USAID evaluation of women's literacy activities

The projects (most were subprojects under the PVO Co-financing Umbrella) were in women's development, health and family planning, agriculture and natural resources management, and direct literacy programming. Between 1991-94, the projects have provided literacy training to 30,477 Nepalis through 1,239 centers. They have also trained 380 literacy trainers and 804 literacy facilitators. In four of the projects, the implementing PVOs -- World Education, Inc. (WEI), Private Agencies Acting Together (PACT), United Mission to Nepal (UMN), and Save The Children Federation (SCF) -- maintain in-house literacy education capabilities. WEI has demonstrated strengths in literacy education policy, curriculum and materials development, and training; its Nayo Goreto curriculum and materials are still the national standard and are used by other USAID-sponsored literacy projects. WEI also plays a valued advisory role in the new National Council for Nonformal Education, and its policy studies have increased the knowledge base on literacy education in Nepal. PACT has demonstrated strength in developing and delivering curricula and materials for training literacy trainers and facilitators. PACT classes appear effective and are deemed valuable by students. PACT's policy advisory role is based less on institutional linkages and more on recognition of its expertise and experience in literacy in Nepal. UMN also maintains in-house capability for materials development and training, with a focus on supporting local groups implementing literacy education. UMN is somewhat unique, as it claims to use literacy exclusively as a tool for other community development objectives, yet devotes significant resources and expertise to literacy, to such degree that it has the stature of a primary development objective. SCF has a multisectoral development agenda which includes a strong community-focused delivery system for literacy education. The home office has a nonformal education (NFE) section responsible for developing literacy materials, coordinating with donor agencies and Government of Nepal offices, training of supervisors and facilitators, and delivery of teaching materials. The strength of its literacy program lies partly in its supervision system, from the home to the field offices. SCF field offices also contain NFE sections. Four off the five remaining projects use literacy explicitly to facilitate community development objectives, and rely on outside expertise to train literacy supervisors and facilitators. Of the implementing organizations, the Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) seems strongest in delivering literacy. CARE, the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), and the Ministry of Local Development's Women Development Offices (WDOs) in the Rapti Zone include community mobilization and functional linkages for literacy as important components, yet do not seem to emphasize literacy activities as strongly as do the SCF and IIDS programs. The functional literacy components of the two health projects, HEAL and CEDPA, raised participants' awareness and knowledge of health practices, but found that participants' ability to act on their new knowledge is limited by economic circumstances; HEAL participants, for example, are reported to know the importance of using soap, but are unable to afford it. This is not intended as criticism of these projects, but as indicators of their priorities. Only if their focus were more exclusively on literacy would their in-house literacy capabilities seem to need strengthening. Overall conclusions are as follows. (1) Literacy programs are more effective when coupled with post-literacy activities. (2) Other development activities, in communities with low literacy levels, are more effective when coupled with literacy programs and groups. (3) Literate individuals and groups, especially those who have successfully completed a Naya Goreto adult literacy education class, are better able and more likely to undertake initiatives to improve their social, economic, and political circumstances. (4) The programs which appear most successful in delivering community literacy programs also exhibit strong facilitators and supervisory systems. (5) Literacy programs are cost-effective, when compared with 3 years of formal schooling, by a 4:1 ratio. (Author abstract, modified)