| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Upstream Work in Basic Education and Gender Equality (2003-2012) |
| Duration |
2003-2012 |
| Donor |
United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF) |
| Implementiong Organization |
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Education |
| Region |
Phnom Penh |
| Financing |
N.I. |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC), Community School Management Committee (CSMC), Education Coordination Committee (ECC), European Union (EU), Government of Cambodia (GoC), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), Ministry of Economic and Finance (MEF), Provincial Office of Education (POE), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), World Bank (WB) |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
"Environment" has not mentioned as a cross-cutting issue. |
| Gender |
The main objective of the project is gender equality. |
| Impact Analysis |
In moving from its initial shift to gradual consolidation of its upstream work during the 2003– 2012 period, UNICEF’s Cambodia education programme has managed to stay relevant not only to UNICEF’s internal mandate but also to national needs and government priorities. However, at times there has been a clash
between government priorities and UNICEF’s internal mandate, such as on the issue of ECE or bilingual education, and here UNICEF has chosen to follow the latter. UNICEF has normally been successful in gradually making these internal priorities also be reflected in the MoEYS agenda. However, the continued reliance
of such interventions on UNICEF money does raise additional challenges to their sustainability as opposed to those areas of work which are MoEYS’s own priorities. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
The report states that the project remained a donor-managed rather than government-managed initiative. Thus, outlining a clear plan for transition of management of the fund to the government within a concrete timescale would be important for future sustainability. Also, UNICEF’s own institutional
capacity to manage upstream work remains unpredictable given the important role played by individual education officials in bringing it to this stage. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Policy Coherence and Harmonization not mentioned in evaluation report. |
| Rating |
N.A. |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The overall evaluation occurred in two phases at the global, regional and country level.
• In the inception phase a desk-based a review of UNICEF upstream engagement was undertaken in 14 countries across the seven UNICEF regions, as well as at UNICEF headquarters to understand education upstream work from a global perspective.
• In the field-based data collection phase four country case studies were undertaken in Afghanistan, Brazil, Cambodia and Zimbabwe. Data was also collected at the regional and global levels.
Data collection in case study countries at the field level was built around the selection of two to three mini-case studies per country, utilizing document reviews, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and harvesting of quantitative data from secondary sources. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
While UNICEF has had relative success in having its best practice models accepted at national level, the expansion and replication of these models remains heavily reliant on UNICEF funding. This poses a major challenge to ensuring sustainability of these initiatives and puts the very effectiveness of upstream work into question. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
|
