Nepal School Sector Transformation Program (SSTP)

The School Sector Transformation Program (SSTP) supports Nepal’s national School Education Sector Plan, with US$152.28 million in World Bank-administered financing. The Program is implemented by the Centre for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD). Its activities include early-grade learning, teacher development, targeted scholarships, Recovery and Accelerated Learning (ReAL), Girls Inclusive Education Networks (GIENs), and local education planning and management. 

The SSTP builds on previous World Bank-supported education programs in Nepal, including the School Sector Reform Program (SSRP) and School Sector Development Program (SSDP), both monitored by BIC and partners. Several changes under the SSTP align with recommendations from our monitoring, including a shift from broad category-based scholarships toward a needs-based, pro-poor approach; stronger attention to children with disabilities through results indicators and accessibility requirements; and measures to strengthen local governance, monitoring, and capacity.

The World Bank provides financing for SSTP through a Program-for-Results (PforR) instrument, which relies on Nepal’s government systems for implementation. Local governments and community schools therefore hold key responsibilities for implementation, including measures to manage environmental and social risks.

The World Bank’s Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) identifies sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEA/H) and Violence Against Children (VAC) among the program’s social risks, alongside risks of exclusion affecting girls, children with disabilities, Dalit communities, and other marginalized groups. The ESSA also identifies gaps in existing systems for managing these risks, particularly weaknesses in grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs) for SEA/H and VAC complaints and limited institutional capacity at the local level.

According to project documents, the program is expected to strengthen existing mechanisms to address these risks, including GRM guidelines, gender-based violence (GBV) codes of conduct for teachers and students, referral protocols, and school gender focal points. The Program Action Plan (PAP) also calls for stronger environmental and social management at the local level and improvements to the GRM to report, manage, and refer SEA/H and VAC complaints.

Implementation of SEA/H measures depends heavily on local capacity. However, World Bank assessments have identified significant gaps, including unclear Environmental and Social (E&S) responsibilities, limited capacity among local governments and schools, and insufficient staffing, budgets, and monitoring.

The project originally allocated US$6 million in Investment Project Financing (IPF) for technical assistance and capacity building, including support for local governments and safeguard management. The 2026 restructuring moves these funds to PforR results focused on early learning and teacher support. At the same time, project documents noted delays in implementing the Program Action Plan (PAP). Without the US$6 million for E&S capacity and management, it is unclear how the implementation of the PAP will be funded. This concern has also been discussed with the World Bank team, particularly regarding funding for teacher training and the operationalization of the school-level GRM.

Field monitoring

In August 2026, TPO conducted field monitoring in Begnaskali and Rambha Rural Municipalities in Palpa District, Lumbini Province. The monitoring comprised school visits, as well as interviews and conversations with municipal officials, head teachers, School Management Committee (SMC) and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) members, CEHRD representatives, and children participating in Child Clubs. Our findings are detailed below: 

1. School GRMs are not equipped to handle SEA/H and VAC complaints. Most schools visited had complaint boxes, but many were unlocked, unused, or non-functional. Students reported reluctance to use them because they did not consider them confidential or trusted channels. When the boxes are used, complaints concern minor issues such as playtime or stationery, rather than SEA/H or VAC. Capacity to respond to sensitive complaints is also limited. Teachers serving as GRM officers had not received structured training on SEA/H or VAC, and most teacher-counsellors had received only short training sessions. Municipal education sections oversee and follow up on school GRMs but are understaffed. In Begnaskali, for example, only two staff oversee 35 schools. As a result, GRM structures exist, but both schools and municipalities have limited capacity to safely receive, escalate, and respond to SEA/H and VAC complaints.

2. Stigma, fear, and lack of trust create additional barriers to reporting. No formal SEA/H or VAC cases were reported in the schools visited, but TPO identified likely underreporting linked to stigma, fear, and the lack of safe disclosure mechanisms. Teachers and parents lacked confidence and skills to discuss SEA/H openly, and teachers and counselors had received little training on child protection, handling disclosures or trauma-informed support. These barriers make it more difficult for children to disclose violence and receive appropriate support. There are some promising exceptions. Both municipalities have recruited psychosocial counsellors hired through a Swiss-funded safer mitigation program, and one school principal had received 15 days of psychosocial counselling training from a separate NGO before joining the school. Neither are SSTP initiatives, but both provide examples of existing capacity that SSTP could build on to strengthen disclosure and response.

3. Child-focused structures are not used for SEA/H prevention and response. The SSTP supports the expansion of Girls Inclusive Education Networks (GIENs), but implementation remains limited in the schools visited: TPO identified only one recently established GIEN. Other child-focused structures, however, are already active. Child Clubs operate in both municipalities, organizing activities such as debates, quizzes, cultural events, and cleanliness drives. In Begnaskali, the Child-Friendly Section also supports the clubs and organizes exposure visits for child leaders. TPO also identified NGO-supported adolescent girls’ groups and an Adolescent-Friendly Health Corner in one Begnaskali school. TPO found that SEA/H and VAC are not systematically integrated into the agendas of these structures. This is a missed opportunity to use both SSTP-supported GIENs and existing child-focused structures to engage children on prevention, reporting options, and available support.

4. Online SEA/H is an identified risk, though mitigation remains unclear. The SSTP’s Environment and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) identifies cyber-related exploitation and harassment as an SEA/H risk, particularly for girls and marginalized children. However, the PAP does not establish specific measures to prevent or respond to technology-facilitated SEA/H. This gap is particularly relevant for the SSTP given its use of digital learning tools. TPO’s fieldwork reinforces the relevance of this gap: parents and teachers raised concerns about mobile phone use and exposure to harmful online content, while schools lacked digital literacy or awareness programs on safe technology use.

SSTP is supported by a US$120 million concessional loan from the International Development Association (IDA), alongside a US$19.7 million from the Global Partnership for Education (GPE). Total World-Bank administered financing under the program agreement is approximately US$152.28 million.

Our recommendations include the following:

1. Make school GRMs safe and functional for SEA/H and VAC complaints. The school-level GRM Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) should establish confidential reporting options, clear responsibilities for handling sensitive complaints, and simple referral and escalation pathways from schools to municipal authorities. Complaint boxes should be accessible, securely maintained and checked regularly, with clear procedures and timely follow-up on complaints. Students, teachers, and SMC/PTA members should receive regular information on how and where to raise concerns safely. Effective implementation will depend on trained focal persons and adequate municipal capacity and resources for oversight.
2. Strengthen local actors’ capacity to support disclosure and response. Education Section staff, head teachers, GRM officers, and Child Club/GIEN focal persons need practical training on SEA/H and VAC, including how to discuss these issues with children, respond safely to disclosures, maintain confidentiality, and make appropriate referrals. School and municipal counsellors need more specialized training in trauma-informed care, case management, and psychosocial support. Existing psychosocial capacity should also be assessed to clarify how it can support schools and children who disclose violence.
3. Use existing child-focused structures for SEA/H prevention and reporting. GIENs, Child Clubs, adolescent girls’ groups, Child-Friendly structures, and other existing spaces should integrate age-appropriate discussions on SEA/H and VAC, including how to recognize risks, report concerns safely, and access support. These structures can complement the formal GRM by providing spaces to engage children directly on prevention, reporting, and available referral services.
4. Address technology-facilitated SEA/H through local implementation structures. CEHRD should clarify how the online SEA/H risks identified in the ESSA are being mitigated and provide local governments and schools with practical guidance to address them. Municipalities and schools should integrate online protection into activities with students and parents, including how to recognize technology-facilitated SEA/H and safely seek help. Teachers, GRM focal persons, and counsellors should be equipped to respond to disclosures and refer cases, while GIENs and Child Clubs can be used to engage children directly on online risks and available reporting options.