OUR SISTERS READ
MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
JULY 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for 
International Development. It was prepared by USAID/Senegal Monitoring and 
Evaluation Project. The report was written by Gaëlle Simon with support from 
Abdourahim Gaye and Aïssatou Mbaye.
OUR SISTERS READ
MIDTERM PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION
USAID/SENEGAL
Contracted under AID-685-C-15-00003 
USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (MEP)
DISCLAIMER
This evaluation is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Management Systems 
International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report iii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................iv
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction and Project Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Purpose and Questions........................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations.......................................................................................................................... 1
Findings & Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction and Project Background......................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions .............................................................................. 8
Evaluation Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Questions.................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Design, Methodology & Limitations ......................................................................... 9
Data Collection Methods and Sources..................................................................................................................................10
Data Analysis Methods..............................................................................................................................................................11
Limitations.....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Findings & Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 13
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 32
Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ................................................................................. 34
Annexe 1.1: Calendrier d’Execution ......................................................................................................................................48
Annexe 1.2: Matrice de la Revue Documentaire................................................................................................................49
Annexe I.3: Matrice des Resultats, Conclusions et Recommandations ........................................................................50
Annex 2: Evaluation Work Plan................................................................................................ 51
Annex 2.I: Getting to Answers Matrix ..................................................................................................................................63
Annex 2.2: Evaluation Timeline ...............................................................................................................................................67
Annex 2.3: Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................................68
Annex 3: Interview Guides ......................................................................................................... 69
Annex 4: School Level Data for Sampling ................................................................................ 74
Annex 5: Sources of Information............................................................................................... 76
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The evaluation team wishes to thank all those who contributed to this performance evaluation, including: 
USAID/Senegal, who provided funding and technical support; the MEP team in Dakar; Women’s Global 
Education Project (WGEP) employees; and Femmes Plus team members. We would also like to thank all 
participants in the districts of Sokone and Toubacouta who met with the evaluation team to share their 
experiences with and appreciation for the Our Sisters Read initiative. The evaluation team would like to 
further thank the students, teachers, head teachers, parents and community members who readily 
volunteered their time.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report v 
ACRONYMS
AME Association des mères d’élèves (Association of Student’s Mothers) 
APE Association des parents d’élèves (Students’ Parents Association) 
AOR Agreement Officer Representative
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CGE Comité de gestion d’école (School Management Committee) 
CM Cours Moyens (Grades 5 and 6)
CODEC Collectif des Directeurs d’Ecole (Collective of School Directors)
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DEE Direction de l’éducation élémentaire (Bureau of Primary Education) 
DO Development Objective
EQ Evaluation Question
FP Femmes Plus
GOS Government of Senegal
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IEF Inspecteur d’éducation et de formation (Inspector for Education and Training)
IR Intermediate Result
KGBX Keur Gui Bok Xol
KII Key Informant Interview
MEN Ministère de l'Education Nationale (Ministry of Education) 
MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Project
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MSI Management Systems International 
OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment
OSR Our Sisters Read
PAQUET Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la Transparence (Quality, 
Fairness, and Transparency Improvement Program)
PDEF Programme décennal de l’éducation et de la formation (Yearly Program of Education 
and Training)
SNERS Système national d’évaluation des rendements scolaires (National School Performance 
Evaluation System)
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WGEP Women’s Global Education Project
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction and Project Background
The Our Sisters Read (OSR) activity was awarded to Women’s Global Education Project (WGEP), a US 
based organization, under the USAID Development Grants Program in September 20131. This four-year, 
$1,700,904 activity seeks to improve reading skills for primary school children and to create lifetime￾learners, with an emphasis on promoting girls’ literacy. WGEP works with a local partner organization, 
Femmes Plus (FP), to implement interventions in Senegal’s Fatick region, and more specifically in the 
district of Foundioungne. 
OSR engages and supports primary-aged school children (Grades 1 to 6), their families, and their 
communities to create and strengthen a culture of reading while reducing the gender gap in reading and 
education. Implemented in 52 schools in Sokone and Toubacouta, OSR is targeting 6,800 students in 
primary grades, of which at least 50 percent are girls. The overarching goal for OSR is “to create strong 
readers and lifetime learners among rural Senegalese primary school students, especially girls”. The 
attainment of this goal is dependent on the achievement of the three objectives focused on 1) creating 
access to mobile libraries and communication centers; 2) increasing motivation to read through contests, 
scholarships and book clubs and 3) increase community and parent support toward reading. OSR is part 
of the USAID/Senegal’s Education Intermediary Result 1: better educated youth, which supports 
Development Objective (DO) 3: more effective citizen participation in the management of public affairs 
at the national and local levels. 
Evaluation Purpose and Questions
USAID/Senegal initiated a midterm performance evaluation of OSR to understand the implementation of 
interventions and the activity’s progress towards the attainment of its stated objectives. This performance 
evaluation addresses the following three global evaluation questions (EQ): 
• EQ 1: How well has the theory of change been validated through the activity’s implementation? 
• EQ 2: To what degree has the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) achieved the 
activity’s objectives?
• EQ 3: How has the capacity of the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) changed over 
the course of the activity? What gaps remain? 
Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations 
A team of three conducted the performance evaluation. Team members included a senior national 
education specialist, the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) associate for the MEP project, and a lead 
evaluator from the Management Systems International (MSI) education practice area. The field work in 
Sokone and Toubacouta, lasted ten days, from 18 to 29 June 2016. This evaluation uses a purposive 
sample to collect data in schools and communities. In total, evaluators chose 8 schools for this evaluation, 
including four schools in Toubacouta and four schools in Sokone. 
 
1 As of 2015, localworks replaces the Development Grants Program and is referred to as the Small Grants Program.
https://www.usaid.gov/partnership-opportunities/ngo/development-grants-program 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 2 
Data Collection Methods and Sources
This performance evaluation relies on qualitative methods with some quantitative analysis of student 
reading performance data. The evaluation team did not collect primary assessment data or other types of 
quantitative data. All quantitative data used for this evaluation were obtained from secondary sources. To 
evaluate the activity’s performance in achieving its objectives and measure its influence on beneficiaries’
attitudes towards and practices in reading, the team conducted a total of 56 interviews with beneficiaries 
and stakeholders. Evaluators used the following data collection methods: 
• Desk review of activity documents; 
• Group interviews with male and female students in Grades 5 and 6 (CM1 and CM2), teachers, 
and community members. Evaluators convened meetings with village chiefs, religious leaders, 
members of school management committees (CGE) and parent associations (AME) and parents;
• Individual interviews with nine school directors and the mayors of Sokone, Toubacouta and 
Karang;
• Key informant interviews (KII) with the management teams at WGEP, Femmes Plus and USAID, 
with the education inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta and the director for primary education 
(DEE) at the ministry of education (MEN); and
• Analysis of student test scores was conducted using activity data. 
Data Analysis Methods
Data analysis draws on findings organized by evaluation questions. The team analyzed qualitative data 
collected from the individual and group interviews for theme and content. The team collected additional 
quantitative data from activity documents, e.g. reports. Student performance data provided by the 
implementers was analyzed using simple univariate descriptive statistics. Quantitative data analysis was led 
by the MEP statistician using SPSS statistical package.
Limitations
Limitations of this evaluation include inconsistencies in indicator data from activity documents, the validity 
and reliability of student performance data, a lack of observation data of teacher classroom practices, and 
a lack of organizational capacity assessment of finance and administrative audit for WGEP by USAID which 
made it difficult to answer portions of question 3 related to changes in institutional capacity.
Findings & Conclusions 
The following section provides a synthesis of the evaluation results. It presents findings and conclusions 
for each of the evaluation questions followed by recommendations. 
EQ 1: How well has the theory of change been validated through the activity’s 
implementation? 
The theory of change that underpins the results framework for OSR posits that a literate environment, 
where students are encouraged to read and where the community promotes and supports literacy and
schooling, will improve overall student performance in schools, and particularly in reading. To determine 
whether that theory of change has been validated through the implementation of the OSR activity, the 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 3 
evaluation team assessed the degree to which the activity outcomes and intermediate results were 
achieved. The OSR results framework and three objectives are outlined below.
Figure 1: OSR Results Framework
OSR has motivated students to read and has mobilized parents and community leaders to support 
education. However, the evaluation team found no substantiated evidence to prove that students’ gains in 
reading are attributable to the intervention, nor that teachers have improved their instructional literacy 
practices since being trained by OSR. 
The theory of change for OSR was not validated through its implementation in part because the school￾based outcomes were not achieved. Though successfully implemented, the community-based 
interventions are not sufficient to develop foundational reading skills in primary-aged students. 
EQ 2: To what degree has the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) 
achieved the activity’s objectives?
Findings 
The results of OSR student reading test in reading out loud and reading comprehension at pre- and post￾test stages show improvement in performance. The test scores are presented below. In all grades, students 
performed better at post-test than at pre-test in reading out loud, while in Grades 2, 4 and 6, students 
achieved lower mean scores in reading comprehension at post-test than at pre-test. However, there is 
limited evidence to suggest that these gains in reading out loud and in reading comprehension are 
attributable to OSR.
The level of student motivation to read is clearly seen in the activity’s project sites visited. According to 
WGEP and FP, the annual reading contests, in which all 52 schools participate, are motivating factors for 
students, schools and communities. Teachers and community members also mentioned that the 
scholarships are a source of motivation for the students. For the 2015-2016 school year, 139 scholarships 
were awarded to primary school students and 41 scholarships were awarded to middle school students 
according to the year 3 quarter 2 OSR report. 
The community support for reading is clearly present in the communities visited. All community members 
interviewed complimented the activity’s community mobilization strategy. In particular, respondents 
reported that the adult literacy classes were well attended by women. In its Year 3, Quarter 2 report, 
OSR notes that adult literacy classes were offered in 36 sites during the second quarter. This number is
up 28 sites the year before and is elevated due to requests from community members. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 4 
Conclusions
OSR’s most accomplished intervention is community mobilization. Parents and community leaders 
regularly attend sensitization meetings and women are enthusiastic about the adult literacy classes. 
OSR has reached 8,077 unique students, 4,176 of whom are girls, according to the year 3 quarter 2 OSR 
report. OSR has surpassed its goal to provide access to Information and Communications Technology 
(ICT) centers and mobile libraries to 6,800 students in the Sokone and Toubacouta areas. The OSR 
reading activities, as well as the annual reading contest and the scholarship packages, are motivating factors 
for students to read. However, the proportion of students visiting the ICT centers and borrowing books 
from the physical libraries remains low. Approximately 14 percent of students in the catchment area of 
the Sokone center visited the center in June, while 37 percent of students in the catchment area for the 
center in Toubacouta visited the center in May2. 
While parents and teachers believe that student reading has improved, the results from OSR’s testing 
process are mixed. The OSR student performance data indicates that students achieved some gains in 
reading in all grades. In Grades 2, 4 and 6, however, students achieved lower scores in reading 
comprehension at post-test than at pre-test. However, given the concerns about the validity and reliability 
of the student performance data, the evaluation team cannot make a determination as to whether the 
observed gains are due to the impact of the OSR interventions or to the test’s construction. 
EQ 3: How has the capacity of the implementing partner (including the 
subcontractor) changed over the course of the activity? What gaps remain?
Findings 
USAID issued The Our Sisters Read contract to Women’s Global Education Project as part of the 
Agency’s Development Grants Program. A core objective of the program is for USAID Missions to provide 
partner organizations "access to technical assistance to improve their planning and managements systems 
and other competencies needed to successfully implement USAID-funded activities"3. However, the 
evaluation team did not find any mention of plans or funds geared towards the organizational capacity 
development of WGEP or FP in activity documents. 
In October 2015, USAID/OFM conducted the first OCA for FP. It noted that approximately 30 percent
of the recommendations from the first assessment in May 2014 had been completed by then. Important 
gaps remained, particularly in terms of human resources policies and manuals, filing systems and financial 
management. USAID/OFM noted that FP and the activity relied heavily on its director and that FP did not 
have a qualified financial manager at the time. 
USAID conducted a data quality assessment (DQA) in March 2016, which cited several concerns with the 
monitoring data as reported by WGEP and FP. These concerns include instances of double counting of 
beneficiaries, the absence of supporting documents, inadequate data collection forms, the lack of a manual 
for data collection and management, and a lack of data quality assurance procedures. 
The FP director explained that FP is working to put in place systems to improve the capacity of its 
members to better manage programs. Her priorities for FP include the establishment of a board of 
directors, registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO), training in fundraising and making the 
 
2 Please see Annex IV for figures used for these calculations. These data were provided by OSR to inform the sampling for this 
evaluation. In Sokone, 295 students out of 2146 in the catchment area visited the center in June. In Toubacouta, 199 students
out of 528 in the catchment area visited the center in May. 3 http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/instructions/oppM-OAA-GRO-ALPS-09-001-LOCAL-cfda98.001-cidM-OAA￾GRO-ALPS-09-001-LOCAL-instructions.pdf
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 5 
organization more visible. For WGEP, capacity-building of FP involves ensuring that the OSR interventions 
are sustainable. WGEP explained that during the remaining year of the activity, they will work with FP to 
turn the ICT centers into community centers where resources, such as the internet, can be used to 
generate revenue and cover part of the operating expenses.
Conclusions
There is an important difference between WGEP and FP in their vision and long-term plans for FP. While 
WGEP seems to be mainly focused on planning for the sustainability of OSR interventions, the FP director 
is looking to strengthen the organization's technical, financial and management systems for its long-term 
health. This disparity in vision has consequences on organizational capacity-building plans. 
WGEP and FP rely heavily on locally recruited staff, interns and volunteers to implement the OSR activity. 
However, the pool of available and qualified candidates is very restricted which negatively affects the 
implementation of interventions and organizational development, particular in regards to strong financial 
and data management systems. 
WGEP has not received sufficient and timely guidance on how to manage USAID contracts. For this new 
grantee, the lack of early guidance has meant that they have had to learn USAID rules and regulations as 
they were implementing the activity. This led to miscommunication, frustrations and implementation 
delays. 
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the findings and conclusions presented in this report and 
are organized for the consideration of key stakeholders. 
WGEP
1. WGEP and USAID/Senegal should develop an institutional capacity development plan with a 
timeline, targets and allocated budget for Femmes Plus. 
2. WGEP and Femmes Plus should hire a qualified financial manager from outside the immediate 
Sokone and Toubacouta areas to respond to immediate needs and to train a locally hired manager 
who will eventually take on financial management responsibilities for the OSR activity and for 
Femmes Plus in the long-term. 
3. Similarly, a qualified monitoring and evaluation officer should be recruited to help set up systems 
for appropriate data collection, verification and management. 
4. OSR should review the planning of school visits by the mobile libraries to prioritize schools that 
are furthest from the centers. 
5. Though intended to be used as extracurricular activities, OSR should continue to implement the
reading activities in remote villages during the summer vacations. 
6. OSR, and future similar activities, should provide initial training and continuous coaching, or 
teacher professional development, to all teachers within a school through the Collectif des
Directeurs d’Ecole, or CODEC and “cellule d’animation pédagogique”. 
7. OSR should continue to provide adult literacy classes as a key motivator.
8. OSR should replicate, in communities that solicit it, the tutoring models that some communities 
have initiated.
FP
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 6 
9. Femmes Plus should focus on sustainable organizational capacity development including the 
retention of a qualified finance manager and deputy director. 
USAID
10. OSR’s community mobilization strategy should serve as a model for other activities that have a 
community-based component.
11. USAID/Senegal should provide early guidance on available programmatic and management 
resources to new grantees, whether located in the US or in Senegal.
12. USAID/Senegal should conduct an initial OCA of first time local grantees within the first six 
months of a contract. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 7 
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
In Senegal, compulsory education lasts ten years for children ages seven to sixteen. With the 
implementation of the education and training reform program, PDEF,4 from 2000 to 2010, primary school 
enrollment rates increased to 82 percent gross enrollment in 2010. However, since then, educational 
statistics in Senegal have decreased or remained stagnant, losing gains achieved under the PDEF. According 
to UNESCO5, the gross enrollment rate in 2014 was 81 percent; and while access to education did
increase with PDEF, educational achievement remained low, with only 61 percent of students reaching 
the last year of primary education in 2011. According to national educational statistics in Senegal (SNERS), 
slightly more than half of students in grades two and four had acquired foundational reading skills in 20106, 
while 70 percent of youth ages fifteen to twenty-four were literate.7 To address these concerns, the 
Government of Senegal (GOS) launched le Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la 
Transparence (PAQUET), the 2013-2025 national education policy that seeks to achieve universal primary 
education and improve educational quality. 
The Our Sisters Read (OSR) activity was awarded to Women’s Global Education Project (WGEP), a US 
based organization, under the USAID Development Grants Program in September 2013.8 This four-year, 
$1.7 million activity seeks to improve reading skills for primary school children and to create lifetime
learners with an emphasis on promoting girls’ literacy. WGEP works with a local partner organization, 
Femmes Plus (FP), to implement interventions in Foundiounge district (Fatick region). The activity is 
implemented under Development Objective 3 (DO3) of USAID/Senegal’s Country Development 
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and as part of its support to the GOS and PAQUET9. 
OSR engages and supports primary-aged school children, (grades one to six) their families and 
communities to create and strengthen a culture of reading while reducing the gender gap in reading and 
education. Implemented in 52 schools, 28 in Sokone and 24 in Toubacouta, OSR is targeting 6,800 students 
in primary grades, of which at least 50 percent are girls. The overarching goal for OSR is to create strong 
readers and lifetime learners among rural Senegalese primary school students, especially girls. Attaining 
this goal depends on achieving three intermediate results (IRs): 
• IR 1: Build foundational reading skills for 6,800 rural primary school students (at least 50 percent
female) by creating access to technology centers, mobile labs and trained literacy professionals 
by 2017; 
• IR 2: Encourage and motivate students to read through innovative resources and incentives, 
reaching students at participating schools each year through contests, scholarships, mentorships 
and book clubs; and 
• IR 3: Build communities of parents and leaders that support young girls and boys to increase 
their reading and technological literacy. 
This multipronged approach seeks to contribute to an enduring shift in attitudes towards literacy and girls’ 
education, which will translate into higher achievement levels in reading for primary-aged students. Activity 
interventions, including reading contests, scholarships, book clubs, and mentoring are designed to motivate 
and generate enthusiasm among young readers, supplementing school curricula and filling in gaps where 
the quality of education is lacking. The physical resources (information & communication technology (ICT) 
 
4 Programme décennal de l’éducation et de la formation (PDEF) 5 http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SEN 6 http://www.gouv.sn/IMG/pdf/PAQUETEF.pdf 7 UNESCO 2015. 8 As of 2015, localworks replaces the Development Grants Program and is referred to as the Small Grants Program.
https://www.usaid.gov/partnership-opportunities/ngo/development-grants-program 9 Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la Transparence (PAQUET)
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 8 
centers, libraries and mobile labs) serve as both locations for interventions and community anchors. 
Community outreach interventions that support adult literacy and parental and community involvement 
address underlying attitudes towards literacy and promote its importance, particularly for girls. Figure 2 
illustrates the theory of change for the OSR activity, as understood by the evaluation team:
Figure 2: Our Sisters Read Theory of Change
EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Evaluation Purpose
After nearly three years of implementation, USAID/Senegal initiated a midterm performance evaluation of 
OSR to understand the implementation of interventions and the activity’s progress towards the attainment 
of its stated objectives. This performance evaluation will generate data on implementation successes and 
challenges, how stakeholders and beneficiaries perceive and value the activity, and whether the activity is 
on target to achieve its goals and objectives. The findings and conclusions will provide recommendations
for midcourse corrections and insights and lessons learned will inform the upcoming basic education 
activity funded by USAID/Senegal. 
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation questions (EQ) addressed by this performance evaluation follow three global questions 
with a series of sub-questions outlined below: 
1. How well has the theory of change been validated through the activity’s implementation? 
a. Have activity interventions, such as access to resources, extra-curricular activities, book 
clubs, competitions, scholarships, etc., motivated students to read? 
b. Has teacher training improved classroom practices?
c. Have activity interventions, such as adult literacy, community meetings, mentoring by 
teachers, etc., increased community mobilization? Which interventions were most 
effective? 
d. What is the level of community engagement in this activity? Why? 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 9 
2. To what degree has the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) achieved the activity’s 
objectives?
a. Was the activity implemented according to the design? Has the implementation of the 
activity followed the original design? 
b. What internal or external factors (including within USAID) have had the biggest impact 
on the implementation of the activity? Which factors may continue to impact the activity 
and which ones seem to have had short-term/specific impact? 
c. How did the implementing partners and the USAID education team address challenges 
during the implementation of the activity and what are some lessons learned?
3. How has the capacity of the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) changed over the 
course of the activity? What gaps remain? 
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODOLOGY & LIMITATIONS 
This performance evaluation was conducted by a team of three people, including a senior national 
education specialist, an M&E associate for the MEP project, and an evaluation team leader from the MSI 
education practice area. The fieldwork in the Foundiougne district (specifically Sokone and Toubacouta) 
lasted ten days from 18 to 29 June 2016. 
This evaluation used a purposive sample to collect data in schools and communities. Evaluators conducted 
an initial stratification of the 52 intervention schools according to urban and rural locations. For the 
purposes of this evaluation, the evaluation team considered urban schools to be those within the towns 
of Sokone and Toubacouta. Schools that are outside of the towns were classified as rural schools. Of the 
52 OSR interventions schools, three in Toubacouta 
and eight in Sokone were classified as urban schools. 
The distinction between urban and rural schools for 
sampling purposes was important given that the 
urban schools, particularly those in Sokone, are 
typically larger than village schools, have more than 
one class per grade, and have easier access to the 
activity’s ICT centers. 
Second, the evaluation team considered school 
accessibility to ICT centers. The final sample includes 
at least one urban and one rural school with access 
to ICT centers in Sokone and in Toubacouta. Third, 
the team considered school size and distances from 
the main towns. Schools that were too isolated were 
removed from the sample to allow the team to 
maximize the number of schools and communities 
that could be visited daily. The team also included an 
isolated school at the border with The Gambia
because the geopolitical environment differs from 
that of Sokone and Toubacouta. Finally, Femme Plus suggested schools where the activity was well 
implemented and also schools where there had been challenges. 
In total, eight schools were chosen for this evaluation with four schools in Toubacouta, of which one is 
urban, and four schools in Sokone, of which one is urban. Figure 3 above depicts the geographical spread 
Figure 3: Distribution of Sampled Schools
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 10
of the sampled schools in Sokone (Danthakoune, Diossong, KGBX, and Ndiokholokho) and in Toubacouta 
(Karang Socé, Médina Sangako, Sandicoly, and Toubacouta 1). 
Data Collection Methods and Sources
This performance evaluation relies on qualitative methods with some quantitative analysis of student 
reading performance using data provided by OSR. The evaluation team did not collect primary assessment 
data or other types of quantitative data. All quantitative data used for this evaluation were obtained from 
secondary sources. To evaluate the activity’s performance in achieving its objectives and measure its 
influence on beneficiary attitudes towards and practices in reading, the team conducted a total of 56 
interviews with beneficiaries and stakeholders. The following data collection methods were used during 
this evaluation: 
Desk Review
The evaluation team conducted a desk review of activity documents to develop an understanding of the 
activity’s theory of change and implementation characteristics, contexts, and challenges and to assess the 
level of achievement against targets. 
Group and Individual Interviews
The team conducted group interviews in schools with boy and girl students in grades five and six (CM1 
and CM2), teachers and community members. Individual and group interviews were held with village chiefs, 
religious leaders, members of school management committees (CGEs) and parent associations such as 
associations des mères d’élèves (AMEs) and associations des parents d’élèves (APEs) and parents to discuss 
OSR community mobilization activities as well as students’ reading behaviors at home and in schools. 
Teachers and students provided information on their level of satisfaction with reading activities in schools 
and ICT centers. Activity staff discussed the implementation of activities in schools, ICT centers, and in 
communities. The team conducted 18 group interviews with community members of which 39 teachers 
and 78 students participated in group interviews. Female students were interviewed separately from boys 
to facilitate open discussion.
Nine school directors10 were individually interviewed in order to discuss teacher practices for the teaching 
of reading, student performance in reading and parental engagement. The mayors of Sokone, Toubacouta 
and Karang discussed collaboration with and support for the activity as well as their appreciation for and 
perceptions of the activity interventions. 
Lastly, the team conducted KIIs with the management teams at WGEP; Femmes Plus; USAID; the 
education inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta; and the DEE at the MEN. 
Analysis of program data
The team also analyzed student test scores in reading using data provided by the activity. The activity 
conducted the post-test in June 2016 and it was implemented in 12 of the 24 schools in Toubacouta that
had participated in the baseline in November 2015. The evaluation team analyzed baseline and post-test 
data from 11 of these schools to assess student performance (1 school in Toubacouta did not participate 
in the pre-test). 
 
10 The evaluation team visited 8 target schools but interviewed one additional school director in the FP office 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 11
The “Getting to Answers Matrix” for this evaluation is included in the evaluation work plan annexed to 
this report (Annex II). Information sources, number of respondents and data collection methods for each 
evaluation question are summarized in Table 1 below: 
Table 1: Data Source, Number of People Consulted, Data Collection Method
Evaluation 
question (EQ) 
topic
Students Teacher
s
School 
Directors Community DEE + 
Inspector Mayors OSR 
staff
WGEP 
+ FP
USAI
D
(78) (41) (9) (87) (2) (5) (11) (3) (3)
Group Group Individual Group KII Individual Group KII KII
1. Validation of 
theory of change X X X X X X X 
1a. Student 
motivation X X X X X 
1b. Classroom 
practices X X X X 
1c. Community 
mobilization X X X X X X X 
1d. Community 
engagement 
X X X X X X 
2. Achievement of 
objectives X X X 
2a. Implementation 
and design X X 
2b. Internal and 
External factors X X X 
2c. Addressing 
challenges X X X X X X 
3. Organizational 
capacity X X 
The list of project documents reviewed and a complete list of respondents are available in Annex V: 
Sources of Information.
Data Analysis Methods
Qualitative Data Analysis
Data analysis draws on findings organized by evaluation questions. Qualitative data collected from the 
individual and group interviews were analyzed using thematic and content analysis. At the end of each data 
collection day, team members typed up interview notes, noting at the top of each interview guide any 
interesting or significant findings as well as common and emerging themes. Team members also noted 
areas to be pursued in subsequent interviews to triangulate findings from interviews or project 
documentation. The evaluation team recorded interviews and sent them to the MEP team in Dakar every 
day for transcriptions and translations, as necessary.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The team utilized secondary quantitative data collected from activity documents, such as quarterly and 
annual reports as well as a baseline student testing report and post-test scores. Student performance data 
provided by the implementers were analyzed using simple univariate descriptive statistics. The MEP data 
analyst led quantitative data analysis using the SPSS statistical package.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 12
Limitations
Limitations of this evaluation include: 
• Inconsistencies in indicator data from project documents 
• Validity and reliability of student performance data
• Lack of observation data of teacher classroom practices 
• Lack of organizational capacity assessment or finance and administrative audit for WGEP
The evaluation team’s review of the project documents revealed inconsistencies in the indicator data 
reported. Of particular concern were instances of possible double-counting of student and parent 
participants in activity interventions. The DQA that USAID/Senegal conducted in March 2016 for OSR 
also highlighted those concerns. The quarterly report for quarter two of year three (January to March 
2016) of the activity indicates corrections to previously reported data. However, it remains unclear which 
corrective measures were implemented in the activity’s M&E systems and processes to improve the quality 
of the data collected and reported. 
Students in seven schools in Sokone were tested in reading at the end of the 2014-2015 school year. 
However, given that these schools had already received OSR interventions for one to two years, these 
data cannot serve as a baseline to measure activity impact on student reading performance in the Sokone 
region. In November 2015, OSR conducted a reading test with students in the 24 Toubacouta schools 
that were just joining the activity to collect baseline data. A follow-up test was implemented in June 2016 
in 12 Toubacouta and 12 Sokone schools chosen randomly. According to WGEP, the baseline data from 
the Toubacouta schools could serve as a baseline for Sokone schools as well. However, given the 
differences between the two regions, e.g. number of large urban schools in Sokone, and the inability to 
statistically measure equivalency of the two regions at baseline, the evaluation team has recommended 
against using the Toubacouta baseline for Sokone. 
Additionally, the evaluation team was unable to determine the validity of the tests, particularly as it relates 
to the difficulty level of the content (e.g. whether the content is too easy or too difficult for the particular 
grade level). In addition, no information is available to confirm that that the tests at baseline and follow￾up are of the same difficulty level. As such, it is difficult to judge whether differences in student scores are 
due to performance levels or are a factor of the test’s construction.
While the evaluation question 1b seeks to understand classroom practices for the teaching of reading, the 
evaluation team was unable to conduct classroom observations. The evaluation team’s findings are thus 
solely based on the information provided by respondents. An organizational capacity assessment of the 
prime contractor, WGEP, was not conducted so limited information is available regarding its capacity to 
implement such activities. For this reason, the response to question number three, for the primary 
contractor, was limited to interviews and a desk review of project documents. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 13
FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 
The report presents findings and conclusions for each of the evaluation questions followed by overall 
recommendations. 
EQ 1: How well has the theory of change been validated through the 
activity’s implementation? 
The theory of change that underpins the results framework for OSR posits that a literate environment, 
where students are encouraged to read and where communities promote and support literacy and 
schooling, will improve overall student performance in schools, and particularly in reading. To determine 
whether OSR activity implementation has validated that theory of change, the evaluation team assessed 
the degree to which the activity outcomes and intermediate results were achieved. For that purpose, the 
findings and conclusions from the following evaluation questions and sub-questions informed the 
conclusions presented in Table 2 below: 
• EQ 1a: Have activity interventions, such as access to resources, extra-curricular activities, book 
clubs, competitions, scholarships, etc., motivated students to read? 
• EQ 1b: Has teacher training improved classroom practices?
• EQ 1c: Have activity interventions, such as adult literacy, community meetings, mentoring by 
teachers, etc., increased community mobilization? Which interventions were most effective? 
• EQ 1d: What is the level of community engagement in this activity? Why? 
• EQ 2: To what degree has the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) achieved the 
activity’s objectives?
Findings
As a community based activity, OSR worked closely with traditional community-based authorities such as 
village chiefs and imams as their main entry point into communities. However, they had some challenges 
initially in being able to work local education authorities which resulted in limitations to accessing schools. 
While OSR now has signed an agreement with the local education inspectors, they have not had the full 
and open access to schools as they would have wished. OSR’s reading modules are typically used only 
after school, twice a week when the OSR outreach staff visit the schools. This has limited OSR’s ability to 
influence in-classroom instruction and time allocated to reading activities.
OSR increased student access to reading materials through their mobile library and ICT centers. This 
access, along with student reading competitions, tutoring, and limited access to tablets with reading 
materials, helped to increase student interest in reading. Parents and community members viewed student 
scholarships targeting at risk (potential drop out) students as consistently effective, and parents 
appreciated the one-on-one tutoring time that teachers provided to students. Parents also mentioned
literacy classes as a highly motivating factor in their own participation in OSR. 
The majority of teachers and school directors interviewed expressed the view that students were 
improving their reading skills. OSR conducted tests which show limited evidence of improvement in 
reading comprehension, while there is some evidence of improvement in reading out loud.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 14
Table 2: Theory of Change and Results Framework
Goal: To create strong readers and lifetime learners among rural Senegalese primary school 
students, especially girls
Intermediate Results Outcomes Findings and Conclusions
Build foundational reading skills for 
6,800 rural primary school students 
(at least 50 percent female) by 
creating access to technology 
centers, mobile labs and trained 
literacy professionals by 2017
Increased access to reading 
materials through ICT centers, 
libraries and mobile labs
OSR improved access to reading 
materials for students but there is 
no evidence to demonstrate 
improvement in reading skills as a 
result of OSR interventions
Improved instructional literacy 
practices
Innovative reading activities were
introduced, but there is mixed 
evidence as to whether teachers 
implement them in their 
classrooms. There is no evidence 
that they led to improved 
instructional practices in the 
classroom. 
Encourage and motivate students to 
read through innovative resources 
and incentives, reaching students at 
participating schools each year 
through contests, scholarships, 
mentorships and book clubs
Activities motivate primary school 
students to read
OSR activities have increased 
student motivation to read. 
Increased opportunities for 
students to attend school
Scholarships support retention of 
students in schools. 
Build communities of parents and 
leaders that support young girls and 
boys to increase their reading and 
technological literacy
Increased support among parents 
and community leaders for literacy 
generated through a comprehensive 
campaign to promote literacy
OSR strengthened parental and 
community support for education 
and reading. 
Conclusions
OSR motivated students to read and mobilized parents and community leaders to support education. 
However, the evaluation team did not find evidence that attributed students’ gains in reading to the 
intervention, or evidence that teachers improved their instructional literacy practices since receiving OSR 
training. OSR was limited in its ability to intervene in classrooms and therefore had a limited effect on 
improving instructional practices in the classroom. 
The project’s implementation did not validate OSR’s the theory of change, in part because the school￾based outcomes, in terms of improved teaching practices in the classroom, were not achieved. Though 
successfully implemented, the community-based interventions are not sufficient to develop foundational 
reading skills in primary-aged students. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 15
EQ 1a: Have activity interventions, such as access to resources, extra￾curricular activities, book clubs, competitions, scholarships, etc., 
motivated students to read?
Findings 
According to the school directors interviewed, students are reading more and better since the start of 
OSR activities. The inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta noted that students are more motivated to 
read due to the growth of environments that are conducive to reading. Teachers interviewed provided 
examples of reading practices students have started displaying since the beginning of the OSR activities. 
These included reading street signs, picking up pieces of paper on the school ground to read, and reading 
the writings on clothes and fabrics. 
School directors, teachers and the inspector interviewed 
explained that the OSR interventions are particularly 
motivating for students because they are engaging and provide 
students an opportunity to express themselves. 
When interviewed by the evaluation team, students in grades 
5 and 6 enthusiastically shared their favorite OSR reading
activity, such as “Langa Burri11” and comics, and listed book 
titles they had read and enjoyed, such as “La Grande Forêt du
Saloum”, “Sidi et Rama” and “Boubou Golo”. Students were 
particularly excited about the tablets. In fact, all respondents 
cited the tablets as the most effective OSR reading activity, and 
requested that more tablets be made available to the schools 
on a regular basis. The FP director and WGEP noted that the 
tablets were included as an activity to further motivate students and parents to read, but that the intent 
was never to provide one tablet per child (the ICT coordinator takes 25 tablets to schools to use with 
students in the classroom during specific appointed times). 
WGEP and the FP director also pointed to the participation of schools, students, parents and community 
leaders at the annual reading competition as evidence of beneficiaries’ motivation. Teachers at Keur Gui 
Bok Xol (KBGX), for example, mentioned that the competitions were a great motivating factor for parents 
and students who are publicly recognized for their success in reading. 
The evaluation team reviewed activity documents which indicate that students are participating in activity 
interventions. In June 2016, 475 students reportedly visited the centers, representing approximately 18 
percent of the 2,674 students in the catchment areas. The July 1, 2016 OSR biweekly report states that 
in the month of June, 295 students (including 192 girls) visited the newly opened Sokone ICT center who 
“voluntarily visited the center to participate in the reading activities of Sac à Mots, Albums, Livre Ami and 
Fresque”. The report also notes that 196 students (127 girls) used the computer room during the same 
period. OSR also reported that 3,613 students (1,817 girls) had participated in reading activities in the 13 
schools visited by the outreach officers (encadreurs) in May 2016.
Conclusions
While it is beyond scope of this evaluation to measure the motivation level of students to read, the 
evaluation team noted the great enthusiasm for OSR activities. The novelty and interactive nature of the 
 
11 An activity which requires students to reconstitute a story using missing and out of order words.
Figure 4: Student Work from the 
OSR Reading Activity "Calendrier 
Personnalisé" in Diossong
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 16
interventions make them very attractive to students and to parents. In particular, even though the tablets 
were used in each school only once during the school year, they clearly served as a highly motivational 
tool with students. 
OSR has been successful in providing students with opportunities and materials to read. However, it 
remains unclear how much of that enthusiasm is sustained and acted upon outside of OSR interventions. 
Though some of the interviewed students mentioned that their parents buy them books, other 
respondents did not corroborate these statements. Furthermore, few students in the centers’ catchment 
areas are actually visiting the centers. 
EQ 1b: Has teacher training improved classroom practices?
Findings 
OSR developed 18 reading activities, each adapted to the three grade levels (CI/CP, CE1/CE2, CM1/CM2). 
According to the November 2015 biweekly report, the inspectorate validated these during a three-day 
workshop, which the OSR literacy expert led and attended by four inspectors, 56 teachers and the OSR 
staff. As USAID explained, and given the restrictions on access to schools, 
these reading activities are regarded as extra-curricular activities and it is 
not clear that they are used during the day as part of the standard 
curriculum. 
Per the theory of change for the OSR activity presented in Table 2, a 
critical activity and output of OSR is the training of teachers in reading 
methodologies to improve student reading skills (objective 1 in the results 
framework). OSR trained teachers in 6 of the 18 reading activities 
according to school directors and teachers. Respondents at OSR and in 
schools confirmed the participation of school directors and some teachers 
at these training sessions. The FP director noted that in one third of the 
schools, only the school director received training, while in the other 
schools, the school director and a deputy were trained. At all eight of the 
schools visited, teachers and school directors confirmed that one or two teachers had been trained 
alongside the school director. The FP director explained that, due to budgetary limitations, the activity 
utilized a “training of trainers” approach, where those trained were then tasked with replicating the 
training in their schools using a cascade model.
While OSR’s training was viewed favorably by the inspector, school directors and teachers all 
recommended that OSR provide training to all teachers within a school, not only to a select few. The FP 
director recognized that given the traditional approach to teaching and working with students, it is difficult 
for those who were not directly OSR trained to engage with its play-based interventions. According to 
the indicator table in the year 3 quarter 2 report, OSR has trained 314 teachers and school directors in 
Sokone and Toubacouta (see Table 3 below). 
“The students are much 
more motivated because 
they have before them the 
literate environment that is 
needed, and these are the 
books.” 
− Moustapaha Diouf, 
Education inspector for 
Sokone and Toubacouta
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 17
Table 3: Number of teachers trained
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Total
SOKONE TOUBACOUTA
TOTAL
SOKONE TOUBACOUTA
TOTAL
SOKONE TOUBACOUTA
TOTAL
M F M F M F M F M F M F 
37 42 0 0 79 98 52 0 0 150 0 0 61 12 73 302
The interviewed school directors, teachers and the inspector expressed that there was congruence 
between some of the reading activities and the national curriculum. The most often cited example of that 
is the letter (la lettre) reading activity. When asked about the integration of the OSR activities into the 
daily classroom schedule, respondents provided mixed answers. For some teachers and school directors, 
the activities are easily implemented during school hours, while for others the current school program is 
overloaded and does not allow for additional activities. Nevertheless, the teachers interviewed did confirm 
that the activities were implemented with the students, either during the school day or after school hours. 
When probed further about the implementation of the reading activities, respondents again provided 
mixed responses. Throughout the evaluation interviews, some teachers and school directors were 
adamant that the teachers themselves led the reading activities, with some support from the OSR outreach 
officers, while others explained that the OSR outreach officers led all of the reading activities with the 
students. For his part, the inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta argued that the use of the outreach 
officers by OSR undermines the teachers’ ability to fully utilize the reading activities since the officers are 
the ones who implement them. 
Finally, the interviewed school directors and inspector pointed to the lack of OSR school and classroom 
monitoring as a factor in the inconsistent application of the reading activities by teachers. They expressed
that teachers needed to be motivated to implement the reading activities through proper training and 
regular monitoring. They have suggested using the School Directors’ Collective (CODEC) structure and 
“cellule d’animation pédagogique” (teacher training units) for training and monitoring of targeted teachers. 
Conclusions
While stakeholders appreciated the OSR activities, the evaluation team was unable to assess the level of 
utilization of the reading activities by the teachers to determine any possible influence on classroom 
practices. 
Though some of the reading activities are aligned with the curriculum, a lack of training on how to integrate 
the reading activities into the normal school day has reinforced the notion that they are mainly extra￾curricular. The OSR training did not focus on pedagogy or methods for the teaching of reading. 
Transferring active teaching methods, which may be integrated into the reading activities, but which are 
not made explicit to the teachers, is a difficult task that is unlikely to happen in the absence of continuous 
guidance and coaching. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 18
EQ 1c: Have activity interventions, such as adult literacy, community 
meetings, mentoring by teachers, etc., increased community 
mobilization? Which interventions were most effective?
Findings 
When the evaluation team requested a meeting with eight community members in Diossong and Médina 
Sangako, over 30 people came to each meeting to express their appreciation for OSR. Throughout the 
evaluation interviews, community leaders and parents expressed great enthusiasm for OSR. All community 
members interviewed stated that they had participated in meetings with OSR and supported their efforts. 
According to project records, 1,387 people (800 women, 587 men) attended five community meetings in 
the second quarter of year 3.
WGEP and community members, including the mayors, attributed the success of the community 
mobilization strategy to the fact that OSR started by first engaging with key community leaders such as 
the village chiefs, imams and women’s associations. The FP director explained that OSR deliberately
targeted leaders, traditional chiefs, and religious leaders, to solicit their support prior to engaging with the 
community. Community leaders served as entry points in all OSR intervention villages. WGEP and the FP 
director agree that OSR’s ability to gain access to these leaders was in large part due to the fact that FP 
and its director are themselves community members who are very well respected and valued. 
Community members interviewed cited the literacy classes as the most 
impactful OSR community intervention. There is consensus among the 
respondents, including school directors and teachers, that the literacy 
classes have helped women learn numbers and letters, knowledge they 
now use in both their income-generating activities and with their mobile 
phones. School directors, teachers and community members interviewed 
also claimed that mothers are now better equipped to support their 
children with their lessons. Several teachers explained that parents are 
now ensuring that students attend the reading activities and tutoring 
classes. They also pointed out that mothers are now able to understand 
students’ marks and monitor their performance. 
Community members also mentioned that they have participated in the 
community meetings organized by OSR. They explained that these 
meetings are meant to sensitize the community about subjects such as the 
importance of education and reading, the importance of keeping girls in school and reduction of early 
marriages. 
Conclusions
OSR strengthened parent and community support for reading and literacy, further evidenced by the high 
participation rate of community members in the meetings with the evaluation team. Activity interventions 
have successfully mobilized community members, particularly women, who are now using basic literacy 
skills in commerce. The most successful strategies employed by WGEP and FP for community mobilization 
are: 1) engaging key community leaders prior to launching interventions, 2) focusing on women to garner 
support for education and 3) providing adult literacy classes. 
“Truly they [OSR] are 
present in the community 
and what they have gained 
[from the project] they 
have given back to the 
people, they have shared it 
with the community.” 
− Abdoul Aziz Dème, 
Imam Sokone
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 19
EQ 1d: What is the level of community engagement in this activity? 
Why?
Findings 
Community engagement in the OSR activity is documented in reports via the participation rate of 
community members in OSR interventions such as community meetings, adult literacy, and use of the ICT 
centers. In the July 1 biweekly report, OSR notes that 150 community members participated in a meeting 
at the Sokone center during which they discussed potential loss of student reading skills over the summer, 
as well as OSR summer reading interventions. From its outset, the activity entered into communities 
through traditional, community-based authorities, such as the village chiefs and imams. This approach 
resulted in a wide range of support from various sectors of the community. 
In addition, each community has a designated liaison with OSR. This person is a volunteer who is 
responsible for organizing the community meetings and adult literacy classes. Formal political support is 
clear from both Mayors in Toubacouta and Sokone. The mayor of Toubacouta agreed to a long-term lease 
with OSR for a public building that could accommodate the ICT center. According to WGEP and FP, the 
mayor is paying the water and electricity bills for the center. Community members interviewed stated 
that they conduct door-to-door campaigns to promote the enrollment of students in Grade 1. School 
directors and teachers interviewed confirmed that there was an increase in the enrollment of students in 
Grade 1.
In interviews with the inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta, the school director at Niokholokho, the 
director of the CODEC, and the FP director, all named Médina Sangako as an example of community 
organization to improve students’ reading performance. According to the school director at Médina 
Sangako, following a zero passing rate in the Grade 6 exams last year, the women in the community 
reached out to the FP director for help in improving their students’ school performance. The women 
organized 13 tutoring clubs and a calendar that identifies the students to be tutored, the tutor (an older 
student), and the location. Parents committed to contributing 1,000CFA per week and OSR lent solar 
lanterns. According to the teachers at Médina Sangako, though the tutoring is organized and done by the 
community, they also participate to evaluate each month what progress has been made. According to the 
school director, this year, during the departmental preparation tests for the Grade 6 exams, 12 to 15 
students earned passing marks. 
Conclusions
The majority of communities that participate in the OSR activity are mobilized and engaged to support 
education in their communities. Community members participate in large numbers in community meetings 
designed to address specific themes such as the importance of girls’ education. They also attend literacy 
classes, which are led by the community liaison. Of their own initiative, communities have also organized 
school enrolment campaigns and tutoring clubs in support of struggling students. 
EQ 2: To what degree has the implementing partner (including the 
subcontractor) achieved the activity’s objectives?
Findings 
The program description included in the original cooperative agreement for OSR notes that the activity 
will, “create strong readers and lifetime learners among rural Senegalese primary school students, 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 20
especially girls.12” WGEP and FP proposed to reach this goal by achieving three objectives, shown in Figure 
5 below. 
Figure 5: OSR Results Framework
Objective 1: Build foundational reading skills for 6,800 rural primary school students (at least 
50% female) by creating access to technology centers, mobile labs and trained literacy 
professionals by 2017
WGEP provided the evaluation team the raw data sets for the reading tests conducted in November 2015 
(pre-test) in 24 schools in Toubacouta and in June 2016 (post-test). Twenty-four schools were selected 
in Sokone (12) and in Toubacouta (12) for the post-test. In order to assess gains in reading performance, 
the evaluation team matched the Toubacouta schools that participated in the post-test to their pre-test, 
baseline data. In total, 11 schools in Toubacouta have pre- and post-test data. One school in Toubacouta, 
Sadio Sala, was selected for the post-test but did not participate in the pre-test and was thus eliminated 
from the analysis. Since the activity did not collect pre-test data for the Sokone schools, the post-test data 
was not used in the analysis of student gains. 
The mean scores for the reading out loud (oralisation) and reading comprehension subtasks per grade at 
pre- and post-test are presented in Table 4 and in Figures 6 and 7 below. In all grades, students performed 
better at post-test than at pre-test in reading aloud. However, in Grades 2, 4 and 6, students achieved 
lower mean scores in reading comprehension at post-test than at pre-test. 
 
12 OSR Results Framework
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 21
Table 4: Student Reading Mean Scores per Grade
Grade Pre-test Post-test Difference
Grade 1 (CI) Reading 1.03 9.47 8.44
Comprehension 1.89 3.88 1.99
Grade 2 (CP) Reading 4.68 9.38 4.70
Comprehension 8.08 7.89 -0.19
Grade 3 (CE1) Reading 3.73 5.12 1.39
Comprehension 2.51 3.92 1.41
Grade 4 (CE2) Reading 4.18 5.96 1.78
Comprehension 5.51 3.66 -1.85
Grade 5 (CM1) Reading 3.38 5.25 1.86
Comprehension 2.25 7.30 5.06
Grade 6 (CM2) Reading 4.37 6.22 1.85
Comprehension 7.07 3.95 -3.12
In the Table 5 below the mean scores for the reading out loud subtask are presented by gender and grade. 
Boys performed better than girls on pre- and post-tests in Grades 3 and 6, while girls performed better 
than boys in Grades 1, 2 and 4. In Grade 5, boys (1.94) achieved higher gains than girls (1.78) from pre￾test to post-test. Note that the differences in performance between boys and girls are not statistically
significant. 
Figure 6: Mean Scores in Reading 
Out Loud
Figure 7: Mean Scores in Reading 
Comprehension
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 22
Table 5: Mean Scores in Reading by Gender and Grade
Grade Boy Girl Difference
Grade 1 (CI)
Pre-test 0.87 1.17 0.30
Post-test 9.16 9.76 0.60
Grade 2 (CP) Pre-test 4.48 4.93 0.45
Post-test 8.66 10.11 1.45
Grade 3 (CE1)
Pre-test 3.89 3.58 -0.31
Post-test 5.26 4.99 -0.27
Grade 4 (CE2)
Pre-test 4.17 4.20 0.03
Post-test 5.72 6.23 0.51
Grade 5 (CM1) Pre-test 3.34 3.43 0.09
Post-test 5.28 5.21 -0.06
Grade 6 (CM2)
Pre-test 4.63 4.09 -0.54
Post-test 6.43 6.01 -0.42
In Table 6 (below), the mean scores for the reading comprehension subtask are presented by gender and 
grade. Boys performed better than girls at pre-test and post-test in Grades 1, 4 and 5, while girls 
performed better than boys in Grade 2. In Grade 3, girls (1.67) achieved higher gains than boys (1.13) 
from pre-test to post-test. In Grade 6, both boys and girls achieved lower average scores at post-test than 
at pre-test. 
Table 6: Mean Scores in Reading Comprehension by Gender and Grade
Grade Boy Girl Difference
Grade 1 (CI)
Pre-test 1.96 1.83 -0.12
Post-test 4.04 3.73 -0.31
Grade 2 (CP) Pre-test 7.44 8.73 1.29
Post-test 7.45 8.28 0.82
Grade 3 (CE1)
Pre-test 2.62 2.41 -0.21
Post-test 3.75 4.08 0.33
Grade 4 (CE2)
Pre-test 5.68 5.32 -0.37
Post-test 3.71 3.60 -0.11
Grade 5 (CM1) Pre-test 2.25 2.24 -0.01
Post-test 7.37 7.23 -0.14
Grade 6 (CM2)
Pre-test 7.26 6.86 -0.40
Post-test 3.85 4.05 0.20
The annual report for OSR for year 2 notes that 4,145 students, of which 2,119 were girls, received the 
OSR reading interventions in the target schools in Sokone. At the time of this evaluation, the cumulative 
total of students receiving OSR reading interventions in schools in both Sokone and Toubacouta between 
January 2016, when interventions started in Toubacouta schools, and June 2016 was not available. 
However, in the June 1, 2016 biweekly report, OSR reports that 3,613 students (1,796 girls) in both areas 
participated in the reading activities during the month of May. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 23
According to OSR’s July 1 2016 biweekly report, 295 students had voluntarily visited the Sokone center 
since it opened in May 2016. In Toubacouta, 199 students had visited the center in May 2016, according 
to the June 1, 2016 biweekly report for OSR. The July 1, 2016 biweekly report also notes that 191 students 
had borrowed books from the Sokone and Toubacouta centers during the month of June. 
The two mobile libraries are also functional. One services the 28 intervention schools in Sokone while 
the other services the 24 intervention schools in Toubacouta. In the June 1 biweekly report, OSR reported 
that the mobile libraries had visited six schools during the month May and that students had borrowed a 
total of 668 books from the mobile libraries. Figure 813 below provides a summary of the number of 
schools visited by the mobile libraries between January and May 2016 and the number of books borrowed 
by the students. The number of schools visited is indicated by the blue line and right (secondary) axis. 
Figure 8: Mobile Libraries Visits to Schools
With OSR activity implementation in the 24 Toubacouta schools, the OSR outreach team has grown to 
eight, with four officers in Sokone and four officers in Toubacouta. The outreach officers are tasked with 
implementing the reading interventions in the 52 OSR target schools with teachers and students in Grades 
1 to 6. In the June 1, 2016 biweekly report, OSR reported that their outreach officers had visited 13 
schools during the second half of May. According the outreach officers interviewed, the OSR literacy 
expert trained them and school directors and teachers on the OSR reading activities. However, both the 
inspectors for Sokone and Toubacouta, and the FP director noted during the interviews that the outreach 
officers were not sufficiently trained in pedagogy. 
Objective 2: Encourage and motivate students to read through innovative resources and 
incentives, reaching students at participating schools each year through contests, scholarships, 
mentorships and book clubs
According to WGEP and FP, the annual reading contests, in which all 52 schools participate, are motivating 
factors for students, schools and communities. The teachers at KGBX and Danthakoune, as well as the 
 
13 The complete data disaggregated by gender are missing for the month of February and thus only includes the number of girls 
for half the month. The data for April were not disaggregated by gender. 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
January February March April May
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Number of schools
Number of books
Books Borrowed Books Borrowed by Girls Schools Visited
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 24
school directors in Médina Sangako and Toubacouta, echoed those sentiments noting that the reading 
contests create excitement in the students and pique the interest of parents and communities. 
The teachers and community members interviewed mentioned that the scholarships are also a source of 
motivation for the students. For the 2015-2016 school year, 139 scholarships were awarded to primary 
school students and 41 scholarships were awarded to middle school students according to the year 3 
quarter 2 OSR report. The scholarships consist of school supplies, remedial reading tutoring and summer 
reading tutoring.
Objective 3: Build communities of parents and leaders that support young girls and boys to 
increase their reading and technological literacy
All community members interviewed complimented the activity’s community mobilization strategy. In 
particular, respondents reported that the adult literacy classes were well attended by women. In its year 
3 second quarter report, OSR reports that the adult literacy classes were offered in 36 sites during the 
second quarter, up from 28 sites the year before, at the request of community members. The high 
prevalence of the women in the classes is due to cultural traditions that separate men and women in 
activities.
Conclusions
The student performance data indicates that students achieved some gains in reading in all grades. In 
Grades 2, 4 and 6, students achieved lower scores in reading comprehension at post-test than at pre-test. 
Boys and girls achieved very similar scores at pre-test and at post-test in both reading out loud and in 
reading comprehension. Given the concerns about the validity and reliability of the student performance 
data, the evaluation team cannot make a determination as to whether the observed gains are due to the 
impact of the OSR interventions or to natural growth (the expectation that students would demonstrate 
gains independently of the interventions). 
OSR has surpassed it goal to provide access to ICT centers and mobile libraries to 6,800 students in the 
Sokone and Toubacouta areas. In the year 3 quarter 2 report, OSR reports that it has reached 8,077 
unique students, 4,176 of whom are girls. However, based on the current training model for teachers and 
outreach officers, the activity is not on track to provide trained literacy professionals by 2017. While the 
activity has provided training to some teachers and to its outreach officers, the training has focused on 
how to execute a select few OSR reading activities and did not include training on literacy teaching 
methods and pedagogy. 
Community mobilization is the most accomplished intervention by OSR. Parents and community leaders 
regularly attend sensitization meetings and women are enthusiastic about the adult literacy classes. 
EQ 2a: Was the activity implemented according to the design? Has the 
implementation of the activity followed the original design?
Findings 
To reach the three activity objectives, the grantees proposed a series of interventions that "will engage 
and support primary-aged school children, their families and communities to create and strengthen a 
culture of reading while reducing the gender gap in reading and education14". In the original design, WGEP 
and FP proposed to work in 60 schools and communities. At the time of this evaluation, the activity is 
 
14 OSR 2015 Annual Report
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 25
undergoing implementation in 52 schools and communities, per the 2014 Performance Monitoring Plan 
(PMP). 
Activity documents, site visits and interviews with beneficiaries confirm that the majority of proposed 
activities in the original design were implemented. These include literacy classes and community meetings, 
functioning libraries and ICT centers in Sokone and in Toubacouta, two mobile libraries, solar lanterns, 
reading activities led by teachers and outreach officers, annual reading competitions and scholarship 
packages for students in elementary and middle schools. Several planned interventions could not be 
verified because of a lack of available data. These include the training of teachers in reading methodologies 
and the use of ICT in their classrooms, the book clubs and book days, book friends/mentors, and parent 
workshops. 
According to the FP director and WGEP, one of the biggest variations from the original activity design is 
the access to the targeted schools. School directors confirmed that the OSR activity can visit schools 
twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school hours, and not on a daily basis as would have been 
optimal. According to WGEP, they would have preferred to visit the schools "whenever we wanted", but 
instead they had to review their plans once the inspectorate limited the availability of the schools and 
teachers. 
Another variation from the original design occurred with the sequence and schedule for the 
implementation of the physical and mobile libraries. Activity documents and respondents confirm that the 
library and ICT centers opened in 2016, and not in 2013 as originally planned. Similarly, one mobile library 
was to begin visits to villages in quarter four of 2013, concurrently or soon after the opening of the physical 
libraries. According to the WGEP, the delays with the centers provided an opportunity to rethink the 
design and to begin lending books in the villages with the mobile libraries, prior to the opening of the 
physical libraries. 
The original design proposes tutoring support by older students to primary age students who require 
extra help. Throughout the evaluation interviews, it became quickly evident that there was some confusion 
about the implementation and organization of the tutoring program. Respondents used the French terms 
for tutoring (tutorat) and remedial support (encadrement) interchangeably. The FP director stated that 
remedial classes are provided to the 139 primary school scholarship recipients only. Scholarship recipients 
are chosen by the school director from students who are most at risk of dropping out and only include 
students in Grades 1 and 2 (CI and CP). However, the OSR year 3 quarter 2 report states that 680 
students participated in remedial classes at a rate of 10 students per class. While the data is inconsistent 
regarding student participation in the remedial classes, the FP director explained that teachers are paid 
25,000 CFA to lead these remedial classes. Tutoring, on the other hand, refers to support for struggling 
students by the community and/or older students with no remuneration. The evaluation team met with 
one high school graduate who tutored a young girl in Sokone. The tutor explained that the FP director, 
with whom she had a previous connection from the WGEP/FP project "Nos soeurs à l'école" (Our Sisters 
to School), had recruited her. Community members at Médina Sangako explained that they had reached 
out to the FP director to help them organize a tutoring program when the school achieved a zero passing 
rate at the Grade 6 exams last year. 
Whether through tutoring or remedial classes, community members, school directors, teachers and the 
tutor interviewed testified that students who received the extra support demonstrated improved 
performance in reading and in other subjects. But while the extra support provided seems to have yielded
positive results, the FP director expressed concerns that the activity is relying on paid teachers. In her 
opinion, once funding ceases, teachers will stop providing the extra support. She has suggested that the 
OSR activity implement more of the community-led tutoring model of support and discontinue the 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 26
remedial classes in 2017. She believes the tutoring model is more sustainable but recognizes that tutors 
would need training in pedagogy, which they currently are not receiving from the activity.
Though not included in the original design, FP has helped women who participate in its literacy classes to 
access microfinance loans from local institutions such as Crédit Mutuel. Community members interviewed 
and the FP director provided multiple examples of women who were able to receive small loans to finance 
small businesses.
Conclusions
The majority of the interventions from the original activity design were implemented as proposed. 
However, there were some delays to the implementation schedule, particularly with the mobile libraries
and ICT centers, and some appropriate modifications to the proposed approaches. Most critically, the 
unexpected restricted access to the intervention schools has limited the activity's ability to influence 
classroom practices and to provide regular opportunities for students in remote villages to engage in 
meaningful reading activities. Additionally, changing the approach for extra support to struggling students
from a volunteer and community-based endeavor to one led by paid teachers seems to diverge from 
WGEP's and FP's core approaches to development, which it has as a core tenet of community engagement.
EQ 2b: What internal or external factors (including within USAID) 
have had the biggest impact on the implementation of the activity? 
Which factors may continue to impact the activity and which ones 
seem to have had short-term/specific impact?
Findings 
Interviewees cited several factors as having had an important impact on the implementation of the activity. 
These factors influenced the timeline of the implementation and the approaches to the interventions. 
Table 7 below summarizes the identified external and internal factors that have had an impact and that 
may continue to have an impact on the implementation of the OSR activity. 
Table 7: Factors that Impact Implementation
Collaboration with the education authorities
As mentioned above, one of the biggest changes to the design of the activity resulted from the limits 
imposed initially by the education inspectorate. According to WGEP, it was important that project 
implementers respected local politics and protocols at the launch of the activity and throughout the 
implementation of the interventions. This included engaging village leaders and the education inspectors 
prior to engaging communities and schools. However, according to the FP director, the inspectorate 
would not initially allow an outside consultant to train teachers to put into practice new, non-validated, 
External Factors Internal Factors
Factors that continue to 
impact implementation
1. Collaboration with the 
education inspectorate
2. Buy-in from village leaders
3. Support to women/mothers
1. Recognized and valued local 
leadership
2. Limited human resources
3. Knowledge of USAID rules and 
regulations
Factors that have short￾term/specific impact on 
the implementation
1. Teacher strikes
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 27
reading activities in the schools. The activity eventually signed an agreement with the inspectorate in 2014. 
Inspectors co-trained teachers and school directors on the new and validated reading activities and set 
the school visit schedule which limits the OSR staff to two days a week in all schools. Given the localized 
nature of the activity, there was limited interaction with the National Ministry of Education (MEN). 
Buy-in from village leaders
All community groups interviewed pointed to the fact that the activity began its implementation by 
engaging first with village leaders. According to the FP director, the OSR team started the implementation 
process by organizing meetings with village leaders, imams and marabouts prior to interventions. 
Facilitating partners organized initial meetings to introduce the activity and solicit support. Once village 
leaders were on board, community meetings, literacy classes and school-based activities took place. WGEP 
explained that while the time spent gaining buy-in from the village chiefs was difficult at times, it was crucial 
to ultimately be able to navigate local politics. 
Support to women/mothers 
Respondents explained that the support provided by the activity to women has resulted in improved 
literacy skills, which women are now using to manipulate mobile phones and to make calculations for 
commerce. In Médina Sangako, community members interviewed explained, “women are the engine for 
development”; they manage and initiate all activities. Teachers in Karang 
Socé further explained that the literacy classes are beneficial because once 
a mother is literate the entire community is literate. These teachers and 
the FP director explained that mothers are the main caregivers to 
children; they spend the most amount of time with them and are thus 
better placed to provide support at home and to encourage reading. 
Teacher strikes
The IEF inspector for Sokone and Toubacouta cites the teacher strikes as 
one of the major factors to have had an impact on the implementation of 
the activity. The teacher strikes affected all public OSR schools and lasted 
for a total of 48 schools days. According to WGEP, the FP director and 
the school directors interviewed, the teacher strikes impeded implementation for several months and 
teachers were not able to put into practice the reading activities as planned. 
Recognized and valued local leadership
The mayors, school directors and community members interviewed noted that the FP director was 
instrumental in the implementation of the OSR activity. Also, WGEP explained that the FP director enjoys 
a “nice reputation” within the community. The mayor for Sokone said that he was very impressed with 
the OSR activity and as such had named the FP director as a special counsel to the municipality for girls’ 
education. 
Limited human resources 
WGEP has provided several training sessions to the OSR staff, including trainings for the librarians at 
Alliance Française in Dakar and training for the outreach officers on the reading activities. However, the 
FP director noted that additional training was needed for the OSR team to engage properly with students 
and community members while the inspector mentioned that the OSR outreach officers lacked 
pedagogical training. USAID/OFM conducted an organizational capacity assessment (OCA) of FP, which 
highlighted the need for a qualified financial manager for FP as well as a deputy to the director. When 
“Community mobilization is 
the approach for this 
activity, meaning that it 
started with basic local 
structures…. Everyone, 
everyone is engaged.” 
− Abdoulaye Mbaye, Former 
Mayor and Parent
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 28
asked about staffing needs, the FP director mentioned that OSR activities are difficult to implement in her 
absence since no other staff member has similar administrative or technical knowledge and authority. 
Knowledge of USAID rules and regulations
WGEP and the FP director expressed some frustrations with the lack of guidance from USAID, particularly 
in the first year of the activity. The FP director explained that the OSR team received very limited training 
on USAID financial procedures, and WGEP noted that they “learned by doing”. The implementers 
mentioned the tax exemption status and the problems with advances and reconciliations as examples of 
areas where there was a lack of understanding, which provoked delays in the implementation of the 
activity. 
Conclusions
The implementers were able to capitalize on internal factors, such as the reputation of the FP director, to 
gain access to and buy-in from key local stakeholders at the onset of the activity. Engaging the community 
leaders and women early on served as an important springboard for launching community-based activities 
and for garnering support for other aspects of the activity. Though OSR relies heavily on community 
mobilization to achieve its results, the initial difficult collaboration with the inspectorate at the start of the 
activity illustrates well as to why community-based activities which seek to intervene in schools must also 
engage very early on with the proper education authorities. Working on issues of in-classroom changes 
to teaching approaches also require interface with the MEN. 
The activity’s relationship with the local education authorities, community leaders, and women continues 
to have an impact on its implementation as these actors decide who may participate and to what degree. 
The inspectorate has the authority to limit or expand access to schools. Its decisions influence greatly 
how often the activity interacts with school directors, teachers and students, and thus its ability to improve 
classroom practices and student reading performance. Mothers, on the other hand, organize their 
children’s day and decide on the amount of time that can be devoted to reading outside of school instead 
of working in the fields or in the homes. 
Capitalizing on the reputation of the FP director, their experience in the area, and their understanding of 
local protocols, WGEP and FP deliberately planned a very successful community outreach program. 
However, the implementation of the OSR activity continues to be heavily dependent on the FP director
even as it expands to new villages and incorporates new activities. This overreliance on the director limits 
her ability to interact with and be responsive to the communities, and to provide needed training to team 
members and to provide quality assurance for the interventions. 
EQ 2c: How did the implementing partners and the USAID education 
team address challenges during the implementation of the activity and 
what are some lessons learned?
Findings 
Implementers and USAID staff mentioned several challenges met during implementation of the OSR 
activity during the interviews with the evaluation team. The biggest challenges, their resolutions, and the 
lessons learned are presented below. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 29
1. Access to schools
Challenge: The inspectorate initially refused to allow teachers and school directors to participate in 
the training sessions organized by the activity. The inspectorate also refused to allow the activity to 
implement interventions in the schools. 
Resolution: According to the FP director, the inspector strike provided the opening the activity needed 
to access schools. During the strike, the activity reached out to school directors with whom the FP had 
previously established a working relationship through its “Nos soeurs à l’école” activity. The school 
directors responded positively, which gave OSR an opportunity to implement the reading activities with 
teachers and students in the schools. The implementation in these initial schools provided the activity the 
data needed for its negotiations with the inspectorate. Ultimately, the inspectorate, impressed by the 
testimony of the participating schools and by the student results, agreed to the OSR training plan and to 
the implementation of the reading activities in the schools. 
Lesson Learned: Community engagement programs centered on education need to engage local 
education authorities early in the planning stages. 
2. Training of teachers
Challenge: The activity budget did not permit for all teachers to be trained directly by the activity’s 
literacy expert in the reading activities. 
Resolution: Implementers used a cascade model. The OSR literacy expert trained school directors, the 
inspectors, and one or two teachers in each school. Trained teams were then tasked with replicating the 
training for other colleagues at the schools. According to the inspector, school directors, and teachers 
interviewed, the training model was not implemented as planned. In some schools, teachers explained that 
their colleagues were debriefed on the training received, while in others colleagues were provided one 
day of training. Schools directors and teachers also mentioned that some colleagues who had not 
participated in the training were reluctant to implement the reading activities, as they did not feel it was 
applicable to them. 
Lesson Learned: For this activity, the cascade model can be used, but should involve formal training to
all teachers in a given school to ensure quality, consistency and buy-in from the entire school team. 
3. Construction of the ICT centers
Challenge: WGEP encountered challenges during the procurement of land and the construction of 
the ICT centers. According to WGEP, the first identified parcel of land provided by the Mayor of 
Sokone wasn’t large enough for their purposes and the purchase of the second parcel fell through. 
Once the procurement was completed on another parcel, the construction of the building took longer 
than planned because of the contractor’s poor performance. 
Resolution: According to activity documents, WGEP imposed fees on the contractor for every day the 
construction was delayed beyond the original timeline. In Toubacouta, the activity negotiated with the 
mayor a long-term lease on an available building. The municipality in Toubacouta is funding the costs of 
water and electricity at that center. 
Lesson Learned: There needs to be a clear legal and political strategy for the procurement of land by 
implementers. New implementing partners with no construction experience require additional support 
from USAID. An experienced manager should manage constructions locally. 
4. USAID rules and regulations
Challenge: According to WGEP and FP, there were some implementation delays as they waited for 
the approval of WGEP’s tax-exempt status from the Government of Senegal. In addition, there was 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 30
misunderstandings around the process for advances and reconciliations, which resulted in USAID 
denying additional requests for funds by WGEP. 
Resolution: The current Agreement Officer Representative (AOR) shared the USAID tax exemption
documents with WGEP and FP, which allowed them to clear from customs equipment and materials for 
the ICT centers and libraries. Following guidance from USAID/OFM, WGEP was able to reconcile 
outstanding advances and to receive additional funds to continue implementation. 
Lesson Learned: New implementing partners require additional orientation and continuous support to 
help them navigate USAID rules, regulations and resources. 
EQ 3: How has the capacity of the implementing partner (including the 
subcontractor) changed over the course of the activity? What gaps 
remain?
Findings 
The Our Sisters Read contract was issued to Women’s Global
Education Project as part of the Development Grants Program at 
USAID. The program, now called the Small Grants Program, seeks to 
establish partnerships with small organizations that have no, or very 
little, direct working experience with the agency. A core objective of 
the program is for USAID Missions to provide partner organizations 
"access to technical assistance to improve their planning and 
managements systems and other competencies needed to successfully 
implement USAID-funded activities"15. USAID Missions are thus tasked 
with providing capacity-building support to enhance implementing 
partners' organizational and technical capacities. 
WGEP expressed an expectation of capacity building through this 
activity. However, they felt that they had to "learn by doing" since they 
have received little capacity building support on how to manage USAID grants. Interviewees presented 
two situations as illustrations of this lack of guidance. Both WGEP and USAID/OFM cited initial difficulties 
with the management of advances and reconciliations, which created large balances and raised concerns 
about the burn rate and budgeting for the activity. In addition, WGEP and FP were not aware that they 
could use the USAID blanket tax exemption for procurements. They only came to understand this in 
December 2015 after having initiated a lengthy process to obtain tax-exempt status from the GOS. WGEP 
explained that, during the first year of the activity, they had been assigned four different agreement officer 
representatives (AORs), which may explain the gaps in guidance. 
Upon review of the agreement between USAID and WGEP and other activity documents, including 
budgets and annual work plans, the evaluation team did not find any mention of plans or funds to support
the organizational capacity development of WGEP or FP. 
When questioned about capacity building as part of OSR, interviewees focused on the support provided 
to FP. WGEP explained that capacity building is an integral part of their approach. WGEP and the FP 
director provided multiple examples of instances of training provided to FP and the OSR local staff. Several 
training sessions geared towards improving activity implementation were provided by WGEP, including 
training on literacy activities for the outreach officers and community liaisons (relais), planning and 
 
15 http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/instructions/oppM-OAA-GRO-ALPS-09-001-LOCAL-cfda98.001-cidM-OAA￾GRO-ALPS-09-001-LOCAL-instructions.pdf
“The award that we received 
was part of the Development 
Grants Program…it is 
specifically geared towards 
small organizations…like ours 
and I would submit that 
sometimes that is lost sight of 
from the USAID side.” 
− LILY MESSIH, WGEP 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 31
scheduling of interventions, using spreadsheets, data monitoring and reporting, and understanding budget 
line items, amongst others. Also, interviewees mentioned USAID-led training sessions for FP on financial 
management. 
USAID/OFM traveled to Sokone in May 2014 to conduct the first OCA for FP. However, upon realizing 
that basic systems and processes for financial and administrative management were missing, the USAID 
team provided instead a training which included recommendations for organizational and management 
improvements. In October 2015, USAID/OFM returned to Sokone and conducted the first OCA for FP. 
USAID/OFM noted that approximately 30 percent of the recommendations from May 2014 had been 
completed by then. Important gaps remained, particularly in terms of human resources policies and 
manuals, filing systems and financial management. USAID/OFM noted that FP and the activity relied heavily 
on its director and that FP did not have a qualified financial manager at the time. According to WGEP and 
the FP director, it has been difficult to find a qualified financial manager from the Sokone area who 
understands USAID regulations. At the time of this evaluation, WGEP and FP were recruiting the fourth 
financial manager for OSR. 
In addition to the recruitment of the financial manager, WGEP cited the development of a procurement 
policy, human resources policies and manuals and the implementation of systems as actions that have been 
taken in response to the 2015 OCA16. FP and WGEP also noted that the OSR staff has increased to 15 in 
2016 which has required, and continues to require, training and capacity building. 
As noted in the limitations section of this report, the evaluation team discovered several gaps in the data 
provided for this activity. For example, several fields were left incomplete in the data sets received with 
the student performance data. Beneficiary data, such as visits to centers, are not always disaggregated by 
gender. The DQA conducted by USAID in March 2016 also cited several concerns with the monitoring 
data as reported by WGEP and FP. These concerns include instances of double counting of beneficiaries, 
the absence of supporting documents, inadequate data collection forms, a lack of manual for data collection 
and management, and a lack of data quality assurance procedures. 
For the FP director there remains important training needs for the OSR staff in communication for 
behavior change, remediation and pedagogy. The FP director noted that she has included in her reports 
to WGEP that she and the OSR team are in need of training in management, financial management and 
budgeting. The FP director explained that her long-term plans for FP are ambitious. With the training and 
guidance received from USAID/OFM, she explained that FP is working to put in place systems to improve 
the capacity of its members to better manage programs. Her priorities for FP include the establishment 
of a board of directors, registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO), training in fundraising 
and making the organization more visible. 
For WGEP, capacity building of FP involves ensuring that the OSR interventions are sustainable. WGEP 
believes that hiring staff locally and providing them with skills training will ensure sustainability as well as 
lend legitimacy to the activity. WGEP also explained that during the remaining year of the activity, they 
will work with FP to turn the ICT centers into community centers where resources, such as the internet, 
can be used to generate revenue and cover part of the operating expenses.
Conclusions
Through the implementation of OSR, Femmes Plus (FP) has slowly gained skills and knowledge to improve 
the implementation of its most important program, OSR. Yet, capacity building of an organization generally 
 
16 USAID/OFM is scheduled to return to Sokone for a follow-up on the OCA on July 18, 2016. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 32
aims to improve its ability to fulfill its mission and sustain itself in the future. Capacity building should 
ideally strengthen an organization's management policies and systems, and not merely its programs. 
There is an important disparity between WGEP and FP in their vision and long-term plans for FP. While 
WGEP seems to be mainly focused on planning for the sustainability of OSR interventions, the FP director 
is looking to strengthen the organization's technical, financial and management systems for its long-term 
health. Capacity building is not understood and thought of in the same manner by these two partner 
organizations. One partner, WGEP, is focused on strengthening the technical and programmatic capacity 
of FP to consolidate, and potentially expand to new geographic areas, gains made under OSR. The other 
partner, FP, is looking to capitalize on the technical and organizational training received as part of OSR to 
improve its ability to effectively deliver its mission at the conclusion of OSR and over time. 
This disparity in vision has consequences on capacity building plans. As noted by the FP director and 
USAID/OFM, OSR and FP rely heavily on their local director. This overreliance on the FP director limits 
the implementation of OSR interventions and is detrimental to future programmatic plans. The FP director 
is highly regarded in the community, by WGEP and USAID. She is responsive to communities but 
expressed frustration at her inability to work more closely with the Toubacouta center or to visit all of 
the intervention schools. And while it is commendable that the OSR team has increased in size and that 
training continues to be provided to improve work products, none of the new hires are skilled enough to 
provide the type of programmatic and management leadership that is required for a growing organization. 
The FP director remains the sole technical and management leader in the Sokone office. 
In keeping with their approach to development, WGEP and FP rely heavily on locally recruited staff, interns 
and volunteers to implement the OSR activity. However, the pool of available and qualified candidates is 
very restricted which negatively affects the implementation of interventions and organizational 
development, particular in regards to strong financial and data management systems. 
WGEP has not received sufficient and timely guidance on how to manage USAID contracts. For this new 
grantee, the lack of early guidance meant that they had to learn USAID rules and regulations as they were 
implementing the activity, which led to miscommunication, frustrations and implementation delays. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The following recommendations are based on the findings and conclusions presented in this report and 
are organized for the consideration of key stakeholders. 
WGEP
1. Education projects, regardless of size and strategy, should coordinate early and closely with the 
Ministry of Education, at the central, regional and district levels, around curriculum reforms 
related to reading.
2. WGEP, FP and USAID/Senegal should develop an institutional capacity development plan with a 
timeline, targets and allocated budget. 
3. WGEP and Femmes Plus should hire a qualified financial manager from outside the immediate 
Sokone and Toubacouta areas. A qualified financial manager will allow Femmes Plus and WGEP 
to establish proper procedures and systems per the OCA recommendations and action plan. The
financial manager can be recruited on a temporary basis to respond to immediate needs and to 
train a locally hired manager who will eventually take on financial management responsibilities for 
the OSR activity and for Femmes Plus in the long-term.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 33
4. Similarly, WGEP and Femmes Plus should hire a qualified monitoring and evaluation officer to help 
set up systems for appropriate data collection, verification and management. As WGEP is currently 
recruiting a new Field Coordinator, it should consider a candidate with strong M&E experience.
5. As the FP director noted, the schools with easier access to the ICT centers are “spoiled”. OSR 
should review the planning of school visits by the mobile libraries to prioritize schools that are 
furthest from the centers. A calendar of visits for schools closer to the centers can be established 
to ensure that these students regularly visit the centers to borrow books and use other library 
resources. 
6. Though intended as extracurricular activities, OSR should continue to implement the reading 
activities in remote villages during summer vacations. As much as possible, the mobile library, with 
the tablets, should visit communities that do not have access to the ICT centers to capitalize on 
the motivation to read that has been developed in students and reinforce the skills learned 
throughout the year. 
7. For this activity, given the size of the intervention schools and the lack of qualified master trainers, 
direct training should be provided to all targeted teachers. 
8. OSR, and future similar activities, should provide initial training and continuous coaching, or 
teacher professional development, to all teachers within a school through the CODEC and 
“cellule d’animation pédagogique”. 
9. OSR should produce a short addendum to the teacher guide that provides tips for the integration 
of the activities throughout the school day and for the transfer of methods to other subjects or 
lessons.
10. OSR should continue to engage the inspectorate in various aspects of the activity to ensure good 
coordination with the schools. Delivering training and monitoring services through the CODEC 
necessarily engages local education officials and increases their stake in its success. 
11. OSR should continue to provide adult literacy classes as a key motivator.
12. OSR should replicate, in communities that solicit it, the tutoring models that some communities 
have initiated.
FP
13. Femmes Plus should focus on sustainable organizational capacity development including the 
retention of a qualified finance manager and deputy director. 
USAID
14. The community mobilization strategy employed by OSR should serve as a model to other activities 
that have a community-based component.
15. USAID should provide early guidance on available programmatic and management resources to 
new grantees, whether located in the US or in Senegal.
16. USAID/Senegal should conduct an initial organizational capacity assessment of first time local 
grantees within the first six months of a contract. 
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 34
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
ÉVALUATION DES PERFORMANCES 
DE L’ACTIVITÉ «OUR SISTERS READ»
CADRE DE TRAVAIL
APRIL 25, 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech 
Company, for the USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project.
Our Sisters Read Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 35
ÉVALUATION DES 
PERFORMANCES DE L’ACTIVITÉ 
« OUR SISTERS READ »
CADRE DE TRAVAIL
Contracted under AID-685-C-15-00003
USAID Senegal Mission Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government.
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 36
ACRONYMES
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy 
CDT Cadre De Travail
COR Contracting Officer’s Representative
CV Curriculum Vitae 
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DO Development Objective
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
IA Inspection d’Académie
IEF Inspection de l'Education et de la Formation
INEADE Institut national d'Etude et d'Action pour le Développement de 
l'Education
IP Implementation Partners 
IR Intermediate Result 
LOE Level Of Effort 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MEN Ministère de l’Education Nationale
MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Project 
ONG Organisation Non Gouvernementale
OS Objectif spécifique
OSR Our Sisters Read
PALME Partenariat pour l'Amélioration de la Lecture et des Mathématiques 
dans 
PAQUET Programme d'Amélioration de la Qualité, de l'Equité et de la 
Transparence 
PDEF Programme décennal de l'éducation et de la formation
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
S&E Suivi & Evaluation 
SOW Statement of Work 
TAP Taux d’achèvement du primaire 
TPM Technical Planning Meeting
UNICEF Fonds des Nations unies pour l'enfance
USA United States of America 
USAID United States Agency International for Development 
WGEP Women’s Global Education Project
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 37
1. INFORMATIONS DE BASE
Manager du CDT à 
l’USAID Badara Sarr, EDU
AOR/COR de 
l’ACTIVITE17 Badara Sarr, EDU
Manager du CDT à MEP Moussa Sy, Spécialiste Sénior en Evaluation 
INTITULE DE 
L’ACTIVITE Our Sisters Read
Date de début et de fin 
de l’activité Du 9 septembre 2013 au 8 septembre 2017 
Subvention/Contrat CA-AID-685-A-13-00003 
Montant du financement $1,700,904
Partenaire d’exécution Women’s Global Education Project/Femmes Plus 
Zone d’intervention Fatick
Période à évaluer Du 9 septembre 2013 au présent 
Date du début et de fin 
de l’évaluation Du 12 mai 2016 au 29 juillet 2016
2. CONTEXTE DE L’ACTIVITE18
La scolarisation et le maintien des enfants à l’école jusqu’à l’âge de 16 ans, comme le prévoit la législation 
sénégalaise, reste un défi majeur au Sénégal. Les privations aussi bien en matière d’accès que de maintien 
des enfants à l’école sont encore réelles, quoique à des proportions variables selon les régions.
Au Sénégal, beaucoup d’enfants commencent leur scolarité sans jamais achever le cycle élémentaire. Si 
dans le domaine de l’accès, la plupart des facteurs qui entravaient l’amélioration des niveaux d’accès ont 
été bien adressés par les politiques mises en œuvre par l’Etat et ses partenaires, des défis importants 
restent à être relevés, non seulement pour scolariser les enfants issus des familles les plus pauvres, mais 
également et surtout pour le maintien à l’école de ces élèves une fois scolarisés, pour leur assurer un 
parcours scolaire suffisamment long leur permettant d’acquérir les connaissances de base essentielles. 
En effet, la mise en œuvre du Programme décennal de l'éducation et de la formation (PDEF) a permis 
d’atteindre, entre autres, des résultats significatifs dans le relèvement du taux d’accès dans l'enseignement 
primaire. Ce programme a aussi permis l’amélioration de l’indice de parité filles/garçons en faveur des 
filles, avec une évolution fulgurante à partir de 2000 aboutissant à une inversion de la tendance en 2010. 
Toutefois, même si l’accès à la scolarité a été considérablement amélioré au Sénégal durant cette période, 
il reste encore une proportion importante de ces enfants qui éprouvent d’importantes difficultés à s’y 
maintenir. Au problème de l’accès, s’est donc substitué celui du maintien à l’école, notamment celui des 
filles. Les déperditions scolaires dont les fortes traductions restent les niveaux élevés d’abandons et de 
 
17 Le concept « Activité » correspond ici à projet. Il devra être entendu dans ce sens dans toutes ses utilisations dans ce 
document. 
18 Ibidem, correspond au sens classique de projet.
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 38
redoublements, sont encore des réalités qui caractérisent le parcours scolaire d’une partie importante 
d’élèves, en particulier les jeunes filles. En effet, au Sénégal, beaucoup d’enfants commencent leur scolarité 
sans jamais l’achever. Parmi les différents facteurs qui entravaient la performance scolaire et la rétention 
figure en bonne place la question de la qualité des apprentissages et les niveaux d’acquisitions des élèves 
dont la plupart sont liés à des problèmes d’accès aux intrants pédagogiques dus à la pauvreté. Compte 
tenu du fait que la déperdition scolaire touche davantage les filles que les garçons, notamment dans la 
transition moyen-secondaire, le Sénégal et plusieurs de ses partenaires ont accordé une attention 
particulière à la question du maintien des filles dont les taux d’achèvement du primaire (TAP) sont encore 
très faibles comparés à ceux des garçons. Plus nombreuses que les garçons au départ grâce aux efforts 
spectaculaires enregistrés dans l’inversion de l’indice de parité en leur faveur, les filles restent encore 
désavantagées dans le maintien et les performances scolaires. Elles sont plus nombreuses que les garçons 
à abandonner et à décrocher de l’école au fur et à mesure que l’on progresse du primaire au 
secondaire. Pour pallier à cette forte déperdition scolaire relevant d’une multitude de facteurs, aussi bien 
scolaires qu’extra-scolaires, le Sénégal a institué l’obligation ou le droit pour tout enfant de bénéficier 
d’une scolarité de dix (10) ans au moins (entre les âges de 6 à 16 ans) avec la loi 2004-37. Cependant, en 
dépit de cette disposition juridique qui visait à réduire la déperdition scolaire et d’assurer un parcours 
scolaire minimum de dix ans à tous les enfants, les taux d’achèvement du primaire et de rétention du 
système s’avèrent encore faibles.
Dans ses efforts de soutien à l’Etat du Sénégal dans sa politique éducative, pour qui, la problématique de 
la qualité est au cœur de ses préoccupations (PAQUET 2013-2015) et en appui à l’initiative « Women’s 
Global Education Project », l’USAID, à travers « Our Sisters Read » qui intègre parfaitement l’objectif de 
développement 3 (DO319), a financé cette activité d’une durée de quatre ans, dans la région de Fatick, 
plus particulièrement dans la circonscription de l’ Inspection de l'Education et de la Formation (IEF)20 de 
Foundioune. Le but de cette activité est d’améliorer l’intérêt pour la lecture et les capacités en lecture 
des élèves des écoles primaires en milieu rural, en particulier les filles. L’atteinte de cet objectif passera 
par la réalisation des trois objectifs intermédiaires ci-après : 
• OS1 : bâtir des capacités fondamentales en lecture de 6.800 élèves des écoles primaires en 
milieu rural, avec au moins 50% de filles en leurs offrant l’accès à des centres technologiques, 
des laboratoires mobiles et à travers la formation des enseignants d’ici 2017 ; 
• OS2 : encourager et motiver les élèves à la lecture à travers la mise à disposition de ressources 
novatrices et incitatives qui atteignent les élèves dans les écoles par le biais de concours, de 
bourses et des clubs de lecture ; 
• OS3 : bâtir des communautés de parents et de leaders qui soutiennent les élèves (garçons et 
filles) dans leurs efforts d’amélioration de leurs capacités en lecture et d’utilisation des 
ressources technologiques d’apprentissage.
D’un budget de 1,700,000 US dollars, l’activité Our Sisters Read (OSR) a été mise en œuvre en partenariat 
avec l’ONG locale « Femmes Plus ». Les tâches principales exécutées dans ce cadre sont, entre autres : 
• Formation des enseignants,
• Activités pédagogiques (séances de lecture, clubs de lecture, jeux pédagogiques),
• Activités incitatives (concours, bourses), 
• Mentorat et encadrement des élèves par les enseignants et
• Alphabétisation des adultes. 
 
19 CDCS
20 IEF : Inspection de l’Education et de la Formation 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 39
3. HYPOTHESE DE DEVELOPPEMENT ET SA MISE EN 
ŒUVRE
L’objectif final de cette activité est d’améliorer les aptitudes en lecture des élèves, notamment des filles 
dans les écoles primaires rurales du département de Foundiougne (région de Fatick). Différentes études 
ont établi la relation entre la déperdition scolaire (échecs scolaires, abandons, etc.) avec la baisse de la 
qualité des apprentissages dans le système éducatif. Plusieurs initiatives ont été menées par des institutions 
comme l’Institut national d'Etude et d'Action pour le Développement de l'Education (INEADE) et divers 
autres projets pour montrer la faiblesse des niveaux des aptitudes, particulièrement en lecture et en 
mathématiques. Les échecs scolaires consécutifs à cette baisse des performances entrainent une 
démotivation aussi bien chez les élèves que chez les parents dans le maintien des enfants à l’école, en 
particulier pour les filles. 
SYNTHESE DU CADRE LOGIQUE DE L’ACTIVITE
But de l’activité : Améliorer les performances en lecture des élèves notamment des filles des écoles primaires 
rurales.
RI 1: Bâtir les capacités fondamentales en lecture de 
6,800 élèves du cycle primaire en milieu rural, avec 
au moins 50% de filles, en offrant l’accès à des 
centres de technologies, des laboratoires mobiles et 
la formation des enseignants d’ici 2017.
Augmenter l’accès aux matériels de lecture à travers 
les centres technologiques, les librairies et les 
laboratoires mobiles.
Améliorer les pratiques de l’enseignement de 
l’alphabétisation.
RI 2 : Encourager et motiver les élèves à la lecture à 
travers la mise à disposition de ressources 
novatrices et incitatives qui atteignent les élèves 
dans les écoles par le biais de concours, de bourses 
et des clubs de lecture.
Motiver les élèves à la lecture 
Accroitre les opportunités de rétention des élèves à 
l’école
RI 3 : Bâtir des communautés de parents et de 
leaders qui soutiennent les élèves (filles et garçons) 
dans leurs efforts d’améliorations de leurs capacités 
en lecture et d’utilisation des ressources 
technologiques d’apprentissage
Accroitre le soutien des communautés (parents et 
leaders) à travers une campagne globale de promotion 
de l’alphabétisation.
La logique d’intervention de l’activité OSR est basée sur l’hypothèse selon laquelle une amélioration des 
capacités en lecture des élèves permettrait non seulement de renforcer les aptitudes des enfants, mais 
également de soutenir de meilleures performances scolaires. La réduction des échecs qui en résulterait 
participerait à créer un environnement social, familial et communautaire soutenant les études des enfants, 
plus particulièrement pour les filles qui sont les plus exposées à l’abandon scolaire au profit des activités 
économiques, les migrations de travail et les tâches domestiques. L’atteinte des objectifs spécifiques 
déclinés plus haut (cf. contexte) permettrait d’améliorer les acquisitions fondamentales des élèves et leurs 
performances scolaires dans le domaine de la lecture. Les activités mises en œuvre à cette fin comprennent 
des sessions de formation au profit des instituteurs, des activités de lecture en dehors des classes (activités 
extra-scolaires, activités ludiques, jeux pédagogiques, etc.), des sessions d’alphabétisation d’adultes et bien 
d’autres prestations organisées par le laboratoire mobile, une mise à disposition de manuels et de clubs 
de lecture pour les élèves. Parallèlement à ces activités pédagogiques, le projet a mis en place diverses 
autres activités incitatives destinées à susciter et à soutenir l’intérêt et la motivation des enfants à 
participer dans les activités liées à l’amélioration de la lecture : concours, bourses, etc. L’approche 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 40
développée ainsi que les différentes activités déroulées ont volontairement visé une implication active et 
soutenue des enfants (élèves des deux sexes), les enfants du primaire, leurs familles et les communautés 
pour promouvoir la culture de la lecture en vue d’améliorer les performances et ainsi de réduire les 
inégalités de genre en matière d’éducation. 
Toutefois, il est à noter que des retards et changements importants ont été enregistrés pendant la mise 
en œuvre du projet : 
i) Retard dans la construction et la mise à disposition du centre de l’information et communication 
technologique entrainant une suspension des activités associées à la disponibilité de cette
infrastructure ; 
ii) Suspension du projet PALME dont les évaluations standardisées devaient être utilisées dans la 
détermination de la situation de référence du projet (baseline).
4. SOURCES D’INFORMATION EXISTANTES
Les sources d’information qui pourront être utilisées dans le cadre de cette évaluation, sans se limiter à 
cette liste, sont déclinées ci-après,: 
N° Titre du document Dates 
1 WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Performance Monitoring Plan
2 WGEP - Our Sisters Read, Branding and Marking Plan
3 WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Annual Implementation Plan, Oct 1, 2013- Sept 30, 2014
4 WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 First Quarterly Report, Sept 9, 2013- Dec 31, 2014
5 WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 Second Quarterly Report, Jan 1, 2014- March 31, 2014
6 WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 Third Quarterly Report, April 9, 2014 - Jun 30, 2014
7 WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Report- Fourth Quarter Oct 1, 2013- Sept 2014
8 WGEP - Our Sisters Read, Annual Performance Indicator Report, Oct 1, 2013- Sept 30, 2014
9 WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Implementation Plan, Oct 1, 2014- Sept 30, 2015
10 WGEP- Our Sister Read, Year 2 Annual Report- Fourth Quarter Oct 1, 2014- Sept 30, 2015
11 WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Implementation Plan, Oct 1, 2015- Sept 30, 2016
12 WGEP- Our Sisters Read Performance Indicators Review Oct 2015
13 Evaluation de la qualité des apprentissages, Jangandoo, IFAN 2014
14 PASEC (2007). Evaluation du PASEC, CONFEMEN, Dakar 2007
15 PASEC 2014- Performances des systèmes éducatifs en Afrique Subsaharienne 
francophone : Compétences et facteurs de réussite au primaire. PASEC, 
CONFEMEN, Dakar. 
2015
16 Etat des lieux de l’éducation de base au Sénégal, MEN 2014
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 41
5. BUT, AUDIENCES ET UTILISATIONS PREVUES DES 
RESULTATS
Le but de cette évaluation est de déterminer le niveau d’exécution actuel de l’activité, y compris les 
réussites et défis identifiés durant sa mise en œuvre. Elle revêt deux dimensions complémentaires : 
sommative et formative. 
Caractère sommatif de l’évaluation : les résultats de cette évaluation permettront à l’USAID de disposer 
de données actuelles et fiables sur le niveau des tâches associées à cette activité, tout autant que les 
résultats intermédiaires atteints et/ou en voie de l’être. Les changements utiles pourront, sur cette base, 
être apportés dans le but d’atteindre les résultats escomptés ; 
Caractère formatif de l’évaluation à mi-parcours : les résultats de l’évaluation à mi-parcours permettront 
un apprentissage à partir de la mise en œuvre opérationnelle de l’activité. Dans cette perspective, les 
bonnes pratiques ainsi que leçons apprises seront utilisées dans une logique d’apprentissage pour informer 
la mise en œuvre ultérieure. 
Enfin, dans une perspective plus large, les résultats de l’évaluation pourront être utilisés par le MEN et 
tout autre partenaire technique dans le cadre du développement d’activités et de programmes futurs, 
particulièrement dans le domaine de l’amélioration des capacités de lecture des élèves. 
6. QUESTIONS DE L’ÉVALUATION 
La question principale de l’évaluation est de déterminer le niveau d’amélioration des aptitudes en lecture 
des élèves des écoles primaires couvertes par l’activité « Our Sisters Read » ? 
Les questions spécifiques sont les suivantes : 
1. Quel était le niveau de précision de la théorie du changement qui sous-tend la conception et la mise 
en œuvre de l’activité ? 
a. Les mesures prévues par l’activité (par exemple l’accès aux ressources, clubs de livres, concours, 
bourses, etc.) ont-elles conduit à motiver les élèves ?
b. Les mesures prévues par l’activité (par exemple l'alphabétisation des adultes, le mentorat par 
des enseignants, etc.) ont-elles renforcé la mobilisation communautaire ?
c. Les interventions prevues par l'activite (par exemple, l'alphabetisation des adultes, les rencontres 
communautaires. le mentorat par des enseignants, etc.) ont-elles renforce Ia mobilisation 
communautaire ? Quelles sont celles qui ont ete les plus reussies ?
d. Quel a ete le degre d'adhesion de Ia communaute a ce projet ? Pourquoi ?
2. Dans quelle mesure le partenaire d'exécution (y compris le principal et le secondaire) a-t-il atteint les 
objectifs poursuivis par l’activité ?
a. Le niveau d'execution de l'activite correspond-elle ace qui etait prevu ? 
b. Quels sont les facteurs internes ou externes (y compris au sein de l'USAID) qui ont le plus 
grand effet sur la mise en œuvre de l’activité ? Quels sont ces facteurs qui pourraient être 
rencontrés à nouveau et ceux qui semblent aberrants ?
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 42
c. Comment le partenaire d’exécution et l’équipe Education a-t-il relevé les défis rencontrés dans 
la mise en œuvre de l’activité et quelles sont les leçons à en tirer ? 
3. Comment les capacités du partenaire d'exécution (y compris le partenaire principal et le 
secondaire) ont-elles changé au cours de la mise en œuvre de l’activité ? Quelle sont les lacunes 
qui subsistent ? 
7. DESAGREGATION SELON LE GENRE ET EFFETS 
DIFFERENTIELS
L’un des objectifs assignés à l’activité et d’atteindre au moins 50% de filles parmi les bénéficiaires ayant 
amélioré leurs aptitudes en lecture. Les données collectées dans cette évaluation seront donc 
nécessairement désagrégées par sexe pour apprécier le niveau de couverture des filles certes, mais 
également dans la perspective d’analyser plus finement les effets différentiels selon le genre sur différentes 
dimensions (amélioration des aptitudes de lecture, performances scolaires, participation aux concours 
organisés, etc.) pour les garçons et pour les filles. 
8. MODELE ET METHODOLOGIE DE L’EVALUATION
La mise en œuvre de cette évaluation sera basée sur une démarche participative. Elle impliquera toutes 
les parties prenantes de l’activité « Our Sisters Read » : autant ses bénéficiaires directs (élèves) et 
communautés que les bénéficiaires indirects et acteurs. La démarche méthodologique sera axée sur quatre 
(4) étapes principales : (i) revue et analyse de la documentation, (ii) conception de la matrice de l’évaluation 
par le biais de la Matrice des réponses et des outils de collecte (guides), (iii) enquête sur le terrain et (iv) 
analyse des données et production du rapport d’évaluation.
Revue et analyse des documents
La revue de toute la documentation élaborée dans le cadre de l’activité sera effectuée (proposal de 
l’activité, rapports annuels, rapports trimestriels, plans de travail, rapports de suivi des activités, PMP, etc.). 
L’analyse de cette documentation permettra une appréciation préliminaire des réalisations effectuées 
(nombre d’élèves touchés par l’activité, manuels distribués, nombre de formations en alphabétisation pour 
les adultes, nombre d’écoles et d’élèves concernés par l’activité, scores des élèves issus des tests de 
lecture, etc.). Elle est essentielle pour le cadrage de la mission ainsi que pour le traitement initial des 
données. Elle sera complétée par la revue de la documentation disponible sur le sujet : documents de 
politique du Gouvernement, travaux et études antérieures menées sur la même thématique, etc. Les 
données quantitatives et statistiques de l’activité, ainsi que toutes autres données secondaires pertinentes 
seront exploitées en vue d’une analyse quantitative. 
Conception de la matrice « Matrice des réponses » et élaboration des 
outils de collecte
Après l’exploitation initiale de la documentation, l’équipe d’évaluation produira la matrice d’évaluation qui 
déclinera les processus de collecte de l’information sur la base des questions de recherche principales.
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 43
Les cibles auprès desquelles ces informations seront collectées seront également identifiées et précisées. 
Pour chaque catégorie de cible, des outils appropriés seront développés pour satisfaire aux besoins 
spécifiques d’information. Les outils de collecte seront conçus en fonction de la cible, mais également 
selon la technique de collecte utilisée (entretien semi-structuré, entretien approfondi, focus-groups, récits 
de cas, etc.). Un pré-test des outils sera organisé dans le souci de vérifier qu’ils généreront des réponses 
aux questions d’évaluations. De ce point de vue, la rencontre de planification technique prévue avec 
l’USAID, MEP/Sénégal et les consultants permettra de passer en revue l’ensemble des outils élaborés ainsi 
que leur conformité aux attentes des parties prenantes. 
Enquête sur le terrain
Les données primaires de l’évaluation seront collectées directement sur le terrain par l’équipe 
d’évaluation. Elle se fera aussi bien à Dakar (Ministère, USAID, UNICEF, etc.) que sur le terrain au niveau 
de la zone d’intervention de l’activité où toutes les parties prenantes et bénéficiaires seront rencontrées 
et interviewées. 
Les outils de collecte élaborés, partagés et validés serviront à la conduite des enquêtes sur le terrain 
auprès des différentes cibles. Les interviews (semi-structurés, approfondis et focus-groups) seront 
conduites pour recueillir les opinions et appréciations des parties prenantes, tout autant que pour 
apprécier les effets et changements induits par les activités chez les élèves et dans leurs communautés
respectives. 
L’incidence des interventions sur la qualité de la lecture des élèves ainsi que l’intérêt accordé par les 
parents seront également appréhendées. Les acteurs de l’éducation (enseignants, directeurs d’écoles et 
inspecteurs de l’éducation de de la formation au niveau des IEF et IA) seront également interviewés. 
Des entretiens de groupes seront organisés avec les membres de la communauté, les élèves et enseignants 
intervenant dans les écoles couvertes par l’activité. 
Au-delà des entretiens qualitatifs, les données empiriques permettant de fournir les preuves des 
changements pourront être collectées au niveau des établissements visités si elles sont disponibles auprès 
des enseignants et/ou directeurs d’écoles. L’expert spécialiste en lecture veillera à fournir une appréciation 
objective et documentée des ressources et données disponibles sur le terrain. 
9. ANALYSE DES DONNEES
La matrice des réponses une fois élaborée par l’équipe, fournira plus de détails sur les outils d’analyse de 
données qui seront pertinents. L’utilisation de cet outil va assurer que les réponses apportées dans cette 
évaluation seront triangulées sur la base de diverses techniques et sources de collecte. 
Pour le traitement des données qualitatives qui seront produites par les entretiens et focus-groups, les 
procédés de l’analyse thématique seront utilisés. L’ensemble des entretiens et des focus group seront 
transcrits, saisis et recodés. Leur analyse thématique procédera par une identification des contenus 
structurants en lien avec les questions principales de recherche. 
Pour ce qui est des données quantitatives et autres statistiques produites dans le cadre de l’activité, leur 
analyse permettra de présenter aussi bien les tendances globales observées que les situations spécifiques 
aux garçons et aux filles. Au besoin, d’autres critères de désagrégation pourront également être utilisés 
pour affiner les analyses et offrir davantage de détails dans la présentation des résultats. 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 44
10. FORCES ET LIMITES DES APPROCHES UTILISEES
La disponibilité des documents élaborés par l’activité est une réelle opportunité pour l’évaluation. Ils 
permettent de suivre les réalisations à partir du plan de mise en œuvre, des fiches de suivis, des indicateurs 
du plan de suivi renseignés par l’équipe de WGEP et son partenaire « Femmes Plus ». 
En revanche, l’une des limites majeures à signaler pour cette évaluation est l’absence de données de 
référence dont la production était assujettie à la disponibilité des évaluations standardisées de l’activité 
Partenariat pour l'Amélioration de la Lecture et des Mathématiques dans (PALME). La suspension prématurée 
de cette activité a privé « Our Sisters Read » de disposer d’une baseline indispensable pour une 
appréciation correcte de sa performance. De plus, la non utilisation d’une évaluation effective des 
apprentissages (EGRA) dans cette évaluation à mi-parcours constitue une autre limite majeure 
d’appréciation des progrès engendrés dans les capacités de lecture des élèves. 
Cependant, l’utilisation de techniques variées dans les procédures de collecte des données ainsi que la 
triangulation des sources d’information (pluralité et diversité des cibles des enquêtes) constitue des forces 
qui permettent de réduire de manière très significative les biais liés au recours principal aux techniques 
qualitatives.
11. LIVRABLES DE L’ÉVALUATION
Les livrables attendus sont les suivants :
• Le cadre méthodologique (démarche, outils de collecte, méthodes de traitement et d’analyse) ; 
• Briefing et exposé des aspects méthodologiques à l’équipe Education de l’USAID ; 
• La base des données collectées auprès des élèves, des acteurs éducatifs (directeurs, enseignants, 
et inspecteurs des IA et IF) et des communautés – y compris la base des données brutes avec le 
dictionnaire des données et les notes des membres de l’équipe (questionnaires remplis, 
éléments sonores des interviews, fiche de dépouillement.)
• Le rapport préliminaire ; 
• Débriefing et présentation des résultats, conclusions et recommandations à l’intention de 
chaque partie prenante (USAID, partenaires de l’activité, communautés, écoles, IA, IF) (en 
français et anglais) ; 
• Le rapport final de l’évaluation (en français et anglais) ; 
• Compte rendu de la rencontre de partage (à développer dans le rapport final) ;
• Le rapport de la rencontre de partage qui sera annexé au rapport final de l’évaluation. 
12. COMPOSITION DE L’ÉQUIPE
L’équipe d’évaluation sera composée d’un chef d’équipe internationale un spécialiste en évaluation 
d’Education et un associé en S&E du MEP qui va appuyer leur travail. Mme Gaëlle Simon sera la chef 
d’équipe de la mission d’évaluation en tant qu’experte en lecture avec plus de douze (12) années 
d’expérience dans les évaluations de l’apprentissage et l’amélioration de la qualité des prestations de 
services d’Education. Mme Simon a une grande expérience nationale et internationale dans la conduite 
d’évaluation de niveau de lecture. Elle sera soutenue par un expert de haut niveau en développement 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 45
communautaire dans le domaine de l’éducation qui se chargera d’analyser les forces et faiblesses des 
stratégies mises en œuvre pour susciter une dynamique sociale en faveur de la lecture. MEP Sénégal est à 
la recherche de ce profil important dont la mission au sein de l’équipe sera de mettre en œuvre le volet 
communautaire de l’évaluation.
Tous les membres de l’équipe fourniront une déclaration signée attestant qu’il n’y a aucun conflit d’intérêt 
ou de décrire un conflit d’intérêt existant.
Dates Tâches/Livrables
Niveaux d’intervention
(en jours)
Chef d’équipe – 
Gaelle Simon
Expert en 
développement 
communautaire
Total
1-10 Juin, 
2016
Revue des rapports et développement du 
plan de travail et matrices des réponses
4 3 7 
11 Juin 2016 Voyage international 1 1 
13 Juin 2016 Réunion de planification technique inclure 
briefing avec USAID
1 1 2 
14 Juin, 2016 USAID revue du plan de travail et des outlils 1 1 2 
15-24 Juin 
2016
Travail de terrain à Fatick 9 9 18
25-29 Juin 
2016 
Compilation des résultats, conclusions et 
recommandations
4 2 6 
30 Juin 2016 Présentation du cadre de résultats, 
Conclusions et recommandations à USAID 
1 1 2 
1 Juillet 2016Voyage international 1 1 
4 Juillet-15 
Juillet 2016
Analyse des données et rédaction du 
rapport
6 5 11
19 Juillet, 
2016
Soumission du rapport draft a USAID
22 Juillet, 
2016
Atelier avec le MEN, IPs et parties 
prennantes du projet
1 1 
9 Aout 2016 Finalisation du rapport 5 3 8 
Niveau estimé total estimé de l'effort (LOE) 33 26 59
13. PARTICIPATION DE L’USAID ET DE SES 
PARTENAIRES
L’équipe de l’USAID sera impliquée tout au long du processus de conception et de mise en œuvre de 
cette évaluation. Leur contribution sera sollicitée à toutes les étapes, en particulier dans la conception et 
design de l’étude pour une prise en compte correcte des besoins et attentes de l’USAID. Au-delà de cette 
contribution initiale de l’équipe de l’USAID, des entretiens seront réalisés avec les responsables impliquées 
dans ce projet à l’USAID selon leur disponibilité. En outre, les partenaires de l’USAID sur cette activité, 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 46
en l’occurrence WGEP et l’ONG locale Femmes Plus seront impliqués dans le processus de l’évaluation, 
y compris dans la collecte des données sur le terrain. Le MEN participera également dans le cadrage initial 
de l’évaluation et dans le partage des résultats. Ces différents moments seront mis à profit pour recueillir 
les inputs et commentaires des différentes parties dans la conception et la mise en œuvre de l’évaluation. 
Une réunion initiale avec l’équipe USAID est prévu le 13 et 14 juin 2016 et le débriefing des résultats 
préliminaires pour le 30 juin 2016. 
La participation de l’USAID, WGEP/Femmes Plus et du MEN est essentielle à ces deux activités, d’où un 
besoin de leur disponibilité à ces deux dates. 
14. PLANIFICATION ET LOGISTIQUES
La programmation de cette évaluation à mi-parcours de l’activité Our Sisters Read et les aspects logistiques 
seront conjointement assurés, durant tout le processus, par les équipes de l’USAID (bureau Education) et 
MEP/Sénégal. Les consultants retenus auront un appui technique et managérial assuré par l’équipe du 
MEP/Sénégal. MEP travaillera directement avec les partenaires, notamment Femmes Plus, pour organiser 
les rencontres et les activités de terrain. L’USAID planifiera les réunions avec les autorités présentes sur 
le terrain en collaboration avec MEP/Sénégal. Des échanges seront aussi effectués avec WGEP pour le 
cadrage des visites de terrain.
15. EXIGENCES POUR LE REPORTING 
Tous les livrables seront soumis en français et en anglais. Les principales exigences du reporting 
concernent, au-delà des précisions linguistiques, le nombre de pages du rapport final. Il s’agit d’un rapport 
final de trente-cinq pages (35 pages), les annexes non-inclus, qui sera soumis à l’USAID/Sénégal. Les 
annexes comprendront entre autres, le Cadre de Travail de l’évaluation, une explication détaillée de la 
méthodologie, le rapport de l’atelier de présentation des résultats, conclusions et recommandations ainsi 
que les outils de collecte développés. Le canevas de l’USAID pour les évaluations servira de modèle de 
base pour la rédaction du rapport (voir le modèle en annexe).
Tous les livrables produits par l’équipe d’évaluation notamment les rapports seront soumis à l’appréciation 
de l’USAID DEC, du MEP/Sénégal et des partenaires établis à Washington (USAID et WGEP).
Il faut ajouter à ces dispositions prévues pour le reporting, que les rapports (préliminaire comme final) 
seront disponibles en versions anglaises et françaises. 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 47
16. DOCUMENTS DE REFERENCES ANNEXES
X Calendrier d’exécution
X Matrice de la revue documentaire
X Matrice des résultats, conclusions et recommandations 
X Budget
X CV
Déclaration de conflit d’intérêt
X Politique d’évaluation de l’USAID 
X Structure du rapport d’évaluation
17. AUTORISATIONS
The undersigned hereby authorizes the following items (checked below) for the Statement of Work (SOW) 
described above:
X Completion of the SOW, as described above;
X SOW staffing, as described above;
X Concurrence with Contracting Officer’s Travel Approval for the Consultant(s), requested 
above (if received prior to review).
[COR to either sign below or indicate approval in a return email]
__________________________________________ ________________
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Date
Roy Geiser, or designate 
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 48
ANNEXE 1.1: CALENDRIER D’EXECUTION
Our Sisters Read 
Evaluation/Timeline
Mai Juin Juillet
Etapes Semaine 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Revue des rapports
Voyage international
Réunion de 
planification 
technique
Briefing initial avec 
l’équipe d’Education 
de l’USAID
Développement des 
outils, des itinéraires, 
de la matrice des 
réponses
♦
Travail de terrain à 
Fatick
Compilation des 
résultats, conclusions 
et recommandations
Présentation du cadre 
de résultats, 
conclusions et 
recommandations
30
Voyage international
Analyse des données 
et rédaction du 
rapport
Atelier avec le MEN, 
IPs et parties 
prennantes du projet
22
Finalisation du 
rapport ♦
♦ = livrables
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 49
ANNEXE 1.2 : MATRICE DE LA REVUE DOCUMENTAIRE
L’EVALUATION DU ACTIVITÉ “OUR SISTERS READ” : CADRE DE TRAVAIL 50
ANNEXE I.3 : MATRICE DES RESULTATS, CONCLUSIONS 
ET RECOMMANDATIONS
Question de l’Evaluation Résultats Conclusions Recommandations
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 51
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION WORK PLAN
WORK PLAN AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE « OUR 
SISTERS READ» ACTIVITY
20 JUNE 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared by Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech 
Company, for the USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project.
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 52
WORK PLAN AND 
METHODOLOGY FOR THE 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
OF THE « OUR SISTERS READ» 
PROGRAM
Contracted under AID-685-C-15-00003 
USAID/Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government.
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 53
Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 54
B. EVALUATION QUESTIONS............................................................................................. 55
C. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES ....................................................... 57
D. SAMPLING........................................................................................................................... 59
E. DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 60
F. FIELD WORK PLAN........................................................................................................... 60
ANNEXE I: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX.................................................................... 63
ANNEXE II: EVALUATION TIMELINE................................................................................... 67
ANNEXE III: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES..................................................................... 68
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 54
WORK PLAN AND METHODOLOGY 
FOR THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
OF THE « OUR SISTERS READ» 
ACTIVITY
A.INTRODUCTION
The Our Sisters Read (OSR) activity seeks to improve reading competency for primary school children 
and to create lifetime-learners, with an emphasis on promoting girls’ literacy. Women’s Global Education 
Project (WGEP) works with its partner organization, Femmes Plus, to implement in the Fatick region, and 
more specifically in the district of Foundiounge this USD $1,700,904 four-year activity funded by the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Senegal under Development Objective 3 
(DO3) of the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), as part of its support to the 
Government of Senegal and the 2013-2025 national education policy (PAQUET)21. 
OSR engages and supports primary-aged school children, their families and communities to create and 
strengthen a culture of reading while reducing the gender gap in reading and education. Implemented in 
52 schools, 28 in Sokone and 24 in Toubacouta, OSR is targeting 6,800 students in primary grades, of 
which at least 50% are girls. The overarching goal for OSR is “to create strong readers and lifetime learners 
among rural Senegalese primary school students, especially girls”. The achievement of three intermediate 
results will contribute to the attainment of this goal. They are as follows: 
• IR 1: Build foundational reading skills for rural primary school students by creating access to 
technology centers, mobile labs and trained literacy professionals;
• IR 2: Encourage and motivate students to read through the use of innovative resources and 
incentives; and 
• IR 3: Build communities of parents and leaders that support young girls and boys to increase their 
reading and technological literacy. 
Program interventions, including reading contests, scholarships, book clubs and mentoring, are designed 
to motivate and generate enthusiasm among young readers, supplementing school curriculum and filling 
in gaps where the quality of education is lacking. The physical resources (computer labs, libraries and 
mobile labs) serve as locations and distribution points for interventions and serve as community anchors. 
Community outreach interventions that support adult literacy and parental and community involvement 
address underlying attitudes towards literacy and promote its importance, particularly for girls. This 
multipronged approach seeks to ultimately contribute to an enduring shift in attitudes towards literacy 
and girls’ education, which will translate into higher achievement levels in reading for primary-aged 
students.
 
21 Programme d’Amélioration de la Qualité, de l’Equité et de la Transparence (PAQUET)
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 55
The Our Sisters Read activity works in collaboration with public sector officials particularly in the Ministry 
of National Education (MEN) to ensure that interventions are coordinated with Ministry priorities. OSR 
is seen as a complement to the MEN’s reading and performance based results in primary schools.
The theory of change that underpins the results framework for OSR posits that a literate environment, 
where students are encouraged to read and where the community promotes and supports literacy and 
schooling, will improve overall student performance in schools, and particularly in reading. 
Table 8: “Our Sisters Read” Results Framework
Activity Goal: Create strong readers and lifetime learners among rural Senegalese primary school 
students, especially girls
IR1: Build foundational reading skills for 6,800 rural 
primary school students (at least 50% female) by 
creating access to technology centers, mobile labs 
and trained literacy professionals by 2017
Outcome 1.1. Increased access to reading materials 
through ICT centers, libraries and mobile labs
Outcome 1.2: Improved instructional literacy practices
IR2: Encourage and motivate students to read 
through innovative resources and incentives, 
reaching students at participating schools each year 
through contests, scholarships, mentorships and 
book clubs
Outcome 2.1: Activities motivate primary school 
students to read
Outcome 2.2: Increased opportunities for students to 
attend school
IR3: Build communities of parents and leaders that 
support young girls and boys to increase their 
reading and technological literacy
Outcome 3.1: Increased support among parents and 
community leaders for literacy generated through A 
comprehensive campaign to promote literacy
Midway through the activity’s period of performance, USAID/Senegal initiated a performance evaluation 
to understand the implementation of interventions and the activity’s progress towards the attainment of
its stated objectives. This performance evaluation will generate data on implementation successes and 
challenges, on how stakeholders and beneficiaries perceive and value the activity and on whether the 
activity is on target to achieve its goal and objectives, and will provide recommendations for midcourse 
corrections, as needed. 
B.EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation seeks to understand students’ performance levels in reading in the OSR intervention 
schools, with particular interest given to the community mobilization component of the activity. The 
following are the three evaluation questions (EQs) USAID/Senegal has asked that this evaluation address. 
They comprise the central task before the evaluation team and will serve as the main structure for 
reporting study findings, conclusions and recommendations: 
• EQ 1: How well has the theory of change been validated through the activity’s implementation? 
• EQ 2: To what degree has the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) achieved the 
activity’s objectives?
• EQ 3: How has the capacity of the implementing partner (including the subcontractor) changed 
over the course of the activity? What gaps remain? 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 56
This evaluation will generate and present empirical data based on high quality, replicable social science 
methods. Conclusions and recommendations derived from the study’s findings will be stated clearly and 
separately, with a special emphasis on the degree to which recommendations are actionable, practical and 
directed to specific parties.
The evaluation team will undertake semi-structured interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and 
beneficiaries. The interviews will provide the opportunity for the team to gather participants’ perceptions 
of and appreciation for the activity. The interviews will be conducted with individuals or in small groups. 
The evaluation team will respond to EQ 1 by addressing four sub-questions: 
a. Have activity interventions, such as access to resources, extra-curricular activities, book clubs, 
competitions, scholarships, etc., motivated students to read? 
The evaluation team will visit a total of 7 schools in Sokone and Toubacouta. The team will conduct small 
group interviews with groups of boy and groups of girl students in CM1 and CM2 grades targeted by the 
activity. The evaluation will focus on student practices and attitudes towards reading with particular 
attention given to student use of the ICT centers and mobile libraries. Semi-structured interviews with 
teachers will provide additional information on teachers’ observations of students’ habits and interest in 
reading, while interviews with parents will provide information on students’ reading habits at home. To 
understand the motivation and performance of younger students in CI, CP, CE1, CE2, we will include 
targeted questions in the teacher and parent interview guides. 
b. Has teacher training improved classroom practices?
Semi-structured interviews with teachers, school directors and school inspectors will generate data on 
classroom practices during reading lessons. Though a lack of observational baseline data precludes the 
evaluation team from comparing observed practices before and after activity interventions, the team will 
seek to understand if and how teachers, school directors and school inspectors identify the influence of 
the activity within the classrooms. The team will examine if teachers have incorporated in their practice 
the teaching methods suggested by the activity through training, demonstrations and guides. 
c. Have activity interventions, such as adult literacy, community meetings, mentoring by teachers, 
etc., increased community mobilization? Which interventions were most effective? 
As stated previously, this evaluation has a particular interest in understanding if and how community 
engagement can promote achievement in reading in schools. A central tenet of the OSR activity is that 
increased literacy skills for community members will boost the value ascribed to literacy, which in turn 
will motivate families to maintain students in schools longer, thus leading to improved reading scores and 
overall improved school performance. Through small group interviews with a variety of community 
members, including parents, and particularly mothers, and individual interviews with religious and 
community leaders, this evaluation will focus on how community members perceive and value reading for 
themselves and for children. The evaluation will collect data on community members’ reading habits that 
have emerged as a result of the activity and on practices they employ that promote and support reading 
for children. Additionally, the team will collect data on interventions community members have found to 
be the most engaging. The interview guides for community members will include questions about their 
preference for “Our Sister Read” interventions and will seek to understand why community members 
have found them to be particularly effective. Preferred interventions may include those specifically 
targeting parents and other communities, e.g. community meetings, and those targeting teachers and 
students but which have had an effect on community members’ reading habits, e.g. lanterns given to 
children to read at home. 
d. What is the level of community engagement in this activity? Why? 
Qualitative and quantitate data will serve to answer EQ 1d in regards to the level of engagement of the 
community with the “Our Sisters Read” activity. Qualitative data gathered will be used to understand why 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 57
and how community members participate in activity interventions such as reading classes and how this 
involvement has promoted a culture of reading. Respondents will be asked to discuss interventions they 
felt were most useful for improving their literacy skills and for creating a literate community. Quantitative 
data collected by the activity about attendance in community meetings and reading classes, for example, 
will be used to confirm or disconfirm the preferences articulated by community members. 
The evaluation team will respond to EQ 2 by addressing three sub-questions: 
a. Was the activity implemented according to the design? Has the implementation of the activity 
followed the original design? 
b. What internal or external factors (including within USAID) have had the biggest impact on the 
implementation of the activity? Which factors may continue to impact the activity and which ones 
seem to have had short-term/specific impact? 
c. How did the implementing partners and the USAID education team address challenges during the 
implementation of the activity and what are some lessons learned?
The evaluation team will conduct extensive desk review of activity documents and will interview the 
WGEP, FP and USAID to better understand decisions regarding activity implementation and their 
alignment with the activity design. The desk review and interviews will generate data about field challenges, 
unrealized critical assumptions, actors and factors that influenced the implementation of the activity. 
Mayors and inspectors will also be asked to provide insight about the implementation of the activity. 
To address EQ 3, the evaluation team will conduct interviews with the WGEP, FP and USAID. The team 
will review activity documents for a description of efforts geared towards capacity building. The team will 
also review the report from the 2015 Organization Capacity Assessment (OCA) conducted for Femme 
Plus by USAID as well as the report from the 2014 training provided by the Office of Financial Management 
(OFM). It is our understanding that a capacity building plan was not included in the budget for this activity 
nor were funds budgeted specifically for that purpose. And while it is outside the scope of this evaluation 
to conduct a follow-up OCA, the team will collect information from the implementing partners and from 
USAID to understand perceived human and technical resources required to implement an activity of this 
scope and current human and technical resources available to the implementers. The evaluation will also 
capture Femmes Plus' impressions of how they have developed since the start of the activity and how it 
is moving forward on the recommendations from the training and OCA. 
C.DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES
This performance evaluation will rely on qualitative methods with some quantitative analysis of student 
reading performance using data provided by OSR. The evaluation team will not collect primary assessment 
data or other types of quantitative data. All quantitative data used for this evaluation will be obtained from 
secondary sources, including potentially the Ministry of Education. This evaluation will examine the 
activity’s performance in achieving its objectives and will measure its influence on beneficiary attitudes 
towards and practices in reading. 
The following data collection methods will be used during this evaluation: 
• Desk Review: the evaluation team will review and analyze activity design and implementation 
documents. This review has several purposes. First, the team will develop an understanding of the 
activity theory of change and implementation characteristics, contexts, and challenges. Second,
the team will identify and describe achieved activity results. 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 58
• Qualitative methods: the evaluation team will conduct semi-structured interviews with a wide 
range of beneficiaries and stakeholders. The team will organize individual and group interviews to
gather information on beneficiaries’ experiences with, appreciation for and perceptions of the 
activity interventions. 
• Quantitative data analysis: the evaluation team will not collect primary quantitative data. 
However, when available and pertinent, the team will analyze secondary data provided by the 
activity, USAID and/or MEN. Quantitative data may include student scores on reading assessments 
or other school achievement tests and participation rates of beneficiaries in key activity 
interventions such as attendance in community meetings. 
The identification of potential data collection methods and sources appropriate for each EQ is presented 
in Table 9 below. A completed “Getting to Answers” matrix is included in Annex I. 
Table 9: Data Collection Methods and Sources
Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources
EQ 1: How well has the theory of 
change been validated through the 
activity’s implementation? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews 
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
EQ 1a: Have activity interventions, 
such as access to resources, extra￾curricular activities, book clubs, 
competitions, scholarships, etc., 
motivated students to read? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
- Group interviews
- Data mining
-Activity documentation & reports
-Activity assessment data set
- Project beneficiaries: students, 
teachers, community members 
(parents, religious leaders, village 
chief, local associations), school 
directors 
-Implementing partner staff
-Departmental education 
stakeholders (e.g. inspectors)
- Standardized assessment scores 
from government tests
EQ 1b: Has teacher training 
improved classroom practices?
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
- Group interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
- Project beneficiaries: students, 
teachers, community members 
(parents), school directors
-Implementing partner staff
-Departmental education 
stakeholders (e.g. inspectors)
EQ 1c: Have activity interventions, 
such as adult literacy, community 
meetings, mentoring by teachers, 
etc., increased community 
mobilization? Which interventions 
were most effective? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
- Group interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
- Project beneficiaries: students, 
teachers, community members 
(parents, religious leaders, village 
chief, local associations), school 
directors 
-Implementing partner staff
EQ 1d: What is the level of 
community engagement in this 
activity? Why? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
- Group interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
- Project beneficiaries: community 
members (parents, religious 
leaders, village chief, local 
associations)
-Implementing partner staff
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 59
Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources
EQ 2: To what degree has the 
implementing partner (including the 
subcontractor) achieved the 
activity’s objectives?
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
- USAID
EQ 2a: Was the activity 
implemented according to the 
design? Has the implementation of 
the activity followed the original 
design? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
- USAID staff
EQ 2b: What internal or external 
factors (including within USAID) 
have had the biggest impact on the 
implementation of the activity? 
Which factors may continue to 
impact the activity and which ones 
seem to have had short￾term/specific impact? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
- USAID staff
-Departmental education 
stakeholders (e.g. inspectors)
- Local authorities (e.g. mayors)
EQ 2c: How did the implementing 
partner and the USAID education 
team address challenges during the 
implementation of the activity and 
what are some lessons learned?
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
- USAID staff
EQ 3: How has the capacity of the 
implementing partner (including the 
subcontractor) changed over the 
course of the activity? What gaps 
remain? 
- Review of activity documents & 
reports 
- Semi-structured interviews
-Activity documentation & reports
-Implementing partner staff
- USAID staff
D.SAMPLING
This evaluation will use a purposive sample to collect data in schools and communities. An initial 
stratification of the 52 intervention schools was conducted according to urban and rural locations. For 
the purposes of this evaluation, we consider urban schools to be those within the towns of Sokone and 
Toubacouta. Village schools are classified as rural schools. Of the 52 interventions schools, three in 
Toubacouta and eight in Sokone are considered to be urban. 
Second, the team considered whether the schools had easy access to an ICT center. The sample includes 
at least one urban school and one rural school with access to ICT centers. 
Third, the team considered school size and distances from the main town. Schools that were too isolated 
were removed from the sample to allow the team to maximize the number of visits and interviews that 
can be conducted daily. 
Finally, the team conferred with Femme Plus to ensure that schools that have responded positively to the 
activity and those that have not also been included. 
Initially, the team had considered using the baseline reading scores from the project for additional 
stratification. Unfortunately, reading scores are not available for the schools in Sokone. For Toubacouta, 
the reading scores were used to verify that schools with high, medium and low performance had in fact 
been selected for the sample. 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 60
In total, 7 schools were chosen for this evaluation with three schools in Toubacouta, of which one is 
urban, and four schools in Sokone, of which one is urban. 
In each school, the evaluation team will conduct interviews with:
• The school director
• Teachers
• Students – gender specific groups of students from CM1 and CM2 
• Community members including individual interviews with the mayor, the village chief and religious 
leader and group interviews with parents and local associations.
Throughout the implementation of the study, the team will consider other respondents who may provide 
additional information in response to the three evaluation questions. 
E. DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis will draw on findings organized by EQ. Qualitative data collected via the semi-structured 
individual and group interviews will be analyzed using thematic and content analysis. 
At the end of each day, team members will type up notes from the interviews, noting at the top of each 
interview guide any interesting or significant findings. Recordings of the interviews will be sent to the MSI 
team in Dakar for transcriptions and translations, as necessary. It is expected that transcriptions of 
interviews will be available within 1 or 2 days and sent back to the field team for review and analysis. The 
evaluation team will note patterns and develop themes from the interviews. The team will design a rubric 
to analyze the data and capture these emerging themes. Once the team has completed the thematic 
analysis, it will analyze key findings and themes using content analysis. Content analysis will help the team 
go beyond descriptions of changes in practices and attitude to identify the most salient characteristics of 
these changes. 
Quantitative data and statistics collected from activity documentation, e.g. reports, data sets, or 
government sources, will be analyzed using simple descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution. 
Quantitative data analysis will be led by the Senegal Mission-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project 
statisticians using SPSS statistical package.
Finally, the evaluation team will use data triangulation, the use of two or more data sources, to confirm or 
disconfirm findings. 
F. FIELD WORK PLAN
WGEP and Femmes Plus is collecting data on students reading levels in all 52 project schools in June 2016. 
The OSR implementers are using tools developed for each grade level to compare baseline and follow-up 
results in 12 schools in Toubacouta and 12 schools in Sokone. The evaluation team will analyze the 
assessment data to determine if student reading levels have improved since the baseline.
The work plan below ensures that the draft report will be submitted to USAID/Senegal on 19 July 2016, 
and the final report on 9 August 2016. The tight timeline for this study does not allow for delays. National 
school examinations are scheduled for 21 and 22 June, which reduces the number of days available for the 
team to conduct school visits. Additionally, schools are unavailable to the team on 20 and 23 of June due 
to teacher travel in preparation for the exams. As a result, the team will have 4 days to visit schools, 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 61
including a Saturday. On days when schools are inaccessible, the team will collect data from the 
implementing partner and from community members. 
A timeline of activities for this evaluation is included in Annex II. 
Day Tasks
Tuesday 14 June Team Planning Meeting
Wednesday 15 June Draft work plan and tools for presentation to USAID and travel logistics
Thursday 16 June Presentation of work plan and tools to USAID at 15:00
Friday 17 June Finalize work plan, tools 
Saturday 18 June 
Travel to Fatick 
Initial meeting with the “Inspecteur Départemental de l’éducation et de la 
formation” in Foundiougne
Arrival in Toubacouta
Sunday 19 June Evaluation team preparation for field work
Monday 20 June 
Meeting and interviews with Femme Plus in Sokone
Visits to and interview with temporary ICT center and mobile library in 
Sokone
Interview with community in Sokone:
• 1 individual interview with leaders, e.g. mayor 
Tuesday 21 June 
Interview with community in Sokone – Sokone 2 and Keur Yoro Diop
• 2 individual interviews with leaders, e.g. religious leader, community 
leader
• 1 group interview, e.g. parents, associations…
Wednesday 22 June
Visits to and interview with ICT center and mobile library in Toubacouta 
Interview with community in Toubacouta:
• 1 individual interview with leaders, e.g. mayor 
• 1 group interview, e.g. association
Thursday 23 June 
Interview with community in Toubacouta - Simong Diene and Bani
• 2 individual interviews with leaders, e.g. religious leader, community 
leader 
• 1 group interview, e.g. parents, associations…
Friday 24 June School and community interviews in Sokone - Diossong
Saturday 25 June School and community interviews in Ndiokholokho (Sokone) and Sandicoly 
(Toubacouta)
Sunday 26 June Return to Dakar (Gaëlle only) 
Monday 27 June School and community interviews in Sokone – Dantakhoune and KBGX
Tuesday 28 June School and community interviews in Toubacouta - Karang Socé and 
Toubacouta 1
Wednesday 29 June
Interviews with IF/IA
Briefing with the “Inspecteur Academic” in Fatick
Return to Dakar
Thursday 30 June Meeting with MEN/DE and USAID
Draft presentation of initial findings, conclusion and recommendations
Friday 1 July Presentation of initial findings, conclusion and recommendations to USAID
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 62
Day Tasks
Tuesday 5 July to 
Monday 18 July Data analysis and reporting of findings, conclusion and recommendations 
Tuesday 19 July Submission of draft evaluation report to USAID
Friday 22 July Validation workshop with USAID, MEN and other partners and stakeholders
Monday 25 July to 
Monday 8 August Review and finalization of evaluation report
Tuesday 9 August Submission of final evaluation report
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 63
ANNEX 2.I: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX
N° Questions
d’Evaluation
Type de 
réponse/
Evidences 
Méthodes pour la Collecte des données,
Ex. Enregistrement, Observation 
Structurée, Entretiens avec des 
informateurs clés, Mini-enquête22
Echantillonnage ou 
approche de la 
sélection,
(si nécessaire)
Méthode d’analyse des 
données.
Ex. Fréquence des 
Distributions, Analyses 
thématique, Cross￾Tabulations, Analyse du 
Contenu
Source(s) de données Méthode
1 
Quel était le niveau de 
précision de la théorie du 
changement qui sous-tend la 
conception et la mise en 
œuvre de l’activité ? 
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
1a
Les interventions prévues 
par l’activité (par 
exemple l’accès aux 
ressources extra scolaires, 
clubs de livres, concours, 
bourses, etc.) ont-elles 
conduit à motiver les élèves 
? 
• Anecdotes
• Statistiques 
(résultats des 
tests en 
lecture)
• Comparaison23
• Explication24 
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Base de données des 
scores en lecture (si 
disponible)
• Directeurs d’école
• Enseignants
• Élèves
• Membres de la 
communauté
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Entretien semi￾directif de groupe
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
• Exploration des 
données (résultats 
des tests en 
lecture)
Echantillonnage des 
écoles par choix 
raisonné : 
• Urbain ou rurale
• Centre TIC ou Sans 
centre TIC
• Effectif total (grande 
ou petite)
• Proche ou éloignée 
(frontalière)
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
• Analyse descriptive
• Fréquence des 
distributions pour 
l’analyse de résultats en 
lecture
• Analyse univariée pour 
résultats en lecture
 
22 Les données issues des évaluations sont des livrables et les méthodes doivent indiquer comment les données seront collectées, par exemple pour les focus groups USAID requièrent
une transcription. 23 Comparaison – avec les données de base/initiales, les plans/cibles or autres standards ou normes 24 Explication – pour les questions qui cherchent à comprendre “pourquoi” et pour l’attribution d’un effet à une intervention spécifique (causalité) 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 64
N° Questions
d’Evaluation
Type de 
réponse/
Evidences 
Méthodes pour la Collecte des données,
Ex. Enregistrement, Observation 
Structurée, Entretiens avec des 
informateurs clés, Mini-enquête22
Echantillonnage ou 
approche de la 
sélection,
(si nécessaire)
Méthode d’analyse des 
données.
Ex. Fréquence des 
Distributions, Analyses 
thématique, Cross￾Tabulations, Analyse du 
Contenu
Source(s) de données Méthode
1b
La formation des enseignants 
a-t-elle amélioré les 
pratiques de classe ? 
• Anecdotes
• Comparaison
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Directeurs d’école
• Inspecteurs
• Enseignants
• Élèves
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Entretien semi￾directif de groupe
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
Echantillonnage des 
écoles par choix 
raisonné 
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
1c
Les interventions prévues 
par l’activité (par 
exemple l'alphabétisation des 
adultes, les rencontres 
communautaires, le 
mentorat par des 
enseignants, etc.) ont-elles 
renforcé la mobilisation 
communautaire ? Quelles 
sont celles qui ont été les 
plus réussies ? 
• Anecdotes
• Comparaison
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Directeurs d’école
• Enseignants
• Élèves
• Membres de la 
communauté
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Entretien semi￾directif de groupe
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
Echantillonnage des 
écoles par choix 
raisonné 
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
1d
Quel a été le degré 
d’adhésion de la 
communauté à ce projet? 
Pourquoi ? 
• Anecdotes
• Comparaison
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Membres de la 
communauté
• Femmes Plus/WGE
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Entretien semi￾directif de groupe
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
Echantillonnage des 
écoles par choix 
raisonné
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 65
N° Questions
d’Evaluation
Type de 
réponse/
Evidences 
Méthodes pour la Collecte des données,
Ex. Enregistrement, Observation 
Structurée, Entretiens avec des 
informateurs clés, Mini-enquête22
Echantillonnage ou 
approche de la 
sélection,
(si nécessaire)
Méthode d’analyse des 
données.
Ex. Fréquence des 
Distributions, Analyses 
thématique, Cross￾Tabulations, Analyse du 
Contenu
Source(s) de données Méthode
2 
Dans quelle mesure le 
partenaire d'exécution (y 
compris le sous contractant) 
a-t-il atteint les objectifs 
poursuivis par l’activité ?
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• USAID
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
2a
Le niveau d’exécution de 
l’activité correspond-elle à ce 
qui était prévu ? 
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• USAID
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
2b
Quels sont les facteurs 
internes ou externes (y 
compris au sein de l'USAID) 
qui ont le plus grand effet sur 
la mise en œuvre de l’activité 
? Quels sont ces facteurs qui 
pourraient être rencontrés à 
nouveau et ceux qui 
semblent ponctuels ?
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• USAID
• Inspecteurs
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
• Analyse thématique
• Analyse du contenu 
2c
Comment le partenaire 
d’exécution et l’équipe 
Education a-t-il relevé les 
défis rencontrés dans la mise 
en œuvre de l’activité et 
quelles sont les leçons à en 
tirer ? 
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• USAID
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 66
N° Questions
d’Evaluation
Type de 
réponse/
Evidences 
Méthodes pour la Collecte des données,
Ex. Enregistrement, Observation 
Structurée, Entretiens avec des 
informateurs clés, Mini-enquête22
Echantillonnage ou 
approche de la 
sélection,
(si nécessaire)
Méthode d’analyse des 
données.
Ex. Fréquence des 
Distributions, Analyses 
thématique, Cross￾Tabulations, Analyse du 
Contenu
Source(s) de données Méthode
3 
Comment les capacités du 
partenaire d’exécution (y 
compris le sous contractant) 
ont elles changé au cours de 
la mise en œuvre de 
l’activité ? Quelles sont les 
lacunes qui subsistent ? 
• Anecdotes
• Explication
• Documents du projet : 
rapports trimestriels, 
contrat, plan de suivi et 
d’évaluation, rapport 
bihebdomadaire
• Femmes Plus/WGEP
• USAID
• Entretien semi￾directif isolé
• Visite des lieux 
d’intervention
 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 67
ANNEX 2.2: EVALUATION TIMELINE 
Tasks
Timeframe
12 – 18 
June
19 - 25 
June
26 June 
– 2 July
3 – 9 
July
10 – 16 
July
17 – 23 
July
24 – 30 
July
31 July –
5 Aug
6 – 12 
Aug
Team planning meeting X
Tools development, field planning, 
completion of Getting to answers 
matrix
X 
Initial briefing with USAID X
Interviews in Sokone and Toubacouta 
with beneficiaries and stakeholders X X 
Draft findings, conclusion and 
recommendations X 
Presentation of initial findings to USAID 1
Data analysis and draft evaluation 
report
X X 
Submit draft evaluation report to 
USAID 19 
Validation workshop with USAID, MEN, 
WGEP/FP and other partners
22 
Revision and finalization of evaluation 
report following comments from 
USAID and results of validation 
workshop
X X 
Submit final evaluation report to USAID 9
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 68
ANNEX 2.3: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Person / Role Responsibilities
Gaëlle Simon
Lead evaluator (International consultant)
Lead evaluator in charge of: 
• Tools development
• Field work supervision
• Quality assurance
• Analysis of findings, conclusions and 
recommendations 
• Development of the evaluation report
Abdourahim Gaye
National Education Specialist (Local consultant)
• Support development of work plan 
• Lead planning of field work
• Liaise with education officials for approvals 
and meetings
• Support the development of tools
• Conduct interviews during field work
• Support data analysis and reporting
• Lead findings validation workshop
Aïssatou Mbaye
MEP M&E Associate
• Document review and synthesis
• Planning and organizing field work
• Support the development of tools
• Conduct interviews during field work
• Support data analysis
Souleymane Barry
MEP Research Officer and Task Manager fr the 
OSR evaluation
• Support to the design of tools
• Support to the field work
• Quantitative data analysis
Transcriptions and translations • Transcribe recorded interviews
• Translate interviews as required
Moussa SY
MEP Senior Evaluation Specialist
• Support design of the tools, methodology and 
data analysis
• Quality assurance
Lisa Slifer-Mbacke
MEP COP
• Communication with USAID
• Management of evaluation process
• Quality assurance
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 69
ANNEX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDES
Introduction 
• (Présentation personnelle et institutionnelle) Mon nom est ______________ et je travaille 
pour le compte de MSI, qui est contracté par l'USAID pour cette évaluation. Merci d'avoir pris le 
temps de me rencontrer.
• (But de la visite) Je suis ici dans le cadre de l’évaluation des performances du projet « Nos Sœurs 
Lisent ».
• (Temps de discussion) Nous avons [45 minutes - 1 heure] à passer ensemble pour discuter du 
projet. Êtes-vous disposé à répondre à quelques questions pour cette durée ?
• (Consentement) Cet entretien est entièrement volontaire et vous êtes libre de ne pas participer. 
Si vous acceptez de participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou de sauter des 
questions auxquelles vous ne voulez pas répondre. Vos réponses et votre participation à cet entretien 
sont entièrement confidentielles. Nous ne partagerons aucune information qui vous identifie avec 
quiconque en dehors de l'équipe d’évaluation.
• (Liberté d'arrêter) S'il vous plaît, cet entretien peut à tout moment être arrêté pour poser des 
questions au sujet de ce consentement ou toute autre chose. Ai-je votre consentement pour 
commencer?
• (Transition) Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? (Noter les questions)
Communauté
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
Mobilisation communautaire
1. Pour vous, en quoi consiste la mobilisation communautaire? A quoi sert-elle ? Est-elle 
importante ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? 
2. A quelles activités de mobilisation communautaire participez-vous? 
o Si les répondants ne mentionnent pas les activités de NSL, demandez-leur: avez-vous participé à des 
cours d’alphabétisation de l’activité NSL? Si oui, selon vous quel est son utilité ? Pouvez-vous donner des 
exemples de ce que l’alphabétisation vous permet de faire et de mieux comprendre ? 
o Demandez aussi pour leur participation aux rencontres de communauté (community engagement 
meetings). Selon vous, quel est l’utilité de ces rencontres ? Qu’appréciez-vous le plus ? Comment 
amélioriez-vous ces rencontres ? Comment utilisez-vous les informations reçues ? 
o Demandez aussi pour leur expérience avec le mentorat avec les enseignants. 
3. Quelles sont les activités de mobilisation communautaire les plus réussies ? Pourquoi ? 
Pouvez-vous donner des exemples des changements dans vos habitudes, pratiques, attitudes ou 
connaissances liés à votre participation dans ces activités ? 
4. Comment les communautés se sont mobilisées pour le relèvement de l’accès et de la 
rétention dans les écoles ? Comment ses activités de mobilisation influencent l’accroissement des 
performances scolaires, et plus particulièrement en lecture ? 
Pratiques et attitude des membres de la communauté vis-à-vis de la lecture
5. Selon vous, quelle est l’importance de la lecture pour les adultes? Pour les jeunes? 
6. Quelles initiatives avez-vous prises pour encourager les enfants à s’intéresser à la 
lecture (même en dehors de l’école) ? 
7. Etes-vous suffisamment équipés pour aider vos enfants à améliorer leur performance 
en lecture ? 
o Si oui, comment le faites-vous ? Quels effets votre soutien a sur vos enfants ? 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 70
o Si non, comment l’activité NSL pourrait vous aider dans ce sens ? Que vous faudrait-il pour pouvoir aider 
vos enfants dans leur performance en lecture ? 
Motivation des élèves 
8. Depuis l’avènement du projet NSL que constatez-vous chez vos enfants en terme de 
leur pratique en et intérêts pour la lecture? Demandez de donner des exemples précis de 
changements d’habitudes, de pratiques ou d’attitudes. 
9. Quelles sont les activités de vos enfants en dehors de l’école ? Pouvez-vous nous donner des 
exemples précis?
10. Avez-vous remarqué une amélioration dans la performance de vos enfants à l’école, et 
plus particulièrement en lecture ? 
o Si oui, comment expliquez-vous cette amélioration ? Qu’est-ce qui a contribué à cette amélioration ? 
o Si non, comment le projet NSL pourrait intervenir ? 
11. Avez-vous d’autres informations sur l’activité NSL à partager ? 
Enseignants
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
Formation des enseignants
1. Avez-vous reçu une formation à l’enseignement de la lecture de l’activité « Nos Sœurs 
Lisent » ? 
o Si oui, quelle est la nature de la formation que vous avez reçue ? Qui a animé la session de 
formation ? Qu’avez-vous le plus apprécié de cette formation ? Pourquoi ? Pouvez-vous me 
donner des exemples de nouvelles pratiques apprises lors de la formation et que vous utilisez en 
salle de classe ? [Si l’enseignant mentionne un matériel spécifique, demandez-lui de vous le montrer si 
possible].
o Si non, avez-vous entendu parler de l’activité « Nos Sœurs Lisent » ? De qui ? Que savez-vous 
de cette activité ? Si l’enseignant n’a pas reçu de formation et ne connais pas l’activité NSL, arrêtez 
l’entretien et remerciez l’enseignant pour sa participation. Notez que l’entretien a été arrêté. 
Amélioration des pratiques de classe
2. Comparé à votre pratique antérieure, en quoi vos leçons de lecture se sont bonifiées ?
[Demandez de donner un ou plusieurs exemples précis : planification des leçons, matériels utilisés, méthode 
d’enseignement, organisation et gestion de la salle de classe, évaluations des performances des élèves….] 
Motivation et performance des élèves 
3. Avez-vous remarquez une amélioration des performances des élèves en lecture depuis 
que vous utilisez les méthodologies et le matériel de l’activité NSL ? 
o Si oui, comment ? Demandez des précisions sur les méthodologies et matériels qui semblent les plus 
efficaces. 
o Si non, pourquoi? 
4. Avec votre nouvelle pratique comment réagissent vos élèves lors des leçons de lecture? 
[Si nécessaire, ajoutez sont-ils plus engagés dans les leçons ? Participent-ils plus ? Sont-ils plus ou moins 
souvent absents?....]
5. Quelles pratiques liées à l’activité NSL et visant directement les élèves ont amélioré 
leur performance en ou leur intérêt pour la lecture? Pourquoi? Comment?
o Si aucune ne sont effectives, pourquoi ? Qu’est-ce qui a échoué? Qu’est-ce qui manque?
6. Comment les élèves manifestent ils leur goût à la lecture? A quelles activités de lecture 
participent-ils le plus ? [Si l’enseignant ne mentionne pas les interventions de NSL, demandez s’ils 
connaissent les TIC, clubs, etc. Si oui, demandez s’ils savent si leurs élèves y participent.]
7. Qu’est-ce qui motive (ou ne motive pas) les élèves pour les activités de lecture ?
Mobilisation communautaire 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 71
8. Quelles sont les initiatives prises par les parents ou les organisations communautaires
pour encourager les enfants à s’intéresser à la lecture ? (Même en dehors de l’école)
9. Quelles sont vos appréciations sur les interventions de l’activité NSL destinées à la 
communauté (alphabétisation, mentorat…) ? Avez-vous déjà mené des activités de mentorat à l’endroit 
des élèves? Si oui, comment l’appréciez-vous ? Si non, pourquoi ? Avez-vous des recommandations dans ce 
sens ?
10. Avez-vous des autres informations sur l’activité NSL à partager ? 
Élèves
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
Pratiques et attitudes des élèves vis-à-vis de la lecture
1. Aimez-vous la lecture? 
o Si oui, pourquoi ? Pouvez-vous partager avec nous vos habitudes en lecture [livres que vous aimez 
lire ? dernier livre lu ? Livre préféré?]
o Si non, pourquoi pas? 
2. Lisez-vous des livres en dehors de l’école ? à la maison, dans les clubs de lecture, à la bibliothèque - 
quelle bibliothèque
3. A quelle fréquence lisez-vous ? le soir, les week-ends, pendant les vacances scolaires, jamais
Fréquentation et participation aux activités du projet
4. Quelles sont les activités de lecture auxquelles vous avez participé ? [Si les élèves ne 
mentionnent pas les activités clés de NSL, demandez-leur] : 
o Fréquentez-vous la bibliothèque mobile ? Empruntez-vous des livres de la bibliothèque ? 
o Faites-vous partie d’un club de lecture ? Lequel ? Quelles sont les activités du club ? Qu’est-ce qui vous 
plaît le plus dans le club ? Quels sont les jours de fréquentation du club?
o Est-ce que vous fréquentez le centre ICT ? Si oui pourquoi ? Si non pourquoi pas ? Qu’est-ce que vous 
aimez le plus dans les activités du centre ? 
Amélioration des pratiques de classe
5. Faites-vous souvent en classe des exercices se rapportant à la lecture ? Quels exercices de 
lecture faites-vous en classe ? Parmi les exercices de lecture, le quel aimez-vous le plus pourquoi ? 
Mobilisation communautaire 
6. Est-ce que vos parents, ou sœurs et frères, vous encouragent-ils à lire ? Si oui, comment vous 
encouragent-t-ils [achats de livres, temps pour la bibliothèque] ? 
7. Pendant les vacances qui viennent, quelles sont les activités que vous comptez faire ? 
Qu’est-ce que vos parents aimeraient que vous fassiez ? [Lire/Réviser/Cours de vacance ? Travailler aux 
champs ? Aller faire du commerce ou travailler à Dakar] 
Directeurs d’école et Inspecteurs
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
Formation des enseignants
1. Avez-vous participé à des sessions de formation dans le cadre de l’activité NSL ? Si oui, 
lesquelles ? Quel était votre rôle ? Quelle est votre appréciation de ces formations ? Comment peuvent-elles 
être améliorées? 
2. Quelle stratégie de formation a été utilisée (formation directe, en cascade, à 
distance…) ? Si la formation a été en cascade qui ont été les formateurs des relais ? Qui ont été les relais 
auprès des enseignants ? Quel était le contenu de cette formation ? 
3. À votre avis, est-ce que ces formations répondent aux besoins immédiats des 
enseignants et des élèves ? 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 72
o Si oui, quels sont ces besoins et comment les formations y répondent-elles ? Demandez des 
exemples précis.
o Si non, quels ont les besoins immédiats des enseignants et des élèves et comment pensez-vous 
que l’activité NSL, à travers ces formations, pourrait y répondre ? 
4. Comment ces formations pourraient-être améliorées ? 
Amélioration des pratiques de classe
5. Comment appréciez-vous les pratiques de classe des enseignants impliqués dans le 
projet NSL ? Demandez des exemples précis.
6. Comparé aux pratiques antérieures de ces enseignants, en quoi les leçons de lecture se 
sont bonifiées? Demandez des exemples précis de changements de pratique. 
7. Quels aspects de l’activité NSL pensez-vous ont eu le plus grand impact sur les 
pratiques des enseignants en salle de classe et pendant les leçons de lecture ? Comment? 
Pourquoi? 
Motivation et performance des élèves 
8. Dans vos visites de classe, lors des leçons de lecture, comment agissent/réagissent les 
élèves? Sont-ils impliqués dans les leçons ? Participent-ils activement ? Demandez des exemples précis. 
9. Basé sur vos observations, comment a évolué durant l’année scolaire le niveau de 
performances des élèves en lecture? Est-ce qu’il y a une amélioration des performances des élèves 
depuis le début des interventions de l’activité NSL ? 
o Si oui, dans quel domaine/matière ? Comment expliquez-vous cette amélioration ? Demandez des 
exemples précis. Est-ce que le répondant est capable de lier les améliorations de performances à une 
intervention spécifique de NSL ?
Facteurs qui ont influencé la mise en œuvre de l’activité
10. Comment appréciez-vous la mise en œuvre de l’activité NSL ? 
o Qu’est-ce qui a bien réussi ? Pourquoi? 
o Qu’est-ce qui n’a pas bien réussi ? Pourquoi ? Quelles suggestions feriez-vous pour améliorer la 
mise en œuvre de NSL ? 
Si le répondant souligne seulement des facteurs internes à NSL, posez des questions sur l’influence de 
facteurs externes tels que les autres projets en éducation, les directives du MEN, les grèves scolaires, etc. 
11. Quelles leçons peut-on tirer de la mise en œuvre de cette activité ?
12. Avez-vous des autres informations sur l’activité NSL à partager ? 
Partenaire d’exécution
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
Mobilisation communautaire 1. Pouvez-vous nous décrire votre approche/votre stratégie pour la mobilisation 
communautaire ? (Quels étaient les cibles, objectifs…) 
Please describe the community mobilisation strategy used by the project? What were the objectives 
and targets? 
2. Sur la totalité des interventions de l’activité lesquelles sont les plus efficaces/réussies 
pour la mobilisation communautaire? Pourquoi? Comment?
Which activities were the most effective? Why ? 
Facteurs qui ont influencé la mise en œuvre de l’activité
3. Qu’est-ce qui a le plus facilité la mise en œuvre de l’activité ? (Si nécessaire, demandez des 
précisions par intervention, ex. centre TIC, les bibliothèques mobiles, alphabétisation, formation, tablettes, 
visite d’écoles/suivi, réunion communautaire….) 
What were some key factors or actors that supported the implementation of the project? How? 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 73
4. A quel niveau se situent les difficultés pour la mise en œuvre de l’activité? Comment les 
avez-vous contournées? 
What were some difficulties encountered during the implementation of the project? How were they 
solved? 
5. À votre avis quelles difficultés pourraient resurgir ? Pourquoi? 
In your opinion which factors or actors will continue to be influential? Why? How? 
Capacités organisationnelles 6. Êtes-vous au courant des interventions dans le cadre de NSL pour développer la 
capacité institutionnelle de FP ? Si oui, quelles interventions ? Dans quels domaines (technique, suivi 
et évaluation, financier, ressources humaines, gestion/administration) ? 
What were some activities, implemented as part of OSR, designed for capacity building of FP? 
7. Quels sont les besoins majeurs de FP en matière de renforcement des capacités ? 
What are some critical needs of FP in terms of capacity building? 
8. Avez-vous remarqué un renforcement des capacités de FP durant NSL ? Si oui, citez des 
changements spécifiques en capacités (amélioration des ressources humaines, amélioration des systèmes 
financiers, etc.) 
Has there been capacity building of FP and WGEP throughout the implementation of the project? If 
so, can you give examples? 
9. Quel est votre plan sur le long-terme pour la gestion durable de NSL ? 
What are the long-term plans for FP and WGEP? 
Partenaire d’exécution – La mairie
Guide d’Entretien Semi-dirigé
1. Quelle appréciation avez-vous pour l’activité NSL?
2. Comment percevez-vous l’engagement de la communauté par rapport à cette 
activité ? 
3. Comment soutenez-vous la mise en œuvre de l’activité NSL? 
4. Quelles recommandations avez-vous pour l’activité NSL? 
5. Avez-vous d’autres informations sur l’activité NSL à partager ? 
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 74
ANNEX 4: SCHOOL LEVEL DATA FOR SAMPLING
ECOLES DANS LE SOKONE
Caractéristiques Urbaine
s 
Rurale
s 
Effectif 
Global
Nombr
e de 
Filles
Possède 
un Centre 
(ICT)
Distance de 
Sokone
1. Sokone 1 X 312 158 X 1.5 km/5 mn
2. Sokone 2 X 520 261 X 1 km/5 mn
3. Sokone 3 X 500 273 X 1 km/5 mn
4. Sokone 4 X 491 273 NON 500 m/5 mn
5. Sokone 5 X 173 80 NON 2 km/5 mn
6. Sokone 6 X 333 173 NON 2 km/ 5mn
7. Mbouloum X 220 110 X 3 km/ 10mn
8. Ndoffane M.D. X 55 28 NON 3 km/ 15 mn
9. Limane X 46 26 NON 4 km/ 25 mn
10. Badoudou X 97 49 NON 4 km/ 25 mn
11. Diaglé X 183 76 NON 2 km/ 10 mn
12. KGBX X X 1 km / 5 mn
13. EPST X 280 154 X 1.5 km/ 5 mn
14. Ndiambang X 83 42 NON 4 km/ 25 mn
15. Keur Yoro Diop X 69 44 NON 7 km/ 30mn
16. Diamaguene X 73 36 NON 2.5 km/ 15mn
17. Ndiaw Sérère X 57 30 NON 5 km/ 25 mn
18. NdraméSadiabou X 59 42 NON 7 km/ 35mn
19. Dantakhoune X 163 66 X 7 km/ 20 mn
20. Ndiokholokho X 93 42 NON 5 km/ 15 mn
21. Dagadiawdine X 93 48 NON 4 km/ 15 mn
22. Diossong X 151 95 X 6 km/ 30mn
23. Kébé Coudé X 106 64 NON 9 km/ 35mn
24. Bambougar Mal. X 104 59 NON 5 km/ 25 mn
25. Bambougar Mas. X 59 34 NON 7 km/ 30 mn
26. Bambougar El X 42 26 NON 7 km/ 30 mn
27. NdiogoneTallène X 160 82 NON 5 km/ 20 mn
28. NdiafféNdiaffé X 148 81 NON 7 km 15mn
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 75
ECOLES DANS LE TOUBACOUTA
Caractéristiques Urbaines Rurales Effectif 
Global
Nombre 
de Filles
Possède un 
Centre 
(ICT)
Distance de 
Toubacouta
1. Senghor × 59 29 NON 14KM/45MIN
2. Simong Diène × 68 32 × 10KM/30MIN
3. Keur Mama 
Lamine
× 180 90 NON 12KM/20MIN
4. NAT × 113 67 NON 15KM/30MIN
5. KeurMalick 
Fadé
× 34 16 NON 13KM/25MIN
6. Keur Aliou 
Guèye
× 97 37 NON 7KM/15MIN
7. Toubacouta 1 × 396 218 × 1KM/3MIN
8. Toubacouta 2 × 192 87 NON 2KM/5MIN
9. Bany × 132 60 × 2MK/10MIN
10. DagaBabou × 137 69 NON 3KM/10MIN 
11. Dassilamé 
Sérère × 146 68 NON 4KM/13MIN 
12. Némabah × 160 93 NON 5KM/15MIN
13. Sandicoly × 151 92 NON 9KM/15MIN
14. Batamar × 57 35 NON 13KM/45MIN 
15. Sadio Sala × 83 38 NON 11KM/30MIN 
16. Médina sangako × 287 153 NON 4KM/10MIN
17. SanthieBerra × 67 34 NON 13KM/20MIN
18. Bamako × 105 58 NON 1KM/5MIN
19. Mansarinko × 72 34 NON 36KM/50MIN 
20. Karang 3 × 396 291 NON 28KM/30MIN
21. KarangSocé × 131 56 NON 30KM/40MIN
22. Némanding × 134 77 NON 11KM/15MIN 
23. Ndoumboudji × 227 113 NON 7KM/13MIN 
24. Médina Santhie × 65 33 NON 13KM/20MIN
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 76
ANNEX 5: SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Documents Reviewed
Documents Dates
USAID/Senegal - Cooperative Agreement # AID-685-A-13-00003 Sep 09, 2013
USAID/Senegal – Modification of Assistance # AID-685-A-13-00003 Oct 14, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Performance Monitoring Plan
WGEP - Our Sisters Read, Branding and Marking Plan
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Annual Implementation Plan, Year 1 0ct 01, 2013 - Sep 30, 2014
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 First Quarterly Report Sep 09, 2013 - Dec 31, 2013
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 Second Quarterly Report Jan 01, 2014 - Mar 31, 2014
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 1 Third Quarterly Report Apr 01, 2014 - Jun 30, 2014
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Report, Year 1 - Fourth Quarter 0ct 01, 2013 - Sept 30, 2014
WGEP - Our Sisters Read, Annual Performance Indicator Report 0ct 01, 2013 - Sept 30, 2014
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Dec 01, 2013 - July 15, 2014
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Implementation Plan, Year 2 0ct 01, 2014- Sept 30, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 2 First Quarterly Report Oct 01, 2014 – Dec 31, 2014
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 2 Second Quarterly Report Jan 01, 2015 – Mar 31, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 2 Third Quarterly Report Apr 01, 2015 - Jun 30, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Report, Year 2 - Fourth Quarter Oct 01, 2014- Sept 30, 2015
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Oct 15, 2014 – Dec 15, 2014
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Jan 15, 2015 – Apr 01, 2015
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Jul 15, 2015 – Aug 01, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Annual Implementation Plan, Year 3 0ct 01, 2015- Sept 30, 2016
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 3 First Quarterly Report Oct 01, 2015 – Dec 31, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 3 First Quarter Monitoring Report Oct 01, 2015 – Dec 31, 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read, Year 3 Second Quarterly Report Jan 01, 2016 – Mar 31, 2016
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Sep 15, 2015 
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Oct 15, 2015 – Jan 01, 2016
WGEP – Our Sisters Read – Bi-weekly reports Feb 01, 2016 – Jun 30, 2016
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Performance Indicators Review Oct 2015
WGEP- Our Sisters Read Performance Indicators Sheets 2015 - 2016
USAID/Senegal -Our Sisters Read - Data Quality Assessment Report March 8 to 10, 2016
WGEP - Budget – Standard Form 424A 2013
WGEP – Annual work plan budget – Year 1, Year 2, Year 3
WGEP – Plan Suivi Environnement Nov 13, 2015
WGEP – Plan Suivi Environnement Dec 11, 2015
WGEP – Student test scores in reading (24 Toubacouta schools) Dec 2015
WGEP – Student test scores in reading (24 schools in Toubacouta and Sokone) June 2016
Evaluation de la qualité des apprentissages, Jangandoo, IFAN 2014
PASEC (2007). Evaluation du PASEC, CONFEMEN, Dakar 2007
PASEC 2014- Performances des systèmes éducatifs en Afrique Subsaharienne 
francophone : Compétences et facteurs de réussite au primaire. PASEC, 
CONFEMEN, Dakar. 
2015
Etat des lieux de l’éducation de base au Sénégal, MEN 2014
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 77
Respondents
# Date Respondent Interview Title
1 20/06/2016 Adjaratou Senghor Individual Présidente de l’Association Femme Plus
2 20/06/2016
Mbathio Diouf
Group
Encadreurs en Lecture Sokone
Alioune Badara Gueye Encadreurs en Lecture Sokone
Guillaume Diouf Encadreurs en Lecture Sokone
Ndiatté Sene Formatrice en Informatique Sokone
Dulfé Serrano Bibliothécaire Sokone
3 20/06/2016 Abdoulaye Mbaye Individual Personne ressource et parent d’élève 
4 20/06/2016 Moustapha Guèye Individual Maire de Sokone
5 20/06/2016
Ndèye Khady Dème
Group 
Trésorière Femme Plus
Fatoumata Dème Membre Association Femme Plus
Diamal Sarr Membre Association Femme Plus
Sokhna Amy Ndiaye Membre Association Femme Plus
Mada Senghor Membre Association Femme Plus
6 21/06/2016 Pape Seydou Ndianko Individual Maire de Toubacouta
7 21/06/2016 Demba Bâ Individual Chef du village de Keur Yoro Diop
8 21/06/2016 Momodou Sow Individual Imam Keur Yoro Diop
9 21/06/2016 El Hadji Amadou Bâ Group Trésorier CGE École De Keur Yoro Diop
Abdou Bâ Président APE de Keur Yoro Diop
10 21/06/2016
Aïssata Bâ
Group
Présidente AME de Keur Yoro Diop
Sira Bâ Membre AME de Keur Yoro Diop
Aïssata Sow Membre AME de Keur Yoro Diop
11 21/06/2016
Mame Maty Ndiaye 
Group
Présidente De Sop Sa Dieukeur De Sokone
Adama Ndiaye Membre De Sop Sa Dieukeur De Sokone
Fatou Deme Membre De Sop Sa Dieukeur De Sokone
12 21/06/2016 Abdoul Aziz Deme Individual Imam à Sokone
13 21/06/2016
Omar Cissé
Group
Relais à Sokone
Bocar Bâ Relais à Keur Yoro Diop
Demba Guèye Relais à Senghor
14 22/06/2016
Khady Gnima Sarr 
Group
Relais pour Banny
Bourama Ndour Parent d’élève Banny
Sanoussi Diamé Parent d’élève Banny
Ansou Diamé Parent d’élève Banny
Alim Sonko Trésorier CGE Ecole Banny
Abdou Diamé Imam du village Banny
Youssoupha Sarr Parent d’élève Banny
Ibrahima Diamé Parent d’élève Banny
Momodou Diouf Parent d’élève Banny
Momodou Sarr Parent d’élève Banny
Sana Diatta Parent d’élève Banny
Seyni Mané Parent d’élève Banny
15 22/06/2016 Abdoulaye Bodian Group Radio Niombato FM Toubacouta 
Moussa Mané Radio Niombato FM Toubacouta 
16 22/06/2016
Rokhaya Diouf
Group
Réseau des Femmes Toubacouta 
Aminata Senghor Réseau des Femmes Toubacouta 
Yandé Ndao Réseau des Femmes Toubacouta 
Mariama Diamé Réseau des Femmes Toubacouta 
17 22/06/2016 Moustapha Senghor Group Encadreur ICT Toubacouta
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 78
# Date Respondent Interview Title
Diarraye Ndiaye Encadreur Toubacouta
Mariama Seydi Encadreur Toubacouta
Aminata Thior Encadreur Toubacouta
Saphiatou Senghor Bibliothécaire Toubacouta
Moustapha Fall Formateur en Informatique Toubacouta
18 23/06/2016
Seynabou Sarr
Group
Association Badjenou Gokh Simong Diène
Jacqueline Kama Association de Simong Diene
Marie Sarr Parent d’élève Simong Diène 
Diaffe Sarr Chef De Village Simong Diène
Boundaw Diouf Parent d’élève Simong Diène
Thierno Sarr Représentant de l’Imam Simong Diène
Mr Niang Directeur CGE Ecole Simong Diène
Diadjé Sarr APE Simong Diène
19 23/06/2016
Abdoulaye Sarr
Group
Président CGE Toubacouta
Souleymane Sylla Trésorier APE Toubacouta
Boubacar Senghor Président APE Toubacouta
Ndèye Fatou Seydi Relais Toubacouta
Dominique Dione Directeur Ecole Primaire de Toubacouta 
Bacary Sarr Association Villageoise De Toubacouta 
20 23/06/2016 Mr Cheikh Faty Group Directeur Ecole Médina Sangako
Momodou Séne Président CODEC 
21 24/06/2016 Khady Ndong Individual Stagiaire et tutrice à Femme Plus 
22 24/06/2016 El Hadji Wade Individual Directeur Ecole Diossong 
23 24/06/2016
Ousmane Dia 
Group
APE Diossong
Mouhamadou Lamine Cissé Chef de village de Diossong 
Amy Collé Ndiaye Relais Diossong
Aliou Dieng CGE Diossong
Awa Sylla AME Diossong
Aïssatou Niass AME Diossong
Ousmane Cissé APE Diossong
Mariama Lô AME Diossong
Amy Cissé APE Diossong
Babacar Cissé Association Diossong
24 24/06/2016
Aziz Lam
Group
Enseignant CI Diossong
Pape Amadou Seck Enseignant CP Diossong
Monsieur Wade Enseignant CE1 Diossong
Madame Fatou Sarr Enseignant CE2 Diossong
Papa Amath Diouf Enseignant CM1 Diossong
Fall Mame Ngoné Diéne Enseignant CM2 Diossong
25 24/06/2016 08 Elèves Filles Group Diossong
26 24/06/2016 08 Elèves Garçons Group Diossong
27 24/06/2016
Nouha Sonko
Group
CI CP Français Médina Sangako
Momodou Fall Maître Arabe Médina Sangako
Sekou Sarr CM1 et CM2 Français Médina Sangako
Maimouna Diedhiou CE1 et CE2 Français Médina Sangako
Alassane Senghor CE1 et CE2 Arabe Médina Sangako
Mohamed Lamine Diouf CM1 et CM2 Arabe Médina Sangako
Momodou Sarr CI CP Arabe Médina Sangako
28 24/06/2016
Aliou Senghor 
Group
Chef de village Médina Sangako
Guèye Fall Chef de village Médina Sangako
Abdoul Khamid Fall Encadreur Arabe Médina Sangako
Mouhamed Senghor Encadreur Français Médina Sangako
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 79
# Date Respondent Interview Title
Momodou Senghor Encadreur Français Médina Sangako
Mba Senghor Encadreur Arabe Médina Sangako
Amsatou Diame Encadreur Français Médina Sangako
Awa Thior Présidente AME Médina Sangako
29 24/06/2016 08 Elèves Filles Group Médina Sangako
30 24/06/2016 08 Elèves Garçons Group Médina Sangako
31 25/06/2016 Moustapaha Diouf Individual Inspecteur District de Toubaouta-Sokone 
32 25/06/2016 Coumba Sarr Individual Directrice Ecole Primaire de Sandicoly
33 25/06/2016
Lamine Diouf 
Group
Enseignant CM1 Sandicoly
Sakou Sene Enseignant CI Sandicoly
Madieyna Diouf Enseignant CM2 Sandicoly
Ousseynou Sarr Enseignant CE2 Sandicoly
34 25/06/2016 11 Elèves Filles Group Sandicoly
35 25/06/2016
Yama Thiam 
Group
Parent d’élève Sandicoly
Fatma Ndong Parent d’élève Sandicoly
Djibril Diouf Conseiller Municipal Sandicoly
Sidi Senghor CGE Sandicoly
Sophie Cissé Parent d’élève Sandicoly
36 25/06/2016 06 Elèves Garçons Group Niokholokho
37 25/06/2016 Souhaïbou Diemé Individual Directeur École Primaire de Niokholokho
38 25/06/2016 Moussa Badji Group Enseignant CI CP Niokholokho 
Cheikhou Mboup Enseignant CM1 CM2 Niokholokho
39 27/06/2016
Mame Coumba Ndianko
Group
Enseignant CM1 Ecole Keur Gui Bok Xol 
Hamady Diallo Enseignant CE2 Ecole Keur Gui Bok Xol
Ndèye Souadou Ndong Enseignant CP Ecole Keur Gui Bok Xol 
40 27/06/2016 Ibrahima Sall Individual Directeur Ecole Keur Gui Bok Xol 
41 27/06/2016
Salimatou Diallo 
Group
Parent d’élève Dantakhoune 
Gallo Wagué Présidente CGE Dantakhoune
Ramatoulaye Marrone Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Khady Senghor Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Marie Faye Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Marie Diouf Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Adam Diouf Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Madjiguéne Faye Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Yacine Diallo Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Khady Senghor Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Sadio Sidibé Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Haby Mariko Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Saly Doumbaya Parent d’élève Dantakhoune
Hibou Diouf APE et Chef de Village Dantakhoune
Mariama Sarr Relais Dantakhoune
42 27/06/2016 09 Elèves Filles Group Dantakhoune 
43 27/06/2016
Amath Thiam 
Group
Enseignant CE1 Dantakhoune
Pierre Ndong Enseignant CP Dantakhoune
Khar Guissé Enseignant CM2 Dantakhoune
Amadou Diouf Enseignant CM1 Dantakhoune
Lamine Seydi Enseignant CI Dantakhoune
44 27/06/2016 Lamine Seydi Individual Directeur Ecole Primaire De Dantakhoune
45 27/06/2016 Amy Maglio Group Executive Director WGEP
Lily Messih Program Manager WGEP
46 28/06/2016
Dioguéne Gomis Group Maire de la commune de Karang Socé 
Yacine Badiane 1ère Adjointe au Maire Karang Socé
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 80
# Date Respondent Interview Title
Fatoumata Badiane Ndiaye Assistante du Maire Karang Socé
47 28/06/2016
Daba Ndour 
Group
Parent d’élève Karang Socé
Gorgui Séne Président APE Karang Socé
Diatou Diouf Parent d’élève Karang Socé
Yahya Sarr Chef de village Karang Socé 
Saliou Ndour Président CGE Karang Socé
Coumba Diouf Parent d’élève Karang Socé
Elisabeth Diouf Parent d’élève Karang Socé
Aissatou Diouf Trésorière CGE et relais Karang Socé
48 28/06/2016
Cherif Diop 
Group
Enseignant CE1 Karang Socé
Oumy Diatta Enseignant CE2 Karang Socé
Abdoulaye Diouf Enseignant CM2 Karang Socé
Talla Dieng Maître d’Arabe Karang Socé
Alassane Ndiaye Enseignant CI Karang Socé
Ansoumana Bassene Enseignant CM1 Karang Socé
Dramé Sow Enseignant CP Karang Socé
49 28/06/2016 07 Elèves Garçons Group Karang Socé
50 28/06/2016 Sory Traoré Individual Directeur Ecole Primaire Karang Socé 
51 28/06/2016
Bacary Demba 
Group
Enseignant CM2 Toubacouta 1
Syaka Sané Enseignant CI Toubacouta 1
Oumar Diamé Sarr Maître d’Arabe Toubacouta 1
Ngoné Niang Enseignante CE2 Toubacouta 1
Kekoaye Demba Enseignant CM1 Toubacouta 1
52 28/06/2016 06 Filles + 07 Garçons Group Toubacouta 1
53 28/06/2016 Dominique Dione Individual Directeur École Primaire Toubacouta 1 
54 29/06/2016 Mme Khady Diop Mbodji Individual Directrice DEE
55 30/06/2016 Ndeye Doufi Diagne Group USAID/Senegal, Voucher Examiner
Francis Carayol USAID/Senegal, Financial Analyst
56 01/07/2016 Badara Sarr Individual USAID/Senegal, Education Specialist
Our Sisters Read Performance Evaluation Report 81
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
www.usaid.gov