9 in 10
supported students stayed enrolled through the year
Students in the Education Support Programme were retained at a higher rate than the comparison group in the same schools.
Evidence: School attendance registers and term-end enrolment lists
Our Impact
What has changed, and how we know
We would rather report fewer numbers we can stand behind than many we cannot. This page explains how we measure our work, shows the results so far, and is honest about what has not worked and what we still cannot claim.
- Reporting period
- Latest completed programme year
- Scope
- Pauni taluka & Bhandara district
- Method
- Outcome tracking each cycle
- Assurance
- Financials independently audited
At a glance
The numbers we track most closely
5,000+
Students reached
1,000+
Students guided to scholarships
900+
Youth trained in skills
12,000+
Saplings planted
30+
Villages covered
Figures are cumulative since inception unless noted, rounded, and drawn from programme records. Precise year-on-year data is published in the annual report on the Transparency page.
How we measure impact
From activity to outcome to evidence
Counting activities — sessions held, students enrolled — is easy but does not prove change. For each programme we define the outcome we expect, collect data where the work happens, check it, and publish it.
Define the outcome
Before a programme starts we agree what success looks like and which one or two indicators show it.
Collect at the source
Attendance, test scores, placements and health referrals are recorded in the field, not estimated later.
Verify
Field data is cross-checked against school registers and partner records before it is reported.
Publish
Results — good and bad — go into the annual report and are shared with the communities involved.
What we do not claim
Many things influence a child's education. Where we cannot reasonably isolate our contribution, we report the change and our role in it, without claiming sole credit.
Outcomes by focus area
Results against each initiative
1,000+
students guided towards scholarship examinations
Cumulative since inception; a growing share now sit the NMMS and Navodaya examinations with structured preparation.
Evidence: Application records and result letters shared by families
7 in 10
course completers moved into work or further training
Digital-literacy and employability learners who finished a course were tracked for six months afterwards.
Evidence: Follow-up calls and employer or self-employment confirmation
~70%
one-year survival rate for planted saplings
Plantation drives are only counted as successful if saplings are cared for and survive their first year.
Evidence: Geo-tagged follow-up surveys with school and youth groups
Results snapshot
Key indicators, latest values
| Indicator | Latest result | Target | Data source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retention of supported students | ~92% | ≥ 90% | School registers |
| Students reaching grade-level reading | Improving | +15 pts per year | Termly assessments |
| Scholarship applications supported | 300+ per year | Increase yearly | Application records |
| Skilling learners in work after 6 months | ~70% | ≥ 65% | Follow-up survey |
| Sapling one-year survival | ~70% | ≥ 70% | Geo-tagged survey |
Values shown are indicative pending publication of the current annual report. Full definitions and the previous year's figures are in the report.
Learning
What did not work, and what we changed
Being useful means saying what went wrong. A few things we have learned:
- One-off health camps had little lasting effect without follow-up, so we now build referral tracking into every camp.
- Large group classes were less effective than small peer-learning circles, which are now our default format.
- Plantation numbers looked good on paper until we started measuring survival; we now report only surviving saplings.
Back work that is measured
Your support funds programmes that set targets, track outcomes and publish results. See the reports, then decide.