Non-State Providers (NSP) in Education

Cambodian Case StudyKampuchean Action for Primary Education

(KAPE)

(The Role of NSPs in Delivering Basic Social Services, Manila, 20 April 2010)

1

Content Summary1. Aspects of

Regulatory Environment & Service Delivery

2. KAPE: Brief Agency Background

3. Approaches to Service Delivery & Manifestations of PPP

4. Successes, Challenges, & Lessons Learned 2

A General Note on Relevance . . .

The Cambodian regulatory framework and experience may have considerable relevance to many countries that have or are emerging from socialist backgrounds

Thus, the Cambodian experience may have relevance to such countries as Mongolia, Lao PDR, (where there are currently no LNGOs), and others.

3

Part 1: Aspects of the Regulatory Environment &

Service Delivery

General Aspects

The first LNGO was established in 1991, so the idea of NGO involvement in the service area is relatively new

There are now about 2,000 NGOs/CBOs operating in Cambodia

In the Education Sector, there are about 100 NGOs, both international and local, according to the NGO Education Partnership

The vast majority of the 80 or so LNGOs work in Non-formal and only a handful in the Formal Education Sector 4

It’s important to note that we often take for granted the availability of LNGOs . . .

The few LNGOs operating in the formal sector are niche agencies, focusing on specific areas such as children’s rights, youth, and other technical areas

It is difficult to imagine a big role for NSPs in the formal sector in Cambodia as direct service providers without more LNGOs

Why is there this disparity in the number of LNGOs working in the formal sector?The funding environment has not supported the

creation of LNGOs, particularly in the formal sector Issues of staff credentials, expertise, knowledge of

policies, etc. are serious obstaclesThe sector tends to be dominated by INGOs 5

The contrast with the Health Sector. . .The Health Sector boasts an NSP sector

that is considerably more developed

In contrast to Education, there are very large NSPs working in the Health Sector

Why??

The donors, particularly the bilaterals, in Health had much more foresight in building up Non-profit NSPs

6

About for-profit service providers in education . . .There is a vibrant involvement of for-profit NSPs

in direct service delivery in the formal sector, mainly in the form of private schools

This is mainly limited to pre-primary and/or urban settings

At primary and secondary level, such service delivery is marginal and is mainly aimed at the children of the urban elite

Some private schools also focus on the needs of minority children (Chinese, Chams, etc.)

7

Kinds of Service Support Provided by Non-profits

Most NGO (both local and international) funding of educational services for the poor occur within the state system, mainly as pilotsState buildingsState teachersState policy

There is little or no direct service delivery independent of the state system for the rural poor

8

Why do INGOs, LNGOs, and CSOs focus mainly on providing formal educational services for the rural poor within the state sector?

Acceptance of the fact that the state sector is the primary modality in educational provision for the rural poor, the majority of the country

Most donors until now have had no interest in funding services for the poor outside of the state system

Funding private schools seems to contradict notions of equity among donors and government, since sustainability issues require a reliance on private fees.

9

About the Regulatory Framework

Cambodia currently does not have an NGO law so most regulation is mainly based on a series of decrees

In spite of the less developed nature of the legal framework, the attitude of government towards NGO/NSP involvement in the education sector has been very liberal. For example, . . .Registration is not difficultMoUs are preferred but not requiredLNGOs can negotiate MoUs directly with local

government for investments under $2 millionReporting requirements are negotiated directly with

local authorities 10

Overall Impacts of the Regulatory Framework on NSP Engagement . . . .

Most Public Private Partnerships in the formal education sector occur as pilots within the state system, which then go national

Donor/Government focus is on national level replication, which often leads to a lowest common denominator approach to service delivery

This creates a glass ceiling with respect to quality service delivery due to . . .Structural factors, resourcing issues (e.g.,

salaries), accountability issues,

In many ways, the regulatory framework promotes de facto decentralization 11

Overall Impacts (cont.)

The still developing legal framework amplifies the effects of variability between local govt entities

The role of local variability (with respect to strictness) in certain provinces ensures that some provinces are favored while others are not

Low bureaucratic demands on NGOs by government promote expeditious implementation of projects/high efficiency

The absence of a ‘funding role’ by government ensures that services are delivered in project frameworks rather than government frameworks 12

But . . .The current environment has ensured

that Public Private Partnerships with non-profits have not focused on direct service delivery independent of the state sector

13

Part 2: About KAPE -Agency Background

Date Established: 1999

Staffing: 70

Revenues 1999-2009: $4,957,000Bilateral: 80%Multilateral: 4%Private: 16%

Main Sector of Focus Formal Education

Current Projects: 8 Projects

14

Some Key Observations . . .As Non-profit NSPs go, KAPE is perhaps the

biggest (educational) NSP in Cambodia (i.e., it is not a niche agency)

Some donors (and government) see KAPE as having the most potential for direct service delivery (with links to government)

Is it replicable? How did KAPE get started?

By Accident

15

Historical BeginningsGrew out of a pre-existing project funded by

USAIDEstablished BY Stakeholders FOR Stakeholders

Key factors in its early success/survivalLUCKPersonal networksClose links with governmentInnovative Proposal Content

Unique CharacteristicsNot nationally based/based in one provinceOne of the few LNGOs working in formal

education Programming based on empirical researchActs as an extension of local GovernmentStakeholder representation in the Board

16

Service Content

Child Friendly School Programming

Scholarships

School Breakfasts

Girls’ Education

Life Skills Education

Minority Education

Prevention of Child Labor

Child to Child Educational Services

17

Part 3: Approaches to Service Delivery

1. Advocacy for Funding

2. Stakeholder-driven Development

3. Innovation

18

1. Advocacy

KAPE sees its primary role as an advocate for resources in its home base/province

It was a deliberate choice to avoid being nationally based because it . . .Keeps the agency in

touch with local needsLimits competition with

national government for donor funds 19

Key Point: Funding Advocacy fills a vacuum for local gov’t, which often finds it difficult to advocate for funds

Why??Local gov’t has neither

the time nor expertise in writing proposals

Local government is not well equipped for project implementation

Through LNGO Advocacy, it can participate in design decisions but assign responsibility to LNGO for implementation

Key Conclusions:Funding Advocacy has been an

important form of PPP with $5 million in revenues raised in 10 years

Funding Advocacy is welcomed by local government (nothing to lose and everything to gain)

Complements resourcing from Central Government and promotes local innovation

20

2. Stakeholder-Driven Development

In all of its projects, there is a conscious effort to avoid top-down development

KAPE does not use standardized packages for services; stakeholders design the programming

This promotes ownership and by extension sustainability

Implementation approaches are guided by the maxim, ‘Freedom in a fixed structure’

Examples of mediating approachesOpen-ended school grantsActivity MenusLocal Implementation Committees

21

3. Focus on Innovation Pilots

As noted earlier, Public Private Partnership between KAPE and government has mainly taken the form of innovative pilots within the state system

KAPE has developed several pilots that have since helped government with national replication:Girls’ Scholarships (2001)Student Remedial Classes (2002)Child Friendly Schools Initiative (2002)Community Teachers (2005)Thin Client Technology in IT provision (2008)

22

In summary, . . .KAPE has pursued Public Private

Partnerships in the form of Funding Advocacy and Innovative Pilots

It has been lucky that PPPs have been facilitated by a convergence of agendas

KAPE would reject the ‘blank slate’ model of service delivery

23

Part 4: Successes & Challenges

General Reflections

KAPE’s influence on service delivery in the sector has been disproportionate to its size

There is little doubt that the education service sector in Cambodia would be quite different without the inputs made 24

How did KAPE have this influence? . . .

Basing service delivery on empirical investigation

Innovative programming based on empirical understanding of the context made for compelling proposals

Second-guessing the Zeitgeist

Non-threatening approach

Networking 25

SuccessesEstablished a unique

relationship with national and local government to promote innovation & policy change

Through advocacy, the agency brought $5 million in cash investment in its service area, mainly for services (not infrastructure)

An additional $15 million in in-kind investment occurred, mainly for school breakfast programming

26

Challenges for an Expanded PPP

The Two Scourges of PPP when it comes to direct service delivery: Replication & Sustainability

Replication because it implies formulaic definitions of service delivery for an expanded roll out (local agendas, quality)

Sustainability because it disallows payments for incentives 27

As the agency gets bigger, the pressure to go national becomes greater

How to avoid compromising local development agendas with government/donor agendas?

Becoming bigger is changing the management culture in the agency, which affects service delivery (e.g., access to decision-makers)

Expanded service delivery networks means less time and resources for innovation

28

Lessons LearnedService delivery models developed by KAPE are quite

localized and not designed for national replication

Community-based NSPs such as KAPE are solicitous of their local agendas. This must be taken into account in efforts to better utilize them in the future

Utilization requires more systematic capacity building investments in NSPs, particularly the non-profit ones

Need to complement, not replace or compete with gov’t

Key Issue: Donors and Government often see the necessity of innovative pilots going national;

This often presents us with a difficult choice between fragmentation/innovation versus uniform replication and dilution

29