1st Round Sector Defense Sudan CHF 2012 1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Education Jan 17th, 2012

CHF Education Sector Priorities: Provide emergency education response to children affected by conflict, as well as children of those families who have fled conflict and now count as displaced.

CHF Education Geographical Priorities Blue Nile, South Kordofan (including Abyei), because these areas are affected by conflict or they receive IDPs fleeing from conflict. B. North Darfur, South Darfur, West Darfur, because these states comprise areas affected by conflict, as well as host communities that have suffered from IDP influx while being excluded from education services received by IDP camps. C. Khartoum, North Kordofan and White Nile, because these States struggle to cope with IDP influx.

Education Sector Strategy for Addressing the Priorities Proposed CHF emergency education interventions respond to gaps identified by education clusters in different conflict-affected or underserved states. The following list summarizes components of holistic and integrated education interventions deemed relevant by the Education Cluster, such as: Provision of temporary learning spaces Rehabilitation of schools, construction of classrooms Gender & disability sensitive hygiene facilities Teacher training Psychosocial support activities for the conflict –affected Learning and leisure materials Life-saving education (i.e. mine-risk education, health education, life-skills education) PTA training

Education Sector Partnership Strategy Education Partners will work in close collaboration with State Ministries of Education. All partners proposed for funding (national and international) maintain positive work relationships with SMoEs (even in Blue Nile and South Kordofan). Education Partners will subcontract local NGOs and/or mobilize community-based organizations such as Parent/Teacher Associations. It is possible even for international agencies and NGOs to run offices in access-restricted areas as long as staff are of Sudanese nationality. In some states, international NGOs provide support from offices in neighbouring states, in consultation and cooperation of staff from SMoEs. In Darfur, partners have agreements with SMoE to enter restricted areas, or to invite engage community-based organizations from restricted areas in distance education initiatives coordinated from State capitals.

Justification to Provide Emergency Education Services Education is a human right, even in emergencies! B. Displaced families view education as a priority need for their children, notwithstanding their many other IDP hardships. IDP parents view education of their children as a precondition for overcoming poverty (Baheta, 2005). C. Education gives displaced families hope and self-confidence to continue to struggle against their many odds; it decreases their sense of powerlessness and dependency; it is a key ingredient for sustainable socio-economic development. D. Children affected by disaster without opportunities to learn are at risk of becoming a social burden to their communities; to become commercially exploited; to be recruited as child soldiers; or to become otherwise abused or neglected.

Justification to Provide Emergency Education Services E. Children traumatized by war and stressed through strained community well-being are in need of child-friendly learning spaces which provide a sense of normalcy, opportunities to play, positive belonging and satisfaction of fundamental emotional needs. F. Children from displaced families require programs that deliver life-saving messages on health, HIV-AIDS, mine-risk, nutrition, etc. G. Schools are a primary channel for food distribution, which will be of relevance in 2012 when the country faces the consequences of renewed crop failures and drought.

Evidence Supporting Identified Priority Needs Conflict in Blue Nile and South Kordofan (including Abyei) has led to massive displacements and 290.000 school-aged children without access to education (see OCHA reports). There is limited access to education services in fragile, conflict affected areas across Darfur. Of the estimated 700,000 school-aged children of displaced families residing outside IDP camps, 30% do not attend school, most of them girls (see World Bank 2011 Education Sector Report; Education Cluster Humanitarian Workplan). IDPs moving to White Nile (40,000), North Kordofan (20,000) and Khartoum (130,000) put severe pressure on existing school systems and resources (Data taken from WarChild Holland, SOLO and UNICEF reports).

Evidence Supporting Identified Priority Needs Approximately 30,000 Northerners return to Sudan from the South; 100,000 Southerners need assistance to exit to South Sudan; 30,000 IDPs who fled to Ethiopia from Blue Nile may decide to return at some point in time; and 5,000 refugees are crossing back into Darfur from Chad (data taken from UNICEF, WarChild Holland, Plan Sudan International reports). According to UNICEF and NGO sources, returnee children face worse schools in host communities than IDP children in camps, because IDP Camps have been at the centre of education attention in the past; host communities have not. This causes disparity, and potentially conflict. 20,000 nomadic children of communities currently prevented from migrating over the new borderline between South Darfur and South Sudan, which interrupts traditional movement patterns and raises the need for extra education facilities.

Why Is CHF Funding Critical Right Now? Agencies’ financial resources are insufficient to fund proposed activities and to reach proposed target of approximately 500,000 school-aged children affected by conflict and possibly drought. Recently erupted conflicts in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (destroyed education facilities, displaced school children) have created new education needs that require the jumpstarting of rapid responses and additional education funding. Education sector struggles more than other sectors to secure education-in-emergency funding as it is not considered as ‘life-saving’ by some donors. 28% of the proposals recommended for funding have been submitted by national NGOs. Almost all recommended UN & INGO agencies propose to sub-contract local partners. Hence, education funding support contributes to national capacity development and ‘durable solutions’.

How Were Value for Money and Low Indirect Costs Ensured? Questions about technical appropriateness (in line with INEE standards), timeliness, value-for-money and indirect cost were included into the CHF education proposal evaluation ranking sheet. Proposals with holistic education approaches reaching out to areas most affected by conflict were rated as highly appropriate and timely. (Proposals deemed inappropriate or untimely were discarded from the beginning). Proposals subcontracting local partner organizations (or building otherwise local capacity) were rated higher than those who did not.

How Were Value for Money and Low Indirect Costs Ensured? Total cost was divided by number of beneficiaries, and more cost-effective ratios were rated higher by TRG (as long as quality concerns were not compromised). F. Operational expenditures were assessed separately from programmatic/ technical expenditures. Operational costs lower than 25% of overall budget received high ratings; those higher than 35% received lower ratings. (Price standard differences of diverse states were considered).

Summary of TRG-Endorsed Proposals Total Recommended Education Envelope USD 7,000,000.- Total Recommended Project Proposals 15 proposals (from 13 Organizations) Total Amount Requested by Recommended Agencies USD 14,045,805 Recommended UN/NGO/NNGO Percentage UN: 11.4% INGOs: 60.4% NNGOs: 28.2%

Summary of TRG-Endorsed Proposals (continued) YEAR ALLOCATION % AVERAGE Education Allocations for 1st Round (2006-2011) 2008 $ 5,104,361 10% $ 5,918,763 2009 $ 3,670,000 8% 2010 $ 8,500,000 15% 2011 $ 6,400,691 14% TOTAL $ 27,508,003 9%

Approach Used to Determine Project Allocation Amounts Appointment of TRG Members during Cluster Meeting. Review and Improvement of Education Project Proposal Rating Sheet during Cluster Meeting. Allocation of Points Earnable in Rating Sheet through consultative meeting of TRG members

Approach Used to Determine Project Allocation Amounts (continued) 4. TRG Proposal Evaluation Decision-Making Process Allocation of Funding Envelopes for different Regions (in accordance with geographic priorities determined by education cluster): 50% for Three Protocol Areas; 38% for Three Darfurs, 12% for Khartoum/North Kordofan, White Nile. Rating of proposals using rating sheets, and tallying proposal averages (Note: TRG members from agencies who had submitted proposals were asked to leave the room while their proposal was rated). Grouping agencies into clusters with project proposals submitted per State. Identification of agencies with best proposals (or 105+ Points out of 150). Allocation of percentages/amounts based on needs, geographic priority and proposal quality.