Attachment 1: The following documents were made available to the Review Team: Project Design Document (PDD) - 2009 Request for Tender (RFT) - 2010 PRIME Program Inception Report - April 2011 1st PRIME Program Annual Plan - October 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and Implementation Plan (MEF and MEIP) – updated March 2012 Sustainability Strategy – October 2011 Risk Management Strategy/Plan – updated January 2012 Six-Month Progress Report (SMPR) – January 2012 PRIME Grants Guidelines – revised March 2012 Regional Office – Program Implementation Plans – updated March 2012 Central Office – Program Implementation Plan – to be updated April 2012 1st Financial Audit Report Longitudinal Case Study Concept Paper
Attachment 2: Review of Key Elements Community Education Planning approach Education Grants: Monitoring, Evaluation and Plan Adjustments: Management Approach/Interface with DepED: Key Questions What are the significant contributions of the PRIME community education planning approach that may be sustained /institutionalized to improve education planning at the community level? What evidence is available to support the hypothesis that the community education planning approach improves access to quality basic education for IP and Muslim boys and girls? How important is planning at the community level to the achievement of better education outcomes? Key Questions Is there evidence to suggest that there is merit in continuing to provide grants to all levels within DepED to support access to quality basic education for disadvantaged IP and Muslim communities? Is access to quality basic education being improved through the grants mechanisms? Are better education outcomes being achieved by providing grants to schools? How are grants channelled to proponents performing in supporting improved access to quality basic education? Are the strategies, policies and processes piloted by PRIME for grant management (Guidelines, Audit/Reviews, GMIS) effective and efficient for adoption/adaptation by government or AusAID? Key Questions What are the strengths and weaknesses of the quarterly MEPA as a mechanism for monitoring progress and adjusting plans for basic education nationally? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the MEPA as a mechanism for achieving better outcomes for disadvantaged IP and Muslim communities? Key Questions Is the current management approach/interface with DepED effective and efficient in providing funding support and technical assistance to DepED?
Key questions: as per TOR AusAID Post National DepED National stakeholders Regional DepED Divisional DepED Schools PTA/ Community NGOs/CSOs Sub-Questions D. Management Approach/Interface with DepED Is the current management approach/interface with DepED effective and efficient in providing funding support and technical assistance to DepED? √ √ √ √ In your opinion, what are the basic prerequisites required for the PRIME management approach to work? What impact has the short time frame for PRIME had upon DepED management and staff? What impact has the departure of key staff from OPS had upon the capacity of DepED to implement the PRIME initiative? What are the key management issues which need to be addressed to improve the sustainability of the innovations introduced by PRIME to increase the access of IP and Muslim communities to basic education?