Summary of 2nd Evaluation Results
1. Outline of ProjectCountry: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Project Title: Project on Improvement of Literacy
Education Management in Afghanistan (LEAF 2)

Issue/ Sector: Basic Education

Cooperation Scheme: Technical Cooperation
Project

Division in Charge: Human Development

Total Cost: 990 million yen (as of Terminal

Department

evaluation)

Period ofApril 26, 2010 – January 31, 2016

Partner Country’s Implementation

Cooperation(5 years 10 months)

Organization: Ministry of Education, Literacy※According to this evaluation

Department

results, the project period was

Cooperation Organization (Japanese side): nil

extended by January 2018
1-1 Background of the Project
The adult literacy rate of Afghanistan is estimated as low as 34% with a huge gap between male (50%) andfemale (18%). Such a gap can be observed between rural and urban areas. To address this inequity, a numberof projects/programs on literacy education have been implemented by the Literacy Department (LD) of the
Ministry of Education (MoE), development partners, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and otherstakeholders. Currently, the Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE) has been led by LD and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to orchestrate the activities among all
the organizations working on literacy education for the achievement of the national goal mentioned in the
National Education Strategic Plan (NESP). In 2011, a total of 574,433 learners (278,801 males and 295,632
females) were taught by 15,450 facilitators (7,663males and 7,787females) in 22,660 courses run by various
stakeholders around the nation.
The Project on Support for Expansion and Improvement of Literacy Education in Afghanistan (LEAF1) was
implemented from March 2006 to July 2008 under the cooperation between LD and the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA). Through the LEAF 1, knowledge and management skills of LD on data,
literacy courses, relevant materials, and training for supervisors (currently called as “monitors”) wereenhanced. Also, 10,347 learners received literacy education provided by LEAF1 in Kabul, Balkh andBamiyan Provinces. LEAF1 was evaluated that it achieved its Project Purpose with positive outcomes but
had weaknesses in its sustainability. Therefore, continuous support was necessary to strengthen LD’s
capacity of literacy education management.
The Government of Afghanistan (GOA) then requested technical cooperation for the Government of Japan(GOJ) on capacity development of supervisors who play a central role in implementing literacy courses. In
response to the request, the Project on Improvement of Literacy Education Management in Afghanistan
Phase 2 (LEAF2, hereinafter referred to as “the Project”) was designed, and the Record of Discussions (R/D)
was signed on February 18, 2010 accordingly.
The Project was originally planned from April 2010 to March 2014. Due to external factors such as security
deterioration, the activities of the Project were not completed by the end of the initial project period. The

xii

duration of the Project was extended twice to January 2016 based on the the first terminal evaluation in
January 2014 and the series of discussion between the Afghanistan side and JICA. As the Project will becompleted in January 2016, the Terminal Evaluation Study has been conducted.
1-2 Project Overview(1) Overall GoalManagement and quality of literacy education in Afghanistan will be improved.
(2) Project Purpose
Monitoring and technical support capacity of literacy administration is enhanced for quality improvement ofliteracy education.
(3) Outputs
Output 1
Output 2
Output 3
Output 4

Framework of monitoring and technical support covering all literacy courses is developed
Measures for assessing learning achievement of learners after completion of course aredeveloped.
Measures for reporting and information sharing are developed and implemented.
Measures for technical support are developed.

(4) Inputs (As of the second Terminal Evaluation)【Japanese Side】
・ Personnel : A total of 20 Japanese experts in 10 areas 166.23 166.23MM (66.56MM in Afghanistan,
35.88 MM in third country, 63.80MM in Japan)
・ Equipment: Computers, printer, projector, copy machine, video camera, air conditioner and generator
・ Local cost: Cost of training, material production and pilot activities. Contract for implementation of thenationwide training
・ Training in Japan : Training on audio-visual technique in 2015
・ Training in Third Country: A total of three trainings in Bangladesh in 2011, India in 2012 and Pakistan
in 2014【Afghanistan Side】
・ Personnel: A total of 59 officials were assigned as main C/P personnel of the Project.
・ Local cost: Office space in Kabul and Balkh and all utility charges.
2. Evaluation Team
Role in the Team
Team Leader

Name
Mr. Shinichi Ishihara

Education Planning
Evaluation and Analysis

Mr. Junpei Yoshida
Ms. Maki Hamaoka

Period of Evaluation

Position/ Organization
Team Leader, Basic Education Group ,Human Development Department, JICA HQ
Human Development Department, JICA HQ
Consultant/ FASID

July, 2015 to November, 2015

xiii

Type of Evaluation: Terminal Evaluation

3. Results of Evaluation
3-1

Achievement of Outputs

3-1-1 Output 1: Framework of monitoring and technical support covering all literacy courses isdeveloped
Achievement Status: In progress (almost achieved)
Indicator 1-1: Monitoring manual is developed with the consensus of stakeholders.
Achievement Status : Achieved
The Project developed Monitoring Manual, Assessment Tools and Guidelines (hereinafter called “ATG”),
Data Collection Guideline (hereinafter called “DCG”), Monitoring Training Manual, and technical support
tools (including Teaching Method Manual) in 2012. The Project tested these manuals and guidelines in pilot
areas and revised them reflecting feedback verified in the nationwide monitoring training (hereinafter called“nationwide training) and discussion with relevant organizations.
At the time of the first terminal evaluation, the Monitoring Manual was not finalized. It was recommended
to the Project that the Manual should be finalized and approved by LD as early as possible so that new
monitoring system developed by the Project is used extensively in real setting without delay.
Afterwards, having been approved by LD in February 2014, new monitoring system (three manual andguidelines) developed by LEAF2 was officially announced in LIFE meeting in May 18, 2014. The manuals
and guideline have been distributed to all PLC and DLC through the nationwide training.

The number of

distribution is as follows; 1) Monitoring Manual and ATG are 1600 copies (900 copies in Dari version and
700 copies in Pashto version) and 2) Assessment Tools are 4700 copies (2700 copies in Dari version and2000 copies in Pashto version).
Indicator 1-2: Trainings for DLCs are conducted by PLC trainers at least twice during the project periodwith 60% of DLC monitors in attendance.
Achievement Status: Almost achieved
The attendance rate of the nationwide training implemented so far is shown in the Table 1. Although thethird round of the nationwide training which is being implemented in the 4th year delayed due to thedeterioration of security, it is expected to be completed by the end of September 2015. If the targeted
monitors attend the training as planned, the attendance rate is expected to achieve the target value.

Table 1 : Attendance rate of the nationwide training

Number of target monitors
Number of monitors who attended
Attendance rate (%)
Source: Documents provided by the ProjectFirst round(2012)
880
670
76.1

xiv

Second round(2013-2014)
476
409
85.9

Third round(2015）
386
In progress3-1-2 Measures for assessing learning achievement of learners after completion of course aredeveloped.
Achievement Status: Achieved
Indicator 2-1: Assessment tools are approved by LD by the end of the project.
Achievement Status: Achieved.
The Assessment Tools and Guidelines (ATG) were developed by the Assessment TWG. The tools consist of
Pre-assessment (before starting a literacy class), the First Assessment (Level One: after three months oflearning basic literacy), the Second Assessment (Level Two and Three: after six months), and the Third
Assessment (after nine months: at the completion of post-literacy courses). The Dari version of ATG wasapproved by the former Deputy Minister of MoE in November 2013. Since the Pashto version was not
approved at the time of the first terminal evaluation, it was recommended to the Project to make the Pashto
version approved as early as possible. The Pashto version was officially approved by the LD in February
2014, officially announced in LIFE meeting in May 2015. The ATG is being distributed through the thirdround of nationwide training.
3-1-3 Output 3: Measures for reporting and information sharing are developed and implemented.
Achievement Status: Once achieved, however, needs to be re-strengthened.
Indicator 3-1: At least 65% of PLCs report data on all literacy courses of all districts to LD quarterly.
Achievement Status: The first terminal evaluation team judged this indicator as achieved; however, it needs
to be re-strengthened.
In 2010, before the commencement of the Project, only 2 out of 35PLCs (5.7%) submitted data on all
literacy courses of all districts to LD quarterly. The submission rate improved from 51.4% (18 out of
35PLCs) in 2011 to 82.9% (29 out of 35PLCs) in 2012. Significant improvement in reporting was madethrough the efforts of officers at PLCs/DLCs. Based on achievement in 2012, the first terminal evaluation
judged this indicator as achieved.
However, the second terminal evaluation found that the number of PLC who submitted data on literacy
courses in all four quarters decreased (See Table 3). The following are main reasons for the decrease in datasubmission; (1) Some of PLCs does not submit the data if there is not updated information since the previous
submission1, (2) In the course of the fiscal year 2013, registration form which was included in Data
Collection Guideline was newly added for NFE-MIS. Since this registration form is to be submitted at the
beginning and end of the literacy courses, it is assumed that this frequency is applied to data submission
which was expected to be quarterly initially2. In fact, among four times per year, the number of PLCs
submitting data in the first and the fourth quarter reach 26 (74 % ). In 2014, the submission rate much
1 Source : Questionnaire survey
2

In general, literacy courses starts in March or September in Afghanistan. The period of literacy course is nine months in total, composed of
Basic Literacy Course (six months) and Post Literacy Course (three months). The registration form is submitted at the commencement of thecourse and the closing of the course.

xv

improved compared to the previous year for the reasons; 1) LD emphasized on all PLC to send their reports
on time and completely; 2) it follows up to receive the report and 3) the planning and statistical officer
position wasn't recruited in 2013 but was assigned in 2014. It is desirable for LD to promote submission
continuously in order to increase the number of PLCs which submit the data in all four quarters, insistingdata submission even though information is same as the previous submission.
Table 2 : Quarterly data submission rate on literacy courses by PLC
Before the Projectcommencement
2010
35

Project implementation period

Number of PLC
Number of PLC which2submit the data
Submission rate (%)
5.7
Source: Documents provided by the Project

2011
35

2012
35

2013
35

2014

18

29

9

16

51.4

82.9

25.7

45.7

35

Indicator 3-2: 85% of DLCs report data on all literacy courses to PLCs quarterly.
Achievement Status: The first terminal evaluation team judged this indicator as achieved; however, it needs
to be re-strengthened.
In 2010, before the commencement of the Project, LD was not collecting data from DLC. In 2011, thesubmission rate of all literacy courses from DLCs to PLCs was 64.8% (267 out of 412 DLCs). In 2012, itreached 90.9% (351 out of 386 DLCs) through the efforts of officers at PLCs/DLCs. Based on achievementin 2012, the first terminal evaluation judged this indicator as achieved. Since then, the Project focused
project inputs on activities which were relatively delayed.
However, the second terminal evaluation team found that the number of DLC who submitted data on literacy
courses to PLC in all four quarters also decreased. The reasons for the decrease in the data submission are
assumed as same as those for the decrease in the data submission from PLC to LD. In 2014, the submission
rate improved compared to the previous year for the reasons 1) LD emphasized on all DLC to send theirreports on time and completely; 2) it follows up to receive the report and 3) the planning and statistical
officer position wasn't recruited in 2013 but was assigned in 2014. It is desirable for LD to promote
submission continuously in order to increase the number of DLCs which submit the data in all four quarters,
insisting data submission even though information is same as the previous submission.
Table 3: Quarterly data submission rate on literacy courses by DLC

Number of DLC
Number of DLC
which submit the data
Submission rate (%)

Before theProject
commencement
2010
n.a.

2011
412

2012
386

2013
416

2014

0

267

351

157

274

0

64.8

90.9

37.7

65.9

Project implementation period

Source: Documents provided by the Project

xvi

416

Indicator 3-3: Annual status reports on literacy activities with analysis and recommendation are developed
and published at least twice during the project period.
Achievement Status: The first terminal evaluation team judged this indicator as achieved; however, it needs
to be re-strengthened.
The annual literacy status report titled “The Statistic Report of Literacy Activities” was developed by the
Status Report TWG in 2010 and 2011. Therefore, the first terminal evaluation judged this indicator wasachieved. However, having verified the current status, the second terminal evaluation found that although thereport was developed in 2012 and 2013, survey item for the report, namely, content of the report was
modified due to the intention of LD each time when new Deputy Minister assigned. Therefore, items which
the Project initially intended such as transition of participants of the literacy training courses, changes
brought by the three project outputs, namely, Monitoring, Learning assessment and Technical Support, havenot been collected. The Project requested LD to include items related to the Project in the format of
NFE-MIS. Since this request was accepted, it is expected to verify outputs of LEAF2 activities through dataof NFE-MIS. The Projet intends to strengthen activities of LD on collection, entry and analysis of data onliteracy education during the remaining project period
3-1-4 Output 4: Measures for technical support are developed.
Achievement Status: Achieved
Indicator 4-1: At least three technical support tools are experimented in the pilot areas.
Achievement Status: Achieved and in progress.
A total of seven technical support tools were developed and experimented by the Technical Support Tools
TWG at the time of the first terminal evaluation. After that, one technical support tools was developed andexperimented. A total of eight technical tools were developed and experimented at the time of the second
terminal evaluation (see Table 5). In addition, the Technical Support Manual on outline of learner centered
literacy education, teaching method on literacy education and Q & A session on various issues on literary
education is expected to be completed by the end of September 2015.
Indicator 4-2: At least two measures of technical support are included in monitoring manual.
Achievement Status: Achieved
Among eight technical support tools mentioned above, the first terminal evaluation verified that the
Guideline for Lesson Plan developed in Kabul was included in Chapter 5 of the Monitoring Manual as firstmeasures of technical support. Since then, training agenda and session plan which include part of the
Teaching Method Manual was included in the final Monitoring Manual.

xvii

3-1-5 Achievement of the Project Purpose
Project Purpose: Monitoring and technical support capacity of literacy administration is enhanced for
quality improvement of literacy education.
Achievement Status: Effects have been verified in terms of utilization of Monitoring manual andimprovement of technical support by PLC/DLC to facilitators in pilot areas to some extent. However,capacity to put together activities on literacy education in a systematic manner as annual status report
has not been sufficiently improved.
Indicator1: Utilization of Monitoring manual by PLC/DLC and other stakeholders is increased.
Achievement Status: Utilization of Monitoring manual has been increased nationwide.
The first terminal evaluation evaluated this indicator as “achieved in the Pilot areas, but not confirmed at thenational level”. According to the logic of the PCM method, if the target area of the project is nationwide, it isdesirable to set indicators of the project purpose which indicate nationwide effects. Accordingly, theachievement of the Project Purpose is evaluated at national level in the second terminal evaluation.
According to the logic of the PCM method, if the target area of the project is nationwide, it is desirable to set
indicators of the project purpose which indicate nationwide effects. Accordingly, the achievement of the
Project Purpose is evaluated at national level in the second terminal evaluation.
With regard to the utilization of the Monitoring Manual, the result of the interview conducted during thesecond nationwide training confirmed that 96.6 % (751 PLC/DLC staff of 777 PLC/ DLC） interviewed.
The first terminal evaluation confirmed the Monitoring Manual was distributed to major stakeholders
working in the literacy sector such as UNESCO, ANAFAE and NFUAJ. Major stakeholders are actually
utilizing the various forms in the Monitoring Manual of other stakeholders. Furthermore, the Project istaking measures to make the Monitoring Manual widely used nationwide, inviting staff of other stakeholders
working on the literacy education in Afghanistan in the third nationwide training which is being
implemented at the time of the second terminal evaluation. The second terminal evaluation judged that theutilisation of the Monitoring Manual has been increased according to the current status mentioned above andthe result of the questionnaire survey.
Indicator2: Facilitators’ satisfaction with technical support is improved. (ex. Increment of technical supports)
Achievement Status: Improved in Pilot areas to some extent, but not confirmed in other areas.
The average of facilitators’ satisfaction rate in the Pilot areas decreased from 70.3% at the time of theBaseline Survey to 64.3% at the time of the End-line Survey (2013). It decreased from 90.0% to 47.0% in
Balkh. While experienced facilitators with more than 10 years’ experience were 40% of facilitatorsinterviewed, many of monitors are relatively young and less experienced as shown in the background of the
respondents; 60% of monitors interviewed had worked for less than three years and 40% of them for three tofive years. Since it is culturally difficult for young monitors to give advice to the elderly in Afghanistan, it
was assumed that technical support from DLC officers to facilitators was not conducted as expected in someareas of Balkh. On the other hand, the facilitators’ satisfaction increased from 47.0% to 85.0% in Nangarhar.

xviii

The case suggested that technical support from DLC officers to facilitators was properly conducted.
The interview with facilitators in Pilot provinces conducted in the second terminal evaluation showed thattechnical support from PLC/DLC officers to facilitators had much improved since last one year compared tothree years before.
Indicator3: 70% of stakeholders are aware of the status report and their satisfaction with the report is morethan 60%.
Achievement Status: In progress to some extent, but status of this indicator has not been confirmed
nationwide.
The End-line Survey revealed that 82.4% of stakeholders are aware of the annual literacy status report as thestatus report. It increased from 23.3% at the time of the Baseline Survey. In this regard, the first terminal
evaluation judged that this indicator was achieved. Since then, a similar survey was not conducted.
As stated below, with regard to the awareness of the annual literacy status report, the effects of the relevant
output, which is development and implementation of measures for reporting and information sharing has
been limitedly achieved, since reporting items have been often modified and it takes time to make NFE-MIS
functioning. Due to the modification of the reporting items, continuous data collection on transition ofparticipants of literacy courses, changes of other three inputs, namely, development of framework ofmonitoring and technical support, development of measures for assessing learning achievement anddevelopment of supplementary materials has not been implemented as initially intended. It is more important
to implement reporting and information sharing as expected before discussing awareness and satisfaction of
the annual literacy status report.
In addition, the result of End-line Survey showed only awareness and satisfaction with annual literacy status
report of LD, PLC/DLC of Pilot area, and a part of stakeholders and does not show the project effectnationwide. It is desirable to conduct a survey to verify awareness and satisfaction on the annual literacy
status report in other areas than Pilot areas to see the causal relationship among the outputs, the project
purpose and the overall goal.
3-1-6 Achievement of Overall Goal
Overall Goal: Management and quality of literacy education in Afghanistan will be improved.
Prospect for Achievement: Improvement is expected to some extent. However, it is necessary to revise
the indicator in order to measure the contribution of the Project effects to the achievement of Overall
Goal.
Indicator1: Completion rates are improved. (NESP: at least 70% of learners complete one round of literacy
training)
Achievement Status: In progress since the commencement of the Project
The completion rates of the literacy training in each year are shown in the Table 4.

xixTable 4 : Completion rates of the literacy training in each year
Year

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Participants
Those who completed the firstround
Completion rate

611,461

574,433

590,215567,913537,439

169,025

227,539

252,317

310,919

238,455

27.64%

39.61%

42.75%

54.75%

44.37%

Source: Documents provided by the Project

The Overall Goal is considered to be attained in three to five years after completion of the Project. The
second terminal evaluation planned to predict the future prospect based on the result verified at theevaluation. However, reliable data on completion rates of the literacy training were not verified for thefollowing reasons; Participants and those who completed the literacy training are both those who started thetraining (those who are registered) in the current fiscal year and those who completed the training course in
the same current fiscal year. As a result, the target is different. When NFE-MIS being developed by LD getsfunctioning, it is possible to follow if participants who are registered complete the literacy training or not
through database and to calculate more reliable completion rates. With regard to the NFE-MIS, it is difficult
to get a clear view of the timing when NFE-MIS starts, since organizational arrangement including
assignment of the officer in charge of programming under being recruited and assignment of staff to processhuge amount of data after its collection has not been completed.
Although the data on completion rates lack accuracy, it indicates progress up to 2013 from thecommencement of the Project. However, the rate dropped in 2014, which indicate that the completion rates
do not increase constantly. In the Project fourth year, literacy needs survey is being experimented to analyze
reasons why many participant have not completed. Since improvement of completion rates relate closelywith capacity building of facilitators, training of trainers for facilitators’ training, revision of current
curriculum, which are not covered by the Project. It is required to clarify issues related to the completion ofliteracy training and to consider actions necessary to solve such issues.
It is better to expect future completion rates based on the result of literacy needs survey first. Then, if the
Project keep the completion rates as indicator of the Overall Goal, it is necessary to consider necessary
inputs to achieve the Overall Goal based on the result of the literacy needs survey. Or, it is recommended toconsider achievable target or to replace the current indicator by another indicator.
Indicator2: Learning achievement of learners is improved.
Achievement Status: Difficult to foresee due to the lack of information on the result
There is no system to aggregate data on learning achievement in LD. Therefore, the current status on thisindicator was not verified both in the first and second terminal evaluations. Currently, the Project is
conducting the third assessment (final assessment at the end of 9 month literacy training) in 24 classes in six
province implemented under UNESCO-ELA3 so that LD will be able to collect data on this indicatorthrough experience of aggregation of data on the third assessment.
When NFE-MIS starts its operation and information is collected in accordance with data collection form, itxx

is possible to aggregate grades of learners granted according to the score of the all three assessment. The
grades are classed into four grades (Grade 4 means repeater, therefore, it is not considered as one whocomplete the literacy course). It is expected to verify data on this indicator on database of NFE-MIS;
however, there seems to be no clear prospect on concrete timing of commencement of NFE-MIS including
staff assignment is not clear as sated above.
3-2 Evaluation Results by Five Perspectives(1) Relevance (High)The Project is addressing the issue of strengthening its management capacity that is prioritized by MoE. The
Project Purpose and Overall Goal remain relevant to the development policy and education policies of
Afghanistan and Japan’s ODA policy to Afghanistan and needs of Afghanistan society. The projectapproach has been appropriate in terms of appropriateness of project strategy, appropriateness of selection of
the target group and possibility of expansion of project effects to groups other than the target group. In lightof the above, the relevance of the Project is high.
(2) Effectiveness (Moderately High)
Effectiveness of the Project is moderately high. Monitoring Manual developed by the Project has been
widely used nationwide and technical support from PLC/DLC to facilitators has been improved in Pilot
areas. However, development of annual literacy status report in a systematic manner has been limitedly
achieved.
(3) Efficiency (Moderately High)
Efficiency of the Project is moderately high. The Project implementation has been affected by several
external factors such as security deterioration and delay of operation of NFE-MIS which development is
expected to have been completed by LD and UNESCO in earlier stage. Limited inputs have been effectively
used to produce intended outputs, in particular, assignment of competent national staff. However, theachievement of the output regarding reporting and information sharing has been limited if it is evaluated forthe achievement of the total project period.
(4) Impact (Emerging)
Positive impact is expected to some extent by the implementation of the Project in the future andimprovement of the management and quality of literacy education in Afghanistan, which is the Overall Goalof the Project. Positive impact was verified such as improvement of literacy courses by facilitators andimprovement of reading and writing ability of learners were verified as positive impacts in the Pilot area.
There is a learner who can now fill the forms for others’ ID card and other things. Another learner sends her
child to market to buy some grocery, writing a list to her child.
With regard to the prospect for the Overall Goal, although the first indicator which is improvement ofcompletion rates of the 9 month literacy training, completion rates increased to some extent, however, it
does not indicate constant increase. In the Project 4th year, literacy needs survey is being implemented to
identify reasons for non-completion. It is better to foresee what extent the completion rates are expected toxxiincrease by referring the result of the needs survey. Furthermore, it is difficult to foresee the prospect for theachievement of the second indicator which is improvement of learning achievement of learners due to thelack data aggregation system in LD. In addition, both of improvement of completion rates learningachievement of learners requires capacity building of facilitators, human resources development for capacity
building of facilitators at the national scale and curriculum revision. However, since assistance of donors for
Afghanistan has been shrinking, it is difficult to predict whether these inputs necessary to achieve theOverall Goal will be provided.
(5) Sustainability (Moderate)
Sustainability of Project effects is high in terms of policy, institutional and organizational aspects. However,financial sustainability remains a challenge and there remain issues to be continuously tackled. Overall,sustainability is moderate. The budgets of LD vary largely depending on years, and besides, other donors’
assistance is shrinking. Therefore, it is impossible to consider that financial resources are continuously
secured. TWG developed Monitoring Manual and Assessment Tools and Guideline in collaboration withJapanese experts, TWG members participated in the different trainings as trainer and they joined in the
End-line survey and needs assessment survey. Through their active involvement in these activities, TWG
members gained knowledge and skills sufficiently. However, there remains other issues to be improved interms of insufficiency of LIFE meetings、decrease in submission rates of monitoring data by PLC and DLC
and limited data management which is closely related with quality literacy annual status report. Technicalsustainability is judged to be moderate as a whole.
3-3 Conclusion
The Project aims to strengthen literacy education management through the use of standardized materials
such as Monitoring Manual, Monitoring Training Manual, ATG, Statistic Reports, and various technicalsupport tools by enhancing the capacity of LD and PLC/DLC officers. In this process, four TWGs
established under the Project were actively involved in all the stages of developing, piloting, revisingmaterials and conducting training/workshops.
The security situation affected the implementation of the Project. Despite the difficulties, a strong team spirit
and trust were nurtured among Afghan C/Ps, Japanese experts and national staff to work toward a common
goal, and each and every member implemented his/her task collaboratively and systematically. Monitoring
Manual, one of major products developed by the Project has been widely and effectively used not only by
PLC/DLC officers but also major partners in literacy education such as UNESCO (ELA 3), ANAFAE andNFUAJ. The policy document on the education sector articulated the utilization of Monitoring Manual,
which supported such nationwide utilization of Manual.
Furthermore, improvement of literacy courses by facilitators and improvement of reading and writing abilityof learners were verified as positive impacts in the Pilot area. There is a learner who can now fill the forms
for others’ ID card and other things. Another learner sends her child to market to buy some grocery, writing alist to her child.
On the other hand, effect with respect to data management and development of systematic literacy annual
status report has been still limited, since target data for report is not fixed and NFE-MIS has not start its

xxiioperation due to absence of officer in charge of NFE-MIS. Data management is one of important factors toachieve improvement of quality and management of literacy education which is Overall Goal of the Project.
It is desirable to focus project inputs in this area.
Five evaluation perspectives are summarized below.
Perceptive
Relevance

Evaluation
High

EffectivenessModerately
High

Efficiency

Moderately
High

ImpactSustainability

Emerging
Moderate

Note
The Project is consistent with policies and needs of Afghanistan
as well as Japan’s ODA policy for Afghanistan. Projectapproach has been appropriate.
With respect to achievement of Outputs and Project Purpose,
utilization of Monitoring Manual and technical support fromadministration to facilitators has much improved. However,achievement of reporting and information sharing including
development of annual literacy status report has been limited.
Despite of difficulties, the Project produced various materials.
However, the achievement of the output regarding reporting andinformation sharing has been limited
Some positive impacts are expected in the future.
Sustainability from policy, organizational aspects is secured
while financial and technical sustainability seems challenging.

3-4 Recommendations
It is recommended to extend a two year extension of the Project period. Specific recommendations havebeen made during the two years extended period as follows:
It should be noted that priority should be given to the following activities.
(1) Analysis of non-completion of literacy training
Among the indicators of the Overall Goal which is improvement of the management and quality of literacy
education in Afghanistan, the first indicator with respect to the completion rates of first round of the literacy
training has not reached 70% which is target value of 2014 in NESP-2.
It is necessary to identify factors affecting large number of non-completion to consider necessary measures
to increase the completion rates.
(2) Public Awareness
It is significant to take measures to increase the understanding of demand side (illiterate and community) on
literacy education in response to socio-cultural situation in Afghanistan. It is recommended that publicawareness be promoted through media and events in a multiple way.
(3) Re-strengthening Monitoring System
The following area should be strengthened for effective monitoring:-

Strengthen LD capacity to analyze the monitoring results including PLCs/DLCs report data, and get
feedback to the contents of the literacy program, capacity building of facilitators, NFE-MIS etc.

xxiii

-

In order to effective monitoring on the ground level, community participation in monitoring
activities should be explored.

-

Since integrating the assessment data through the format which is developed by the Project into
NFE-MIS is crucial, the adjustment of NFE-MIS should be technically supported.

(4) Develop learning materials & delivery methods for leaners as a pilot activity
To make the literacy program more attractive for learners, it is recommended that learning materials anddelivery methods (e.g. distance learning through mobile in a flexible way) should be developed as a pilot
activity in a small scale scale (e.g. one district in near Kabul).
(5) Develop capacity building program in teaching skills of facilitators for master trainers & Trainersof Training of Trainers(TOT) for master trainers
For strengthening the capacity of facilitators in sustainable way, the continuous supporting mechanism forfacilitators is important. It is recommended that the development of capacity building program in teachingskills of facilitators for master trainers, and TOT for master trainers be implemented in the pilot district.
(6) Mutual Learning
Since learning other countries’ experience of literacy program such as innovative delivery method is very
useful, mutual learning through the study visit is encouraged.
3-5 Lessons Learned(1) Strategic Human Resource Development with respect to National Staff
The Project owed much competent national staff to continue project activities at national level, while
Japanese experts have not been allowed to travel in Afghanistan due to security deterioration. When
implementing a project in a country where security is not stable such as Afghanistan, it is possible todecrease influence of absence of Japanese experts if the Project team developed capacity of national staff
strategically and to build trustful relation between Japanese experts and national staff in preparation for acase that Japanese experts are not allowed to travel due to security deterioration. Also, it is important to
involve national staff together with C/Ps in decision making process intentionally to ensure staff that is able
to play leading role during absence of Japanese experts and to maintain communication between theimplementing agency and Japanese experts.

(2) Revision of PDM in accordance with Extension of Project Period
The project period was initially expected for four years from April 2010 to March 2014. The project period
extended twice since the implementation of project activities delayed due to the security deterioration.
Eventually the project period has become 5 years 10 months up to January 2016. However, it seems that theindicators stated in the PDM have not been sufficiently monitored for reasons that most of the indicators
achieved according to the initial project period of four years. For instance, it was necessary to monitor
continuously indicators of outputs contributing to the achievement of the Project Purpose and the Overall
Goal, even though they reached once the target value. When the project period is extended, it is desirable toxxiv

review PDM to see if it is necessary to revise indicators of outputs and project purpose to be achieved in theextended project period.

xxv