THE EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES

DAY 1 APPROACH
An approach to preparing immediate responses to education needs in a humanitarian crisis

A LESSONS LEARNED CASE STUDY

An analysis of lessons learned from testing the Day 1 approach in 3 pilot countries
Colombia, Pakistan and Somalia 2020-2022

November 2022
CONTENTS
1. OVERVIEW: THE EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES DAY 1 APPROACH 3
Purpose of the Day 1 approach 3
Coordination structure 3
Day 1 toolkit 4
Day 1 process in 7 steps 5
Day 1 categories, indicators and outputs 6

2. COUNTRY PILOTS 7
Somalia 7
Pakistan 9
Colombia 11

3. LESSONS LEARNED 13

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 18

ANNEX: METHODOLOGY & SOURCES 23

2
1. OVERVIEW: THE EDUCATION IN
EMERGENCIES DAY 1 APPROACH
PURPOSE OF THE DAY 1 APPROACH

The Education in Emergencies (EiE) Day 1 approach has been developed by Save the Children (SC)
in order to increase the speed and quality of the initial response capacity in EiE. Day 1 is a strategic
priority for SC and a key component of SC’s current Humanitarian Plan. The approach is aimed
at bringing together both operational and technical priorities. It outlines what is needed for SC
and partners to prepare for and deliver an education response, which ensures that all children’s
learning and wellbeing needs are prioritised from the outset of every acute humanitarian crisis.
This approach aims to strengthen EiE preparedness on the technical level while complementing the
existing the Country Emergency Preparedness Planning (EPP) process. Country Office teams can
use Day 1 before, during or after an EPP process to prepare a more in-depth EiE response.

COORDINATION STRUCTURE

The core of Day 1 planning and implementation is at the Country Office (CO) level. Regional and
global level entities have been put in place, in order to support and to share learning across SC.

• Country Office (CO teams: Planning and implementation of Day 1 activities at country
level. The CO team has a self-nominated Day 1 Lead, who is the overall responsible and
accountable person at the CO level. The CO team typically consist of education staff in the
roles such as: Education Program Director, Head of Program Operations, Technical Spe-
cialist, Program Manager, Project Officer, MEAL Manager, etc. - supported by the Senior
Management Team
• Regional Office (RO) Technical Advisers (TAs): Providing technical support to CO teams
• EiE Day 1 Manager: Global level position in charge of overall development, management
and coordination
• EiE Day 1 Task Team: Global leadership and oversight of Day 1
• EiE Working Group (EiEWG): Coordination with the Day 1 Task Team

3
DAY 1 TOOLKIT

The Day 1 toolkit helps guide the CO teams through the Day 1 process. The tools are not prescriptive
and may require adaptation and contextualisation to the geographical area and current type of crisis.

• EiE Day 1 Preparedness Toolkit: A step-by-step guide: This document guides CO teams
in conducting the Day 1 process through assessment, planning, and implementation of
activities to increase their initial EiE response capacity.
• EiE Day 1 Preparedness Scorecard: The scorecard includes 5 categories of different di-
mensions of EiE preparedness with a total of 18 corresponding indicators. It can be used
to assess the level of preparedness to respond to education needs of children from the
first day of a crisis.
• Advanced Preparedness Action (APA) Plan Template: APAs are step-by-step instructions,
guiding teams to produce outputs and increase EiE preparedness scores for each indica-
tor. A planning template has been developed to support teams organise and implement
actions.

MORE INFORMATION ON DAY 1

The Day 1 Toolkit and accompanying resources (including this case study) are available
in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic. To access these resources as well as
presentations guiding CO teams through the Day 1 process, click here  (link only acces-
sible to SC staff).

4
DAY 1 PROCESS IN 7 STEPS

Day 1 is a holistic and cyclical approach involving 7 steps, guiding CO teams through a process of
planning and implementation of interventions to improve preparedness. Once this process has been
completed, the cycle can be repeated in order to identify new preparedness needs and address new
priorities. The Day 1 steps:

1. Understand Day 1 Preparedness and Organize Team (2 hours): Making sure everyone
understands the process and identifying missing information to be found before next
step.
2. Assess Preparedness and Determine Baseline Scores (3 hours): Assessing and scoring
the level of preparedness for each of the 18 indicators in 5 categories (see below).
3. Prioritise Indicators and Outputs (2 hours): Selecting indicators and associated outputs
to work on over the coming 6 months (no more than 5 indicators).
4. Discuss Scorecards and Prioritization with Senior Management Team (1 hour): Agree-
ing with management on selection of indicators and outputs to work on over the coming
6 months.
5. Develop Advanced Preparedness Action (APA) Plan (2 hours): Developing an APA plan
for each of the selected indicators using the guidance document.
6. Implement and Communicate APAs (6 months process): Following up on the implemen-
tation of APS, approximately every 2 weeks.
7. Re-assess Preparedness and Determine Change in Scores (6 months later): Reassessing
and scoring the level of preparedness for each indicator and assessing the progress seen
in relation to the initial assessment.

5
DAY 1 CATEGORIES, INDICATORS AND OUTPUTS
CATEGORY INDICATOR
1. Risk Informed 1.1 Multiple ways of delivering education to children in the first Outline/menu of planned ways of
Methods to phase of an emergency determined based on context and likely delivering education to children in the
Deliver EiE risks identified in the Country Emergency Preparedness Plan.
1.2 First phase emergency methods of delivering education
to children is planned with other sectors and key life-saving
messages are collected and translated.
1.3 The content of WHAT children will learn and the activities
that will be conducted are decided, contextualized, translated
into appropriate languages based on age targeted.
1.4 A teacher/facilitator training pack is developed and
prepared to roll out.
2. Localized 2.1 SC knows what and how the Government and local/
Response national organisations will support EiE in the first phase of an
Capacity emergency and SC added value is identified.
2.2 SC/ partner(s) have a foundational understanding and
experience in EiE.
2.3 Local partner(s) are ready or identified in most risk prone
areas, vetted, and pre-screened with prepositioned partnership
agreements and partners are provided with institutional
capacity support as required.
2.4 CO & local partner(s) staff participate in developing the
method of delivering education, the content that will be
delivered and the training pack and are confident in both
programmatic, operational and MEAL approach (1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4).
2.5 CO and partners have dedicated staff in place to cover
emerging acute EiE programmatic responsibilities or have
identified and documented surge needs.
3. Sectoral 3.1 Co-leadership coordination roles determined.
Coordination
Accountabilities
3.2 CO has dedicated staff in place to meet coordination
mandate or has identified and documented surge needs and
plans for funding roles.
3.3 SC is aware of and actively contributes to or leads
Education sector wide preparedness.
4. Financial 4.1 Existing education awards reviewed for flexibility if an
Mobilization acute humanitarian need occurs.
4.2 First phase seed funding and donors identified and
templates for proposals developed.
5. Operational 5.1 EiE included in the EPP, which is in place and up to date.
Linkages
5.2 Based upon the methods to deliver education, CVA
interventions assessed and integrated with EiE and CP
programming where relevant.
5.3 Based upon the methods to deliver education and use of
CVA, supplies (tents, radios, teaching and learning kits) are
decided and prepositioned in key risk areas identified in the
EPP.
5.4 Emergency adaptations for recruitment, remuneration and
staff wellness are in place as per CO HR manual.
EXPECTED OUTPUT
first phase of an emergency based on
risks from the Country Emergency
Preparedness Plan
Contextualised, translated lifesaving
messages per risk as agreed on by all
relevant sectors
A package of activities and lessons exist
for all ways of delivery in the first phase
of an emergency, is available in relevant
languages and ready to use
Teacher/Facilitator initial/acute training
pack contextualised and translated
Shared and updated list of all SC, partner,
and relevant government EIE staff in EPP
hot spots
EiE capacity strengthening programme
plan for SC, partner and Government staff
Basic Pre-positioned partnership
agreements in high-risk areas established
and/or training reports from emergency
preparedness capacity development
Training held with partners (Attendance
Sheets/training report)
Shared folder of key ToRs, contextualised
and pre-approved, for rapid recruitment
(including GEHSP)
MoU with Government and UNICEF (or
local agencies) outlining national and
subnational Cluster/Working Group Co-
leadership including complementarity
areas (including GEHSP)
Cluster Team ToRs included in shared
folder of key ToRs contextualised for rapid
recruitment (including GEHSP)
Sector wide documents outlining
preparedness measures are centrally
stored
Matrix of active grants and crisis
modifiers
Shared folder of up to date first phase
donor template, guidance, and successful
proposal examples
EPP updated with outline of each risk and
planned EiE activities
Country Office CVA documents include
EIE considerations and estimated
education related expenditures
Updated list of currently prepositioned
supplies and ready to use PR of first
phase supply lists based on modalities
Updated HR Plan inclusive of EIE program
needs, Coordination and Advocacy
6
2.  COUNTRY PILOTS
SOMALIA

In Somalia, the education team was quite well established and had an experienced EIE technical
specialist. In many ways, Somalia is a context perpetually in a crisis, faced with near constant
conflict, famine, drought and floods. There are within Somalia 3 areas (Somaliland, Puntland and
South Central) which work with varying government structures and capacities. The Day 1 process
in Somalia was generally applied without any alterations to the existing Day 1 toolkit. The large
education team took part in the process, including staffs such as the Head of Education, Head of
Program Operations, Technical Specialist for education and for EiE, the MEAL Manager, Programme
and Project Managers for each of the 3 geographical areas, as well as staff managing major grants
projects. There was participation of staffs also from other sectors in the beginning of the process, like

!
for example the Country Humanitarian Advisor, and staff from the departments of child protection
and supply chain; although attendance on calls tended to fluctuate, particularly at later stages
during the pilot. In the beginning it was needed to engage in conversations to get the management
on board and supporting the process. Education was not usually seen as a major part of the first
emergency response, and it also had to be considered what the financial implications of working in
EiE preparedness were. The team in Somalia prioritised areas to work on in 6 indicators across all
5 categories of the Day 1 framework (which was ambitious seen in relation to the guidance from
the Day 1 toolkit to work on no more than 5 indicators, and that not all 5 categories needed to be
prioritised).

DAY 1 Key Actions And Outputs Achieved

!

!
!
Category 1) Risk Category 2) Localised Category 3) Sectoral Category 4) Financial Category 5)
Informed Methods to Response Capacity Coordination Mobilisation Operational Linkages
Deliver EiE Accountabilities

In Somalia there is It was planned to While EiE coordination A crisis modifier matrix EiE preparedness
a public standard carry out a sector- in Somalia was shared was developed in priorities were included
curriculum, but wide assessment in between UNICEF order to help teams in the country office
all three areas of the know what funds EPP in the last review

!
it lacks Social and SC, a formal
Emotional Learning country to understand MoU needed to be available under that took place.
(SEL) and would the sector capacity updated to clarify current programmes
not be appropriatae (including Government) responsibilities. This could immediately
immediately after an to respond with EiE was done and led be diverted and
acute crisis. It was in acute crises. With to a more engaged used, should a crisis
therefore planned the initial funding involvement of occur. Also, a folder
to develop an available for the pilot, SC in the Cluster was developed with
appropriate curriculum it was prioritised to coordination. documents to guide
for this purpose in start with the area fundraising from
collaboration with of South Central, different donors in
the Cluster and the most emergency the case of crisis
Government. This has affected area, where (such as identification
led to the government a sector assessment of relevant donors,
agreeing to incorporate was carried out. A template proposals
a developed SEL draft ToR, tools and etc).
package into the budget were prepared
existing curriculum by SC and finalised
content of the existing in collaboration with
radio programs. the MoE, the Cluster
and UNICEF, and the
assessment was carried
out by a consultant.

7
Overall, the Day 1 process in Somalia improved general preparedness capacity as expressed also in
the second Day 1 self-assessment (please see average Day 1 score changes in each pilot country
included at the end of the report), as well as concrete improvements via the activities implemented.
In an unstable context like Somalia, it was noted that there had been a tendency in the country
office to see crisis as a normal state. Thus, not seeing the need to be prepared for different types of
emergency situations and how these require very different types of interventions and preparedness.
Day 1 also led to a better understanding in management of why education has to be prioritised
in an emergency situation. There was also a realisation of a need for the Ministry of Education
(MoE) and other key education actors to improve the preparedness capacity, as demonstrated in
the sector survey caried out. For example, the MoE EiE plan only involved a response to COVID -19.
Collaboration with the MoE led to the development of one joint EiE preparedness plan including
responses to emergencies like drought, flood, conflict and humanitarian crisis. The SC team intends
to continue using the Day 1 tool on a regular basis, linked to the cycle of the EPP process in the
country.

8
PAKISTAN

The education team in Pakistan was rather small, and a TA, involved from the outset of the process,
left the position, and a new one was not recruited until after it was finalised. Thus, the focal point
leading the process was taken on by an experienced operational staff person. The Interim Director
was also the Health Advisor, and he was closely involved also throughout the project. Leaders from
all the departments in the office also took place in the first steps. As the team in Pakistan started
out, they intended to use the Day 1 process toolkit without any modifications to contextualise it.
When they undertook the first assessment however, it became clear that not enough time had
been accorded initially to explaining the indicators. In addition, participants found them confusing,
which made the scoring exercise difficult. It was therefore decided to carry out the first steps again,
with more time for explaining and understanding each indicator. The team was experienced in
responding to flooding, but not to a refugee crisis, and therefore initially prioritised actions among
others to respond to an anticipated Afghan refugee influx in Autumn 2021. It was decided to focus
mainly on 7 selected indicators across 4 out of the 5 Day 1 categories (which was ambitious seen in
relation to the guidance from the Day 1 toolkit, to work on no more than 5 indicators). In addition,
different smaller steps were taken to improve preparedness on a number of the other indicators.
The Pakistan CO, with extra funding from SC Norway, engaged in rolling out the Day 1 approach

!
to the Pakistan Education Sector Working Group (ESWG), including among others UNICEF and the
government education department. A three-day workshop was held with the ESWG, and the Day 1
toolkit was adapted slightly for this purpose (mainly by changing the actors from ‘SC’ to ‘Education
Sector/Cluster or coordination group’). It was appreciated by the working group members as a
unique, innovative, and systematic approach; especially by the government education department,
which requested to roll-out the Day 1 approach at the provincial level. Subsequently, the Day 1
approach was presented in two provinces to the ESWG members. Different capacity building of
areas identified during these sessions.

DAY 1 Key Actions And Outputs Achieved !

!
Category 1) Risk Category 2) Category 3) Sectoral Category 5)
Informed Methods Localised Response Coordination Operational
to Deliver EiE Capacity Accountabilities Linkages

Teaching and learning A sector-wide survey Pakistan CO increased EiE preparedness

materials in relevant was carried out on its involvement in the priorities were included

!
languages were the education sector ESWG (the main forum in the CO EPP in the
collected and put in preparedness capacity for EiE coordination last review that took
folders ready to use, for EiE. In addition, a in the country, as place.
should the need arise. Day 1 workshop was there is no active
This included both held with the national education cluster) and
materials for use with level ESWG to present played a leading role
Pakistan children, the approach and by facilitating a Day 1
but also for Afghan identify actions for assessment.
refugees. improvement, and Day
1 workshops were held
with local partners
and actors at national
level and presented
in two provinces to
identify actions for
improvement.

9
The second Day 1 self-assessment, showed a significant improvement in overall preparedness
capacity on all categories, except category 4 on financing, where there was a remarkable regression
(see average Day 1 score at the end of the report). This regression was explained by the fact that
during the Day 1 process, the team had gained a deeper understanding of what preparedness meant
in relation to funding and discovered that they had been too optimistic in the first assessment.
Although the influx of Afghan refugees did not occur, in June-August 2022, Pakistan was hit by
devastating flooding requiring immediate action, including provision of EiE (please see box).
Overall, the Day 1 process in Pakistan improved general preparedness capacity, as well as concrete
improvements via the activities implemented. The team in Pakistan intends to continue using the
Day 1 tool and on a regular basis, linked to the cycle of the EPP process in the CO.

IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF DAY 1 PREPAREDNESS: RESPONDING

TO PAKISTAN FLOODS
The Day 1 EiE preparedness improvement was put to an immediate test in Pakistan dur-
ing the later stages of the pilot in 2022 as the CO responded to the flooding emergency.
The strengthened coordination with the ESWG, that had taken place as part of the Day 1
preparedness improvement, meant that there was already a strong liaison with all relevant
stakeholders. It was therefore possible to work together more effectively on mapping the
areas affected by flooding, collecting data and identifying geographic locations for interven-
tions. CVs of skilful staff to employ in times of an emergency had been collected as part of
Day 1 actions, and therefore these key staff positions were filled much more quickly. The
collection of teaching materials ready for use in an emergency situation was helpful and
meant that response in terms of education provision was made faster. In addition to this, life-
saving messages on health, nutrition and hygiene had been prepared and could immediately
be shared with populations. Overall, the enhanced preparedness from Day 1 made it pos-
sible for the Pakistan CO to act much faster than previously, and SC was among the leading
organisations responding to the flood in terms of EiE provision with the largest geographical
presence.

10
COLOMBIA

In Colombia, there is an education team in charge of both longer-term development in the sector,
as well as responding to EIE needs across the country. This structure had enabled the EiE team to
focus on many of the indicators prior to starting the Day 1 pilot. For instance, the team already has a
10 week, Return to Learning curriculum, as well as Literacy, Numeracy and Social Emotional Activity
toolkits, contextualized, government approved, and translated for use when need arises.

In Colombia a few adjustments were made to the Day 1 process as outlined by the toolkit. It was
decided to start out with a written survey, involving the entire CO staff in responding to the scorecard
questions (the guidance in the toolkit was to do this in a workshop, not as a written exercise). As
the next step, a smaller group of staff from the education team and other sectors discussed the
scores and the prioritisation of indicators to work on and more time than initially planned was
needed, in order to explain and discuss them. Also, it was found that the toolkit indicators were too
detailed, and many of them not entirely relevant to the context of Colombia. This may be because
the education system in Colombia is generally well-functioning; and also, because the level of
emergency preparedness in the Colombia CO education team was already very high. As a general
remark, it was found that a simpler framework would be easier to work with. This could be a kind of
check-list, with less detail and fewer indicators. The view was, that it is not necessary to have action
prepared for every detail. Thus, an option would be to divide the tool into indicators that are ‘must-
haves’ and others that are ‘nice to have’. As another way to make the process lighter, it was also
proposed not to work with scores, but rather just to go through the different indictors and discuss
possible preparedness actions. As the toolkit is now, it may not be equally relevant for all COs. As
an example, it was mentioned that not all countries have a Cluster system, so indicators in relation
to that, would not be relevant for all. Another example was, that much time was spent to discuss the
indicator relating to teaching materials, even though this was already in place in Colombia. Other
indicators that were found less relevant for the CO team in Colombia were to have prepositioned
agreements in place with partners in advance of an emergency, which was not seen as feasible. With
regards to understanding if the authorities have adequate capacity to respond to EiE, it should be
noted that with a decentralised education system like in Colombia, such analysis would need to be
carried out at the level of local education authorities. These education authorities may already have
sufficient capacity, and so the activities to improve preparedness should focus on capacity sharing,
rather than on capacity building. It was decided to work on two indicators across two out of the five

!
Day 1 categories. There was a wish to have worked also on the purchase of education kits, but there
was not enough initial funding to do so.

DAY 1 Key Actions And Outputs Achieved

Category 1) Risk Informed Methods to Deliver EiE

! Lifesaving messages to communities on health, protection, WASH and

other themes existed in Spanish. It was decided to have these messages
translated to relevant indigenous languages and printed, so that they were
ready to use, should the need arise.

Category 2) Localised Response Capacity

A capacity survey with cluster members in one of the municipalities

was carried out to assess what kind of support they would need to
respond to EiE.

11
When the second Day 1 self-assessment was carried out, a much smaller group of relevant staff
was involved. It showed a significant progress across all the indicators, even if the team had only
worked on 2 of these. This could be explained by the fact that the first assessment was carried out
with a large group of staff, not all familiar with EiE. Therefore, they may have given very low scores
regression (please see average Day 1 score changes in each pilot country included at the end of
the report). Overall, the pilot experience of Day 1 in Colombia contributed to a good reflection and
dialogue on EiE preparedness, as well as knowledge sharing across the teams and sectors. They
consider using the Day 1 tools again, but only if it will be modified to be simpler.

12
3.  LESSONS LEARNED
SUMMARY OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED
What worked well - and what was the added value of the Day 1 approach?
The process was useful for all CO teams in terms of creating conversation and reflection on preparedness
in a systematic and holistic manner; sharing knowledge within the education teams; and creating linkages
between technical and operational staff as well as staffs in other sectors. The Day 1 approach was
a significant added value to the teams especially in Pakistan and Somalia, as it helped get a deeper
understanding of EiE preparedness and provided a tool to address gaps in a systematic way.

Did the Day 1 process lead to improved EiE preparedness capacity?

There was a remarkable improvement in preparedness in both Pakistan and Somalia in terms of overall
preparedness capacity and with regards to the concrete actions taken. In Colombia, there was already
a high level of preparedness capacity both within the SC CO team; and also, generally with relevant
education authorities, but Day 1 did contribute to useful reflections and dialogues on how to improve
EiE preparedness.

How was Day 1 linked with the EPP?

In Pakistan and Somalia, actions were planned in the first Day 1 assessment to include EiE priorities into
the EPP. A particularly useful outcome therefore is, that the EiE preparedness in Pakistan and Somalia
was linked in a structural way to the CO EPP processes, thus making it part of the general, immediate
emergency response.

What linkages were made with other actors?

In all countries, Day 1 created awareness of a need to engage in EiE preparedness activities with other
actors, to ensure that they are also ready to intervene. Activities in all countries were carried out such as
for example with the Education Cluster/ESWG, MoE, NGOs and local level partners; this led to significant
results in terms of better preparedness not just for SC but among these other actors.

What were the main challenges in using the Day 1 approach?

Teams are used to working on specific, time-bound projects and staff often work in silos and in their
own sectors. Also, the Day 1 process may seem time consuming for busy staffs, in particular from other
sectors. Understanding the purpose of the Day 1 tool took time, and participants felt that the toolkit
could be more user-friendly and simpler. The tool was not seen as equally relevant in all contexts, and
should therefore always be contextualised.

How were COs supported during the Day 1 process?

The support was highly valued in terms of the initial and ongoing technical guidance support from both
regional and global advisors. It was underlined, that CO ownership was important, but at the same time,
that context relevant regional support together with global oversight and coordination is needed.

How was Day 1 funded and was the funding adequate?

Funding in the form of seed money was adequate to carry out a few smaller preparedness activities,
which was important for motivation and for understanding the use of the Day 1 tool. More funding
would be needed to carry out larger and longer-term interventions to improve preparedness.

What are the plans for the future use of Day 1?

Pakistan and Somalia, and perhaps Colombia plan to continue using the Day 1 approach as a regular
assessment and planning tool, linked to the EPP process. New COs have started applying the Day 1
process, for example in Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Mozambique. Also, discussions are ongoing to
introduce Day 1 in Nepal, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

How can Day 1 link up with other similar initiatives?

There are indications of great interest among country level actors to improve EiE preparedness, and
for example the Global Education Cluster (GEC) is developing a tool for Education Clusters. It could be
foreseen, that the expanded use of the Day 1 approach by SC would stir interest from other actors, and
existing preparedness planning tools that are adapted for specific types of actors should generally be
recommended.

13
WHAT WORKED WELL - AND WHAT WAS THE ADDED VALUE OF THE DAY 1 APPROACH?

The process was useful for all the country teams in terms of creating conversation and reflection on
preparedness in a systematic and holistic manner. It helped share knowledge within the education
teams, and discussions on how to make relevant documents readily available to all, as well as how
to create linkages between technical and operational staff. Exchanges with other sector staff within
the CO were also helpful in establishing linkages and sharing information. This included sectors like
humanitarian intervention; child protection; mental health and psychosocial support; health; water
sanitation and hygiene; cash and voucher assistance; human resources etc. The Day 1 approach was
a significant added value to the teams especially in Pakistan and Somalia, as it helped get a much
deeper understanding of what EiE preparedness means and requires, as well as a tool to address gaps
in a systematic way. An important added value of the Day 1 was that internal linkages were created
between EiE preparedness and other departments in the CO. It made it clear, that all departments
had a role to play in relation to emergency preparedness. For example, getting the human resource
department to be able to make rapid employment of staffs needed in an emergency.

DID THE DAY 1 PROCESS LEAD TO IMPROVED EIE PREPAREDNESS CAPACITY?

The reporting on preparedness activities implemented, together with the descriptions and appraisals
given by SC staff consulted for the case study, point to a remarkable improvement in preparedness in
both Pakistan and Somalia. This is the case both in terms of overall preparedness capacity, and with
regards to the concrete actions taken (as shown in the chapters above on the activities in each pilot
country). In Colombia, there was already a high level of preparedness capacity both within the SC
country team; and also, generally with relevant education authorities. The Day 1 process conducted
by the Colombia CO team, however, did contribute to useful reflections and dialogues on how to
improve EiE preparedness. The assessment scoring exercises show a significant improvement for all
countries (please see average Day 1 score changes in each pilot country included at the end of the
report). However, it should be noted (as explained under each pilot country above) that the scorings
at times reflected a change in the level of understanding of the indicators, rather than actual progress
in terms of preparedness capacity. Day 1 has also contributed to a changed perception of what EiE
preparedness means. Country teams, as well as both Regional TAs and global Day 1 team members
have gained a better understanding, and an increased dialogue and joint reflection. In particular it
has become important to see preparedness as a holistic, continuous, ongoing process, that is not
linked to specific grants, nor only limited to the education teams. It has also increased the awareness
on timeliness of interventions, and the importance for children to start up EiE activities from day
one, and to have material and staff in place to provide this for them.

HOW WAS DAY 1 LINKED WITH THE EPP?

The Day 1 tool is intended to assess and improve EiE preparedness, and for this to be linked with the
CO EPP process. The EPP is reviewed in countries depending on the context – it could be annual, bi-
annual, or in case of emerging crisis. In all three countries, Day 1 was carried out as a pilot exercise,
and thus initially not related directly to the EPP cycle. In Pakistan and Somalia, actions were planned
in the first Day 1 self-assessment to include EiE priorities into the EPP. This took place in the next
upcoming CO EPP review. In both countries it is planned in the future to carry out the Day 1 regular
assessments, aligned with the EPP timeframe and cycles. A particularly useful outcome therefore
is, that the EiE preparedness in Pakistan and Somalia was linked in a structural way to the CO EPP
processes, thus making it part of the general, immediate emergency response. Day 1 can thus be used
to better guide the EPP process and can highlight the gaps and areas to be improved for effective and
coordinated emergency response, including also EiE.

14
WHAT LINKAGES WERE MADE WITH OTHER ACTORS?

In all countries, the Day 1 experience created awareness of a need to engage in EiE preparedness
activities with other actors, to ensure that they are also ready to intervene. A key entry point for this
influence especially with the MoE and other local, national and international partners was through
the coordination mechanisms in the pilot countries such as the Education Clusters/Education Sector
Working Groups. For example, in Colombia an EiE preparedness assessment was carried out with a
municipality level cluster. In Pakistan, great interest in improving EiE preparedness across the sector
was created with inspiration from SC’s work on Day 1; the Pakistan CO, therefore, carried out a
preparedness assessment with the ESWG at national and provincial levels. In Somalia, as briefly
mentioned above, a significant success of Day 1 was that the process led to the realisation, that
the MoE EiE preparedness capacity would need improvement, and several of the specific actions
planned by the CO as part of Day 1 were aimed at encouraging MoE to enhance its preparedness.
At first this was met with some scepticism on the part of MoE officials, but with continued dialogue,
advocacy and collaboration with and influence from the Education Cluster, significant results were
achieved, such as carrying out a sector review; aligning preparedness plans to address different
types of emergencies; and MoE agreement for SEL to be integrated into the official distance learning
(radio) curriculum.

WHAT WERE THE MAIN CHALLENGES IN USING THE DAY 1 APPROACH?

The Day 1 approach introduces a way of looking at EiE preparedness that is holistic and systematic.
Teams however are used to working on specific, time-bound projects and staff often work in silos
and in their own sectors. Also, the Day 1 process may seem time consuming for busy staff, in
particular as it is not linked to projects that they are responsible for implementing. There was a
tendency in all countries for some staff members, especially non-EiE staff members, to drop out as
the process went along. Understanding the purpose of the Day 1 toolkit took time. The scorecard
assessment was initially seen as an evaluation, rather than as a tool for reflection and discussion.
Ownership to the process at country level was important. In Colombia, it was felt that the process
was directed too much from the global team. Also in Colombia, many of the indicators did not
seem relevant by the team to their specific context. The toolkit was in all country teams seen as
very comprehensive, rather complicated and difficult to understand, which required more time than
estimated to explain the indicators. Most people consulted on the use of the Day 1 approach, point
to a need for updating the toolkit documents. There is a wish in particular to have the toolkit be
more user-friendly. Understanding of the lead role of SC in EiE, as well as understanding that it is
important to include and deliver EiE from day one in an emergency response, is not sufficiently
shared all over the organisation. Also, preparedness is not always seen as the holistic and continuous
process that is should ideally be. Therefore, there is a need to engage in internal communication
across the organisation.

15
HOW WERE COs SUPPORTED DURING THE DAY 1 PROCESS?

EiE TAs from regional and global levels provided support to each of the pilot countries during the
Day 1 process. Their role focused primarily on providing technical guidance on the Day 1 process
itself and how the toolkit was meant to be used, while the CO teams were responsible for managing,
directing, analysing and implementing Day 1 and its actions. Regional and global TAs therefore
helped facilitate start-up workshops; continued supporting the process via calls every second week,
and generally provided guidance and support to CO teams as needed. Pilot CO teams report that
the support from regional/global level was generally very much valued, both in terms of support in
the first assessment phase, as well as through continued support in regular online meetings. None
of the CO teams interviewed suggested that any additional support would have been needed. It was
noted in one pilot country, however, that the support from regional/global level could have been
more guiding and facilitating in nature so that leadership remains with the CO team. Initially, there
was not funding for a Day 1 Global Manager position; therefore, Day 1 leadership and development
came from the EiEWG and Day 1 Task Team with direct global-level support to pilot countries from
designated Day 1 Task Team members. Eventually, SC Australia seconded 30% worktime of an EiE
Advisor as the Global Day 1 Manager which greatly helped coordination and support efforts and
also took some workload from already very busy Task Team members. However, the Global Manager
position again became vacant. This fluctuation was felt both at CO level and in the Day 1 Task Team,
and made the process less stable than it could have been.

HOW WAS DAY 1 FUNDED AND WAS THE FUNDING ADEQUATE?

The Day 1 pilot was supported with seed money for implementing a few smaller preparedness
activities as part of the full Day 1 7-step process. Funding for the Day 1 pilot came from different
SC members, all of which was coordinated though the Day 1 Manager. This required management of
various smaller amounts of funding. Funding was used in countries for example for employment of
consultants to carry out sector preparedness assessments, organisation of workshops and trainings,
printing of lifesaving emergency messages to be distributed, etc. It was vital for the success of the
process, that this funding was available to motivate implementing preparedness activities, and thus
also to be able to learn about the tool and to monitor progress. Funding was seen as sufficient by
the pilot country teams for the Day 1 process, but a bit limited in terms of carrying out all planned
preparedness activities they would have liked to do (though in Pakistan they managed to secure
additional funding for some of these activities). It should be noted though, that the Day 1 exercise is
meant as an assessment and planning tool to be used in a continuous a cyclical manner, like the EPP.
It is therefore not necessary that all preparedness action be carried out immediately. In the Pakistan
team, they organised actions according to classes, where some were seen as ‘low hanging fruits’
that could be done easily and at no or very low cost; while other actions were seen as urgent and
necessary and for which funding should be sought immediately. Other actions again were classified
as longer term, that could be implemented at a later stage.

16
WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE USE OF DAY 1?

Pakistan, Somalia, and potentially Colombia plan to continue using the Day 1 approach as a
regular assessment and planning tool, linked to the EPP process. All three countries report that
while funding for the internal Day 1 process would not be needed, funding for implementing the
additional, identified preparedness actions would be needed. One way to secure such funding
could be to integrate preparedness improvement into new proposals. In one of the new countries
that have started up using the Day 1 approach, South Sudan, the process has already managed to
secure funding for the first round of Day 1 through internal funding from the Humanitarian Fund
dedicated to emergency preparedness. In addition to this, Somalia and Pakistan have worked on
developing a way to prepare for more funding to become quickly available in situations of acute
emergency. They have developed crisis modifiers to be used in new proposals. This is a tool that
assesses the risk of various types of emergencies in different geographical areas. It can be integrated
into funding proposals, so that funds from longer term development programs could quickly be
diverted and used for EiE in acute crises. Some level of continued support to the CO teams would
be helpful from the Regional TAs and the global level, in order to provide technical input, share
new knowledge with country teams and facilitate learning across countries. The development of
the Day 1 toolkit was an important achievement to enhance the EiE preparedness across SC. The
translation of the toolkit into Arabic, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish is most helpful in
order for COs across the organisation to start using the approach. New COs have started applying
the Day 1 process, for example in Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Mozambique. Also, discussions are
ongoing to introduce Day 1 in Nepal, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Discussions are also now beginning
to take place exploring the linkages between Day 1 efforts and the broader work being done by SC’
Humanitarian Anticipatory Action Team.

HOW CAN DAY 1 LINK UP WITH OTHER SIMILAR INITIATIVES?

There are indications of great interest among country level actors to improve EiE preparedness,
such as in Pakistan, where the inter-agency ESWG requested SC to carry out an EiE preparedness
assessment. The Global Education Cluster (GEC), that supports Country Clusters and Working
Groups to work towards a predictable, holistic, equitable and well-coordinated response to EiE,
has also received many requests for a tool to guide improvement of EiE preparedness. This tool is
expected to be finalised by end of 2022, and offered to clusters together with training. Preparedness
planning tools should generally be adapted for specific types of actors. The SC tool may be adapted
and used by other NGOs or similar structures; while the GEC tool will be designed for Clusters or
Working Groups, and have more emphasis on collaboration and coordination aspects. Specific EiE
preparedness tools for Ministries of Education have been developed by the UNESCO International
Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). It could be foreseen, that the expanded use of the Day
1 approach by SC would stir interest from other actors, and it should be considered to include
information in the updated toolkit on what types of tools and training offers exist for specific
types of stakeholders. Sharing of experiences, lessons learned and tools among different actors in
EiE preparedness through workshops/webinars, could enhance the quality and expansion of EiE
preparedness capacity.

17
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNTRY OFFICE UPTAKE OF DAY 1
Ownership and contextualisation
• Interest should come from the country teams, and they should own and lead the process
and adapt the tools to their own realities and context.
• A small group should adapt and contextualise the tools before starting. This should include
a review of which indicators are most relevant; adaptation of concepts and language if
needed.

Understanding Day 1
• Create a clear understanding that the toolkit is not ‘written in stone’ – it should be used in
a flexible way and adapted to the context and needs of each country.
• During first phases of the Day 1 process and when conducting the initial review of the
Toolkit with the newly organised team, use the existing Day 1 materials to help create
a clear understanding of what the tool aims to achieve: It assess capacity and improves
preparedness for EiE. It is not an evaluation or monitoring tool. It is a holistic, continuous
process.
• Create an understanding of why EiE preparedness is important: EiE is lifesaving from day
one, and SC has a global mandate to play a lead to ensure this.

Staffing and collaboration across sectors

• Make sure that there is a focal point in the country team to drive the process, and that the
staff person has sufficient time to do so.
• The small group in charge of initial preparations should plan for how much time staff can
use on it: when and how staff from other sectors should be involved; how it will link to the
EPP process.
• Other sectors and departments have a role to play in EiE preparedness; but plan how and
when to involve them. Make sure to involve both technical and operational staff in the
process.
• The leadership (i.e., Senior Management Teams) should be on board and support the pro-
cess, including the use of staff time and support the creation of linkages across sectors.
• Leadership at all levels should be encouraged to make sure that relevant staffs include
preparedness work into their work plans, so that they will have time to prioritise it, with
backing from their superiors.

18
Going through the Day 1 process
• Link the process to the EPP from the outset, get it institutionalised, and create an under-
standing that Day 1 is a tool that improves the general planning and preparedness, not a
one-off standalone activity.
• Liaise and get support from the RO EiE Advisor, as well as from the Day 1 Global Manager and
Global Task Team - especially for those doing the first round of Day 1. Ask them to be connected
with colleagues in other countries, who are already experienced in Day 1 for advice and guidance.
• The process is important: Establishing the dialogue, reflection and sharing within teams
and across sectors is a key result in itself and leads to improved preparedness awareness
and capacity.
• Do not be overambitious: Make a few prioritised actions and follow them through. Focus
on the most important ones first.
• Document the results: Knowledge management and sharing is key to preparedness. Docu-
menting the results of the Day 1 process is part of that. Carry out documentation in a way
that is also understandable for new staffs joining.

Funding
• Have clear expectations in terms of funding: For a first round of the Day 1 process, a small
amount of funding is necessary to implement initial preparedness actions. This will create
higher motivation and better learning about the tool. But it does not need to be a very
large funding – some activities may require no or very little funding.
• The Day 1 process may uncover gaps in preparedness for actions that will require larger
sums of funding. This should then be planned for a later stage, so that time to raise funds
for such actions is allowed.
• Countries should seek to integrate funding for EiE preparedness into larger funding pro-
posals. This could be done for the first round of Day 1, as well as for the continuous as-
sessment and gaps in EiE preparedness.

MORE INFORMATION ON DAY 1

TThe Day 1 Toolkit and accompanying resources (including this case study) are available
in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic. To access these resources as well as
presentations guiding CO teams through the Day 1 process,  click here (link only acces-
sible to SC staff).

19
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS OF DAY 1 AT GLOBAL LEVEL
Updating the Day 1 toolkit
• Make clear guidance and underline the importance of a first step, where a small team ad-
justs the toolkit to the country context, if needed. There may be indictors that the team
wished to add or leave out. There could also be clarifications in the language and details
that need to be explained for the CO team to find it more relevant.
• The Day 1 toolkit documents should be updated to become more user-friendly. Sugges-
tions are to make it simpler; perhaps including fewer indicators; editing the language so
that it is clearer and easier to understand also for people without technical knowledge;
and avoid certain repetitions. More time should be indicated as needed in the guidance
for the initial steps, in order to better explain the purpose of Day 1 and the meaning of the
indicators.
• The way that scorecards are used should be considered: The use of the scorecards was to
some extent initially giving participants the feeling of an evaluation, even if they were in-
tended as a tool to stimulate reflection. If they should still be used for monitoring progress
in preparedness, it should be assured, that the way they are used is well understood by
participants (so that they don’t measure change in understanding of preparedness rather
than improved preparedness capacity). Reflect on the fact that not all indicators may be
equally important, so they should perhaps not have the same weight. It could be consid-
ered, if the scoring by numbers may be altogether left out, and the exercise could instead
be seen as a mapping of different stages of preparedness.
• Include more guidance on how to select the most important indicators to work on. This
could include a distinction introduced between urgent/non-urgent; and short term/long
term priorities.
• During the toolkit update, consider if the programmatic indicators and actions in Day 1
need to be better framed around or aligned with the Inter-agency Network for Education
in Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards and/or SC’s Quality Learning Framework
• Consider elements that could be added to the toolkit, such as a section to note means
of verification with links to relevant documents; and annexes with various planning tem-
plates e.g., for crisis modifiers, budgeting, donor-mapping.
• Determine if (and if so, how) partners and external actors should adapt and use Day 1 for
their own use. For example, SC could include a section in the toolkit on where external
actors, who may be inspired from the SC Day 1 preparedness work, can find adapted/rel-
evant tools for carrying out their own similar assessments.

Documentation and communication

• Continue documentation of Day 1 and disseminate learnings across SC in order to highlight
the importance of preparedness within EiE, and share lessons learned with COs to make
them aware of Day 1 and interested in using it. Sharing concrete examples between COs
on how they used Day 1 in different ways can help give ideas on how the tool can be con-
textualised to various settings. Documentation should include examples of how Day 1 has
led to increased advocacy engagement with the government which and positive changes
on EiE/preparedness and also more examples on how the Day 1 was linked with the EPP.
• Documentation could be hosted on an internal website, so that the toolkit is easily avail-
able to countries, and country experiences and documentation could be collected here as
well.

20
• Documentation and sharing should continue to be in different languages, (such as before
with translations into Arabic, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish) and check that trans-
lations are of high quality, and consistent with SC terminology.
• Develop different communication products in the form of 1-pagers to communicate espe-
cially to leaderships across the organisation about the relevance of Day 1.

Coordination and management

• The Regional TAs should continue to play a key role in providing direct technical support to
COs. When using the Day 1 for the first time, more guidance would be needed, and as COs
continue using the Day 1 approach, they can provide advise based on requests. Furthermore,
they can help stimulate peer-learning on Day 1 across countries in the region via sharing
documentation, workshops, and linking up more experienced countries with new ones, and
spreading awareness on Day 1 to COs in the region
• A longer-term Day 1 Global Manager position should be supported as it is important in terms
of implementing these global-level recommendations, including the continuous develop-
ment of the toolkit, documentation, and providing overall communication with countries,
other levels and structures of SC, as well as with external partners and donors.
• The Day 1 Task Team should be central for providing global guidance and exchanges on how
to continue adapting and developing the approach. There should not however be too much
of a workload on team members (thus the need for country support from Regional TAs, and
the need for a Global Manager position for daily management).
• It should also be considered where the ownership and accountability of Day 1 should be an-
chored. It could be with the One Humanitarian Team (OHT), with the EiEWG, or perhaps with
one of the SC members. For example, overall accountability could sit within OHT, ideally with
a Humanitarian Education Advisor who has a percentage of time dedicated to driving Day 1
(or overseeing a Day 1 Manager). The Day 1 Task Team could remain the main governance
structure for key decision-making; while all key updates are fed back into EIEWG.

Integration with SC structures

• Linking Day 1 to the country EPP processes is crucial in order for it to be seen as a cyclical
and relevant planning tool that contributes to the general country preparedness capacity,
rather than as a separate activity. This could build on the good experiences from the pilot
countries, and further documentation from new countries could provide models for how
this is done. The Day 1 global coordination and learning could benefit from linking up with
SC structures at regional and global level, that provide leadership and support to the EPP
processes.
• It should be considered how Day 1 should be linked with the SC’s Humanitarian Anticipatory
Action (AA) Team, which oversees the EPP and implementation across COs and how EiE and
AA Teams can work together to explore the relevance of the Day 1 approach across other
sectors as many of the Day 1 actions could be relatively easily done for more than one sector
(identification and pre agreements with partners, working with cash and voucher assistance
teams on sector specific needs, review and recommendations for crisis modifiers, developing
lifesaving comms and messaging for communities, etc.).
• It should be considered also to find ways of engaging SC staff and structures at global level
working long term development education programming, so as to create and promote nexus
between the development and humanitarian interventions.

21
Funding
• Funding should be sought to support new country pilots, as well as continuous prepared-
ness improvement actions at country level. Countries should seek to integrate funding for
preparedness activities into new funding proposals.
• At global level, there is a need to ensure stable and predictable funding for the filling the
Global Day 1 Manager position in at least the immediate and mid-term. Discussions should
also be had as to the long-term plans/needs of the Global Day 1 Manager as Day 1 becomes
more fully integrated into the EPP.
• An analysis of different relevant donor priorities and strategies may be carried out to high-
light how Day 1 may best fit in and attract interest of different donors. In addition to this,
guidance on how to present the Day 1 approach to different donors, together with ready-
made advocacy and donor briefs and presentations may be helpful for this purpose.
• It should be considered how the funding for Day 1 should best be mobilised and managed.
A clearer structure for this should be discussed and decided on. This should be considered
in relation to the recommendation above in relation to where the Day 1 coordination should
be anchored. Also, there should be some reflection on how best to identify countries to take
part in Day 1. In addition to interest coming from COs, there should also be consideration
given to where there is the biggest need to go through the Day 1 process.

Linkages with other similar initiatives

• In addition to engaging with the AA Team and exploring cross-sectoral linkages within SC as
mentioned above, the Day 1 global management should engage in dialogues with the GEC,
to see if they wish to integrate learning from Day 1 into their upcoming toolkit for Cluster
preparedness work and vice-versa. Also, it would be relevant to make a plan for how to help
each other communicate and share knowledge to relevant audiences on the existence of the
two toolkits, as well as the continuous development and learning around these.
• The Day 1 global management, in collaboration with SC’s Advocacy and Policy Working
Group (APWG) should engage in sharing of experiences, lessons learned and tools among
different actors in EiE preparedness through workshops/webinars. This could enhance the
quality and expansion of EiE preparedness capacity (with for example GEC, IIEP, INEE, UNI-
CEF, and also main donors such as the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and Education
Cannot Wait (ECW) and the European Union (EU).

22
ANNEX: METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
METHODOLOGY
The case study was carried out by Eva Iversen Consult in October 2022. The methodology involved
the following elements:

Desk study: This included a review of the following Save the Children documents:

• Education in Emergencies Day 1 Preparedness Toolkit

• EiE Day 1 Preparedness Scorecard
• Advanced Preparedness Action Plan
• EiE Day 1 Tracker (analysis)
• EiE Day 1 Introduction Presentation (power point presentation)
• EiE Day 1 Overview Presentation (power point presentation)
• EiE Day 1 Roundtable (power point presentation)
• EiE Day 1 Pilot Roundtable (video recording)
• EiE Task Team Terms of Reference
• Global EiE Day 1 Manager Terms of Reference
• Somalia Education Day 1. Prioritised APAs
• Pakistan: Day 1 Prioritisation of Outputs (power point presentation)
• Pakistan: Day 1 Approach Concept Note, GEC
• Colombia: DIA 1 Piloto Colombia Indicadores & APAs

Consultations: Based on an interview protocol developed with input from the Day 1 Task Team, a
number of online interviews were held with Save the Children staff at country, regional and global
levels, as well as with the Global Education Cluster. The following people were consulted:

ORGANISATION NAME JOB TITLE

1. Save the Children Australia Sara Frodge Former Day 1 Manager
2. Save the Children Colombia Ayse Kocak EiE Project Manager
3. Save the Children Denmark Landon Newby EiE Senior Advisor
4. Save the Children Norway Emily Durkin Former EiE Senior Advisor
5. Save the Children Norway Sian Long EiE Advisor
6. Save the Children Pakistan Farman Khan Education Manager
7. Save the Children Somalia Kassim Hish EiE Technical Specialist
8. Save the Children Spain Meline Szwarcberg Former Education Advisor
9. Save the Children United Kingdom Ben Hill Senior Humanitarian Education Advisor
10. Save the Children RO Asia Rachael Fermin Regional TA for EiE
11. Save the Children RO East/Southern Africa Anne Wekesa Regional TA for EiE
12. Global Education Cluster Elisa Radisone Senior Knowledge Management Advisor

23
 Feedback and comments: A draft report was shared with the Save the Children EiEWG members for
comments that were taken into account for development of the final report.

AVERAGE DAY 1 SCORE CHANGES IN EACH PILOT COUNTRY

Here below an overview from each pilot country on how the scorecard assessment changed from
the initial assessment as the process started, to the second Day 1 self-assessment taking place
after selected preparedness actions had been implemented. The scores range from 1 to 4, where 4
indicates the highest level of preparedness. Source: EiE Day 1 Overview Presentation (power point
presentation).

Average Day 1 Score Changes: Somalia

Operational Linkages

Financial Mobilization

Sectoral Coordination
Accountabilities
Localized Response
Capacity
Risk Informed Methods to
Deliver EiE

Average Day 1 Score Changes: Colombia

Operational Linkages

Financial Mobilization

Sectoral Coordination
Accountabilities
Localized Response
Capacity
Risk Informed Methods to
Deliver EiE

Average Change in Preparedness per Category: Pakistan

Operational Linkages

Financial Mobilization

Sectoral Coordination
Accountabilities
Localized Response
Capacity
Risk Informed Methods to
Deliver EiE

second assessment
first assessment

24