I Intervention name

Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (BEUPA)

II Region & Country

III Scope and Type of the Intervention

A – What services are provided by this Intervention?

1. Skills Training Services

1.1. Services provided in a non-formal context

1.2. Services provided in a formal context

1.3. Other services and incentives for skills training

2. Entrepreneurship Promotion

3. Employment Services and other Cross-cutting Services

4. Services in the context of subsidized employment

5. Reforms of Labour Market Regulations and (anti-discrimination) Legislation

B – Based on the services you identified above, what would you say are the main categories of the Intervention?

Main categories of the Intervention

Secondary categories of the Intervention

IV Description of the Intervention

A – Nature/Objective of the Intervention

BEUPA aims to improve the life perspectives of out-of-school children and adolescents between 9-18 years. Learners attend a flexible training program for literacy, numeracy with integrated production and life skills.

B – Labor market barriers/failures to be addressed by the Intervention

C – Description of the Intervention

BEUPA is one branch of several Ugandan initiatives comprising at the complementary basic education.

The essential features of BEUPA include:

• Mother-tongue education; • Integrated approach to learning; • Similarity between the primary school curriculum and the BEUPA curriculum. The core curriculum of BEUPA is a condensed version of the primary school curriculum(Mathematics, Integrated Science, Social Studies and English). There is also instruction in psycho-social life skills, and living values education. • The close relation between BEUPA and formal primary school facilitates interaction between the two. If they drop out from one sub-sector they can drop in the other. • The delivery of the curriculum is shortened to 3 years from 5 years. The curriculum contents are organized into learning areas; a learning area is equivalent to one term’s instruction. • Utilization of expertise from the community in skills training provides a vital link between the school and the community, and makes the school a part of the community. - Learning takes place three hours a day leaving the rest of the day for the learners to engage in other survival activities.

Designed a basic education curriculum for 3 years in a thematic approach using local language for instruction, 15 modules for pre-vocational skills training; Mobilised communities and trained instructors

V Status of the Intervention

Ongoing

VI Timing

Year when the Intervention started

1997

Year when the Intervention finished

B – Average duration of the Intervention per cohort / round / batch

3

VII Beneficiaries

A – Age group targeted by the Intervention

Only young people

B – Age bracket of beneficiaries

From: 9 to: 18

C – Total number of beneficiaries of the Intervention

Unknown

D – Average number of beneficiaries per round or batch

Unknown or not applicable

E – Primary location of the Intervention

Urban

F – Gender considerations

Gender is not a criterion for participation in the Intervention

G – Disability considerations

Disability is not a criterion for participation in the Intervention

H – Ethnic considerations

Ethnicity is not a criterion for participation in the Intervention

I – Targeting of the Intervention towards low income individuals

The Intervention targets primarily low income individuals

J – Targeting of the Intervention towards individuals with low education or out of school

The Intervention targets primarily individuals with low levels of education and/or drop-outs

K – Targeting of the Intervention towards individuals at risk

Being at risk is not a criterion for participation in the Intervention

VIII Implementation

A – Implementing agency, name/s

Implementation: Kampala City Council (KCC) Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES)with partnerships with NGOs and private companies. FInancing: MOES (about 60 percent of funding – largely for instructor salaries and construction), the Germany Government (about 34 percent of total funding) and by the Kampala City Council (about 6 percent of funding).

A 1. Implementing agency Type/s:

B – Main source/s of financing of the Intervention

IX Evaluation information

A – Type of evaluation available on the Intervention

Process evaluation

B – Period covered by this evaluation

Period is unknown

C – Results of the evaluation in terms of process

A preliminary evaluation noted its successes in collaborating with artisans from the community, the attempts to organize apprenticeships for learners seeking practical experience, and the general advantage of this type of program over conventional literacy classes. Yet, it has been argued that full impact on occupational trends cannot be attained without a more holistic approach in literacy education.

2002: It is expanding rapidly having begun with seven centers in 1999, expanding to 54 in 2002 with 3440 students enrolled and 126 trainers. The pupil-teacher ratios were 27 pupils per teachers.

  • land was a growing constraint for program expansion (BEUPA)

As of 2009: 72 learning centres established;176 para-professional community selected volunteer instructors trained; teaching on-going in 70 of 97 parishes of Kampala; 5,884 learners, 25 % of whom returned to formal school and 20% in employment using pre-vocational skills attained to date.

The Germany Technical Cooperation [GTZ] that bankrolled the program in collaboration with Kampala City Council pulled out after the five years program implementation period elapsed.

Success Factors:

a) Facilitation of learning through child-centred and flexible approaches. b) Focus of the curriculum on life after school. Transition from school to work is organized through career guidance. c) Collection of relevant data for planning. NFE has been included in the Education Management Information System (EMIS). This ensures that planning is informed by relevant and accurate data. d) Involvement of the community in the implementation of BEUPA with regard to: - community mobilization - identification and registration of children for the learning centers - Pre-selection of instructors from the community - Monitoring of the processes of learning - Provision of Community Own Resource Persons (CORPs) - Facilitation of pre-vocational skills by members of the community.

Lessons Learned:

a) Learner-friendly pedagogical processes and learning environments contribute a great deal to facilitating learning acquisition. b) Utilization of the services of community facilitators harmonizes the relationship between the school and the community. Instead of being apart from the community the school becomes a part of the community thus enhancing school community. relations. c) The integrated nature of the curriculum enhances the holistic development of the learner in terms of intellectual, physical, emotional and social development. d) Provision for entry into formal education through the organization of the curriculum promotes interaction between the formal and non-formal sub-sectors, and accords the latter parity of esteem.

D – Evaluation design

E – Does the evaluation have a baseline survey?

E – Baseline survey sample size

F – As of today, does the evaluation have a follow-up survey?

No

G – Period between the end of the intervention AND the follow-up survey

H – Outcome indicators:

I – Results of the evaluation in terms of net impact

X Costs

A – Total and Unit costs

B – General information on costs of the Intervention

Specific information on costs to society

Specific information on costs to government

Specific information on costs to beneficiaries

B – General information on net benefit

Specific information on the cost-benefit to society

Specific information on the cost-benefit to government

Specific information on the cost-benefit to beneficiaries

D – Cost-benefit analysis, net result?

There is no analysis of cost-benefit

XI Quality of the Intervention

There is not enough evidence to make an assessment.

XII Sources of Information

1)Thompson, Ekundayo, J.D. (2001): Successful Experiences in Nonformal Education and Alternative Approaches to Basic Education in Africa; Discussion Paper presented at 2001 Biennial Conference of The Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA), Arusha (Tanzania). http://www.assonur.org/sito/files/Thompson%20Paper-%20non%20formal%20education%20in%20Africa.pdf

2)ASHOKA changemakers website: http://www.changemakers.com/educationafrica/entries/basic-education-urban-poverty-areas-beupa

3)Huntington, Eleanor (2008): Educating the Forgotten: Non-Formal Education on Urban Kampala, School for Interantional Training, Uganda: Development Studies, http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=isp_collection

4) http://ugandaradionetwork.com/a/story.php?s=19042

5)Garcia, Marito & Jean Fares (eds.) (2008): Youth in Africa’s Labor Market, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1208379365576/DID_Youth_African_Labor_Market.pdf

6)Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) (2006): More and Better Education. What Males Effective Learning in SChools, in Literacy and Early Childhood DEvelopment Programs? Proceedings of the Biennale on Education in Africa, Libreville, Gabon, March 27-31, 2006, http://www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/action/telechargerDocument?method=telechargerDocument&urlDoc=%2Fusr%2Fapache-tomcat%2Fwebapps%2FadeaPortal%2Fpublications%2FBiennale2006%2Fbien_06_rap_en.pdf

7)Ilon, Lynn & Robinah Kyeyune (2002): Cost Evaluation of Complementary Basic Education Programs in Uganda, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACX607.pdf