Document of The World Bank Report No: 35375 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (IDA-29910 PPFI-Q0340) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 20.9 MILLION TO THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 1 PROJECT JUNE 27, 2006 Human Development 1 (AFTH1) Country Department 4 Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 30, 1997) Currency Unit = Tanzanian Shillings 1 SDR = US$ 1.39408 US$ 1 = 624 Tsh 1 Tsh = US$ 0.0016025 FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASCE Advanced School Certificate Examination BEDC Basic Education Development Committee BEMP Basic Education Master Plan CAS Country Assistance Strategy CEF Community Education Fund CSEE Certificate of Secondary Education Examination Danida Danish International Development Assistance DBSPE District Based Support Project DCA Development Credit Agreement DEO District Education Officer DO Development Objectives DFID Department for International Development (UK) EFA Education for All ESDP Education Sector Development Program ETP Education and Training policy GER Gross Enrollment Ratio GNP Gross National Product GoT Government of Tanzania GSES Girls' Secondary Education Support HRDP Human Resources Development Pilot Project ICB International Competitive Bidding ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association ISR Implementation Status Report LGA Local Government Authority LGRP Local Government Reform Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluatio MOEC Ministry of Education and Culture MOEVOC Ministry of Education and Vocational Training MoF Ministry of Finance NCB National Competitive Bidding NECTA National Examination Council of Tanzania NER Net Enrollment Ratio NGO Non-Governmental Organization PEDP Primary Education Development Program PIU Project Implementation Unit PIP Project Implementation Plan PMO Prime Minister's Office PSG Project Support Group PSLE Primary School Leaving Examination PTR Pupil Teacher Rati QEA1 Quality at Entry Assessment QAG Quality Assurance Group SAR Staff Appraisal Report SEDP Secondary Education Development Program SSS Social Sector Strategy Tsh Tanzanian Shillings UPE Universal Primary Education WB World Bank Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Country Director Judy M. O'Connor Sector Manager Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Rest Barnabas Lasway TANZANIA Human Resource Development I CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 7 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 15 6. Sustainability 16 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 17 8. Lessons Learned 19 9. Partner Comments 21 10. Additional Information 23 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 24 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 26 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 28 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 29 Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 31 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 32 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 33 Annex 8. Borrower Implementation Completion Report 35 Annex 9. MAP of TAnzania - IBRD 33494 86 Project ID: P002789 Project Name: Human Resource Development I Team Leader: Rest Barnabas Lasway TL Unit: AFTH1 ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: June 27, 2006 1. Project Data Name: Human Resource Development I L/C/TF Number: IDA-29910; PPFI-Q0340 Country/Department: TANZANIA Region: Africa Regional Office Sector/subsector: Secondary education (43%); Primary education (33%); Central government administration (24%) Theme: Education for all (P); Participation and civic engagement (P); Access to urban services and housing (S); Gender (S); Poverty strategy, analysis and monitoring (S) KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 07/15/1989 Effective: 02/18/1998 02/18/1998 Appraisal: 02/25/1996 MTR: 02/02/2000 02/02/2000 Approval: 10/07/1997 Closing: 12/31/2005 12/31/2005 Borrower/Implementing Agency: GOVT/MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE Other Partners: None STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: Judy M. O'Connor James W. Adams Sector Manager: Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Ruth Kagia Team Leader at ICR: Rest Barnabas Lasway Charles C. Griffin ICR Primary Author: Hongyu Yang 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: L Institutional Development Impact: SU Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: S QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: HS S Project at Risk at Any Time: No Quality at Entry Assessment (QEA1) was conducted by QAG in FY98. The overall rating was Highly Satisfactory. During implementation, QAG assessed Quality of Supervision for this project in 2004 (QSA6). The overall rating was Satisfactory. 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: Background The Human Resources Development Pilot Project was prepared during the mid 90s. At that time, the key issues for the education sector in Tanzania were low enrollments and poor quality in primary and secondary education, insufficient financial resources for non-salary spending at the primary school level, inadequate school-level management, little accountability to parents and communities. The Government of Tanzania recognized these problems. It proposed a framework for the social sectors, The Social Sector Strategy (1994) with basic principles on decentralizing authority to the local level, promoting high quality standards, moving resources closer to households, and promoting household investment in human capital. In 1995, The Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) prepared an Education and Training Policy (ETP) that stressed liberalization of the education sector to match with the rest of the economic reforms and raising the accountability of service providers to clients. The ETP covered the broader education sector and it was the first step towards developing an Education Sector Development Program (ESDP). Within this context, a draft Basic Education Master Plan (BEMP) was produced in 1997 as part of the design and management process for an ESDP. These documents recognized the need for an adequately funded, pluralistic school system that could benefit from greater involvement of parents and local government in management. The BEMP built on innovations that were generated from different Donor financed projects focusing on school-based management. This was made possible through the decentralized policy which was being implemented in the country. The Human Resources Development Project aimed at testing some concepts that would help to improve the status of primary and secondary education. Pilot testing started with five districts and expanded to sixteen. Before the piloting, pretesting of the design of the pilot on Community Education Fund (CEF) and girls scholarships was conducted between 1996 and 1997. Feedback resulting from the pretesting enabled revisions to be made in the design to better manage risks. In the same year, Tanzania Government abolished school fees and other levies for primary education to achieve universal primary education (UPE). The decision to abolish school fees was based on: (i) the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, that emphasized equitable provision of primary education and (ii) analytical work carried out by NGOs which revealed that most parents could not afford school fees and other contributions amounting to approximately Tshs. 48,000 (almost USD 45) per child per year. Under the Primary Education Development Program (PEDP) launched in 2001, the Government started to implement the capitation and development grants policy which enabled financial resources to be disbursed directly to schools to ensure equitable access to primary education and quality improvement. Therefore, compulsory contributions from parents and communities for matching grants were not scaled up. - 2 - 3.1 Original Objective: The Tanzania Human Resources Development Project (HRDP) was a pilot project financed by an IDA Credit of SDR 15 million (equivalent to US$20.9 million). It was approved on October 7, 1997 and closed on December 31, 2005 as scheduled in the Development Credit Agreement. The objective of the project was to enhance Tanzania's education sector through: (a) raising enrollments in primary education and improving its quality/learning outcomes through raised parental participation and financing; using school-based planning, management of resources, and school-based quality enhancement initiatives; and improving support for schools at the district level; (b) expanding educational opportunities and improving quality at the secondary level, particularly for girls from economically disadvantaged households; (c) building capacity through these programs at the district and community levels and through selective training and project implementation at the central level; and (d) improving policy development, planning, and research in the education sector through modernized testing and statistics systems, operations research, policy studies, and strategic plans for basic and secondary education. 3.2 Revised Objective: The objective was not revised during implementation. 3.3 Original Components: The project cost was estimated at US$24.03 million with a Government contribution of US$3.16 million. The project comprised of four components (Table1). Table 1. Appraisal Estimated Costs (US$ million) Component Total IDA GOT Ratings (IDA+GOT) I. Community Education Fund 8.17 5.01 3.16 HS II. Girls' Secondary Education Support 6.93 6.93 S III. Capacity Building 2.22 2.22 S IV. Policy Development, Planning, and Research 4.49 4.49 S Total Base Cost 21.81 18.65 Contingencies and refund of PPF 2.22 2.22 Total/ 24.03 20.87 3.16 S HS=Highly Satisfactory; S=Satisfactory Component I ­ Community Education Fund -CEF (US$8.17 million or 37 percent of the total base cost). The CEF was a matching fund program designed to increase public funding for non-salary - 3 - spending at the school level and empower communities to improve their primary schools. It aimed at raising enrollments and improving quality of primary education through: (i) increased parental participation and financing; (ii) school based planning and management of resources; (iii) school-based quality improvement initiatives, and (iv) improved support of schools at district level. It would provide matching grants to about 500 primary schools in five poor districts as part of a pilot community education initiative to finance community-based school activities including: (i) construction and rehabilitation of school buildings; (ii) acquisition of school textbooks and teaching materials; and (iii) acquisition of furniture and equipment. Implementation of the CEF piloting would cover the period between 1998-2000. Component II ­ Girls' Secondary Education Support - GSES (US$ 6.93 million or 32 percent of the total base cost). This component intended to improve access to secondary education for girls from economically disadvantaged households and to improve the quality at the lower secondary level for all girls in participating secondary schools. It would provide scholarships for academically able girls who would not otherwise be able to attend lower secondary schools for financial reasons. IDA would finance the bursaries plus the cost of setting up and managing the GSES program. In addition, schools that participated in the GSES program would solicit academic improvement plans, which would receive grants on a competitive basis. The GSES would provide bursaries to a total of 3,415 girls. The last year of enrolling new students to join secondary education for the bursary support would be 2000. The girls would then be supported until they complete lower secondary education in 2003 for O Level and 2004 for A Level. Component III ­ Capacity Building (US$2.2 million or 10 percent of the total base cost). This component aimed at developing capacity to implement CEF and GSES at all levels. It would help the MOEC to formulate and carry out innovative solutions to problems in primary and secondary education. Specifically, it would provide training to district officials, teachers, and administrators of participating primary, secondary schools, parents of primary school pupils, and other interested community members. It would finance professional training to selected MOEC staff and education professionals in areas of education policy, management and financing which were considered of high priority at the time the project was designed. Component IV ­ Policy Development, Planning, and Research (US$4.49 million or 21 percent of the total base cost). This component intended to strengthen policy development, planning, and research in the education sector through improving testing system in National Examination Council (NECTA) and statistics system in MOEC, operations research, policy studies, and strategic sector development plans, by: a) providing computer hardware, software and technical advice to the NECTA and MOEC Statistics Unit; b) strengthening MOEC's capacity in carrying out monitoring and evaluation of pilot activities, carrying out household, community, school and other beneficiary assessment surveys to make such data available to all education researchers; - 4 - c) building MOEC's capacity in targeting and measuring educational subsidies and tracking the impact of its subsidy policies on the economically disadvantaged and strengthening MOEC's capacity for strategic policy development in primary and secondary education. 3.4 Revised Components: No revisions were made to the components. 3.5 Quality at Entry: ICR Rating: Satisfactory The World Bank (WB) Quality Assurance Group (QAG) assessed the quality at entry for this project in FY98 (QEA1). The overall assessment was rated Highly Satisfactory. Among the eight quality at entry dimensions, project concept, objectives and approach, technical and economic, poverty and social, and readiness for implementation aspects were rated Highly Satisfactory, the rest were Satisfactory or Not Applicable (Table 2). Table 2. QAG Quality at Entry Assessment Ratings for HRDP Quality Dimension Rating Overall Rating Highly Satisfactory 1. The project's concept, objectives and approach Highly Satisfactory 2. Technical and economic aspects Highly Satisfactory 3. Environment aspects Not Applicable 4. Poverty and social aspects Highly Satisfactory 5. Financial management aspects Not Applicable 6. Institutional capacity analysis Satisfactory 7. Readiness for implementation Highly Satisfactory 8. Risk assessment and sustainability Satisfactory 9. Bank inputs and process Satisfactory Sources: QAG file, World Bank,1998. The HRDP was clearly linked to and consistent with Tanzania's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), which was to efficiently increase investment in human capital to raise incomes, reduce inequality, and improve non-market outcomes. The Development Objective (DO) was clear and specific. The education sector knowledge and the Government's Social Sector Strategy in education were considered to underpin the project design. - 5 - The task team and the Government used lessons and experiences from the previous projects in Tanzania. The design explicitly tried to push decision-making authority and resources as close to the final user as possible, and place much of the responsibility for monitoring performance at that level. The task team and the Government also made efforts to reduce administrative complexity by cutting components, assuring that they are complementary, and focusing on high-impact activities. On the poverty and social aspects, the project design was consistent with the CAS. It targeted the poor, by including the districts considered to be the poorest. The five and eight districts selected for CEF and GSES respectively were among the poorest in the country. The GSES program supported girls from poor households to achieve secondary education. On the monitoring and evaluation aspect, the Project Appraisal Report (SAR) included a logic framework, but without clear outcome indicators. In some cases, the indicators for measuring progress toward achieving these outcomes were imprecise. Some of the indicators had no baseline data. The ICR team had to consult various documents (SAR, DCA, Project Implementation Plan, ISRs, and Borrower's Annual Project Reports) to construct the data in Annex 1. Although a full time Monitoring and Evaluation expert was hired to work with the project, the design could not be used by the Government. On handing over the project at effectiveness stage, the Task Team Leader (TTL) at the time expressed that the monitoring and evaluation design was too sophisticated to be operationalised by the Government. This defeated the purpose of having a monitoring and evaluation instrument. As a result some basic data was not collected. This prevented proper systematic analysis to be carried out to measure implementation progress, and caused difficulties in monitoring and assessment of project progress and impact, as well as targeting poor communities and households for matching grants and scholarships provision in accordance with income levels. The Bank implementation team confirmed this weakness during the mid-tern review. At the time the project was designed, Tanzania was already implementing a decentralized policy under the Local Government Authorities. Although implementation of the decentralization was in its initial stages, there was no attempt to link implementation with local authority institutions in a systematic way. Instead, a lot of responsibilities were left at the level of a PIU that was insufficiently linked to the different levels of the MOEC and officials at the district level who were appointed coordinators with responsibility only to the PIU. This denied the opportunity to test the capacity of local authorities to support the strategy. It also prevented the use of institutional resources at the local level to support project implementation which could have enhanced the impact of the pilot as was demonstrated in the PEDP. The PIU was therefore, over stretched and provided less than optimum supervision overall. This also resulted into high operational and transaction costs. The design did take into consideration the different economic levels that would exist within a districts by providing for various levels of matching grants. However, it was often difficult to determine how to classify communities by income levels, and the increases in the ratios of matching grants did not sufficiently compensate for the income differentials among communities. - 6 - This led to better-off communities benefiting more from the matching grants due to their ability to contribute more compared to the weak communities. Based on the above analysis, the ICR team rated the quality at entry Satisfactory rather than Highly Satisfactory rated by QAG. 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective: ICR Rating: Satisfactory HRDP has satisfactorily achieved its objectives and met all targets, in some cases surpassed specific targets on (i) increased financial resources at the school level; (ii) raised enrollments at the primary education level through parental and community participation, especially for the poor districts; (iii) improved quality of learning outcomes at primary and lower-secondary education; (iv) supported girls from poor families to study at secondary schools; and (v) built/enhanced capacity at school, community and district levels. The following are the major outcomes/achievements of the objectives: Improved Financing and Financial Management. The non-salary funding to primary schools rose. In the CEF schools, average per student spending was more than doubled, when comparing financial year 1998 with 2001. During the same period, CEF schools spent an average of Tsh. 8,293 (about US$8) per pupil per year on non-salary spending nearly four times the average of non-salary spending of Tsh. 2,366 (about US$2) contributed by parents as school fees in non-CEF schools, but excluding the other household contributions. According to Government policy, resources mobilized at community levels for school development remains at school level. Therefore, the CEF remained at the community level to support implementation of school level plans. In 2000, the MOEC decided to expand the CEF and GSES participating districts from five and eight to 16 respectively, out of a total of the 114 districts in the Country. The rationale and criteria for expansion to more districts was not clear, and it was not part of the project design. Although, the decision made might have been a good one, the key issues however, were that (i) the criteria for selecting districts for the expansion was not sufficiently substantiated (ii) there was no analysis carried out to determine the costs and capacity needed to implement the project which was more than doubled in terms of number of districts and scattered out geographically; (iii) implementation period of the project was less in the new districts than the original ones, particularly the CEF component which ended in 2000. There is no information to indicate if the expansion was efficiently carried out; and if the impact achieved was uniform in all districts. Therefore, while the first five districts covered by the CEF were selected on the basis that they were the poorest, this was not the case with the 11 districts selected at the expansion phase. However, according to the PIU, the schools in these new districts were relatively poor. Taking into consideration of equity, poorer districts could receive a matching of 1:2 or 1:3 rather than the 1:1. Nonetheless, the increased ratios were only effective during the last year of the CEF implementation in 2001 benefiting about 150 out of 1,600 schools. This was a result of the - 7 - recommendations made during the Mid-term Review carried out in 2000. Increased Parental Involvement and Improved School Management. Community ownership, participation and accountability in education were enhanced. All school communities met the minimum requirement of developing school plans, and many were helping in monitoring their implementation. According to the Education Act of 1978, each school is supposed to have a school committee responsible for matters affecting school development. The CEF helped to strengthen the functioning of these committees, through preparation of school plans which were integrated into the overall village plans. The plans were then discussed and endorsed by the village assemblies. In this regard, the CEF helped to strengthen the school planning process by school committees and endorsed by village level assemblies. This contributed to Government's efforts to enhance good governance at school levels, through the existing school and community decentralized structures. Parents are willing to contribute to schools because the funds were used to improve the schools their children attended. The incentive provided by the matching ratio and the procedures put in place gave them confidence that the funds were being properly used. They could see that they were getting something tangible that they valued. They believed that they could hold school authorities accountable for proper use of the funds. Learning Environment Improved. When CEF started school buildings were dilapidated because of poor maintenance, and classrooms were not enough. Availability of funds through the CEF enabled schools to construct 1,554 classrooms and 420 teachers' houses, including about 18,000 pupil desks. This contributed to improved teaching and learning environment. The school improvements generated an enthusiastic response from communities in managing school affairs. Enrollments at Primary Level Increased. Absolute enrollment numbers in CEF schools rose from 518,861 in 1998 to 658,119 in 2001, a 32 percent increase. Based on the PIU reported data, the average net enrollment for CEF districts rose from 54 percent in 1996 to 78 percent in 2001, which was higher than the national average of 66 percent during the same period. This could be a result of joint-efforts as some of the CEF districts were also being supported by other projects such as the District Based Support Project (DBSPE) financed by various Donors, and NGOs with similar objectives of increasing enrollment and improving quality. Table 3: Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CEF Districts 54% 49% 52% 57% 66% 78% National 56% 57% 57% 57% 59% 66% Sources: HRDP data, Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania (Various years) Impact on Student Learning Outcomes. CEF schools showed some improvement in learning outcomes measured by the national results of Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) used - 8 - for selecting primary school graduates for secondary education enrolment. The performance of the CEF schools was similar to the national average at the onset of its implementation. Within three years, pass rates for CEF districts improved from 21 percent to 35 percent, while the national average rose from 21 percent to 29 percent (Table 4). However, there were some variations among the 16 CEF districts although the overall trend was upwards. Table 4. Results of PSLE - CEF Districts vs National Pass rates Change 1998 2001 CEF Districts 21% 35% 14% National 21% 29% 8% Source: PSG file data, 2003 and Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania, MOEC, and various years Impact of GSES Program. GSES provided scholarships to 4,759 girls from poor families to study in secondary schools between 1996 when the first scholarships started to be awarded (pre-test period) to 2001 when the program ceased enrolling new girls. This presented about four percent of all (133,912) girls enrolled in secondary schools in the country in 2001. The program covered nearly all expenses for the scholarship beneficiaries in "O Level" (Form I-IV), and "A Level" (Form V and VI). The GSES girls were selected based on their academic qualifications and from families that cannot afford secondary education expenses. The selection process started with the headteacher and school committees. Together they ranked a list of six girls who best met these criteria. The list was then narrowed down to three by the village council in an open meeting. The short list of three candidates was sent to the district selection committee which would make the final selection guided by the criteria and assigning the girls to relevant schools. The selection procedures improved over years with community participation. The Sample Survey data (2003) for GSES shows that the academic performance of the GSES girls was similar to the non-GSES girls. Performance of GSES girls at A Level was also in line with the national trend. In 2003, seventeen GSES girls sat for Form VI national examinations, five girls scored first class, six second class, and six third class. A total of 27 girls were enrolled at University level by 2005 financed through the higher education student loan. Based on data provided by the PIU, completion rate of GSES girls improved as the dropout rate fell from 4.1 percent in 1998 to 1.2 percent by 2004. This could be a result of intensive counseling and guidance provided by the project staff to the girls during field visits. The dropout pattern for the GSES girls was similar to the non-GSES girls. The leading cause was pregnancy followed by failing Form II exams. PIU data shows that a total of 373 girls became pregnant between 1998-2004. To address the pregnancy issue, the girls need to be given moral counseling sessions and hostel facilities. Enhanced Capacities at School, Community, District and Central Levels. The project helped to build capacity for CEF and GSES implementation in communities and districts through short seminars carried out at these different levels. The training targeted school committees, head-teachers, Ward Education Coordinators and district education staff. It covered 1,640 - 9 - schools in 16 districts. These training activities were an important fact of the success for CEF and GSES programs. With the strengthened capacity and new skills learned, the CEF schools were able to manage school funds including operating school bank account more systematically than before. These training activities also raised the visibility of education within communities. Support to Education Sector Policy Formulation. The project provided financial support to some of the analytical work initiated jointly by the Government, the Bank and other Development Partners for preparing the PEDP and the Secondary Education Development Program (SEDP). This included financing of the Education Sector Status Report which was used in formulating the PEDP. The project also financed consultancy services for designing the Quality Improvement Strategy for the PEDP implementation. 4.2 Outputs by components: Component I ­ Community Education Fund (CEF) ICR Rating: Satisfactory The project implementation covered seven years (from February 1998 to December 2005). But the piloting for CEF component was completed in 2001 instead of 2000. Implementation of the GSES component continued until 2005 as it needed more time to ensure girls complete their O and A level cycles. The CEF component was successful in piloting and building local capacity in the key areas of school-based management. It contributed to improvement of governance at school levels through management of school funds and formulation and implementation of school plans. The CEF covered 1,642 schools benefiting nearly 700,000 pupils in 16 districts. On the financial aspects, CEF helped to raise school level financial resources to carry out school plans developed by the respective communities. The Impact Evaluation Study (2003) for HRDP shows that financial resources at school level, on average, raised four times, compared with non-CEF schools. The increase resulted from contributions made by parents, communities, and the matching grants from the government. By 2001 the average amount of financial resources made available to CEF schools was about Tsh. 8,293 (about US$8) per student. Comparatively, it was only Tsh. 2,366 (approximately US$.2) in non-CEF schools which were contributed as school fees. The fees amount however, excluded other contributions by parents in the non-CEF schools. The increased financing in CEF schools in 2001, could have resulted from additional funds disbursed by the Government to every public primary school in the country during the second half of the year (July-December 2001) as compensation for the abolished school fees to achieve Universal Primary Education (UPE). Abolition of school fees amounting to Tsh. 2000 per pupil per year became effective in July 2001. Therefore, the Government had to disburse Tshs. 1000 per school per child as compensation of school fees for the period of July 2001-December 2001. This was part of the PEDP implementation launched by the Government in 2001. Contributions for matching grants from parents/communities were no longer compulsory as all primary schools received capitation and development grants through the PEDP. Given the importance of quality and equitable education for all, it became apparent at the time of the PEDP design that compulsory community and parental financial contributions would not be - 10 - the basis for disbursing government grants to schools. Assessments were conducted involving different stakeholders including NGOs, before the PEDP was designed. The results showed that many parents could not afford paying school fees and other contributions needed in primary education. The matching concept was, therefore, not adopted in the PEDP design. Instead, the government adopted a policy for provision of development and capitation grants to all public schools to ensure increased resources at school level to achieve equitable access and quality completion of primary education. Disbursements of capitation grants to all public schools and development grants to needy schools (based on construction requirements or supply of furniture) are now an adopted national policy. All grants are deposited to school bank accounts of public primary schools and these funds are managed by the respective school committee. Although the concept of matching grants is no longer being implemented, the CEF's concept of increasing non-salary financial resources at school levels managed by communities was adapted in designing the PEDP. CEF contributed to improvement of learning environment. At the time the project was designed, many school buildings were dilapidated and furniture in classrooms was inadequate. Most parents interviewed during supervision missions mentioned that dropout and irregular attendance in communities had been caused by lack of conducive learning environment. School construction and rehabilitation was the main priority identified by communities and included in school plans. Under the CEF program, about 86 percent of the resources were spent for construction. A total of 1,554 new classrooms were built, 1,968 were rehabilitated, and 4,945 toilets were constructed. Teachers' housing also improved with the additions of 420 new ones and rehabilitating 386. In the later years of CEF, some schools shifted their priorities from classroom constructions to teacher housing, furniture, and school supplies such as textbooks. But, resources for teaching and learning materials were still limited. It is clear that improvement in physical school environment alone would not result into meaningful improvement in academic performance. Other strategies such as teacher support, availability of instructional materials are also necessary. Component II ­ Girls' Secondary Education Support (GSES) ICR Rating: Satisfactory This component achieved its target as stated in the SAR, which would enroll GSES girls in secondary schools from a baseline of 392 in 1996 to a cumulative figure of 3,415 by year 2000. As the project expanded from five districts to sixteen, the GSES scholarship support reached 4,759 girls, which is 39 percent higher than the original target. According to the DCA, 20 percent of the GSES girls with the highest scores of O level results would be supported to attend "A Level" secondary education. This would require an achievement of division I, II and III at the national Form IV examination. However, the number of GSES who qualified for A level education was lower than the indicated 20 percent. Most of the girls achieved division IV which is the lowest pass-rate and would not be qualified to join A Level secondary education particularly in public schools. Therefore, most GSES girls who attended A level were registered in private schools. Given the smaller number of pupils qualifying for A level, the Government, decided to enroll some of the girls to training institutions to help them achieve further levels of education. Therefore, between 2000 and 2005, GSES girls who studied at A level were 668 (in public and private schools), and about 50 girls were enrolled in vocational education and training, and 266 in teacher training institutions. This presents approximately 21 percent of all GSES girls who - 11 - attended A level as well as training at vocational and teacher colleges. The responses from the villages were positive on the GSES program. It gave them special identity and visibility within their communities. The GSES girls were model or example in the communities for others to follow in enhancing girl's education. The Impact Evaluation Report of HRDP (2003) also found that most of the dropouts from the GSES were either because of failing Form II Exams or pregnancy. This pattern was similar to non-GSES girls. GSES girls who dropped out because of pregnancy were allowed to rejoin their scholarships if they did so within one year. Information from the PIU indicates that out of the 373 GSES girls who were interrupted between 1998 and 2004 because of pregnancy, only 191 (51 percent) rejoined school. By the time the project closed, the last cohort of "A Level" GSES girls were still in school and were projected to finish their study between 2005 and 2007. Since the IDA Credit closed on December 31, 2005, the Government, through the Ministry of Finance (MOF), has confirmed to the MOEC that GSES girls who have not finished "A Level" would be supported through the ongoing SEDP. Teaching Facilities were improved in some GSES schools. Science kits, computer equipment, TV set, satellite dish, books were purchased for secondary schools where the GSES girls studied. The schools received money through the competitive grants. These resources were provided under the competitive school improvement program. Therefore, not all schools benefit from these grants. Some schools never completed their school improvement plan. However, each school received 2 percent of scholarships for overhead expenses such as administration of the scholarship, providing a matron to take care of the girls, and an additional Tsh 30,000 a year. Component III ­ Capacity Building ICR Rating: Satisfactory This component was successful in building and enhancing capacities to support school-based management at the primary level, and school-based selection of the bursary program. The project also helped in improving skills in the MOEC in the key areas through long-term and short-term degree training and participating in seminars, workshops and conferences. Capacity Building for CEF and GSES Implementation. Various reports and the Impact Evaluation Study confirmed that the project helped to build capacity for CEF and GSES implementation. Short seminars were carried out at different levels targeting school committees, head-teachers, Ward Education Coordinators and district education staff. Training took place annually for district staff. They in turn conducted training for school committees and teachers. Besides the seminars and workshops, the project staff held sensitization courses for the CEF and GSES practitioners. The project trained 226 district officials, 229 ward education coordinators, 127 ward education officers, 171 village education officers, 539 village chairpersons, 1,081 heads of school, 738 school committee chairpersons, 94 councilors, 255 school committee members, 159 parents, 279 school treasurers, 174 session school heads. The schools covered were 1,640. - 12 - The training activities were an important part of the success for CEF and GSES programs. With the strengthened capacity and new skills learned, the CEF schools managed to operate their own school bank accounts. For most schools this was not possible before. Capacity Building at the Central Level. The project financed long and short term training for MOEC staff to improve skills in the areas where there was a shortage of well trained professionals. About 14 MOEC staff were trained at masters' degree level and some in diploma program in the country and abroad. Most training at this level focused on various aspects of education including education planning, policy analysis, economics of education, monitoring and evaluation, and education finance. One of the education staff was financed to undertake PhD studies in Building Engineering and Surveys in Edinburgh, UK. Besides these long-term training, some staff had short-term training ranging one to two weeks including support to participate in local and international conferences. Some of the trained staff are still working in the Ministry and its institutions applying the skills they learned. Capacity Building by Providing Technology. Each of the sixteen districts supported by the HRDP was supplied with computers, printers, photocopiers, television and video recorders, cameras, and generators. Equipment supplied to the districts helped to strengthen education data systems for monitoring the HRDP implementation. Motorcycles, bicycles and boat engine (for Kigoma) were also supplied to district and Ward Education Offices for easy transportation during monitoring of the HRDP activities. Component IV ­ Policy Development, Planning, and Research ICR Rating: Moderately Satisfactory This project helped strengthening policy development, planning, and research in the education sector through improving testing and statistics systems, operations research, policy studies, and strategic sector development plans. Strengthening of the Statistics Unit of the MOEC. The project helped the unit to improve its education management information system (EMIS) by providing computers, software, related accessories, system installation and training of staff. Other donors also provided equipment for EMIS unit in the MOEC. With the improved capacity, the unit has been able to improve the efficiency of data processing and produce the annual national and regional basic education statistics in a timely fashion. However, data at district level was not easily available, which contains scanned raw data on aspects such as enrollments, teaching staff, teaching materials, vacancies, dropout students, and infrastructure. This information would be useful for identifying weak areas at district and school levels, and formulating policies to target them. But the data was not processed. Thus, the usefulness of these valuable data was diminished. Another observation by the Impact Evaluation Report was that statistics unit's focus or interest was more on inputs (i.e. equipment, computers) than the use of technology for informed policy decisions. Capacity Building at the National Examination Council (NECTA). The project supported NECTA in mechanizing national examination system in using modern scanning and computer technology by providing computers, printers, software, LAN installation and scanners. Training was conducted on how to use scanning technology. The enhancement has improved the efficiency - 13 - of data processing and quality of data. It cut the waiting time of releasing examination results caused by slow score marking procedures. The PSLE process was computerized by using scanning technology. This has helped to disseminate examination results to the public more efficiently. The improvement was achieved through the equipment provided by the HRDP and support by other development Donors and the Government. Although progress has been made in release of examination results, NECTA needs to improve several weak areas. For example, (i) it lacks an examination item bank. Each year, new examination questions have to be developed, rather than random or strategic selection from a pool of items in an item bank. (ii) Publications of examination results are not user friendly. Results are still given out in letter grades in bulky volumes, with some computational error. There is no analysis of the results, which could be useful for policy directions and change of examinations. (iii) System connectivity between NECTA and MOEC has not yet been installed. The consultancy report (ESAMI 1998) had recommended for this action. To establish comparable systems between the two institutions would have promoted information sharing, analysis of examination results for policy formulation, decision making. This would enhance efficiency by saving time and resources. Policy Studies and Operational Research. The project financed a number of analytical work for future operations including preparing and developing the PEDP and SEDP. These included the Quality Enhancement Design for the PEDP; The Education Sector Status Report, and the Master Plans for primary, secondary and teacher education. Other support included redesigning of data capture instruments for scanning for NECTA and the Statistics Unit. 4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return: Not applicable. 4.4 Financial rate of return: Not applicable. 4.5 Institutional development impact: ICR Rating: Substantial The institutional development impact of HRDP is rated Substantial. The project has contributed to institutional development in the education sector, though more improvement is still needed in some key areas. The professional training under the project has enhanced capacity in the MOEC in education planning, policy analysis, economics of education, monitoring and evaluation, education finance, data processing and statistics. The School-based management approach has enhanced local institutional capacity at district, community and school levels. At the community level, all 1,642 school committees were trained in participatory planning, financial management, and school planning. The skills and knowledge gained have had positive impact. Evidence of the achievements was the opening and operating school bank accounts and preparation of school action plans. These have strengthened the culture of ownership and raised responsibility by the school committees in monitoring school activities. - 14 - These capacities are being used in the primary and secondary education implementation. 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency: No major negative outside factors affected implementation and outcome for HRDP. 5.2 Factors generally subject to government control: The project had a slow start, especially for CEF and GSES, which were the two core components targeting the poor. Several factors caused the delay as follows: (i) the Project Staff were not fully settled into the office in the MOEC at that time and needed time to familiarize themselves with the project design, (ii) at the beginning of the project, the community response to participate in the project was slow and unsure if the CEF and GSES would benefit them, but later the situation improved as results started to show, (iii) there were coordination and conflicting messages among development partners at local, and district levels in cases where approaches to manage financial resources and community initiatives differed. At the Ministry level there was also insufficient coordination with similar projects supported by different donors resulting in duplication of efforts. The situation changed in 2001 when most projects came to an end following the launching of the PEDP with strong coordination of the sector under the Education Sector Development Program framework. 5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control: Regarding selection of girls to benefit from the scholarships, there were instances where the head teacher of primary schools or district staff did the selection on their own without involving the communities to determine the girls from poor households who should benefit. This problem was observed during the pretest and beginning of the pilot. The situation improved over the years through community sensitization. The Project staff could have made more effort to reinforce public awareness from the beginning and dissemination of information at all levels including the media. Selection process of GSES girls to join A Level in private schools was performed at the PIU linking with the respective private schools. GSES girls were participating in both public and private schools and there are no procedures in the Government for selecting students to private schools. Some GSES girls selected to A Level private schools had low qualifications at the level of division four. The project staff could have avoided this situation by adhering to the policy that only qualifying girls with highest scores be selected. If regulations were followed, there would be less girls attending A level in private schools, instead, they would be selected to join Government secondary schools which admit only students with high scores mostly in division I and II and a few in division III. The PIU indicated that there were no enough girls to choose from Division I and II. Because these girls come from poor families, and attended poor quality schools, their performance at Division III and IV reflected the reality. To avoid wasting the quota (20 percent of the GSES girls with highest scores), the MOEC and PIU decided to choose some GSES girls to enter A level with academic performance in Division III and IV. Some were enrolled in vocational and teacher training institutions. - 15 - 5.4 Costs and financing: Overall, the financial outcome of project costs and disbursements were satisfactory. At appraisal, the total project costs were estimated at US$24.02 million equivalent, out of which US$20.9 million was to be financed by IDA (87 percent), and US$3.16 million (13 percent) financed by the Government. At the time of this ICR, 98 percent (SDR14.63 million) of IDA funds were disbursed. The actual Government contribution to this project amounted to US$4.37 million (13.8 percent of the original estimate) most of which was contributed by communities for the matching grants. This was due to the expansion of CEF from original 5 districts to 16. Overall, the actual cost for each component was close to the appraisal estimate. The actual financing for each component was also close to the original plan. 6. Sustainability 6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating: ICR Rating: Likely It is likely that the achievements reached during the project implementation will be maintained for the following reasons: (a) Availability of financial resources at school levels is sustainable as the Tanzania Government abolished school fees and other levies for primary education in order to achieve Universal Primary Education (UPE) since 2001. Through the PEDP, funds for capitation and development grants are disbursed to all public schools. Therefore, communities and parents are no longer contributing for matching grants. (b) The project has created empowerment and enthusiasm within the communities to support school development. The communities are conscious of their role as owners of the schools and are ready to participate in school affairs. (c) The CEF pilot has demonstrated that, with capacity building and creation of ownership, communities are capable of planning and managing school funds appropriately. To continue using these capacities would depend on whether they have reasons for doing so. To make these developments sustainable, several key elements are needed as follows: l The project should be properly implemented; community-level capacity building should be the key priority of project activity. Involve different stakeholders in the process such as NGOs. Strengthening partnerships among these stakeholders and local education authorities could be an important prerequisite of such success. l The overall institutional framework for the delivery of education should be based on empowering the communities to participate in aspects of educational management. Fiscal flows should permit allocating public funding for use by the communities as demonstrated by the PEDP, and there should be an effective financial infrastructure to process funds and ensure they are disbursed to schools. - 16 - l It is essential that the CEF scheme be implemented through the exiting public institutions of educational management, including the Ministry of Education, district and local authorities. This needs significant reforms in the way these authorities operate. Therefore, any CEF undertaking should pay close attention to capacity building at all levels and appropriate decentralized structure. l Provision of scholarship to qualifying boys and girls from poor households was integrated in the SEDP design with the aim of expanding access of secondary education equitably. The SEDP became effective on September 30, 2005. l The GSES has helped to change community perceptions and attitudes to girls' education. Capacity established by the project has been sustained at community and school levels. 6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations: The project had a Project Implementation Unit support group, consisting of staff from the MOEC and other organizations. The implementation was carried out through the exiting systems and administrative structure at the school, community, district and central levels. Capacity built at these levels remained and was further enhanced through implementation of the PEDP, and SEDP which are jointly supported by the Government, the Bank and other Development Partners. At the central level, the project financed training had a positive impact on capacity building. Some of the project staff/consultants are still working at the Ministry. 7. Bank and Borrower Performance Bank 7.1 Lending: ICR Rating: Satisfactory The Bank's performance during preparation is Satisfactory. The Bank team engaged fruitful dialogue with the Government, other Development Partners and NGOs to jointly define the project objectives and actions to achieve them. The project design was consistent with the Country Strategies and responded to priorities in the education sector. CEF and GSES mechanism were pretested, and lessons learned from the pretest were incorporated into the project design. The planning of CEF started in 1995 with pretests of the design and consultations with beneficiaries over a two-year period. The Bank team's good performance during project preparation was confirmed by the World Bank's Quality Assurance Group (QAG). 7.2 Supervision: ICR Rating: Satisfactory Bank supervision is rated satisfactory. The Bank worked closely with the Borrower and had never lost sight of the big picture of assisting the Government to develop education strategies and to pilot test demand-side financing innovations in education grants to schools and scholarships for girls. The Bank maintained the emphasis on drawing lessons from the HRDP and focus on impact evaluation. This strategy has been successful in informing the design of future operations. - 17 - QAG assessed the quality of supervision of this project in 2004 and rated it Satisfactory (Table 5) Table 5. QAG Quality of Supervision Assessment Ratings for HRDP Quality Dimension Rating Overall Rating Satisfactory 1. Focus on Development Effectiveness Satisfactory 2. Supervision of Fiduciary / Safeguard Aspects Satisfactory 3. Adequacy of Supervision Inputs and Process Satisfactory 4. Candor and Quality of Project Performance Ratings Satisfactory Sources: QAG file, World Bank, 2004 Although there were frequent changes of Bank TTLs between the Project identification and up to the closing of the Credit, there was no evidence that these changes had impact on the project implementation as the transitions were handled with continuous and consistent support to the project. Although these changes might have been operationally unavoidable, they could have caused inconveniencies to the Borrower. 7.3 Overall Bank performance: Based on the factors described above, the overall Bank performance is rated Satisfactory. Borrower 7.4 Preparation: ICR Rating: Satisfactory Borrower's performance during the preparation phase is rated Satisfactory. The Government and other actors involved in the preparation phase collaborated with the Bank to define the project. They provided background studies, which were useful in guiding the project design and focusing on the long-term education policy in the country. The MOEC actively participated in the pretesting for CEF and GSES programs, which was financed by another Bank education project at the time (The Education Planning and Rehabilitation Project -Credit 2137-TA). 7.5 Government implementation performance: ICR Rating: Satisfactory Overall Government implementation performance is rated Satisfactory. The high commitment that was demonstrated during the preparation phase was maintained by the authorities at the Government central ministries, Regions and Districts. The project benefited from a consistent Government political commitment and support during the entire project cycle. 7.6 Implementing Agency: - 18 - ICR Rating: Satisfactory The Implementing Agency's performance is rated Satisfactory. The MOEC showed strong commitment throughout project implementation. The project had a slow start, but after the Mid-Term Review its implementation improved considerably. Even with the project expansion, the Project Unit made regular visits to the districts and schools to assist and guide the implementation process. Audit reports were carried out on time. Disbursements were regular and the flow of funds was as planed. However, there were weaknesses in record keeping. Procurement documentation took a long time to be processed as information provided to IDA for clearance sometimes did not have enough supporting information. A close monitoring and assessment of GSES girls' development in academic and career track could have been useful for scaling up of scholarship programs. There is opportunity to undertake this assessment in the SEDP implementation. 7.7 Overall Borrower performance: ICR Rating: Satisfactory Based on the factors described above, the overall Borrower's performance is rated Satisfactory. 8. Lessons Learned On CEF l Adapting flexibility in the process of project implementation is sometimes necessary. During the CEF implementation it was found that communities which were relatively better off economically contributed more and received more matching funds than weaker communities. In order to enhance equity, the matching ratio was adjusted during the project Mid-term review. The weak communities received a matching of 1:2 or 1:3 rather than the 1:1. l CEF project should be regarded as a reform to enhance capacity for school-level management and accountability and not merely as a mechanism for allocating funding for non-salary expenditures at the school level. l Continuous community sensitization, training and support during the project implementation are needed to enhance active participation of different stakeholders for improved school management. Efforts need to be made to enhance local community initiatives to identify and rank their own priorities in school development even when funding is provided directly by the Government. Flexibility and provision of additional technical support to weak and poor communities is important. It is clear that some of the communities-due to geographical spread, institutional or socioeconomic factors (poverty)-will not be able to consolidate their efforts and come up with prioritized school development plans and generate the needed contributions to be matched by CEF funds. - 19 - l The CEF funds allocated for quality improvement were small. The reason was that schools were free to choose what items to include in their plans so interventions varied greatly. The lessons learned showed that earmarking specific financial allocations for quality improvements such as teaching and learning materials is important. Otherwise, communities and schools would choose spending funds on construction (86% on construction) than quality improvement. The Government has now introduced capitation grant for primary and secondary education, used specifically for quality improvement. This lesson could be useful for other countries that are implementing or planning to do similar interventions. On GSES It is difficult to find girls who are qualified to attend secondary school from the lowest socio-economic strata. If scholarship schemes and programs are to help them, then the focus should be on improving the quality of their primary education. l On GSES girls selection, a process that relies on head teachers and the village council in a transparent setting, while far from perfect, is likely to be better than having the selection made by an external agency with no personal knowledge of the people being considered. A combination of selection methods for scholarships that would include the village level processes with oversight by a committee of peers would be appropriate. l Scaling up girls scholarship program should be phased in slowly. To ensure the success of this program, the following two conditions are needed: (i) schools have counseling services, and (ii) girls are housed in a hostel or boarding schools. Otherwise, dropout rate could well rise to uncomfortable levels. On Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) l Project design should always pay attention to M&E aspects. Although the SAR designed a logic framework, it did not set clear expected outcome indicators. In some cases, the indicators for measuring progress toward achieving these outcomes were imprecise. Some of the indicators had no baseline data. As a result some basic data was not collected. This prevented proper systematic analysis to be carried out to measure implementation progress, and caused difficulties in monitoring and assessment of project progress and impact, as well as targeting poor communities and households for matching grants and scholarships provision in accordance with income levels. On Capacity Building l Project design should consider using local system as much as possible. At the time the project was designed, Tanzania was already implementing a decentralized policy under the Local Government Authorities. Although implementation of the decentralization was in its initial stages, there was no attempt to link implementation with local authority institutions in a systematic way. Instead, a lot of responsibilities were left at the level of the PIU with limited linkage to the MOEC units, Region and Districts. Officials at the district level who were appointed as part time coordinators were accountable to the PIU than the district - 20 - authorities. This denied the opportunity to test the capacity of local authorities to support the project more strategically. It also prevented the use of institutional resources at the local level to support project implementation which could have enhanced the impact of the pilot as was demonstrated in the PEDP. The PIU was therefore, over stretched and provided less than optimum supervision overall. This resulted into high operational and transaction costs. l Training should be focused on fewer and key skills. Tremendous efforts were made to train many stakeholders in short and long term courses at all levels of the project implementation. This has built enormous capacity. However, more focus on fewer skills could have enhanced great effectiveness of the training. On Donor Coordination and Harmonization l Coordination and harmonization among donors, NGOs and local authorities are important factors for project success. In the earlier years of project implementation, there were coordination problems resulting from conflicting messages among development partners at local and district levels in cases where approaches to manage financial resources and community initiatives differed. At the Ministry level there was no coordination with similar projects such as the District Based Support Program (DBSPE) supported by different donors. Therefore, in some places there was duplication. The situation changed in 2001 when most projects came to an end following the launching of the PEDP with strong coordination of the sector under the Education Sector Development Program framework. 9. Partner Comments (a) Borrower/implementing agency: The Government prepared an Evaluation Report, assessing the impact and the implementation of the project, from the Borrower's perspective. The report is in Annex 8. In addition the Government has provided comments on the Bank's ICR as indicated below. - 21 - - 22 - (b) Cofinanciers: There were no co-financiers in for this project. (c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector): Not applicable 10. Additional Information None - 23 - Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix A. Outcome / Impact Indicators Outcome / Impact Baseline Target Actual/Latest Estimate Indicators 1. Increased primary 54% in 1996 The SAR did not set a The ratio increased to school net enrolment specific target 78% in 2001 ratio in CEF Districts 2. Improved academic Quality in CEF schools performance in CEF PSLE pass rate in 1996 The SAR did not set a improved compared to schools, measured by was 20% in the CEF specific target several years ago. passing rate in Primary districts PSLE pass rate Improved Education Leaving to 35% in 2001 Examination (PSLE) 3. Increased resources at primary school level Not available 500 Achieved and exceeded measured by # of 1,642 matching grants provide to primary schools 4. Improved parental and Only two districts were community involvement piloted in matching 6 districts Achieved and exceeded in school management grants and school-based 16 districts and accountability management at the beginning of project 5. Increased girl enrolment ratio in lower 5% in 1996 The SAR did not set a Rose to 15% in 2005 secondary schools in the specific target GSES districts 6. Strengthened Policy Carrying out analytical Development and A limited analytical work work and dissemination forAchieved Research was done in this area. PEDP, SEDP and other studies in Education at different periods. 7. Strengthened Weak capacity in Reliable and on time Achieved technology capacity in processing and printing printing and disseminating operation and production examination results examination results of annual student examinations in NECTA This table is constructed based on data in the SAR pages 9-15, 58-59, 71-79; Project Annual Reports, the Final Impact Evaluation of the HRDP, and Basic Education Statistics, Various years, MOEC. - 24 - B. Output Indicators Output Indicator Baseline Target Actual Output in year 1996 1. Provision of bursary Achieved and exceeded for secondary education 392 3,415 4,759 to girls from poor family 2. Capacity building in communities by training Limited training Training covers 5 districts Achieved and exceeded teachers, administrators, 16 districts were covered parents, and district officers 3. Capacity building in Achieved MOEC through training 14 finished masters 10 staff in education Not available 10 MOEC staff receive degree, 1 received Ph.D, finance, research, post graduate training and 9 trained in diploma management, education program statistics, and examinations. 4. # of research studies Not available 11 Achieved and monitoring surveys carried out 5. Strengthened technology capacity by Lack of adequate Provide scanners, servers, Achieved providing fast, higher equipment software, computers, quality and more reliable printers and other national examination equipment system in NECTA. This table is constructed based on data in the SAR pages 9-15, 58-59, 71-79; Project Annual Reports, the Final Impact Evaluation of the HRDP, and Basic Education Statistics, Various years, MOEC. - 25 - Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent) Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Component US$ million Estimate Percentage of US$ million Appraisal 1. Community Education Fund 8.17 8.17 100 2. Girls' Secondary Education Support 6.93 6.93 100 3. Capacity Building 2.22 2.22 100 4. Policy Development, Planning, and Research 4.49 4.49 100 Total Base Cost 21.81 21.81 100 Total Project Costs 24.02 24.02 100 Total Financing Required 20.9 20.9 100 Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Appraisal Estimate) (US$ million equivalent) Expenditure Category ICB NCB Other Total Cost 1. Consultancy Services 4.39 4.39 (4.39) (4.39) 2. Goods 2.58 0.48 0.31 3.37 (2.58) (0.48) (0.31) (3.37) 3. Training 0.25 0.25 (0.25) (0.25) 4. Incremental Operating Costs 0.33 0.33 (0.33) (0.33) 5. Community Education Fund 8.57 8.57 (5.41) (5.41) 6. Girls' Secondary Education Scholarship 5.91 5.91 (5.91) (5.91) 7. Refunding of the Project Preparation Advance (PPF) 1.20 1.20 (1.20) (1.20) Total 2.58 0.48 20.97 24.02 (2.58) (0.48) (17.8) (20.9) Source: Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) page 21 Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the IDA Credit. All costs include contingencies. Note: ICB: International Competitive Bidding NCB: National Competitive Bidding Other: Other methods include consultant contracts following the rules for hiring consultants, community-based procurement following the Operational Guidelines, and international and national shopping. - 26 - Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Actual/Latest Estimate) (US$ million equivalent) Expenditure Category ICB NCB Other Total Cost 1. Consultancy Services 2.37 2.37 (2.37) (2.37) 2. Goods 2.31 0.48 0.31 3.10 (2.31) (0.48) (0.31) (3.10) 3. Training 1.25 1.25 (1.25) (1.25) 4. Incremental Operating Costs 1.8 1.8 (1.8) (1.8) 5. Community Education Fund 9.61 9.61 (5.24) (5.24) 6. Girls' Secondary Education Scholarship 6.60 6.60 (6.60) (6.60) 7. Refunding of the Project Preparation Advance (PPF) 0.62 0.62 (0.62) (0.62) Total 2.31 0.48 22.66 25.45 (2.31) (0.48) (18.29) (21.08) Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent) Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Percentage of Estimate Appraisal IDA Govt. CoF. IDA Govt. CoF. IDA Govt. CoF. 1. Community Education Fund 5.01 3.16 5.24 4.37 103% 138% 2. Girls' Secondary Education Support 6.93 6.93 100% 3. Capacity Building 2.22 2.22 100% 4. Policy Development, Planning, and 4.49 4.49 100% Research Contingencies for price (4 percent) 0.54 0.54 100% Contingencies for contribution (5 percent) 0.24 0.24 100% Contingencies for enrollments (5 percent) 0.24 0.24 100% Refund of PPF 1.20 1.20 100% Total 20.9 3.16 21.08 4.37 103% 138% There was no co-financing for this project. Note: IDA credit disbursement data is as of April 13,2006. The difference of total in US$ between appraisal estimate and actual/latest estimate is due to the exchange rate. The total IDA credit in XDR15 million is the same between appraisal and actual. - 27 - Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits Not Applicable. - 28 - Annex 4. Bank Inputs (a) Missions: Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performance Rating (e.g. 2 Economists, 1 FMS, etc.) Implementation Development Month/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective Identification/Preparation 03/1995 11 MISSION LEADER (1); S S DISBURSEMENT (1); OPERATIONS 2; LEGAL 1; EDUCATION SPECIALISTS 5 TEAM ASSISTANT 1 Appraisal/Negotiation 07/ 17, 1997 S S Supervision 05/14/1998 6 MISSION LEADER (1); S S CLUSTER LEADER (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (2); OPER. ANALYST (1); OPERATIONS OFFICER (1) 02/12/1999 6 SR. EDUCATION PLANNER S S (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1); SR. OPERATIONS OFFICER (1); FIN. MGNT. SPECIALIST (1); PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); DISBURSEMENTS ASSIST. (1) 04/29/1999 3 TASK TEAM LEADER (1); S S EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1); SR. OPERATIONS OFFICER (1) 10/04/2000 9 OPERATIONS OFFICE, TTL S S (1); SR. HD SPECIALIST (1); CONSULTANT (2); ED. SPECIALIST (1); FIN. SPECIALIST (1); PROCUREMENT OFFICER (1); INFO ANALYST (1); DISBURSEMENT ASSISTANT (1) 12/18/2001 3 TEAM LEADER-OP OFFICER HS S (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1); DISBURSEMENT ASSISTANT (1) 10/11/2002 6 TTL/SR.EDUC.SPECIALIST HS S (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1); SR. EDUCATION PLANNER (1); - 29 - DISBURSEMENTS ASSIST. (1); PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); EVALUATION SPEC.(CONSU (1) 06/27/2003 6 TASK TEAM LEADER (1); HS S PROCUREMENT (1); FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (1); DISBURSEMENT (1); EVALUATION (1); EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELO (1) 11/05/2004 4 PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST HS S (1); DISBURSEMENT ASSISTANT (1); FM CONSULTANT (1); EDUCATION SPECIALIST (1) 05/04/2005 4 TASK TEAM LEADER (1); HS S PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); DISBURSEMENT ASSISTANT (1);CONSULTANT (1) 11/11/2005 4 TASK TEAM LEADER (1); S S PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST (1); DISBURSEMENT ASSISTANT (1);CONSULTANT (1) ICR 02/02/2006 1 OPERATIONS OFFICER S S (b) Staff: Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest Estimate No. Staff weeks US$ ('000) Identification/Preparation n.a. 550.543 Appraisal/Negotiation n.a. 255.349 Supervision n.a. 658.281 ICR 7 13.000 Total n.a. 1,477.173 This table is based on the information currently available in the World Bank's SAP. The figures for identification / preparation and appraisal / negotiation are an estimate. The total costs for supervision and ICR are actual as of March 23, 2006. - 30 - Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components (H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable) Rating Macro policies H SU M N NA Sector Policies H SU M N NA Physical H SU M N NA Financial H SU M N NA Institutional Development H SU M N NA Environmental H SU M N NA Social Poverty Reduction H SU M N NA Gender H SU M N NA Other (Please specify) H SU M N NA Private sector development H SU M N NA Public sector management H SU M N NA Other (Please specify) H SU M N NA - 31 - Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory) 6.1 Bank performance Rating Lending HS S U HU Supervision HS S U HU Overall HS S U HU 6.2 Borrower performance Rating Preparation HS S U HU Government implementation performance HS S U HU Implementation agency performance HS S U HU Overall HS S U HU - 32 - Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents "Evaluation of the Impact of the Human Resources Development Project in Tanzania", Final Report, Issa M. Omari, Deograsias P. Mushi, and Natu E. Mwamba, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, December 2003 "Impact Evaluation Report for The Girls Secondary Education Support Scholarships", by consultants in Tanzania, 2003 "Education Sector Country Status Report for Tanzania", World Bank and the Government of the united Republic of Tanzania, February, 2001 "Tanzania: Community Education", Findings, World Bank, Vol. 180, April 2001 "An Impact Evaluation of the Tanzania Community Education Fund and the Girls Secondary Education Support Program", Ronald G. Ridker, November 2003. Quality at Entry Assessment Report for Tanzania Human Resources Development Project, Quality Assurance Group, World Bank, 1999 Quality of Supervision Assessment Report for Tanzania Human Resources Development Project, Quality Assurance Group, World Bank, 2004 "Project Implementation Plan for Tanzania Human Resources Development Project", Ministry of Education and Culture, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, December 1997 "Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania 1995-2005 ­ National Data", the Ministry of Education and Culture, June 2005 "Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania 1995-2005 ­ Regional Data", the Ministry of Education and Culture, September 2005 "Management Audit Report on the Financial Statements of the Tanzania Human Resources Development Pilot Project for the Year Ended June 30th, 2004, Office of the Controller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, November 2004 "Management Audit Report on the Financial Statements of the Tanzania Human Resources Development Pilot Project for the Year Ended June 30th, 2003, Office of the Controller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, December 2003 "Annual Work Plan 2000/2001 for Human Resources Development Projects", Ministry of Education and Culture, Tanzania, 2000 "Annual Work Plan 2002 for Human Resources Development Projects", Ministry of Education and Culture, Tanzania, 2002 - 33 - "Project Implementation Statistical Data for the Year 2001", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, Dar es Salaam 2002 "Mid-Year Report 2001 for Human Resource Development Project", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, July 2001 "Project Status Report as of July 2002", Ministry of Education and Culture, Tanzania, 2002 "End of Year Report for Human Resources Development Project-2001", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, Dar es Salaam, March 2002 "Project Annual Report for Human Resources Development Project-2000", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, Dar es Salaam, January 2001 "Project Annual Report for Human Resources Development Project-1999", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, Dar es Salaam, December 1999 "Project Annual Report for Human Resources Development Project-1998", Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Policy and Planning, HRDP Project Support Group, Dar es Salaam, December 1998 "Report of GSES Pilot Pretest and Pre-Luanch Preparations ­ Coast, Morogoro and Lindi Regions", merit International, LTD, Education and Agri-Business Consultants, Kibaha, April 1997 "A Workshop for Developing Gender Action Plans for Secondary Schools", Insurance Training Center, Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam, July 1999 "Education and Training Policy", the Ministry of Education and Culture, Tanzania, February 1995 "Staff Appraisal Report ­Tanzania Human Resources Development Project", World Bank, August 1997 "Development Credit Agreement - Human Resources Development Project", World Bank, October 29, 1997 Various Project Status Reports (Implementation Status Report), World Bank, 1999-2005 Various Aide-Memoires, Back-to-office Reports for PEDP during preparation and supervision, World Bank, 1997-005 - 34 - Additional Annex 8. Borrower's ICR - 35 - Appraisal year USD =Tsh. 600 Completion year USD = Tsh. 1004 ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS EMP : Basic Education Master Plan BEST : Basic Statistic in Education CEF : Community Education Fund DED : District Executive Director DEO : District Education Officer EMIS : Education Management Information System ESCC : Education Sector Coordinating Committee ESDP : Education Sector Development Programme ETP : Education and Training Policy (1995) FY : Fiscal Year GER : Gross Enrolment Ratio GSES : Girls Secondary Education Support HRDP : Human Resource Development Pilot Project ICB : International Competitive Bidding IDA : International Development Association IRR : International Rate of Return M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation MOEC : Ministry of Education and Culture MOU : Memorandum of Understanding NCB : National Competitive Bidding NECTA : National Examination Council of Tanzania NER : Net Enrolment Ratio NGO : Non-government Organization NIF : Not financed by IDA Credit DP : Project Director PEDP : Primary Education Development Program PMO : Project Management Office PPF : Project Preparation Facility PS : Permanent secretary PSG : Pilot Support Group PSLE : Primary School Leaving Exam SA : Special Account SAR : Staff Appraisal Report SOE : Statement of Account SSS : Social Sector Strategy TASAF : Tanzania Social Action Fund TC : Teachers' College TOR : Terms of Reference TSH : Tanzania Shillings TTL : Task Team Leader UDSM : University of Dar es Salaam VETA : Vocational Education Training Authority WEC : Ward Education Coordinator - 36 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: ...................................................................................1 Project formulation and ProjectBackground........................................................ .....1 THE PROJECT.............................................................................................2 Project objectives.................................................................................2 OJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN 2 Community Education Fund (CEF) 3 Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES) 4 Capacity Building 4 Policy Development, Planning and Research...................................................5 IMPMENTATION EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS 5 The Community Education Fund 6 Results 7 The Girls Secondary Education Support 8 Results 9 Capacity Building 10 Results 10 Policy Development Planning and Research 11 Results 12 REASONS FOR THE SUCCESSES 12 FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION 13 Factors related to compliance with agreement 13 ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RETURNS 14 Overview of the Range of Benefits/Returns for the whole project 14 Cost ­Benefit Analysis of HRDP 15 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 16 BORROWER'S and BANK PERFORMANCE 17 IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS 18 Ownership, Policy Dialogue and the Role of Sectors and Local Councils 18 World Bank, Development Partnership and dialogue 18 Participation and Institutionalisation 19 Budget process, and Public Financial Management and Accounting systems 19 THE LESSONS LEARNT 19 OnCEF and GSES .....................................................................................................19 On Capacity building ................................................................................20 APPENDIX I......................................................................................................................... ..22 APPENDIX II........................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIXIII................................................................................................28 APPENDIX IV....................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX V........................................................................................................................ 30 APPENDIX VI....................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX VII..................................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX VIII.....................................................................................................................33 - 37 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Human resources Development Pilot Project (HRDP) was designed to test various approaches of tackling the challenges to the education sector then. At the primary education level, these were (i) Low enrolments and poor quality of Primary Schooling characterized by late start, high drop out rate, low attendance rate and low transition rates (ii) Low spending on primary education (iii) Lack of accountability to parents/communities and (iv) Inadequate school level management. At the Secondary School level, the challenge was inequitable distribution of access to education particularly of girls characterized by low girls enrolment, low transition rates, high drop-outs especially with girls FROM poor households. The project was designed by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) and funded by the World Bank with an IDA credit of SDR 15 million (US $ 20.9 million). Total project cost was estimated at US $ 24 million. The government of Tanzania contributing US $ 1.0 million and communities contributing 2.1. million. The project became effective February 18,1998 and is scheduled to close on December 31, 2005. The Community Education Fund (CEF), one of its two major components, plus two supporting components, closed on December 31, 2001. Its other major component, the Girls Secondary Education Support program (GSES) ceased providing new scholarships in December 2001, but will remain open until the last girls to receive awards complete their class-work in the year 2007. Of the estimated total project cost of US $ 24 million, approximately 63% was allocated to the major components of CEF and GSES. Project Objectives In line with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS); the overall program rationale for the project was to efficiently increase investment in human capital, to raise incomes, reduce inequality and improve non-mark et outcomes. The project was meant to contribute to the CAS objectives by seeking to strengthen the borrower's education sector in the following areas; § raising enrollments and quality learning outcomes of primary education through increased parental participation and financing, § school based planning and management of resources, school based quality enhancement initiatives and improved support for schools at district level; § expanding educational opportunities and improving quality at the secondary level, particularly for girls from poorer households; § building capacity through these efforts/activities at the district and community levels and through selective training and implementation at the central level; and § improving policy development, planning, and research in the education sector through modernized testing and statistical systems, operation research, policy studies and strategic plans for basic and secondary education. Project Design The project design embodied all the characteristics of a Pilot Project, flexible enough to allow learning by doing and modifications arising out of the implementation experiences and learning. The project was envisaged that it should not harm the existing system but the lessons born out of the implementation experience, if successful, be taken to scale and be part of the large Education Sector Development Program - 38 - Implementation Experience A number of key features are discussed in the ICR which characterized the implementation and results of the four components of the Human Resource Development Project (HRDP), namely: the Community Education Fund (CEF) Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES), Capacity Building as well as Policy Development Planning and Research. From the various documents made available by the PSG offices such as the Supervision Mission Aide Memoires, End of Year Evaluation Reports, Annual Work Plans, Statistics on the HRDP Components Status Reports, Impact Evaluation Reports, and the Disbursement Schedules, it is possible to assert that, overall, the implementation was fairly smooth and results largely positive given the innovative nature of the project design and the project's specific objectives. Where difficulties arose in implementing agreed objectives the close consultation and collaboration between the Government of Tanzania and its representatives at all levels and the World Bank staff facilitated the amicable resolution of the given difficulty. Project supervision by Government district level personnel was adequately close and the national level Pilot Support Group (PSG) personnel made regular visits to the districts and schools to assist and guide the implementation process. The smooth implementation of all the components of the HRDP was facilitated by the establishment of the HRDP Advisory Board chaired by the Chief Education Officer of the MOEC. The Board comprised of representatives from key stakeholders including Directors from all departments of the MOEC. Each component of the HRDP was characterized by similar or fairly similar or experimentation experience and by largely positive results. Results The results of the CEF have been positive in that as of August 2002 the number of pupils in CEF schools had reached 685,119, the number of classrooms built by these schools was 1,554 while teachers' houses were 420 and additional pupils desks procured were 11,726. These resources were acquired by the relevant schools through the implementation. The CEF contributed to the attainment of the HRDP goals of raising primary school enrollment as well as improving the learning environment in the relevant primary schools. The CEF schools did also register marked improvement in the non salary resources available to the relevant school with per-pupils resources increasing from an average of Tshs 1,115 to Tshs 3,857. These improvements seem to have contributed to significant improvement in academic performance by the relevant schools as reflected in the fact that the percentage of pupils in CEF schools scoring A to C grades on the Primary Schooling Learning Examination (PSLE) increased from 20.9 to 35. Although some project reviews tend to suggest that the evidence with respect to improved repetitions rates and performance on standardized examinations was too weak and dependent on the way the analysis was done to conclude that any differential improvement occurred in these areas! There was no sign of deteriorating performance for the CEF sample as a whole. GSES Enrolment and performance: a total number of 4759 girls have been enrolled in secondary education through the GSES program between 1996 and 2001. Except for the 258 still at Form IV and a few drop outs, the rest have completed their "O" level education out of whom 409 joined upper secondary (A-level) education having been selected based on their attained qualifications. In addition, 50 were selected to attend vocational education and training and 300 have joined teacher training colleges. The majority of the girls who completed lower level secondary education passed at the level of fourth division. This is comparable to national achievement average for this grade level. Division four is the lowest grade - 39 - level and pupils achieving the division do not usually get admission for A level or tertiary training. However, those GSES girls who were able to join `A' level studies performed very well in their `A' level national examinations, most of them achieved between division one and three and only 7 achieved division four. Those who performed well in their "A" Level National examinations were admitted to respective universities. The program has helped parents and communities to raise their awareness toward supporting education for girls. Besides the increased access, discussions held with the heads of secondary schools indicated that the program has helped to improve the learning and teaching environment of the schools participating in the GSES program through: (i) supplying textbooks for use by all students in the schools and not just the GSES girls (iii) strengthening counseling on gender awareness as well as HIV/AIDS as initiated by school-matrons of the various schools (iv) improved management and administration of schools as a result of the funds provided to each school to help to manage the GSES program within the schools (v) implementation of the academic and gender improvement plans on competitive basis. Heads of schools have developed a sense of accountability and responsibility through sending to PSG performance of GSES girls. They have also improved their accounting skills. GSES girls have been informed about gender issues and girls' ability to understand and demand for their rights has increased. The project worked towards "improving policy development, planning, and research in education through ---- operations research, policy studies, and strategic plans for basic and secondary education (WB, 1997, p.7) Prior to to the project launching in 1996, Tanzania had an Education and . Training Policy (MOEC 1995) but did not have a national education master plan although the idea had been on the drawing board for quite some time then. Similarly, the research and monitoring unit in the Policy and Planning Directorate was basically non existent as it comprised of one person only. The policy intention of the project has improved the climate through strategic interventions in policy studies and operations research. Several other activities were undertaken in the policy ­ planning component of the project. Altogether 22 pieces of policy studies and operations research reports are cited (see Appendix III) Most of them are of policy relevance, such as how to deal with girls whose studies get interrupted due to pregnancies; secondary school selection; how to expand secondary education; and how to improve the quality of education. These are pretty much of operations nature, supposed to energize the process of implementing the project and ameliorate other managerial problems of the ministry as a whole. They included the redesigning of data capture instruments so that they could be amenable to scanning capacity building strategies in the education sector, and accounting procedures. There was specific training for implementation of the GSES and CEF initiatives. This initiative created a pool of trained personnel at district, school and central level, both for the implementation of project and for long term operations of the education system. Training opportunities were availed through extended training. The range in this category was from PH.D level training, masters programs, diploma courses, and short training course. This resulted into acquisition of skills beyond the immediate needs of the project (see Appendix VII) The project generated several out reach activities ranging from one day meetings for village chair persons, school heads and district education officials to one week seminars and workshops for council education officers. These activities raised the visibility of education enterprise and the plight of children in poor schools. - 40 - Factors Affecting Implementation The core components of the project, i.e CEF and GSES targeted the poor. Initially the community response was slow and doubting but later the community picked up the tempo as results started to show. There was also a problem of donor/development partners' coordination at local/district levels more so in the cases where approaches to handling resources and community initiatives differed. However, things gradually changed in the light of improvements and visible outputs. A number of donors started to follow the HRDP procedures especially those which were related to using school bank accounts, selection of girls for assistance and civil works and those related to procurement procedures. CEF funds had to be used to purchase goods, works or services towards the costs as itemized in the year plan, however, there were cases where this requirement was violated by head teachers who had to be given written warnings and in some cases they were demoted to ordinary teachers. There were minor irregularities in some of the schools' financial accounts, which the auditors called "honest mistakes". These were caused by in-experience in keeping-proper books of accounts. As regards the GSES there were instances where the Head teacher alone did the selection and this was also the case in some districts where the selection was done by the DEO and the DED in solo contrary to guidelines. In this way there appeared to be some elements of favoritism but the girls selected this way were later found not to be the deserving candidates and had their bursaries withdrawn. Assessment of Economic and Social Returns Even if those learners who go through CEF/GSES programmes do not go further into higher schooling, when they finally settle in the community the learnt cognitive skills and values will influence the work habits and organizational skills of those who did not go to CEF/GSES schools who will be working along side them. Thus, as long as the supervisory skills of the CEF/GSES learners are realized and utilized they will promote higher levels of income for others who will be working along side them and for society. To the extent that the increase in productivities of others can be reflected in higher wages at the community level, then the first round spillovers of CEF/GSES learners ought to be reflected in both social and private rates of return calculations as an additional component. Incidentally HRDP, reviews confirmed our earlier belief that the impact of CEF/GSES should not be narrowed down to the "schooling for all" indicators only, in the form of access, participation and quality-improvement. Over and above the benefits which are related to conventional schooling some of the district local and central government functionaries seemed to view CEF/GSES as part of broad efforts aimed at community capacity building and institutional arrangement strengthening within the local government reform framework. In this regard the HRDP was viewed as having helped the communities to see their strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats and to be able to take informed action on girls education and primary education support. Reduction of demand to social services: The indirect benefits of CEF/GSES could also be seen from some positive statements given by school committee members who happened to be members of the Village Councils. It was argued that by enrolling out of school children (girls) some of whom had been idling by into CEF/GSES learning, this action has tended to encourage lawful behaviour. It was observed that before GSES the propensity to commit petty criminal offences or any other unlawful tendencies was high - 41 - and several school leaders also stated that to some degree the extent to which the girls were willing to assume voluntary responsibility for welfare activities has to some degree increased. In the long run if the GSES values are sustained the demand for social services being performed by the local government only, may be reduced. Political externalities of CEF/GSES. Education provision tends to foster political stability other things being equal. We cannot be certain as to the level of political competence the CEF/GSES learners had before entering the programme. The general view from the way the girls confidently expressed themselves and discussed freely their programme and their background before GSES is that they have through GSES developed into a relatively informed electorate compared with the large community. Some of them have grown into becoming competent political leaders in their villages. They may also grow to demand political accountability through the ballot box by voting with their feet! Investment in Women Education GSES gives preference in access to education by girls. The project data shows that in fact girls enrollment increased and retention was high. Through deliberate investment in girls education women are given future assurance of occupational flexibility in the labour force partly on account of being facilitated to acquire work related-vocational skills that are required both in the informal and formal economy. Returns from investment in girls' education are usually high in developing countries mainly because of the second-round spillover benefits that accompany girls/women's education. In the sense of neoclassical economics and marginal return analysis the private an social economic returns for women are actually lower than those of men-given their lower average earnings and low labour force participation rates. However, in terms of externalities and second round spillover benefits investment in women has shown high social return and mainly its effect on fertility rate and corresponding effect on per capita GDP The old belief that enrolment of boys does not increase as a consequence of increasing enrollment for girls is not true. In actuality HRDP tended to suggest that as households are sending their daughters to GSES schools and as few of these pass and go to secondary schools, the households will undertake additional efforts to secure secondary education for their sons. Furthermore, those GSES learners who had siblings in mainstream schools had their family's educational cost burdens reduced given that these households did not have to buy school uniforms or learning materials for the GSES learners/girls. Cost-Efficiency. The cost effectiveness of HRDP whether undertaken by the community itself or in combination with external support, is a "sine qua non" for sustainability. Our view is that CEF/GSES must be funded in such a way that when World Bank funding ceases to be available, children who are now served by CEF/GSES may continue to have access to education. Some activities like workshops, training and project support were expensive and contributed to higher unit cost configuration. These activities though seemingly necessary in the first phase of the pilots, can be reduced substantially in the scaling-up phase and as part of larger PEDP/SEDP because the Local Government Reform Process would have taken root. Several approaches were available for computing the returns to investment in CEF/GSES. The elaborate method of cost-benefit analysis is based on actual age-earnings profiles of CEF/GSES learners over their life-time and data on cost of CEF/GSES including both direct and indirect costs (earnings foregone). Due to data unavailability and because it is not easy to project the Tanzania labour market wage/salary trajectory with certainty this procedure was not used. If used this approach would have produced a stream of costs and benefits for both CEF/GSES graduates over life time. The follow up calculations of net- - 42 - present values and benefit-cost ratios would determine the criteria for resource allocation decisions related to CEF/GSES as a comparison with formal schooling ratios. The ex-post project estimation of the Internal Rate of return (IRR) for the HRDP is based on similar framework as that carried out at the beginning of the project. This is well outlined in the Staff Appraisal document of the HRDP (1997). Appendix VIII. However, there are a few observations to note in the ex-post estimations: (a) CEF benefits are computed from increment in annual income from completing primary school times the expected working life expectancy; increase income from improved primary education quality and social benefits of a girl attending seven years of primary school. Average primary-school completion age in Tanzania is 15 years and life expectancy is 49 years. Therefore, average working life expectancy is estimated to be 49-15 = 34 years. (b) Annual enrolments have been adjusted for drop out rates, which have been argued that they did not change as a result of the coming of CEF. (c) GSES benefits are computed from increment in annual income from attending and completing secondary school, and social benefits of a girl attending 4 years of secondary school. Adjustments have also been made for drop out cases. Secondary school graduating age is 19 years and therefore, have 30 years of working. (d) The ex-post estimates are on the lower side because benefits from those dropping out after several years of schooling are not included. Also, benefits are assumed to accrue after the project period and therefore ignoring those who benefited from the project in less than seven years. It should also be noted that benefits from capacity building are accrued over years just like improvement in learning environment. These are not included in the ex-post estimates. (Appendix VIII) The estimates tend to suggest that with full project costs taken in to consideration the ex-post social internal rates of return were 25.97% for CEF and 5.62% for GSES with a total project internal rate of return of 26.99% When only the direct costs are considered the returns increase to 38.7% for CEF, 14.75 for GSES and 34.02% for the total project. The above results suggest that investment in CEF/GSES learning was a worthwhile undertaking since the social returns are high and comparable to those from physical capital. However, if policy and education officials want to maximize the returns they will need to scale ­up the project with efficiency gains. This means in scaling up CEF/GSES the implementation Isystem will have to be made leaner and more cost-effective by reducing some of costs related to workshops, preparation of materials and related professional travel an consumption related backups Sustainability The project was designed and implemented in the context of the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). It was part of the broad strategy of attaining national ownership and leadership in education development process and alignment of national education priorities and national structures, so as to reduce transaction costs and register operational efficiency gains. It is envisaged that the good elements of CEF and GSES will replace individual donor country assistance strategies as one way of reducing multiple project implementations and thus being able to enhance education investment coordination so as to promote collective support to education provision consistent with national development goals and priorities. The project has built an environment for its sustainability from both the demand and supply sides. It has - 43 - created empowerment and enthusiasm among the community to demand and support quality education. The communities are now conscious of their role as owners of the schools within their localities and are ready to supply school inputs. The government has now scaled up the idea of matching grants in the form of capitation and development grants. Borrower's and Bank Performance The Project had a slow start, but after the mid-term review(s) its implementation improved considerably. All the required credit has been disbursed so far and the CEF and GSES programs have had a highly satisfactory performance. This goes a long way to show the dedication of the implementers at all levels. At central level the project team and organizational structure was lean while its operational efficiency was enhanced by personnel stability and continuity. The same original key personnel did not change during the project period. These were the project director, internal auditor, GSES Coordinator, CEF coordinator, procurement officer, the monitoring expert, and the accountant. There were very few layers of decision making. The PSG judiciously made most operational decisions. At school level the head teachers and school committee chairpersons were basically the final authority in approval and spending of funds on approved school plans The World Bank was not passive in the process of HRDP, and though it did not change its orthodox policies and practices it gave more space to PSG and MOEC for local initiatives that facilitated progress towards community ownership by encouraging and supporting the use of local consultants in reviews, analysis and discussions which led to more informed and balance PSG decision making. Work relations between the Bank, the Borrower and implementing agencies were "fairly" good. However, a 2003 impact evaluation report by Omari, Mushi and Mwamba did make a telling assessment of the bank regarding its operational efficiency which is instructive that "operational efficiency in a project is often enhanced by personnel stability, continuity and unwavering of steering of project activities towards set objectives". There were frequent changes in the key project personnel from the World Bank side; indeed, seven changes in desk officers. These changes might have been operationally unavoidable on the part of the Bank, however it was not self evident that they helped the project. Important Observations Ownership, Policy Dialogue and the Role of Sectors and Local Councils: Investment in education from either local or external resources will usually bring together relationships between central ministries (MOEC, Presidents Office) and Local Government authorities. These relationships and the Completion Report emerging roles need to be harmonized if maximum value is to be achieved from the investment. During the course of project implementation; the Government through the decentralization policy of 1998 transferred more power and facilitated greater participation on the part of LGAs and communities. The Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP) whose main features were very much similar to those of the CEF. These included progress towards district restructuring and planning and setting up of the managerial organization, allocation and training of local staff. Indeed, for these districts which were under the CEF the introduction of the LGRP was easier and the concept was grasped readily. - 44 - World Bank, Development Partnership and Dialogue Process The World Bank and some development partners seemed to have organized themselves more formally in response to the launching of Tanzania Assistance Strategy way back in 1994. The MOEC on behalf of Government had to also compliment GOT's own coordination efforts by initiating internal coherence in the context of the Country Assistance Strategy with a view of reducing transaction costs in education provision Participation and Institutionalisation: Participation in education provision and particularly for girls has been broadened and is becoming more adopted in national programmes. The policy-making processes were broadened in terms of participation in CEF and GSES by the key stakeholders at district levels. Participation and Institutionalisation Participation in education provision and particularly for girls has been broadened and is becoming more adopted in national programmes. The policy-making processes were broaded in terms of participation in CEF and GSES by the key stakeholders at district levels. Budget Process, and Public Financial Management and Accounting Systems: The HRDP allowed communities and MOEC to engage in prioritization of education activities. There was a strong link between Implementation CEF, GSES, capacity building and research activities. Budget and procurement guidelines were written and followed to reflect priorities. Challenges of financial control as well as those that were related to allocation of resources by priorities were tackled. There was improved resources management, transparency and accountability of the matched and contributed finances. The Lessons Learnt Requiring community contributions and linking their size to that of the government grant to the fiscal capacity of the community is an effective way of increasing the amount of funds for primary education provision in cases where the ability of the government to support primary education from general tax revenue is very limited. Parents/community members were willing to make contributions for primary education purposes because the funds were used to improve the schools their children attended, because of the incentive provided by the matching ratio, and because the procedures put in place gave them confidence that the funds were being properly utilized. Local community members in rural as well as in urban areas can manage financial resources appropriately provided there are effective training and sensitization activities availed to them through capacity building. It is difficult to find girls who are qualified to attend secondary school from the very lowest socio-economic strata. If the purpose of scholarship schemes and programs is to help them, then the focus should be on improving the quality of their primary education. A merit based scholarship program that targets the very poorest and deprived households and communities is unlikely to succeed; very few pupils can be found in this strata of society who are academically and personally qualified to make a success of secondary education. A selection process that relies on head teachers and village council in a transparent setting is far from perfect; but is likely to be better than having the selection made by an external, arms-length agency with no personal knowledge of the people being selected. - 45 - Skills of staff and communities need to be upgraded and structures need to created so as to allow for substantial community participation. Partly based on the positive experiences gained from HRDP and social sector support strategy at national level, the other aim of such programmes should be strengthening the directorates of planning and human resources development, the education provision and the support institutions with particular emphasis put on development of management capacity. - 46 - IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT PREFACE The Human Resources Development Pilot Project (HRDP) Credit. No. 2991-TA 1. This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROJECT (HRDP) in Tanzania for which credit No. 2991-TA in the amount of SDR 15 million equivalent to US $ 20.9 million was approved. Total project cost was estimated at US $ 24 million, the Government of Tanzania contributing US $ 1.0 million and communities contributing US $ 2.1 million. 2. The Government of Tanzania (GOT) and the World Bank signed a loan agreement to finance the Human Resources Development Pilot Project (HRDP) through the World Bank agency the International Development Association (IDA). 3. The Loan was approved on 07/10/1997 and the credit agreement was signed on 29/10/1997. The Project became effective on 18th February 1998 and the expected closing date is 31st December 2005. The Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES) component of the project will continue until the last batch of girls who are already in the project and are being supported complete their Advanced Level of Secondary Education in the year 2007. 4. The Credit grant was fully disbursed by 99.5%. The Loan is repayable in 40 years after a grace period of 10 years . 5. This report is based inter alia, on the: Tanzania Country Portifolio Performance Review, February 2003; the Staff Appraisal Reports (several years); Implementation Experiences of the HRDP- by the MOEC (2002, 2003); Evaluation of the Impact of the "Human Resources Development Project " (1999 and 2003); Human Resources Development Pilot Project (HRDP)-Mid-term Reports (several) and the HRDP-Implementation Statistical Data for the years (2000) and (2003). Project Formulation Project Background 6. By 1994 the Government had recognized the problems besetting the education sector which included among others; low enrollments and poor quality of primary schooling, low secondary school enrollments particularly for girls, inadequate school-level management and little accountability to parents and communities. 7. The government recognized these problems and the importance of correcting them. As part of the solution it had proposed a framework for the social sectors, the Social Sector Strategy (URT 1994), which contained the following basic future principles: § Concentratingpublicsectorresourcesoncoreactivitiesofgovernment; - 47 - § Balancingpersonnelandotherinputswithinthesocialsectors; § Decentralizingauthoritytothelocallevel; § Eliminatingconstraintstoprivatesectorparticipationinprovisionofsocialservices; § Promotinghighqualitystandards; § Movingresourcesclosertothehouseholdandpromotinghouseholdinvestmentinhumancapital; 8. The Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) prepared an Education and Training Policy (URT, 1995) that emphasized liberalizing the education sector in step with the rest of the economy and increasing the accountability of service providers to clients. A Basic Education Master Plan (BEMP) (URT 1997) was produced as initial takeoff of a larger and expanded process for an Education Sector Development Programme (ESDP). These efforts included a need for an adequately funded, pluralistic school system that benefits from greater involvement of parents and local government in management. They proposed additional international support and investment in education. THE PROJECT Project Objectives 9. In line with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS); the overall program rationale for the project was to efficiently increase investment in human capital, to raise incomes, reduce inequality and improve non-market outcomes. 10. The project was meant to contribute to the CAS objective by seeking to strengthen the borrower's education sector in the following areas; l raising enrollments and quality learning outcomes of primary education through increased parental participation and financing, school based planning and management of resources, school based quality enhancement initiatives and improved support for schools at district level; l expanding educational opportunities and improving quality at the secondary level, particularly for girls from poorer household; l building capacity through these efforts/activities at the district and community levels and through selective training and implementation at the central level; and l improving policy development, planning, and research in the education sector through modernized testing and statistical systems, operation research, policy studies and strategic plans for basic and secondary education. - 48 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN 11. The project design embodied all the characteristics of a Pilot Project, flexible enough to allow learning by doing and modifications arising out of the implementation experiences and learning. The project was envisaged that it should not harm the existing system but the lessons borne out of the implementation experience, if successful, be taken to scale. 12. Table 1 shows the four major components of the projects and these are discussed separately below. Table 1. Overview of Project with IDA Financing Component Total A. Community Education Component 5.01 Matching Grants 4.71 Academic Improvement Contestable Grants 0.15 Nutrition & Health Contestable Grants 0.15 B. Girls' Bursary Component 6.93 Bursaries/Scholarships 5.82 Science Kits 1.00 Academic Improvement Contestable Grants 0.06 Gender Improvement contestable Grants 0.06 C Capacity Building 2.22 2.CEF ­ Related Training 0.38 GSES-Related Training 0.29 MOEC-Pilot Management 1.10 MOEC-Training Program 0.25 MOEC ­ Conferences & Dissemination 0.19 D. Policy development. Planning, and Research 4.49 Strengthening NECTA 0.80 Strengthening MOEC Statistics Section 0.37 Pilot Monitoring & Evaluation 0.65 Pilot Monitoring & Evaluation survey Costs 0.87 Welfare Monitoring Surveys 1.20 Policy and Strategy 0.60 Contingencies for prices (4 percent) 0.45 Contingencies for Contributions (5 percent) 0.24 Contingencies for Enrolments (5 percent 0.24 - 49 - Community Education Fund Pilot (CEF) 13. Objective: to raise enrolments and the quality of primary education with increased participation of the community and teachers in managing their schools ( (this objective was allocated IDA financing of value $ 5.0 million) . 14. CEF pilot was a matching grant program for primary schools which was designed to increase enrollment, improve the quality of schooling and to increase parental and community involvement in monitoring school performance. Planning of CEF began in March 1995. This included pre-tests of the design and consultation with beneficiaries over a two year period. 15. The target of this component was to cover 1,000 primary schools with a total population of 400,000 pupils but in practice it turned out that the project covered 1642 primary schools with a total population of 685,119 pupils. 16. During the pilot phase, districts and or schools were invited to join the CEF programme. For these schools it was planned that the government contribution from the recurrent budget would remain unchanged to avoid disrupting the operation of the system: The pilot just added funds at the margin as the institutional framework was enabled such that in the long run schools could ultimately manage the operations. 17. From calendar year 1997 through 1999, the CEF program gradually expanded to cover all schools in the districts of Kibaha, Kilosa, Lindi Urban, Mtwara Rural, and Sumbawanga Urban. The gradual expansion of the CEF was meant to be used by the monitoring and evaluation component to track its impact. 18. The outcome of the pretest and pilot showed significant results. The project was expanded to other districts which had Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES) but no CEF. These districts were Kigoma (R), Lindi (R), Kilombero, Rufiji and Morogoro (R). The project expanded to six other districts so as to test the impact of the project on medium level welfare index districts. These included the districts of Tabora (M), Dodoma (M), Shinyanga (R), Mwanza (M), Musoma (M) and Bukoba (R) which, incidentally, were among those in the first phase of the Local Government Reform Process. Girls' Secondary Education Support 19. Objective: To expand educational opportunities for girls from poorer families and to improve quality at the lower secondary level (this objective was allocated IDA financing of around $ 6.9 million) 20. As with the CEF, development of the Girls' Secondary Education Support (GSES) had the pre-tests and client consultation so as to improve the design. This GSES component provided for the following; l Selection of one poor girl per primary school annually ( which actually translated into one girl from each village) who was academically capable but would not have been able to attend secondary school without a bursary. l Payment of a bursary by the project to a pre-qualified secondary school in which the girl enrolled; l Monitoring of the girls and the secondary school to make sure that agreements were kept and the girls were doing well. 21. Girls were eligible for support during all four years of lower secondary school. The project - 50 - allowed them to interrupt their schooling for up to one year for any acceptable reason. They could also repeat a year of schooling and retain eligibility. 22. IDA has financed the bursaries plus the costs of setting up and managing the GSES program. From the schools that successfully participated in the GSES program the project solicited. Academic improvement plans and plans to improve the opportunities and care of girls in the school. These plans were generated by the schools, and grants were awarded on a competitive basis with limited funds available for this purpose. IDA also financed the purchase of science kits so as to improve the teaching of science at secondary level. Capacity building 23 Objective: to help develop capacity to implement CEF and GSES at all levels and to help MOEC formulate and implement innovative solutions to problems in primary and secondary (this objective was allocated IDA financing of $ 2.2 million equivalent). 24 The CEF and GSES components have acted as vehicles for capacity and competence building for school based management approach. Several training materials and seminars have been developed. It was designed in such a manner that the CEF operations would facilitate learning by doing at community level. The process was supposed to be planned, democratic in determining options and priorities, consensus on the levels of contributions to support the schools, procurement and reviewing of the implementation. 25 A particular feature of the GSES program was supposed to be its contribution to improving knowledge of the secondary school system especially among the communities that have not been able to send a child to secondary school in many years, which was thought to be essential for a better functioning of the education market. 26 Capacity was also to be promoted at the MOEC central level in relation to pilot management as an element of policy development for the whole sector. 27 The credit was also supposed to finance limited training programme to improve skills in the MOEC in the areas of economics of education analysis/evaluation, of education policy, impact evaluation of education programs, finance and educational management. 28 As regards MOEC's/conferences/dissemination the credit was also designed to finance participation in a number of international conferences annually for education sector staff- to present results of the pilot programs and of the reforms to professional audiences so as to gain from greater exposure to international practices. Policy Development, Planning and Research 29 Objective: to strengthen policy development planning, and research in the education sector through improved testing and statistics systems, operations research policy studies, and strategic sector development plans (this objective was allocated IDA financing of equivalent to US $ 4.5 million 30 The project aimed at improving policy development, planning and research in the education sector through modernized testing and statistics system, operations research, policy studies, and strategic plans for basic and secondary education. 31 As per social sector strategy the project sought to re-orient the government to perform core - 51 - responsibilities related to output and policy orientation. These responsibilities were defined as: national policy making, maintenance of the core curriculum, teacher certification and standards, technical assistance to lower levels of the system; national performance, evaluations and policy-analysis feedback, and general monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 32 The project under this policy component provided targeted support for: the National Examination council of Tanzania (NECTA); the MOEC Statistics Section, Pilot Monitoring and Evaluation of CEF and GSES components so as to produce lessons for education policy; Pilot surveys to feed into the M & E effort. 33 The project provided resources for both welfare monitoring and support for high priority studies needed for further development and implementation of the Basic Education Master Plan and the Secondary Education Master Plan. Financing by IDA was intended for work for which financing was not available from the borrower or other donors. IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS 34 A number of key features can be discussed which characterized the implementation and results of the four components of the Human Resource Development Project (HRDP), namely: the Community Education Fund (CEF) Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES), Capacity Building as well as Policy Development Planning and Research. From the various documents available such as the Supervision Mission Aide Memoires, End of Year Evaluation Reports, Annual Work Plans, Statistics on the HRDP Components Status Reports, Impact Evaluation Reports, and the Disbursement Schedules, it is possible to assert that, overall, the implementation was fairly smooth and results largely positive given the innovative nature of the project design and the project's specific objectives. Where difficulties arose in implementing agreed objectives the close consultation and collaboration between the Government of Tanzania and its representatives at all levels and the World Bank staff facilitated the amicable resolution of the given difficulty. 35. Project supervision by Government district level personnel was adequately close and the national level Pilot Support Group (PSG) personnel made regular visits to the districts and schools to assist and guide the implementation process. The smooth implementation of all the components of the HRDP was facilitated by the establishment of the HRDP Advisory Board chaired the Chief Education Officer of the MOEC. The Board comprised of representatives from key stakeholders including Directors from all departments of the MOEC. Each component of the HRDP was characterized by similar fairly similar or experimentation experience and by largely positive results. The Community Education Fund (CEF) 36. Although the CEF pilot project was started in 1998, it had been pre-tested right from July 1995. Thus, in effect, it started in 1995 with 4 pre-test schools in Kibaha expanding in 1996 to include some more schools from Kilosa and Mtwara Rural Districts. Initially the CEF was to have covered at least 500 primary schools but it was subsequently flexibly expanded to cover 1642 school. The expansion was decided on due to the fact that the CEF was aimed at poor districts as per the welfare index and yet these were precisely the very districts with residents whose attitudes towards education achievement were lukewarm and whose capacity to contribute financial resources to attract CEF matching funds was most limited. There are several questions which ought to be answered however. 37. Were the districts included in the CEF properly selected? The first five districts to be enrolled in the scheme were amongst the poorest in the country. In January of 2000, two years before this component - 52 - closed, 11 other districts were added. They were selected because they were involved in the implementation of the Local Government Reform Act, the goal being to determine whether the project could be coordinated within and implemented through that initiative, and also to determine how the project would work in districts that were not among the poorest. Thus, from a poverty perspective, the selection was not totally appropriate. But from the perspective of a pilot project meant to test whether the scheme would work throughout the country, it was appropriate. 38. Did resources available to CEF schools increase during this period? The best we can do to answer this question is to compare CEF and non-CEF districts during the period this project operated. From 1998 through 2001, per pupil non-salary expenditures in non-CEF districts that relied solely on the standard government program averaged Tsh 2,366 (roughly, US $ 2.37 per pupil). In CEF districts during this period, the comparable figure was Tsh. 8,293, (US $ 8.2) approximately 3.5 times more. It is evident, therefore that there were more resources going to CEF schools. 39. How did poorer communities fare under this program? With two exceptions, Mtwara and Sumbawanga for which the matching ratio was 1:2, for the rest the matching ratio was set at 1:1 at the outset of this program. This resulted in poorer communities receiving less government grants than richer communities, which were able to make larger contributions. In recognition of this problem a "weak schools" program was initiated which provided poorer communities with matching ratios of 1:2 and 1:3 plus, in some cases, contributions from district councils which were used to enhanced the base on which government grants were calculated. This resulted in a dramatic turn-around. In 1999, weak schools received government grants averaging Tsh 263,000 per school compared to the Tsh 890,000 received by non-weak schools. In 2001, weak schools received Tsh. 4,480.000 compared to Tshs 1, 819,000 40. How did the poor within communities fare? The scheme did not specify rules for deciding on the level of contributions and burden sharing. As a consequence, after a period of trial and error, a variety of approaches were utilized. Most communities started off with considerable optimism, pledging an unrealistically large amount and assuming that everyone would pay the same amount per child. Over time, this evolved to more realistic levels, often levied on households without regard to the number of children, sometimes involving exemptions, other times allowing partial payments and payments in kind. In general, those who did not pay were requested to contribute in kind so that everyone felt him-or herself to be part of the community enterprise with a right to participate in community meetings. The household survey did not provide any evidence of serious unhappiness about the way the burden was shared. 41. What were these funds spent on? Within broad limits, CEF permitted communities to decide how to spend these funds. Over half of the resource accumulated under this program was devoted to construction and rehabilitation of classrooms. Other large expenditures included furniture, teachers' housing, and latrines. Teaching and learning materials (including textbooks) were present but to a lesser degree, in part because they were supposed to be provided directly by districts. There were a few expenditures on questionable items, for example, sports equipment and events. 42. In order to solve the problem of ending up with CEF funds not being fully disbursed within the project life span, it was decided to increase the number of participating districts giving priority to the districts implementing the other component of the HRDP the GSES as well as districts with middle income status as per the welfare index but which were among the first 35 districts implementing the Government's local government reform programme. - 53 - Table 2: Unit Contr. Tshs Unit Com. Contr. Per Pupil Unit Contr. Tshs 1,115 1,276 1,302 1,646 3,007 3,857 year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 1: Unit Contribution Tshs 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 Tsh 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year Unit Contribution Tshs Results 43. These expenditures had quite positive effects on the physical environment of schools in some villages. Of course, they had quite limited effects on schools in communities that failed, because of income or disinterest, in making significant contributions. The weak schools program changed this situation, but the observable effect is limited because this program was only in force for one year before the CEF closed. Table 3: Net Enrolment Ratios (NER) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 National 56.3 56.7 57 57.1 59.5 65.5 CEF Districts 53.8 49.1 52.2 56.6 66.4 78.1 Figure 2: Net Enrolment Ratios (NER) National CEF Districts 100 80 60 40 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year 44. The results of the CEF have also been positive in that as of August 2002 the number of pupils in CEF schools had reached 685,119, the number of classrooms built by these schools was 1,554 while teachers' houses were 420 and additional pupils desks procured were 11,726. In addition Academic and - 54 - Health Improvement Grants were provided to the best schools on a competitive basis. These resources were acquired by the relevant schools through the implementation of CEF. This component contributed to the attainment of the HRDP goals of raising primary school enrollment as well as improving the learning environment in the relevant primary schools. Table 4. Key Performance Results for the Community Education Fund Objective Key Indicator Results Increased Enrollment Village- or ward-level gross § grewmorerapidlyin primary school enrollment CEF than non-CEF district rate NER (CEF = 78.1, national = 66) Improved Student Measures of school Performance performance on Primary § largelystable School Leaving Examination performance on PSLE Improved School Changes in physical plant, § classroomrehabilitated. Environment for learning availability of books and other § new construction (86%) teaching inputs § teacherhousing (8.5%) Increased Parental Parental contributions, § ownership,participation Involvement number of school committee accountability enhanced meetings annually Improved School Production and quality of § Improvedattendance management school plans § Clientsatisfaction Improved Financing Available funds for primary § Non-salaryfunding school from all sources increased 45. The CEF schools did also register marked improvement in the non salary resources available to the relevant school with per-pupils resources increasing from an average of Tshs 1,115 to Tshs 3,857. The above improvements seem to have contributed to significant improvement in academic performance by the relevant schools reflected in the fact that the percentage of pupils in CEF schools scoring A to C grades on the Primary Schooling Leaving Examination (PSLE) increased from 20.9 to 35. However, some project reviews tend to suggest that the evidence with respect to improve repetitions rates and performance on standardized examinations was too weak and dependent on the way the analysis was done to conclude that any differential improvement occurred in these areas! However, there was no sign of deteriorating performance for the CEF sample as a whole. (Table 4 gives a summary of CEF performance results) The Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES ) Experiences 46 The Operation Guidelines had been developed as to include rules of procurement and disbursement. The rules were revised as part of the pre-tests and for most part had resulted in successful procurement for the girls who were supported by the scholarship program. However, as in the CEF case it was realized that contracts for implementation would have been many and of small value. It was also noted that some funds considerably less than US $ 100 per girl might be needed to be used for the purchase of books, uniforms, transportation, tutoring and other inputs of education nature. 47 The procurement included selection of a school for each girl and responsibility for procuring the necessary additional items for the girls. These items included for example textbooks and school supplies. The implementation plan reflected what was contained in the Operations Manual. - 55 - 48 Most procurement took place when the girls began school. This was usually in January/February of each year and at this time 75 percent of the fees as given in the schools joining instructions was paid. However, there was a separate financial log maintained by the school for each girl. Usually this log was reviewed every six months so as to determine whether the incurred expenditures were eligible. The remaining 25 percent of the bursary was transferred to the school at the beginning of the second term and once eligibility criteria were found satisfactory. 49 There was a Memorandum of Understanding between the school and the GSES program and between the girl and her village that governed the use of funds. Yet, experience with this arrangement during the pilot phase was good but mixed. And schools that did well on this item did so because continued participation in the program partially depended on how well the school and the girl managed the funds. 50. Recognizing the school and village based nature of the whole procurement and selection, the MOEC through PSG conducted procurement and attendance audits and assessments at each school each year and provided feedback to GSES beneficiaries on best practice for improving implementation. These reports were also being used during the annual and mid-term reviews. In some cases they were used to review the programme's guidelines or to issue new instructions/circulars 51. Bursary funds were sent directly to the secondary school where the girls were posted in accordance with the joining instructions plus additional funds for up keep. The receiving secondary schools were required to submit every six (6) months reports on the girls progress to the Districts and to the PSG. Results 52. Enrolment and performance: A total of 4759 girls were enrolled in secondary education through the GSES program between 1996 and 2001. Completion rate for these girls improved over the years as the drop out rate fell from 4.1% to 1.2% far below the national figure. Table 5: GSES enrolment Form (I-IV) 1996-2001 Year Form (I) Form (I_IV) 1996 392 392 1997 364 756 1998 628 1325 1999 641 1983 2000 1275 2864 2001 1425 3882 Figure 3: GSES Drop Out Rates 1998-2004 5 4 3 2 1 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Y ear GSESGirls - 56 - 53. According to the project design girls who interrupted studies could be allowed to be away for up to one year and re-join school thereafter. The Project progress report dated November 2001 indicates that a total of 62 girls interrupted their studies in 2001. Most of the interruptions resulted from pregnancies. In 2001 ,23 pupils re-joined school after interrupting their studies Table 6. Key Performance Results for the Girls Bursary Program Objective Key Indicator Results Increased Enrollment of Enrollment of Girls from § Increased enrolment Girls from Primary Primary Schools § Increasedparticipation School High Survival Rate of Survival Rates of GSES § Decreasing drop out rate (4.1% Supported Girls Girls through Form IV to 1.5%) and truancy High performance of Performance of GSES § Stable performance (62% Supported Girls Girls on certificate of passing) Secondary Education Examination Gender-Friendliness of Improvement of School § Increase in demand for girls School Environment Environment for Girls assistance according to objective § Funds for needy girl available. measures 54. Performance at "O" level was average. The majority of the GSES girls passed at division four. This is comparable to national achievement average for this grade level. Division four is the lower grade level and pupils achieving the division do not usually get admission for "A" level or tertiary training. . 55. According to the project design, the program would support 20 percent of girls qualifying for "A" level secondary education and other tertiary institutions. The number of GSES girls who qualified for "A" level admission between 2000 and 2004 were 409 and 50 for VETA while 266 girls qualified for Teacher Training courses. According to national education statistics, girl's performance in "O" national examinations has for some years been lower than that of boys. In this regard enrollment of girls to "A" level has been low. 56 Other GSES results in the form of impact realized so far are:- (a) Capacity building in a form of training has been done. This has provided necessary skills to different actors of GSES such as in areas related to financial management, procurement, school planning, writing project proposals and selection of poor girls to benefit from secondary education bursaries. (b) GSES has assisted to improve the learning and teaching environment of schools participating in the program through provision of text-books, counseling services and creating awareness on HIV/AIDS. It has also improved the management and administration of schools as a result of funds contested for Academic Improvement and Gender Action Plans. (c) Heads of schools have developed a sense of accountability and responsibility through sending to PSG performance of GSES girls. They have also improved their accounting skills. - 57 - Capacity Building 57 Capacity building for CEF and GSES implementation was one of the major activities which were undertaken throughout the life of the project Training was done through short seminars and workshops which were organized by the PSG for different stakeholders within districts, primary and secondary schools. Training took place on an annual basis by training district level staff who in turn did training of school committees and teachers. Besides, the organized seminars and workshops, project staff did sensitizing of CEF and GSES practitioners. 58 It was also possible for the credit to finance long and short training of MOEC staff. This training part was necessary in order to improve skills in areas of policy analysis, economics of education, evaluation and in education financing. At policy development, training was conducted on how to use scanning technology at NECTA and statistics section. The project did focus mainly on improving data capture and efficient ways of producing examination results. Results 59 There was specific training for implementation of the GSES and CEF initiatives. This initiative created a pool of trained personnel at district, school and central level, both for the implementation of project and for long term operations of the education system. Table 7: Capacity Building carried out over project life-time Year Category # of people Category # of people Total sensitized trained 1998 School and 431,708 1,468 433,176 community members 1999 -do- 454,048 -do- 15,643 469,691 2000 -do- 2,240,752 -do- 50,947 2,291,69 9 2001 -do- 4,345 -do- 294 4,639 1998-2001 14 14 Total 3,130,853 68,366 3,199,21 9 60 Training opportunities were availed through extended training. The range in this category was from PH.D level training, masters programs, diploma courses, and short training course. This resulted into acquisition of skills beyond the immediate needs of the project (see Appendix VII). 61 The project generated several out reach activities ranging from one day meetings for village chair persons, school heads and district education officials to one week seminars and workshops for district education officers. These activities raised the visibility of education enterprise and the plight of children in poor schools. - 58 - Policy Development, Planning and Research 62 The project was also to work towards "improving policy development, planning, and research in education through ---- operations research, policy studies, and strategic plans for basic and secondary education (WB, 1997, p.7)". Prior to the project launching in 1996, Tanzania had an Education and Training Policy (MOEC 1995) but did not have a national education master plan although the idea had been on the drawing board for quite some time then. Similarly, the research and monitoring unit in the Policy and Planning Directorate was basically non existent as it comprised of one person only. The policy intention of the project was to improve the climate through strategic interventions in policy studies and operations research. Results 63 Several activities were undertaken in this component of the project. Altogether 22 pieces of policy studies and operations research reports are cited (see Appendix 111) Most of them are of policy relevance, such as how to deal with girls whose studies get interrupted due to pregnancies; secondary school selection; how to expand secondary education; and how to improve the quality of education. Some are pretty much of operations nature, supposed to energize the process of implementing the project and ameliorate other managerial problems of the ministry as a whole. These included the redesigning of data capture instruments so that they could be amenable to scanning, capacity building strategies in the education sector, and accounting procedures. 64 Follow up of Policy Studies. The 1999 Supervision Report advised that policy studies related to "the selection system for government secondary schools" and "interruption of school attendance by girls in primary and secondary schools p.7)" should be presented to the ministry officials such as the Permanent Secretary and the Chief Education officer, and that they should be expanded. It is reported that indeed that was done although policy change regarding pregnant girls has proved elusive and more complicated than earlier on thought to be.(see Omari, Mushi, Mwamba, 2003). 65 Playing Facilitative Roles. The project objectives specifically mentioned the development of "strategic plans for basic and secondary education (WB 1997 P.7)" Although the listing of studies did not specifically include these two items, interview data suggested that the project facilitated the development of the master plans called. Basic Education Master Plan, Secondary Education Master Plan, and Teachers Education Master Plan. This was through studies No. 8, 16,18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 as shown in Appendix III 66 Reported Use of Some Reports. The Education Sector Status Report (# 17 in Appendix III) was very useful in the formulation of the Basic Education Strategy Paper and the current Primary Education Development Plan, and that study 16 in Appendix III on Quality Improvement Strategies had some input in refocusing the government attention to quality issues, which is the greatest challenge the education system was facing today. REASONS FOR SUCCESS 67 The Community Education Fund (CEF) and Girls Secondary Education Support (GSES): As regards the CEF and GSES which were actually meant to test the mechanics of operationalization of strategies under the ETP ( 1995) with a view of putting these strategies to scale and directed to the primary education sub-sector several reasons for the registered successes are: a) The CEF/GSES ideas and their operationalization were introduced at the right time as they - 59 - responded to the demands of the communities as well as to the macro and micro economic/social reforms of the time. These demands included those that had to do with improvement of primary/secondary school enrolment quality and institutional strengthening. b) Resources reaching the schools/individuals were available and increasing. Before CEF/GSES resources at the school/individual were meager, intermittent and unpredictable. With the introduction of CEF/GSES schools/girls had more financial resources to operate with which came in different forms (sources): in cash, in kind, in grants and labour inputs . c) The general design of the project and its implementation was fully pluralistic and participatory from the initial stages and through out implementation and it was sensitizing and involving all stake-holders. Moreover, the World Bank was fully involved in the design and implementation process; its recommendations were always made available to the project support group. d) The project was generally planned and implemented within the structures of existing national education systems (districts, MOEC, schools). Thus, the several activities of CEF and GSES and outputs could be seen as part of the normal education service delivery system. The support given was process-oriented and was linked to the everyday problems and roles of providers, managers and implementers e) The whole project was linked to capacity competence building and institutional strengthening. Through intensive training of direct implementers, the school head teachers, headmasters/mistresses, teachers as well as council leaders, and schools committee members capacity and competence was enhanced. f) The release of examination results to the public did introduce an element of competition among schools and as a backwash effect most likely triggered improvement in subsequent performance. PROCUREMENT 67. Procurement for the project consisted of the acquisition of goods, works and services to ensure smooth implementation of all the components. Procurement was at two levels i.e. at the centre and district. 68. Centre: Procurement at the centre provided goods and services for the PSG operations; Statistics section of MOEC; and NECTA. The following goods and services were provided at these levels:- Four wheel drive station wagon vehicles, computers, photocopy machines, stationeries and facilitation of running of offices and services to personnel. Procurement was done to facilitate modernization and strengthening of MOECs statistics section. For NECTA, facilitation was done to support mechanization of the national examinations process. Therefore under procurement for MOEC statistics section and NECTA, the project supplied computers, servers, document scanner, CD library, printers, and specialized software for the former and computers, printers, scanners, LAN and associated specialize software for the latter. Training and workshops were also done as part of capacity building. 69. Districts: The districts were supplied with the following items: bicycles, motorcycles, computers, small size photocopies, printers, electricity generators, air conditioners, software for computers, photocopiers and printers. Also a boat was supplied to one district. Capacity building was done to enable districts, schools and communities implement the construction of physical facilities. - 60 - 70. Management and sustainability: Management and sustainability of the goods and services provided was weaker at the districts. In the early years of the project it was difficult to have expert providers of spares and services for computers, printers and photocopiers in many of the Districts. Therefore servicing of computers and repairs had to be managed from the centre. However, the overall development of the country in information technology has now spread to a grater extent and there is increased technical expertise at districts. Services and repairs to computers and photocopiers can now be handled at many district centres and regional centres. 71. Use of equipment after the projectAfter the closure of the project, any equipment, vehicles that were supplied under the project will be included in respective government inventories. Normal Government procedures will be used to transfer items from the project status to government mainstream properties. FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION 72. The core components of the project, i.e CEF and GSES targeted the poor. Initially the community response was slow and doubting but later the community picked up the tempo as results started to show. There was also a problem of donor/development partners' coordination at local/district levels more so in the cases where approaches to handling resources and community initiatives differed. However, things gradually changed in the light of improvements and visible outputs. A number of donors started to follow the HRDP procedures especially those which were related to using school bank accounts, selection of girls for assistance and civil works and those related to procurement procedures. Factors related to compliance with agreement 73. CEF funds had to be used to purchase goods, works or services towards the costs as itemized in their year plan, however, there were cases where this requirement was violated by head teachers who had to be given written warnings and in some cases they were demoted to ordinary teachers. 74. There were minor irregularities in some of the schools' financial accounts, which the auditors called "honest mistakes". These were caused by in-experience in keeping-proper books of accounts. 75. There where cases where schools did not keep separate school bank accounts one for the funds the school raised under the programme and the other for the matching grants. Such schools were put on one year probation and of course this delayed implementation. 76. Some schools did not as agreed make available to the village council and the district representative financial records as part of accounting for the use of all school community and matching grants funds not later than 6 months after the government's matching grant was deposited in the school's CEF account. 77. As regards the GSES there were instances where the Head teacher alone did the selection and this was also the case in some districts where the selection was done by the DEO and the DED in solo contrary to guidelines. In this way there appeared to be some elements of favoritism as the girls thus selected were later found not to be the deserving candidates. - 61 - ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RETURNS Overview of the Range of Benefits/Returns for the whole Project 78. Externalities and spillover effects: As already shown both CEF and GSES increased enrolment at primary and secondary levels. These pupils were all recruited from the community. As these learners become "better educated" they will indirectly raise the incomes of the less educated who will be working along side them. 79. Even if those learners who go through CEF/GSES programmes do not go further into higher schooling, when they finally settle in the community the learnt cognitive skills and values will influence the work habits and organizational skills of those who did not go to CEF/GSES schools who will be working along side them. Thus, as long as the supervisory skills of the CEF/GSES learners are realized and utilized they will promote higher levels of income for others who will be working along side them and for society. 80. To the extent that the increase in productivities of others can be reflected in higher wages at the community level, then the first round spillovers of CEF/GSES learners ought to be reflected in both social and private rates of return calculations as an additional component. 81. Incidentally HRDP, reviews confirmed our earlier belief that the impact of CEF/GSES should not be narrowed down to the "schooling for all" indicators only, in the form of access, participation and quality-improvement. Over and above the benefits which are related to conventional schooling some of the district local and central government functionaries seemed to view CEF/GSES as part of broad efforts aimed at community capacity building and institutional arrangement strengthening within the local government reform framework. In this regard the HRDP was viewed as having helped the communities to see their strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and to be able to take informed action on girls education and primary education support. 82. Reduction of demand to social services: The indirect benefits of CEF/GSES could also be seen from some positive statements given by school committee members who happened to be members of the Village Councils. It was argued that by enrolling these children (girls) some of whom would have been idling by into CEF/GSES learning, this action has tended to encourage lawful behaviour. It was observed that before GSES the propensity to commit petty criminal offences or any other unlawful tendencies was high and several school leaders also stated that to some degree the extent to which the girls were willing to assume voluntary responsibility for welfare activities had increased. In the long run if the GSES values are sustained the demand for social service being performed by the local government only, may be reduced. 83. Political externalities of CEF/GSES. Education provision tends to foster political stability other things being equal. Although it is not certain as to the level of political competence the CEF/GSES learners had before entering the programme. The general view from the way the girls confidently expressed themselves and discussed freely their programme and their background before GSES is that they have through GSES developed into a relatively informed electorate compared with the large community. Some of them have grown into becoming competent political leaders in their villages (coucillors). They may also grow to demand political accountability through the ballot box by voting with their feet! 84. Investment in Women Education GSES gives preference in access to education by girls. The project suggested that in fact girls enrollment increased and retention was high. Through deliberate - 62 - investment in girls education women are given future assurance of occupational flexibility in the labour force partly on account of being facilitated to acquire work related-vocational skills that are required both in the informal and formal economy. Returns from investment in girls' education are usually high in developing countries mainly because of the second-round spillover benefits that accompany girls/women's education. In the sense of neoclassical economics and marginal return analysis the private an social economic returns for women are actually lower than those of men-given their lower average earnings and low labour force participation rates. However, in terms of externalities and second round spillover benefits investment in women has shown high social return and mainly its effect on fertility rate and corresponding effect on per capita GDP. 85. In addition the HRDP-project anticipates other benefits from investment in girls' education which eventually actuality accrue to large communities like: reduced fertility rates; women empowerment and broad participation in governance and decision making, as well as improved schooling and health prospects for children due to the education of their mothers. Women who are themselves educated tend to put a high premium on children human capital development. 86. The old belief that enrolment of boys does not increase as a consequence of increasing enrolment for girls is not true. In actuality, HRDP tended to suggest that as households are sending their daughters to GSES schools and as few of these pass and go to secondary schools, the households will undertake additional efforts to secure secondary education for their sons. Furthermore, those GSES learners who had siblings in the mainstream schools had their family's education costs burdens reduced given that these households did not have to buy school uniforms or learning materials for the GSES learners/girls. 87. The cost effectiveness of HRDP whether undertaken by the community itself or in combination with external support, is a "sine qua non" for sustainability. The general view is that CEF/GSES must be funded in such a way that when World Bank funding ceases to be available, children who are now served by CEF/GSES may continue to have access to education. 88. The amount and nature of funding sources have to conform with national investment guidelines. Then the role of World Bank in the execution of the CEF/GSES pilot project needs to be clearly understood. Although there were some misconceptions at district and community levels regarding the role of World Bank this misconception has now been cleared through a MOEC circular which directs districts to be prepared to carry the CEF/GSES ideas/initiatives to scale. 89. The most expensive components contributing to higher unit cost configuration were the workshops a training and project support. These components though seemingly necessary in the first phase of the pilots, can be reduced substantially in the scaling-up phase and as part of larger PEDP/SEDP. Cost- Benefit Analysis of HRDP: This analysis should be interpreted with care since several assumptions have been made which if do not hold the model does not work. This type of analysis however, is useful in terms of resources. Choice an allocation. Due to un-availability of data we could not use the long-method. 90. Due to data unavailability and because the Tanzania labour market wage/salary trajectory cannot be projected with certainty, this procedure was not used. If used this approach would have produced a stream of costs and benefits for both CEF/GSES graduates over lifetime. The follow up calculations of net-present values and benefit-cost ratios would determine the criteria for resource allocation decisions related to CEF/GSES as a comparison with formal schooling ratios. - 63 - 91. The option, which was considered to be the second best solution given data availability problems was to use the simplified Micerian approach which is now known as the "short-cut" method. This approach is used when no longitudinal data are available. In this case the data was not available to permit the full calculations of CEF/GSES learners' earnings functions. What was available instead were data showing the average earnings at one point in time of workers with primary or secondary schooling and higher education, together with estimates of the annual costs of CEF/primary, GSES/ secondary and higher education. 92. The ex-post project estimation of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the HRDP is based on similar framework as that carried out at the beginning of the project. This is well outlined in the Staff Appraisal document of the HRDP (1997). Appendix VIII. However, there are a few observations to note in the ex-post estimations: Table 8: Estimated Internal Rate of Return(Percent) Cost Basis CEF GSE Total Program S Full Project Costs 25.97 5.62 26.99 *Direct Cost only* 38.17 14.75 34.02 * Community CEF Contributions, CEF Grants and GSES Bursaries a) CEF benefits are computed from increment in annual income from completing primary school times the expected working life expectancy; increase income from improved primary education quality and social benefits of a girl attending seven years of primary school. Average primary-school completion age in Tanzania is 15 years and life expectancy is 49 years. Therefore, average working life expectancy is estimated to be 49-15 = 34 years. b) Annual enrolments have been adjusted for drop out rates, which have been argued that they did not change as a result of the coming of CEF. c) GSES benefits are computed form increment in annual income from attending and completing secondary school, and social benefits of a girl attending 4 years of secondary school. Adjustments have also been made for drop out cases. Secondary school graduating age is 19 years and therefore have 30 years of working. d) The estimates are on the lower side because benefits from those dropping out after several years of schooling are not included. Also, benefits are assumed to accrue after the project period and therefore ignoring those who benefited from the project in less than seven years. It should also be noted that benefits from capacity building are accrued over years just like improvement in learning environment. These are not included in the ex-post estimates. (Appendix VIII). Table 9: Comparison of ex-ante and ex-ante and ex-post project IRR estimates - 64 - Ex-ante estimates Ex-post estimates General Cost Basis CEF GSES Total CEF GSES Total Assessment program Program Full Costs 19 6 12 25.97 5.62 26.99 E-post IRR >Ex-ante IRR Direct Cost 48 11 26 38.17 14.75 34.02 Ex-post IRR only* > Ex-ante IRR PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 93. The project was designed and implemented in the context of the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). It was part of the broad strategy of attaining national ownership and leadership in education development process and alignment of national education priorities and national structures, so as to reduce transaction costs and register operational efficiency gains. 94. It is envisaged that the good elements of CEF and GSES will replace individual donor country assistance strategies as one way of reducing multiple project implementations and thus being able to enhance education investment coordination so as to promote collective support to education provision consistent with national development goals and priorities. 95. The project has built an environment for its sustainability from both the demand and supply sides. It has created empowerment and enthusiasm among the community to demand and support quality education. The communities are now conscious of their role as owners of the schools within their localities and are ready to supply school inputs. 96. The training activities of the project have created a critical mass of service providers at village, ward and district levels. There is now improved capacity and competence for planning, financial management and education supervision. And by increasing education enrolment and its quality the project has contributed to non-income poverty alleviation. 97. The project did verify the applicability of strategies like the feasibility of sending funds meant for primary school development straight to schools and the potent advantages of full community involvement in financial control and management. These lessons have been incorporated in the scaled Primary Education Development Program and the Secondary Education Development Programme. 98. The GSES programme, has effectively helped to change community perceptions, and attitudes towards girls' education. This has set example to the government, other organs and individuals on the need and mechanism for assisting the needy and vulnerable to acquire secondary education. 99. The girls scholarships program appeared to be well thought out in terms of an exist strategy and phasing out. The Government has already set out Tsh. 2.4 billion for girls and boys from poor families, and the HIV/AIDS orphans. This amount is too small because relatively the HRDP project provided twice as much per year. Yet, some elements of sustainability are already being seen to emerge as the targeting of academically able but economically poor girls is now being institutionalized in the country. - 65 - BORROWER'S PERFORMANCE 100. The Project had a slow start, but after the mid-term review its implementation improved considerably. All the required credit has been disbursed so far and the CEF and GSES programs have had a highly satisfactory performance. This goes a long way to show the dedication of the implementers at all levels. 101. At central level the project team and structure was lean while its operational efficiency was enhanced by personnel stability and continuity. The same original key personnel did not change during the project period. These were the project director, internal auditor, GSES Coordinator, CEF coordinator, procurement officer, the monitoring expert, and the accountant. 102. Project supervision by the districts was quite close. Even with the project expansion, the PSG kept pace and made regular visits to the districts and schools to assist and guide the implementation process Disbursements were regular and the flow was as planned. Financial audits were on time and unqualified. 103. There were very few layers of decision making. The PSG judiciously made most operational decisions. At school level the head teachers and school committee chairpersons were basically the final authority in approval and spending of funds on approved school plans. BANK PERFOMANCE 104. The World Bank was not passive in the process of HRDP implementation, and though it did not change its orthodox policies and practices it gave more space to PSG and MOEC for local initiatives that facilitated progress towards community ownership by encouraging and supporting the use of local consultants in reviews, analysis and discussions which led to more informed and balanced PSG decision making. 105. There were a number of visits by high-ranking officials of the Bank to selected project sites. Such visits had an impact on the perceptions and performance of the communities. The supervision of the project was satisfactory. Indeed, the several supervision mission reports were considered useful because as a result implementation problems were identified, assessed and where necessary remedies were taken. 106. Work relations between the Bank, the Borrower and implementing agencies were "fairly" good. However, a 2003 impact evaluation report by Omari, Mushi and Mwamba did make a telling assessment of the bank regarding its operational efficiency which is instructive that "operational efficiency in a project is often enhanced by personnel stability, continuity and unwavering of steering of project activities towards set objectives". There were frequent changes in the key project personnel from the World Bank side; indeed, seven changes in desk officers. These changes might have been operationally unavoidable on the part of the Bank, however it was not self evident that they helped the project. IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS Ownership, Policy Dialogue and the Role of Sectors and Local Councils 107. Investment in education from either local or external resources will usually bring together relationships between central ministries (MOEC, Presidents Office) and Local Government authorities. - 66 - These relationships and the emerging roles need to be harmonized if maximum value is to be achieved from the investment. 108. During the course of project implementation; the Government through the decentralization policy of 1998 transferred more power and facilitated greater participation on the part of LGAs and communities. The Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP) had its main features very much similar to those of the CEF. These included progress towards district restructuring and planning and setting up of the managerial organization, allocation and training of local staff. Indeed, for these districts which were under the CEF the introduction of the LGRP was easier and the concept was grasped readily. 109. During the last year of the CEF programme (2001) the government introduced the Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP). As a result the community was not clear whether to continue with CEF approaches or not until it was clarified and the confusion cleared by MOEC. A coordinated approach is therefore needed to address education provision challenges. The SWAPs and basket funding are likely to work smoothly for education decentralization by devolution when they are aligned to the district planning and budgeting process. World Bank, Development Partnership and Dialogue Process. 110. The World Bank and some development partners seemed to have organized themselves more formally in response to the launching of Tanzania Assistance Strategy way back in 1994. The MOEC on behalf of Government had to also complement GOT's own coordination efforts by initiating internal coherence in the context of the Country Assistance Strategy with a view of reducing transaction costs in education provision. Participation and Institutionalisation 111. Participation in education provision and particularly for girls has been broadened and is becoming more adopted in national programmes. The policy-making processes were broaded in terms of participation in CEF and GSES by the key stakeholders at district levels. Budget Process, and Public Financial Management and Accounting Systems 112. The HRDP allowed communities and MOEC to engage in prioritization of education activities. There was a strong link between CEF, GSES, capacity building and research activities. Budget and procurement guidelines were written and followed to reflect priorities. Challenges of financial control as well as those that were related to allocation of resources by priorities were tackled. There was improved resources management, transparency and accountability of the matched and contributed finances. THE LESSONS LEARNT On CEF 113. Requiring community contributions and linking their size to that of the government grant to the fiscal capacity of the community is an effective way of increasing the amount of funds for primary education provision in cases where the ability of the government to support primary education from general tax revenue is very limited. - 67 - 114. Parents were willing to make contributions for primary education purposes because the funds were used to improve the schools their children attended, because of the incentive provided by the matching ratio and because the procedures put in place gave them confidence that the funds were being properly utilized. 115. Local community members in rural as well as in urban areas can manage financial resources appropriately provided there are effective training and sensitization activities availed to them through capacity building. 116. The project eventually found acceptable ways to take care of the special problems of the poor, to offset and indeed to reverse the bias towards regressivity that is inherent in any scheme that makes grants depend on contributions in a situation of income inequality. 117. There are hints that the variables related to schooling outcomes (increased enrolment, decreased dropouts and improved student performance) improved and by more in CEF than in non-CEF districts, however the changes were small and the analysis presented in several reviews has not adequately controlled for the other factors that could explain the results. On GSES 118. A selection process that relies on head teachers and village council in a transparent setting is far from perfect; but is likely to be better than having the selection made by an external, arms-length agency with no personal knowledge of the people being selected. 119. Promoting strategies for a better environment and tackling problems hindering girls' full participation in secondary education access need to be encouraged. On Capacity building 120. Skills of staff and communities need to be upgraded and structures need to be created so as that allow for substantial community participation. 121. Partly based on the positive experiences gained from HRDP and social sector support strategy at national level, the other aim of such programmes should be strengthening the directorates of planning and human resources development, the education provision and the support institutions with particular emphasis put on development of management capacity. - 68 - Appendix I: Statistics and Data Related to CEF Table 1: Progressive Increment of Schools under CEF (1995-2001) DISTRICT 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total KIBAHA 4 6 36 0 1 0 1 48 KILOSA - 11 30 60 81 -1 183 MTWARA - 10 20 30 24 0 0 84 S'WANGA(U) - - 20 21 5 0 0 46 LINDI (U) - - - 13 0 0 0 13 KILOMBERO - - - - - 101 0 101 MOROGOR RURAL - - - - - 247 0 247 KIGOMA RURAL - - - - - 79 0 79 LINDI RURAL - - - - - 95 0 95 RUFIJI - - - - - 96 0 96 TABORA (U) - - - - - 60 0 60 DODOMA (U) - - - - - 65 0 65 MWANZA (U) - - - - - 60 0 60 MUSOMA (U) - - - - - 20 0 20 BUKOBA RURAL - - - - - 214 0 214 SHINYANGA RURAL - - - - - 231 0 231 TOTAL 4 27 106 124 111 1270 0 1642 Table 2: Trend of Government and Parental Funds To CEF Schools (Tshs. `000') 1996-2001 YEAR Average amount Average amount parental Government grant per contribution per school (Tsh. school 000) 1996' 219 219 1997' 482 482 1998 655 538 1999' 808 505 2000' 1095 759 2001 1591 1257 Figure 1: Trend of Government and Parental Funds to CEF Schools (Tshs 000") 1996-2001 2000 Average amount Govt. 1500 grant per school 1000 Average amount parental contribution 500 per school 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YEAR - 69 - Table: 3 Community Contributions Per Pupil Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Unit Contribution Tshs 1,115 1,276 1,302 1,646 3,007 3,857 Figure 2: Unit Contribution Tshs 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 Tsh 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year Unit Contribution Tshs Table 4: Net Enrolment Ratios (NER) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 National 56.3 56.7 57 57.1 59.5 65.5 CEF Districts 53.8 49.1 52.2 56.6 66.4 78.1 Figure 3: Net Enrolment Ratios (NER) 100 80 60 National 40 CEF Districts 20 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year - 70 - Table 5: Percentage Increase in Enrolment 1998-2001 Non-CEF CEF Districts Districts 1998 & 1999 7.17 2.39 1999 & 2000 7.28 8.11 2000 & 2001 15.44 3.53 1998 & 2001 30.24 14.71 Figure 4: Percentage Increase in Enrolment 35 30 25 20 CEF Districts 15 Non-CEF Districts 10 5 0 1998 & 1999 1999 & 2000 2000 & 2001 1998 & 2001 Years Table 6: % Age of those Scoring A-C in PSLE YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CEF Districts 20.9 22.5 22.1 22 23.8 35 Non CEF Districts 13.4 15.2 18.4 15.6 19.6 28.2 Figure 5: % Age of Those Scoring A-C in PSLE CEF Districts Non CEF Districts 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YEAR - 71 - Table 7 CEF Drop Out Rates 1995-2001 YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CEF Districts 2.4 2.2 2 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.5 Non CEF District 2.2 1.7 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 2.3 National 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.6 4.8 5.8 5.5 Figure 6: Trend on Drop Out Rates: Primary 8 7 6 5 CEF Districts 4 Non CEF District 3 National 2 1 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year - 72 - Appendix II Statistics and Data Related to GSES Table 8: GSES Girls in school and other Institutions Enrollment Trend 1996-2005 YEAR FORM FORM FORM FORM OTHER I I- IV V V-VI INSTITUTIONS HIGHER TOTAL VETA TTC LEARNING 1996 392 392 - - - - - 392 1997 364 756 - - - - - 756 1998 628 1325 - - - - - 1325 1999 641 1983 - - - - - 1983 2000 1275 2864 15 15 - - - 2879 2001 1459 3849 17 32 43 - - 3924 2002 - 3217 31 48 5 32 11* 3308 2003 - 2370 48 79 2 64 10(21)* 2539 2004 - 1162 148 196 - 61 22(43)* 1464 2005 - 258 150 298 109 665 19203 Table 9 : Trend of GSES Enrollments 1996-2001 FORM I FORM I-IV Year Number enrolled Total number 1996 392 392 1997 364 756 1998 628 1325 1999 641 1983 2000 1275 2744 2001 1459 3882 Table 10 GSES Drop Out Rates 1998-2001 YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 GSES Girls 4.1 2.7 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 - 73 - Figure 7: Trend of GSES Enrollments 1996-2001 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 FORMI 1500 FORM I-IV 1000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Table 11: GSES`O' Level Performance for 1999-2004 YEARS I II III IV 0 TOTAL 1999 0 3 8 172 105 288 2000 0 2 11 139 89 241 2001 1 5 28 263 179 476 2002 2 6 35 251 112 406 2003 5 27 130 547 153 862 2004 6 18 113 575 100 812 GSES `A' Level Performance for 2002-2004 Division 'A' Level YEAR I II III IV 0 Total 2002 5 5 5 0 0 15 2003 5 6 6 0 0 17 2004 10 10 8 2 0 30 2005 8 15 16 5 0 44 GSES Drop Out Rates 1998-2004 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Percentage 1 0.5 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year GSESGirls - 74 - Figure 9: GSES 'O' Level performance for 1999-2004 1000 900 800 700 600 I 500 II 400 III IV 300 0 200 Tot al 100 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Figure 10: GSES 'A' LEVEL PERFORMANCE FOR 2002-2004 50 45 40 2002 35 30 2003 25 20 2004 15 2004 10 5 0 I II III IV 0 Total Division A Level - 75 - Appendix III: Policy Related Studies and Consultancies Study Date Cost in Authors Comments US # 1 Interim project evaluation 1997 40,800 Sumra Available Preparation of PIP (Project Implementation) 1997 20,400 PSG/MOEC Available 3 Preparation of PIP (Project Implementation 1997 16,800 PSG/MOEC Available 4 Project Impact evaluation 1998 38,924 Sumra Available 5 NECTA and MOEC Computerization 1998 23,500 ESAMI Available 6 Accounting and Financial Management 1998 60,015 MN Information Available system 7 Project Impact Evaluation 1999 32,500 Galabawa Available 8 Four Ed-SDP Inhouse Studies 1999 74,199 9 Redesign and production of Scannable 1999 40,192 COSEKE Available instrument 1 NECTA/MOEC Implementation Plan 1999 63,291 ESAMI Available 0 preparation 11Interruption of Studies of secondary school 1998 5,000 Malekela Available girls 1 Household surveys for project monitoring 1999 150,000 Statistic Burrow 2 KOWKI 1 Project impact evaluation 1999 35,000 Galabawa Available 3 1 Project impact evaluation 2000/1 42,500 Sumra Available 4 1 NECTA Computer System 2000/1 52,625 Y2K Michael & 5 Garina 1 Mainstreaming study 2000/1 103,991 Komba Available 6 1 Education Sector Status Report 2001/2 103,370 Galabawa et al Available 7 1 Education Sector Strategy Paper 2001 47,703 Galabawa and Available 8 Kilindo 1 Review of secondary school selection 1999 No Pay In house Available 9 system 2 Constraints to the Expansion secondary 1996 5,000 Mwenisongole Available 0 education 2 Capacity building for Education ministries 2002 10,000 Mosha Available 1 2 Strategies for improvement of education 2003 10,000 Omari Available 2 quality - 76 - Appendix IV: School Enrollment Between 1998-2001 1998 1999 2000 S/No District Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total 1 Bukoba (R) 29523 32347 61870 28618 28154 56772 28963 28151 57114 2 Dodoma (M) 18883 19441 38324 19532 20219 39751 19904 20397 40301 3 Kibaha 8649 8649 17334 9473 9196 18669 9850 9944 19794 4 Kigoma (R) 20733 19000 39733 21213 19597 40810 27400 25148 52548 5 Kilombero 17008 16806 33814 17905 17829 35734 18553 18987 37540 6 Kilosa 24624 35349 49973 26428 27305 53733 28935 29395 58330 7 Lindi (R) 10108 10578 20686 9774 10144 19918 10599 10440 21039 8 Lindi (U) 2623 2829 5452 2676 2810 5486 2644 2785 5429 9 Morogoro (R) 34857 32487 67344 36055 33357 69412 37313 34706 72019 10 Mtwara 9000 8079 17079 8937 7960 16897 10214 8637 18851 11 Musoma (U) 8007 8089 16096 7996 8154 16150 8548 8788 17336 12 Mwanza (M) 23142 23769 46911 24225 25336 49561 28392 28635 57027 13 Rufiji 8751 8245 16996 8727 8231 16958 10825 11478 22303 14 Shinyanga (R) 22033 22097 44130 32711 32588 65299 35879 33117 68996 15 Sumbawanga (U) 8918 9171 18089 9285 9442 18727 9607 9770 19377 16 Tabora (U) 12427 12603 25030 12876 13319 26195 12630 12920 25550 Total 259286 259575 518861 276431 273641 550072 300256 293298 593554 - 77 - Appendix V: Capacity Building as of December 2001 S/N District No of schools Reg/Dist No. of No. No. Village Head School No. of Members o r. WECs of of Chairperson of Committee councilor Schoo Officials WEOs VEOs School chairperson s Committ s 1 Bukoba 214 17 6 2 8 12 39 28 4 (R) 2 Dodoma 65 26 12 13 15 30 65 45 3 (M) 3 Kibaha 47 8 9 2 4 23 42 32 1 4 Kigoma 79 4 13 14 23 33 52 40 0 (R) 5 Kilomber 101 19 8 9 12 15 53 30 6 o 6 Kilosa 182 29 35 4 12 121 182 172 14 7 Lindi (R) 95 13 16 13 26 55 63 47 14 8 Lindi (U) 13 9 6 11 0 13 13 8 8 9 Morogoro 247 18 30 15 16 63 121 100 9 (R) 1 Mtwara 84 8 12 8 36 44 44 46 3 0 ® 1 Musoma 20 9 21 10 0 37 39 23 16 1 (U) 1 Mwanza 60 13 12 4 8 49 91 65 2 2 City 1 Rufiji 96 10 3 3 1 7 27 5 0 3 - 78 - 1 Shinyang 231 20 22 0 9 0 172 40 0 4 a (R) 1 Sumbawa 46 9 10 7 1 2 31 20 2 5 nga (U) 1 Tabora 60 14 14 12 0 35 47 37 12 6 (M) Total 1640 226 229 127 171 539 1081 738 94 - 79 - Appendix VI Some Key Indicators for Project Implementation DCA SCHEDULE 2 COMPONENT INDICTOR TARGET AT STATUS AS OF DESCRIPTION PROJECT AUG. 2002 COMPLETION Part A1 Provision of Matching Number of primary 500 1,642 Grants to Primary school provided with Schools Matching Grants Part A1 Raising overall Number of pupils in 400,000 685,119 enrolment CEF schools Part A1 Improving learning # of classrooms built - 1,554 environment # of T/houses built - 420 11,726 # of desks procured - Part A1 Improving resources of Increase of per pupil Per pupil available non salary school available resources resources increased development activities form Tsh. 3,857 Part A1 Improving academic Percentage of those Percentage of those Performance passing PSLE scoring A-C increased form 20.9 to 35 Part A4 Production of CEF Frequency Once Newsletter Part B1 Provision of Bursary Number of bursary 3,000 4,759 for Secondary education to girls from poor households Part B2 Reduction in drop out Drop out rates girls Lowered Drop out rates rates dropped form 4.1% to 1.2% Part B4 Provision of Science # of sets 100 100% equipment Part B5 Production of GSES Frequency - Twice Newsletter Part C1-3 Training District # of districts to be 5 districts 16 districts see Officials, Primary covered table 13 - 80 - Appendix VII: Improvement of Teaching/Learning Physical Environment 1998-2001 Activity 1998 1999 2000 2001 Classrooms constructed 66 158 520 810 Class rehabilitated 151 227 665 925 Teachers houses constructed 25 36 154 205 Teachers houses rehabilitated 7 37 146 196 Toilets constructed 184 1102 1961 1698 Desks procured 2412 816 3420 5078 Books procured 100 1995 48487 223301 Exercise books procured 216073 29778 460083 1510249 - 81 - APPENDIX VIII CEF COSTS (USD) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Direct costs Community 3,108,91 24,025.86 123,914.39 211,444.26 314,472.26 1,168,776.51 2,341,925.82 Government Grants 3,108,91 24,129.31 125,343.90 239,670.53 352,347.27 1,188,469.79 2,464,650.62 Indirect Costs 6,217.81 48,155.17 249,258.29 451,114.79 666,819.53 2,357,246.31 4,806,576.44 Capacity Building 275,710.00 275,710.00 275,710.00 275,710.00 275,710.00 275,710.00 275,710.00 Policy Development planning and Research 424,290.00 424,290.00 424,290.00 424,290.00 424,290.00 424,290.00 424,290.00 712,435.63 796,310.34 1,198,516.58 1,602,229.58 1,033,639.06 5,414,492.61 10,313,152.89 GSERS COSTS(Costs) 79,087.76 267,579.52 441,794.62 628,975.73 771,823.44 865,569.41 733,133.87 Girls Bursaries 79,087.76 267,579.52 441,794.62 628,975.73 771,823.44 865,569.41 733,133.87 712,435.63 875,398.10 1,466,096.11 2,044,024 GRAND TOTAL (Costs) CEF BENEFITS 1* increment in income form completing primary school - - - - - - 52778.00 166,616.57 666,516.5 2* Social benefits of a girl attending 7 years of school - - - - - - - 6,779.70 18,163.41 68,153.4 3* Social benefit of a girl attending 4 years of secondary - - - - - - - 2,956.80 46,469.51 133,723.9 - - - - - - - 62,514.50 231,249.49 868,393.8 GSES BENEFITS 1* increment in income form completing primary school - - - - - 116,000.00 206,280.00 313,470.00 513,470.00 701,100.0 2* Social benefits of a girl attending 7 years of school - - - - - 375.90 725.00 1,289.20 1,959.20 3* Social benefit of a girl attending 4 years of secondary - - - - - 1,478.40 2,851.20 4,997.10 7,478.70 12,280.0 - - - - - 117,854.30 209,856.20 319,756.30 522,907.90 716,587.2 GRAND TOTAL (Benefits) - - - - - 117,854.30 209,856.20 382,270.80 754,157.39 1,584,981.0 Notes: 1* Number of CEF/GSES GIRL graduates minus dropout times estimated difference in income between someone with no education and a primary/secondary school graduate 2* Number of CEF.GSES graduates minus dropout times 10% of income benefits that a person receives from completing primary secondary school 3* Number of CEF/GSES graduates minus dropout time one half the value of social benefits of education in Kenya estimated in summer (1994) - 82 - CEF COSTS (USD) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Direct costs Community Government Grants Indirect Costs Capacity Building Policy Developmen t Planning and Research Sub-Total GSES COSTS (USD) Girls Bursaries Sub-total GRAND TOTAL(Co sts) CEF BENEFITS 1*Increment 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,183,195.71 18,183,195.71 in income from completing primary school 2*Increment 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 11,820,101.96 in income from improved primary school quality 3*Social 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 benefits if a girl attending 7 years of school Sub-Total 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 GSES BENEFITS 1*Increment 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 669,170.00 in income from completing secondary school 2*Increment 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 4,182.30 in income from improved secondary school quality 3*Social 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 13,652.00 benefits of a girl attending 4 years of secondary school Sub-total 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 687,004.30 GRAND TOTAL 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 22,797,651.88 (Benefits) - 83 - CEF COSTS (USD) 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Direct costs Community Govern ment Grants Indire ct Costs Capaci ty Buildin g Policy Develo pment Planni ng and Resear ch Sub-T otal GSES COST S (USD) Girls Bursari es Sub-to tal GRAN D TOTA L(Cost s) CEF BENE FITS 1*Incr 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,235,973.71 18,183,195.71 17,469.357.14 16,969,457 ement in income from comple ting primar y school 2*Incr 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,820,101.96 1,813,322.06 1,801,938.35 1,751,948 ement in income from improv ed primar y school quality 3*Soci 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,054,571.91 2,051,615.11 2,008,102 al benefit s if a girl attendi ng 7 years of school Sub-T 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,110,647.58 22,048,132.88 21,279,397.80 20,642,253 otal GSES BENE FITS 1*Incr 669,170.00 578,890.00 471,700.00 269,700.00 82,07.00 ement in - 84 - income from comple ting second ary school 2*Incr 4,182.30 3,833.20 3,269.00 2,599.00 1,351.00 ement in income from improv ed second ary school quality 3*Soci 13,652.00 12,279.20 10,133.30 7,651.70 2,850.40 al benefit s of a girl attendi ng 4 years of second ary school Sub-to 687,004.30 595,002.40 485,102.30 279,950.70 86,271.40 tal GRAND TOTAL 22,797,651.88 22,705,649.98 22,595,749.88 22,390,598.28 22,196,918.98 22,110,647.58 22,100,647.58 22,048,132.88 21,279,397.80 20,642,253 (Benefits) - 85 - Additional Annex 9. Map of Tanzania - 86 - IBRD 33494 TANZANIA SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS MAIN ROADS PROVINCE CAPITALS RAILROADS NATIONAL CAPITAL PROVINCE BOUNDARIES RIVERS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 30°E 32°E 34°E 36°E This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any To To 0° endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Tororo 0° To To UGANDAKampala To To Kampala Lake Kagera To To Victoria Nakuru K E N Y A Bukoba Musoma Mara To To Nakuru Buoen RWANDA KAGERA M A R A 2°S 2°S Lake Mwanza Natron ToKama M WA N Z A Simiyu A R U S H A Kilimanjaro (5895 m) BURUNDI Arusha Moshi To To Lake Malindi Kibondo Moyowosi Yalova S H I N YA N G A Eyasi Lake Shinyanga Manyara Kahama Pangani KILIMANJARO Nzega Steppe 4°S Babati Same CONGO K I G O M A Masai PEMBA NORTH Kasulu Steppe Kigoma Singida OF. Kaliua Kondoa Tabora Iwembere SINGIDA Wete PEMBA Tanga SOUTH TA B O R A TA N G A Mkoani ZANZIBAR REP Lake Ugalla Manyoni NORTH Tanganyika DODOMA Mts. Mkokotoni ZANZIBAR SOUTH & Zanzibar Koani CENTRAL Mpanda Wamimi D O D O M A Wa ZANZIBAR DEM. Nguru Morogoro Kibaha WEST R U K W A Dar Es Salaam Rungwa Great MOROGORO DAR ES SALAAM Ruaha P WA N I Lake Iringa 8°S Sumbawanga Rukwa M B E Y AangeR I R I N G A Utete 8°S Mpui Mbeya Rufiji INDIAN Kilwa Mbeya Kilombero Matandu Kivinje Tunduma To To Kasama Kipengere OCEAN Njombe L I NuD I 10°S To To Kasama Range Mbemkur Lindi 10°S Mtwara ZAMBIA To To Songea Masasi TANZANIAKasungu Lake R U V U M A MTWARA Tunduru Malawi Ruvuma To To Chiúre Chiúre To To 12°S To To Marrupa MOZAMBIQUE Lichinga 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers 32°E 34°E 36°E 0 50 100 150 Miles 40°E JULY 2005