EQUIP2 Final Report.pdf - Education Policy Data Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conclusions 33 Conclusions As EQUIP2 draws to a close, it is important to both reflect on the past and look forward to the future. According to members of the EQUIP2 education policy expert team, important lessons were learned from the EQUIP2 experience that can provide USAID with insights into the mechanism, management, and research conducted by the Leader award. Looking ahead, consortium members reflect on how EQUIP2’s work relates to a changing education landscape represented by USAID’s 2011 education strategy. LOOKING BACKWARD: LESSONS LEARNED As this report was being prepared, members of EQUIP2’s education policy expert team were asked to reflect on the successes and challenges of their work. The lessons relate to the mechanism itself, the management of the Leader award, and the research that was conducted. The lessons, described in depth below, include the following key insights: • It is important to include safeguards for implementers in funding mechanisms similar to EQUIP2. • The pre-competed nature of the EQUIP awards led to more realistic project design. • When designing mechanisms that have a Leader and associate award component, it is useful to have a formal link between them to ensure effective knowledge translation from research to projects. • Collaborative partnerships among competitive organizations are difficult to maintain. • Consistent, collaborative leadership from both USAID and the implementing partner allowed the Leader award’s research agenda to have both breadth and depth. These lessons can be useful in USAID’s future planning and programming. It is important to include safeguards for implementers when designing funding mechanisms similar to EQUIP2. Because the associate awards were cooperative agreements rather than contracts, there were fewer safeguards for implementers. As described below, one of the challenges faced by associate award implementers was inherent to the nature of cooperative agreements. In some cases, missions chose to use
Page 1 and 2: Educational Quality Improvement Pro
Page 3: EQUIP2 Leader Award Final Report Ni
Page 7 and 8: Introduction 1 At the EQUIP end-of-
Page 9: 3 Introduction
Page 12 and 13: 6 EQUIP2 Leader Award Final Report
Page 17 and 18: The Research: Evidence, Application
Page 19 and 20: USAID requested a major retrospecti
Page 21 and 22: were 35,500 BRAC schools with an en
Page 23 and 24: In 2007, a congruence of three fact
Page 25 and 26: education policy expert team feel t
Page 27 and 28: impact on, influence of, and relati
Page 29 and 30: Meta-Evaluation of USAID Basic Educ
Page 31 and 32: continued to build, the team decide
Page 33 and 34: the conditions that allowed educati
Page 35 and 36: Thus, at USAID’s request, EQUIP2
Page 37: Nonetheless, EQUIP2’s work on Opp
Page 41 and 42: do this for $1 million, but here’
Page 43 and 44: For partnerships to really work, it
Page 45: Second, EQUIP2’s complementary ed
Page 52 and 53: 46 in strengthening ties with the p
Page 58 and 59: 52 sector, and members from the int
Page 60 and 61: 54 schools from all over the countr
Page 64 and 65: 58 KOSOVO: BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM
Page 82 and 83: 76 modeling good sanitation practic
Page 86 and 87: 80 of Education to sustain educatio
Page 88 and 89:
82 EQUIP2 Leader Award Final Report
Page 92:
For more information, please contac
show all

EQUIP2 Final Report.pdf - Education Policy Data Center

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?