are partners in the development process. 1. Introduction1 Save the Children, a non-governmental organisation, has been fighting for children’s rights for over 90 years. Ensuring access to education has always been a key part of the organisation’s mandate, however in recent years education, and particularly education for children affected by conflict and emergencies, has taken a high profile. In 2004, the International Save the Children Alliance2, agreed to launch a number of 5-year ‘Global Challenges’ which all alliance members prioritised and worked on together. One of these ‘Global Challenges’ was a campaign for Education for Children Affected by Armed Conflict 3. This was to be the first time that the Save the Children Alliance would unite on a common issue to campaign and programme internationally, nationally and for members to unite within countries to programme together. The strategic choice of Education for Children Affected by Armed Conflict was based on:

• The extent of the problem: more than half of the world’s children without education live in countries in the midst of or recovering from conflict.

• Education is seen as an “enabling right” and is increasingly recognised as an important part of humanitarian response.

• Education can be a vital means of protection in areas of armed conflict • In a reconstruction phase, education plays a vital role in the recovery and

development of children and their society. 1 This paper looks at specific aspects of Save the Children’s Rewrite the Future Campaign and, as such, it does not capture all the information related to the Campaign nor is it an evaluation of the Campaign. In 2008 Save the Children carried out a mid-term evaluation of Rewrite the Future in four countries (Afghanistan, Angola, Nepal, and southern Sudan). See Save the Children 2009e and Save the Children 2009h for more information on the mid-term evaluation. 2 At the time this consisted of over 20 member Save the Children’s around the world bound by a common vision and mission, however often identifying their own priorities and operating their own programmes. 3 There were four ‘Global Challenges’ in all - two of them focused around organisational strengthening and coordination (Unified Presence (at programme level) and Building Stronger Members). Another was focused on improving the organisation’s capacity and coordination to respond to emergencies (Alliance Coordination in Emergencies (ACE)).

3

• The Alliance has significant experience in this area and already had a recognised international position.

(Save the Children, 2004) Save the Children recognised that the universally agreed Millennium Development Goals on education and the Education for All goals would never be achieved if children living in an armed conflict or a post-conflict situation were neglected, and whilst other education programmes would continue, Alliance members sought to scale up programmes in those countries affected by conflict and increase their advocacy in this area. Programme and advocacy work began at the beginning of 2005 and, after over 12 months of preparation including putting in place programme frameworks and global targets for access and quality beneficiaries and fundraising, the campaign was officially launched internally in March 2006 and externally in September 2006. This was when the ‘Global Challenge’ officially became the ‘Rewrite the Future Campaign’. The campaign focus was on securing quality education for the millions of children out of school due to war and armed conflict. Save the Children, recognising that the collective actions of donors, governments, community, national and international organisations, education professionals, children and their families were needed, pledged that by the end of 2010 Save the Children would achieve the following four key objectives related to access, quality, protection and financing: 1. Eight million conflict-affected children benefit from improved quality of education by 2010

due to Save the Children Alliance efforts. 2. Of these, three million conflict-affected, out-of-school children gain access to education

by 2010 due to Save the Children Alliance efforts. 3. Education established as a recognised means for protecting children affected by armed

conflict by 2010. 4. The international community mobilises significantly increased resources for education for

children in countries affected by conflict by 2010. At least seventeen4 Save the Children Alliance members were actively engaged in programming or fundraising and programming and activities took place in 28 countries5. Countries were selected on the basis of having an internationally recognised armed conflict; a large number of children whose schooling has been interrupted; long-term erosion of education quality due to conflict; threats of violence or other protection issues that touches on education; and a country where a Save the Children member is operational or is willing to become operational, with capacity and long term commitment (Save the Children, 2004). As the work of Rewrite the Future included countries in different phases of an armed conflict – acute emergencies, ongoing conflicts, and post-conflict situations – the campaign identified key elements to be emphasised including emergency response and early reconstruction, the transition to long-term development, and education’s role in peace building and democracy (Save the Children, 2004). Internationally, Save the Children Alliance members united on key advocacy messages and advocated to their governments highlighting the need to address and prioritise education for children in conflict. Three key themes (financing, education in emergencies, and education and peace) were identified for international advocacy.

4 These included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. 5 The countries included Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Guatemala, Haiti, India (Kashmir), Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Montenegro, Nepal, North Sudan, Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia/Somaliland, Southern Sudan, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uganda. Some countries, for example Jordan and Syria, were involved through the programme for displaced Iraqi children. During the course of the campaign the number of countries fluctuated as some countries came on board part way through the campaign or some were involved for a specific time period.

4

Underpinning both Save the Children’s activities and the need for change on the issue was the need for increased resources:

Save the Children needed increased resources to carry out its activities and to scale up its work in countries affected by conflict and Save the Children committed to raise $450m6 to do this during the course of the campaign;

National governments needed to increase the finances available for education – in conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)7 (average 13.5%) budget allocations to education are often lower than those in other low-income countries (average 16.9%) (Save the Children, 2009d);

The international community needed to increase their aid for these countries – at the beginning of the campaign less than a quarter of basic education aid was going to CAFS despite being home to over half the world’s out-of-school children (Save the Children, 2007), and importantly education in countries affected by conflict hardly featured on the international agenda.

1.1. Save the Children UK Save the Children UK is one of the lead members in education for the Save the Children Alliance, and as such played a key role in the Rewrite the Future Campaign. Save the Children UK was the lead agency at country level in eight conflict-affected countries – the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Liberia, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Southern Sudan, including three south east European Countries (Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia). The organisation also supported in funding or programme terms the campaign activities in a number of other countries including Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Uganda. A strong policy and communications team based in the UK also led on the policy and advocacy work on financing of education internationally and contributed to policy and advocacy work on education, peace and education in emergencies. Save the Children UK was also the lead for the Save the Children Alliance in the Education Cluster and was the co-lead on designing the first Alliance wide monitoring and reporting system (AIMS) for the Campaign that contributed to the credible evidence on achievements of programme work and supported the policy analyses. Taking on a significant role in the campaign was also supported by the fact that in the early stages of the campaign, in 2005, Save the Children UK went through an organisational restructure which prioritised work around four key objectives (of which one was education) and a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jasmine Whitbread, joined the NGO. In 2007 the organisation committed to achieve five 10-year Change for Children breakthroughs – for education this was

Children caught up in crisis can now expect to get a basic education - we've helped get education established as a fundamental part of all emergency responses.

(Save the Children, 2007b)) With education taking on a key programme and policy significance within Save the Children UK, with a new CEO who was active and committed to education, the Rewrite the Future Campaign was well placed to make an impact. This paper will look at the volumes and sources of funding for Save the Children UK’s education work during the course of this campaign, analysing the influence of the campaign and funding volumes and sources on Save the Children’s work, particularly at country level. It will also reflect on the impact of the Rewrite the Future campaign internationally. 6 The $450m target was agreed at the March 2005 Board meeting (Save the Children 2005b). In early 2010, $408m of the $450m had been raised, with pledges for a further $38m making a total expected funding of $446m. 7 Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

5

2. Education funding flows and sources8 2.1. Growth in overall education expenditure With the organisational commitment to education and the Rewrite the Future Campaign, and an overall growth in the organisation’s income and expenditure, education expenditure9 within the organisation grew both in nominal terms and as a percentage of the charitable expenditure10 as illustrated in Table 1. Education expenditure has grown from less than 1% of the organisation’s charitable expenditure in 2001 to almost 20% by 2008, and expenditure has increased from just $1.1million in 2001 to $53m by 2008. Protection has also been a leading sector for the organisation alongside education, and this also experienced significant growth post 2005, coinciding with the organisational restructure which designated protection as one of the key four objectives alongside education, health, and freedom from hunger. However, whilst protection and education expenditure were almost equal in 2003, protection grew initially at a faster rate than education, but by 2008 education expenditure surpassed protection by over $13 million. Table 1: Overview of Save the Children annual income and expenditure, and education and protection expenditure from 2001 to 200811

Year12

Overall annual income

US$ millions

Overall annual

expenditure US$ millions

Expenditure on

charitable activities

US$ millions

Education Protection

US$ millions

% (charitable

expenditure)US$

millions % (charitable expenditure)

2001 167 176 139 1.1 0.8 4.2 3 2002 184 190 149 2.3 1.5 5.0 3.3 2003 199 201 163 4.5 2.8 4.8 3 2004 202 192 152 8.0 5.3 11.2 7.3 2005 246 226 190 20.8 11 26.4 13.9 2006 223 211 176 31.7 17.9 29.0 16.4 2007 243 235 201 40.7 20.3 37.4 18.7 2008 326 314 271 52.9 19.5 39.9 14.7

8 All figures in this paper have been converted to US$ although expenditure of Save the Children UK is reported in GBP. 9 Education expenditure includes education programme expenditure across a range of countries and Head Office policy and communications education related costs. 10 This includes expenditure on development projects, humanitarian assistance and information, campaigning and awareness. It excludes expenditure on governance of the charity and costs of generating funds. 11 Overall figures for income, expenditure and charitable expenditure are taken from Save the Children annual reports (2002, 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2007a, 2008d). Figures shown for education and protection are actual programme expenditure and are taken from internal Save the Children figures so they are comparable with the other years. The table shows only expenditure for education and protection in order to give a comparison of education with another sector supported by the organisation. Other areas of priority for expenditure for the organisation are health and freedom from hunger. 12 Note years represent financial years and not calendar years so that 2001 is FY 2001/02 etc.

6

2.2. Growth in education expenditure in development and emergencies contexts13 As Figure 1 illustrates, there has been a significant growth in education expenditure between 2001 and 200914, both in development and emergency contexts. In the early years expenditure was predominately in development contexts with 85% or more of education expenditure being in development contexts between 2001 and 2003. However with the growth in education in emergencies expenditure the share of education in emergencies grew from just a 5% share of overall expenditure in 2004 to 29% by 2009. However whilst education in emergencies expenditure may have been low, during this period Save the Children UK was developing its education in emergencies work and was responding to emergencies for example in East Timor15 and with the start of the Rewrite the Future Campaign and Save the Children UK taking on the co-lead of the Education Cluster in 2006, education in emergencies expenditure has increased significantly. The slight decrease in education expenditure in both emergencies and development contexts between 2008 and 2009 may be explained by a change in Save the Children’s financial year (from a UK financial year to a calendar year) and hence 2009 figures are annualised rather than actual (as the financial year was in fact only 9 months). However it could also be that education expenditure is declining as a result of other priorities in the organisation (to be discussed further later in the paper). Figure 1: Programme Education Expenditure 2001 - 2009

Education Expenditure (2001 to 2009)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Educ

atio

n Ex

pend

iture

US$

mill

ions

development US$ memergencies US$ meducation total US$ m

13 See Appendix 1 for full data tables of education expenditure in programmes and Appendix 2 for an explanation of terms used to categorise funding. 14 Save the Children UK changed its financial year in 2009 from an April to March financial year to a calendar year. Actual figures reported for 2009 are therefore only for 9 months but here have been annualised to 12 months to allow year on year comparisons to be made. 15 As the reporting system was also different early on in the decade it may be possible that some education and emergencies expenditure was not reported as such.

7

2.3. Growth in education expenditure in conflict-affected countries16 As can be seen from Figure 2, and as might be expected for Save the Children, an organisation which in recent years has prioritised working in difficult contexts, Save the Children UK’s education expenditure in countries affected by conflict in both development and emergency contexts has risen significantly17. Overall annual education expenditure in countries affected by conflict has grown from less than $1.5m a year before 2005 to over $30 million by 2009 (or 63% of total education expenditure). The organisation has spent over 50% of its education expenditure in countries affected by conflict for the past three years and this has risen significantly from 18% in 2004. Figure 2: Education Expenditure in Conflict-affected Countries 2001 -2009

Programme Education Expenditure in Conflict-Affected Countries (2001 - 2009)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year

Educ

atio

n Ex

pend

iture

US$

mill

ions

development US$ m

emergencies US$ m

education total US$ m

This rise in expenditure in countries affected by conflict corresponds to the start of the Rewrite the Future Campaign which began in programmes in 2005. While the organisation had always worked in a number of difficult contexts, and made this more explicit as an organisation wide priority during a reshape of priorities in 200518, the dramatic rise in expenditure in countries is linked to the Rewrite the Future Campaign. This is illustrated in Figure 3 for four Rewrite the Future Countries – DRC, Liberia, Somalia and southern Sudan – which prior to 2005 had minimal education expenditure and by 2008 annual education

16 Note this section uses the GMR definition of conflict-affected poor countries and not the Save the Children definition of either CAFS or those countries included in the Rewrite the Future campaign. Note this therefore excludes Rewrite the Future lead countries for Save the Children UK of Sri Lanka, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. 17 See Appendix 1: Education Expenditure for full data tables of education expenditure in programmes in countries affected by conflict. 18 For example through the recruitment of Head Office Fragile States Policy Advisers for each sector, health, education, protection and freedom from hunger.

8

expenditure had grown to over a $2m for all four countries. This is clearly linked to the organisational efforts, both nationally and internationally to scale up programming in these contexts. Figure 3: Education Expenditure in Four Rewrite the Future Countries 2001 -2009

Education Expenditure in Four Rewrite the Future Countries

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Educ

atio

n Ex

pend

iture

US$

mill

ions

DRC Liberia Somalia South Sudan

2.4. The Rewrite the Future Countries – growth in income raised and varying sources of funding Whilst it is clear that in recent years Save the Children expenditure on education, and specifically education in conflict-affected countries grew significantly, it is also clear from Figure 3 and the growth in expenditure in the DRC, Liberia, Somalia/Somaliland and southern Sudan that the Rewrite the Future Campaign brought about a focus both on increasing resources for education in conflict-affected countries and a growth in programming in a certain number of those countries. To support the scaling up of programming in these contexts, Save the Children UK had Rewrite the Future fundraising targets and the organisation also had Rewrite the Future as the number one fundraising priority in the early stages of the campaign. Since 2005 Save the Children UK funding has been used to support programmes in 19 countries as part of the Rewrite the Future Campaign. Whilst not all of these programmes have been Save the Children UK member led they have been supported by funding and often programming. For example in Uganda, Save the Children Norway is the lead agency for Rewrite the Future, however Save the Children UK has contributed to the funding of the programme. In total Save the Children UK raised $119m to contribute to the overall achievement of the $450m fundraising target. Nine programmes raised over $5m during the campaign (2005 to 2010) – Afghanistan ($6.9m), Colombia ($6.5m), Côte d’Ivoire ($7.2m), the DRC ($13.5m), Indonesia ($8.4m), Liberia ($7.5m), Somalia/Somaliland ($25.5m), southern Sudan ($16.6m) and Sri Lanka ($12.6m). Somalia/Somaliland, Southern Sudan and the DRC raised the majority of Save the Children UK’s funding for Rewrite the Future – between them 50% of total Rewrite the Future funding. As these 3 countries, along with Liberia, were lead Rewrite the Future countries for Save the Children UK and are also identified as conflict-affected poor countries by the EFA Global Monitoring Report (GMR) (UNESCO, 2010) the majority of the discussion and analysis included in the rest of this paper will be based on these four countries. Whilst all countries affected by conflict are different and it is difficult to call any one country representative of

9

other conflict-affected countries, these four countries do provide a range of funding contexts and needs. As Figure 4 below illustrates, funding raised per year by Save the Children UK for Rewrite the Future peaked in 2006 at $35.3m and 83% of the funding overall has come from institutional donors and unrestricted funding19. The graph also illustrates that actual funds raised for Rewrite the Future reached a peak in 2006 and then declined until 2008 with a slight recovery in 2009 (due to institutional funding particularly in Angola, Colombia, the DRC and southern Sudan). It is expected that as funds raised have dropped this will impact education expenditure and programming in countries affected by conflict in the coming years. It is also possible that the small decline in overall education expenditure and development education expenditure in conflict-affected countries in 2009 (Figure 1 and Figure 2) is the first indication of this. Figure 4: Overview of sources of funding for Rewrite the Future programmes

Funds raised per year overall and by source

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Fund

s ra

ised

US$

mill

ions

Institutionaldonors

Corporates

Trusts

UnrestrictedFunds

Save theChildrenmembersTOTAL

The sources of funding for Rewrite the Future programmes are characterised by two things: (i) Organisational focus and commitment to the campaign shown by a commitment of unrestricted funding particularly in the early years. In total during the course of the campaign Save the Children UK committed $9.9m of its unrestricted income and unrestricted funding was at a peak of $3.17m in 2006 so the year after the campaign started (and the official external launch year) and steadily declined to $0.67m in 2009. This indicates a shift in focus of the organisation to other priorities, however, as the Rewrite the Future Campaign was planned as a 5-year campaign from 2005 to 2010 this could also be expected. In addition in 2009, Save the Children also launched a global campaign on child survival, the ‘EveryOne’ campaign, hence resources were allocated to this and fundraising priorities became focused on ‘EveryOne’. 19 See Appendix 2 for a table of actual funding by source for Rewrite the Future and an explanation of the terms.

10

(ii) The bulk of funding (75% or $90.5m) has come from institutional donors including UN agencies. Government donors have included Sweden, Denmark, Spain, the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand as well as the EC and the World Bank. All of these donors, except New Zealand, have been explicit in recent years on their support for education in conflict-affected countries and are also all countries with active Save the Children members (Save the Children, 2009c, Save the Children, 2009d). This is a relatively high proportion of funding from institutional donors when compared to overall education programme funding (that is including conflict-affected and non conflict-affected countries). Overall education programme funding is 52% of institutional funding for the same period (2005 to 2009). Therefore it seems that the Rewrite the Future Campaign has been more successful in relation to raising institutional funding than it has been for other sources. However, as much of the international advocacy relating to Rewrite the Future has also been focused on institutional donors this trend might also be expected. Funding raised through other Save the Children members through a joint global fundraising initiative for Rewrite the Future have also contributed significant funds for Save the Children UK programmes. This is where for example Save the Children Italy has raised funds to support education in DRC and this is counted as Alliance MDP. This represented 10% of overall funding raised and was a significant form of funding for some programmes, for example southern Sudan received funding from 5 different Save the Children’s as well as from Save the Children UK. Whilst institutional donors have been strong supporters of Rewrite the Future, corporates (2.6% or $3.2m) and trusts (3.5% or $4.2m) have provided only limited amounts of funding. This is a smaller proportion of funding than might be expected from corporates and trusts. Of overall education expenditure (conflict and non-conflict countries) 32% of funding is from non-institutional and Alliance funding20 whereas for Rewrite the Future this figures is only 16%. When compared to overall amounts of non-institutional funding, this makes up 25% of total funding whereas for total education expenditure, non-institutional funding is almost 50%. 3. Rewrite the Future Country programme and funding analysis 3.1. Programme priorities and activities21 Having established the Rewrite the Future Campaign and education for children affected by conflict as an organisational priority, country programmes were encouraged to participate in the campaign and develop a country plan around four key objectives – access, quality, protection and financing (see for example objectives for the DRC and Somalia/Somaliland in Appendix 4). This country plan took account of the context and needs in country, programming by key education agencies in country, and set clear targets for achievement. However, country programmes were provided with guidelines for their country plan (see Save the Children, 2006b) and hence interventions at a country level for Rewrite the Future programmes were shaped by organisational priorities and directions as reflected in the Country Plan Guidelines document. For example, countries were asked to reflect the Rewrite the Future global objectives in their country plans, and the national targets were largely influenced by the campaign objectives and had to contribute to the global targets already set by the Campaign. As the DRC programme stated this was one of the achievements of the

20 This figure also includes funding raised through Save the Children’s Wish List. 21 This section focuses on how Rewrite the Future programme activities where shaped by organisational direction and funding. There are of course a number of other different factors including experience and capacity of staff, security issues, organisational role and capacity within countries that can influence programme decisions. However in the context of this paper these are not explored in detail.

11

campaign – providing a roadmap to follow22. Key to this framework was the need for programmes to look beyond immediate needs and look at policy change and influence at a macro level (Save the Children, 2006b). For example, the inclusion of the financing objective and the need for countries to look at overall sector financing within their country meant that countries may have been pushed to look beyond immediate needs and consider the longer term sustainability of the sector23. The structure and the monitoring and evaluation framework of Rewrite the Future set the challenge for a new level of ambition in relation to fundraising as well as the scope of programming, in terms of the number of children/beneficiaries reached and the number of districts in which Save the Children was operational. During the course of the campaign programme achievements have been significant. Overall the target of 8m children benefiting from improved quality education was surpassed, and by the end of 2008 over 10 million children had been reached. New access to education has also been secured for over 1.3m children. The target of the Rewrite the Future Campaign was 3m, and this has not yet been reached. However, the Save the Children will continue to work towards this target even after the end of Rewrite the Future and ensure they achieve this target. Country programmes found being part of the Rewrite the Future campaign motivating as they could see their work contributing to the bigger campaign. In addition they found the country level reporting and monitoring against the targets motivating as at the end of the year after they had completed their monitoring process they were able to see what they had achieved24. Table 2 illustrates the contribution of four of the Rewrite the Future country programmes to the global targets and gives an example of the achievements of the programmes as reported for 2009. In addition Table 3 below maps activities carried out in country based on immediate needs, longer-term interventions and those interventions that support state-building, an important activity in countries affected by conflict, for four of the Rewrite the Future programmes.

22 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010. 23 Countries followed the country plan guidelines for their Rewrite the Future plans. However Save the Children has used a Child Rights Programming Framework for a number of years as well which considered three pillars for programming – direct service delivery, capacity building and building constituencies of support so programmes had been encouraged to think beyond service delivery for a number of years. 24 Interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

12

Table 2: Overview of programme achievements in four Rewrite the Future countries

Summary of achievements Southern Sudan Liberia DRC Somalia/SomalilandNumber of children with new access to education (2005 - 2009) 68,122 30,338 54,097 40,402 Number of children with improved quality of education (2005-200825) 819,852 56,094 278,144 132,309 Key programme achievements in 2008 (DRC) or 2009 (Liberia, Somalia/Somaliland, Southern Sudan)26

• Supported 29 primary schools with ALP centres and reached a total of 5,710 learners

• Piloted a pastoralist education programme in three cattle camps

• Provided safe learning environments through increased classroom constructions and separate toilets for girls and boys in 9 schools

• Purchased and distributed 41,316 text books and 3,389 teachers guides

• Mainstreamed child protection topics in all trainings such as teacher training, training of PTAs and Community Support Groups, training for head teachers and local education authorities.

• Printed and distributed to schools, teachers, PTA members, local education authority offices at the State, County and Payam levels., 1,000 teachers' codes of conduct and 880 child protection manuals and handbooks

• Rehabilitated 27 schools and distributed 2,994 pieces school furniture

• Trained 310 members of PTAs from 37 schools on school management. Shifted from direct infrastructure rehabilitation interventions toinvolving PTAs to enhance ownership as well as build their management capacity.

• Trained 1,200 children from 24 children clubs on child rights and were involved in peer-to-peer awareness creation on importance of education.

• Increased enrolment and increased parents and children’s awareness about children’s rights especially their right to education through the countywide “Back to School Campaigns” focusing on the low enrolment pockets jointly organised with the County Education Office (CEO).

• School rehabilitation of 35 schools. In one school in the Goma area enrolment in 2007/08 was 461 , after rehabilitation 1149 children registered for the 2008/09

academic year. • Teacher capacity building,

607 teachers, 96 directors and inspectors have been trained on various themes.

• 65 Parent Associations trained. on school management and fundraising and accountability and also in child protection.For the reporting year.

• Supported schools to have the opportunity of an alternative income for recurrent costs. For example, school canteens run by the PTA/SMC have been set up in 6 schools. In South Kiviu waiving of school fees and uniforms have helped 1,895 poor children to go to school.

• Supported and established 23 formal schools and 30 ABE centers in Puntland and Somaliland

• Improved provision of textbooks through procurement and installation of 2 medium level printing machines in both Puntland and Somaliland. Technicians selected from respective ministries trained and printing materials supplied.

• 113 head teachers trained on alternative disciplining methods such as establishing school or classroom norms of non-violence and by creating good relationships with the students and other education staff.

• Regional Education Officers sensitised their local communities and developed local strategies for the access and survival of girls throughout primary schooling, and to progress on to secondary school.

25 This target was not monitored and reported against in 2009 as it had already been achieved. 26 This shows a selection of achievements as reported in 2008 or 2009 to illustrate the achievements of country education programmes. It does not show all the programme achievements for that year nor does it show all the achievements for all the Rewrite the Future Campaign funded activities in each country. Achievements are taken from Save the Children 2008a, Save the Children, 2009a, Save the Children, 2009f, and Save the Children 2009g.

13

Table 3: Overview of programme activities in four Rewrite the Future countries against a framework of meeting immediate education needs and addressing longer term sustainability27

List of activities Southern

Sudan Liberia DRC Somalia

A. Meeting short-term needs – immediate delivery of education

1 Alternative delivery modes e.g. ALP √ √ √ √

2 Addressing teaching and learning issues including teacher training, provision of materials √ √ √ √

3 Rehabilitating and constructing schools and providing of furniture √ √ √ √

4

Providing a safe and protective school environment (e.g. including girls toilets), and raising awareness at school level √ √ √ √

5 Addressing costs e.g. fees, provision of uniforms √ √ √

6 Mobilising the community including back to school campaigns /education campaigns √ √ √

B. Long-term needs28 – investment in education tomorrow

1

Addressing teacher issues at a regional or national level (not school level) including engagement on teacher payroll issues, codes of conduct, teachers housing, teacher training institutes √ √ √

2 Financing of the sector including national budget issues, aid, accountability √ √

3

Influencing protection policies e.g. development of children protection laws, teachers codes of conduct, laws to discourage, early marriage √ √

4 Influencing education policies e.g. curriculum development, ECD, ALP, teacher training policies √ √

5

Engaging with development of national education strategies (whole sector or sub-sector so wider than just policy specific) √

6 Capacity building of education officials through exchange visits etc √ √

(continued) 27 Note the categories in this table are identified by the author. However, they link to activities reported by Rewrite the Future programmes both in Rewrite the Future reports and in interviews conducted with Southern Sudan and the DRC. The analysis by country is based on reports from country programmes during the Rewrite the Future Campaign. An activity is judged to have taken place where the activity has formed a significant part of the programme work and/or had significant impact at country level. The assessment is not based on whether the activity was planned i.e. appears in the Country Plan. 28 The definition of this is taken to be issues that will influence the longer term, e.g. child protection training is taken as addressing immediate needs whereas putting in place a regional or national strategy on these issues or influencing government policy would be taken as longer term

14

(Table 3 continued)

List of activities Southern

Sudan Liberia DRC Somalia

C. Contribution to governance and state-building29 (as sub-set of above)

1 Increasing community participation and ownership (e.g. by taking control of school buildings, etc.) √ √

2 Training PTA/SMCs on school management and accountability, etc. √ √ √ √

3 Influencing longer-term/regional or nation wide strategy on PTAs/SMCs/ community engagement

4 Supporting children's participation e.g. children's councils, child advocacy groups √ √ √ √

5 Active role in supporting and developing civil society coalitions and/or networks on education √

As Tables 2 and 3 illustrate, all of these countries had significant achievements and included a mix of short-term, long-term and community activities in their country plans. The mapping illustrates that the majority of activities carried out were meeting immediate needs. In some contexts activities were planned for addressing longer-term needs, but did not take place, particularly under the financing objective. However, programme achievements and activities are influenced also by programme funding and sources. The ambitious country plans developed for each country involved a significant scaling up of activities and spending – for example education expenditure in the DRC in 2004 was less than $0.7m and the plan was to scale it up to over $1.5m a year by 2006 and over $2.5m by 2007. There was, therefore, a need for programmes to raise funding to implement their plan. This was part of the overall Rewrite the Future plan and as such there were organisational resources to support programmes, for example unrestricted funding as highlighted above as well as support from the fundraising department 3.2. Programme funding and sources Analysis of funding and sources from the four Rewrite the Future programmes which are classed as conflict-affected poor countries by the EFA GMR and where Save the Children UK was the lead agency – the DRC, Liberia. Somalia/Somaliland and Southern Sudan, can be seen in Table 430. The analysis along with the case study of the DRC and Somaliland (Appendix 4) and interviews with programme staff in the DRC and southern Sudan31 highlight the following issues related to funding at country level.

29 Note these activities are those that may be part of addressing immediate and long-term education needs but may also have an impact on building participation, governance and accountability with a longer term impact on state-building 30 The full table with additional information on percentage distribution of grants is given in Appendix 3. 31 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010 and interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

15

Duration of funding • Countries have received a large number of individual grants32 – the DRC has received 38

separate grants in the 5-year period. • The majority of grants are short term in nature:

For the DRC, Southern Sudan and Liberia, 80% or more of grants were for less than 12 months. For the DRC and Liberia this represented greater than 50% of the funding. The DRC programme illustrated the short-term nature of grants by stating that 'by the time we start implementing a grant it is over'33.

Grants for Somalia/Somaliland have been the exception with almost half of grants, and almost 80%, of the funding being for more than 2 years.

Southern Sudan has received the majority of its funding for 1 to 2 years through a small number of grants from institutional donors. However, out of its 35 grants only 2 have been for greater than 2 years.

Sources of funding • Funding for short-term and longer-term grants have come from a mixture of sources,

however the majority of grants lasting more than 12 months have come from institutional donors, including Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US, as well as the EC and UNICEF.

• UNICEF is more likely to implement short-term grants and funding for programmes. A total of 6 grants were received from UNICEF – 5 grants for Somalia (total $0.74m) and one grant for Southern Sudan ($0.02m) and only one of these for Developing of Alternative Approaches to Basic Education was for a period of longer than 12 months ($0.21m). Therefore of the $0.8m funding from UNICEF for these programmes only 29% was for a long-term programme. The DRC programme had only heard of UNICEF grants of upto a year and for relatively small amounts of funding and the Southern Sudan programme had heard of short-term funding of between 6 months and 1 year34.

• Overall institutional donors have formed the majority or more of funding in each of the four countries – forming 49% of funding in Liberia and 93% in Somalia/Somaliland.

• Liberia has received the most significant proportion of Trust funding – 17% of grants and 24% of funding. Both the DRC and southern Sudan stated that they did not have trust, corporate, or private sector as sources of funding though in southern Sudan there had been some diaspora funding for specific short-term activites, e.g. constructing a school for 3 to 6 months.

32 Note in some cases grants are multi-sector e.g. funding for protection and education in one grant. Therefore, the component and funding that actually went to education would only have been a fraction of the grant. However the programme would still have needed to manage this number of grants even if they were multi-sectoral. 33 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010. 34 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010 and interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

16

Table 4: Analysis of funding and sources during Rewrite the Future Campaign period Number of grants Sources of funding

Country Total 12 months or less

Between 12 - 24 months

Greater than 24 months

Institutional funders Corporates

Trusts and philanthropic

Save the Childrens

Private donations

DRC

Number 38 30 5 3 12 4 2 19 1

Funding US$

millions 17.96 9.85 1.90 6.21 11.19 0.29 0.56 5.01 0.92

Sources

SCs (Norway, Italy, Spain, Australia, Sweden, Finland,

Netherlands, Denmark, MODA), UNDP, Citgroup, DEC,

Rezidor, Bulgari, CLM, Swedish Gov't, Spanish Gov't

Medicor Foundation, SC Italy, Spain and

MODA Swedish gov't, USDOL, JOAC

UNDP, CLM, Spanish gov't, Swedish gov't,

USDOL

Citigroup Foundation,

Bulgari, Rezidor Medicor, JOAC DEC

Liberia

Number 12 10 1 1 2 0 2 4 4 Funding

US$ millions 6.71 3.79 1.42 1.51 3.32 0.00 1.60 1.67 0.12

Sources Swedish gov't, private, SCs SC Norway Comic Relief Swedish gov't

JOAC, Comic Relief

Somalia/ Somaliland

Number 29 12 4 13 20 0 5 3 1

Funding US$

millions 29.72 3.02 3.60 23.09 27.73 0.00 1.33 0.66 0.03

Sources

UNICEF, EC, private, SC New Zealand, private, Swedish

Gov't, GOAC,

SC Finland, Band Aid, EC,

Church

EC, SC Finland, UNICEF, Comic Relief, Danish Gov't, DFID

UNICEF, EC, Danish, Swedish,

DFID

GOAC, Band Aid, Comic Relief,

Church Communities UK

Southern Sudan

Number 35 28 5 2 17 1 2 14 1

Funding US$

millions 22.92 8.79 13.06 1.07 16.14 0.75 0.72 5.28 0.03

Sources

SCs (Norway, Italy, Sweden,Netherlands,

Denmark), Swedish, Canadian, Danish Gov't, US State Dept, UNDP, UNICEF, Band Aid,

JOAC, Bulgari, private

EC, DFID, Danish Gov't,

MDTF NZ Gov't, SC Netherlands

Swedish, Canadian, Danish, NZ Gov't, US State Dept, DFID, UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR,

EC, MDTF Bulgari Band Aid, JOAC

17

4. Linkages between programme activities and funding The analysis of funding in the four countries, the DRC, Liberia, Somalia/Somaliland and southern Sudan identifies some common themes and potential impact on programmes. These issues are explored in more detail below and linkages are made between the portfolio of activities in each country and the funding situation. 4.1. Difficulty in finding funds Several programmes face difficulty in securing funds, particularly long-term funding. Gaps in funding can significantly affect programme activities both in relation to the nature of activities and in terms of implementation. For example the southern Sudan programme has had teacher training as a key component of their work for many years, both in training new teachers and linking with the government on teacher training institutes and policies. Yet in 2009, the Rewrite the Future programme faced serious funding problems that affected implementation of some key activities such as teacher training amongst others and hence the programme trained fewer teachers than normal. This was due to the failure of the World Bank managed Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) to finance these activities as was planned. Other donors reduced funding for teacher training in 2009 as they knew that the MDTF was scheduled to deliver it, therefore there was an overall decline in the number of teachers trained (106 in 2009 compared to 798 in 200835) (Save the Children, 2008b, Save the Children, 2009g). Not only does the limited funding impact on Save the Children’s work, it also impacts on the supply of trained teachers in the country. Currently there are only 3,496 trained teachers in southern Sudan (MoEST, 2009) and much of the teaching force lacks training and has limited educaiton – in 2007 only 22% of teachers had formal training (Save the Children, 2009g). In addition timing of the funding can be important – funding for the training of teachers needed to be secured early in the year for the activity to be implemented – in 2009 some funding was secured for teacher training but came through in April 2009, which was too late for the training to commence since all teacher training courses needed to be held between January and March when schools are on holiday, it is the dry season, people are able to travel and goods be transported. Liberia also found its activities limited by funding stating ‘the main reason of our inability to reach all the schools supported over the past 4 years is due to lack of funding, which is a big challenge for the future of the Rewrite the Future programme in Liberia. In 2008, we supported 68 schools under a SIDA grant, which ended in December 2008, and we were not able to secure additional funding to continue to support these 68 schools in 2009’36. The DRC programme also faced significant challenges in finding funds stating that whilst donors say they are supporting education, they are supporting the government, and supporting the government over NGOs. Whilst acknowledging the importance of supporting the government there is also concern that the expectations of the government are too high as the government of the DRC is not providing as much money as other countries (allocating only 8% of its budget to education; half of the average of that of other Sub Saharan African countries37), and that INGOs and NGOs

35 Note the majority of these teachers are new teachers being trained for the first time: In 2008 the 798 teachers trained were 537 in Phase teacher training, 71 in Intensive English Course, 115 in Women Into Teachers, 61 in Accelerated Learning Programmes and 14 in ECD. In 2009, 47 in Phase teacher training, 15 in Pastoralist Education, 20 in ALP and 24 in Women Into Teaching (WIT). 36 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010. 37 See press release 19 April 2010 Primary education for all: Out of reach for Congo’s children? http://www.ircuk.org/about-irc-uk/media-centre/news/article/date/2010/04/primary-education-for-all-out-of-reach-for-congos-children

18

could make a significant impact as well38. Somalia/Somaliland by contrast to the other programmes seemed to be able to identify funding more easily and in their 2009 report (Save the Children, 2009a) stated ‘it was also a year of achievement in terms of securing more funds. Four new projects have been granted from the European Union and other donors such as UNICEF and the Foreign Ministry of Finland/ SC Finland'. 4.2. Short-term nature of funding As can be seen from the analysis of grants by country (Table 4 above), the majority of grants received by programmes are short term in nature, less than 12 months. Some of these can be emergency related as in the case of the DRC, however many of them are not emergency related. The impact of these short-term grants can be numerous –

They are time consuming in terms of the time needed by programme staff to manage them and also as they are short-term there is a need for programmes to be constantly looking for the next stream of funding;

It can be difficult to plan for longer-term activities as they will not show impact or be delivered during the course of the grant and it can be difficult to deliver truly strategic programmes and the donor may not be interested in linking up with other agencies’ programmes, increasing overall impact;

Short-term grants will often be for tangible things such as construction, provision of learning materials i.e. activities that meet immediate needs;

Loss of trained local staff during gaps in funding as the impact of this and the time required for recruitment and training of new staff has a huge impact on the effectiveness of programme implementation;39

Short-term grants tend to be for smaller amounts of money and therefore it is more difficult to cover the logistics and staff costs, the former can be very expensive in conflict-affected countries and given the level of fragility, implementation tends to require fairly heavy staffing.

Short-term funding comes from a number of sources, however the analysis indicated that Corporates and Trusts seem more likely to provide short-term grants than longer-term ones. 4.3. Context and funding: Given the difference in numbers of grants and levels of funding for the four Rewrite the Future programmes it seems that context also plays a part in attracting funding. The DRC has had the highest number of short-term grants and given the scale of needs in the country, a low level of institutional grants and few long-term grants. Even in its Country Plan, the DRC programme flagged the concern that the level of need is largely unknown outside the DRC and that the conflict is described as ‘tribal’ which can result in lower funding. Both southern Sudan and the DRC highlighted context as a driving factor for the type of funds available in country, that is short-term, more emergency focused funding rather than long-term funding. For example 'Emergency funding is typical for DRC even though it is not just in for emergencies, but not fully in development mode and should be in transition mode. Therefore the country needs long-term projects, yet it is difficult to get long-term funding and we do not know

38 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010. 39 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010 and interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

19

of any funding that has lasted 3 years'40. Southern Sudan also highlighted a focus on emergency type activities and the fact that they lack long-term funding because it is 'where people see southern Sudan should be, coming out of conflict, in an emergency mode of response but donors and development agencies have to be strategic and plan long-term activities. However, donors are not actually funding for the long-term situation'41. However, in other situations for example in the DRC in recent years when donors have started to reengage there has been more of a focus on strengthening the state to deliver services rather than trying to look at short- and long-term activities at the same time. In addition whilst the donors continue to try to support the government directly, actors on the ground such as INGOs and NGOs, amongst others are unable to have an impact due to a shortage of funding. The result is that in the DRC there has been little institutional funding for Save the Children and the focus has been on immediate needs through short-term grants (many of which were secured as a result of the emergency in 2008). In addition little seems to be know about the needs of the DRC external to the country, and to some extent within the country and there does not seem to be an effective coordination body which brings in different stakeholder, which is evident in other contexts. By contrast, Somalia/Somaliland has received the majority of funding through longer-term grants and 93% of its funding has come from institutional donors. It is also a country which for over a decade has been working without recognised state control (in Somalia) and with significant support from NGOs and UN agencies in the education sector. The non-state sector works alongside government and works to strengthen state delivery of services. Donors, particularly the EC and UNICEF have worked in the country for a long time developing the education sector and use financing modalities appropriate to the context. The result is that in Somalia/Somaliland Save the Children has been able to carry out more longer-term activities. For example the Strengthening Capacity of Teacher Training (SCOTT) project was funded by the EC and implemented in four regions of Puntland by Save the Children UK (SCUK). The project's purpose was to develop a comprehensive primary teacher training program and in two regions the programme reported that in 2008 under the SCOTT project 1,611 teachers from Somaliland completed the in-service training course and sat for final national examination (Save the Children 2008c). In Somalia/Somaliland there is a joint coordination body Somalia Aid Coordination Body in Nairobi as well as coordination in terms of needs and donor strategies and funding to address them42 (See Appendix 5). For example a Joint Needs Assement conducted by the UNDP and the World Bank in 2005/06 provided the guidance document for the donor strategy and resource allocation for five years. 4.4. Variety of funding sources Different sources of funding can lead to different activities and ideally a mix of sources of funding would enable all needs and activities to be met. Corporates and smaller Trusts may be interested in addressing immediate needs and showing tangible impacts – e.g. building schools, delivering resources all of which can be reported year on year and shared within the corporate and trust. However bigger trusts, e.g. funds through Comic Relief, tend to be more forward thinking and look at policy change as well as implementation. Institutional donors are also more likely to provide longer-term funds and consider the longer-term impact of activities. For example, DANIDA when funding the Sierra Leone programme actively encouraged the programme to include policy change in their work and engage in national level processes. The 40 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010. 41 Interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010. 42 See Appendix 5 for more information.

20

analysis also indicated that UNICEF is more likely to implement short-term grants and funding for programmes. In the DRC and southern Sudan programmes staff where also only aware of short-term grants from UNICEF. As a major institutional donor and a key partner in fragile states (for example considered by DFID, the Netherlands and others) it is important that UNICEF both funds and encourages short- and long-term activities in these contexts. As we have also seen, programmes are often managing a variety of funding sources and a large number of grants which can create high transaction costs and lead to fragmentation of programmes as programmes need to plan to meet different demands and interests of donors and a lot of time can be spent on managing donor relationships and proposal and report writing. 4.5. Emergencies funding, and linkages between emergencies and development funding Whilst emergency funding may be effective at meeting short-term development needs it is not designed for, nor effective at meeting the longer-term needs of the education sector. Where programmes have been able to attract more significant funding through emergencies than for their development work/country plan this has exacerbated the issue of not being able to address longer-term needs. This situation is particularly acute in the DRC which has struggled to attract financing in line with needs and with the emergencies-related programmes in 2008 was able to scale up its work and funding: “This reporting year, the DRC programme has been able to increase its fundraising efforts. We have 14 ongoing grants for education and 5 in the pipeline…. Most of our projects are of a short term nature and related to the emergency except for 2 - 3- year grants from USAID and USDOL.” (Save the Children, 2008a). However, unsurprisingly emergency funding has an impact on programming activities and as can be seen from the programme mapping, the DRC programme has been least able to develop its longer-term activities: “The other challenge is the development, implementation and monitoring of activities at the macro level and subsequent data collection at both regional and national level. This is linked with planned interventions in the TPP/RtF bordering on activities outside of the sphere of the school e.g. training for provincial level school inspectors and training cadres off trainers, consultants and or independent members of civil society to support and cascade training of school management committees. Our funding proposals (emergency related) have not included this level of activities and we now need to orient ourselves to the importance of this level of activity.’’ (Save the Children, 2008a) As highlighted by both southern Sudan and the DRC43, where the situation in country is in transition there can be difficulties accessing longer term funding. In addition funding focused on emergencies can cause problems in that it needs to follow an emergencies framework and cannot necessarily address some of the requirements for sustainability in country. Whilst programmes did not highlight concerns related to using or reporting on funding for development and for emergencies through Save the Children they did highlight the concern that when the funding available tended to be emergency focused on a long-term basis it was not addressing all of the needs in country. In addition the southern Sudan programme highlighted a lack of contingency funding within development funding that could be used in emergencies as a concern. For example, ethnic clashes in Akobo County, Jonglei State in August 2009 caused internal displacement of almost 20,000 people and within this children of school going age could not access education. The programme did not have funding within the immediate grants so could not respond. In addition, education agencies were not included as part of the assessment so figures on education where not captured. The result was a big fall in school attendance and 43 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010 and interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

21

many children dropped out completely and subsequently enrolment in schools later in the year also fell. The programme was unable to respond to this emergency yet if there had been some flexible contingency funding within their grants or inclusion of education in the assessment some funding might have been available. 5. International advocacy on funding for education in countries affected by conflict Whilst part of the Rewrite the Future Campaign focused on countries affected by conflict enabling children to go to school and bringing about a change at national level, there was also a need to bring about change at an international level and when the campaign was initiated, it was noticeable that education for children affected by conflict had a low profile in the international arena and on the international agenda. However, this was also the year when a task team on fragile states was formed within the Education for All Fast Track Initiative and the OECD DAC Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States were developed (see OECD, 2005) so there was definitely some interest and momentum gathering. There was an opportunity for Rewrite the Future to make an impact on this area and the international advocacy agenda for the campaign identified two advocacy goals related to funding that would support the achievement of the overall Rewrite the Future objectives44.

a) Education for children living in countries affected by armed conflict is sufficiently resourced.

b) Education is an integral and immediate part of every humanitarian response. One of these advocacy objectives, the financing one, became defined by Save the Children’s publication of the first ‘Last in Line, Last in School’ report in early 2007 (Save the Children, 2007c). The report analysed the international aid situation for countries affected by conflict – those countries which Save the Children defined as conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) – a group of 28 countries that were conflict-affected and also impacted by levels of fragility or insecurity. The reports compared the situation of CAFS with that of a group of 31 other low-income countries and demonstrated that CAFS were receiving less than a quarter of basic education aid, despite being home to over half of the world’s out of school children. Within the context of international commitments to the MDGs, Save the Children used the data and reports to illustrate that donors were not doing enough to achieve the MDGs in these countries and to hold donors to account on commitments they had made. Whilst the Last in Line, Last in School reports published from 2007 to 2009 provided the analysis of both development and humanitarian aid and policies for education, the analysis was supported by in-country lobbying and advocacy of key donors by Save the Children members, raising the profile of the issue at key international events, and pushing for high profile meetings and action for example the United Nations General Assembly on education and emergencies, as well as active engagement in key forums like the Education for All Fast Track Initiative and the Education Cluster. Although initially there was some debate regarding the grouping of conflict-affected fragile states that Save the Children were using as this was different to those being used by donors and other groups45, Save the Children used the information to give the issues a higher profile on 44 Two other advocacy goals where also identified in the Rewrite the Future advocacy strategy (Save the Children, 2007d) – (i) There are effective systems and sufficient capacity to deliver education for children affected by armed conflict; (ii) The right to education is realized and safeguarded. The fulfilment and of breaches against this right, such as attacks against schools, are monitored through existing mechanisms. The work related to the achievement of these advocacy goals is beyond the scope of this paper. 45 There was, and still is, no internationally agreed group of countries that fit into this category and hence Save the Children had to identify a group of countries (the CAFS) on which to do their analysis. Save the

22

the agenda and to increase accountability and impact on the funding situation with some success. This work has been seen as having a significant influence on the international funding of countries affected by conflict with for example CIDA crediting Save the Children with influencing the funding picture for countries affected by conflict and that Rewrite the Future and other initiatives46 'led to total change, for example the way FTI finances CAFS and the recognition of interim as well as full plans – a fundamental change from the way FTI was originally set up’47. The profile of funding to CAFS has also started to change with Save the Children’s latest analysis (Save the Children, 2010b) showing a slight increase in the share of basic education to CAFS from 23% (average 2003-2005) to 25% (average 2006-2008). More notably the distribution of aid for some donors has changed significantly – for example DFID’s share of basic education to CAFS has increased from 13% (average 2003-2005) to 31% and for CIDA the increase is from 9% to 19%. Other distribution of aid for other donors, including Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden has also started to change in favour of CAFS (Save the Children, 2010b). Of course Rewrite the Future could also been seen as timely in that a trend had already started and Rewrite the Future helped to move the trend along. For example, DFID reported they were moving to do more in this area 'so Rewrite the Future added to the push and put more pressure on DFID'. In addition the focus on aid data pushed some donors to increase their accounability for example, 'DFID were pushed to look carefully on spending figures increasing accountability'48. Some key strengths49 of Save the Children's international work as part of Rewrite the Future included:

presenting data which made the funding picture for CAFS look so stark; providing clear information in one document (Last in Line, Last in School) that has been

used by CIDA for donor briefings; producing comparable annual data that has been useful to look at trends and changes; having a solid evidence base that is innovative and well researched; presenting information and liaising with donors in a non-aggressive, non-inflammatory and

professional manner; taking opportunities to profile the issue and research e.g. EFA meetings, FTI meetings,

World Bank meetings etc and the campaign energy fed into other initiatives e.g. FTI so was not stand alone and kept high level.

Key also was the commitment and coordination across the Save the Children Alliance. Save the Children members were supported in policy work and for example, the Last in Line, Last in School reports provided data which meant that members could talk to their governments regarding their aid data. The coordination across members ensured Save the Children globally was presenting a united message. No more was this evident than at the May 2007 Brussels Education meeting when representatives of the UK, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, the EC, and World Bank talked about education for children affected by conflict. In all of these

Children published this grouping in the first Last in Line report, along with their methodology and have continued to use this same group of countries in order to be able to compare year on year changes in the aid situation for these countries. Whilst Save the Children’s list of CAFS differed from that of donors and others, the majority of these groupings are not published. 46 A number of other initiatives and other actors have been key to bringing about change in this area including INEE; bilateral donors for example DFID, the Netherlands and CIDA; Gene Sperling and the Center for Universal Education at Brookings (formerly at the Council for Foreign Relations) and FTI Fragile States Task Team amongst others. 47 Interview Nora Fyles, Education Team Leader, CIDA, 29th April 2010. 48 Interview Sally Gear, Education Adviser, DFID, 27th April 2010. 49 Informed by interviews with Nora Fyles, Education Team Leader, CIDA, 29th April 2010 and Sally Gear, Education Adviser, DFID, 27th April 2010.

23

countries/agencies Save the Children members had campaigned on this issue and raised the issue with their government representatives before the meeting. Another strand of the international work was the focus on education in emergencies with a key publication being 'Delivering Education for Children in Emergencies' (Save the Children, 2008e). The issue was also covered in the Last in Line, Last in School reports and highlighted due to underfunding and the lack of clear humanitarian policies for most donors. The advocacy work of Save the Children and others including INEE, in this area has had some significant successes in particular the formation of the Education Cluster with Save the Children and UNICEF as co-leads. However, actual impact on funding and policy change of individual donors has been more challenging as, according to donors, funding decisions are made at country level during emergencies, so the power to influence change is not at international level 'Humanitarian assistance is decided at country level and is demand-driven so raising the importance of education really depends on the confidence of the country to ask for help rather than on donors pushing for it’50. DFID also highlight that there are difficulties getting education on the humanitarian agenda due to competition with other sectors that are seen as life-threatening which makes it difficult to argue for more priority for education51.

6. Conclusions The Rewrite the Future Campaign with its clear vision and ambition, organisational focus, commitment and coordination across Save the Children Alliance members has had significant impact and success both in terms of the activities and scaling up of Save the Children programmes in countries affected by conflict, and also in terms of raising up the importance of the issue in the international agenda. With the support from country programmes and the Country Plan process, programmes had the opportunity to scale up their plans. Before the campaign started in 2005 none of the key countries, the DRC, Liberia, Somalia/Somaliland and southern Sudan, had spent more than $1m in total over the period 2001 to 2004. Yet by 2008 all four countries were spending over $2m a year. The focus on clear targets for the campaign – increasing access to education for 3 million children and improving the quality of education for 8 million – meant that country programmes included activities in their work to contribute to these targets. These included short and long-term activities to impact on access and quality. In addition longer term such as influencing the national budget allocation for education were also included in the work at national level and highlighted in the Country Plan and reported on each year by country programmes. Furthermore, whilst having an impact within countries the campaign also focused on addressing constraints to enabling children affected by conflict to go to school internationally as well. Resources were key to the success of the campaign and country programmes needed funding to implement their ambitious plans. Significant scaling up of resources and investment in education was needed by Save the Children, especially in education in countries affected by conflict and emergencies where spending was minimal before the start of the campaign. During the course of the five years the Save the Children UK raised $120m for the Rewrite the Future Campaign and contributed to the significant achievements for Campaign with over 10 million children benefiting from improved quality of education by the end of 2008, and 1.3 million children benefiting from new access to education by the end of 2009. However whilst significant resources were generated during the campaign they also proved to a be a limiting factor on the work of Rewrite the Future.

50 Interview Nora Fyles, Education Team Leader, CIDA, 29th April 2010. 51 Interview Sally Gear, Education Adviser, DFID, 27th April 2010.

24

Whilst all of the countries had achieved considerable scaling up of their activities due to increased funding, many had had their activities limited by not being able to find sufficient funding. This has meant they were not able to carry out particular activities or develop some pieces of work, for example advocacy around national level financing. It has also had a direct impact on education – for example lack of funding in southern Sudan meant that the number of teachers trained in a particular year was less than planned. When country programmes have received funding, the majority of their funding comes through a large number of short-term grants. This has meant that whilst the funding has allowed programmes to carry out some activities and contribute to achievements of the Rewrite the Future Campaign, it has also influenced the type of activities the programme has been able to carry out – namely shorter term activities which are more likely to impact on direct educational needs, rather than build for longer-term sustainability of the education system. In addition the shorter-term funding impacts on the programme’s ability to plan for the longer term, maintain staff, is likely to have high transaction costs and impacts on staff time as they have to continually look to the funding. Yet the vision and ambition for longer-term activities is there, and reflected in the Country Plans but longer-term funds have been funds have been more difficult to secure. Reasons for the lack of either sufficient or longer-term funding seem related to context and availability of funding in country. The Somalia/Somaliland programme has been more successful in raising longer-term funding yet the DRC, southern Sudan and Liberia have all struggled to find sufficient funding. For the DRC and southern Sudan, programmes linked this to the funding climate within country, in that many donors still fund programmes within the country as emergency programmes and funding is not available which is in tune with the transitional nature of the country. Where donors have then decided to support the government, for example in the DRC, they are not also investing in other ways of supporting education, for example through NGOs, even though the government does not yet have the capacity to deliver on all the education needs. UNICEF, a key supporter of education in conflict-affected countries, also only tends to have shorter-term grants available. Whilst programmes have identified the funding during transition from an emergency to development as a problem, they have been able to access emergency funding, for example in the DRC. Whilst this has dealt with the immediate educational needs within the emergency where the emergency occurs as part of an on-going chronic crises situation this causes problems as the emergency funding will not support longer-term activities, for example PTA training, and this can become a limiting factor for the effectiveness of the programme. In addition contingency funding within development grants that are made to countries affected by conflict, may be a way to help with emergency preparedness and planning and enable programmes to respond to education emergency needs immediately. Internationally, Save the Children and the Rewrite the Future Campaign, along with others, have played a key role in advancing the agenda for children affected by conflict. Save the Children’s analysis of education aid to conflict-affected countries, as published in the Last in Line, Last in School series of reports, highlighted the inequitable distribution of aid and along with engagement with bilateral donors by Save the Children members and with the FTI has helped to influence the urgency to address this situation and increase aid to countries affected by conflict. Commitments of 50% of bilateral education aid to education by DFID (DFID, 2010), and programmes such as the Netherlands Education in Emergencies and Post Crises Transition (EEPCT), as well as the FTI’s inclusion of fragile and conflict-affected states are a refection of the international efforts to address this situation.

25

However, change is also needed at a country level if donors and NGOs are to work with national governments to really make an impact on education for children affected by conflict and emergencies. The Rewrite the Future Campaign illustrated that this type of Campaign, which was strategic, had vision and ambition and wanted to make a difference for children affected by conflict, has been limited in achieving some of that ambition by the lack of longer-term funding for NGOs’ activities at country level. The Rewrite the Future Campaign demonstrated Save the Children’s ability internationally and nationally to be a partner in development, to support education for children affected by conflict and to make an immediate impact on their needs but also, not just to think about funding for their own programmes, but also to think strategically about what needs to change internationally and nationally for sustainability and longer-term system building within countries affected by conflict. Where Save the Children and others have been viewed by donors within countries as partners in development for example in Somalia/Somaliland with the SCOTT programme, they have been able to make a significant impact on the development of education the country. Therefore if donors considered NGOs as part of the solution to funding education in countries affected by conflict and invested in longer-term funding and as part of an overall country strategy, not as one of projects or even pilots (though innovative solutions are still needed and still need to be tested as part of their work) the result could be beneficial all round. NGOs can have impact at a local and regional level, can help build accountability at local levels as well as contribute to policy and system development as demonstrated by the southern Sudan programme in their involvement with teacher training. In addition as donors look at scaling up their funding for conflict-affected countries, this could help with the disbursement challenges that donors are facing. UNICEF have been given this chance by the Netherlands funding of the EEPCT programmme, which is about to be evaluated, and others with a strategic vision and plan may also be able to deliver. Importantly to really make an impact in countries affected by conflict there is a need to get away from short-term funding, which can be detrimental to programmes, activities and sustainability. On the flip side this could also be true for NGOs and their investments – the Rewrite the Future Campaign was planned as a 5-year campaign however there is a question about whether that was really too short a time period to make a an impact particularly at country level. And whilst Save the Children will maintain its focus on this going forward, as part of the Global Education Initiative (Save the Children, 2010) it remains to be seen if the financial investment and staff time investment made by the organisation will reduce as other priorities demand resources and time, and what impact this will have. Where programmes have established a strong base for example in southern Sudan they were less concerned about this as they felt that Rewrite the Future had established them as a key player in the education sector and they would be able to continue to make an impact. However, if there is a decrease in funding then there was a concern that this would impact on the programme. Where a decrease in funding was already apparent, for example in the DRC then there was more concern that the end of the campaign would affect the work in country and impact on the role of Save the Children in country52. However, what is clear is that there is an opportunity for Save the Children, donors and others – created out of the Rewrite the Future Campaign which put education for children in countries affected by conflict very much on the agenda – and this opportunity needs to be grasped in order to make an impact.

52 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010 and interview southern Sudan Rewrite the Future Coordinator, Emily Lugano, 30th April 2010.

26

Key learning points and implications for country programming in conflict-affected countries: 1. Rewrite the Future was successful as a campaign due to organisational commitment, vision,

ambition, resources and coordination across the Save the Children members. 2. Save the Children needs to ensure it maintains a focus on education for children affected by

conflict going forward and does not let investment/support for programmes decrease. 3. The issue of education for children affected by conflict needs to be maintained on the

international agenda. 4. NGOs need to be able to plan and implement programmes at scale. 5. Donors need to ensure context appropriate funding – ensuring funding is helping not

hindering transition from development to emergency. 6. Donors need to see NGOs as partners and consider how NGOs can play a role in the

development process. 7. Donors and NGOs need to consider strategies to increase longer-term funding for

programmes and decrease the number of short-term grants that programmes have to manage.

8. Donors need to include contingency emergency funds as part of programme funding in areas of high risk in order to give programmes flexibility to respond to emergencies if they occur. If the contingency fund is not required during the lifetime of the grant it can be invested in the programme or returned to the donor.

27

9. References

DFID. 2010. Learning for All: DFID's Education Strategy 2010-2015. London Department for International Development.

MoEST. 2009. Education Statistics for Southern Sudan, 2009, Statistics Booklet. Juba. MoEST GoSS.

OECD. 2005. Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States. OECD-DAC Draft Paper. Paris. Development Cooperation Directorate and Development Assistance Committee.

Save the Children. 2002. it’s time 2001/02 Report. London, Save the Children UK

Save the Children. 2003. New Horizons Annual Report 2002/03. London, Save the Children UK

Save the Children. 2004. Global Challenge Overall Business Plan 2005-2010, Education for Children Affected by Armed Conflict, unpublished

Save the Children. 2004. today and tomorrow Annual Report 2003/04. London, Save the Children UK

Save the Children. 2005a. Global Challenge Country Plan 2006-2010 Improving Access to Quality Basic Education for Children Affected by Armed Conflict. Save the Children UK Democratic Republic of Congo. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2005b. Minutes of the Board Meeting held at the Epsom Manotel Hotel, rue Richemont, Geneva. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2006a. Annual Report 2005/06. London, Save the Children UK.

Save the Children. 2006b. Country Plan Guidelines. Unpublished.

Save the Children, 2006c. Rewrite the Future Country Plan Annual Report Somalia/Somaliland – 2006. Unpublished.

Save the Children. 2007a. Annual Report Save the Children UK 2006/07. London, Save the Children UK

Save the Children, 2007b Inspiring dramatic change for children. Save the Children UK's Ambition and Strategic Plan 2007-2010. London. Save the Children.

Save the Children. 2007c. Last in Line, Last in School How donors are failing children in conflict-affected fragile states. London. Save the Children.

Save the Children. 2007d. Rewrite the Future Advocacy Plan: 2006 to 2010. Unpublished.

Save the Children, 2007e. Rewrite the Future Somalia/Somaliland Country Plan Annual Report. Unpublished.

28

Save the Children. 2008a. Annual Narrative Report 2008. Save the Children in the DRC. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2008b. Annual Narrative Report 2008. Save the Children in southern Sudan. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2008c. Annual Narrative Report 2008. Save the Children in Somalia/Somaliland. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2008d. Annual Report Save the Children UK 2007/08. London, Save the Children UK

Save the Children. 2008e. Delivering Education for Children in Emergencies: A Key Building Block for the Future. London. Save the Children.

Save the Children. 2009a. Annual Narrative Report 2009. Save the Children in Somalia/Somaliland. Unpublished

Save the Children. 2009b. Background paper on trends in donor policies towards conflict-affected countries. Background paper for the Global Monitoring Report 2010. London, Save the Children.

Save the Children. 2009c. DRC Rewrite the Future 2009 Global Monitoring Report Form. Unpublished.

Save the Children. 2009d. Last in Line, Last in School 2009 Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies. London, Save the Children

Save the Children. 2009e. Learning from Those Who Live It: An Evaluation of Children's Education in Conflict-Affected Fragile States. London. Save the Children. Save the Children. 2009f. Liberia Rewrite the Future 2009 Global Monitoring Report Form. Unpublished. Save the Children. 2009g. Rewrite the Future 2009 Annual Report Save the Children in southern Sudan. Unpublished Save the Children. 2009h. Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation Southern Sudan Mid-term Country Report March 2009. London. Save the Children

UNESCO. 2010. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010 Reaching the marginalized. Paris. UNESCO

Save the Children. 2010a. Save the Children UK Strategy 2011-2013. Unpublished.

Save the Children. 2010b. The Future is now. Education for children in countries affected by conflict. London. Save the Children.

29

Appendix 1: Education Programme expenditure overall and in conflict-affected

countries

Table 5: Overall programme education spending

Year Development Expenditure

Emergencies Expenditure Unknown

Total Education

Expenditure

US$ m % US$ m % US$ m US$ m 2001 0.95 85% 0.14 12% 0.03 1.11 2002 1.93 88% 0.00 0% 0.27 2.19 2003 4.38 95% 0.01 0% 0.21 4.59 2004 6.05 76% 0.42 5% 1.54 8.00 2005 13.69 66% 4.84 23% 2.29 20.82 2006 23.38 74% 8.09 26% 0.23 31.70 2007 29.61 73% 11.07 27% 0.00 40.68 2008 35.44 67% 17.42 33% 0.00 52.86 2009 34.70 70% 14.49 29% 0.77 49.96

Table 6: Education Expenditure in Conflict-affected Countries

Year

Development Expenditure in

Conflict Affected Countries

Emergencies Expenditure in

Conflict-affected Countries

Unknown

Total Education

Expenditure in Conflict-

affected Countries

Percentage of Total Education

Expenditure spent in Conflict-affected

Countries

US$ m % US$ m % US$ m US$ m % 2001 0.24 62% 0.14 35% 0.01 0.39 35% 2002 0.86 97% 0.00 0% 0.04 0.89 40% 2003 0.89 98% 0.00 0% 0.02 0.90 20% 2004 1.40 100% 0.00 0% 0.00 1.40 18% 2005 4.52 79% 1.24 22% -0.01 5.73 28% 2006 9.97 71% 4.13 29% 0.01 14.11 45% 2007 14.54 69% 6.44 31% 0.00 20.98 52% 2008 21.76 73% 8.23 27% 0.00 29.98 57% 2009 21.04 67% 9.79 31% 0.60 31.40 63%

30

Appendix 2: Explanation of funding terms

Development Expenditure – all funding that is identified by the country programme as contributing to development activities in country Emergency Expenditure – all funding that is identified by the country programme as contributing to emergency activities in country. This could include activities related to emergencies caused by conflicts, natural disasters and including work relating to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Unknown Expenditure – any funding that was not classified as development or emergency by the programme Unrestricted funding – voluntary income that is raised by Save the Children and does not have to be allocated to a specific function. PPA agreements for example with the UK government can also contribute to unrestricted funding. Institutional donors – any funding that comes from government donors or UN agencies. Corporates – any funding that comes from a private company or corporation. Trusts – any funding that is from a trust fund or foundation. Save the Children members – any funding that has come through Save the Children members to Save the Children UK, and has often been raised for specific countries or activities. It is mainly voluntary income, so raised by individual supporters. It can also include some local government funding too or funding raised from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

31

Appendix 3: Funding for Rewrite the Future

Table 7: Overview of sources of funding for Rewrite the Future programmes

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Institutional donors 9,015,050 29,559,524 21,003,817 11,804,947 19,109,533 90,492,871Corporates 180,370 0 73,340 2,684,099 224,325 3,162,134Trusts 1,428,688 0 0 440,891 2,324,292 4,193,872Unrestricted Funds 3,088,000 3,168,000 2,130,148 833,377 666,136 9,885,661

Save the Children members 2,405,324 2,566,056 2,565,836 1,830,783 3,162,639 12,530,638

TOTAL 16,117,432 35,293,580 25,773,142 17,594,098 25,486,925 120,265,176

32

Appendix 4: Analysis of funding and sources during Rewrite the Future Campaign period for DRC, Liberia,

Southern Sudan, and Somalia/somaliland Number of grants Sources of funding

Country Total 12 months or less Between 12 - 24

months Greater than 24

months Institutional

funders Corporates Trusts and

philanthropicSave the Childrens

Private donations

% % % % % % % %

DRC

Number 38 30 79% 5 13% 3 8% 12 32% 4 11% 2 5% 19 50% 1 3%Funding US$ millions 17.96 6.53 55% 1.90 11% 6.21 3% 11.19 62% 0.29 2% 0.56 3% 5.01 28% 0.92 5%

Sources

SCs (Norway, Italy, Spain, Australia, Sweden, Finland,

Netherlands, Denmark, MODA), UNDP, Citgroup,

DEC, Rezidor, Bulgari, CLM, Swedish Gov't,

Spanish Gov't

Medicor Foundation, SC Italy, Spain and

MODA Swedish gov't, USDOL, JOAC

UNDP, CLM, Spanish gov't, Swedish gov't,

USDOL

Citigroup Foundation, Bulgari,

Rezidor Medicor,

JOAC DEC

Liberia

Number 12 10 83% 1 8% 1 8% 2 17% 0 0% 2 17% 4 33% 4 33%Funding US$ millions 6.71 3.79 56% 1.42 21% 1.51 22% 3.32 49% 0 0% 1.60 24% 1.67 25% 0.12 1.80%

Sources Swedish gov't, private, SCs SC Norway Comic Relief Swedish gov't JOAC, Comic

Relief

Somalia/ Somaliland

Number 29 12 41% 4 14% 13 45% 20 69% 0 0% 5 17% 3 10% 1 3%

Funding US$ millions 29.72 3.20 10% 3.60 12% 23.09 78% 27.73 93% 0 0% 1.33 5% 0.66 2% 0.03 0.10%

Sources

UNICEF, EC, private, SC New Zealand, private, Swedish Gov't, GOAC,

SC Finland, Band Aid, EC, Church

EC, SC Finland, UNICEF, Comic

Relief, Danish Gov't, DFID

UNICEF, EC, Danish, Swedish,

DFID

GOAC, Band Aid, Comic

Relief, Church Communities

UK

Southern Sudan

Number 35 28 80% 5 14% 2 6% 17 49% 1 3% 2 6% 14 40% 1 3.00%Funding US$ millions 22.92 8.79 38% 13.06 57% 1.07 5% 16.14 70% 0.75 3% 0.72 3% 5.28 23% 0.03 0.10%

Sources

SCs (Norway, Italy, Sweden,Netherlands, Denmark), Swedish,

Canadian, Danish Gov't, US State Dept, UNDP,

UNICEF, Band Aid, JOAC, Bulgari, private

EC, DFID, Danish Gov't, MDTF

NZ Gov't, SC Netherlands

Swedish, Canadian, Danish,

NZ Gov't, US State Dept, DFID, UNDP, UNICEF,

UNHCR, EC, MDTF Bulgari

Band Aid, JOAC

33

Appendix 5:

Rewrite the Future in the DRC The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a country recognised as having huge educational needs. With systems undermined by years of conflict, insufficient education budget from the government and high costs being met by parents to enable children to go to school, the country is in need of significant support. Over 5 million children are estimated to be out of school and on-going conflict and displacement in the east of the country continues to undermine any attempts at progress53 (Save the Children, 2010b). Over six million adolescents have missed out on their education and many children have been the target of forced recruitment into the militia, of violence, rape and abduction from school (Save the Children, 2005a). In 2008 the education of thousands more children was interrupted as fresh waves of violent conflict denied children access to school and led to displacement of thousands of people in the east of the country.

Programme overview Ambition: The DRC Country Plan, finalised in late 2005, set out an ambitious plan focused around the four key Rewrite the Future objectives54:

Access – increase primary enrolment in the DRC by 78,750; increase completion rate by 30%, provide access to alternative programmes of education or 20,000 children in 3 provinces (North Kivu, South Kivu and Kasai Orientale.

Quality – improve education quality, learning and participation in 1,000 schools/centres, especially for girls, reaching 262,500 children in 3 provinces; support policy reform and good practice at school, local, provincial and national levels, through partnerships

Protection – support policy change at local, provincial and national levels; ensure 500 schools/centres in 3 provinces have protective measures in place and reach out to all children in the community

Finance – increase level and proportion of central state (to 25%) and local financing for education, reducing education costs to parents in 3 provinces.

The ambitious plan was to increase spending from less than $0.7m in 2004 to over $1.5m a year by 2006 and over $2.5m by 2007, spending a total of $11.6m in the 5-year Rewrite the Future period (2006-2010).

Activities: The programme planned and carried out a number of activities during the course of the five years. The majority of these focused on immediate education needs and most significant in terms of impact on access were the Accelerated Learning Programmes: “The ALP programme [sic] has become very popular with the communities not least of all that the children do not pay fees but their level of achievement is higher than in the formal schools e.g. 52 children took state exams last year and all of them passed” (Save the Children, 2009c). Other activities have included teacher training, training for PTAs, provision of school kits and where necessary provision with school uniforms and clothing, addressing protection issues and providing schools with alternative income for recurrent costs through for example income generation, waiving of school fees and uniforms – for example in some areas of South Kivu this helped 1,895 poor children go to school (Save the Children, 2008a). Although identified in the DRC Rewrite the Future Plan, activities to address the longer-term sustainability of education have been limited: for example limited progress and

53 Data is from Save the Children, 2010b and is taken from Multiple Indicator Surveys 2001 and UNICEF current calculations. 54 In-country objectives and targets were set by country teams and based on an assessment of needs within country and the areas where Save the Children planned to work as well as an assumption about a feasible level of scale up of activities and the funding available.

34

engagement was reported on addressing the bigger picture financing objective to increase the national budget and reduce education costs for parents.

Achievements: A few examples of specific achievements55 by the DRC programme are:

The programme has supported new access to education for 54,097 children by the end of 2009. By the end of 2008, 278,144 children had benefited from improved quality of education within the country. One of the key successes of the programme has been the ALP programme “Another success in 2009 is that we were able to provide access to 17,385 children in 2009 while this number was 10,310 in 2008. …The ALP programme has become very popular with the communities not least of all that the children do not pay fees” (Save the Children, 2009c).

School rehabilitation of 35 schools in 2008. In one school in the Goma area enrolment in 2007/08 was 461, after rehabilitation 1149 children registered for the 2008/09 academic year (Save the Children, 2008a).

Teacher capacity building - 607 teachers, 96 directors and inspectors trained on various themes in 2008 (Save the Children, 2008a).

65 Parent Associations trained on school management and fundraising and accountability and also in child protection in 2008 (Save the Children, 2008a).

Supported schools to have the opportunity of an alternative income for recurrent costs. For example, school canteens run by the PTA/SMC have been set up in 6 schools. In South Kiviu waiving of school fees and uniforms have helped 1,895 poor children to go to school. (Save the Children, 2008a)

Funding

The programme has faced a number of difficulties and challenges related to funding as outlined below.

Difficulty in finding funds for some activities – for example under the financing objective ‘This area is currently a challenge for the programme and more efforts need to be made next year to raise our own funding to be able to address this level of work with the national education partners’ (Save the Children, 2008a). There was a possibility of some funding for this type of work through DFID and the World Bank but this had not materialised at the time of reporting. In addition for overall activities there has been difficulty in finding funds “Although we provided access to more children in 2009 compared to our 2008 number, this achievement fell short of the 26,928 target for 2009. This has been primarily due to the fact that we have not been able to raise adequate funds to scale up our education work” (Save the Children, 2009c). One of the reasons cited for this has been that donors are preferring to invest in the government, rather than NGOs56.

Low levels of funding for DRC – “DRC appears less in the international media than, for example, Sudan or Afghanistan, countries and the level of suffering (over 3 million killed) and need is largely unknown outside DRC. The result is fewer donors and international NGOs involved in the country. Second, the international press has depicted recent DRC conflict as “tribal” which is less appealing to potential donors than natural disasters. This results in lower funding. DRC enjoys fewer contacts across its natural partners the Francophone world than the former French colonies which benefit from more attention from France and other mainstream donors” (Save the Children, 2005a)

Short term and emergency related funding – whilst this meant a scale up in funding “This reporting year, the DRC programme has been able to increase its fundraising efforts… Most of

55 Note this list is only illustrative of different achievements and activities of the programme and does not represent the total achievements. 56 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010.

35

our projects are of a short term nature and related to the emergency except for 2 - 3- year grants from USAID and USDOL (Save the Children, 2008a). This led to an increase in activities it also meant that the programme found it difficult to carry out longer-term activities. “The other challenge is the development, implementation and monitoring of activities at the macro level and subsequent data collection at both regional and national level. This is linked with planned interventions in the TPP/RtF bordering on activities outside of the sphere of the school eg. training for provincial level school inspectors and training cadres off trainers, consultants and or independent members of civil society to support and cascade training of school management committees. Our funding proposals (emergency related) have not included this level of activities and we now need to orient ourselves to the importance of this level of activity, and more importantly be able to make attribution to Save the Children efforts and be able to measure quantitatively” (Save the Children, 2008a). The intense nature of emergencies work has meant the programme found it difficult to plan and find funding for the longer term “Another major problem that we now face is the fact that we have built an education programme based on our emergency interventions, without planning for long term /transition. These short term grants have come /or coming to an end and we have not been proactive in seeking longer term grants to continue to support children through the education system.” (Save the Children, 2009c)

End of Rewrite the Future – “It is a pity also that globally the RtF comes to an end and with it high level campaigning, although at the national level, thousands of children in the DRC will remain without access to education, and we face a situation where we will have to close out our programmes. In some cases, this will pose an organisational risk as in the South Kivu, SC has been nominated a member of the provincial education sector committee due to our long standing work in education. Sadly however, we were unable to raise funds to continue with our work in education. Our last grant came to an end in December” (Save the Children, 2009c). The programme also cited that this was already having an impact on the programme as they had seen fewer renewals of grants and most of their grants were ending with one consequence being the loss of staff. Given the programme had been doing quite a lot of work relating to advocacy and accountability, the programme was concerned that they would lost strength as a key player57.

57 Interview with DRC Education Programme Coordinator, Maguy Mukidi, and Education Specialist, Sinaly Dembélé, 27th April 2010.

36

Rewrite the Future in Somalia/Somaliland

Ever since the collapse of the Siad Barre government and the devastating civil war of 1988-91, the vast majority of school age children in Somalia and Somaliland have had no access to basic education and over a million children are out of school58 (Save the Children, 2010b). In the intervening period, large parts of the country had had no national government and endured almost continual civil unrest, inter-clan conflict and banditry. As a result there has been virtually no state delivery of basic social services, including education, yet a survey by Save the Children found that over 92% of the out of school children interviewed, said they wished to go to school if they could (Save the Children, 2006c).

Programme overview Ambition: The Somalia/Somaliland Country Plan, finalised in 2006, set out an ambitious plan for the period 2007 – 2010 with an overall goal ‘To increase the number of children accessing and completing inclusive, quality and protective basic education in Save the Children’s target areas of Somalia and Somaliland by 2010' The plan was focused around the four key Rewrite the Future objectives:

Access – By 2010, 36,588 children will gain access to quality basic education in Save the Children’s operational regions59.

Quality – To improve teaching, learning and participation outcomes for 265,302 school aged children60 of pastoralists, agro pastoralists and poor households, with special focus on girls, based on improved teacher’s capacity, good practice models and support provided to policy reforms in Somalia/Somaliland by 2010.

Protection – Education authorities, communities, families and children ensure a protective environment is in place in 208 schools61 in 24 districts62 supported by Save the Children by 2010.

Finance – By 2010 resources available to basic education increased in Puntland to 6% and in Somaliland to 12% of total government spending, and ODA for education from donors doubled to 28%.

The ambitious plan was to increase spending to over $10m in 2007 and 2008, and reducing this to $7m (2009) and $3m (2010), spending a total of $31m in the 4-year Rewrite the Future period (2007-2010).

Activities: Save the Children’s work as part of Rewrite the Future was based on a scale up existing activities to expand work to more schools in their operational areas and to increase coverage of their work, especially in Central and Southern Somalia through the teacher training under the Strengthening Capacity of Teacher Training (SCOTT) programme.

The activities included direct support to schools and education authorities; capacity building of partners and local institutions; institutional strengthening of community institutions and local

58 Data is from Save the Children, 2010b and is taken from Multiple Indicator Surveys 2006 and UNICEF current calculations. 59 Operational areas are Togdheer, Sahil and Awdal Regions of Somaliland, Hiran and Banadir Regions of Central South Somalia and Karkar Region of Puntand. 60 Of these, 235,980 will benefit from macro level interventions (such as the Strengthening Capacity of Teacher Training – SCOTT - Project), ECD pilots (3,400 children) and the rest (25,922) from direct interventions in SCA supported schools. 61 SC supports 52 primary schools in Hiran region (CSS), 66 primary schools in Karkar region (PL) 80 schools in Togdheer, and 10 Sahil in and Awdal regions of Somaliland. In addition the SC has established 47 alternative basic education (AABE) centres. 62 5 districts in Hiran, 5 in Karkar 4 in Sahil,4 in Awdal and 6 in Togdheer regions.

37

partners (NGOs and governments); advocacy work involving government authorities at national, regional and local levels, education authorities, parents and communities; and research

Achievements: A few examples of specific achievements63 by the Somalia/Somaliland programme are;

The programme has supported new access to education for 66,870 children by the end of 2009. By the end of 2008, 278,144 had benefited from improved quality of education within the country. One of the key successes of the programme has been the ALP programme “Another success in 2009 is that we were able to provide access to 17,385 children in 2009 while this number was 10,310 in 2008 (Save the Children 2009a).

Supported or establishing 152 formal schools and 89 ABE centers in Puntland and Somaliland (Save the Children, 2009a).

Improved provision of textbooks through procurement and installation of 2 medium level printing machines in both Puntland and Somaliland. Technicians selected from respective ministries trained and printing materials supplied (Save the Children, 2009a).

113 head teachers trained on alternative disciplining methods such as establishing school or classroom norms of non-violence and by creating good relationships with the students and other education staff (Save the Children, 2009a).

Regional Education Officers sensitised their local communities and developed local strategies for the access and survival of girls throughout primary schooling, and to progress on to secondary school (Save the Children, 2009a).

Funding Whilst the Somalia/Somaliland programme has identified gaps in funding in its reporting, it has managed to secure funding for programmes which are strategic and part of an overall approach to the development of the systems and capacity within the country, for example the EC funding for the Strengthening Capacity of Teacher Training (SCOTT) programme. As reported by the programme in 2008: ‘Under Basic education component three main projects, 2 Primary Education Projects one each in Hiran and Togdheer regions and Alternative Approaches to Basic Education Project in Togdheer region aended in 2008. This has left a big funding gap for 2009 and 2010. Save the Children Somalia has developed a joint Rewrite the Future proposal with funds from the Alliance Secretariat’. (Save the Children, 2008c). Yet there were opportunities for funding ‘The main donor for SC education projects is European Commission. SCOTT phase 2 project that is mainly concerned with upgrading of teachers teaching skills is funded until June 2009. It is expected that EC call for proposals will be released by March and Save the Children will apply (Save the Children, 2008c). The context and role of the international community seems to have played a part in creating a more favourable environment for the Save the Children programme to secure longer term funding. For example the EC offered a call for proposals for Support to Education Sector Development' and a Joint Needs Assement conducted by the UNDP and the World Bank in 2005/06 provided the guidance docment for the donor strategy and resource allocation for five years. The UN Interim Support Fund64 was created to implement the strategy (Save the Children 2006c). In addition, the Save the Children programme, along with others, was strategic at in its planning and application for funding. For example:

As reported in 2006 ‘The education sector also registered improved funding environment; we were able to secure additional funding for SCOTT project and hope to expand to south-central

63 Note this list is only illustrative of different achievements and activities of the programme and does not represent the total achievements. 64 This could not however be accessed directly by NGOs and if Save the Children wanted to access this fund they would need to partner with a UN organisation and become an implementing agency.

38

Somalia if security allows. Another important development was the formation of Education Sectoral Committee (ESC) under the auspices of the Somalia Support Secretariat (SSS). In the absence of a central government, the ESC has the mandate to contribute to the reconstruction and development of the education sector in Somalia at all levels and to contribute to the realization of every child’s rights to quality education. SC UK was the co-chair of ESC and Chair of Teacher Education Task Force (one of three sub-committee of ESC) in 2006. With the ongoing peace and reconstruction initiatives in Somalia, there are prospects for improvement in the education sector work by the MoE, local authorities, communities, CSOs, diaspora, private sector, UN agencies and INGOs. There is also hope that the donor and international community will seize this opportunity to support the education sector work in Somalia/Somaliland more during 2007’ (Save the Children, 2006c).

As reported in 2007 The operational environment was on the other hand enhanced by good collaboration between Save the Children alliance and the Ministry of Education (MOE) and regional and local level educational authorities. The MOE has played a lead role in coordination of education work by SC and other agencies and also demonstrated strong political leadership and linkages between INGOs and UN agencies on one hand, and government education authorities (MOE, REO, DEOs, etc) on the other. The year also witnessed increased consortia approach to work amongst INGOs. In particular, SC worked jointly with CARE and ADRA in implementing the SCOTT project in both Puntland and Somaliland. We also worked closely with other education partners including UNICEF, NRC, WFP, Diakonia Sweden and Islamic Relief among others in constituency and coalition building work. The education sector also registered an improved funding environment; we were able to secure funding for a second phase of the SCOTT (Strengthening Capacity of Teacher Training) project which, now has expanded to cover south-central Somalia. SCUK in a consortium with CARE Somalia and BBC World Service secured funding from EC for implementation of a new project Integrated Support to Primary and Alternative Basic Education (ISPABE) in Hiran region of South Central Somalia. The project started implementation of activities in January 2008’ (Save the Children, 2007e).

Consequently the programme has managed to maintain a healthy funding level and the programme managed to successfully secure significant funds in 2009 for a number of programmes. ‘It was also a year of achievement in terms of securing more funds. Four new projects have been granted from the European Union and other donors such as UNICEF and the Foreign Ministry of Finland/ SC Finland’ and ‘Two EC funded projects (ISPABE65 and SIBES66) become operational in Hiran, Puntland and Somaliland. Four other projects (SCOTTPS, APES, Inclusive Quality Basic Education) projects have been launched as of the second half 2009 (Save the Children, 2009a).

65 EC funding Integrated Support to Primary and Alternative Basic Education (ISPABE) project which was implemented in partnership with CARE Somalia and the BBC World Service. 66 The Support to Integrated Basic Education Services (SIBES) project was jointly managed by Save the Children and ADRA Somalia and launched in August 2008.