Mobility=Education - World Bicycle Relief · Perceptions About BEEP Targeting and Registration ... Teacher Performance in School and Professional Development Activities.....19 Benefits

®1

BICYCLES FOR EDUCATIONAL EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (BEEP) World Bicycle Relief 2012 ReportAdapted from BEEP Evaluation Report – World Vision Zambia – December 2012 Data Collection Period – Oct 30–Nov 1, 2012

Mobility=Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................................4Affirmation ..................................................................................................................................................4Glossary of terms .......................................................................................................................................5Introduction ................................................................................................................................................6Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................7Summary of Reccomendation ...................................................................................................................8Evaluation Introduction/Background .......................................................................................................8Objectives and Methodology .....................................................................................................................9

Evaluation Setting and Sampling ..............................................................................................................9Recruitment of Evaluation Enumerators .................................................................................................10Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................10Data Cleaning and Analysis ....................................................................................................................10

Survey Limitations ....................................................................................................................................11Study Findings ..........................................................................................................................................11Part One: Caregiver Results ....................................................................................................................11

Reported Attendance ..............................................................................................................................11Validated Attendance ..............................................................................................................................12Pupils Performance .................................................................................................................................12Access to School ....................................................................................................................................13Time Taken to Get to School ...................................................................................................................13Household Economy ...............................................................................................................................14Crosscutting Issues– Gender ..................................................................................................................14Time Spent Studying ...............................................................................................................................15Parental Participation in School Life .......................................................................................................15Perceptions About BEEP Targeting and Registration .............................................................................16

Part Two: Student Self Administered Results ........................................................................................16Age Distribution .......................................................................................................................................16Pupil Safety and Security Issues .............................................................................................................17Bicycle Usage .........................................................................................................................................17Pupil Self-rated Wellbeing .......................................................................................................................18

Part Three: Qualitative Information Results ...........................................................................................18Study Approach ......................................................................................................................................18Relationship of Distance to Student Performance ..................................................................................19Teacher Performance in School and Professional Development Activities.............................................19Benefits of Owning a Bicycle ..................................................................................................................19

Transitioning and Sustainability ..............................................................................................................19Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................20Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................................................20

MOBILITY = EDUCATION 3

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Reasons for Missing School (among respondents who indicated their children were not attending school regularly)

Figure 2: Average Attendance

Figure 3: Average Attendance by Gender

Figure 4: Average Performance Comparison

Figure 5: Average Performance Comparison by Gender

Figure 6: Time Taken for Children to Walk from Their Homes to School (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

Figure 7: Changing Perceptions About Who Should Be Educated Between Boys and Girls

Figure 8: The Time Caregivers Indicated that Girls Spend Studying (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

Figure 9: The Time Caregivers indicated that Boys Spend Studying (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

Figure 10: Age Distribution of the Pupils

Figure 11: Safety and Security When Going to School

Figure 12: Percentage Indicating Bicycle Usage

Figure 13: Child Wellbeing Status Since BEEP

Figure 14: Link of Distance and Pupil School Performance (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

TABLES

Table 1: Type of School Activities that Parents/caregivers are involved in

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Caregiver Tool

Appendix 2: Student Self-administered Tool

Appendix 3: Key Informant Datasheet

Appendix 4: Caregiver Focus Group Discussion Guide

Appendix 5: Student Focus Group Discussion Guide

Appendix 6: List of Evaluation Participants (Enumerators)


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Bicycle Educational Empowerment Program’s final evaluation survey was conducted from Mumbwa and Kaindu Area Development Programs. The survey was a World Vision Zambia internal undertaking through the support of the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Special gratitude is extended to Program Effectiveness and Knowledge Management Advisor, Sajilu Kamwendo, for his technical advice during the process of this evaluation and Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Manager, Isaiah Nzima, for his in-depth scrutiny of the tools and overall evaluation process. The evaluation would not have been successfully conducted without the participation of World Bicycle Relief’s country office, which provided immense support during the evaluation planning process. Mumbwa and Kaindu Cluster Area Development Programs staff provided both assistance and kindness to the evaluation survey team during the period of the survey as did the communities where the survey was conducted.

Special thanks also go to the following individuals: Chibwe Mambwe, DM&E South Region; Lydia Mtchotsa, DM&E Central Region; Pascal Sikuka, M&E Officer, MIHP; Mabvuto Zulu, M&E Officer Mumbwa ADP; Wilfred Mufwambi, Mumbwa and Kaindu Cluster Manager; Dimuna Mwanza, Regional Operations Manager Central; Clement Chipokolo, Regional Operations Manager South; Jonas Ngonga, Driver WV National Office; and James Bwalya, Driver, WV Mumbwa ADP.

Distinguished mention goes to the supervisors and enumerators who supported the survey (see listing in appendices). Their dedication to the survey was crucial to the project’s success.

This report is adapted from a report compiled and written by Machenje Chilimelime, BEEP Project Officer – World Vision Zambia.

Copyright © 2014 World Bicycle Relief

AFFIRMATION

The final evaluation report was made possible by World Vision US through World Vision Zambia. The evaluation objectives and processes outlined in this report reflect the strategic direction taken by World Vision Zambia with reference to established LEAP standards and procedures. The content of this report does not reflect the views and policies of either World Vision US, World Vision Zambia and/or World Bicycle Relief.

With permission from the community from which data was collected, World Vision and its line partners, this document may be reproduced in full or in part for the sole purpose of guidance for similar programs. However, the contents of this report shall not be used for commercial purposes.

Cover Photo: Children in class at Chilala Basic School © World Bicycle Relief, courtesy of Vladimir Vasak

Cover Design: Machenje Chilimelime © World Vision Zambia, 2012


GLOSSARY

BEEP Bicycle Educational Empowerment Program

DME Design, Monitoring and Evaluation

HH Household

BSC Bicycle Supervisory Committee

IPM Integrated Programming Model

LEAP Learning Through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning

MDG Millennium Development Goals

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

PAR Participatory Action Research

RC Registered Children

OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

FGD Focus Group Discussion

SSAQ Student Self-administered Questionnaires

WBR World Bicycle Relief

WV World Vision Zambia


INTRODUCTION

For most communities in rural settings, access to essential services such as health and education is a challenge. To address this need, the Bicycle Educational Empowerment Program was created through the efforts of World Vision Zambia with support from World Vision US, World Bicycle Relief and the Republic of Zambia through the Ministry of Education. The program’s goal is to improve educational access and performance of children who attend primary and secondary schools with the lowest enrollment rates and the highest dropout rates. By providing bicycles to children who must travel long distances to school, usually on foot, the project aims to provide a program that is truly transformational in the lives of students and their families. With a particular emphasis on providing greater access to girls who live in rural communities, BEEP seeks to distribute bicycles to any child who is in need of quicker, safer transportation to school.

During the program’s launching period (2009–2012), BEEP targeted 50,000 bicycles that were to be distributed throughout the provinces of the Republic of Zambia. The bicycle distribution process was to last until 2014. At program evaluation in December 2012, about 23,000 bicycles had been distributed to four provinces in six districts namely Chongwe, Chibombo, Mumbwa, Kalomo, Pemba and Nyimba. The evaluation locations, Mumbwa and Kaindu Area Development Programs, received a total of 6,737 bicycles that benefited pupils, teachers and community educational supporters in 23 schools. These areas received the largest number of bicycles compared to any other single area distribution in the program.

In the tripartite agreement in the program partnership, World Vision Zambia was mandated to carry out all Monitoring and Evaluation functions of the program. Data on student attendance and performance as well as teacher commitments to the school were also monitored, measured and analyzed through a longitudinal cohort study. Moreover, the program was characterized by the full involvement of the community through the Bicycle Supervisory Committee’s consent to monitor the usage of bicycles at community level.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The nation’s greatest resource for solving critical national issues is in its talented and educated children. Unless children are able to complete basic education during their development in elementary and secondary school years, their potential to assist the nation’s future hangs in the balance. Loss of talent through educational neglect is a tragic waste for both the individual and society. When they are educated, children have much to contribute to society; however, children from economically disadvantaged families and rural areas are often not accorded access to education. The great distances that many students must travel to school each day often discourages regular attendance and lowers academic performance. To mitigate the effects of this daily reality, the BEEPprogram, along with its partner World Bicycle Relief, has provided bicycles to children, teachers and community education supporters with the goal of improving educational access and academic performance for children in primary and secondary schools.

The goal of this evaluation was to measure the impact of the BEEP program. The program was launched in 2009 and lasted until December of 2013, during which about 23,000 bicycles were distributed. The program deliberately operated in rural locations, particularly rural communities in Zambia, where access to education due to distance is limited.

This evaluation was conducted in the Mumbwa district from October 2012 to December 2012, where the program baseline was undertaken in July of 2010. Below is the summary of findings from the evaluation:

• 96% of the households sampled indicated that children attended school regularly as compared with 45% that indicated this was true before the advent of program. This was attributed to distance as a factor for children to access school. After the program’s implementation, children accessed school more easily with the aid of bicycles.

• According to the information obtained, distance was no longer a factor in children’s absenteeism. • 88% of the caregivers indicated that their children take less than an hour to get to school.• 29.4% of the caregivers are using bicycles to earn income.• Girls have more time for schoolwork.• 95.6% of the caregivers expressed happiness about the manner BEEP was implemented.• 17% improvement on attendance for both boys and girls. This was evidenced by the increase in

attendance from 65% to 82% before and after BEEP respectively.• At program evaluation, on average learners improved on performance from 35.5% to 59.5% before and

after BEEP respectively.• Before, 100% of the learners had safety and security concerns when going to school. After the provision

of the bicycles, 96% feel somewhat safe and secure when going to school.• Parents’ perception on preference with regard to educating the children showed a significant shift in

thought. At baseline, 22% of the caregivers indicated showing interest in educating the girl child over the boy child; at evaluation, a 13% point increase to 35% was seen regarding having to provide equal learning opportunities for both boys and girls.

• Before the introduction of BEEP, only 17% of parents indicated that they participated in their children’s school life, while after program implementation, 69% of the caregivers indicated that they participated. This included attending School Open Days, days aimed at ensuring caregivers and/or parents keep track of their children’s performance at school.

• On the learners’ self-rated wellbeing, 73% indicated that they experienced significant change in their wellbeing while 17% said they had noticeable change.


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Some of the recommendations that may help in similar undertakings in the future are as follows:

• The evaluation ought to have been done during the same period as the baseline so as to ensure factors that affect such studies are also considered (i.e., the baseline was done when all grades were in session, unlike the evaluation, which was done at the time when the examination classes, which had some of the beneficiaries of the bicycles, were not attending regular school).

• In an effort to strengthen the Monitoring and Evaluation component of a similar program, there is need to strengthen the work relationships with the District Education Board Secretaries in the Ministry of Education in the collection of monitoring data. The program had numerous challenges in collecting data from the schools, even after several reminders and visits. This may have been mitigated by coordinating efforts and data collection through the DEBS office.

• To enhance professional development activities for teachers, the program should consider stocking libraries at zonal resource centers to ensure that they are well-equipped so teachers can incorporate current teaching methodologies into their lessons. This would greatly benefit the children.

EVALUATION INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

World Vision Zambia, through the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation unit, was tasked to carry out the program evaluation in the Mumbwa and Kaindu Cluster Area Development Programs, the same location where the baseline was conducted in July of 2010.

Mumbwa is a rural district located in Central Province about 150 kilometers west of Lusaka, the capital city of Zambia. The district has an estimated population of 146,000 habitants. The communities of Mumbwa district mostly practice subsistence and commercial farming with maize and cotton being the predominant crops. Cotton is sold to Dunavant, a commercial cotton firm, while maize is sold to the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock through Food Reserve Agency and other private business entities. Mumbwa District is plagued with inadequate social infrastructure such as schools (especially high schools), health facilities, education and health staff accommodation, delivery of farming inputs and clean portable water. The BEEP program was implemented in an effort to assist rural communities, especially children, to access school through the provision of bicycles as an alternative to walking long distances to school.

The following outcomes were intended by the end of program implementation:

• Outcome 1: Increased student attendance of orphans and vulnerable children in primary and secondary school

• Outcome 2: Improved safety and security of students travelling to and from school• Outcome 3: Improved student performance• Outcome 4: Improved teacher performance• Outcome 5: Increased parental and community participation in education• Outcome 6: Improved livelihood (household income)

In order to measure the strides that the program has made since its inception in 2009, an evaluation was conducted in Mumbwa specifically in Mumbwa and Kaindu ADP respectively.

This report will highlight the findings of the evaluation and methods as well as objectives and lessons derived from implementing such an undertaking.


OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The general objective of the survey was to determine the impact of bicycles on schoolchildren and bicycle usage to access school, household income as well as the targeting and registration process of the BEEP program. This further monitored the perception that the beneficiaries had on the BEEP program as a whole.

To measure the program’s impact in the areas where bicycles were distributed, the BEEP program undertook an internal evaluation of the program in Mumbwa and Kaindu Area Development Programs, locations where the program did the baseline in July of 2009.

The objective of the survey can further be explained as follows:

• To assess the impact and effectiveness of program interventions with regards to the project’s goal; to improve educational outcomes with a focus on improving school attendance and performance.

• To assess whether the project achieved intended results and met the benchmarked activities in the work plans. The project was designed to achieve key milestones after a stipulated period of time.

• To evaluate program ownership, transition and sustainability strategy after phase out. One of the hallmarks of any successful program is the continuity of its interventions long after the program had transitioned. The evaluation assessed the community structures that had been put in place and their capabilities and competencies to ensure that the essential program interventions are perpetuated.

• To document lessons learned and provide discrete management, administrative and technical recommendations for improving overall efficiency and effectiveness of similar programs.

The methodology employed in the data collection process was door-to-door household interviews as well as student self-administered questionnaires and focus group discussions between community members, teachers and the learners.

A purposive sampling method was used (subjects are sampled because of some characteristics); only households whose children benefited from the program were sampled and interviewed while only children who received the bicycles responded to the student self-administered questionnaires. However, the team followed the sampling framework and ensured that all interviewed households were randomly selected, thereby giving each eligible household an equal chance to be selected to participate in the evaluation process.

Evaluation Setting and SamplingAs earlier mentioned, the evaluation was conducted in the Mumbwa district, Mumbwa and Kaindu Area Development Areas. The evaluation targeted learners, teachers and community supporters in schools that had benefited from the BEEP program. A total of 15 out of the 23 schools were randomly selected for the undertaking. The following schools were sampled from Mumbwa: Kabulwebulwe, Lusekelo, Nalusanga, Nakanjoli, Chikanda Basic Schools and Chisenga, Kawena Community Schools. In Kaindu, the following schools were sampled: Kanwanzhiba, Kaindu, Mpusu, Kamilambo, Kalenda Basic Schools and Mituntu and Nkurumaziba Community Schools. The mentioned schools also had pupils respond to self-administered questionnaires. Focus group discussions were conducted at the Nalusanga Basic School in Mumbwa ADP while Kaindu was selected from the Kaindu ADP. The selection criterion for the FGD was based on the highest school enrollment and bicycles distributed.


Recruitment of Evaluation EnumeratorsThe recruitment of evaluation participants was derived from the process earlier employed by the ADPs who had recently conducted a baseline in both Mumbwa and Kaindu program areas. These decisions were based on their contribution and performance during the ADPs baseline as well as qualification to undertake the task.

A team of 18 enumerators and two supervisors was recruited. To go with the teams were M&E Officers from Mumbwa-Kaindu Cluster ADP on alternating days while the BEEP Project Officer was at hand during the whole data collection process.

Teams were divided into two groups, each composed of nine enumerators and one supervisor, and they were accompanied by either the BEEP Project Officer and/or the M&E Officer to the project catchment areas vis-à-vis Mumbwa and Kaindu ADPs.

Data CollectionTo get results that measured the intended program outcomes, a participatory tools development process was used that incorporated most stakeholders. This was in an effort to ensure that the process was valid and participatory, in order to cover all interests during the evaluation.

Three data collection tools were developed for and administered to different sets of respondents. These included the following:

• Caregiver/Household Questionnaire This was aimed at capturing data on the various aspects of the BEEP program from the caregivers of the

bicycle beneficiaries (see appendices).

• Student Self-Administered Questionnaire Students were asked to respond to questions on their own. This was to ensure that they gave their own

perceptions about the benefits of the bicycles that had been given to them as well as to measure their responses against intended outcomes (see appendices).

• Focus Group Discussion Guide This method of data collection was aimed at providing an opportunity for data validation and triangulation

and to cover gaps that may arise in the questionnaire data collection process (see appendices).

Data Cleaning and AnalysisAfter data was collected from the program areas of Mumbwa and Kaindu ADPs, four data entry clerks were recruited for the sole purpose of entering data. Data was first entered into a spreadsheet (Excel) template after which it was transferred into SPSS 17 for analysis.

After the data entry process, which was supervised by the BEEP Project Officer, the cleaning process was done. The cleaning process was then validated by the team of analysts thorough checking against hardcopy questionnaires.

A team of three data analysts was created and derived from various programs in the organization for the purpose of data analysis validation to ensure that the product of the evaluation was not interfered with, thereby eliminating bias in the process.


SURVEY LIMITATIONS

During the student self-administered part of the evaluation, the team faced some challenges because the timing coincided with the Grade 9 end-of-year final examination. However, the team patiently and consistently managed to collect the data from the children by making prior arrangements with the schools to ensure that word was sent to the other pupils to report to school in the afternoon of each learning day. This was aimed at upholding the school’s suspension of lessons in the morning to allow the examination classes to do their exams without noise from the other pupils. A purposive random sampling was used accordingly. During the household questionnaire administration, the team consistently followed the sampling framework and ensured that all interviewed households were randomly selected, thereby giving each eligible household an equal likelihood of being selected to participate in the evaluation process.

SURVEY FINDINGS

PART ONE: CAREGIVER RESULTSThis section of the report will bring to light the findings from the caregivers who participated in the survey. Below are the highlights:

Reported AttendanceCaregivers are the primary guardians for the recipient students—parents, extended family or other. Before receiving bicycles, sampled caregivers were asked if their children attended school on a regular basis. 45% of the caregivers indicated that their children attended school on a regular basis. After bicycles were given, 96% of the selected caregivers indicated that their children were attending school on a regular basis. This represents a percentage point increase of 51% in reported attendance.

Figure 1: Reasons for Missing School (among the respondents who indicated that their children were not attending school regularly)

Before BEEP0%21%

After BEEP

Distance

In relation to attendance, before the introduction of BEEP, 21% of the caregivers who indicated that their children were not attending school regularly attributed it to distance. After the initiation of BEEP none of the caregivers indicated distance as a cause of their children missing class.


Validated AttendanceData collected from the seven sites indicated an average 17% improvement in attendance for both girls and boys after receiving the bicycles. This is five percentage points lower than the initial average improvement of 22% that was measured at the onset of the program; however, this does indicate that there are sustained strides towards ensuring that attendance continues to improve. The evaluation findings indicate that 74% of the beneficiaries are currently using the bicycles for educational purposes and this could explain why there was a drop in percentage attendance improvement. On average, attendance improved from 65% to 82% with similar trends seen in both boys and girls. The figures below shows:

Pupil PerformanceThe other key indicator measured in the study was academic performance. Data collected from the eight sites indicates an average 22% point improvement in academic performance for both girls and boys after receiving the bicycles. This was four percentage points higher than the initial average improvement of 18% that was measured at the onset of the program; however, this does indicate that there are sustained strides towards ensuring that performance continues to improve.

Figure 2: Average Attendance Figure 3: Average Attendance by Gender

Before BEEP

Attendance Percentage Pre/Post Bicycle Distribution

After BEEP

65%

82%

Before BEEP

Attendance Percentage Pre/Post Bicycle Distribution

After BEEP

65%

83%

65%

81%

GirlsBoys

Figure 4: Average Performance Comparison Figure 5: Average Performance Comparison by Gender

Pre

Perfomance Percentage Pre/Post Bicycle Distribution

Post

38%

60%

38%

60%

Pre

Perfomance Percentage Pre/Post Bicycle Distribution

Post

BoysGirls

37%

59%


The evaluation findings indicated that children have more time to study and do their homework and this could contribute to positive results in overall student performance.

On average, academic performance for students who received bicycles improved by 22 percentage points from 38% to 60% as measured by term-end average scores. Performance by boy students out- paced girl students: boy students improved to 60% average term-end scores from 38% while girls improved from 37% to 59%. Moreover, the difference was minimal as seen above.

According to the Examination Council of Zambia National Assessment Survey Report of 2006, estimated mean scores for mathematics and English were 34.5% and 38.5% respectively1.

Access to SchoolThe Government of the Republic of Zambia has made tremendous strides in the past few years to increase access to education facilities. According to the examination council of Zambia, the country has been able to maintain the average distance travelled to school within the recommended radius of five kilometers for nearly 90% of pupils. However, there are still 10% of pupils for whom distance was still a major challenge. We have to contend with issues of school access, especially in rural areas.

Time Taken to Get to SchoolBefore the advent of BEEP, it was noted that after walking two or more hours to school, students often reported dozing off while the teacher was teaching, or feeling physically exhausted and hungry. They reported finding it difficult to concentrate, especially during the first few periods while their bodies were still recuperating from the long journey. During that time, 32% of the caregivers reported that their children took less than an hour to get to school; 29% of the caregivers reported that it took their children more than two hours to move from their homes to the school. After bicycles were introduced, 88% of the interviewed caregivers indicated that their children spent less than an hour traveling from their home to the school. 0.7% of the respondents indicated that their children spent more than 2 hours for them to move from their homes to the respective schools.

Other researches done review that the longer the distance pupils travel to school, the lower the learning achievements, Examination Council of Zambia, 2006 National Assessment Survey Report2

1 Examination Council of Zambia (2006 National Assessment Survey Report)2 Examination Council of Zambia (2006 National Assessment Survey Report)

Figure 6: Time taken for children to walk from their homes to school (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

< 1 hr 1-2 hrs 2+

32% 37%29%

88%

10%0.7%

Before BEEPAfter BEEP


Household EconomyThe provision of a bicycle to a household not only eases the mobility of school-going children it also empowers the household with a tool for development that they can use to create wealth through income generation. After receiving bicycles, caregivers indicated that 29% of the households were using bicycles in one way or another to earn income. The majority of the respondents who indicated that they were using the bicycle to earn income identified the transportation of goods and materials as one way the bicycles were used to earn income. Most of the income earned was used for meeting educational needs and requirements as well as supplementing on other needs at household level, with 91% of the respondents affirming to the aforementioned.

Crosscutting Issues–GenderEmpowering and promoting the education of girls was one of the tenets of BEEP. The program did this by ensuring that more bicycles were provided to girls than boys, in light of some of the particular challenges that girls encounter in their pursuit of education. One of the contributing factors to realizing this goal was the involvement of parents in the provision of education and the perceptions that parents had towards educating girls. BEEP not only provided bicycles but also changed the perceptions of the parents through gender sensitization. Before the advent of BEEP, 73% of caregivers indicated that if they had only enough resources to send one child to school, they would rather send a boy rather than a girl. After the advent of BEEP, 65% of the caregivers indicated that they would rather send a boy to school rather than a girl. This indicated that there are more caregivers willing to send girls to school. When queried why they would send a boy to school over a girl, most of the respondents indicated girls would likely get pregnant and thus not complete school. Moreover, there is noticeable change regarding educating a girl child, as evidenced in the figure below.

Figure 7: Changing Perceptions of Who Should be educated Between Boys and Girls

Before BEEP

Boys

73% 65%After BEEP Before BEEP

Girls

22% 35%After BEEP


Time Spent StudyingBefore BEEP, the caregivers were asked about the time their boys and girls spent on studying at home per day. The findings indicated that 26% of the caregivers said girls do not have enough time to study;

27% indicated that boys do not have enough time to study. After BEEP, 4% of the caregivers said girls do not have enough time to study while 5% indicated boys do not have enough time to study. In the figures below, note the increase in those who study more than an hour respectively:

Parental ParticipationBefore the advent of BEEP, 95% of parents reported that they participated in school activities. After the advent of BEEP the figure has remained the same with 95% of the parents and guardians reporting that they do participate in school activities. Before BEEP caregivers were asked for examples of the types of activities they participated in. 54% of the parents and guardians indicated that they participated in PTA meetings. After BEEP, 90% of the caregivers indicated that they participated in PTA meetings. Table 1 below shows:

Type of school activities Before BEEP After BEEPPTA meetings 54% 90%Open day 17% 69%

Table 1: Type of School Activities That Parents/Caregivers Are Involved in

Figure 8: The time caregivers indicated that girls spend studying before and after BEEP

Figure 9: The time caregivers indicated that boys spend studying before and after BEEP.

Don’t have time

Don’t have time

Less than 30 mins

Less than 30 mins

30 mins - 1 hour

30 mins - 1 hour

more than 1 hour

more than 1 hour

Time Girls Spend Studying

Time Boys Spend Studying

26%

4%

27%

5%

28%

18%

26%

18%

29%33%

23% 25%

2%

14%

4%

19%




Perceptions About BEEP Targeting and RegistrationIn order to measure how the community had received the program, the households that had benefited were asked whether they were satisfied with the beneficiary targeting and registration process. 90.2% of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the beneficiary targeting and registration. Only 9.8% expressed dissatisfaction with the process. The major reasons given for the dissatisfaction concerning the targeting and registration process were that of favoritism in some cases, which led to some deserving children not receiving the bicycles.

PART TWO: STUDENT SELF-ADMINISTERED RESULTSThis section of the report will highlight the findings from the student self-administered part of the survey. Students responded to the questionnaire in groups segregated by gender so as to enable full participation. Below are the highlights:

Age DistributionApart from the challenge of distance to and from school, bicycle beneficiaries were expected to be aged 10 years and older. This was, among other reasons, because bicycles were only one size fits all. The age requirement was to ensure that the bicycles were suitable with regard to size. This segment of the findings indicated age distribution of the children. It is interesting to note that the results of the research showed that this requirement was met as evident in the left graph; age ranged 10 to 20 years:

Figure 10: Age Distribution of the Pupils

Age Distribution of Beneficiaries

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1%

4%

13%15%

16%

21%

12%

6% 6%

4%

1%


Pupil Safety and Security IssuesSafety and security for pupils was a concern before the distribution of bicycles. Due to distance, pupils were subjected to waking up very early in the morning to beat the school reporting time. Thus, 100% of the pupils then indicated that they feared being attacked by wild animals such as hyenas, snakes and elephants among others. After receiving the bicycles, children indicated a reduction in safety concerns. 69% indicated that they felt safe most of the times while 27% indicated feeling safe sometimes. However, 4% still feel unsafe when going to school.

Bicycle UsageAsked about bicycle usage, pupils were asked to demonstrate by indicating whether or not they used their bicycle to and from school with the aim of assessing if the bicycles were used for the intended purpose. Of the responses, 74% indicated that they used their bicycles to access school while 26% indicated that they no longer use their bicycles. Some of the reasons mentioned for not using the bicycle were mechanical problems or that bicycles were being used to help out at home.

The contractual requirement allows full ownership of the bicycle after 2 years of continuous usage after which beneficiary households use these bicycles to their own discretion. Note that almost all the schools have attained the 2 years contractual requirement.

Figure 11: Safety and Security When Going to School

Most of the time

Sometimes Don’t feel safe at all

100%

69%

100%

27%

100%

4%


Pupils Safety and Security Issues

Bicycle Usage

Yes 100%

No 26%

Figure 12: Percentage Indicating Bicycle Usage


Pupil Self-rated WellbeingThe survey also aimed to measure the wellbeing of children since receiving the bicycles. Children were asked of their perception in relation to change in their lives from the time they received the bicycles. Survey results showed that 73% of the children had seen significant improvements in their lives while 17% indicated noticeable change. However, 10% indicated no change in their lives since receipt of the bicycles.

PART THREE: QUALITATIVE INFORMATION RESULTS

Study ApproachA participatory approach was used during the tools’ development process with participation from the

Design, Monitoring and Evaluation unit as well as the scrutiny of the tools by the major stakeholder World Bicycle Relief. Note that the tools were developed prior to the evaluation training.

Focus group discussions often are most valuable when used in conjunction with other research tools and they provide an opportunity for data validation and triangulation. The BEEP program was no exception with regard to the use of this method during the evaluation.

During FGDs, outstanding issues relating to distance that came out from the discussants are summed up. The figure below shows the linkage of distance in relation to student performance (before and after the distribution of bicycles).

73% 17% 10%

Figure 13: Child Wellbeing Status Since BEEP

Significant ImprovementNoticeable ChangeNo Change

Child Wellbeing Status

Figure 14: Link of Distance and Pupil School Performance (before BEEP vs. after BEEP)

BEFORETiredness

Lack of concentration

AFTERSchool fees, sickness (malaria)

BEFOREMissed class, poor exam scores

AFTER64% pass rate for girls (Source: 2011 exam results)

BEFORELearners took 2-3 hours to school because of distance

AFTERAll children participating had a bicycle

Learners take between 10–60 minutes to reach school

BEFORENo school fees, parents’ low value for education

AFTERReduced dropout due to sensitization

Parents’ changing perception on educating both boys & girls

TIME TAKEN

DROPOUT

ABSENTEEISM

PERFORMANCE


Relationship of Distance to Student PerformanceBefore the distribution of bicycles, factors such as those illustrated in the figure above were the deterrents to learners’ performance. According to school records on the Ministry of Education statistics on 2011 exam performance for the schools where the FGDs were conducted, 64% of the girls (both internal and external) passed to Grade 8.

Teacher Performance in School and Professional Development ActivitiesDuring FGD, school heads as key informers (head teachers) were asked to elaborate on teacher performance in relation to professional development activities (PDA) as well as school attendance. The informers indicated teacher attendance was very good because they have been motivated through the provision of the bicycles that enabled them attend to professional development-related activities.

However, teachers mentioned other factors that hindered their performance such as understaffing, poor accommodations, over enrollment among others. Mr. Frank Simpongwe, a teacher at Nalusanga Basic School said, “Accommodation is discouraging here; imagine three teachers with families sharing one house.” The head teacher confirmed this, mentioning that the government was employing teachers without increasing the housing units needed to accommodate them.

Benefits of Owning a BicycleAsked how helpful the bicycles have been at household level, here were their reactions:

• Used to ferry garden produce for sale• Used as a means of transport for patients to access health facilities• Children have time to help out with household chores• The bicycle is used to go to the hammer mill• Able to visit distant relations• Used as a faster means to go to the water points

The Focus Group Discussion confirmed that the bicycles have contributed positively to the household’s wellbeing.

TRANSITIONING AND SUSTAINABILITY

The true success of every program intervention largely depends on its ability to promote continuity and sustainability long after phase-out. This process empowers the community to ensure that long-term measures are put in place that enable the intervention to continue bearing the fruits.

In the context of transitioning, the BEEP program emphasized both to the schools and BSC the importance of adhering to the contractual requirements of the program—especially to the schools that had not yet reached the graduation stage to bicycle ownership. Participants in the evaluation indicated that all powers should be vested in the already existing community structures in an effort of ensuring that the program continues to benefit many.

Stringent measures such as having Bicycle Supervisory Committees were indicated as a sure way of ensuring sustainability and continuity. These committees will enforce rules and regulations best suiting individual community environments. During FGD discussions, caregivers attested to having seen the benefits of the program.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluation was successful, with full participation of the Area Development Programs. The participation from the community was encouraging and, thus, participants are looking forward to sharing the findings of the evaluation. Some of the recommendations that may help for similar undertakings in the future are as follows:

• The evaluation ought to have been done during the same period as the baseline so as to ensure that factors that affect such studies are also considered (i.e., the baseline was done when all grades were in session, but the evaluation was done at the time when the examination classes, which compose some of the beneficiaries of the bicycles, were not attending regular school.

• In an effort to strengthen the Monitoring and Evaluation component of a similar project undertaking, there is a need to work closely with the District Education Board Secretary in the Ministry of Education in the collection of monitoring data. The program had numerous challenges to collecting data from the schools even after several reminders and visits. To remedy this, the program would benefit from working with the DEBS office to coordinate data collection.

• In order to enhance professional development activities for teachers, the program should consider stocking libraries at zonal resource centers to ensure that they are well equipped so teachers may integrate the latest teaching methodologies into their lessons.

LESSONS LEARNED

• The measurement of student performance continued to be a challenge. In order to counter this challenge and to ensure that there is a common way to collect and analyze data, the program is of the view that the collection of performance data should be restricted to two major subjects, mathematics and English. It is hoped that this will make it easier for the schools to provide the data and to develop the quality of data collected.

• On the other hand, school attendance by the learners was collected through school attendance registers; thus, the data was authenticated.

• The Bicycle Educational Empowerment Program worked with the various ADPs during the implementation of the activities. Initially, the program was to be integrated into their programming, especially the education sector. It is noted that the integration process was not fully utilized because so there were many challenges in data collection. In future programs of this type, such undertakings are supposed to be incorporated into the ADP DIPs so that the program may be monitored and evaluated on the outcomes through the same structures while the BEEP continues to coordinate and consolidate the process for future reporting.


APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Caregiver ToolAppendices Appendix 1: Caregiver Tool

BICYCLE EDUCATIONAL EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REVIEW EVALUATION

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions

1. First introduce yourself to the respondent(s). During your introductions, please state your full names and the organisations, WVZ and WBR that you are representing.

2. Explain the purpose of the survey including how long it is likely to take as well as the criteria used to choose the HH to participate. (20 -30 minutes).

3. It will be prudent to also explain to the respondents that the survey will not, in any way, affect any possible future assistance from both WVZ and WBR. The survey is for the sole purpose to seek to measure the impact of the BEEP program in the selected community.

4. Ensure that you emphasize that the data collected will be kept confidential. 5. After all is made clear, ask the prospective respondent whether they are willing to participate in the interview.

NOTE: Please ensure that the questionnaire is administered to the household head/ caregiver.

Time interview started: ______________________ Time interview ended:________________________

Quality Assurance Information QI

QI01. Date of survey: _____/_____/_______ (DD/MM/YYYY)

QI02. Name of Research Assistant: QI03. District :

QI04. ADP/IP:

QI05. School Name: QI06. HH #:

Q107. Village:

19


DEMOGRAPHICS HHD HHD1. Gender of Beneficiary child

1 = Boy 2 = Girl HHD1

HHD2. Age of Beneficiary Child

|_____| |_____| HHD2

HHD3. Gender of the household head?

1 = Male 2 = Female HHD3

HHD4. What is the level of education for

the household head?

1 = Never attended 2 = Primary 3 = Junior Secondary 4 = High school 5 = College/university

HHD4

HHD5. What is the relationship between

HH head and the beneficiary child?

1 = Biological Son 2 = Biological Daughter 3 = Step Son 4 = Step Daughter 5 = Nephew 6 = Niece 7 = Other relative, specify______________. Note: If response to HHD5 is 1 or 2, skip to HHD7

HHD5

HHD6. If not biological son or daughter,

state parental status?

1 = Both parents, alive but not in HH 2 = Mother alive, not in same household 3 = Father alive, not in same household 4 = Both parents deceased

HHD6

HHD7. Is the beneficiary child disabled?

1 = Yes 2 = No (Skip to HHD9) HHD7

HHD8. What disability does the child have?

1 = Deaf 2 = Dumb 3 = Sight 4 = Lame (hands/legs)

HHD8

HHD9. How many people have been living

continuously in this household in the last 2 months? (related/unrelated)

|_____| |_____| HHD9

HHD10. How many people in the household are between the ages of?

Children 5 year and below

Children 6 – 18 years

Adults 19 – 59 years

Adults 60 and above

Male |_____| |_____| Female |_____| |_____|

Male |_____| |_____| Female |_____| |_____|

Male |_____| |_____| Female |_____| |_____|

Male |_____| |_____| Female |_____| |_____|

HHD10

20


SCHOOL ENROLMENT + ATTENDANCE SEA

SEA1. Is the beneficiary child attending

school regularly?

1 = Yes 2 = No (If yes, go to SEA3)

SEA1

SEA2. If no to SEA1, what is the main

reason why they are not attending?

1. Distance to school 2. No money for school related fees 3. Care for sick HH member 4. Had to assist with HH chores 5. Early marriage 6. Pregnancy 7. Abuse by teachers 8. Abuse by other pupils 9. I don’t like school 10. Cattle heading

Note: After completing SE2 skip to SE5

SEA2

SEA3. What grade level is the beneficiary

child?

1 = Between 1 - 7 2 = Between 8 – 12 SEA3

SEA4. What type of school does the child

attend?

1 = Community School 2 = Primary School 3 = Basic School 4 = High School

SEA4

SEA5. Are there other children in the HH of school going age (7 - 18) that are not attending school?

1 = Yes 2 = No (Skip to SEA8)

SEA5

SEA6. If response to SEA5 is yes, how

many? |_____| |_____| SEA6

SEA7. If yes to SEA6, why (Multiple Response)

1. Distance to school 2. No money for school related fees 3. Care for sick HH member 4. Had to assist with HH chores 5. Early marriage 6. Pregnancy 7. Abuse by teachers 8. Abuse by other pupils 9. I don’t like school 10. Cattle heading 11. Sickness

SEA7

SEA8. Does your child use his/her bicycle to

go to and from school?

1 = Yes 2 = No (Skip to SEA10) If no, why _________________________

SEA8

SEA09. How long does it take your child to

get to school with his/her bicycle? |_____| |____| |____| Minutes

SEA09

SEA10. Did the child miss class in the past 2 weeks?

1= Yes 2= No (skip to next section) SEA10

21


SEA11. If yes, how many days?

|_____| |_____| Days

SEA11

SEA12. If child missed class, what were the

reasons? (Multiple response)

1 = Bicycle mechanical fault 2 = HH member used the bicycle for HH

benefit 3 = The child was not feeling well 4 = Other specify _______________

SEA12

PARENTAL PARTICIPATION PP PP1. Do you as a parent participate in

school activities? 1 = Yes 2 = No (skip to next section) PP1

PP2. If response to PP1 is yes, what kind of

activities do you participate in? (Multiple response)

1. Open days 2. PTA meetings 3. Volunteering 4. School fund raising 5. Others specify_______________

PP2

PP3. How often do you participate?

1. Always 2. Sometimes

PP3

HOUSEHOLD INCOME HHI HHI1. What is the family’s main source of

income?

1. Agriculture activities 2. Piece work 3. Formal employment 4. Own business (shop/kantemba) 5. Other specify________________

HHI1

HHI2. Who contributes most to the HH

income?

1. Father 2. Mother 3. Older children 4. Don’t know 5. Other specify________________

HHI2

HHI3. Was the bicycle that was received used in any way to earn income in the past two months?

1 = Yes 2 = No (Skip to HH17) HHI3

HHI4. If the bicycle was used to earn HH

income in the past two months, how was the bicycle used?

1. To transport goods/materials 2. Fish mongering 3. Take second hand cloths around 4. Take garden produce to the market 5. Other,_______________________

HHI4

HHI5. Approximately, how much money did you earn with the aid of the bicycle in the past two months?

ZMK |____| |____| |____| |____| |____| |____| |____|

HHI5

22


GENDER NORMS AND PERCEPTIONS GNP GNP1. What type of chores do girls do at

HH level? (Multiple Response)

1. Housework (sweeping/cleaning) 2. Work on the garden/farm 3. Fetch water 4. Look after younger siblings 5. Other specify_________________ 88. Not applicable

GNP1

GNP2. What type of chores do boys do at

HH level? (Multiple response)

1. Housework (sweeping/cleaning) 2. Work on the garden/farm 3. Fetch water 4. Look after younger siblings 5. Other specify_________________ 88. Not applicable

GNP2

GNP3. On an average day, how much time

do girls spend on studying at home?

1. 10 – 15 minutes 2. 30 – 60 minutes 3. 1 hour and above 4. They don’t have time to study 5. Don’t know 88. Not applicable

GNP3

GNP4. On an average day, how much time

do boys spend on studying at home?

1. 10 – 15 minutes 2. 30 – 60 minutes 3. 1 hour and above 4. They don’t have time to study 5. Don’t know 88. Not applicable

GNP4

GNP5. Imagine:

If you could afford to pay for only one child’s school related fees and expenses, who would you choose to support between a girl and a boy?

(choose one)

1 = Boy 2 = Girl State reason (s) why: ____________________________________

GNP5

MAINTENANCE MA

MA1. What is the most recurring mechanical problem

you have had since you received the bicycle?

1 = Broken rim 2 = Jammed chain 3 = Broken Chain 4 = Broken spokes 5 = Unaligned wheels 6 = Punctured tube 7 = Punctured tyre 8 = Missing peddle 9 = Other, ___________________.

MA1

HHI6. Was any of this money raised used to

pay school related fees? 1 = Yes 2 = No HHI6

HHI7. Besides the beneficiary using the

bicycle to go to school, what other ways do you use the bicycle? (Multiple response)

1. Go to the hammer mill 2. Access health care for HH members 3. Visit relatives 4. Attend community meetings 5. Church meeting 6. Others specify

HHI7

23


MA2. Where do you usually take your bicycle for

repair?

1 = Trained WBR mechanic 2 = Other repair shop 3 = I or HH member able to do own

repairs Note: if response to M2 is 1, skip to M4

MA2

MA3. If response is not 1 to M2, establish why.....

1= Too expensive 2 = Distance 3 = Not available 4 = Poor workmanship 5 = Not aware of bicycle mechanics 6 = Others specify. _____________

MA3

MA4. Are spare parts readily available? (If No or don’t

know skip to M8)

1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don’t know MA4

MA5. Who provides the spares?

1 = Trained WBR mechanics 2 = Local shop 3 = School shop 4 = Other, ___________________.

MA5

MA6. In your own view, how are the prices for the

spare parts?

1 = Very expensive 2 = Expensive 3 =Affordable 4 = Very affordable 5 = Don’t know

MA6

MA7. What is the quality of spares being supplied?

1 = Good quality 2 = Average quality 3 = Bad quality 4 = Don’t know

MA7

MA8. What modification, if any, have you made to

your bicycle? (multiple response)

1 = Added a bigger carrier 2 = Added a light 3 = Painted frame 4 = Added additional reflectors 5 = Other, ___________________. 6 = None

MA8

TARGETING & REGISTRATION PROCESS TRP

TRP1. Did you attend any sensitization on the BEEP

targeting and registration before the process began?

1 = Yes (If yes skip to TRP3) 2 = No TRP1

TRP2. If no, what would be the reason for not

attending sensitization meeting?

1 = Did not get information 2 = Was busy with other things 3 = Sent a representative 4 = Other, __________________.

TRP2

TRP3. Who targets and registers children in the

BEEP program?

1 = Village Administration 2 = Community Assembly 3 = Bicycle Supervisory Committee 4 = WBR/WV staff 5 = Teachers 6 = Don’t know

TRP3

TRP4. Are you satisfied with the targeting and

registration process? 1 = Yes (If yes skip to TRP6) 2 = No TRP4

24


TRP5. If no to TRP4, why?

1 = Favouritism 2 = School interference 3 = Deserving children left out 4 = Other, ___________________.

TRP5

TRP6. Overall, were you satisfied in the manner in

which BEEP has been implemented in your area?

1 = Yes (If yes end of the interview and thank the respondent)

2 = No

TRP6

TRP7. If no to TRP6, suggest ways to improve in

similar future programs?

(Record all responses in the answer space)

TRP7

End of the interview and remember to thank the respondent for according you the opportunity to interview them

25


Appendix 2: Student Self Administered Tool

Appendix 2: Student Self administered Tool

BICYCLE EDUCATIONAL EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM

Program Evaluation

STUDENT SELF ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE

Instruction: Assist the child to fill in this part of the questionnaire.

Questionnaire Identification QID

QID1. Date of survey

QID2. Name of School

QID3. Village

QID4. Name of Child

QID5. Age of Child

QID6. Gender of Child

Quality Assurance Information QI

QI01. Supervised by

QI02. Checked by

QI03. Catchment Area

26


Instruction: Assist the child to understand the questions

SCHOOL ENROLMENT and ATTENDANCE SEA

SEA1. What grade are you doing?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(circle only one)

SEA1

SEA2. Did you receive a bicycle?

1 = Yes 2 = No SEA2

SEA3. Do you use your bicycle to come

to school?

1 = Yes 2 = No SEA3

SEA4. If no, why don’t you use your

bicycle to come to school?

1 = It has a mechanical problem 2 = The bicycle is being used at home 3 = I am allowed to use it for school 4 = Not Applicable

SEA4

SEA5. How many minutes do you ride

to school?

1 = Less than 10 minutes 2 = Between 10 to 20 minutes 3 = Between 20 to 30 minutes 4 = Between 30 to 40 minutes 5 = Between 40 to 50 minutes 6 = Between 50 to 60 minutes 7 = More than 1 hour

SEA5

SEA6. Do you ride by yourself or with

friends?

1 = By myself 2 = With friends

SEA6

SEA7. Do you carry anyone on your bicycle when going to school?

1 = Yes 2 = No SEA7

SEA8. How many days did you miss class last week?

0 1 2 3 4 5

(circle only one) SEA8

SEA9. If you missed class, why?

1= Afraid of thugs, rapists, wild animals 2 = Abuse by teachers 3 = Abuse by friends 4 = To assist at home 5 = Not Applicable 6 = Sickness

SEA9

SEA10. Do you feel safe when going to

and from school?

1 = Most of the time 2 = Sometimes 3 = Don’t feel safe at all

SEA10

SEA11. Do other people use your bicycle?

1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don’t Know SEA11

SEA12. Does your bicycle fit you? 1 = Yes 2 = No SEA12

SEA13. Have you fallen from your bicycle?

1 = Yes 2 = No SEA13

27


SEA14. Do you study at home? 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Sometimes SEA14

SEA15. On average how many hours

do you spend studying per day?

1 = Less than 1 hour 2 = 1 hour 3 = 1 hour 30 minutes 4 = 2 hours + 5 = Not Applicable

SEA15

SEA16. Do you help or work at home? 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Sometimes SEA16

SEA 17. Before receiving the bicycle,

what number did you use to pass?

1 = Between 1 to 5 2 = Between 6 to 10 3 = Between 11 to 20 4 = Between 21 to 30 5 = Between 31 to 40 6 = More than 41

SEA17

SEA18. What number did you pass last

term?

1 = Between 1 to 5 2 = Between 6 to 10 3 = Between 11 to 20 4 = Between 21 to 30 5 = Between 31 to 40 6 = More than 41

SEA18

SEA19. Would you still come to school without a bicycle?

1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don’t Know SEA19

SEA 20. How has your life changed

since you received the bicycle in relation to accessing school i.e. coming to and from school? By way of marking

with X on the ladder, rate how the bicycle had changed your life compared to before receiving the bicycle.

SEA 20

Thank you very much for your time and participation

28


Appendix 3: Key Informant DatasheetBI

CYC

LE E

DU

CAT

ION

AL E

MPO

WER

MEN

T PR

OG

RAM

K

EY IN

FOR

MAN

T D

ATAS

HEE

T

Targ

eted

Res

pond

ent (

s)D

iscu

ssio

n To

pic

Rel

ated

Que

stio

ns

Hea

d Te

ache

r

Scho

ol A

dmin

istr

ator

Hea

dmas

ter

Pupi

l Enr

ollm

ent

✓ W

hat i

s th

e to

tal s

choo

l enr

olm

ent b

y ge

nder

?

Pupi

l Atte

ndan

ce✓

Wha

t is

the

aver

age

atte

ndan

ce ra

te o

f pup

ils p

er g

rade

?

✓ W

hat i

s th

e av

erag

e dr

opou

t rat

e pe

r yea

r?

✓ W

hat a

re th

e re

ason

s fo

r dro

ppin

g ou

t of s

choo

l? (in

dica

te b

y ge

nder

)

✓ Ho

w w

as th

e pe

rform

ance

of l

earn

ers

at e

xam

leve

l [(g

rade

7 a

nd 9

) indi

cate

by

gend

er]

Teac

her A

ttend

ance

✓ Ho

w w

ould

you

rate

the

atte

ndan

ce o

f tea

cher

s pe

r cale

ndar

; M

onth

? Te

rm?

Year

?

✓ Ho

w m

any

hour

s do

teac

hers

spe

nd in

sch

ool p

er d

ay?

✓ In

cas

e of

poo

r tea

cher

atte

ndan

ce, w

hat w

ould

be

the

reas

ons?

Teac

her P

erfo

rman

ce

thro

ugh

PDAs

✓ Ex

plain

teac

her p

erfo

rman

ce a

t sch

ool?

✓ W

hat d

o yo

u th

ink

wou

ld b

e th

e re

ason

that

affe

cts

teac

her p

erfo

rman

ce?

✓ Ho

w m

any

teac

hers

are

atte

ndin

g PD

As?

(Fin

d ou

t num

ber o

f tea

cher

s as

well

)

✓ O

f the

teac

hers

atte

ndin

g PD

As, h

ow m

any

are

doin

g th

ese

activ

ities

outs

ide

the

scho

ol?

Teac

her/p

upil v

isita

tions

✓ In

the

case

of c

hild

ren

not a

ttend

ing

scho

ol o

r with

poo

r per

form

ance

due

to

vario

us re

ason

s, d

o te

ache

rs fo

llow

up

by v

isitin

g th

e af

fect

ed c

hild

ren

in th

eir H

Hs?

✓ If

yes,

how

man

y te

ache

rs d

o th

is ac

tivity

? W

hat i

s th

e ra

te p

er s

choo

l ter

m?


BIC

YCLE

ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

EM

POW

ERM

ENT

PRO

GR

AM

CAR

EGIV

ER F

OC

US

GR

OU

P D

ISC

USS

ION

GU

IDE

Targ

eted

Res

pond

ent (

s)D

iscu

ssio

n To

pic

Rel

ated

Que

stio

ns

Com

mun

ity M

embe

rs

(Par

ents

and

BSC

)

Com

mun

ity P

artic

ipat

ion

✓ Ho

w a

activ

e is

the

Bicy

cle S

uper

visor

y Co

mm

ittee

?

(If y

es, h

ow m

any

by g

ende

r?)

✓ Ho

w o

ften

do th

ey m

eet a

s a

com

mitt

ee

✓ Be

sides

the

com

mitt

ee, a

re th

ere

othe

rs w

ays

that

the

BSC

supp

orts

the

scho

ol?

✓ G

ener

ally,

how

doe

s th

e re

st o

f the

com

mun

ity s

uppo

rt ed

ucat

ion?

(Out

line

the

activ

ities.

)

✓ Be

twee

n 1

– 10

, how

wou

ld y

ou ra

te y

our a

ttend

ance

of s

choo

l rela

ted

activ

ities

i.e.

PTA

mee

tings

, ope

n da

ys?

Bene

fits/

Gen

eral

Com

men

ts✓

How

relia

ble

are

the

bicy

cles?

(Rat

e 1–

10),

why

do

you

say

so?

✓ Ho

w a

re th

e bi

cycle

s m

ainta

ined

, in

relat

ion

to s

pare

s?

✓ Ho

w h

elpfu

l hav

e th

e bi

cycle

s be

en a

t HH

level?

✓ If

Inco

me

Gen

erat

ion

is m

entio

ned,

is th

e m

oney

use

d fo

r sch

ool r

elate

d ac

tivitie

s i.e

. pay

ing

scho

ol re

lated

fees

?

✓ Ch

ildre

n in

dica

ted

sickn

ess

as a

majo

r rea

son

for a

bsen

teeis

m, w

hat a

re th

e co

mm

on d

iseas

es th

at a

ffect

them

?

Regi

stra

tion,

Tar

getin

g an

d Su

stain

abilit

y✓

How

was

the

regi

stra

tion

proc

ess

cond

ucte

d? H

ow w

as th

e ta

rget

ing

done

?

✓ In

you

r view

, did

the

mos

t des

ervin

g ch

ildre

n ta

rget

ed?

✓ W

hat d

o yo

u th

ink

wou

ld h

appe

n to

the

bicy

cles

afte

r the

two

year

s co

ntra

ctua

l re

quire

men

t has

bee

n m

et?

✓ Ho

w d

o yo

u pl

an to

sus

tain

the

prog

ram

afte

r the

two

year

s co

ntra

ctua

l obl

igat

ion?

Appendix 4: Caregiver Focus Group Discussion Guide


Appendix 5: Student Focus Group Discussion GuideBI

CYC

LE E

DU

CAT

ION

AL E

MPO

WER

MEN

T PR

OG

RAM

ST

UD

ENT

FOC

US

GR

OU

P D

ISC

USS

ION

GU

IDE

Targ

eted

Res

pond

ent (

s)D

iscu

ssio

n To

pic

Rel

ated

Que

stio

ns

LEAR

NER

S (B

oys

& G

irls)

Com

mun

ity P

artic

ipat

ion

✓ Do

you

kno

w o

f a B

icycle

Sup

ervis

ory

Com

mitt

ee in

you

r sch

ool?

(If

yes

, how

man

y by

gen

der?

)

✓ Be

sides

the

com

mitt

ee, a

re th

ere

othe

rs w

ays

that

the

com

mun

ity s

uppo

rts th

e sc

hool

?

✓ G

ener

ally,

how

doe

s th

e re

st o

f the

com

mun

ity s

uppo

rt ed

ucat

ion?

(Out

line

the

activ

ities.

)

Bene

fits/

Gen

eral

Com

men

ts✓

How

relia

ble

are

the

bicy

cles?

(Rat

e 1–

10),

why

do

you

say

so?

✓ Ho

w a

re th

e bi

cycle

s m

ainta

ined

, in

relat

ion

to s

pare

s?

✓ Ho

w a

re th

e bi

cycle

s he

lpfu

l at h

ome?

✓ Is

ther

e a

time

whe

n yo

u w

ere

refu

sed

to u

se y

our b

icycle

to s

choo

l? If

yes

, why

?

✓ Ch

ildre

n in

dica

ted

sickn

ess

as a

majo

r rea

son

for a

bsen

teeis

m, w

hat a

re th

e co

mm

on d

iseas

es th

at a

ffect

them

?

Regi

stra

tion,

Tar

getin

g an

d Su

stain

abilit

y✓

How

was

the

regi

stra

tion

proc

ess

cond

ucte

d? H

ow w

as th

e ta

rget

ing

done

?

✓ In

you

r view

, did

the

mos

t des

ervin

g ch

ildre

n ta

rget

ed?

✓ W

hat d

o yo

u th

ink

wou

ld h

appe

n to

the

bicy

cles

afte

r the

2 y

ears

con

tract

ual

requ

irem

ent h

as b

een

met

?

✓ W

ould

you

con

tinue

to c

ome

to s

choo

l with

out a

bicy

cle?

If ye

s/no

, why

?

The

Ladd

er✓

Has

your

life

chan

ged

since

you

rece

ived

your

bicy

cle in

relat

ion

to a

cces

sing

scho

ol?

Plea

se in

dica

ted

how

?


Appendix 6: List of Evaluation Participants (Enumerators)

Research AdvisorsSajilu Kamwendo and Isaiah Nzima (then DM&E Manager)

ResearchersMachenje Chilimelime and Chibwe Mambwe

SupervisorsMwila Zambwe (Kaindu) and Mutambekwa Wakunuma (Mumbwa)

Research Assistants (Enumerators)For Kaindu ADP, the following were the participants: Monica Banda, Njapawu Kangómbi, Ohenda Kanguya, Bornface Kayombo, Josphat Maluza, Augustine Musonda, David Phiri, Elijah Phiri and Monday Sichula, In Mumbwa ADP: Ennie F. Hatoongo, Brian Kaumba, Ephraim Machinyise, Keith Malama, Joseph Miti, Peter Miti, Twaambo Moono, Sidney M. Mwila and Natasha Samalumo.

Data Entry AssistantsMwila Zambwe, Ohenda Kanguya, Moses Sikombe and Bwalya Mubanga

Data AnalystsPascal Sikuka, Chibwe Mambwe and Machenje Chilimelime

USF

RE.1

4.05

worldbicyclerelief.org//our-work/education

Mobility=Education - World Bicycle Relief · Perceptions About BEEP Targeting and Registration ... Teacher Performance in School and Professional Development Activities.....19 Benefits

Documents