Author: USAID Education in Crisis and Conflict Network
Year: 2016
Agency: USAID
Full Citation: USAID Education in Crisis and Conflict Network. (2016). Analysis of indicators used in USAID education projects in crisis and conflict environments. Washington, DC: USAID
Overview: The following document provides an analysis of the indicators used in Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (PMEPs) from 25 USAID Education projects implemented in 16 countries between 2007 and 2018. The USAID Education in Crisis and Conflict Network (ECCN) undertook this analysis to determine: 1. What indicators were being used to monitor education projects implemented in crisis and conflict environments slightly before and during the period of USAID’s 2011–2015 Education Strategy. 2. Whether and how these indicators measured progress related to the USAID Education Strategy themes of: access, retention, equity, safety, conflict sensitive education, education delivery, policy and systems, education demand, and education quality. 3. What gaps existed in the monitoring efforts of these projects during this period. (p. 4)
Methodology: The analysis was conducted by examining 370 indicators listed in 25 PMEPs of current or past USAID education projects designed to promote Increased equitable access to education in crisis and conflict environments for 15 million learners by 2015 (Goal 3). PMEPs were obtained directly from implementing partners, as well as from the USAID Office of Education. PMEPs were collected based on a list of 66 projects related to EiCC environments generated by the USAID Office of Education. Indicators were coded using the following nine categories: Access, Retention, Equity, School Safety, Conflict Sensitive Education; Education Delivery, Policy and Systems, Education Demand, Education Quality. (p. 5)    
Findings: Indicators are clearly organized according to projects’ results framework; Most indicator frameworks focus on measuring outputs, without linking to outcomes; Equity, conflict sensitive education, and school safety indicators are underrepresented; Few indicators are standardized; There are gaps between theories of change/project descriptions and indicators measured. (p. 19)
0 Comments

Leave a reply

©2018 ECCN. All rights reserved. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Log in to get access to NowComment

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account