GIRLS LEADERSHIP AND

EMPOWERMENT THROUGH
EDUCATION

FINAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION REPORT

August 2023
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared independently by EdIntersect and School-to-School International for
Winrock International.
GIRLS LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH EDUCATION

FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

August 28, 2023

PROJECT NUMBER 72068818C00001; SUBCONTRACT NUMBER 6857-23-C-01

DISCLAIMER
This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Winrock
International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

1 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

CONTENTS
Table of Figures 3
Table of Tables 5
Acronyms 6
Executive Summary 7
Evaluation Purpose 7
Project Background 7
Evaluation Methodology Overview 8
Answering The Evaluation Questions 8
Conclusions and Recommendations 13
Introduction 16
Context and Project Background 16
Evaluation Purpose and Audience 17
Evaluation Questions and Methodology Overview 19
Evaluation Questions 19
Methodology Overview 20
Sample Description 25
Quantitative Sample 25
Qualitative Sample 26
Findings 27
Relevance 27
Effectiveness 30
Impact 57
Efficiency 61
Sustainability 64
Limitations 66
Conclusions and Recommendations 67
Annexes 71
Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work 71
Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations 72
Annex III: Final Evaluation Tools 76

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 2

Annex IV: Additional Analyses 143

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Participate in Awareness-raising
Sessions on Girls' Education ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Responsibilities Outside of School ...................................... 32
Figure 3. Proportion of Girls Reporting that Responsibilities Outside of School Sometimes Prevent
Them from Studying at Home or Going to School ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls and Boys Have an Equal Right to Attend School ............. 33
Figure 5. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls Should Stay in School When They Get Married,
Compared with Boys ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls Should Stay in School When They Have a Child,
Compared with Boys ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 7. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Take Part in Awareness-raising
Sessions on Gender-based Violence and School Security ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 8. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Girls are safe at school.” ................................ 36
Figure 9. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Boys are safe at school.” ................................ 36
Figure 10. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers do not have the right to touch
students’ thighs, behinds, or private parts.” .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 11. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers at my school touch students’
thighs, behinds, or private parts.” ................................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 12. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers at my school demand to have
sexual relations with certain girls.” ............................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 13. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher
sexually harasses her.” .................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 14. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a student
sexually harasses her.” .................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 15. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher
touches her thighs, behind, or private parts.” .......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 16. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a student
touches her thighs, behind, or private parts.” .......................................................................................................... 39
Figure 17. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing Someone in Their Class Who Has Used the Incident
Box This Year ................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 18. Reasons Reported by Girls for Why More Students Do Not Use the Incident Box ................. 39
Figure 19. Proportion of Girls Reporting They Have Started Their Periods .................................................... 41
Figure 20. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing Where to Get Information on Menstrual Cycles ...... 41

3 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 21. Proportion of Girls Reporting Being Comfortable Going to School During Their Periods ...... 42
Figure 22. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Stayed at Home Instead of Going to School When on
Period ................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 23. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I’m ashamed of my body when I have my
period.” .............................................................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 24. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is important that I keep my period a
secret.” ............................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 25. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I’m proud of having my period.” ................ 43
Figure 26. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Getting my period is no big deal for me.”
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 27. Material Reported by Girls Used to Manage Period ........................................................................... 44
Figure 28. Proportion of Girls Reporting They Have Not Had Access to Material in the Past Three
Months................................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 29. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Seen or Heard Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Messaging in the Current School Year ....................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 30. Proportion of School Directors Reporting that Their Schools Held Sessions on Reproductive
Health Topics.................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 31. Source of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Messaging ....................................................... 46
Figure 32. Family Planning Methods Girls Reported Having Heard of During the 2022–23 School Year . 47
Figure 33. Reproductive Health Messages Girls Reported Having Heard During the 2022–23 School Year
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 34. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I know where to go if I need
contraception.”................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 35. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I would be too shy or uncomfortable to go
to a clinic or center to get contraception.” .............................................................................................................. 48
Figure 36. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Participate in Awareness-raising
Sessions on Reproductive Health, COVID-19, Family Planning, Menstrual Hygiene, and Forced or Early
Marriage ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 37. Proportion of School Directors Reporting Forced or Early Marriage, COVID-19, and
Menstrual Hygiene Awareness-raising Sessions Being Held at Their School .................................................... 49
Figure 38. Proportion of Timing of Most Recent Awareness-building Sessions ............................................... 49
Figure 39. Facilitators of Menstrual Hygiene Sessions, As Reported by School Directors ........................... 50
Figure 40. Proportion of Girls’ Correct Responses to Menstrual Hygiene Questions on the BBS ............ 50
Figure 41. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing What Periods or Menses Are ......................................... 51
Figure 42. Proportion of Girls’ Responses on the Average Length of the Menstrual Cycle, From Those
Who Reported Starting Their Period and Reported Knowing the Average Length ....................................... 52
Figure 43. Accessibility and Use of Handwashing Facilities ................................................................................... 53

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 4

Figure 44. Proportion of Enumerators Reporting Water Available for Washing Hands at the Time of the
School Visit ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 45. Proportion of Enumerators Reporting Soap or Ashes Available for Washing Hands at the
Time of the School Visit ................................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 46. Proportion of Girls’ Reported Benefits of the USAID GLEE Project.............................................. 62
Figure 47. Proportion of Girls’ Reported USAID GLEE Activities Enabled Them to Feel Safer at School
or on the Way to School ............................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 48. Proportion of Girls’ Reported USAID GLEE Activities Enabled Them to Attend School More
Regularly............................................................................................................................................................................. 63

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Life-of-Project Data Collection Timeline, Sampling Approach, and Instruments Used .................. 18
Table 2. Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 3. Mapping Mixed-Methods Data Sources to Indicators and Evaluation Domains ............................... 21
Table 4. Beneficiary-based Survey Sample Design ................................................................................................... 23
Table 5. Target Qualitative Sample ............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 6. Actual Quantitative Sample ........................................................................................................................... 25
Table 7. Girls’ Quantitative Sample, by School Type and Age.............................................................................. 26
Table 8. Actual Qualitative Sample .............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 9. Girls Reporting Missing School Due to Safety Issues.............................................................................. 35
Table 10. Girls Reporting Knowing What Menses Is .............................................................................................. 51
Table 11. Girls Reporting Knowing the Average Length of Menstrual Cycle ................................................... 51
Table 12. Schools that Provide Hygiene Lessons for All Students ...................................................................... 52
Table 13. Presence of Handwashing Facilities at Schools ...................................................................................... 52
Table 14. Summary of USAID GLEE Project Indicators Calculated as Part of the Final Performance
Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 15. Topics of Stories of Most Significant Change Shared by Girls in FGDs ........................................... 57

5 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

ACRONYMS
AME Association des mères d’élèves (Mothers’ group)
AMELP Activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan
APE Association des parents d’élèves (Parents’ group)
ASC Accelerated schooling centers (Centre de scolarisation accéléré)
BBS Beneficiary-based survey
CERIPS Centre d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé
CGS School management committee (Comités de gestion scolaire)
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CPHDA Centre d’assistance et de promotion des droits humains en Afrique
EQ Evaluation question
FGD Focus group discussion
FP Family planning
GAAS Groupe d’Animation, Action, au Sahel Mali
GBV Gender-based violence
GLEE Girls Leadership and Empowerment through Education
GoM Government of Mali
KII Key informant interview
MSC Most Significant Change
NGO Non-governmental organization
OMAES Œuvre Malienne d'Aide à l'Enfance du Sahel
RH Reproductive health
SR Sub-result
SRGBV School-related gender-based violence
STS School-to-School International
U.S. United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID GLEE USAID Girls Leadership and Empowerment through Education
USG United States government
WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene
WI Winrock International

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE
In May 2023, EdIntersect, with its partners School-to-School International (STS) and Centre d’Etude et
de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS), conducted data collection for a mixed-
methods final performance evaluation of the USAID Girls Leadership and Empowerment through
Education (USAID GLEE) project in Mali. The final performance evaluation sought to assess the project’s
achievements as outlined in the results framework; assess its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact,
and sustainability; and listen to and engage with girls as key informants on USAID GLEE’s outcomes.
The evaluation engaged both current and previous project stakeholders and beneficiaries. Data
collection was conducted in the Bandiagara and Douentza regions, where USAID GLEE is currently
implemented, and in the Kayes region, where USAID GLEE concluded activities in 2021. Results from
the final performance evaluation will be shared with USAID, project staff, partner organizations, and
other key stakeholders in Mali to use when considering future activities.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
USAID GLEE project is a five-year, USAID-funded project to increase girls’ educational opportunities in
Mali by supporting and leveraging existing efforts by the Government of Mali (GoM) and civil society.
Launched in 2018 and concluding in 2023, the project works to decrease barriers to accessing quality
education, improve girls’ safety, and increase girls’ knowledge and adoption of positive health behaviors
to increase access to education for adolescent girls and enable them to obtain greater educational
attainment.
The USAID GLEE project employed seven key strategies to meet these objectives:
1. Community mobilization through school management committees (comités de gestion scolaires,
CGSs), parents’ groups (association des parents d’élèves, APEs), and other key community
stakeholders
2. Participatory capacity-building of accelerated schooling centers (centres de scolarisation accéléré,
ASC) facilitators and teachers at partner schools
3. Mentorship and peer learning through USAID GLEE mentors, youth ambassadors, and
grandmothers
4. Targeted social behavior change communications around girls’ education, safety, and health
5. Payment of girls’ scholarships
6. Provision of teaching and learning materials
7. Improving water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities at schools

Winrock International (WI) leads the USAID GLEE consortium of four partners—Groupe d’Animation,
Action au Sahel Mali (GAAS), Centre d'assistance et de promotion des Droits Humains en Afrique
(CPHDA), Œuvre Malienne d'Aide à l'Enfance du Sahel (OMAES), and IntraHealth International. GAAS
and CPHDA implement the community engagement and school support activities, OMAES is responsible
for the ASCs and teacher professional development activities, and IntraHealth International implements
the reproductive health (RH) and WASH activities.

7 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The final performance evaluation of the USAID GLEE project explored fifteen research questions across
five key domains—relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability—along with five
additional learning questions to inform future programming. These questions are outlined in the
Answering the Evaluation Questions (EQs) section.
The evaluation also provided final values for seven of the USAID GLEE project’s indicators:
1. Girls who say they missed school because they feared school-related gender-based violence
(SRGBV)
2. Audience who recall hearing or seeing a specific USG-supported family planning (FP) or RH
message
3. Girls with access to proper menstrual hygiene products
4. Schools that provide hygiene lessons for all students
5. Schools that provide orientation sessions on menstrual hygiene
6. Schools that have handwashing facilities
7. Improvement in girls’ menstrual hygiene knowledge following hygiene lessons
The mixed methods evaluation engaged a range of beneficiaries and stakeholders, including adolescent
girls, school directors, teachers, USAID GLEE project staff, community members, and health personnel.
In May 2023, evaluation teams surveyed 75 school directors and 1,119 girls across USAID GLEE-
supported primary schools, secondary schools, and ASCs in Bandiagara and Douentza using the
beneficiary-based survey (BBS). Teams collected qualitative data from ten communities—five in Kayes,
where the USAID GLEE project ended interventions in 2021, and five across Bandiagara and Douentza,
where the project is still active. A total of 14 key informant interviews (KIIs) and 26 focus group
discussions (FGDs) were conducted, and insights were triangulated with quantitative findings.

ANSWERING THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

RELEVANCE
EQ 1: How relevant have USAID GLEE’s objectives, priority interventions, and approach been to the
situation of the beneficiaries?
Answer to EQ 1: Nearly all KII and FGD respondents said that USAID GLEE’s activities appropriately
addressed the needs of adolescent girls in their communities, with responses citing all of the areas of
need that USAID GLEE targeted with its objectives. Activities that addressed specific project objectives
included those related to girls’ access to education; their safety and security; their socioemotional health
and sexual and reproductive health; their own economic insecurity, as well as that of their families and
schools; and the prevalence of child marriage.
EQ 2: How has the original design evolved during USAID GLEE’s implementation, particularly in
response to the findings from the midterm study?
Answer to EQ 2: During the project's life, USAID GLEE project staff and partners demonstrated their
ability to change the design of interventions as needed to increase their effectiveness and impact.
Notably, they responded to a recommendation in midterm research by redesigning the activity to
provide sanitary pads to girls and improve the monitoring of transferred learners from ASCs to primary
and secondary schools.
EQ 3: How were existing relevant USAID and U.S. government activities leveraged?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 8

Answer to EQ 3: USAID GLEE successfully created a constructive collaboration with other USAID-
funded projects in the regions of Bandiagara and Douentza. For instance, they combined forces with a
USAID agricultural project Sugu Yiriwa to improve women’s livelihoods by training women on various
income-generating activities so that they could support their children's education with the resources
they generated.

EFFECTIVENESS
EQ 4: To what extent has the project achieved its objectives as defined in the project’s results
framework and reporting indicators?
Answer to EQ4 (by Objective):
OBJECTIVE 1: DECREASE KEY BARRIERS TO ACCESS QUALITY EDUCATION
 USAID GLEE’s work to establish ASCs tapped into a deep-felt desire for out-of-school girls to
receive an education, and the project’s payment of school fees increased enrollment at
government schools.
 USAID GLEE provided teaching and learning materials to schools to meet critical shortages.
 Multiple teachers, school directors, and ASC facilitators discussed the teaching methods and
approaches they acquired from USAID GLEE pedagogical training, including learning about the
balanced approach to literacy instruction and methods for coping with girls who need
socioemotional support.
 USAID GLEE designed activities to educate girls, their families, and the community at large about
the importance of girls’ education. These activities were organized at all 75 sampled primary and
secondary schools, according to school directors. In addition, 90.7 percent of girls reported
participating in a session on the topic.
 Nearly all girls—96.1 percent—agreed or strongly agreed that girls have as much of a right as
boys to attend school. However, girls’ opinions differed when specifically asked about whether
girls and boys had the right to stay in school if they were married or had a child, with a lower
proportion agreeing or strongly agreeing that girls had that right compared to boys if they were
married (70.9 percent to 82.8 percent, respectively) or had a child (73.9 percent to 87.2
percent).
OBJECTIVE 2: IMPROVE ADOLESCENT GIRLS' SAFETY IN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
 According to results from the quantitative survey, the majority of girls agreed or strongly agreed
that both girls and boys were safe at school—92.2 percent and 93.3 percent, respectively.
 In KIIs and FGDs, nearly all respondents said they believed schools were safer thanks to USAID
GLEE. Respondents cited the emergency plans they had adopted and the awareness sessions on
safety and security conducted with parents, teachers, and students.
 Slightly more than one-quarter of girls said they knew someone in their class who used their
school’s incident box, which USAID GLEE provided at each school so students could
anonymously report cases of SRGBV or submit other school-related complaints.
 When asked about students’ use of incident boxes in KIIs and FGDs, responses were as mixed
as girls’ survey responses. At some schools, respondents said that students did not use the box
at all or used it infrequently. At schools where respondents said students did use the incident
box, the submitted complaints more often concerned school-related issues unrelated to SRGBV.
 A greater proportion of girls in secondary school who were 13 or older agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that it was sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher sexually harassed her

9 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 (65.4 percent) or a student did so (65.6 percent) than did girls 13 or older in primary school—
44.1 percent and 45.4 percent.
 The proportion of girls who agreed or strongly agreed that teachers touch children’s thighs,
behinds, or private parts at their school varied by school type, with 7.5 percent of girls in
primary schools and 25.5 percent of girls in secondary schools agreeing or strongly agreeing that
teachers did so.
 In primary school, 8.4 percent of girls aged 13 or older agreed or strongly agreed that teachers
demanded sexual relations, compared with 18.8 percent of secondary-school girls.
 In the quantitative survey, 11.2 percent of primary school girls and 6.2 percent of secondary
school girls reported missing at least one day of school due to feeling unsafe on the way to, at,
or returning from school. The difference between the proportion of girls in primary and
secondary school who said they missed at least one day of school, however, was not statistically
significant.

OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE KNOWLEDGE AND ADOPTION OF POSITIVE HEALTH BEHAVIORS

AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS
 A majority of girls overall (71.0 percent) said they knew where to go if they needed information
about menstruation.
 Slightly more than half of the girls who said they had started their period also said they were
comfortable going to school while menstruating. A lower proportion—11.6 percent—of girls
said they had been absent from school at least once due to their period. Overall, more than
one-quarter of girls (26.3 percent) said they had started menstruating, with the highest
proportion, by far, made up of secondary-school students (72.4 percent).
 Girls who said they had started their period had differing views about it. For instance, 46.3
percent of girls agreed or strongly agreed that they were ashamed of their bodies when they
had their period, but 70.1 percent agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of having
their period. Some girls responded with views about their period that seem contradictory. Of
the girls who somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of having their period,
34.6 percent—more than one-third—somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they were
ashamed of their body when they had their period.
 Slightly more girls reported using cotton (34.8 percent) or pieces of fabric (33.9 percent) than
sanitary pads (30.8 percent) to manage their period.1 Most girls (86.1 percent) reported always
having access to at least one of these materials during the past three months.
 Girls and school directors diverged on responses to how often sessions on assorted topics
occurred at schools. For instance, while 67.9 percent of girls reported that they had seen or
heard about FP and RH during the current school year, nearly all school directors reported that
their school had held sessions on FP and RH—95.4 percent and 97.2 percent, respectively.
 As for menstrual hygiene sessions, 93.0 percent of school directors said they had held sessions
on the topic, with 43.8 percent of school directors reporting the most recent session had
occurred in the past month.
 As part of the quantitative survey, girls were asked various questions to gauge their knowledge
about menstruation. Overall, girls answered 25.3 percent of questions correctly about the topic,

1
Although USAID GLEE focused its activities on girls making their own sanitary pads from locally available materials, it was not clear from the
quantitative survey how girls had acquired their sanitary pads.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 10

 but the difference was statistically significant between girls enrolled in ASCs (12.3 percent),
primary schools (22.0 percent), and secondary schools (49.9 percent).
 The knowledge gap was present between girls by school level and if a girl said she had started
her period. For instance, the first survey item inquired if the girl knew what a period or menses
is. Among secondary school students, 86.7 percent reported knowing what a period is, while
37.1 percent of ASC students and 53.5 percent of primary school students reported knowing
what a period is.
 Nearly all of the school directors interviewed—95.1 percent—reported that their school
provided lessons on general hygiene to students.
 As part of the school director survey, enumerators also took an inventory of schools’
handwashing facilities. Most schools—71.7 percent—had handwashing facilities, with 63.7
percent being within 10 meters of the latrines. As for branding, 33.9 percent of the facilities had
USAID branding.
 The availability of water and soap or ashes varied at the handwashing facilities. Water was
available at all handwashing facilities at 32.8 percent of schools, in more than half of facilities at
25.0 percent of schools, and in less than half of facilities at 25.5 percent of schools. At 16.6
percent of schools, water was not available at any handwashing facilities. More than one-quarter
of schools had soap or ashes available at all handwashing facilities, but they were not available in
40.8 percent of schools.
EQ 5: What were the major factors—including project design, implementation, and the operating
environment—that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the objective targets? and EQ 6:
Which project activities made the most and least significant contribution to intended strategic
objectives?
Answer to EQs 5 and 6: USAID GLEE’s dedication to engaging with communities from the moment
its staff first arrived stands out as the most critical factor in achieving project objectives. With a project
design relying heavily on community participation—including its initial community assets appraisal
approach plus community members fulfilling key roles such as mentors and ASC facilitators—USAID
GLEE needed to build local ownership and trust to be able to make an impact. Based on KIIs with
USAID GLEE project staff and partners, that paramount objective was met.
EQ 7: How do USAID GLEE beneficiaries perceive the overall quality of project delivery and technical
assistance?
Answer to EQ 7: Respondents generally viewed the project’s overall activities and assistance as
effective. When asked which USAID GLEE activities were the least effective, most respondents in KIIs
and FGDs said they believed all activities were effective. The respondents who said certain activities
were ineffective were not critical of the activities’ quality or design, but rather wished USAID GLEE had
done more to support the community.
EQ 8: How did USAID GLEE adapt to the pandemic and to what extent were adaptations or shifts in
the program’s delivery strategy required to reach USAID GLEE’s beneficiaries? How do USAID GLEE
beneficiaries perceive the quality of the program’s adaptation?
Answer to EQ 8: The pandemic forced USAID GLEE to adapt its school-based activities when
government schools closed at the onset of the pandemic, ramp up some community-based
interventions, and distribute materials to communities to prevent transmission of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19). While beneficiaries shared their appreciation for the project's support in
response to the pandemic, most respondents believed that COVID-19 had little to no overall impact in

11 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

their communities, with some stating that they believed there had been no COVID-19 cases in their
community.

IMPACT
EQ 9: What were unexpected outcomes of USAID GLEE activities, both positive and negative
outcomes, particularly for girls?
Answer to EQ 9: As part of the qualitative data collection, 71 adolescent girls who benefited from
USAID GLEE participated in FGDs designed to prompt each girl to share a story detailing the most
significant change (MSC) in her life that resulted from the project and then, as a group, select the story
that captured the MSC out of the stories shared. Out of the 12 FGDs conducted with girls, five groups
selected a story related to early marriage (see page 57 for the story details). The stories related to child
marriage illustrate how USAID GLEE has raised awareness of various issues related to girls’ lives and
empowered girls to change the course of their own lives and impact the lives of other girls in their
communities. In the FGDs, girls shared notable stories of empowerment and agency related to RH and
FP. These stories illustrated how girls used their newfound knowledge to push back against prevailing
social norms—especially how some people feel FP and RH are inappropriate for adolescent girls to learn
about—as well as girls’ determination and desire for seeking out FP and other health services, which
surprised even healthcare workers themselves.
EQ 10: What changes in the enabling environment that support girls’ education and school safety have
resulted from USAID GLEE?
Answer to EQ 10: Where USAID GLEE intervened, its collaborative approach helped to raise
awareness about the importance of educating girls and creating a safe school environment. Respondents
shared how all these efforts led not only to behavioral change in families, such as allowing girls to study
instead of performing household duties, but also shifted deep-rooted community beliefs that girls did not
belong in school. Other respondents described how girls manifested their newfound independence, with
some refusing to have their parents force them to marry young. As for school safety, respondents
primarily described how some communities ensured all children arrived at school and returned home
safely and that the school grounds were adequately fenced off and secured.

EFFICIENCY
EQ 11: To what extent does the management structure support efficiency for implementation, learning,
and reflection for WI and partners and ensure proper risk management?
Answer to EQ 11: With a focus on objectives in three sectors—education, health, and safety and
security—USAID GLEE required a complex partnership of international and local organizations to
implement activities. All project and partner respondents said that the consortium operated effectively,
with one respondent recommending that the consortium could have been strengthened with more
personnel from WI working out of the regional office in Bandiagara. The consortium’s quarterly
meetings played a key role in efficient project management. The project’s management structure also
helped it ensure proper risk management, with local partners having access to key information that
allowed the consortium to assess the security situation in Douentza and Bandiagara.
EQ 12: Did any activities with relatively high impact or effectiveness have higher reach of beneficiaries
than others?
Answer to EQ 12: The quantitative survey and girls’ FGDs revealed that certain activities had more
reach with girls. In the survey, girls reported that USAID GLEE mentors benefited them the most (72.6

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 12

percent of girls overall), followed by the production of sanitary pads (47.6 percent overall). In the stories
of MSC that girls shared in FGDs, early marriage was the topic of the stories selected most often by
groups, while girls also shared stories frequently about learning about RH and FP and how to produce
reusable sanitary pads; becoming more aware of the importance of staying in school and receiving an
education; and benefiting from USAID GLEE’s provision of school fees, water, school supplies, bicycles,
brooms, and benches.

SUSTAINABILITY
EQ 13: What is the likelihood that the project benefits will endure over time after USAID GLEE ends?
Answer to EQ 13: Due to USAID GLEE ending its work in Kayes in 2021, it was possible to see which
project activities were still being conducted there as a real-time gauge of sustainability. The activities
with the most staying power in Kayes include the ongoing awareness raised in communities by mentors,
peer educators, and youth ambassadors. Other activities that have continued include the care provided
by health agents to adolescent girls (i.e., family planning and routine visits for illness) and the production
of reusable sanitary pads. However, two challenges were found that affected USAID GLEE’s prospects
for sustainability—the deterioration of infrastructure, such as WASH facilities, and the departure of
trained mentors, teachers, and health workers from communities.
EQ 14: To what extent has USAID GLEE developed local ownership and sustainable partnerships?
Which, if any, improved institutions or processes are likely to continue after completion of USAID
GLEE?
Answer to EQ 14: As detailed in EQ13, project activities—such as the local production of sanitary
pads—are likely to continue because the community has taken ownership of the practice. Community
health centers also appear to have institutionalized services for adolescent girls. By contrast, in the
education sector, some GoM officials in Kayes discussed how the progress USAID GLEE had brought
about resulted in some unforeseen challenges for the government once the project closed, primarily
officials feeling obligated to open and operate new schools in communities where ASCs had closed
despite “meager” financial resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

USAID GLEE’s impact expanded beyond the walls of classrooms into all facets of girls’ lives, as
exemplified by their stories of MSC about early marriage, RH, and FP. In these stories, girls not only
recounted how the project had helped change the course of their own lives, but also how the newfound
knowledge empowered them to make a difference in the lives of their peers.
Recommendation: USAID GLEE’s design of its reusable sanitary pad production should be
highlighted as a best practice. Due to its popularity and sustainability prospects, the project’s
production of sanitary pads with local materials should be incorporated into other projects.
Girls not only changed their view of what they could accomplish in their own lives, thanks to project
activities, but what they accomplished over the life of project also changed community perceptions of
what girls were capable of achieving. These changed perceptions underscore how adolescent girls’
potential in Mali is generally untapped. Through its active presence in communities, USAID GLEE
convinced people otherwise and taught them to be more attentive to girls.
Recommendation: Communities’ surprise at what girls are capable of achieving illustrates
how it is important not only to raise awareness in communities about the intrinsic importance
of girls’ education, but also about what girls themselves are capable of accomplishing. This

13 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 realization points to the type of shift in gender norms that effective empowerment approaches
help bring about. Gender empowerment models need to attend to the individual-level change in
opportunities and self-concept for girls, but also to the peers, families, and communities that
make up the enabling environment around girls. USAID GLEE’s mix of interventions show a
sound and practical direction in programming and implementation for gender empowerment at
these multiple levels of the enabling environment and should be continued.
Despite the impact the project made in girls’ lives, USAID GLEE was less successful in shifting deep-
seated cultural attitudes about gender in society and SRGBV. For instance, while a minority of primary
school girls 13 and older agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that it was a sometimes a girl’s
fault if a teacher or student sexually harassed her—44.1 percent and 45.4 percent, respectively—a
majority of secondary school girls did—65.4 percent and 65.6 percent, respectively.
Recommendation: Activities targeting SRGBV awareness need to address problematic gender
norms that lead girls to believe they are sometimes to blame for provoking harassment. While
the above recommendation points out the evidence of effectiveness and potential in shifting
gender norms, this conclusion and recommendation indicates that progress within girls’ self-
concept and in their placement of blame on themselves rather than the adults harassing them
can be slow and difficult. In future programming, this specific area of social-emotional learning
for adolescent girls can be more specifically targeted and peers, family members, and community
members can also be enlisted in this area of social-emotional growth.
It is evident that boys and men need to change their behavior to ensure schools are safer and that the
criteria that children consider when determining their school’s safety should include instances of
SRGBV. For example, while 93.4 percent of secondary school girls said girls were safe at school, 25.5
percent said that teachers touched children inappropriately, and 18.8 percent said that teachers
demanded to have sex with certain students.
Recommendation: Boys and men need to be targeted explicitly in the design of activities
addressing SRGBV. As with the above, this recommendation is another call to take up further
emphasis in this related area of the enabling environment among the peers and adults whose
behaviors have a large effect on girls’ emerging sense of self, locus of control, and opportunities
for their future.
As for menstrual health, although respondents noted how the project helped to improve girls’ menstrual
health hygiene and knowledge, the stigma associated with girls having their period still manifested itself
in some responses in the girls’ survey. Despite the lingering stigma, the project made an impact with
menstrual health and hygiene by increasing access to sanitary pads with its well-received activity of using
locally available material to produce them. Mentoring in communities stood out as another well-received
activity with promising prospects for sustainability. In the quantitative survey, girls reported that USAID
GLEE mentors benefited them the most out of any project activity.
Recommendation: The use of mentors should be expanded so that multiple mentors are
active in each community. This is another promising practice for a holistic gender empowerment
approach that builds community understanding, support, and structures to encourage and build
the enabling environment.
The reach of the awareness-building sessions that mentors and others were trained to lead at least
weekly, however, seemed unclear. For instance, although nearly all school directors reported that their
schools conducted sessions on RH as well as FP, less than 70 percent of girls reported having

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 14

participated in such sessions or seeing or hearing messages related to those topics. Perhaps girls who
said they did not participate in these may not have been present at school when mentors and others
facilitated the weekly session.
Recommendation: Due to a sizeable minority of girls reporting they did not participate in
sessions on such topics as menstrual hygiene, FP, and RH, girls’ participation and exposure to
these sessions should be monitored more closely, as well as their ongoing learning, including
application of their learning to their lives. Later in the school year, mentors and other project
stakeholders should be encouraged to repeat trainings on certain key topics if monitoring
reveals that a large proportion of girls have not attended certain sessions, or their learning
should be reinforced on a certain important topic such as menstrual health.
In Kayes, the sustainability successes included not only sanitary pad production and continued
contributions from mentors and others, but also the continued provision of health services to girls at
community health centers. Several challenges in Kayes, however, emerged with sustainability—
infrastructure, such as water taps no longer functioning and stakeholders leaving the community.
Recommendation: The ability of community health centers in Kayes to continue covering the
costs of adolescent girls should be studied more closely to see if aspects could be emulated to
cover the costs of school fees.
Recommendation: To ensure infrastructure does not break easily, future projects should
work with local government and school organizations on how to finance repairs and
maintenance, especially with WASH facilities.
Recommendation: To mitigate the effects of the inevitable departure and turnover of project
stakeholders such as mentors and teachers, future projects should ensure that protocols are in
place to train replacements to take over duties as needed.

15 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

INTRODUCTION
CONTEXT AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Girls Leadership and Empowerment through Education (USAID GLEE) project is a five-year,
USAID-funded project to increase girls’ educational opportunities in Mali by supporting and leveraging
existing efforts by the Government of Mali (GoM) and civil society. The project is implemented in an
unstable security context in which children and adolescents face myriad barriers to accessing quality
education. Only 49 percent of learners in Mali currently complete primary school, driven to dropout by
social and economic pressures borne disproportionately by girls.2 Expectations of domestic labor and
care work, along with high rates of child marriage, place competing pressures on girls’ ability to enroll,
attend, and complete schooling throughout their educational careers. Once at school, student learning
outcomes are constrained by a lack of materials, the absence of qualified teachers, and the risk of
gender-based violence (GBV) on the way to, at, and returning from school.
The USAID GLEE project developed a comprehensive approach to addressing girls’ educational
challenges in Mali by focusing on decreasing barriers to accessing quality education, improving girls’
safety, and increasing knowledge and adoption of positive health behaviors. Winrock International (WI)
leads the USAID GLEE consortium of four partners— Groupe d’Actions et d’Animation au Sahel–Mali
(GAAS), IntraHealth International, and Œuvre Malienne d’Aide à l’Enfance du Sahel (OMAES) and
Centre d’assistance et de promotion des Droits Humains en Afrique (CPHDA). GAAS and CPHDA
implement community engagement and school support activities. OMAES is responsible for the
accelerated schooling centers (centre de scolarisation accélérée, ASC) and teacher professional
development activities. IntraHealth International implements reproductive health (RH) and water,
sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) activities.
The USAID GLEE project launched in Mali in 2018 and, after five years of implementation, concludes in
2023. Throughout the project, WI used monitoring and evaluation touchpoints, including formal
assessments, to better understand the population the project served. The 2018 USAID GLEE baseline
evaluation included a household survey of girls and their parents to understand challenges within the
target regions of Kayes and Mopti—the latter now split into the Bandiagara and Douentza regions.
Results showed that school access remained out of reach for a substantial proportion of girls, reflecting
the broader trends across Mali. Only about one-half of the surveyed girls were currently enrolled in
school. Of those enrolled in school, survey data indicated a large majority struggled to attend class
regularly; three in four girls missed more than five school days in the previous month. It is likely that
these prominent levels of absenteeism negatively affected girls’ ability to engage meaningfully in their
studies and progress academically, increasing their vulnerability to dropout.
These challenges were particularly acute for girls aged 15 to 18 when compared with their younger
peers. School survey data suggested that despite low overall dropout rates for girls in primary school
(first grade through ninth grade), girls became more vulnerable to dropping out as they transitioned
from primary to secondary school. This trend was not surprising given that, as girls age, they face
increased domestic responsibilities, pressure to contribute economically to their household, sexual
harassment, and cultural expectations of early marriage. Adolescent girls with menstrual health
management needs also find additional challenges at school not faced by younger girls.

2
Additional information about education in Mali can be found at https://www.usaid.gov/mali/fact-sheet/girls-leadership-and-empowerment-
through-education-USAID GLEE

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 16

In 2021, USAID GLEE’s mid-project research study further explored adolescent girls’ barriers in Mali
through direct engagement with project beneficiaries. Respondents reported numerous obstacles,
including household duties and obligations, financial demands, early marriage and pregnancy, parents’ lack
of awareness of education’s importance, school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV), and health-
related barriers, including menstruation. Meanwhile, a separate external midterm evaluation in 2021
found that the USAID GLEE project successfully worked with school management committees (comités
de gestion scolaires, CGSs) by building the capacity of key community partners. This included community
mobilization through mentors, peer educators, youth ambassadors, and grandmothers. USAID GLEE had
also successfully collaborated with the education, health, and community sectors on the project,
although institutionalizing the partnerships was noted as a critical need for sustainability.

THEORY OF CHANGE AND USAID GLEE STRATEGY

Building upon other programs and efforts by the GoM, USAID GLEE’s overarching goal was to increase
access to education for adolescent girls aged 10 to 18 and enable them to obtain greater educational
attainment. The USAID GLEE project has three key objectives, each supported by multiple sub-results
(SRs):
1. Objective 1: Decrease key barriers of adolescent girls to access quality education.
a. SR 1.1: Learning-support opportunities for adolescent girls increased
b. SR 1.2: Teaching is more responsive and relevant for adolescent girls
c. SR 1.3: Communities and families support girls’ education
2. Objective 2: Improve the safety of adolescent girls in schools and their communities.
a. SR 2.1: Strategies and policies to safeguard adolescent girls are adopted
b. SR 2.2: Effective reporting and referral mechanisms for SRGBV established
c. SR 2.3: Perceptions of safety in communities and schools improved
3. Objective 3: Increase knowledge and adoption of positive health behaviors among adolescent
girls.
a. SR 3.1: Positive health behaviors adopted by adolescent girls
b. SR 3.2: Adolescent girls’ knowledge of and access to health services increased
c. SR 3.3: Health barriers to education reduced
USAID GLEE relied on seven strategies to meet these objectives:
1. Community mobilization through CGSs, parents’ groups (association des parents d’élèves, APEs),
and other key community stakeholders.
2. Participatory capacity-building of ASC facilitators and teachers at partner schools.
3. Mentorship and peer learning through USAID GLEE mentors, youth ambassadors, and
grandmothers.
4. Targeted social behavior change communications around girls’ education, safety, and health.
5. Payment of girls’ scholarships.
6. Provision of teaching and learning materials.
7. Improving WASH facilities at schools.

EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE

EdIntersect, with partners School-to-School International (STS) and Centre d’Etude et de Recherche sur
l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS), conducted a mixed-methods final performance evaluation

17 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

near the close of the USAID GLEE project.3 The purpose of the final performance evaluation is
threefold:
1. Assess the project’s achievements as outlined in the results framework.
2. Assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
3. Listen to and engage with girls as key informants on USAID GLEE’s outcomes.
This final performance evaluation follows three other USAID GLEE evaluations, as detailed in Table 1,
including a baseline, an internal mid-project evaluation, and an external mid-project evaluation. Any
baseline data mentioned in this report is only for referential purposes. No comparisons between
baseline and the final performance evaluation can be made due to differences in the baseline and final
performance evaluation designs.4
Table 1. Life-of-Project Data Collection Timeline, Sampling Approach, and Instruments Used

Data Baseline Internal External Final Performance

collection Mid-Project Mid-Project Evaluation

November 2018 November– April 2021 May 2023

December 2020
Sampling Random route 10 USAID GLEE Population-based Population-based
approach sampling method was communities sample drawn from sample drawn from
used to visit selected for entire population of entire population of
households in Kayes, qualitative data USAID GLEE USAID GLEE schools
Bandiagara, and collection in Kayes, schools in Kayes, in Bandiagara and
Douentza; both girls Bandiagara, and Bandiagara, and Douentza for
attending and not Douentza Douentza as well as quantitative
attending school non-project control instruments; no
were surveyed; all schools from the control schools;
accessible schools same regions qualitative sampling
targeted for including a total of
participation in 10 communities, 5 in
USAID GLEE were Bandiagara and
visited Douentza, and 5 in
Kayes
Instruments Household girls’ No quantitative Girls’ survey, school Beneficiary-based
survey and instruments; seven inventory and surveys for girls and
parent/caregiver FGD and KII observation school directors;
survey, as well as a protocols checklist, and school 11 FGD and KII
school survey director survey; nine protocols for range
FGD and KII of beneficiaries
protocols
SSME data collection
The final performance evaluation results will be shared with USAID, project staff, partner organizations,
and other key stakeholders in Mali. The performance evaluation reports on seven of USAID GLEE’s
thirty-two key performance indicators included in the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan

3
This is considered an internal evaluation as it is commissioned by Winrock International, the lead USAID GLEE implementer.
4
While the final performance evaluation sample was drawn from girls who attended schools where USAID GLEE has been intervening, the
baseline sample was drawn from school-aged girls who lived in households in communities where USAID GLEE was planning to intervene. In
addition, unlike final performance evaluation data, baseline data was unweighted.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 18

(AMELP). In addition to collecting primary data on these seven indicators, the evaluation team
conducted a desk review of WI’s project monitoring data on the remaining 25 indicators to inform the
final evaluation’s broader research questions. These robust research questions fall under five domains of
inquiry explored with stakeholders and beneficiaries of the project—both past and present—to provide
rich and nuanced information to decision-makers within USAID and the GoM when considering future
activities in Mali. Of these beneficiaries, particular attention was paid to the adolescent girls who have
been at the center of USAID GLEE’s implementation activities for the past five years.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

OVERVIEW
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The final performance evaluation explores fifteen evaluation questions (EQs) across five key domains—
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability—along with five additional learning
questions to inform future programming. These 20 questions are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Evaluation Questions

Criteria

Relevance 1. How relevant have USAID GLEE’s objectives, priority interventions, and approach been
to the situation of the beneficiaries?

2. How has the original design evolved during USAID GLEE’s implementation, particularly in
response to the findings from the midterm study?

3. How were existing relevant USAID and U.S. government activities leveraged?

Effectiveness 4. To what extent has the project achieved its objectives as defined in the project’s results
framework and reporting indicators?

5. What were the major factors—including project design, implementation, and the
operating environment—which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the
objective targets?

6. Which project activities made the most and least significant contribution to intended
strategic objectives?

7. How do USAID GLEE beneficiaries perceive the overall quality of project delivery and
technical assistance?

8. How did USAID GLEE adapt to the pandemic and to what extent were adaptations/shifts
in the program’s delivery strategy required to reach USAID GLEE’s beneficiaries? How
do USAID GLEE beneficiaries perceive the quality of the program’s adaptation?

19 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 Evaluation Evaluation Questions
Criteria

Impact 9. What were unexpected outcomes of USAID GLEE activities, both positive and negative
outcomes, particularly for girls?5

10. What changes in the enabling environment that support girls’ education and school safety
have resulted from USAID GLEE?

Efficiency 11. To what extent does the management structure support efficiency for implementation,
learning and reflection for WI and partners and ensure proper risk management?

12. Did any activities with relatively high impact/effectiveness have higher reach of
beneficiaries than others?

Sustainability 13. What is the likelihood that the project benefits will endure over time after USAID GLEE
ends?

14. To what extent has USAID GLEE developed local ownership and sustainable
partnerships?

15. Which, if any, improved institutions or processes are likely to continue after completion
of USAID GLEE?

Learning 16. What recommendations do key project stakeholders have for similar, future activities?
Questions
17. Which interventions contributed most to increased access to formal schooling or ASCs?

18. Can target families afford to send their daughters to school if USAID GLEE pays their
ASC or school fees?

19. Do girls and their parents feel more secure sending their children to school (both on
route and in school) if the school has a functioning system for reporting incidents of GBV
or referring victims of GBV to relevant actors and authorities?

20. What features exist at the health clinics or with the health clinic staff which make girls
feel more comfortable seeking family planning (FP) services?

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

MIXED-METHODS APPROACH
The final performance evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach to respond to the research
questions and provide final values for seven of USAID GLEE’s thirty-two indicators. Quantitative data
was collected from school directors and adolescent girls at USAID GLEE-supported primary schools,
secondary schools, and ASCs across the Bandiagara and Douentza regions where USAID GLEE was

5
Outcomes of interest include those related to the role of mentors, family members’ influence, norms and perceptions toward girls and
schooling, RH, GBV, key soft skills for girls, and effects of conflict and/or changed climate.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 20

implemented. These data were triangulated with qualitative data from adolescent girls, school directors,
teachers, USAID GLEE project staff, community members, and health personnel in Bandiagara and
Douentza, as well as in the Kayes region, where USAID GLEE ended their interventions in 2021. Visiting
communities in Kayes where USAID GLEE was no longer active at the time of the final evaluation
allowed the evaluation team to explore elements of sustainability of the USAID GLEE project. Lastly,
existing internal USAID GLEE monitoring data was reviewed to supplement the findings.
The evaluation team drew upon tools previously developed for the baseline, mid-project research, and
external midterm evaluation points to develop the final evaluation tools. Before the field-based data
collection, tool development was also informed by virtual semi-structured interviews with six staff
members from USAID GLEE or their partner organizations.
For the quantitative tools, the evaluation team developed a thorough beneficiary-based survey (BBS) to
report on key project indicators and elicit descriptive data6 from adolescent girls and school directors at
select primary or secondary schools and adolescent girls at select ASCs. Qualitative focus group
discussion (FGD) and structured and semi-structured key informant interview (KII) protocols from
previous timepoints were adapted to capture various experiences and perspectives from stakeholders at
the project, school, and community levels. The evaluation team included an additional qualitative method
within this final evaluation—the most significant change (MSC) approach, an enhanced participatory
evaluation method—to investigate the project’s impact on direct beneficiaries: adolescent girls.
The interconnectedness of the quantitative and qualitative tools developed is highlighted in Table 3. The
final evaluation tools can be found in Annex III: Final Evaluation Tools.
Table 3. Mapping Mixed-Methods Data Sources to Indicators and Evaluation Domains

Quantitative: BBS Qualitative: KIIs & FGDs

FGD &
FGD &
School FGDs KIIs KIIs
Girls KIIs
directors Girls School- Project
Community
based

Indicators

18 Girls who say that they missed

school because they feared SRGBV

22 Audience who recall hearing or

seeing a specific U.S. government-
supported family planning or
reproductive health message
28 Girls with access to proper
menstrual hygiene products

29 Schools that provide hygiene

lessons for all students

6
Descriptive data collected in the girls’ quantitative survey include their knowledge, practice, and beliefs about gender norms and roles, SRGBV,
menstrual health and hygiene, RH, FP, and their involvement in USAID GLEE activities.

21 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 Quantitative: BBS Qualitative: KIIs & FGDs

FGD &
FGD &
School FGDs KIIs KIIs
Girls KIIs
directors Girls School- Project
Community
based

30 Schools that provide orientation

sessions on menstrual hygiene

31 Schools that have handwashing

facilities

32 Improvement in girls’ menstrual

hygiene knowledge following
hygiene lessons

Evaluation Domains & Learning Questions

Relevance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Impact

Sustainability

Key Learning Questions

Legend: Primary Sources Secondary Sources

The evaluation team developed tools in French, then leveraged the expertise of CERIPS’s Bambara, Peul,
Malinké, Sarakolé, and Dogon speakers when local language tools were necessary for the respondents.
Before finalizing the tools, the evaluation team piloted each tool over five days in April 2023 at two
USAID GLEE schools in Bandiagara. Pilot results helped identify any potential issues with questions and
served as a basis for revising and finalizing the tools for data collection.

QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING STRATEGY

For the BBS, the population is comprised of all the girls enrolled as students at the 272 primary and
secondary schools and ASCs supported by the Mali USAID GLEE project within Bandiagara and

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 22

Douentza.7 The estimated target population is 65,000 students. The evaluation team calculated a target
sample of 1,120 girls across 112 ASCs, primary schools, and secondary schools, along with the 75 school
directors of the sampled schools. Table 4 details the sample size to reach a 5 percent margin of error
with a 95 percent confidence interval. The sampling design used a two-step stratified cluster, random
sampling approach. For the first step, the evaluation team randomly selected ASCs and schools using the
type of school or center as a stratification variable. For the second step, the evaluation team randomly
selected ten girls within each ASC or school.
Table 4. Beneficiary-based Survey Sample Design

Primary Secondary
Sample Targets ASCs Total
Schools Schools

Sampling frame of schools or ASCs 254 35 60 349

Target number of sampled schools

40 35 37 112
or ASCs

Target number of school directors

40 35 n/a 75
surveyed

Target number of girls surveyed by

400 350 370 1,120
school type

QUALITATIVE SAMPLING STRATEGY

The qualitative portion of the study included data collected from stakeholders and beneficiaries in
Bandiagara and Douentza as well as in the Kayes region, where USAID GLEE had been active until 2021.
The evaluation team visited ten communities—five in Kayes and five across Bandiagara and Douentza—
to conduct 26 FGDs and 14 KIIs with a range of USAID GLEE beneficiaries and actors, as shown in
Table 5. The ten communities were selected based on existing data to ensure the sample's
representativeness. The evaluation team and WI pre-selected communities based on the following
factors: existence of both an ASC and formal school; existence of a health center; balance of
communities with a small ASC versus a large ASC; accessibility in terms of security, road conditions, and
distance; and the inclusion of some mining communities. This yielded a qualitative sample most likely to
produce useful yet representative information.
Table 5. Target Qualitative Sample

Bandiagara &
Respondent Type Kayes Total
Douentza

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

7
Girls from Kayes were not included within the sample for the BBS because USAID GLEE was no longer active in that region at the time of
data collection.

23 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 Bandiagara &
Respondent Type Kayes Total
Douentza

Girls enrolled in schools 2 primary schools 3 primary schools 5 primary girls FGDs
(5–6 girls per FGD) 3 secondary schools 2 secondary schools 5 secondary girls FGDs

Girls enrolled in ASCs

N/A 2 ASC girls’ FGD 2 ASC girls FGDs
(5–6 girls per FGD)

Teachers 1 primary school 1 primary school

4 Teacher FGDs
(6–8 teachers per FGD) 1 secondary school 1 secondary school

CGS members 1 primary school 1 primary school

4 CGS member FGDs
(6–8 people per FGD) 1 secondary school 1 secondary school

Youth stakeholders
(mentors, youth
2 2 4 Youth stakeholder FGDs
ambassadors, peer
educators)

Grandmothers 1 1 2 grandmother FGDs

TOTAL 26 FGDs

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

1 primary school 1 primary school

School Directors KII 4 School Director KIIs
1 secondary school 1 secondary school

ASC Facilitators KII N/A 2 ASC Facilitators KII 2 ASC Facilitator KIIs

Local healthcare
2 2 4 healthcare provider KIIs
providers KII

GoM officials and

2 2 4 officials/leaders KIIs
community leaders

TOTAL 14 KIIs

FIELD WORK
CERIPS, a local research partner, managed the final performance evaluation field work. This included
enumerator recruitment, training, and management. When possible, enumerators who participated in
USAID GLEE’s baseline or mid-project research study were hired to maximize previous knowledge of
the project and context while also adhering to gender balance and local language needs and
considerations. The evaluation team’s mixed-method master trainer joined CERIPS in Bamako for two
three-day enumerator trainings—one training focused on quantitative data collection and the other on

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 24

qualitative. The trainer facilitated sessions on the relevant data collection tools, research ethics, and best
practices.
Data collection was conducted between May 1–12, 2023. Multiple levels of supervision were put in place
to ensure data quality and adherence to data collection protocols, and incoming data was monitored
daily on the back end of the data collection platform. The quantitative BBS tool was administered with
tablets using the electronic platform SurveyCTO. Qualitative data from the FGDs and KIIs were
collected via handwritten notes and audio recordings. After the data was collected in the field each day,
research assistants typed and finalized expanded field notes for all qualitative sessions based on detailed
reviews of the audio recordings. A random sample of 10 percent of the expanded notes was reviewed
for validity by transcribers who spoke the language used in the individual interviews.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH
The evaluation team reviewed the final dataset with a multi-stage data cleaning process to ensure that it
was complete, accurate, and internally consistent. The evaluation team followed the standard best
practices for cleaning and finalizing data, including developing a primary codebook and merging or
appending data files for easier use and manipulation. Analysts applied disposition codes to categorize any
issues or problems that emerged during the data collection process. These disposition codes were then
used to determine cleaning rules that were incorporated into the syntax to clean the data accordingly.
In line with USAID’s How-To Note Gender Integration in Education Programming (2018), data analysis
disaggregated all people-level indicators by school type.
Qualitative data analysis incorporated an iterative approach, including thematic content analysis of
narrative data to identify and validate emerging themes. The evaluation team’s qualitative specialist
imported all the detailed qualitative notes into NVivo, a qualitative research software program. Analyses
focused on identifying and examining salient themes for each EQ among respondents. This mixed-
methods study sees qualitative and quantitative analysis as convergent and complementary. Revelatory
instances of conversion and incongruence between data sources are noted in this report's Findings
section.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE
In May 2023, data collection teams visited 112 schools—primary schools, secondary schools, and
ASCs—meeting the evaluation target for all respondent groups. All school directors of the primary and
secondary schools visited were interviewed, totaling 75 interviews. The final sample of girls for the BBS
survey was 1,119. Only one school visited had fewer than 10 girls surveyed. The quantitative sample is
detailed in Table 6.
Table 6. Actual Quantitative Sample

Primary Secondary
ASCs Total
Schools Schools

Number of ASCs, primary

42 33 37 112
schools, secondary schools

25 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 Primary Secondary
ASCs Total
Schools Schools

Number of school
42 33 N/A 75
directors interviewed

Total number of girls

420 329 370 1,119
interviewed

The majority of girls interviewed at the primary schools and ASCs ranged in age from 10–14 years old,
while at secondary schools, most girls were aged 15–18, as displayed in Table 7.
Table 7. Girls’ Quantitative Sample, by School Type and Age

10–14 15 and older Total

ASCs 347 23 370

Primary schools 380 40 420

Secondary schools 111 218 329

Totals 838 281 1,119

QUALITATIVE SAMPLE
The qualitative sample of the final performance evaluation data collection comprised 26 FGDs and 21
KIIs, including those conducted with USAID GLEE project staff and partners. In Kayes, where the USAID
GLEE project had been active until 2021, enumerators conducted 12 FGDs and 6 KIIs. In Bandiagara and
Douentza, the project conducted 14 FGDs and 9 KIIs. The actual sample closely resembled the target
sample size, except for the FGDs planned with grandmothers in each region. In Kayes and
Bandiagara/Douentza, only one grandmother was available and eligible to participate. As such, these
discussions have been classed as KIIs. Table 8 details the actual qualitative sample.
Table 8. Actual Qualitative Sample

Bandiagara &
Respondent Type Kayes Total
Douentza

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

2 primary schools 3 primary schools 6 primary girls FGDs

Girls enrolled in schools
3 secondary schools 2 secondary schools 4 secondary girls FGDs

Girls enrolled in ASCs N/A 2 2 ASC girls FGDs

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 26

 Bandiagara &
Respondent Type Kayes Total
Douentza

Teachers 2 2 4 Teacher FGDs

CGS members 2 2 4 CGS member FGDs

Community engagement
stakeholders
4 Community Engagement
(mentors, youth 2 2
FGDs
ambassadors, peer
educators)

TOTAL 26 FGDs

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

USAID GLEE staff and 6 USAID GLEE staff and

N/A N/A
partners KII partner KIIs

Grandmothers KII 1 1 2 grandmother KIIs

School Directors KII 2 2 4 School Director KIIs

ASC Facilitators KII N/A 2 2 ASC Facilitator KIIs

Local healthcare
2 3 5 healthcare provider KIIs
providers KII

GoM officials and

2 2 4 officials/leaders KIIs
community leaders KII

TOTAL 21 KIIs

FINDINGS
RELEVANCE

EVALUATION QUESTION ONE (EQ1): HOW RELEVANT HAVE USAID GLEE’S OBJECTIVES, PRIORITY
INTERVENTIONS, AND APPROACH BEEN TO THE SITUATION OF THE BENEFICIARIES?
Answer to EQ 1: Nearly all KII and FGD respondents said that USAID GLEE’s activities appropriately
addressed the needs of adolescent girls in their communities. Although respondents identified differing
needs, their answers included all the areas of need that USAID GLEE targeted with its activities:

27 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

  Their access to education, especially for those who were out of school, through the
establishment of ASCs and capacity-building of ASC facilitators
 Their safety and security, through targeted social behavior change communications in
communities, and the establishment of incident boxes and safety and security plans at schools.
 Their socioemotional health and sexual and reproductive health, through mentorship and peer
learning provided by USAID GLEE mentors, youth ambassadors, peer educators, and
grandmothers; improved WASH facilities at schools; and training on how to produce reusable
sanitary pads with locally sourced materials.
 Their own economic insecurity, as well as that of their families and schools, through GLEE
providing money to CGSs to cover the cost of school fees for school-aged children and the
provision of teaching and learning materials.
 The prevalence of child marriage, through targeted social behavior change communications in
communities.
A poetic response from a secondary school teacher in Kayes represented how respondents felt about
the project’s multifaceted approach to addressing adolescent girls' various challenges and barriers.
“GLEE has removed the thorns out of people’s feet here,” the teacher said. “GLEE’s presence has really
met the needs of girls and the school.” The teacher spelled out many of the ways that USAID GLEE had
intervened, including providing awareness sessions for girls and the community; covering girls’ school
fees; donating fourteen bicycles for girls who lived far away from school, and renovating four
classrooms, the school director’s office, and the latrines. “Even the paint you see is from GLEE,” the
teacher said.
Respondents described how USAID GLEE had addressed the economic needs of girls and their families.
Not only did the project provide money to cover the cost of school fees for school-aged girls where it
intervened—typically 5,000 CFA, according to CGS members at a primary school in Bandiagara—but
girls also gained a newfound appreciation of the importance of education through the project’s
awareness-building activities and, therefore, were less willing to drop out to see short-term economic
gains, especially to earn money from gold mining in Kayes. A CGS member in Kayes said, “The project
covered the cost of school fees. This kept many girls in school, because some parents couldn’t afford to
pay their daughters’ school fees, and because of this many girls dropped out.” A mentor in Kayes added,
“The project has met the needs of girls through awareness-raising because it has reduced the number of
girls dropping out of school to get married, and [it] has also reduced the number of girls dropping out to
work at gold-mining sites.”
Other respondents discussed how USAID GLEE addressed girls’ safety and security and lack of
knowledge about FP and RH. “The project has responded to their needs,” a teacher in Bandiagara said.
“It placed a lot of emphasis on early marriage, violence at school, safety on the way to school, and the
behavior of teachers toward students.” A school director in Douentza added, “The project responded
to the needs of the girls with the themes of the awareness-raising sessions. For example, teenage girls
have been made aware of RH. They know how to behave in life, at school, and so on. They even showed
the girls how to make sanitary pads so they could stay in school.”
Among all the health topics mentioned, respondents most often noted the specific need for girls to
access sanitary pads. “We didn’t have the means to take care of girls menstruating at school, but with
GLEE’s activities, we’re able to do just that,” a teacher in Bandiagara said. “In the past, some girls would
drop out of school because of menstruation, but that’s no longer the case today, as sanitary pads are
available at school, and girls can also make their own.”

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 28

EVALUATION QUESTION TWO (EQ2): HOW HAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN EVOLVED DURING USAID
GLEE’S IMPLEMENTATION, PARTICULARLY IN RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS FROM THE MIDTERM
STUDY?
Answer to EQ 2: During the project's life, USAID GLEE project staff and partners demonstrated their
ability to change the design of interventions as needed to increase their effectiveness and impact. The
redesign of the project’s activity to provide sanitary pads to girls is a prime example. As detailed in KIIs
with USAID GLEE project staff, the initial design called for women to make the pads themselves and
then sell them to girls, but after a feasibility study was conducted, it was clear this design was flawed
because girls could not afford to pay the minimum sale price of a pad—500 CFA. Instead, the project
changed course and elected to engage the women not as producers of the pads but as trainers who
showed girls themselves how to make reusable sanitary pads from leftover fabric available in
communities. This change in design proved fruitful, as both USAID GLEE project staff and project
beneficiaries discussed the project’s effectiveness and impact on KIIs and FGDs. "Today, it's very, very
successful at the community level,” a USAID GLEE staff member said, “and much appreciated by both
the children and their parents.”
USAID GLEE also acted on feedback and recommendations from midterm evaluation reports,
particularly about how it could improve the tracking and monitoring of transfers from ASCs to
government schools and heighten its support to accommodate the increased enrollment in those
schools by providing a sufficient amount of equipment such as desks. “There has also been an
improvement in terms of monitoring, evaluation and follow-up of transferred children,” a USAID GLEE
staff member said. “This was a concern that had been noted, because we realized that after the children
were transferred, there wasn't much follow-up.” In addition, in response to feedback, the project also
reinforced the amount of resources it provided schools to accommodate the large number of transfers
from ASCs. For instance, although the project provided primary and secondary schools with some desks
when its first cohort of students transferred from ASCs in 2019, the number of desks was not sufficient
to account for all the transfers. Therefore, USAID GLEE ensured it provided a sufficient amount of
equipment for all transfers for later cohorts.

EVALUATION QUESTION THREE (EQ3): HOW WERE EXISTING RELEVANT USAID AND U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES LEVERAGED?
Answer to EQ 3: USAID GLEE successfully created a constructive collaboration with other USAID-
funded projects in the regions of Bandiagara and Douentza. The project has not been the only recent
USAID-funded effort in central Mali. USAID has targeted the regions of Bandiagara and Douentza as a
resilience zone with investments in other sectors, such as nutrition and agriculture, with the goal of
these projects complementing each other. To that end, USAID GLEE combined forces with a USAID
agricultural project called Sugu Yiriwa to improve women’s livelihoods, according to USAID staff.
Women’s groups participating in the agricultural project received training on various income-generating
activities so that they could support their children's education with the resources they generated. The
initial collaboration produced favorable outcomes in 2022, according to USAID GLEE personnel. The
income that women generated with their activities provided them with money to pay for their children’s
school fees and other expenses, thereby lessening the need for them to move their families temporarily
to urban areas to find work. According to GLEE staff, the collaboration “significantly reduced the rural
exodus of girls who had to leave school to come to the big urban centers.”

29 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

EFFECTIVENESS

EVALUATION QUESTION FOUR (EQ4): TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE PROJECT ACHIEVED ITS
OBJECTIVES AS DEFINED IN THE PROJECT’S RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND REPORTING INDICATORS?
Answer to EQ 4: To determine the extent to which the project achieved its objectives, the research
team analyzed quantitative and qualitative data collected in the field and reviewed internal project data
provided by the USAID GLEE monitoring and evaluation team. This section is organized by the project’s
three primary objectives and respective sub-results (SR). Any baseline data mentioned in this section is
only for referential purposes. No comparisons between baseline and the final performance evaluation
can be made due to differences in the baseline and final performance evaluation designs.8 In addition, any
differences from baseline to the final performance evaluation cannot be attributed to USAID GLEE.
OBJECTIVE 1: DECREASE KEY BARRIERS TO ACCESS QUALITY EDUCATION
As part of this objective, USAID GLEE provided scholarships to adolescent girls to cover school fees;
enabled out-of-school girls to re-enter the educational system by enrolling in ASCs and then
transitioning to formal schools; raised awareness in communities about the importance of girls’
education; distributed teaching and learning materials; and built the capacity of CGSs, APEs, and
associations des mères d’élèves (mothers’ groups) members, as well as teachers and school directors.
SR 1.1: LEARNING-SUPPORT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADOLESCENT GIRLS INCREASED
The establishment of ASCs tapped into a deep-felt desire for out-of-school girls to receive an education.
An ASC facilitator described how her students responded to the opportunity. “Many girls were envious
of their friends who were at school, and they weren’t, and were over the age to be enrolled and didn’t
have the means,” the facilitator said. “But thanks to GLEE today, they were able to fulfill their dream,
they are at the ASC, and are really happy about it.”
USAID GLEE’s payment of school fees also increased enrollment at government schools. A director of a
primary school in Douentza recounted how the number of girls swelled with USAID GLEE’s
involvement in the community. “When GLEE wasn't there, we only had 100 or so girls at school,” he
said. “But with the arrival of GLEE, we're now up to 271 girls.” The school director added that before
USAID GLEE, children used to leave the village to seek work elsewhere, but that practice has “stopped.”
With some of its activities, USAID GLEE’s support of schools not only benefited girls, but all students.
For instance, USAID GLEE provided teaching and learning materials to schools to meet critical
shortages. The school director and teachers at a secondary school in Bandiagara said their school did
not have any books before USAID GLEE and explained how laborious teaching was without them. “For
example, in seventh grade, the text can go up to two or three pages, while we have one hour of reading
per week,” the director explained, “so if the teacher has to copy [the text] onto the blackboard and the
pupils have to repeat it, the teacher can spend two to three weeks on a lesson.” Thanks to USAID
GLEE, the director said that the teacher can now give books directly to the girls and have them read.
“Even if it's just that,” the director said. “I can say that the activities meet the needs of the girls.”
SR 1.2: TEACHING IS MORE RESPONSIVE AND RELEVANT FOR ADOLESCENT GIRLS
In KIIs and FGDs, multiple teachers, school directors, and ASC facilitators discussed the teaching
methods and approaches they acquired from USAID GLEE pedagogical training. The educators described

8
While the final performance evaluation sample was drawn from girls who attended schools where USAID GLEE has been intervening, the
baseline sample was drawn from school-aged girls who lived in households in communities where USAID GLEE was planning to intervene. In
addition, unlike final performance evaluation data, baseline data was unweighted.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 30

in detail how they had incorporated aspects of the balanced literacy approach into their classroom
instruction, including play-based learning with “Nouvelles de la Classe,” guided writing, and guided
reading. An ASC facilitator in Bandiagara said, “It’s a method that enables children to learn to read easily.
We’ve all studied it, but I had no experience with it, and it was the GLEE training that helped me master
it.” A school director in Kayes said he sends messages to a training facilitator in Bamako if he has
questions about the method. He said the training “really helped me to master certain teaching
techniques.”
Respondents discussed learning about the balanced approach to literacy instruction and methods for
coping with girls who need socioemotional support. An ASC facilitator in Douentza spoke at length
about how USAID GLEE’s training changed the way she interacted with adolescent girls. Instead of
scolding those who arrived late to class or were shy, she applied the approach that USAID GLEE taught
her—approaching the child to understand her needs. “Myself, I experienced it, I saw that the student felt
loved by the facilitator,” she said. “The student often really says I am insulted at home, they say that I am
worthless, and yet Madame says that I am good. You see from that point that it encourages the student
to come to school.” Later in the KII, the facilitator recalled how she approached a girl who always came
to class late. The girl told her why she was always late: She was responsible for taking her family’s oxen
to graze in the morning because she had no brothers. She also confided in the facilitator that although
she enjoyed coming to school, her father wanted her to drop out to look after the animals. The
facilitator then went to talk to the girl’s father and explained how his daughter’s household
responsibilities were preventing her from getting an education. The father listened and agreed to resolve
the situation, telling the facilitator, “My daughter will continue her studies, and I myself will take the
oxen every day.’”
A secondary school teacher in Douentza also shared how the training on supporting girls psychosocially
particularly responded to the needs of girls in the community. One ninth-grade girl who was displaced
stood out in the teacher’s mind. “[She] was distressed, and you could feel it when you taught her. It’s
true that she’s in class, but her mind wasn’t.” The teacher said the training “helped us a lot, and through
this we were able to comfort some of the students.”
SR 1.3: COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES SUPPORT GIRLS’ EDUCATION
As part of its efforts to decrease barriers to accessing quality education, USAID GLEE designed activities
to educate girls, their families, and the community at large through targeted awareness-raising sessions
about the importance of girls’ education. According to the girls’ and school directors’ surveys, these
awareness-raising sessions were organized at the vast majority of schools. All school directors
interviewed said their school had put on an awareness session for students about girls’ education, while
90.7 percent of girls reported participating in a session on the topic (Figure 1).

31 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 1. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Participate in Awareness-raising Sessions on Girls' Education

90.5% 90.2% 93.1% 90.7%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

In the quantitative survey, girls were asked about their responsibilities outside of school, including
participation in household tasks, work in family agriculture or family business, and participation in other
work outside the home to generate income for their family. Nearly all girls reported having to perform
household chores, as displayed in Figure 2. More than half of girls in primary and secondary school as
well as about two-thirds of girls in ASCs, said they worked on their family farm or in the family business,
while the proportion of girls who said they did other work outside the home was less for girls in
primary school (32.5 percent) and ASCs (42.0 percent) but slightly higher for secondary school girls
(58.8 percent).
Figure 2. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Responsibilities Outside of School

97.6%
Household chores 97.6%
98.1%

67.4%
Support family farm or family business 53.5%
55.2%

42.0%
Earn income for family 32.5%
58.8%

ASC Primary Secondary

Despite their numerous responsibilities outside of school, a minority of girls said these activities
prevented them from studying at home (21.0 percent overall) or going to school (26.1 overall), as shows
in Figure 3.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 32

Figure 3. Proportion of Girls Reporting that Responsibilities Outside of School Sometimes Prevent Them from Studying at Home or Going to
School

25.9%

25.6%
28.8%

20.7%
18.5% 24.5%

Studying at home Going to school

ASC Primary Secondary

The quantitative survey also measured girls’ perceptions of equality. As shown in Figure 4, nearly all
girls—96.1 percent—agreed or strongly agreed that girls have as much of a right as boys to attend
school. However, girls’ opinions differed when specifically asked about whether girls and boys had the
right to stay in school if they were married or had a child, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. A higher
proportion of girls agreed or strongly agreed that boys had a right to stay in school if married (82.8
percent) compared to girls (70.9 percent). The same trend was found when asked about the right to
stay in school for boys with a child (87.2 percent) compared to girls with a child (73.9 percent).
Figure 4. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls and Boys Have an Equal Right to Attend School

72.4%

70.0%
64.6%

62.0%
33.4%
29.3%

24.2%

26.1%
5.6%

4.5%

3.6%
3.2%
0.4%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

33 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 5. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls Should Stay in School When They Get Married, Compared with Boys

Married Girls Should Stay in School Married Boys Should Stay in School

57.8%

56.0%
54.5%

48.3%
44.7%
43.9%

43.3%
38.8%

35.6%
35.5%
31.3%

28.4%
27.6%

26.8%
24.9%

24.8%
15.7%

15.7%
14.9%

14.8%
14.6%
14.3%

10.3%
10.1%

10.0%

10.0%
9.9%

9.5%
7.4%

7.2%
6.8%

6.7%
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 6. Proportion of Girls Who Agree Girls Should Stay in School When They Have a Child, Compared with Boys

Girls with Children Should Stay in Boys with Children Should Stay in
School School

62.1%

60.1%
55.2%

53.4%
46.5%

44.4%
42.9%
40.4%

36.4%
35.0%
32.2%

31.8%
29.5%

27.1%
26.9%

24.7%
16.5%
13.7%

13.5%

13.5%
12.9%
12.6%
11.4%

8.1%

7.9%
7.1%
7.0%
6.9%
6.3%
5.9%

5.7%
2.2%

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree Disagree Agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total ASC Primary Secondary Total

OBJECTIVE 2: IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN SCHOOLS AND THEIR

COMMUNITIES
As part of this objective focused on safety and security, USAID GLEE built the capacity of teachers,
school directors, and CGS, APE, and AME on SRGBV; supported schools in strengthening SRGBV
reporting and referral systems and codes of ethics; and facilitated emergency response planning.
SR 2.1: STRATEGIES AND POLICIES TO SAFEGUARD ADOLESCENT GIRLS ARE ADOPTED
As part of USAID GLEE’s efforts to improve the safety of adolescent girls, schools were expected to
organize awareness-building sessions for students on SRGBV and school safety. Girls were asked if they
had the opportunity to participate in sessions on the two topics, while school directors were asked if
the sessions had occurred at their schools.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 34

According to quantitative data, all school directors reported that their school held awareness sessions
about SRGBV and nearly all school directors (92.6 percent) said they had organized a session on school
security. A slightly lower proportion of girls said they had participated in sessions about SRGBV (80.6
percent) and school safety (83.5 percent), as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Take Part in Awareness-raising Sessions on Gender-based Violence and
School Security

90.1% 87.6%
79.8% 80.6% 81.3% 83.0% 83.5%
72.8%

Gender-based violence School security

ASC Primary Secondary Total

SR 2.2: EFFECTIVE REPORTING AND REFERRAL MECHANISMS FOR SRGBV ESTABLISHED

In the quantitative survey, girls were asked whether they missed any days at school because they felt
unsafe on the way to, at, or returning from school. For the final performance evaluation, 11.2 percent of
primary school girls and 6.2 percent of secondary school girls reported missing at least one day of
school due to feeling unsafe (Table 9). The difference, however, was not statistically significant. When
examining the potential reasons for feeling unsafe, fewer girls overall said they missed school because
they feared being bullied by boys or teachers (2.0 percent) than feeling unsafe at school (8.1 percent) or
on the way to school (7.5 percent).9
Table 9. Girls Reporting Missing School Due to Safety Issues

Primary Secondary Total

Did you miss one or more days of school this year because
1.7% 3.4% 2.0%
you were afraid of being bullied by boys or teachers at school?

Did you miss one or more school days this year because you
9.2% 2.4% 8.1%
didn't feel safe in the school?

Did you miss one or more days of school this year because
8.4% 2.5% 7.5%
you didn't feel safe on the way to school?

Girls were also asked about their perceptions of safety and harassment at school. As shown in Figure 8
and Figure 9, the majority of girls agreed or strongly agreed that both girls and boys were safe at
school—92.2 percent and 93.3 percent, respectively.

9
At baseline, 6.0 percent of girls in primary school and 3.6 percent of girls in secondary school said they missed one or more days of school
because they were afraid of being bullied, while 7.4 percent of primary-school girls and 7.6 of secondary-school girls said they missed at least
one day of school because they did not feel safe at school. Any difference from baseline to final performance evaluation cannot be attributed to
USAID GLEE—or compared at all—due to differences in the baseline and final performance evaluation designs.

35 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 8. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Girls are safe at school.”

67.7%

64.3%
61.6%

49.0%
43.4%
30.5%

27.9%
24.5%
6.6%
4.4%

4.2%
4.1%

3.7%
3.5%
3.2%

1.0%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 9. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Boys are safe at school.”

64.6%
67.9%
64.4%

47.9%
44.4%

28.7%
28.3%

25.6%
6.2%
4.8%
3.5%

3.5%
3.1%

2.8%
2.4%

1.5%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Although 92.3 percent of girls agreed or strongly agreed that girls were safe at school and that teachers
do not have the right to harass them, a notable proportion of girls, especially in secondary school,
reported that teachers touched girls inappropriately or demanded sexual relations with girls at their
school. As for harassment, the majority of girls—92.3 percent—agreed or strongly agreed that teachers
do not have the right to touch children’s thighs, behinds, or private parts, as shown in Figure 10. The
proportion of girls who agreed or strongly agreed that teachers touch children’s thighs, behinds, or
private parts at their school varied by school type, as shown in Figure 11. While 7.5 percent of girls in
primary schools agreed or strongly agreed that teachers did so, more than a quarter of girls in
secondary schools did. In addition, girls aged 13 or older were asked whether teachers demanded sexual
relations with certain children at their school.10 The same trend between primary and secondary school
students was found, with 8.4 percent of primary-school girls agreeing or strongly agreeing that teachers
demanded sexual relations compared with 18.8 percent of secondary-school girls (Figure 12).11

10
At baseline, 25.0 percent of girls in primary school and 14.6 percent of girls in secondary school said that teachers touched children
inappropriately at their school. Any difference from baseline to the final performance evaluation cannot be attributed to USAID GLEE—or
compared at all—due to differences in the baseline and final performance evaluation designs.
11
At baseline, 20.7 percent of girls in primary school and 12.1 percent of girls in secondary school said that teachers ask for sex from children
at their school. Any difference from baseline to the final performance evaluation cannot be attributed to USAID GLEE—or compared at all—
due to differences in the baseline and final performance evaluation designs.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 36

Figure 10. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers do not have the right to touch students’ thighs, behinds, or private
parts.”

83.2%

79.3%
68.9%
65.9%
27.0%
20.4%

13.0%
10.6%

9.2%
5.2%

5.2%

3.1%

2.5%
2.4%

2.3%
1.8%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 11. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers at my school touch students’ thighs, behinds, or private parts.”
73.5%
72.8%

69.2%
45.7%

28.6%
22.0%

20.7%

19.8%
19.0%

6.3%

5.7%
4.1%

3.9%

3.7%
3.6%
1.2%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 12. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Teachers at my school demand to have sexual relations with certain girls.”
77.6%
71.6%

68.9%
50.7%

30.5%
26.6%

19.8%

15.4%
13.9%

6.7%

5.4%

4.6%
3.4%
3.0%
1.0%

0.8%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

In the quantitative survey, girls were also asked about their perceptions of who was at fault for cases of
sexual harassment (13 or older) or being touched inappropriately (12 or younger). As displayed in
Figure 13 and Figure 14, a greater proportion of girls in secondary school agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement that it was sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher sexually harassed her (65.4 percent)
or student did so (65.6 percent) than girls in primary school—44.1 percent and 45.4 percent,
respectively. The same trend was found when girls 12 or younger were asked who was at fault when a
teacher touched a girl inappropriately (Figure 15 and Figure 16). While 44.0 percent of girls in primary
school agreed or strongly agreed it was sometimes the girl’s fault when a teacher touched her

37 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

inappropriately, 78.8 percent of girls in secondary school agreed or strongly agreed the girl was at times
to blame.
Figure 13. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher sexually harasses her.”

41.7%
33.0%
31.9%

29.8%
25.7%

25.0%

24.7%
24.2%

23.7%
23.5%
22.8%

22.2%

21.7%

20.9%
19.4%
9.7%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 14. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a student sexually harasses her.”

42.0%
34.0%

30.4%
30.3%
29.2%

26.2%
25.4%

24.8%
24.2%

23.6%
22.6%

20.6%
19.8%

19.2%
15.8%
11.8%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 15. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher touches her thighs, behind, or private
parts.”
76.5%
30.0%

29.9%

29.9%
29.7%
28.2%
26.2%

25.9%

25.6%

24.9%
21.2%

20.7%

14.8%
14.1%

2.3%
0.0%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 38

Figure 16. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is sometimes a girl’s fault if a student touches her thighs, behind, or private
parts.”

76.5%
31.4%
31.2%

30.9%

30.8%
30.7%
27.5%

26.3%

26.2%

22.5%

18.4%
14.4%

12.2%
11.4%
6.7%

2.3%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Girls were also asked a series of questions about incident boxes that USAID GLEE provided schools so
students could anonymously report any cases of SRGBV or other issues and challenges that students
faced at the school. First, girls were asked if they knew anyone in their class who reported anything in an
incident box at school. As shown in Figure 17, slightly more than a quarter of girls said they knew
someone in their class who used the incident box.
Figure 17. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing Someone in Their Class Who Has Used the Incident Box This Year 63.9%
55.1%

53.5%
51.2%
32.6%

28.7%

26.6%
25.6%
20.1%

19.9%
12.3%

10.5%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes Don't know

Those who reported not knowing anyone who used the incident box responded to a question about
why they thought more students did not use it. Girls most frequently mentioned that there was nothing
to report (41.2 percent), as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18. Reasons Reported by Girls for Why More Students Do Not Use the Incident Box

Other 0.6%
Never heard of an incident box 2.4%
Do not think it is useful 3.0%
Do not want to use it 4.1%
There is no incident box at the school 5.6%
Afraid that someone will see me use it 8.5%
Do not know how to use it 10.3%
Do not know why incident box is not used 29.8%
Nothing to report 41.2%

39 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

When asked about students’ use of incident boxes in KIIs and FGDs, responses were as mixed as girls’
survey responses. Similar to the 41.2 percent of girls who said the box was not used because there was
nothing to report, respondents at several schools said SRGBV cases were not reported via the incident
box because none had occurred at their schools. “If a boy does something to you that you do not like,
you write [about it] and put it in the box without mentioning any names,” said a 16-year-old ninth-grade
girl who serves as a youth ambassador at a school in Kayes. “At the end of the month, they open the
incident box to check but … there is no gender-based violence in our school.” At other schools,
respondents said that students did not use the box at all or infrequently because they were afraid,
unable to write, or more likely to report incidents verbally.
At schools where respondents said students did use the incident box, the submitted complaints were
more often related to something other than cases of SRGBV. For example, one teacher at a school in
Kayes explained how frequent student complaints about traffic led to the community putting a fence
around the school. Only one respondent cited instances of students using the box to report cases of
SRGBV, specifically about early marriage.
SR 2.3: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY IN COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS IMPROVED
In KIIs and FGDs, nearly all respondents said they believed schools were safer thanks to USAID GLEE,
citing the emergency plans they had adopted and the awareness sessions on safety and security
conducted with parents, teachers, and students. “Of course, the schools are safe,” a mayoral official in
Kayes said. “We have been trained, plus the mentors and everyone, in turn, about the emergency plan
for safety, and the children have been well informed to come to school without fear.”
Despite the unstable security situation in the regions of Douentza and Bandiagara, most respondents
said at the current time that they felt safe at school and had safety measures in place if any emergencies
arose. This sentiment from respondents reflected the security situation in GLEE’s area of operations
when data were collected in May 2023. Although no security incidents directly impacted USAID GLEE
activities from April to June 2023 in Douentza and Bandiagara,12 two incidents occurred in June 2023 in
communities where the project intervened, according to USAID GLEE records—an attack that killed 10
hunters and an explosion from an improved explosive device that killed two civilians on bicycles.
Although most respondents said they felt safe, several noted how the security situation had made
students, teachers, and others feel less safe or unsafe in their communities. An ASC facilitator in
Douentza described how fewer students had been coming for the past two months due to militants
setting fire to a school in a nearby community. According to one GoM official, schools closed for a week
in a part of Bandiagara, but when they reopened, the CGS and village chiefs worked with teachers to
ensure their safety and alert them if any attacks arose.
OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE KNOWLEDGE AND ADOPTION OF POSITIVE HEALTH BEHAVIORS
AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS
As part of this objective on girls’ health, USAID GLEE trained mentors, youth ambassadors, peer
educators, and grandmothers to educate girls about FP, RH, and other health concepts; built the
capacity of healthcare workers to strengthen the links between community health centers and schools
and encourage adolescent girls to seek healthcare treatment; improved WASH facilities at schools; and
trained girls to produce reusable sanitary pads.
SR 3.1: POSITIVE HEALTH BEHAVIORS ADOPTED BY ADOLESCENT GIRLS

12
During data collection in May 2023, three enumerators were traveling on a public bus to pick up their rental car for data collection in the
region of Bandiagara. Armed bandits stopped the bus and robbed all passengers, including the enumerators, of their phones and money.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 40

As part of the quantitative survey, girls were asked a series of questions about menstruation. First, girls
were asked if they had started their period, and if they had, then they answered several items regarding
their attitudes about it and what materials they used monthly to manage it.
As shown in Figure 19, 26.3 percent of girls said they had started menstruating, with the highest
proportion by far made up of secondary-school students (72.4 percent). In addition, a majority of girls
overall (71.0 percent) said they knew where to go if they needed information about menstruation
(Figure 20).
Figure 19. Proportion of Girls Reporting They Have Started Their Periods

80.6%
72.6% 72.4%
66.0%

23.9% 26.3%
19.5%
7.2% 12.2% 7.9% 3.7% 7.7%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes Don't know

Figure 20. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing Where to Get Information on Menstrual Cycles

88.1%
68.9% 71.0%
60.7%

23.4%
15.9% 15.2% 15.9% 14.9% 14.1%
7.6% 4.3%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes Don't know

Slightly more than half of the girls who said they had started their period said they were comfortable
going to school while menstruating, as illustrated in Figure 21. A lower proportion, 11.6 percent, of girls
said they had been absent from school at least once due to their period (Figure 22).

41 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 21. Proportion of Girls Reporting Being Comfortable Going to School During Their Periods

58.5%
47.8% 52.2% 49.7% 46.7% 46.1%
51.8%
41.2%

0.0% 3.6% 0.2% 2.1%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes Don't know

Figure 22. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Stayed at Home Instead of Going to School When on Period

93.1% 92.5% 88.1%

84.5%

15.0% 11.6%
6.9% 7.5%
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes Don't know

Girls who said they had started their period had differing views about it. As shown in Figure 23 and
Figure 24, respectively, 46.3 percent of girls agreed or strongly agreed that they were ashamed of their
bodies when they had their period, and 93.1 percent agreed or strongly agreed that keeping their period
a secret was important. By contrast, 70.1 percent agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of
having their period, and 75.1 percent agreed or strongly agreed that it was not a big deal that they had
started it (Figure 25 and Figure 26). Some girls responded with views about their period that seem
contradictory. Of the girls who somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of having
their period, 34.6 percent—or more than a third—somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they were
ashamed of their body when they had their period.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 42

Figure 23. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I’m ashamed of my body when I have my period.”

41.2%

30.9%

28.5%
27.7%

27.6%
27.4%

26.2%
24.1%

23.6%
23.4%
22.8%

22.7%
22.3%
20.4%
16.1%

15.2%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 24. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “It is important that I keep my period a secret.”

87.9%

70.1%

68.3%
64.8%
25.8%

24.8%
24.4%
12.1%
10.4%

5.6%
2.3%
1.8%

1.2%
0.4%
0.0%

0.0%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 25. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I’m proud of having my period.”
50.2%

44.5%

36.3%
33.8%
31.9%

26.4%
25.3%
23.9%
22.5%

21.9%
21.4%

20.3%
17.4%
9.7%

8.5%
6.1%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

43 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 26. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “Getting my period is no big deal for me.”

53.2%
43.6%

42.6%

38.5%
34.4%

32.5%
25.5%
25.3%

20.0%
19.2%

19.1%
18.5%
11.1%

7.9%

5.8%
2.7%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Girls also reported what materials they used monthly to manage their period and if they had access to it
consistently. As illustrated in Figure 27, slightly more girls reported using cotton (34.8 percent) or
pieces of fabric (33.9 percent) than sanitary pads (30.8 percent). Most girls (86.1 percent) reported
always having access to at least one of these materials over the past three months (Figure 28). Although
GLEE focused its activities on girls making their own sanitary pads from locally available materials, it was
not clear from the quantitative survey how girls had acquired the pads. It is of note that the use of
sanitary pads in communities in Bandiagara and Douentza at baseline was nonexistent.13 At baseline,
none of the 138 girls who reported that they had started their period said they used sanitary pads, while
90.6 percent said they used cloth or rags.
Figure 27. Material Reported by Girls Used to Manage Period
48.7%
44.0%

37.4%
37.0%
35.1%

34.8%
33.9%
30.8%
29.1%
25.1%

21.6%
20.9%

0.5%

0.4%

0.4%
0.2%

0.1%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Cotton Cloth Sanitary pad Toilet paper Other

13
Any difference from baseline to the final performance evaluation cannot be attributed to USAID GLEE—or compared at all—due to
differences in the baseline and final performance evaluation designs.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 44

Figure 28. Proportion of Girls Reporting They Have Not Had Access to Material in the Past Three Months

87.0% 88.3% 87.1%

73.1%

26.9%
13.0% 11.7% 12.9%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes

Respondents in KIIs and FGDs spoke positively about the effectiveness of the project’s health activities,
describing how girls had adopted positive health behaviors and gained more knowledge of sexual and RH
and general hygiene.
In KIIs, all the health workers interviewed said that USAID GLEE had responded to girls’ needs related
to sexual and reproductive health. They said that not only had girls gained knowledge and understanding
and felt less shameful about their own health, but also that more girls were mustering the courage to
come to community health centers after more interaction with healthcare workers, notably to discuss
FP and access birth control as well as seek medical treatment. One healthcare worker in Kayes
described how a girl sought help because she had abnormal menstrual bleeding, and she could help the
girl with treatment. Multiple healthcare workers reported that girls seeking birth control had increased
in their communities. “Before girls refused because their parents didn’t want their children to do family
planning,” a healthcare worker in Bandiagara said. “Thank God, thanks to awareness raising, things have
changed. Girls now come on their own choosing for family planning.”
Teachers, school directors, and other respondents also observed how girls’ overall hygiene practices,
including handwashing, had improved. One ASC facilitator recounted how a child told another who had
started to eat without washing her hands, “Didn’t Madame say to wash your hands before eating and to
wash three times a day with clean water and soap?”
SR 3.2: ADOLESCENT GIRLS’ KNOWLEDGE OF AND ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES
INCREASED
As part of USAID GLEE’s efforts to increase girls’ health knowledge, schools were expected to organize
awareness-building sessions for students on diverse topics, including RH, FP, early marriage, menstrual
hygiene, and general hygiene. Facilitators for these sessions included mentors, grandmothers, peer
educators, youth ambassadors, healthcare workers, and teachers.
Sessions about Family Planning, Reproductive Health, and Other Topics
In the quantitative survey, girls were asked if they saw or heard messages about FP and RH during the
current school year and if they had the opportunity to participate in sessions on various topics. School
directors reported if sessions on assorted topics were organized at their schools.
Girls and school directors diverged on responses to how often sessions on assorted topics occurred at
schools. For instance, as shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30, while 67.9 percent of girls reported that they
had seen or heard about FP and RH during the current school year, nearly all school directors reported
that their school had held sessions on FP and RH—95.4 percent and 97.2 percent, respectively.

45 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 Figure 29. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having Seen or Heard Family Figure 30. Proportion of School Directors Reporting that
Planning and Reproductive Health Messaging in the Current School Year Their Schools Held Sessions on Reproductive Health
Topics

97.2% 95.4%

75.1%
68.8%

67.9%
50.3%
49.7%

32.1%
31.2%

24.9%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

School Directors
No Yes
Reproductive Health Family Planning

Girls who reported hearing or seeing anything about FP and RH during the current school year were
asked three additional questions. First, they were asked about the source of the messaging on FP and
RH, as shown in Figure 31. Mentors stood out as the most common source of information, with nearly
70 percent of girls overall citing them as the messenger.
Figure 31. Source of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Messaging

Television program 2.8%

Radio program 5.6%

Youth ambassador 7.2%

CSCOM/health worker 16.0%

Other GLEE agent 22.5%

Peer educators 28.1%

Grandmothers 34.9%

Teachers 44.1%

Mentors 69.6%

Second, girls identified which methods of FP they had heard about, as detailed in Figure 32. The most
common methods of birth control girls reported hearing about included injections (70.6 percent),
implants (62.4 percent), and pills (65.5 percent).

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 46

Figure 32. Family Planning Methods Girls Reported Having Heard of During the 2022–23 School Year

70.6%
65.5% 62.4%

23.5% 20.7% 20.4%

6.0% 2.2%

Injection Pill Implant Rhythm method Condoms Abstinence IUD Other

Lastly, girls cited what specific topics on RH they had heard about, as illustrated in Figure 33. Girls most
frequently mentioned hearing about early pregnancy (61.4 percent) and menstrual hygiene (52.7
percent).
Figure 33. Reproductive Health Messages Girls Reported Having Heard During the 2022–23 School Year

61.4%
52.7%

33.8%

18.5%

4.9%

Early pregnancy Menstrual hygiene HIV Excision Other

In addition, girls aged 13 or older were asked if they knew where to go if they needed to access
contraception. As shown in Figure 34, nearly 90 percent agreed or strongly agreed that they knew
where to go. However, most girls—69.1 percent—said they would feel too shy or uncomfortable to go
to a healthcare facility to get birth control, as shown in Figure 35, although fewer girls in primary
schools (67.8 percent) and secondary schools (68.4 percent) than girls in ASCs (85.7 percent).
Figure 34. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I know where to go if I need contraception.”
65.6%

58.5%
52.4%
46.7%

44.6%
30.7%
28.1%

23.2%
14.9%

6.8%

5.8%
5.7%

5.4%
5.0%

4.7%
1.8%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

47 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 35. Proportion of Girls’ Responses to the Statement, “I would be too shy or uncomfortable to go to a clinic or center to get
contraception.”

55.8%

36.9%
36.2%

34.7%
33.7%

32.2%
31.6%
29.9%
25.3%

18.5%
16.1%
16.0%

12.4%

7.9%
6.3%

6.2%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Girls were also asked if they participated in awareness-building sessions on various topics, as shown in
Figure 36. USAID GLEE trained mentors to work with other project actors in the community—including
grandmothers, peer educators, and youth ambassadors—to conduct sessions weekly in ASCs, primary
schools, and secondary schools on topics such as RH; the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19); FP;
menstrual hygiene; and early marriage. The proportion of girls who reported participating in sessions on
RH and FP—69.3 percent for both topics—was similar to those who reported seeing or hearing
anything about those topics during the current school year—67.9 percent. More girls reported taking
part in sessions about menstrual hygiene (75.2 percent), COVID-19 (88.9 percent), and early marriage
(89.1 percent).
Figure 36. Proportion of Girls Reporting Having the Opportunity to Participate in Awareness-raising Sessions on Reproductive Health,
COVID-19, Family Planning, Menstrual Hygiene, and Forced or Early Marriage
93.4%

95.2%
89.1%
88.9%

88.4%
88.3%
86.7%

86.4%

85.1%
82.3%
79.4%

75.3%

75.2%
69.6%

69.3%

69.3%
68.9%

57.6%
52.6%
51.3%

Reproductive health COVID-19 Family planning Menstrual hygiene Forced/early marriage

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Although more girls reported participation in sessions on menstrual hygiene, COVID-19, and early
marriage than FP or RH, the proportion of school directors who reported their schools had held
sessions on that topic was higher. As shown in Figure 37, all school directors reported that their schools
had held sessions on these topics, ranging from all schools on early marriage to 93.0 percent of schools
on menstrual hygiene.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 48

Figure 37. Proportion of School Directors Reporting Forced or Early Marriage, COVID-19, and Menstrual Hygiene Awareness-raising
Sessions Being Held at Their School

Forced/early marriage 100.0%

COVID-19 97.5%

Menstrual hygiene 93.0%

School directors were also asked about the timing and delivery of the sessions on menstrual hygiene and
girls’ interest in them. Mentors and other USAID GLEE project actors were expected to cover
menstrual hygiene at some point during the school year. First, the timing of the most recent sessions on
menstrual health and hygiene varied. As illustrated in Figure 38, 43.8 percent of school directors said the
most recent session had occurred in the past month, while 53.6 percent said it had occurred during the
current school year.
Figure 38. Proportion of Timing of Most Recent Awareness-building Sessions

Previous school year

(n=2), 2.6%

This month (n=31),

43.8%
This school year
(n=37), 53.6%

As shown in Figure 39, school directors said mentors and grandmothers most often facilitated the
menstrual hygiene sessions. When asked if girls were interested in participating in these sessions, 100
percent of school directors said they were.

49 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 39. Facilitators of Menstrual Hygiene Sessions, As Reported by School Directors

96.6%

64.8%
55.4%

24.9% 20.9%

Mentor Grandmother Peer educator Health worker Youth ambassador

Girls’ knowledge about menstrual health and hygiene

As part of the quantitative survey, girls were asked various questions to gauge their knowledge about
menstruation. Overall, girls answered 25.3 percent of questions correctly about the topic, but the
difference was statistically significant between girls enrolled in ASCs (12.9 percent), primary schools
(22.0 percent), and secondary schools (49.9 percent), as displayed in Figure 40.
Figure 40. Proportion of Girls’ Correct Responses to Menstrual Hygiene Questions on the BBS

49.9%

22.0% 25.3%
12.9%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

The knowledge gap was present between girls by school level and whether a girl said she had started
her period. For instance, the first survey item about menstrual hygiene knowledge was essential,
inquiring if the girl knew what a period or menses is. As shown in Figure 41, while only 37.1 percent of
ASC students and 53.5 percent of primary school students responded yes, 86.7 percent of secondary
school students did so. Among the girls who said they had not started their period, 41.5 percent said
they knew what a period or menses is, while 58.5 percent said they did not (Table 10). By contrast, all
the girls who reported they had started menstruating said they knew what a period or menses is.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 50

Figure 41. Proportion of Girls Reporting Knowing What Periods or Menses Are

86.7%

62.9%
53.5% 56.9%
46.5% 43.1%
37.1%

13.3%

ASC Primary Secondary Total

No Yes

Table 10. Girls Reporting Knowing What Menses Is

Do you know what a period or menses is?

Have you started
your period yet?
No Yes

No 58.5% 41.5%
Yes 0.0% 100.0%

Fewer girls said they knew the length of a menstrual cycle, both those who reported having started their
period and those who had not. As displayed in Table 11, only 9.4 percent of girls who reported not
having started menstruating said they knew the average length of a menstrual cycle, as well as 64.5
percent of those who reported their period had started.
Table 11. Girls Reporting Knowing the Average Length of Menstrual Cycle

Do you know the average length of the menstrual cycle?

Have you started
your period yet?
No Yes

No 90.6% 9.4%
Yes 35.5% 64.5%

Girls who said they knew the average length of the menstrual cycle then selected whether it was 15, 21,
28, or 30 days. The responses of girls who said they had started their period and knew the average
length are illustrated in Figure 42. While 45.0 percent of these girls said the average length was 28 days,
20.1 percent said it was 21 days, and 6.1 percent said it was 15 days.

51 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 42. Proportion of Girls’ Responses on the Average Length of the Menstrual Cycle, From Those Who Reported Starting Their Period
and Reported Knowing the Average Length

45.0%
28.9%
20.1%
6.1%

15 days 21 days 28 days 30 days

Sessions about General Hygiene

In addition, school directors were asked about general hygiene. Nearly all of those interviewed—95.1
percent—reported that their school provided lessons on hygiene to students, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Schools that Provide Hygiene Lessons for All Students

Primary Secondary Total

Schools that provided hygiene

95.2% 93.9% 95.1%
lessons for all students
As part of the school director survey conducted at all 75 sampled primary and secondary schools,
enumerators also took an inventory of schools’ handwashing facilities, with 59 of 75 schools—71.7
percent—having handwashing facilities and 63.7 percent being within 10 meters of the latrines (Table
13). The average number of facilities at schools was 4.5. As detailed in Figure 43, the majority of facilities
showed signs of use (85.8 percent) and were accessible for students with disabilities (89.7 percent) as
well as younger children (93.6 percent). As for branding, 33.9 percent of the facilities had USAID
branding.

Table 13. Presence of Handwashing Facilities at Schools

Frequency Percentage

Does the school have hand-washing facilities? 59 71.7%

Are hand-washing facilities available within ten meters of the latrines? 35 63.7%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 52

Figure 43. Accessibility and Use of Handwashing Facilities

89.7% 93.6%
85.8%

Facilities are accessible to children with Facilities are accessible to children Facilities show signs of use (n=50)
disabilities (n=53) (n=56)

The availability of water and soap or ashes varied at the 59 schools with handwashing facilities, as shown
in Figure 44 and Figure 45. Water was available at all handwashing facilities at 32.8 percent of schools, in
more than half of facilities at 25.0 percent of schools, and in less than half of facilities at 25.5 percent of
schools. At 16.6 percent of schools, water was not available at any handwashing facilities. More than
one-quarter of schools had soap or ashes available at all handwashing facilities, but they were not
available in 40.8 percent of schools.

Figure 44. Proportion of Enumerators Reporting Water Available for Washing Hands at the Time of the School Visit

No, none of the facilities

visited (n=9), 16.6%

Yes, in all facilities

visited (n=17), 32.8%

Yes, but in only 50% or less of

facilities visited (n=17), 25.5%

Yes, in more than 50% of facilities

visited (n=16), 25.0%

53 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Figure 45. Proportion of Enumerators Reporting Soap or Ashes Available for Washing Hands at the Time of the School Visit

Yes, in all facilities

visited (n=13), 25.9%
No, none of the
facilities visited (n=28),
40.8%

Yes, in more than 50%

of facilities visited
(n=11), 20.1%
Yes, but in only 50% or less of
facilities visited (n=7), 13.2%

SR 3.3: HEALTH BARRIERS TO EDUCATION REDUCED

All respondents mentioned the various ways that USAID GLEE had reduced health barriers to
education, including through improved sanitation facilities at schools, training on how to make reusable
sanitary pads with locally available materials, and support from school personnel and fellow youth.
“Before, some girls were teased because of their period, because when they had their period in class,
they were totally confused with a blood stain on their pagnes (skirts) and didn’t know what to do,” a
mentor in Kayes said. “But since the project began, the girls no longer have this problem because they
can now use the sanitary pads and the school toilets.” A mayoral official in Bandiagara described how
menstrual hygiene is now discussed more openly in the community. “Some mothers don’t say anything.
Girls learn the hard way. Often, their period starts at school, and the child drops out,” the mayoral
official said. “Now, with capacity-building, teachers are even talking about it in class. They say it’s natural,
and it’s normal too.”
Many respondents mentioned the production of sanitary pads as a major development in their
communities. A school director at a primary school in Douentza said girls’ ability to do so was
“surprising.” He added, “Right now, all the girls at school can make them. We did not think it was
possible, but they do it themselves and use them. They come and get them from the school director’s
office and go to the latrines to use them without the boys knowing.”
Access to water is another crucial component to ensuring girls can manage their periods at school.
Multiple respondents explained how USAID GLEE’s activities to improve access to water have played a
key role in girls’ improved hygiene. “Before adolescent girls had to travel far to get water to keep school
clean,” a CGS member at a primary school in Bandiagara said, “but today they can easily keep the school
clean, as well as the canteen, and even their bodies and clothes [because] they no longer have to go get
water from the well.”
INDICATORS
As part of the USAID GLEE final performance evaluation, data were collected to compute seven of the
project’s 32 indicators as detailed in its AMELP. Outlined previously in this section according to the
corresponding SRs, these indicators are presented together in Table 14.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 54

Table 14. Summary of USAID GLEE Project Indicators Calculated as Part of the Final Performance Evaluation

# Indicator
Indicator Value
Type

18 Custom Percentage of girls who say that they missed days of school because they
10.4%
feared SRGBV
22 Standard: Percentage of audience who recall hearing or seeing a specific USG-
61.0%
HL.7.2-1 supported FP/RH message, disaggregated by age
28 Custom Percentage of adolescent girls in target communities who report having
87.1%
access to proper menstrual hygiene products, disaggregated by age
29 Custom Percentage of schools that provide hygiene lessons for all students 95.1%
30 Custom Percentage of schools that provide orientation sessions on menstrual
43.8%
hygiene
31 Custom Percentage of schools that have handwashing facilities 45.6%
32 Custom Percentage improvement in girls’ menstrual hygiene knowledge following
25.3%
hygiene lessons

EVALUATION QUESTION FIVE (EQ5): WHAT WERE THE MAJOR FACTORS—INCLUDING PROJECT
DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT—WHICH INFLUENCED THE
ACHIEVEMENT OR NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE TARGETS?
EVALUATION QUESTION SIX (EQ6): WHICH PROJECT ACTIVITIES MADE THE MOST AND LEAST
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO INTENDED STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES?
Answer to EQ 5 and EQ 6: USAID GLEE’s dedication to engaging with communities from the
moment it first stepped foot in them stands out as the most key factor in achieving project objectives.
With a project design relying heavily on community participation—including its initial community assets
appraisal approach and community members fulfilling key roles such as mentors and ASC facilitators—
USAID GLEE needed to build local ownership and trust to be able to make an impact, and based on KIIs
with USAID GLEE project staff and partners, that paramount objective was met.
According to USAID GLEE personnel, when it started its work in Bandiagara and Douentza, some
communities declined the project’s offer to establish ASCs due to disappointing experiences in the past
with development organizations that had made false promises. One year later, however, after observing
how ASCs had functioned in neighboring villages, some of those communities reconsidered and
approached USAID GLEE with requests to intervene. A USAID GLEE partner explained what transpired:
Everything GLEE does in the field is concrete. Everything we tell communities we're going to do,
we do as well. Therefore, it's a question of trust. It's a matter of trust between us and the
community, because [some] NGOs (non-governmental organizations) come along and say we're
going to do this, we're going to do that, but afterward you see no results. But GLEE's efforts are
visible in the field. It's a tangible, positive result.
Out-of-school girls’ progress in less than one year made an impression on communities. That interest, in
turn, got the attention of USAID GLEE personnel. “Everywhere you went,” a USAID GLEE partner said,
“everyone was convinced, so the whole village had an appetite for education thanks to USAID GLEE.”
This renewed interest in education countered the adverse effects of hundreds of schools closing in
central Mali due to conflict. A GLEE staff member said, “Other communities that had no schools saw the

55 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

example of the ASCs and opened their own schools to continue educating their children.” In
communities with no schools because teachers had abandoned them due to insecurity, the GoM has
found volunteer teachers, trained them, and reopened schools.

EVALUATION QUESTION SEVEN (EQ7): HOW DO USAID GLEE BENEFICIARIES PERCEIVE THE OVERALL
QUALITY OF PROJECT DELIVERY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE?
Answer to EQ 7: Respondents generally viewed the project’s overall activities and assistance as
effective. When asked which USAID GLEE activities were the least effective, most respondents in KIIs
and FGDs said they believed all activities were effective. The response from a secondary-school teacher
in Kayes best exemplifies this view: “All of USAID GLEE’s activities have been effective. I cannot think of
any that have been less effective, because they are [in] all different areas, and all the areas were a
priority.” The teacher then listed many of the activities that USAID GLEE had implemented at the
school, including scholarships for girls, the production of sanitary pads, renovations of the school’s
latrines and classrooms, and the creation of the incident box.
The respondents who said certain activities were ineffective were not critical of the activities’ quality or
design, but rather wished USAID GLEE had done more to support the community. For instance, a GoM
official in Kayes discussed how the local government had difficulty supporting the transfer of girls from
ASCs to government schools because it did not have enough funding in its own budget. The official
mentioned the provision of desks and benches as an example. “Often we’ve encountered the problem of
desks and benches because the [project] has increased the number of students enrolled,” he said.

EVALUATION QUESTION EIGHT (EQ8): HOW DID USAID GLEE ADAPT TO THE PANDEMIC, AND TO
WHAT EXTENT WERE ADAPTATIONS/SHIFTS IN THE PROGRAM’S DELIVERY STRATEGY REQUIRED TO
REACH USAID GLEE’S BENEFICIARIES? HOW DO USAID GLEE BENEFICIARIES PERCEIVE THE QUALITY OF
THE PROGRAM’S ADAPTATION?
Answer to EQ 8: The pandemic forced USAID GLEE to adapt its school-based activities and ramp up
some community-based interventions. For instance, with the closure of formal schools and ASCs at the
onset of the pandemic, USAID GLEE distributed digital teaching and learning materials to ASC
facilitators so they could deliver instruction to children in small groups via interactive audio programs,
according to KIIs with USAID GLEE project staff and partners. The project also emphasized having
mentors conduct awareness-raising sessions in small groups, and youth ambassadors assisted community
health centers by raising awareness about COVID-19. The project also distributed handwashing kits,
hand sanitizer, posters, and other materials to schools.
While beneficiaries shared their appreciation for USAID GLEE's support in response to the pandemic,
most respondents said that COVID-19 had little to no impact on girls’ access to education. In response
to questions about USAID GLEE’s interventions during the pandemic, all respondents said they were
adequate and effective. They mentioned the supplies that USAID GLEE provided to communities—
including handwashing kits, soap, hand sanitizer, and masks—as well as the sessions conducted in
communities about COVID-19 transmission and prevention. They also described how students
practiced social distancing at schools and wore face coverings. “People were very afraid of the disease,
but with training and awareness raising on prevention methods, people practicing these measures were
protected,” a mayoral official in Kayes said.
Despite acknowledging people’s fear at the outset of the pandemic, all respondents said that COVID-19
made little to no impact in their communities. Not only teachers, GoM officials, and mentors shared this
sentiment, but also all the healthcare workers interviewed. “COVID-19 didn’t have an impact on
education access for adolescent girls in our community,” a healthcare worker in Bandiagara said. “We

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 56

just adopted preventive measures.” A school director in Douentza reported how students’ vigilance
against COVID-19 has waned over time since the pandemic was declared in March 2020. “Initially,
people were scared. We forced children to use washbasins,” a school director in Douentza said. “We
used face masks and other things. But, eventually, the children gave up all that and rarely use it now. …
Thanks to [USAID GLEE] raising awareness, materials donated, and so on, we really have not had any
cases of COVID-19 here.”

IMPACT

EVALUATION QUESTION NINE (EQ9): WHAT WERE THE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES OF USAID GLEE
ACTIVITIES, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES, PARTICULARLY FOR GIRLS?
Answer to EQ 9: As part of the qualitative data collection, 71 adolescent girls who benefited from
USAID GLEE participated in FGDs designed to prompt each girl to share a story detailing the MSC in
her life that resulted from the project and then, as a group, select the story that captured the MSC out
of the stories shared. Although some of the girls’ stories related directly to specific project outcomes
and inputs, other narratives touched on how the project’s numerous activities profoundly transformed
their lives and enabled them to remain focused on educational achievement, especially regarding early
marriage and improved menstrual health knowledge and hygiene, as shown in Table 15. Out of the 12
FGDs conducted with girls, five groups selected a story related to early marriage as the MSC, while
three groups’ chosen stories focused on changes related to improved learning or understanding of the
importance of education, another three chose stories related to something the project provided the girl
of the girl’s school—provision of school fees, school supplies, or water; and one group selected a story
about a girl’s improved knowledge and practice of menstrual hygiene.
Table 15. Topics of Stories of Most Significant Change Shared by Girls in FGDs

Topic of MSC story Number of girls

Improved menstrual health knowledge and hygiene 13

Support from USAID GLEE (school fees, bicycle, etc.) 11
Improved literacy 9
Early marriage 8
Improved general hygiene 6
Understanding importance of girls’ education 6
Improved study habits 6
Provision of water at school 5
Other 4
Re-enrollment in school 3
Total 71

The stories related to child marriage illustrate how USAID GLEE has raised awareness of various issues
related to girls’ lives and empowered girls to change the course of their own lives and impact the lives of
other girls in their communities. In the first story, a girl who initially believed as a pre-teen that she
would be a mother when she was 15 instead decided to remain in school; she’s now a ninth grader. In
the second story, an 18-year-old ninth grader described how her experience with child marriage

57 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

inspired her to participate in USAID GLEE activities and talked about the dangers of the longtime
practice in her community. In the third story, a 14-year-old ninth grader shared how she convinced one
of her sisters to stand up for herself and refuse to get married young.
STORY #1 ABOUT EARLY MARRIAGE
Before USAID GLEE arrived in her community in the region of Bandiagara, a girl said she had envisioned
herself having a child at the age of 15. She thought there was no risk of having a child at that age.
However, now as a 15-year-old ninth grader, she says that girls should not get married until they are at
least 18 or 19, thanks to what USAID GLEE taught her. She also learned about the complications of
teenage pregnancy, including fistula. All this latest information changed the outlook she had for her
future. Instead of thinking she would have a child, she devoted herself to school.
It was clear that other girls participating in the FGD had also taken to heart USAID GLEE’s message
about the dangers of child marriage and unintended pregnancy. When selecting her story as the most
emblematic of USAID GLEE’s change, the other girls mentioned other issues related to child marriage
and teenage pregnancy, including needing a C-section or other complications that would prevent future
pregnancies and the financial demands of raising a child.
STORY #2 ABOUT EARLY MARRIAGE
A girl, an 18-year-old ninth grader in a community in Kayes, was married when she was 14 in 2020. Her
marriage soon ended in divorce because she defied her mother-in-law by leaving her community to
spend a week at her father’s bedside at a hospital in Kayes. She received news about the divorce as soon
as she reached the hospital. Afterward, her father encouraged her to re-enroll in school. “After the
divorce, people treat you like a nobody,” the girl said. “[They say] the girl has left home to become a
prostitute, you’ll be a disgrace to everyone, including your mother, it’s destiny.”
The girl has been active in her community, raising awareness about child marriage. As part of USAID
GLEE, the girl played a role in a sketch as the friend of a girl forced into an early marriage due to her
family’s desire to get some money. She goes to her friend's home to tell her and others the dangers of
early marriage and then takes them to the gendarmerie. In her community, she plays a similar role. “If I
see another girl in the same situation, I tell them about the dangers and the consequences,” she said.
“Early marriage has never worked; all the consequences fall on the girl.” She is also unafraid to speak to
elders about the topic. “I’ve always challenged old people about the consequences of early marriage and
the dangers associated with the practice,” she said.
STORY #3 ABOUT EARLY MARRIAGE
A 14-year-old ninth grader in a community in Kayes said USAID GLEE changed her life a lot. She said
she had been eager to hear the project’s messages since she was in fifth grade, but her teacher initially
said she was too young to participate. “I stopped at the [classroom] window all the time to follow along
for a while, and subsequently, he let me participate because I liked it.”
She said the most significant topic that USAID GLEE addressed was early marriage. She had not been
aware of it, but it stuck in her mind when she learned about it. She then intervened in her family when
she found out one of her sisters was going to get married young:
“I told her not to get married because she might get sick. She asked me how I knew that, and I
told her I had learned it at school. I told her to listen to me and not to marry as a child, and she
said there was no problem. I made my father sit down and told him: “Dad, you must not agree
to give my sister away in marriage, because she might get sick.” I told him it was our project that
told us at school. He said he understood. I spoke to my mother about it, and she said not to get
involved. I told her I had to get involved because it could have consequences for my sister …

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 58

 and if she gets pregnant, she could have problems giving birth. Finally, my sister says she’s not
getting married anymore, and she’s still not married.”
She said she was grateful for the awareness that USAID GLEE raised in her community. “What struck
me the most is that if I had not listened carefully to what the project said, my sister was going to make a
mistake,” she said. “I listened carefully to the messages, I understood them, and they stayed in my mind.
That’s why I went to give her advice.”
GIRLS’ EMPOWERMENT AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
In the FGDs, adolescent girls shared notable stories of empowerment and agency related to child
marriage, RH, and FP. Although girls ultimately did not select these stories as the most significant from
their FGDs, these stories illustrated how the girls used their newfound knowledge to push back against
prevailing social norms about RH and FP—especially how some people feel those topics are
inappropriate for adolescent girls to learn about—as well as girls’ determination and desire for seeking
out FP and other health services, which surprised even healthcare workers themselves.
In one story, a 15-year-old seventh grader in the region of Bandiagara explained how using a birth
control implant was the most meaningful change in her life related to USAID GLEE. The girl recounted
how she decided to start using an implant after the project raised awareness about the importance of FP
and the availability of birth control. She said that the project’s awareness-raising sessions motivated her
to use an implant because they taught her about the consequences of unintended pregnancy, including
how adolescent girls with children have difficulty staying in school. In addition, the knowledge she gained
from the project about birth control contradicted what older women in her community said about
implants causing girls to get sick.
Menstrual hygiene was the subject of two other notable stories. A 16-year-old ninth grader in Kayes
recounted that when she was younger, she was so eager to learn about menstruation that she asked her
sisters, only to have them chase her away and tell her she was too young to learn. Thanks to USAID
GLEE, she finally learned about menstruation at school and how to make sanitary pads. She stood out so
much for her efforts in making them that she was selected as a group leader, and people have started to
call her “nurse.” “If those in need come to me, I teach them how to make [the pads], and if I were like
my older sisters, it would be complicated. But I’ll keep on fighting to teach them with the little
knowledge I’ve gained.”
A 15-year-old ninth grader in Kayes also explained how learning about menstruation was the most
meaningful change in her life thanks to the project. She described how she had shared her knowledge
about menstruation, including helping one girl who thought she had hurt herself after seeing stains on
her clothes. Although she did not know how to make sanitary pads, she knew they were available in the
community, so she went to get some for the girl and gave them to her.
A healthcare worker in Bandiagara said she was surprised by girls' interest in birth control. “Despite the
rumors about the implant, adolescent girls are coming to the health center in the evening—or when it’s
less busy—to access family planning methods. A lot of adolescent girls are doing that, and I wasn’t
expecting that.” The healthcare worker went on to explain how it is much less of a taboo to discuss FP
in communities now:
“Before it was hard to find anyone talking about family, and in some communities, you were
even chased away and not allowed to continue your awareness-raising session. But today, that’s
no longer the case, and when you go into schools to raise awareness, you just have to start, and
even the children [contribute], because they know so much.”

59 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

Girls’ interest in healthcare services also surprised other healthcare workers who were interviewed. “I
didn’t expect the massive attendance of young girls at the health center,” said a healthcare worker in the
region of Kayes. “Girls’ early marriage and unintended pregnancies are almost a thing of the past for us
thanks to GLEE’s activities in our community.” Added a healthcare worker in Douentza: “After our
awareness-building sessions, girls sometimes come to the community health center to express their
needs, and that’s something I didn’t expect.”
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF ACCELERATED SCHOOLING CENTERS
In KIIs and FGDs with respondents other than adolescent girls, the degree to which girls had learned
and participated in ASCs stood out as the project’s most common unexpected outcome. Several
members of a CGS in Bandiagara said they did not expect community members who had categorically
refused to enroll their girls in school to allow them to attend the ASC, but they did so after USAID
GLEE raised their awareness about the importance of education. Now, the girls have joined other
children by transferring to primary and secondary schools.14 A village chief in Douentza added, “We did
not know that those who dropped out could be recuperated and continue their studies, but GLEE has
been able to enroll them in school.”
The girls’ ability to learn and thrive at school surprised multiple respondents. An ASC facilitator said,
“At the beginning, I really didn’t expect this, because they didn’t even know the meaning of bonjour, but
now some of them can speak French, and when words are dictated to them, they can write them
correctly and even read certain texts.” ASC transfers’ performance at a school in Kayes also surprised a
teacher there. “It’s surprising that these children from the ASC are ranked so highly,” the teacher said.
“They’re ranked highest among students who started [attending school] in the first grade.” Girls' success
at an ASC in Bandiagara was notable enough even to catch the eye of a healthcare worker. “The
children from the ASC have greatly increased the number of students enrolled at school,” she said, “and
they have surpassed the other in terms of their level of learning.”

EVALUATION QUESTION TEN (EQ10): WHAT CHANGES IN THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT THAT
SUPPORTS GIRLS’ EDUCATION AND SCHOOL SAFETY HAVE RESULTED FROM USAID GLEE?
Answer to EQ 10: Where USAID GLEE intervened, its collaborative approach helped to raise
awareness in schools, families, and communities about the importance of educating girls and creating a
safe school environment. Although many respondents discussed how the project helped to shift parents’
views of the overall role of girls in society and the value of sending them to school, the response from a
mayoral official in Kayes was most illuminating because it also detailed the painstaking efforts in
communities that USAID GLEE made to change parents’ hearts and minds about their daughters:
“They’ve learned that a girl is not only meant to go to the fields, that a girl is not only meant to
chase after her mother. … She is meant to have an education, and it’s not one of those things
that comes right away. To understand this, you have to follow GLEE from the outset. GLEE
doesn’t just show up like that. They go into the villages, they explain the project, what the
advantages are, so that the girls can go to school.”
The presence of project staff in communities signaled to some that USAID GLEE’s intentions were
genuine, and its messaging was worthwhile. An ASC facilitator in Bandiagara said, “They thought, “Oh, if
someone leaves from Bamako with a car, or Mopti, or Koro, to see these girls working, it’s serious.”

14
USAID GLEE partnered with a total of 289 primary and secondary schools in Bandiagara and Douentza. Out of these 289 schools, many
received transfers, but not all did because some schools were not linked to ASCs.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 60

Respondents shared how all these efforts led not only to behavioral change in families, such as allowing
girls to study instead of performing household duties, but also shifted deep-rooted community beliefs
that girls did not belong in school. One CGS member in Kayes said, “There’s been a change with some
parents because some are starting to scold their girls who do not want to go to school.” A school
director at a primary school in Douentza elaborated on the shift in the community values that he
observed:
“In the past, the community believed that sending your daughter to school would turn her into a
vagabond, because school is a meeting place. Traditionally, girls and boys were not allowed to
mix together in the same room or on the same bench. But now, with the themes of awareness-
raising sessions and so on, the community has realized that it doesn't matter. All it does is give
girls their autonomy. It allows girls to be independent.”
Other respondents described how girls manifested their newfound independence, with some specifically
refusing to have their parents force them to marry young. A mayoral official in Bandiagara said, “Before
the parents were in control. Now the girls themselves say they are going to study. They say you’re not
going to force me to have a husband, first I am going to study. We have heard of many cases. The
parents wanted to give the girls up in marriage, but the girls said no, we are going to study.”
As for school safety, respondents primarily described how some communities ensured all children
arrived at school and returned home safely and that the school grounds were adequately fenced off and
secured. For instance, in one community in Kayes, a school director explained how youth ambassadors
convinced the mayor’s office to fence off the school. “Parents pay more attention to our safety,” said a
woman mentor in another community in Kayes, reporting how some parents were selected to watch
children as they came to school and see who did not arrive on time.

EFFICIENCY

EVALUATION QUESTION ELEVEN (EQ11): TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
SUPPORT EFFICIENCY FOR IMPLEMENTATION, LEARNING, AND REFLECTION FOR WI AND PARTNERS
AND ENSURE PROPER RISK MANAGEMENT?
Answer to EQ 11: With a focus on objectives in three sectors—education, health, and safety and
security—USAID GLEE required a complex partnership of international and local organizations to
implement activities. WI headed the partnership, notably including GAAS, IntraHealth, CPHDA and
OMAES. “This structure enabled us to be very efficient,” a USAID GLEE staff member said, “because
there are aspects that international NGOs can't do that were within the reach of national NGOs.” The
involvement of three ministries in the GoM—the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of Health
and Public Hygiene, and the Ministry of Women, Child, and Family Promotion—further strengthened the
project’s management structure, according to KIIs with USAID GLEE project staff.
All USAID GLEE project and partner respondents said that the consortium operated effectively. A
respondent noted that the consortium had some difficulties collaborating during the project’s launch, but
those challenges were resolved promptly. A local partner praised the overall partnership. “It's an
integrated project that has achieved very, very satisfactory objectives,” he said, “thanks to the
organizational structure and good organization, both at the national level, at the organization level, and
at the level of field implementation agreements. I can say that this organizational structure is exemplary.”
Another respondent recommended that the consortium could have been strengthened with more
personnel from WI working out of the regional office in Bandiagara. “It's true that GAAS and OMAES
do a lot,” the respondent said. “They are in the villages, they coordinate between the ASCs and the

61 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

schools, between the communities and the health centers. But I think that [WI] could have put a bit
more operational staff in Bandiagara to support the regional program officer.”
The consortium’s quarterly meetings played a key role in efficient project management. They proved
vital not only for sharing updates on the tenuous state of insecurity in Douentza and Bandiagara regions
but also provided crucial opportunities for local partners to share successes and challenges from the
field. For instance, teachers in USAID GLEE schools told local partners that they wanted the project to
provide an illustrated code of conduct so they could better communicate its contents to students,
according to USAID GLEE project staff. Project staff in Bamako then received this request from the field
during the quarterly meeting and produced and distributed the illustrated code of conduct to schools.
The project’s management structure also helped it ensure proper risk management, especially
considering the insecurity in Douentza and Bandiagara. The quarterly meetings enabled partners to
assess and share security challenges “because local partners are well established in their security zones
and have access to information that would be of great benefit of us,” according to a USAID GLEE staff
member. Project staff have also been prudent about when to visit schools to mitigate security risks, said
a GLEE partner, including not traveling too early in the morning. Due to security risks, the project also
modified its approach to implementation and training over the life of the project, including reducing the
number of people involved in trainings, holding the trainings in multiple locations, and implementing a
cascade approach to training.

EVALUATION QUESTION TWELVE (EQ12): DID ANY ACTIVITIES WITH RELATIVELY HIGH
IMPACT/EFFECTIVENESS HAVE HIGHER REACH OF BENEFICIARIES THAN OTHERS?
Answer to EQ 12: The quantitative survey and girls’ FGDs revealed that certain activities had more
reach with girls. In the quantitative survey, girls were asked what specific USAID GLEE activities they
benefited from, as displayed in Figure 46. Girls reported that USAID GLEE mentors benefited them the
most, with 76.9 percent of girls in ASCs, 74.5 percent of girls in primary school, and 60.6 percent of girls
in secondary schools mentioning them, followed by the training on how to produce sanitary pads,
including 49.5 percent of girls in primary school and 50.6 percent of girls in secondary school.
Figure 46. Proportion of Girls’ Reported Benefits of the USAID GLEE Project
76.9%
74.5%

72.6%
60.6%

52.4%
50.6%
49.5%
48.0%

47.6%
38.2%

34.9%

34.3%
32.7%

31.8%
27.7%
27.3%
25.1%
25.0%
24.0%
12.0%

11.6%
10.0%

9.2%

6.1%
4.9%
4.6%

4.3%
2.0%

Peer educators Youth GLEE mentors Payment of Transport Training on School supplies
ambassadors school fees method to get to making sanitary
school (bicycle) pads

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Girls also reported what specific USAID GLEE activities made them feel safer at or on the way to school
and helped them attend school more regularly, as shown in Figure 47 and Figure 48, respectively. As
with the activities girls said they benefited from, they mentioned mentors most frequently, followed by
training on sanitary pad production.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 62

Figure 47. Proportion of Girls’ Reported USAID GLEE Activities Enabled Them to Feel Safer at School or on the Way to School

72.6%

66.1%
65.1%
63.8%

40.3%
31.3%

29.4%
28.9%
28.8%
27.1%

25.7%

25.5%
20.5%
19.8%

18.3%

17.7%
17.6%
9.0%
8.6%

8.2%
7.7%

5.9%
5.0%
3.6%

3.3%
2.6%

1.6%
1.2%
Peer educators Youth GLEE mentors Payment of Transport Training on School supplies
ambassadors school fees method to get to making sanitary
school (bicycle) pads

ASC Primary Secondary Total

Figure 48. Proportion of Girls’ Reported USAID GLEE Activities Enabled Them to Attend School More Regularly
60.2%
58.5%
58.4%
57.0%

39.3%

37.7%
33.2%

32.0%
26.1%

25.2%
23.9%

22.6%
22.5%

21.1%
19.7%
16.5%

16.5%
16.1%

15.2%
9.6%
8.6%

8.0%
7.1%

4.1%
3.3%
2.9%

2.4%
0.9%

Peer educators Youth GLEE mentors Payment of Transport Training on School supplies
ambassadors school fees method to get to making sanitary
school (bicycle) pads

ASC Primary Secondary Total

The stories of the most notable change that girls shared during FGDs also demonstrate which activities
had more reach. As detailed earlier, early marriage was the topic of the stories selected most often by
groups. Other types of respondents corroborated in KIIs and FGDs how USAID GLEE helped to raise
awareness about this cultural practice.
Girls also shared numerous stories about other topics in their FGDs, including learning about RH and FP
and how to produce sanitary pads; becoming more aware of the importance of staying in school and
receiving an education; and benefiting from USAID GLEE’s provision of school fees, water, school
supplies, bicycles, brooms, and benches.
Notably, only three girls out of seventy-one told a story about USAID GLEE’s safety and security
activities, with two girls recounting how they received bicycles because they lived far from school and
one girl telling a story about using the incident box. However, the girl’s story about the incident box did
not concern an act of SRGBV but how teachers were not teaching classes to her class’s liking. “Today,
the teachers teach us courses properly because we made the choice to write it down and put it in the
box,” said the 15-year-old ninth grader in Bandiagara.

63 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

SUSTAINABILITY

EVALUATION QUESTION THIRTEEN (EQ13): WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PROJECT BENEFITS
WILL ENDURE OVER TIME AFTER USAID GLEE ENDS?
Answer to EQ 13: Many final evaluations provide hypothetical answers about a project’s prospects at
sustainability because research and evaluation activities conclude before project activities end. However,
since USAID GLEE ended its project activities in Kayes in 2021 while project activities continued in
Bandiagara and Douentza until 2023, this final performance evaluation offered a rare opportunity to see
which project activities were still being conducted in Kayes and get a real-time gauge of the sustainability
of the project beyond the close of project support in that region. At the time of the data collection for
this evaluation, USAID GLEE activities in Kayes had been closed for about 2 years.
The KII and FGD respondents in Kayes described a complex picture of life after USAID GLEE that was
unique to each of the five sampled communities in Kayes. Respondents reported how health workers,
mentors, peer educators, and youth ambassadors were still intervening in their respective communities
by raising awareness about girls’ RH, FP, early marriage, and other topics, and girls were still making
reusable sanitary pads from locally available materials. By contrast, they also explained how certain
obstacles were threatening the USAID GLEE’s sustainability, notably failing school infrastructure, and
how some activities had ceased, notably using incident boxes at school.
The activities with the most staying power in Kayes include the ongoing awareness raised in
communities by mentors, peer educators, and youth ambassadors. FGDs were conducted with youth
stakeholders in two different communities in Kayes. In one FGD with youth, a 17-year-old male youth
ambassador in ninth grade said all USAID GLEE activities continued because “the school director tells us
all the time not to forget the GLEE activities.” In that same FGD, a 21-year-old female mentor provided
evidence of training continuing as she reported that she had had to postpone a community training on
FP and unintended pregnancy with a grandmother and health worker that day because the scheduled
time conflicted with the FGD. During the other FGD conducted with youth in Kayes, respondents also
explained how they had continued weekly awareness sessions on FP, early marriage, and unexpected
pregnancy. In a third community, a school director described how grandmothers and mentors in the
area still monitored girls, even coming to the school if any problems arose, and communicated through a
WhatsApp group to stay connected about ongoing sensitizations. Mentors use WhatsApp groups to stay
connected in other communities, as a USAID GLEE staff member shared in a KII and remain active in
most communities. “Everything depends on the individual determination of the mentor,” the USAID
GLEE staff member said.
Other activities that have continued include the services provided by health agents to adolescent girls
(i.e., family planning and routine visits for illness) and the production of sanitary pads. First, both health
workers who participated in KIIs described how they and their colleagues continued to provide
confidential services to adolescent girls, with an obstetric nurse reporting how their “work continued as
if the project is still in operation here.” She added:
We have made ourselves available to them up to now, and they are welcome to visit us
any time they want about family planning. Even outside the health center, I walk around
with medication. It’s thanks to the project that we work with the utmost discretion,
raising their awareness and giving them answers to the questions they ask.
Second, respondents in multiple communities reported that girls continued to make sanitary pads based
on their training from USAID GLEE. The production was especially thriving in one community, according
to teachers at a secondary school. Not only were girls at the school making them, but they had trained

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 64

other girls in the community who did not attend the school. In addition, the teachers said that the head
of the community health center made sanitary pads and sold them to women.
Despite promising signs of sustainability in some communities, the responses from one school director
in Kayes illustrated two challenges affecting the USAID GLEE’s prospects for sustainability—
deterioration of infrastructure and departure of trained mentors, teachers, and health workers from
communities. These challenges have jeopardized the primary school’s latrines and the production of
sanitary pads in the community. The school director said that the school had not maintained the latrines
because “after the project left, there was a shortage of soap, the handwashing kits were ruined, the
water tap was broken, and there has been no more follow-up.” In addition, the mentor who had led the
production of sanitary pads left in September 2022. “I must admit the number of girls who were
participating in this activity diminished,” the director said, “and we haven’t been able to solve the
problem.”
These two issues surfaced in other communities in Kayes as well. First, maintaining water taps and
sources was a significant infrastructure challenge at schools. A grandmother reported how a school with
1,000 students in her community had just reopened after being shut down for two months due to the
breakdown of the main water tap and teachers refusing to work. “The mayor’s office has repaired it,”
the grandmother said, “and sometimes it’s at night that the water comes in drops that can’t even fill two
jerry cans, and then it cuts off.” In another community, a mayoral official said several taps were broken
in the school latrines. “When we talk about repairing them, the question of money comes up,” the
official said, “and some people are reluctant to do that. There are difficulties like that.” Secondly, in
some cases in Kayes, the two data collection teams had trouble finding respondents who had
participated in the project. For example, one set of CGS respondents was not knowledgeable about
USAID GLEE because the former head of the CGS had passed away since the project ended. In another
community, a team had planned to interview the secondary school director; however, the director knew
nothing about USAID GLEE, and enumerators opted to talk to the primary school director instead.
Even in the communities where respondents shared that many project activities had continued, they
described how motivation at school had waned for specific USAID GLEE interventions, notably incident
boxes. In one community, both school directors reported that the incident box was no longer used.
“We’ve only forgotten about the incident box,” the director said. “The children have also forgotten.
They don’t write anything.” The teacher corroborated the lack of use, adding that “it isn’t consulted as it
was during GLEE. Otherwise, everything continues as normal.” The teacher then described all the
ongoing activities, including the production of sanitary pads and awareness sessions organized by
mentors, the maintenance of latrines and classrooms, training on handwashing practices, and compliance
with the code of conduct introduced by the project.
Communities in Bandiagara and Douentza will likely face the same successes and challenges related to
sustainability that have already been encountered in Kayes, save for one major issue facing large swaths
of Mali—insecurity. While respondents in Kayes said the security situation was stable, several
respondents in Bandiagara and Douentza described how insecurity had forced schools to close in the
vicinity. An ASC facilitator described a particularly acute threat, detailing how many girls had not
attended class for the past two months because families had heard the news of terrorists setting fire to
a primary and secondary school in a neighboring village and then moving on to another village. “Frankly,
[girls] don’t feel safe, because when it comes to insecurity, people especially target school first,” the
ASC facilitator said. “Honestly speaking, they don’t feel safe on the way to school or at school.” Further,
a GoM official explained how schools closed for a week in part of Bandiagara due to insecurity, and
when schools reopened, the CGS and village chiefs worked with teachers to ensure their safety and
alert them if any attacks arose.

65 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

EVALUATION QUESTION FOURTEEN (EQ14): TO WHAT EXTENT HAS USAID GLEE DEVELOPED LOCAL
OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS? WHICH, IF ANY, IMPROVED INSTITUTIONS OR
PROCESSES ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE AFTER COMPLETION OF USAID GLEE?
Answer to EQ 14: As detailed in the previous EQ, project activities such as the local production of
reusable sanitary pads are likely to continue because the community has taken ownership of the
practice. A mayoral official in Bandiagara said, “It can go on because they know what materials can be
used to make it, and it's not expensive. The menstrual cycle goes on as long as the world goes on, so
they need this.”
Community health centers also appear to have institutionalized paying for services provided to
adolescent girls. A healthcare worker in Kayes explained how the sector has continued to pay for these
visits after USAID GLEE’s departure. “In healthcare, once the activity is introduced with the community
health center, then it becomes permanent,” said the healthcare worker, who explained how a
committee called the association de santé communautaire (community health association) partnered with
the mayor’s office to guarantee funding.
By contrast, in the education sector, some GoM officials discussed how the progress that USAID GLEE
had brought about resulted in some unforeseen challenges once the project closed. A mayoral official in
Kayes explained that some communities did not understand that the ASCs were temporary and
expected them to remain open after USAID GLEE’s departure. This misunderstanding required a
response from the local government. “The first thing we had to do was raise awareness, to tell them
that GLEE was not the state, but an NGO that had come to support them. [We don’t have] the means
that GLEE had,” the official explained. Despite the lack of financial resources, the official said the GoM
has felt compelled to support these communities where ASCs have closed. “[The project] really raised
the schooling rate for girls to a very, very high percentage, which even created problems for us,” a
mayoral official in Kayes said. “Now, with [USAID GLEE’s] departure, we're obliged to create other
schools in our villages, despite our meager resources.”

LIMITATIONS
The mixed methods evaluation design proved to be quite well adapted to the types of information that
the team wanted to find out about and the steps in the evaluation process allowed time for piloting of
tools and refinement, but at the same time, some limitations were apparent. First, given the design of
the baseline study (population-based sample and household survey instrument), the ability to compare
data from baseline to final performance evaluation does not exist.
Second, due to the security situation, data collection teams tried to collect the data in the shortest time
possible. This scheduling meant that conducting data collection outside of school hours had to occur,
which brings with it possible issues with random sampling of respondents.
Third, many of the items in the KIIs and FGDs relied on responses to questions about sensitive subjects.
Respondents may have been uncomfortable at times discussing topics such as details about the
interventions related to menstrual hygiene and RH and, therefore, may not have been completely
forthcoming.
Lastly, quantitative survey results are limited by social desirability and memory bias, which is the case
with any self-report survey. Triangulation with KIIs and FGDs allows for checking for the validity of
respondents’ answers, but biases are still possible.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 66

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USAID GLEE’s impact expanded beyond the walls of classrooms into all facets of girls’ lives—particularly
with regard to early marriage, RH, and FP—as exemplified by adolescent girls’ stories of MSC. Of the
twelve FGDs conducted with girls, five groups selected a story related to early marriage as the one that
captured the MSC of those shared. Girls also recounted stories about accessing contraception and
locally made sanitary pads. Although girls told stories of significance about how USAID GLEE provided
various resources—such as school supplies and scholarships—to support their education and how they
became aware of the importance of education through awareness-building sessions, these stories were
to be expected based on the project’s primary activities. By contrast, the girls’ stories about early
marriage, RH, and FP stand out for illustrating how USAID GLEE made a difference in all facets of girls’
lives—including some of their most formative, personal, and determinative experiences, such as
marriage, menstrual health, and hygiene.
In these stories about early marriage, RH, and menstrual health, girls were not only recounting how
USAID GLEE helped change the course of their own lives, but also how the newfound knowledge and
agency empowered them to make a difference in the lives of their peers. For instance, an 18-year-old
ninth-grader in Kayes shared how she was unafraid to talk to elders in her community about the dangers
of early marriage, and a 14-year-old ninth-grader in Kayes talked about how she convinced her sister to
refuse an early marriage and persuaded her father that it was not right. Other girls shared how they had
taught other girls in their community about menstruation and helped them access sanitary pads. These
personal stories corroborate what other respondents described transpiring during the course of the
project—girls finding their voice and becoming more vocal advocates for shaping their own future.
Recommendation: USAID GLEE’s design of its reusable sanitary pad production
should be highlighted as a best practice. Due to its popularity and prospects for
sustainability, USAID GLEE’s design of the production of sanitary pads with local materials
should be incorporated into other projects.
Girls not only changed their view of what they can accomplish in their own lives, thanks to project
activities, but what they accomplished during the life of project also changed the perceptions of others in
the community about what girls were capable of achieving. These accomplishments included transferring
from ASCs to formal schools, learning how to produce their own sanitary pads, and taking it upon
themselves to seek out contraception at community health centers. Various respondents in KIIs
described how adolescent girls’ progress and accomplishments surprised them. Multiple respondents
detailed how they did not expect out-of-school girls to learn so much in less than one year and then
excel when they transferred to government schools. Multiple health care workers said they were
pleasantly surprised by the number of adolescent girls who were receptive to their messages about FP
and RH and came to community health centers to access contraception and seek out other medical
care.
Recommendation: Communities’ surprise at what girls are capable of achieving illustrates
how it is important not only to raise awareness in communities about the intrinsic
importance of girls’ education and about what girls themselves are capable of
accomplishing. This realization points to the type of shift in gender norms that effective
empowerment approaches help bring about. Gender empowerment models need to attend to
the individual-level change in opportunities and self-concept for girls, but also to the peers,
families, and communities that make up the enabling environment around girls. USAID GLEE’s
mix of interventions show a sound and practical direction in programming and implementation

67 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 for gender empowerment at these multiple levels of the enabling environment and should be
continued.
On the whole, these stories of surprise underscore how adolescent girls’ potential in Mali is generally
untapped because they are typically ignored and dismissed. Through its active presence in communities,
USAID GLEE convinced people otherwise and taught them to be more attentive to girls. The testimony
of a female ASC facilitator, who learned to listen to a girl who was habitually late to her ASC instead of
scold her, is especially instructive. The story shows how ingrained and entrenched certain societal
beliefs are in communities in Mali, with girls instinctively labeled as lazy or apathetic for behavior such as
arriving late to school.
Despite the impact the USAID GLEE made in girls’ lives—especially with regard to decreasing barriers
to accessing education and increasing knowledge about health—the project was less successful in shifting
deep-seated cultural attitudes about gender in society, especially regarding issues around SRGBV.
Quantitative data from the girls’ survey illustrated this challenge and how it likely manifests itself as
adolescent girls get older and transition from primary to secondary school. For instance, while a
minority of primary school girls 13 and older agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that it was a
sometimes a girl’s fault if a teacher or student sexually harassed her—44.1 percent and 45.4 percent,
respectively—the majority of secondary school girls did—65.4 percent and 65.6 percent, respectively.
Recommendation: Activities targeting awareness of SRGBV need to address
problematic gender norms that lead girls to believe they are sometimes to blame
for provoking harassment. While the above recommendation points out the evidence of
effectiveness and potential in shifting gender norms, this conclusion and recommendation
indicates that progress within girls’ self-concept and in their placement of blame on themselves
rather than the adults harassing them can be slow and difficult. In future programming, this
specific area of social-emotional learning for adolescent girls can be more specifically targeted
and peers, family members, and community members can also be enlisted in this area of social-
emotional growth.
It is evident that boys and men need to change their behavior to ensure schools are safer and that the
criteria that children consider when determining their school’s safety should include instances of
SRGBV. For example, while 93.4 percent of secondary school girls said that they agreed or strongly
agreed that girls are safe at school, 25.5 percent of secondary school girls agreed or strongly agreed that
teachers touch children inappropriately, and 18.8 percent of agreed or strongly agreed that teachers
demand to have sex with certain students. Despite this prevalence of harassment, multiple
respondents—including mentors, peer educators, and other youth—said that no incidents of SRGBV
took place at their schools. This disconnect suggests that communities may not believe that harassment
constitutes SRGBV, and that certain behavior has been normalized. Therefore, as part of its activities to
reduce SRGBV, USAID GLEE may have benefited from determining what communities consider acts of
SRGBV so the project could then explicitly address the gaps between communities’ understanding and
how development practitioners conceptualize SRGBV.
Recommendation: Boys and men need to be targeted explicitly in the design of
activities addressing SRGBV. As with the above, this recommendation is another call to
take up further emphasis in this related area of the enabling environment among the peers and
adults whose behaviors have a large effect on girls’ emerging sense of self, locus of control, and
opportunities for their future.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 68

Although respondents noted how the project helped to improve girls’ menstrual health hygiene and
knowledge, the stigma associated with girls having their period still manifested itself in some responses
in the girls’ survey, showing that progress still needs to be made in fighting that stigma. A difference was
apparent between girls being proud of having started their period and girls having their monthly period.
For instance, while 70.1 percent of girls who had started menstruating said they agreed or strongly
agreed that they were proud of having their period, similar proportions of girls said they were not
comfortable going to school with their period as well as agreeing or strongly agreeing that they felt
ashamed of their body when they had their period—46.1 percent and 46.3 percent, respectively. In
addition, only 6.8 percent of girls disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that it was
important to keep their period a secret. Some girls responded with views about their period that seem
contradictory. Of the girls who somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they were proud of having
their period, 34.6 percent—or more than one-third—somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that they
were ashamed of their body when they had their period.
The stigma, however, did not prevent the project from making an impact with menstrual health and
hygiene. USAID GLEE made important progress in increasing access to sanitary pads with its well-
received activity of using locally available material to produce them. In a noteworthy example of
collaborating, learning, and adapting, the project changed the design of this activity when it realized it
was more feasible to train girls how to make the pads instead of purchasing them. In the quantitative
survey, the production of sanitary pads was the activity cited second-most by girls as beneficial (47.6
percent), and in KIIs and FGDs, its staying power was clear with respondents describing how girls
continued to produce sanitary pads in communities.
Mentoring in communities stood out as another well-received activity with promising prospects for
sustainability. In the quantitative survey, girls reported that USAID GLEE mentors benefited them the
most out of any project activity, with 72.6 percent of girls saying they benefited from mentors, and 65.1
percent of girls saying having mentors contributed to them feeling safer at school. In addition, school
directors reported mentors were responsible for conducting 96.6 percent of sessions on menstrual
health and hygiene. In Kayes, mentors and other project stakeholders remained active in holding
awareness sessions in the community, with mentors and grandmothers remaining connected through
WhatsApp in some communities in that region.
Recommendation: The use of mentors should be expanded so that multiple
mentors are active in each community. This is another promising practice for a holistic
gender empowerment approach that builds community understanding, support, and structures
to encourage and build the enabling environment.
The reach of the awareness-building sessions that mentors and others were trained to lead at least
weekly, however, seemed unclear. Although nearly all school directors reported that their schools had
organized awareness-building sessions on such topics as FP and RH, less than 70 percent of girls
reported having participated in such sessions or of seeing or hearing messages related to those topics.
The reason for this disparity is unclear. Perhaps girls who said they did not participate in a session on a
certain topic such as FP may not have been present at school when mentors and others facilitated the
weekly session. Therefore, the frequency of the messaging may not have been sufficient for certain
topics.
Recommendation: Due to a sizeable minority of girls reporting they did not participate in
sessions on such topics as menstrual hygiene, FP, and RH, girls’ participation and exposure
to these sessions should be monitored more closely, as well as their ongoing
learning, including application of their learning to their lives. Later in the school year,

69 | USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV

 mentors and other project stakeholders should be encouraged to repeat trainings on certain
key topics if monitoring reveals that a large proportion of girls have not attended certain
sessions, or their learning should be reinforced on a certain important topic such as menstrual
health.
The sustainability successes in Kayes included not only the production of reusable sanitary pads and the
ongoing contributions from mentors, grandmothers, and others, but also the continued provision of
health services to girls at community health centers. Community health centers seemed able to sustain
their financial support of providing free care to adolescent girls more easily than schools and
communities could financially support the increased school enrollment that USAID GLEE caused.
Recommendation: The ability of community health centers in Kayes to continue
covering the costs of adolescent girls should be studied more closely to see if aspects
could be emulated to cover the costs of school fees.
Two primary challenges emerged with carrying on the progress promoted by USAID GLEE—
infrastructure breaking down and project stakeholders leaving the community. One community in Kayes
faced particular challenges, with the school director detailing how the latrines were not being maintained
due to a broken tap and how fewer girls were making sanitary pads due to the departure of a mentor.
Providing water at school is an essential component of ensuring girls have the means to practice safe and
effective menstrual hygiene, as noted by multiple respondents in KIIs.
Recommendation: To ensure infrastructure does not break easily, future projects should
work with local government and school organizations on how to finance
infrastructure repairs and maintenance.
Recommendation: To mitigate the effects of the inevitable departure and turnover of project
stakeholders such as mentors and teachers, future projects should ensure that protocols
are in place to train replacements to take over duties as needed.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 70

ANNEXES
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to assess project achievements as outlined in the
results framework: 1) decreased barriers of adolescent girls to access quality education; 2) improved
safety of adolescent girls in schools and their communities; and 3) increased knowledge and adoption of
positive health behaviors among adolescent girls. The final performance evaluation will serve to assess
project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, and listen to and engage with girls as key
informants on USAID GLEE’s outcomes. In line with the USAID Evaluation Policy, this evaluation is
categorized as evaluating performance, not impact. Aligned with ADS201, it is considered a final
evaluation given that it is happening in the project’s final year. It is also considered to be an internal
evaluation as it is being commissioned by USAID’s implementing partner and the USAID GLEE prime,
Winrock International.
As part of assessing the overall performance of the project, this evaluation will include the endline
survey of key performance indicators included in the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan
(AMELP). USAID GLEE’s AMELP includes 32 indicators, of which 12 are standard Foreign Assistance (F)
indicators and 20 are custom indicators. Of these indicators, seven (7) indicators will be included in the
final performance evaluation survey. The evaluation firm will survey program beneficiaries, school
respondents, key community, and institutional actors in relation with USAID GLEE activities. Indicator
measurement shall cover 7 outcome indicators, including all their project-specified disaggregates. The
evaluation firm will be responsible for finalizing a statistically sound data collection methodology in
collaboration with USAID GLEE to ensure that the quantitative estimates for the indicator values and
their corresponding datasets are produced. The evaluator will also be responsible for completing a
simple desk review of all other indicators not captured under the beneficiary-based survey. The
evaluation firm will also be responsible for answering a set of evaluation questions related to relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability using various qualitative and quantitative methods. It
will also answer key learning questions.
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations are intended for several target audiences: USAID will be
provided with results data and findings that demonstrate the degree to which USAID GLEE has achieved
all project goals and targets. Additionally, the goal is to present to USAID and other stakeholders the
relevance and efficiency of the 2-pronged approach (Education & Health), supported by gender and
safety issues: The "USAID GLEE Model." These data, centered on the performance indicator results but
supported with additional project results, budgetary information, and qualitative data, lessons learned,
and recommendations will assist USAID in its efforts to validate and demonstrate maximum value for
money of the project and its activities, lasting and sustainable change in the target regions. USAID
GLEE’s final evaluation will quantify the development achievements among project beneficiaries, the
Government of Mali, especially the Ministry of Education and its local Inspectorates in Kayes and
Bandiagara and Douentza (formerly Mopti), and the Ministry of Health, and local implementing partners
including GAAS-Mali and OMAES—and provide important evidence to inform future interventions and
growth in the education sector to all these stakeholders. The USAID GLEE team will find opportunities
to share findings with the wider community of education actors in Mali and in the region. USAID GLEE’s
final evaluation will attempt to assist development professionals and technical experts by sharing best
practices and lessons learned related to USAID GLEE’s design, methodology, and critical assumptions.

71
ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX

Evaluation Evaluation Questions Data Collection Method and

Criteria Respondents

Relevance How relevant has USAID GLEE’s objective, priority Interviews: Government of Mali
interventions and the approach been to the situation of (GoM)
the beneficiaries?
Focus Group Discussion (FGD):
Beneficiaries
BBS: Girls

How has the original design evolved during USAID GLEE’s Interviews: USAID GLEE
implementation, particularly in response the findings from Partnership staff (includes WI,
the midterm study? OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)

How were existing relevant USAID and U.S. government Interviews: USAID GLEE
activities leveraged? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)

Effectiveness To what extent has the project achieved its objectives as Confirmation of outcome and
defined in the project’s results framework and reporting output target through project
indicators? (This is aligned with Evaluation objective 1) data review, Beneficiary based
surveys (BBS), interviews of
USAID GLEE project staff and
other key stakeholders.
FGD of beneficiaries
BBS: Girls

What were the major factors—including project design, Interviews: USAID GLEE
implementation, and the operating environment—which Partnership staff (includes WI,
influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
objective targets? staff)

Which project activities made the most and least Interviews: USAID GLEE
significant contribution to intended strategic objectives? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)

How do USAID GLEE beneficiaries perceive the overall FGD: Beneficiaries

quality of project delivery and technical assistance?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 72

Evaluation Evaluation Questions Data Collection Method and
Criteria Respondents

(a) How did USAID GLEE adapt to the pandemic and to Interviews: USAID GLEE
what extent were adaptations/shifts in the program’s Partnership staff (includes WI,
delivery strategy required to reach USAID GLEE’s OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
beneficiaries? staff) (a)
(b) How do USAID GLEE beneficiaries perceive the FGD: Beneficiaries (b)
quality of the program’s adaptation? BBS: Girls

Efficiency To what extent does the management structure support Interviews: USAID GLEE
efficiency for implementation, learning and reflection for Partnership staff (includes WI,
WI and Partners and ensure proper risk management? OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)

Did any activities with relatively high impact/effectiveness Interviews: USAID GLEE
have higher reach of beneficiaries than others? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)
BBS – girls

Impact What were unexpected outcomes of USAID GLEE Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
activities, including both positive and negative outcomes Partnership staff (includes WI,
particularly for girls? Outcomes of interest include those OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
related to the role of mentors, family members’ influence, staff)
norms and perceptions toward girls and schooling, FGD: Beneficiaries, with focus
reproductive health, GBV, particularly important key soft on girls
skills for girls, and effects of conflict and/or changed
Participatory methods, MSC.
climate.
BBS: Girls

What changes in the enabling environment that support Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
girls’ education and school safety have resulted from Partnership staff (includes WI,
USAID GLEE? OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)
FGD: Beneficiaries
BBS: Girls

Sustainability What is the likelihood that the project benefits will Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
endure over time after USAID GLEE ends? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)
FGD: Beneficiaries
BBS: Girls

To what extent has USAID GLEE developed local Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
ownership and sustainable partnerships? Partnership staff (includes WI,

73
 Evaluation Evaluation Questions Data Collection Method and
Criteria Respondents

OMAES, GAAS. and IntraHealth

staff)
FGD: Beneficiaries

Which, if any, improved institutions or processes are Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
likely to continue after completion of USAID GLEE? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)
BBS – school directors

Learning What recommendations do key project stakeholders have Interviews: GoM, USAID GLEE
Questions for similar, future activities? Partnership staff (includes WI,
OMAES, GAAS, and IntraHealth
staff)
FGD: Beneficiaries

Which interventions contributed most to increased access BBS, girls, and school directors.
to formal schooling or ASC (rank)? FGD: Beneficiaries, MSC

Can target families afford to send their daughters to FGD: Beneficiaries

school if USAID GLEE pays their ASC/school fees?
(AMELP Learning Question 1)

Do girls and their parents feel more secure sending their FGD: Beneficiaries
children to school (both on route and in school) if the BBS: Girls
school has a functioning system for reporting incidents of
GBV/referring victims of GBV to relevant
actors/authorities? (AMELP Learning Question 2)

What features exist at the health clinics and/or with the Review of FY22 Annual Survey,
health clinic staff which make girls feel more comfortable probe for additional answers if
seeking family planning services? (AMELP Learning needed
Question 3)

SAMPLING CALCULATIONS
The population for the BBS survey of girls is composed of all the girls enrolled at the ASCs, primary
schools, or secondary schools supported by USAID GLEE in the Bandiagara and Douentzaregions
because the project is currently only active in these regions. The estimated target population is
composed of 65,000 students from 272 ASCs and schools. The sampling design used a two-step
stratified cluster random sampling approach. As a first step, ASCs were randomly selected using the type
of school/center as a stratification variable. As a second step, students within sampled ASCs and schools
were randomly selected.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 74

The sample size is large enough to allow for reporting indicators with a 95 percent confidence interval
and 5 percent margin of error as well as to allow for disaggregation of results by type of center/school.
To determine the total sample size needed, the following parameters were used: 95 percent confidence
interval with 5 percent margin of error and an effective sample size of 400 students with clustering effect
of 0.20.
While aiming to collect data for 10 students per sampled center/school, the following formula was used
to determine the total number of schools that should be sampled:
Schools/centers = 400/10 * (1 + (10-1) *0.2) = 112 schools/centers
The total number of students in the sample is then equal to:
112 schools/centers x 10 students per school/center = 1,120 students

75
ANNEX III: FINAL EVALUATION TOOLS

QUANTITATIVE TOOLS – BENEFICIARY-BASED SURVEY

ATTENDANCE SURVEY
Date:
Heure du début:
Nom de l'enquêteur:
Nom de région:
□ Bandiagara
□ Douentza

Nom du CAP:
□ Bandiagara
□ Bankass
□ Kendie
□ Sangha
□ Douentza
□ Koro
□ Madougou

Nombre de filles âgées de 10 à 18 ans présentes à l'école/CSA:

Nombre de filles âgées de 10 à 18 ans inscrites à l'école/CSA:

Merci beaucoup d'avoir répondu à nos questions.

Commentaires sur l'administration du questionnaire (au besoin):

GIRLS SURVEY

Date de l'entretien :
Heure du début de l'entretien :
Nom de l'enquêteur :

Nom de Région:
□ Bandiagara
□ Douentza

Nom du CAP:
□ Bandiagara
□ Bankass
□ Kendie
□ Sangha
□ Douentza
□ Koro

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 76

 □ Madougou

Nom de Commune :

Nom de l'école ou CSA :

« Bonjour, nous cherchons à comprendre les expériences vécues par les jeunes filles en âge d'aller à
l'école. Nous avons quelques questions à vous poser et nous aimerions connaître votre avis. Nous
enregistrerons vos réponses aux questions pour les utiliser dans le cadre de programmes destinés aux
filles et aux familles mais nous ne mentionnerons pas votre nom et ne partagerons pas vos
renseignements personnels avec quiconque en dehors de notre équipe, notamment lorsque nous
publierons nos travaux. Acceptez-vous d'être interrogé ? »
□ Oui
□ Non

1A. Quel âge avez-vous ? Estimez en cas d'incertitude

1B. Niveau de l'éducation

□ Primaire (1A-6A)
□ Primaire 2 (7A-9A)
□ CSA

2. Étiez-vous inscrite à un CSA de GLEE avant de fréquenter cette école ?

□ Oui
□ Non

3. Connaissez-vous le projet GLEE ? Expliquer brièvement le projet GLEE.

□ Oui
□ Non

4. Avez-vous été absente de l’école la semaine dernière ?

□ Oui
□ Non

5. Combien de jours avez-vous été absente de l’école la semaine dernière ?

□ 1
□ 2
□ 3
□ 4
□ 5
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

77
6A. Étiez-vous inscrite à l'école l'année dernière ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

6B. En quelle année ou classe étiez-vous l'année dernière ?

□ 1ère année
□ 2ème année
□ 3ème année
□ 4ème année
□ 5ème année
□ 6ème année
□ 7ème année
□ 8ème année
□ 9ème année
□ Autre
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

7. Prévoyez-vous de continuer l'école l'année prochaine ?

□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

8. Quelles sont les raisons pour lesquelles vous ne prévoyez pas de continuer l’école ?

Posez une question ouverte en premier, en cochant tous les articles mentionnés par la personne interrogée.
Après chaque article mentionné, cherchez à en savoir plus en demandant "y a-t-il d'autres raisons" ?

□ Il n'y a pas suffisamment d'argent pour couvrir mes frais de scolarité

□ Je dois travailler pour aider ma famille à économiser ou à gagner de l'argent
□ Il n'est pas prudent pour moi d'effectuer les trajets aller/retour entre le domicile et l'école
□ Il n'est pas prudent pour moi d'être à l'école
□ L'école ne dispose pas de suffisamment d'espace ou d'enseignants
□ Personne n'est disponible pour faire les trajets aller/retour avec moi
□ Les services de transport sont inadaptés
□ Je souffre d'un problème de santé ou d'un handicap qui m'empêche de me rendre à l'école
□ Je suis trop en retard par rapport aux autres à l'école
□ Mon enseignant me maltraite à l'école
□ Je ne peux pas me déplacer à l'intérieur de l'école ou de la classe
□ Je ne peux pas utiliser les toilettes à l'école
□ L'école n'offre pas de programme répondant à mes besoins d'apprentissage

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 78

 □ Je suis trop âgée pour aller à l'école
□ J'ai suivi suffisamment d'études
□ Je suis mariée ou sur le point de me marier
□ J'ai un enfant ou suis sur le point d'en avoir un
□ Je n'aime pas aller à l'école
□ L'école n'a pas d'importance pour moi
□ L'école ne m'aide pas à trouver un bon travail
□ Je suis maltraitée/harcelée par d'autres élèves
□ Autre (spécifier)
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

« Je vais maintenant vous interroger sur les tâches que vous pouvez avoir en dehors de l'école, veuillez
indiquer laquelle de ces affirmations est vraie. »

9. Je dois travailler à la maison pour aider la famille avec les tâches ménagères, notamment la cuisine, le
ménage, la lessive, les jeunes frères et sœurs, la collecte d'eau et de bois, etc.
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

10. Je dois travailler à la ferme familiale ou dans l'entreprise familiale

□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

11. Je dois travailler en dehors, pour recevoir de l'argent ou obtenir une sorte de rémunération, afin de
venir en aide à la famille
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

12. Ces responsabilités vous empêchent-elles parfois d’étudier à la maison avant ou après l’école ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

13. Ces responsabilités vous empêchent-elles parfois d'aller à l'école ou de vous y rendre à l'heure ?
□ Oui

79
 □ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

Perceptions parentales de l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes

« Je vais vous lire une série d'affirmations. Veuillez me dire si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, assez
d'accord, pas vraiment d'accord ou pas du tout d'accord avec chacun des énoncés. »

14. Les femmes ont le droit d'occuper des postes de direction au sein de la communauté.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

14. Les filles peuvent être des leaders à l'école.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

15. Une femme présidente peut être aussi efficace qu'un homme président.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

16. Les filles ont autant le droit d'aller à l'école que les garçons.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

17. Dans ma communauté, la plupart de garçons termine la 6e année.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 80

 □ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

18. Dans ma communauté, la plupart de filles termine la 6e année.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

19. Dans ma communauté, la plupart de garçons termine la 9e année.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

20. Dans ma communauté, la plupart de filles termine la 9e année.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

21. Dans ma communauté, les garçons et les filles ont les mêmes chances de faire le 1er cycle.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

22. Dans ma communauté, les garçons et les filles ont les mêmes chances de faire le 2e cycle.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

23. Une jeune femme ayant un enfant (ou des enfants) a le droit de demeurer à l'école et de poursuivre

81
ses études
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

24. Un jeune homme ayant un enfant (ou des enfants) a le droit de demeurer à l'école et de poursuivre
ses études
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

25. Une jeune femme mariée a le droit de demeurer à l'école et de poursuivre ses études
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

26. Un jeune homme marié a le droit de demeurer à l'école et de poursuivre ses études
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Violence basée sur le genre en milieu scolaire

27. Les filles ont le droit de ne pas être maltraitées.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

28. Les garçons ont le droit de ne pas être maltraités.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 82

 □ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

29. Les filles sont en sécurité à l'école.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

30. Les garçons sont en sécurité à l'école.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

31. Il y a des endroits dans l'école ou à proximité où les filles seules ne sont pas en sécurité.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

32. Il y a des endroits dans l'école ou à proximité où les garçons seuls ne sont pas en sécurité.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

33. Les garçons plus âgés et les hommes font des commentaires sur le corps des filles quand elles sont
sur le chemin de l'école.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

83
34. Les enseignants dans mon école touchent les cuisses, les fessiers ou les parties intimes des enfants.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

35. Les enseignants dans mon école exigent d'avoir des rapports sexuels avec certains élèves.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

36. Les enseignants n'ont pas le droit d'exiger des rapports sexuels auprès des élèves
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

37. Les enseignants n'ont pas le droit de toucher les cuisses, les fessiers ou les parties intimes des
enfants.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Perceptions de harcèlement sexuel

38. C'est parfois la faute de la fille si un enseignant la harcèle sexuellement.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

39. C'est parfois la faute de la fille si un élève la harcèle sexuellement.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 84

 □ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

40. C'est parfois la faute de la fille si un enseignant lui touche les cuisses, les fessiers ou les parties
intimes.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

41. C'est parfois la faute de la fille si un élève lui touche les cuisses, les fessiers ou les parties intimes.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

42. Avez-vous manqué un ou plusieurs jours d'école cette année parce que vous aviez peur d'être
harcelée par des garçons ou des enseignants à l'école ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

43. Avez-vous manqué un ou plusieurs jours d'école cette année parce que vous ne vous sentiez pas en
sécurité dans l'établissement ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

44. Avez-vous manqué un ou plusieurs jours d'école, cette année parce que vous ne vous sentiez pas en
sécurité sur le chemin d'école?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

45. Connaissez-vous quelqu'un dans votre classe qui a utilisé la boîte à incidents cette année ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas

85
 □ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

46. Pourquoi pensez-vous que les élèves ne sont pas plus nombreux à utiliser cette boîte ?
□ Je n'ai jamais rien eu à signaler
□ Je ne sais pas comment l'utiliser
□ Je ne veux pas l'utiliser
□ J'ai peur que quelqu'un puisse me voir si je l'utilise
□ Je ne pense pas que ce soit efficace
□ Autre (précisez)
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

47. Si un de vos camarades de classe était victime de violence ou de harcèlement sexuel, que lui
conseilleriez-vous de faire ?

48. Avez-vous vu ou entendu parler de la planification familiale (PF) / santé de la reproduction (SR)
pendant l’année scolaire en cours (2022-2023) ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

49. Si oui à travers quelle source ?

□ Pair Educateur
□ Jeune Ambassadeur
□ Mentors
□ Grand-mère
□ Enseignants
□ Autre agent GLEE
□ CSCOM/agent de santé
□ Message radio
□ Message télé
□ Autres sources (à préciser)

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

50. Pouvez-vous nous citer des méthodes de planification familiale (PF) entendue pendant l’année
scolaire en cours (2022-2023) ?
□ Port de condom
□ Abstinence
□ Pilule
□ Produit injectable

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 86

 □ Implant
□ Collier journalier
□ DIU
□ Autre
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

51. Pouvez-vous nous citer des messages sur la santé de la reproduction (SR) entendu pendant l’année
scolaire en cours (2022-2023) ?
□ Grossesse précoce
□ VIH
□ Hygiène menstruelle
□ Excision
□ Autre
□ Ne sait pas
Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

Accès à la planification familiale

« Je vais vous lire une série d'affirmations. Veuillez me dire si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, assez
d'accord, pas vraiment d'accord ou pas du tout d'accord avec chacun des énoncés. »

52. Dans ma communauté, on apprend aux filles ce qu'est la planification familiale.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

53. Dans ma communauté, on apprend aux garçons ce qu'est la planification familiale.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

54. Un mari et une femme doivent décider ensemble du nombre d'enfants à avoir
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas

87
 □ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

55. Une mère et un père doivent prendre des décisions conjointes concernant leurs enfants.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

56. Les hommes doivent avoir connaissance de la planification familiale avant le mariage.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

56. Les hommes ont le droit de choisir qui épouser.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse
57. Les femmes doivent avoir connaissance de la planification familiale avant le mariage.
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

57. Les femmes ont le droit de choisir qui épouser.

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

58. Je sais où aller si j'ai besoin d'une méthode de contraception (contrôle des naissances)
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 88

 □ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

59. Je serais trop timide ou mal à l'aise à l'idée de me rendre dans une clinique ou un centre pour y
obtenir une méthode contraceptive (contrôle des naissances).
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

« Je vais maintenant vous interroger sur les sessions auxquelles vous avez pu assister. Pour chaque
session que j'énumère, veuillez indiquer si vous avez eu l'occasion de participer. (Ces sessions sont
animées par les pairs éducateurs, les jeunes ambassadeurs, mentors GLEE, enseignants) »

Avez-vous eu l'occasion de participer dans les ...

Oui Non Ne sait Refuse de

pas répondre/
Pas de
réponse

60. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur l’éducation des filles ?

61. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur les violences basées sur le genre ?

62. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur la sécurité scolaire ?

63. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur la santé de la reproduction (sida, IST) ?

64. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur le COVID-19 ?

65. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur le Planning Familial (PF) ?

89
 66. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
sur l'hygiène menstruelle ?

67. sessions de communication/sensibilisation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

sur le mariage forcé/précoce ?

68. Quand avez-vous assisté aux sessions de communication/sensibilisation dont vous avez parlé ?
□ Ce mois-ci
□ Cette année scolaire
□ L'année scolaire précédente
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

69. Pensez-vous que les sessions auxquelles vous avez participé sont utiles?
□ Pas du tout utiles
□ Pas vraiment utiles
□ Assez utiles
□ Tout à fait utiles
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

70. Avez-vous bénéficié directement ou indirectement de quoi que ce soit d’autre en provenance du
projet GLEE, etc.) ? de quoi avez-vous bénéficié ?
□ Pairs éducateurs
□ Jeunes ambassadeurs
□ Les mentors GLEE
□ Payement des frais scolaires
□ Moyen de transport pour se rendre à l'école (vélo)
□ Formation pour la production de serviettes hygiéniques
□ Aucune activité
□ Autre

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

71. Est-ce que l'une des activités GLEE (ÉNUMÈREZ-LES) vous a permis de vous sentir plus en sécurité à
l'école ou sur le chemin de l'école ?
□ Pairs éducateurs
□ Jeunes ambassadeurs
□ Les mentors GLEE
□ Payement des frais scolaires
□ Moyen de transport pour se rendre à l'école (vélo)

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 90

 □ Formation pour la production de serviettes hygiéniques
□ Aucune activité
□ Autre
□ Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

72. Est-ce que l'une des activités GLEE (énumérez-les) vous a permis fréquenter l'école plus
régulièrement ?
□ Pairs éducateurs
□ Jeunes ambassadeurs
□ Les mentors GLEE
□ Payement des frais scolaires
□ Moyen de transport pour se rendre à l'école (vélo)
□ Formation pour la production de serviettes hygiéniques
□ Aucune activité
□ Autre

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

73. Connaissez-vous ce que c’est les règles / menstrues ?

□ Oui
□ Non

74. Selon vous qu’est-ce que les règles / menstrues alors ?

□ Perte normale de sang en provenance de l'utérus
□ Réaction de l’organisme à une agression / odeur gênante
□ Autres (à préciser)

Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

75. Connaissez-vous la durée moyenne du cycle menstruel ?

□ Oui
□ Non

76. Selon vous, quelle est la durée moyenne du cycle menstruel ?

□ 15 jours
□ 21 jours
□ 28 jours
□ 30 jours

77. Connaissez-vous au moins un risque sur la fille en période de menstruation ?

□ Oui

91
 □ Non

78. Pouvez-vous nous citer au moins un risque sur la fille en période de menstruation ?
□ Risque infectieux
□ Irritation
□ Absorption de la flore
□ Autres (à préciser)
□ Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

79. Es-tu fortement d'accord, d'accord, en désaccord ou fortement en désaccord avec l'affirmation
suivante : Une fille qui a vu ses règles est a' l'aise.
□ Fortement d'accord
□ D'accord
□ En désaccord
□ Fortement en désaccord
□ Sans opinion

80. Selon votre opinion, pourquoi ?

81. Savez-vous quoi faire pour éviter les infections pendant la période des règles ?
□ Oui
□ Non

82. Citez-nous au moins une bonne pratique pour éviter les infections pendant la période des règles.
□ Laver bien les parties génitales avec de l’eau
□ Changer les serviettes au moins 2 fois par jour
□ Autres (à préciser)
Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

83. Lorsque les jeunes filles deviennent des femmes, leur corps connaît certains changements,
notamment avec le début du cycle menstruel. Avez-vous commencé à avoir vos règles ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

84. Savez-vous où aller (ou à qui parler) si vous avez besoin d'informations sur le cycle menstruel ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 92

 □ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

85. Vous sentez-vous à l'aise à l'idée d'aller à l'école en ayant vos règles ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

86. Êtes-vous déjà restée à la maison au lieu d'aller à l'école quand vous aviez vos règles ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

87. La dernière fois que vous avez eu vos règles, combien de jours êtes-vous restée à la maison au lieu
d'aller à l'école ?

88. Pour quelle raison êtes-vous restée à la maison durant vos règles ?
(Cochez toutes les réponses possible)
□ Douleur/crampes/maux de tête
□ Diarrhée
□ Saignement abondant
□ Manque de serviettes hygiéniques
□ Manque d'eau et d'endroits pour se nettoyer
□ Ma famille ne veut pas que j'aille à l'école quand j'ai mes règles
□ Autre (spécifier)
Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

« Je vais vous lire une série d'affirmations. Veuillez me dire si vous êtes tout à fait d'accord, assez
d'accord, pas vraiment d'accord ou pas du tout d'accord avec chacun des énoncés. »

89. J'ai honte de mon corps lorsque j'ai mes règles

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

90. Il est important que je garde secret le fait d'avoir mes règles

93
 □ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

91. Je suis fière d'avoir mes règles

□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

92. Avoir mes règles n'est pas un gros souci pour moi
□ Pas du tout d'accord
□ Pas vraiment d'accord
□ Assez d'accord
□ Tout à fait d'accord
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

93. Quelle est la principale méthode que vous utilisez à l'heure actuelle pour gérer la situation durant
vos règles ?
□ Coton/ouate
□ Morceaux de tissue
□ Serviettes hygiéniques
□ Tampon
□ Papier toilette ou autre
□ Autre (spécifier)
Si autre, veuillez spécifier :

94. Au cours des trois derniers mois, vous est-il arrivé de ne pas avoir accès à ce matériel ?
□ Oui
□ Non
□ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/Pas de réponse

« Merci beaucoup d'avoir répondu à nos questions. Nous avons terminé avec toutes nos questions. Est-
ce que vous avez des questions ou commentaires pour nous ? »

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 94

SCHOOL DIRECTOR SURVEY
Date de l'entretien:
Heure du début de l'entretien:
Nom de l'enquêteur:

Nom de Région:
□ Bandiagara
□ Douentza

Nom du CAP:
□ Bandiagara
□ Bankass
□ Kendie
□ Sangha
□ Douentza
□ Koro
□ Madougou

Nom de Commune:
Nom de L’Ecole ou CSA:
GPS:

« Nous vous invitons à participer à une enquête sur les filles de votre école. Cette enquête est réalisée
en partenariat avec le projet "Mali Girls Leadership and Empowerment through Education". Ce projet
est géré par Winrock International, en partenariat avec le gouvernement du Mali. Ce projet vise à
améliorer l'accès des filles à l'éducation.

Vous aiderez l'équipe du projet à savoir dans quelle mesure elle a aidé les filles à mieux réussir à l'école
et si les interventions ont été couronnées de succès.

La participation à l'étude ne comporte aucun risque. Si vous vous sentez mal à l'aise, vous pouvez le faire
savoir à l'évaluateur qui interrompra l'enquête.

La participation à cette étude est entièrement volontaire. Les résultats de la recherche seront
communiqués au ministère de l'éducation et à d'autres parties prenantes. Votre nom ne sera pas associé
aux résultats. Les résultats seront compilés à partir de tous les répondants et rédigés dans un rapport
destiné à l'ensemble des participants, de sorte que personne ne pourra connaître votre opinion en
particulier.

Si vous acceptez de participer à cette recherche, veuillez dire oui. »

□ Oui
□ Non

95
Sexe du répondant
□ Homme
□ Femme

Rôle ou position du répondant

□ Directeur
□ Enseignant

INVENTAIRE DE L'HYGIENE—LAVAGE DES MAINS

Faites le tour de l'école avec le répondant et notez les réponses suivantes.

L'école dispose-t-elle d'installations pour se laver les mains ?

□ Oui
□ Non

De quels types d'installations pour se laver les mains l'école dispose-t-elle ?

□ Eau courante d'un système de canalisation ou d'un réservoir (robinet et lavabo, réservoir d'eau
de pluie avec robinet, seau à robinet)
□ Système de versement manuel (ex. seau ou louche)
□ Bassine/ Seau (lavage de mains fait dans l'eau sans eau courante et sans versement)
□ Autre

Combien y a-t-il d'installations pour le lavage des mains ?

Y a-t-il des installations pour le lavage des mains à moins de 10 mètres des latrines ?
□ Oui
□ Non

Au moment de la visite, de l'eau était-elle disponible pour se laver les mains au niveau de ces
installations ?
(Visitez l'ensemble des installations pour le lavage des mains au sein de l'école)

□ Oui, dans toutes les installations visitées

□ Oui, dans plus de 50% des installations visités
□ Oui, mais dans seulement 50% ou moins des installations visitées
□ Non, aucun dans les installations visitées
□ Pas en mesure d'observer

Au moment de la visite, y avait-il du savon ou des cendres pour se laver les mains au niveau de ces
installations ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 96

(Visitez l'ensemble des installations pour le lavage des mains au sein de l'école)

□ Oui, dans toutes les installations visitées

□ Oui, dans plus de 50% des installations visités
□ Oui, mais dans seulement 50% ou moins des installations visitées
□ Non, aucun dans les installations visitées
□ Pas en mesure d'observer

Les installations pour le lavage des mains sont accessibles aux enfants handicapés ?
(Le savon (ou les cendres) et l'eau pouvaient être atteints)
□ Oui
□ Non

Les installations pour le lavage des mains sont-elles accessibles aux enfants plus jeunes ?
(Le savon (ou les cendres) et l'eau pouvaient être atteints)
□ Oui
□ Non

Les installations pour le lavage des mains montrent-elles des signes d'utilisation ?
□ Oui
□ Non

Si les installations pour le lavage des mains portent le nom d'un partenaire, quel partenaire a fourni cette
installation ?
□ Un autre projet de l'USAID
□ L'UNICEF
□ L'Union européenne
□ Une autre organisation internationale partenaire
□ Une autre organisation nationale partenaire
□ Les installations ne portent aucun nom de partenaire

Entretien d'hygiène
Posez au répondant les questions suivantes :

Votre école dispense-t-elle des cours d'hygiène à tous les élèves ?

□ Oui
□ Non

Les sessions suivantes ont-elles été dispensés à votre école pour tous les élèves ...

97
 Oui Non

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur l’éducation ☐ ☐

des filles ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur les ☐ ☐

violences basées sur le genre ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur la sécurité ☐ ☐

scolaire ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur la santé de ☐ ☐

la reproduction (sida, IST) ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur le ☐ ☐

COVID-19 ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur le Planning ☐ ☐

Familial (PF) ?

sessions de communication/sensibilisation sur le mariage ☐ ☐

forcé/précoce ?

Votre école dispense-t-elle des sessions d'orientation sur l'hygiène menstruelle ?

□ Oui
□ Non

Si oui, qui dispense des sessions ?

□ Pair éducateur
□ Grand-mère
□ Mentors
□ Jeune Ambassadeur
□ Agents de Santé

Si oui, quand a eu lieu la dernière session ?

□ Ce mois-ci
□ Cette année scolaire
□ L'année scolaire précédente

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 98

 □ Ne sait pas
□ Refuse de répondre/pas de réponse

Selon vous, les filles sont-elles intéressées à participer activement à ces sessions ?
□ Oui
□ Non

Votre école a-t-elle une personne ou une agence responsable de l'hygiène ?

□ Oui
□ Non

Le budget de votre école comporte-t-il des fonds en matière d'hygiène ?

□ Oui
□ Non

Le plan d'action du comité de gestion de votre établissement comporte-t-il un budget en matière

d'hygiène ?
□ Oui
□ Non

« Merci beaucoup d'avoir répondu à nos questions. Nous avons terminé avec toutes nos questions. Est-
ce que vous avez des questions ou commentaires pour nous ? »

QUALITATIVE TOOLS
GUIDE FGD: ADOLESCENTES
Type d’activité : FGD Adolescentes

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Etablissement scolaire : ☐ École primaire
☐ École secondaire
☐ Centre de Scolarisation Accélérée (CSA)

Nom de l’établissement scolaire :

__________________________________
Facilitateur :

99
 Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Note au Faciliateur:
Pour rappel, ce document est un guide et non un script (à l’exception de la section d’introduction et
consentement, au-dessous, qui doit être lue mot à mot).

Parlez librement avec les filles et posez des questions complémentaires si nécessaire. Vous devez également
permettre aux filles de poser des questions de suivi et diriger la conversation autant que possible.

Activité [5 minutes]
Facilitateur : Introduisez l’activité

Choisissez une activité brève qui permet aux participants d'interagir les uns avec les autres. Référez-vous au
guide pour des suggestions des activités

Introduction et Consentement [5 minutes]

A lire à haute voix mot à mot aux participants :

Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en œuvre
et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser quelques
questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas personnellement
rémunéré en participant à cette discussion. Cependant, vos réponses seront très bénéfiques dans la
compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.

La discussion devrait durer environ 3 heures. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne, à
l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd’hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et tu as toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une question si
vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question suivante. Mais si vous
répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement. Il n’y a pas de bonne

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 100

ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue des bénéficiaires du
projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout moment.

Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?

 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.

 Si NON, continuez.

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cette discussion ?

☐ OUI -> continuezet marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord.

☐ NON-> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐OUI -> marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord et commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu
le consentement.
☐NON -> si tous les participants ne sont pas d’accord, confirmez avec eux que vous n'enregistrerez pas la
conversation et poursuivrez l’activité sans activer l'enregistrement audio.

Preneur de notes : Commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir fini l’activité.

Introduction
Ne lisez pas l’introduction. Expliquez naturellement sur un ton conversationnel sans regarder le texte afin de
créer un bon rapport avec les participantes. Soyez prêt à paraphraser si les participantes ne comprennent pas
quelque chose.

Facilitateur : Nous vous remercions de votre temps et de votre participation aujourd'hui. Nous sommes
impatients de connaître vos expériences avec le projet GLEE. Nous vous encourageons à être honnêtes
et ouverts sur vos expériences, qu'elles soient positives ou négatives. Nous vous écouterons, vous
traiterons avec respect et garderons vos noms confidentiels en dehors de ce groupe. Nous vous
demandons de faire de même avec vos pairs dans ce groupe aujourd'hui.

Nous aimerions commencer par décrire le déroulement de la discussion d'aujourd'hui. L'objectif global de
notre conversation d'aujourd'hui est de répondre ensemble à la question « Depuis que le projet GLEE
a débuté dans votre communauté, quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie
liée au projet GLEE ? » (Écrivez-la au tableau).

101
Cette activité se déroulera en deux parties. Pour la première partie, nous vous donnons un peu de temps
pour réfléchir tranquillement à cette question et identifier une histoire que vous aimeriez partager et qui
répond à cette question. Il peut s'agir d'une histoire positive ou négative ; n'importe quelle histoire est
acceptable tant qu'elle est liée au projet GLEE et à un changement dans votre vie. Chacun à votre tour,
vous partagerez vos histoires une à une avec le groupe.

Au fur et à mesure que vous raconterez vos histoires, nous pourrons vous poser des questions
complémentaires pour obtenir des éclaircissements ou des informations supplémentaires afin d'être sûrs
d'avoir bien compris. J'encourage chacune d'entre vous à écouter les histoires des autres filles, car vous
pourrez également poser des questions une fois que la personne aura fini de raconter son histoire.
N'interrompez pas vos camarades pendant qu'elles parlent et n'oubliez pas de vous traiter mutuellement
avec respect.

Une fois que toutes les histoires auront été racontées, nous ferons une pause, puis nous reviendrons en
groupe. Dans la deuxième partie de l'activité, nous choisirons ensemble une histoire qui, selon vous,
représente le mieux votre expérience du projet GLEE. Cela ne signifie pas qu'une histoire est meilleure
qu'une autre ou qu'elle est plus positive que les autres. Nous essayons de trouver l'histoire qui, selon toi,
reflète le plus fidèlement votre expérience et pourquoi, même s'il ne s'agit pas de ta propre histoire. Cela
se fera par le biais d'une discussion de groupe. Encore une fois, nous souhaitons que vous soyez ouvertes,
honnêtes et respectueuses de vos pairs alors que vous prenez une décision ensemble.

En tant qu'animatrice, je vous guiderai à travers les différentes étapes de l'activité, mais ce processus est
largement guidé par vous en tant que participants, car nous voulons entendre ce qui est important pour
vous. Le preneur de notes notera vos histoires et la discussion qui les entoure afin que nous puissions
tirer le maximum d'enseignements de ce que vous partagez.

Êtes-vous tous prêts à commencer ? Avez-vous des questions à nous poser ?

Notes :
1. Questions/clarifications posées par les filles :

[Ajoutez vos notes ici]

2. Préoccupations soulevées par les filles :

[Ajoutez vos notes ici]

3. Observations faites au cours de cette introduction:

[Ajoutez vos notes ici]

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 102

Participation aux Activites du Projet GLEE [10-15 minutes]
Facilitateur : Avant que nous partagent nos histoires, nous allons d’abord discuter un peu des activités
à laquelle vous auriez pu participer du projet GLEE.

Demandez à chaque participant les questions suivantes : Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votre
implication avec GLEE ? Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuis le début du projet ? Si
les filles ne se rappellent certaines activités, mentionnez certaines activités du projet—sessions de communication
et sensibilisation animés par des pairs éducateurs, des jeunes ambassadeurs, et des autres ; l’utilisation des boîtes
de suggestions ; l’approvisionnement des actes de naissance ; la fabrication de serviettes hygiéniques
Notes :
a. Répondant #1
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votreimplication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuisle début du
projet ?

b. Répondant #2
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votreimplication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuisle début du
projet?

c. Répondant #3
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votre implication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuis le début du
projet ?

d. Répondant #4
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votre implication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuis le début du
projet?

e. Répondant #5
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votre implication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuis le début du
projet?

f. Répondant #6
i. Peux-tu nous indiquer comment a commencé votre implication avec GLEE ?
Quelles sont les activités GLEE auxquelles tu as participé depuis le début du
projet?

La question clé
[10 minutes]
Facilitateur: Expliquez aux participants que vous allez leur donner 5 minutes pour réfléchir sur la question clé.
Rappelez-leur la question :

103
 Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté, quel a été le changement
le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

Discutez avec les participants sur ce qu’elles entendent par le mot « significatif » ?[Encouragez plusieurs
réponses de la part des participants.]

Mettez l’emphase sur le point suivant :

Le mot « significatif » désignequelque chose notable ou quelque chose de profonde. Ça ne doit
forcément dire le meilleur ou quelque chose de positive : toutes sortes de changements pourraient être
significatives. Ce qui a un sens significatif pour une personne n’a pas forcément le même sens pour une
autre : c’est un concept personnel.

Passez en revue la participation des filles mentionnée à l'étape précédente et précisez que si elles ont participé à
d'autres éléments du programme, elles peuvent également inclure les changements qui ont pu en
résulter.Donnez les participants 5 minutes pour réfléchir

Le cercle de parole (1.5 h duree)

Facilitateur : Invitez aux participants de partager leurs histoires. Tour à tour, les participants raconteront leurs
histoires.
Si vous avez besoin d'approfondir l'histoire racontée, vous pouvez poser des questions et demander des
précisions si nécessaire. Pour les suggestions, référez-vous à la fiche de révision pour les facilitateurs.
Notes :
a. Répondant #1
i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

b. Répondant #2
i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

c. Répondant #3
i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

d. Répondant #4

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 104

 i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

e. Répondant #5
i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

f. Répondant #6
i. [La question clé] : Depuis que le projet GLEE a débuté dans ta communauté,
quel a été le changement le plus significatif dans ta vie liée au projet GLEE ?

ii. Questions de suivi (le cas échéant)

Observations générales pendant le cercle de parole:

Facilitateur : Remerciez les participants d’avoir partagé leurs histoires.

--- Prenez une pause de 10 minutes ---

Processus de selection (1h duree)

Introduction au processus de sélection : Le texte qui se trouve au-dessous est un exemple et ne doit pas
servir de script.
Le facilitateur : Je vais maintenant vous demander de travailler ensemble pour choisir une histoire qui,
selon vous, représente le changement le plus important. Pour rappel, cela ne signifie pas qu'une histoire
est meilleure qu'une autre ou qu'elle est plus positive que les autres. Nous essayons de trouver l'histoire
qui vous semble la plus significative et pourquoi.
Pour commencer, je vous demanderai de choisir, une à une, l'histoire qui, selon vous, représente le
changement le plus important et d'expliquer pourquoi. Pour vous aider à choisir, l'histoire doit
représenter le plus grand nombre possible des critères que nous avons définis. Il est très utile de savoir
pourquoi vous avez pensé que cette histoire était la bonne pour vous. Une fois que nous aurons
entendu chacun d'entre vous, nous examinerons les histoires qui ont été nominées. Nous procéderons
ensuite au même processus de sélection, mais en ne retenant que les histoires sélectionnées lors du
premier tour. Nous poursuivrons ce processus jusqu'à ce que tout le monde se mette d'accord sur une
histoire.
Il s'agit d'une discussion ouverte entre vous tous. Nous vous encourageons à poser des questions aux
autres participants tout au long de cette partie. Comme précédemment, nous souhaitons que vous
soyez ouverts, honnêtes et respectueux de vos pairs au cours de cette discussion.

105
Êtes-vous tous prêtes à commencer ? Avez-vous des questions à nous poser ?
Répondez aux questions, s’il y en a.

Récapitulation et intitulations des histoires

Rappelez le résumé de chaque histoire et les changements opérés là-dedans (10 minutes). Avec les participants,
donnez les titres aux histoires et les écrivez (avec le nom du participant à laquelle elle appartient) au tableau de
conférence pour mieux les identifier plus tard. Si c'est plus facile, vous pouvez aussi décider de numéroter les
histoires - "Histoire 1", "Histoire 2", etc. si les filles sont capables de se souvenir suffisamment pour faire la
différence entre chaque histoire.

Notes :

Titre de l’histoire de répondant #1: Titre de l’histoire de répondant #4 :

___________________________________ __________________________________

Titre de l’histoire de répondant #2 : Titre de l’histoire de répondant #5 :

____________________________________ __________________________________

Titre de l’histoire de répondant #3 : Titre de l’histoire de répondant #6 :

____________________________________ __________________________________

1. Questions/clarifications posées par les filles :

2. Préoccupations soulevées par les filles :

3. Observations faites au cours de cette étape:

Nominations, 1er cycle :

Facilitateur : Tour à tour, chaque personne désignera l'histoire qui, selon elle, représente le changement le
plus important, en expliquant pourquoi elle l'a choisie. Rappelez aux participants qu’elles peuvent proposer leur
propre histoire.

a. Répondant #1 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

b. Répondant #2 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

c. Répondant #3 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

d. Répondant #4 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

e. Répondant #5 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 106

 f. Répondant #6 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

Notes sur la discussion du 1er cycle :

Observations générales du 1er cycle :

Histoires nominées au 1er cycle:

Preneur de notes : Cochez toutes les cases des histoires nominées et précisez ces titres. Pour les histoires qui
n'ont pas été choisies, vous pouvez laisser leurs lignes vides.

L’histoire de: ___________________________________

107
 ☐Répondant #1 ☐Répondant #4
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #2 ☐Répondant #5
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #3 ☐Répondant #6
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : _________________________

Vérification des critères :

Facilitateur : Remerciez les participants d’avoir partagé leurs recommandations et leurs critères. Demandez-
leur de décider si la liste de sélection que vous avez écrit sur le tableau de conférence peut servir de critères
communs pour sélectionner une histoire qui représente le changement le plus significatif.
S’il y a d’autres critères que les participants veulent ajouter, discutez-les avec le groupe et ajoutez-les a la liste
s’ils sont jugés pertinents par le groupe. Les raisons sont personnelles et subjectives, mais les critères sont
objectifs. Si nécessaire, il peut s'avérer nécessaire de reformuler les raisons en critères plus objectifs et de les
inscrire sur une liste séparée à afficher lors des tours de scrutin.
Expliquez également à ce stade que la liste de critères représente les valeurs du groupe, et non d'une seule
personne. Cette étape vise à considérer le groupe dans son ensemble afin de représenter au mieux son
expérience et ses valeurs collectives.

Nominations, 2eme cycle :

Facilitateur : Donnez les noms des histoires nominées dans le premier cycle et demandez aux participants de
nominer une histoire qui représente le changement le plus significatif selon les critères convenus.

Procédez au même processus de sélection, mais en ne retenant que les histoires sélectionnées lors du premier tour.

a. Répondant #1 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

b. Répondant #2 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

c. Répondant #3 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

d. Répondant #4 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

e. Répondant #5 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 108

 f. Répondant #6 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

Notes sur la discussion du2eme cycle :

Observations générales du 2eme cycle :

Histoires nominées au 2eme cycle:

Cochez toutes les cases des histoires nominées dans le deuxième tour et précisez ces titres. Pour les histoires qui
n'ont pas été choisies, vous pouvez laisser leurs lignes vides.

☐Répondant #1 ☐Répondant #4
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #2 ☐Répondant #5
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #3 ☐Répondant #6
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : _________________________

Notes sur la discussion du 2ème cycle :

Observations générales du 2ème cycle :

Nominations, 3ème cycle :

Remerciez les participants et leur donner les noms des histoires nominées UNIQUEMENT dans le deuxième
cycle. [Normalement il doit y avoir moins d’histoires nominées afin de commencer à réduire la liste jusqu’à qu’il
reste une histoire finale choisie par le groupe].

Faire des tours de nomination jusqu’à qu’il reste une histoire finale choisie par le groupe.
a. Répondant #1 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

b. Répondant #2 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

c. Répondant #3 – histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

d. Répondant #4 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

109
 e. Répondant #5 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

f. Répondant #6 – Histoire nominée et les critères identifiés

Histoires nominées au 3eme cycle:

Cochez toutes les cases des histoires nominées dans le troisième tour et précisez ces titres. Pour les histoires qui
n'ont pas été choisies, vous pouvez laisser leurs lignes vides.

L’histoire de:

☐Répondant #1 ☐Répondant #4
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #2 ☐Répondant #5
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #3 ☐Répondant #6
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : _________________________

Notes sur la discussion du3eme cycle :

Observations générales du 3eme cycle :

Répétez le processus jusqu’à ce qu’il y ait une histoire sélectionnée par le groupe entier. S’il n’y a pas de
consensus au cours de plusieurs cycles, vous pouvez donner aux participants l’option d’en choisir deux.

Preneur de notes : S'il faudrait plus de 3 tours de vote/sélection, copiez et collez le format des notes des tours
précédents lors de la finalisation de vos notes de terrain.

Histoire du changement le plus significatif:

Sélectionnée par le groupe entier

L’histoire de: ________________________________________________________

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 110

 ☐Répondant #1 ☐Répondant #4
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #2 ☐Répondant #5
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : ___________________________

☐Répondant #3 ☐Répondant #6
Titre : ___________________________ Titre : _________________________

Conclusion
Remerciez les participants et leur rappelez que les histoires et la discussion resteront anonymes en dehors du
groupe. Demandez-leur également de ne pas partager ce que vous avez discuté en groupe avec les autres pour
que les informations restent confidentielles.
Demandez si elles ont des questions ou autre chose à partager.
Partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin.

111
GUIDE FGD: ENSEIGNANTS
Type d’activité : FGD Enseignants

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Etablissement scolaire : ☐ École primaire
☐ École secondaire
Nom de l’établissement :
_____________________________________
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et l’USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles
à travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les
écoles. Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise
en œuvre et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets avenir.
La discussion devrait durer environ 1 heure 30 minutes. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec
personne, à l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre
toutes les informations que vous fournissez aujourd'hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et
prendre des notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre
à une question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 112

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cette discussion ?
☐ OUI -> continuez et marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord et commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu
le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Liste de presence

# AGE GENRE ROLE OU IMPLICATION AU PROGRAMME GLEE

Questions de discussion
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.
1. Dans quelle classe enseignez-vous ?

2. Depuis combien d’années êtes-vous enseignant(e) dans cette école ?

3. Quels types d'activités le projet a-t-il mis en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

4. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées
par les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont les
activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

113
 6. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

8. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

9. Avez-vous participé aux formations du projet GLEE pour les enseignant(e)s ? Si oui, pouvez-vous
décrire votre expérience avec ces sessions ?

10. Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples sur la manière dont vous mettez en pratique ce que
vous avez appris ?

11. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

12. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent cette
école/CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ? Pouvez-
vous nous donner des exemples de ces changements ?

13. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

14. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

15. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

16. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

17. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 114

 des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

18. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la
continuation des activités ?

19. Est-ce que l'école de votre communauté dispose d'un système permettant de signaler les
incidents de violence sexuelle et de les référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si
nécessaire : boîtes à incidents, système d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?
Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

a. Si oui, quel est votre rôle dans ce système qui permet de signaler de tels incidents ?
Veuillez donner des exemples. Si oui, pensez-vous que ce système a permis aux filles de
se sentir plus en sécurité à l'école ? Pourquoi ?
b. Si non, quels sont les obstacles qui ont empêché les filles et d'autres personnes d'utiliser
ce système ?

20. Quelles activités du projet impliquant des centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans votre
communauté ? Ces activités ont-elles permis à un plus grand nombre d'adolescentes de
fréquenter le centre de santé pour leurs besoins en matière de santé de reproduction et de
planification familiale ? Pourquoi ?

21. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

22. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

115
GUIDE FGD: MEMBRES DES CGS
Type d’activité : FGD Membres de CGS

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Etablissement scolaire : ☐ École primaire
☐ École secondaire
Nom de l’établissement : ____________________________
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en
œuvre et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.

La discussion devrait durer environ 1 heure 30 minutes. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec
personne, à l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre
toutes les informations que vous fournissez aujourd'hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et
prendre des notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre
à une question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 116

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cette discussion ?
☐ OUI -> continuez et marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord et commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu
le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Liste de presence

# AGE GENRE ROLE OU IMPLICATION AU PROGRAMME GLEE

Questions de discussion
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.
1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle au sein du CGS/APE/AME? Depuis quand êtes-vous
membre du CGS/APE/AME?

2. Quels types d'activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées
par les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont les
activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.
117
 6. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

8. Avez-vous participé aux formations du projet GLEE pour les membres de CGS/APE/AME ? Si
oui, pouvez-vous nous décrire votre expérience avec ces sessions ? Pouvez-vous nous donner
des exemples des activités mises en place dans l’école ou dans la communauté suite aux
formations ?

9. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

10. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent
cette école/CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ?
Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples des changements ?

11. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

12. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

13. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

14. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

15. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez
des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 118

 16. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la
continuation des activités ?

17. Est-ce que l'école de votre communauté dispose d'un système permettant de signaler les
incidents de violence sexuelle et de les référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si
nécessaire : boîtes à incidents, système d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?
Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

a. Si oui, quel est votre rôle dans ce système qui permet de signaler de tels incidents ?
Veuillez donner des exemples. Si oui, pensez-vous que ce système a permis aux filles de
se sentir plus en sécurité à l'école ? Pourquoi ?

b. Si non, quels sont les obstacles qui ont empêché les filles et d'autres personnes d'utiliser
ce système ?

18. Quelles activités du projet impliquant des centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans votre
communauté ? Ces activités ont-elles permis à un plus grand nombre d'adolescentes de
fréquenter le centre de santé pour leurs besoins en matière de santé de la reproduction et de
planification familiale ? Pourquoi ?

19. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

20. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

GUIDE FGD: JEUNES ACTEURS

(Mentors GLEE, Jeunes ambassadeurs, mentors et éducateurs pairs)

Type d’activité : FGD Jeunes acteurs

119
 Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :

Village :

Etablissement scolaire : ☐ École primaire

☐ École secondaire
☐ Centre de Scolarisation Accélérée (CSA)

Nom de l’établissement : ____________________________

Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heu e fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en œuvre
et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser quelques
questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas personnellement
rémunéré en participant à cette discussion. Cependant, vos réponses seront très bénéfiques dans la
compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 120

La discussion devrait durer environ 1 heure 30 minutes. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne,
à l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd’hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une question
si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question suivante. Mais si
vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement. Il n’y a pas de
bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue des bénéficiaires
du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout moment. Avez-vous
des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?

 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.

 Si NON, continuez.

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cette discussion ?

☐ OUI -> continuez et marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord.

☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord et commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu
le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Liste de presence

# AGE GENRE ROLE OU IMPLICATION AU PROGRAMME GLEE

121
Questions de discussion
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.

1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle dans le projet ? Depuis quand jouez-vous ce rôle ?

2. Quels types d'activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Pensez-vous que le projet a réduit les difficultés rencontrées par les filles pour accéder et se
maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles activités ont le plus aidé les filles ?
Donnez des exemples.

5. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles activités ont le
moins aidé les filles ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi.

6. Quelques activités pourraient-on mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Et maintenir les élèves à l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

7. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

8. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent
cette école/CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ?
Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples de ces changements ?

9. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

10. Selon vous, depuis la présence du projet GLEE, les parents acceptent-ils plus facilement de
laisser les filles aller à l’école ? Avez-vous le sentiment que vos parents font plus attention à
votre sécurité ? Si oui, que font-ils ?

11. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 122

 12. Qu’est ce que le projet GLEE pourrait faire pour vous aider à continuer vos activités à son
absence ?

13. A KAYES: Quelles activités continuez-vous à mener après la fin du projet GLEE ?

14. Quelles sont les activités du projet GLEE que vous ne faites plus depuis la fin du projet ?

15. Envisagez-vous de continuer les activités que vous facilitiez en tant que Jeune Ambassadeur,
Mentor GLEE, etc. à la fin du projet ?

16. Votre école dispose-t-elle d'un système permettant de signaler les violences sexuelles et de les
référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si nécessaire : boîtes à incidents, système
d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?

a. Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

b. Si non, quelles sont les obstacles empêchant les filles à utiliser ce système ?

17. Quelle activité du projet GLEE impliquant les centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans
votre communauté ? Ces activités ont-ils conduits plus d’adolescentes à rechercher des soins de
santé reproductive ou des services de planification familiale ? Pourquoi/Pourquoi pas ?

18. Que peut-on faire pour améliorer le type d’activité dont vous avez la charge ?

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

GUIDE FGD: GRAND-MERES

Type d’activité : FGD Grand-mères

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Etablissement scolaire : ☐ École primaire
☐ École secondaire

123
 ☐ Centre de Scolarisation Accélérée (CSA)
Nom de l’établissement : ____________________________
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en œuvre
et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser quelques
questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas personnellement
rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très bénéfiques dans la
compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.
La discussion devrait durer environ 1 heure 30 minutes. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne,
à l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd'hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une question
si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question suivante. Mais si
vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement. Il n’y a pas de
bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue des bénéficiaires
du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout moment. Avez-vous
des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cette discussion ?

☐ OUI -> continuez et marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> marquez si tous les participants sont d'accord et commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu
le consentement.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 124

☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Liste de presence

# AGE GENRE ROLE OU IMPLICATION AU PROGRAMME GLEE

Questions de discussion
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.

1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle au sein du projet en qualité de grand-mère ? Depuis quand
jouez-vous ce rôle ?

2. Avez-vous participé aux formations du projet GLEE pour les grand-mères ? Si oui, pouvez-vous
nous décrire votre expérience avec ces sessions ?

3. Quelles ont-été les thématiques abordées pendant la formation ? Pouvez-vous nous donner des
exemples des activités mises en place dans l’école ou dans la communauté suite aux formations ?

4. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de votre
communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées par
les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont les
activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

6. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

125
 8. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

9. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

10. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent cette
école/CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ? Pouvez-
vous nous donner des exemples de ces changements ?

11. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

12. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de l'éducation
des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces changements?

13. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

14. Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la continuation de ces activités après la fin du
projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous pensez, précisez les possibilités.

15. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez
des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

16. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la continuation
des activités ?

17. Envisagez-vous de poursuivre les activités que vous avez animées dans le cadre du projet GLEE
une fois le projet terminé ?

18. Est-ce que l'école de votre communauté dispose d'un système permettant de signaler les incidents
de violence sexuelle et de les référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si nécessaire :
boîtes à incidents, système d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?
a. Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 126

 b. Si oui, quel est votre rôle dans ce système qui permet de signaler de tels incidents ?
Veuillez donner des exemples.

c. Si oui, pensez-vous que ce système a permis aux filles de se sentir plus en sécurité à l'école
? Pourquoi ?

d. Si non, quels sont les obstacles qui ont empêché les filles et d'autres personnes d'utiliser
ce système ?

19. Quelles activités du projet impliquant des centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans votre
communauté ? Ces activités ont-elles permis à un plus grand nombre d'adolescentes de
fréquenter le centre de santé pour leurs besoins en matière de santé de reproduction et de
planification familiale ? Pourquoi ?

20. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

21. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

127
PROTOCOLE KII: DIRECTEUR D’ECOLE
Type d’activité : KII Directeur/trice d’école Sexe du participant :
☐ Femme ☐Homme

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Nom de l’établissement École primaire
scolaire :
École secondaire
Nom : _____________________________________
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l’accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en
œuvre et l’impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.
L’entretien devrait durer environ 1 heure. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne, à
l’exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd’hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une
question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 128

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cet entretien ?
☐ OUI -> continuez.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Questions d'entretien
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.
1. Depuis combien d’années êtes-vous directeur/directrice dans cette école ? Êtes-vous également
enseignant(e) dans l’école ?

2. Quels types d'activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées
par les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont les
activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.

6. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

8. Avez-vous participé aux formations du projet GLEE pour les enseignant(e)s et les
directeurs/trices ? Si oui, pouvez-vous nous décrire votre expérience avec ces sessions ?
Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples sur la manière dont vous mettez en pratique ce que
vous avez appris ?

129
 9. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

10. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent
l’école ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ? Pouvez-
vous nous donner des exemples des changements ?

11. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l’accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

12. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

13. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

14. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

15. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez
des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

16. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la
continuation des activités ?

17. Est-ce que l'école de votre communauté dispose d'un système permettant de signaler les
incidents de violence sexuelle et de les référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si
nécessaire : boîtes à incidents, système d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?
Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

a. Si oui, quel est votre rôle dans ce système qui permet de signaler de tels incidents ?
Veuillez donner des exemples. Si oui, pensez-vous que ce système a permis aux filles de
se sentir plus en sécurité à l'école ? Pourquoi ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 130

 b. Si non, quels sont les obstacles qui ont empêché les filles et d'autres personnes d'utiliser
ce système ?

18. Quelles activités du projet impliquant des centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans votre
communauté ? Ces activités ont-elles permis à un plus grand nombre d'adolescentes de
fréquenter le centre de santé pour leurs besoins en matière de santé de reproduction et de
planification familiale ? Pourquoi ?

19. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

20. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ? Nous
vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin.

131
PROTOCOLE KII: ANIMATEUR DE CSA
Type d’activité : KII Animateur de CSA Sexe du participant :
☐ Femme ☐Homme

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Etablissement scolaire : ☐ Centre de Scolarisation Accélérée (CSA)
Nom : _____________________________________
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et Heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l’accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en
œuvre et l’impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.
L’entretien devrait durer environ 1 heure. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne, à
l’exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd’hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une
question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cet entretien ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 132

☐ OUI -> continuez.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistreur
audio.

Questions d'entretien
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.

1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle dans le projet ? Depuis quand jouez-vous ce rôle ?

2. Quels types d’activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées
par les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l’école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont
les activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.

6. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

8. Avez-vous participé aux formations du projet GLEE ? Si oui, pouvez-vous nous décrire votre
expérience avec ces sessions ? Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples sur la manière dont vous
mettez en pratique ce que vous avez appris ?

133
 9. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

10. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent le
CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l’hygiène menstruelle ? Pouvez-
vous nous donner des exemples des changements ?

11. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l’accès à l’éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

12. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

13. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

14. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

15. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez
des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

16. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la
continuation des activités ?

17. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

18. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j’ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 134

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

135
PROTOCOLE KII : FONCTIONNAIRES ET DIRIGEANTS COMMUNAUTAIRES
Type d’activité : KII : Fonctionnaires et dirigeants Poste du participant :
communautaires
____________________________
Sexe du participant :
☐ Femme ☐Homme

Région : ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune :
Village :
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et heure fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l'accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en
œuvre et l'impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.
L’entretien devrait durer environ 1 heure. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne, à
l'exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd'hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une
question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cet entretien ?

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 136

☐ OUI -> continuez.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Questions d'entretien
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.

1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle dans la communauté / l’administration ?

2. Quels types d'activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Pensez-vous que le projet a été efficace pour réduire ou supprimer les difficultés rencontrées
par les filles pour accéder et se maintenir à l'école ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Quelles sont les
activités les plus efficaces ? Donnez des exemples.

5. Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Veuillez donner des exemples d’activités et expliquer pourquoi vous ne les
trouvez pas efficaces.

6. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour améliorer le passage entre le CSA et
l’école ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

7. Est-ce qu’il y a quelques activités que des écoles, la communauté ou des autres
organisations/partenaires auraient pu mettre en place pour augmenter le nombre des élèves qui
continuent après avoir fréquenté le CSA ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des exemples.

8. Selon vous, est-ce que les écoles sont maintenant plus sûres grâce au projet GLEE ? Si oui,
comment ? Est-ce qu’il y a des barrières additionnelles à cause de la situation sécuritaire dans la
région ?

9. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent les
écoles/CSA soutenus par le projet GLEE ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH
et l'hygiène menstruelle ? Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples des changements ?

137
 10. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas?

11. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

12. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,
selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet ? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

13. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

14. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les
composantes ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez
des exemples. Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui,
comment y avez-vous répondu ?

15. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la
continuation des activités ?

16. Est-ce que l'école de votre communauté dispose d'un système permettant de signaler les
incidents de violence sexuelle et de les référer aux acteurs/autorités compétents (demandez si
nécessaire : boîtes à incidents, système d'orientation en matière de violence sexuelle à l’école) ?
Si oui, est-ce les filles et les autres utilisent ce système pour signaler les incidents ?

a. Si oui, quel est votre rôle dans ce système qui permet de signaler de tels incidents ?
Veuillez donner des exemples. Si oui, pensez-vous que ce système a permis aux filles de
se sentir plus en sécurité à l'école ? Pourquoi ?

b. Si non, quels sont les obstacles qui ont empêché les filles et d'autres personnes d'utiliser
ce système ?

17. Quelles activités du projet impliquant des centres de santé ont été mises en œuvre dans votre
communauté ? Ces activités ont-elles permis à un plus grand nombre d'adolescentes de

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 138

 fréquenter le centre de santé pour leurs besoins en matière de santé de la reproduction et de
planification familiale ? Pourquoi ?

18. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

19. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?
Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

139
PROTOCOLE KII: PERSONNEL DE SANTE
Type d’activité : KII Personnel de santé Poste du participant :
__________________________
Sexe du participant :
☐ Femme ☐Homme

Région ☐ Kayes ☐ Bandiagara ☐ Douentza

Commune
Village :
Nom du centre de santé :
Facilitateur :

Preneur de notes :

Date :

Heure début et fin :

Introduction et Consentement
Bonjour, nous nous appelons ___________ et ___________. Nous travaillons avec le Centre d’Étude
et de Recherche sur l’Information en Population et Santé (CERIPS). Comme vous savez, Winrock
International (WI) et USAID mettent en œuvre le projet Leadership et autonomisation des jeunes filles à
travers l’éducation (GLEE) au Mali qui travaille à favoriser l’accès et le maintien des filles dans les écoles.
Nous procédons actuellement à un examen du projet pour en apprendre davantage sur la mise en
œuvre et l’impact à ce jour et pour explorer la durabilité du projet. Nous aimerions vous poser
quelques questions sur vos expériences, perceptions et recommandations. Vous ne serez pas
personnellement rémunéré en participant à cet entretien. Cependant, vos réponses seront très
bénéfiques dans la compréhension des stratégies à adopter pour améliorer les projets à l'avenir.
L’entretien devrait durer environ 1 heure. Nous ne partagerons les réponses avec personne, à
l’exception des personnes travaillant directement à évaluer ce projet. Pour mieux suivre toutes les
informations que vous fournissez aujourd’hui, nous allons enregistrer cette discussion et prendre des
notes. Votre participation est volontaire et vous avez toujours le choix de ne pas répondre à une
question si vous ne le souhaitez pas. Informez-nous simplement, et nous passerons à la question
suivante. Mais si vous répondez, on vous encourage à prendre votre temps et à répondre honnêtement.
Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse, nous voulons simplement comprendre les points de vue
des bénéficiaires du projet GLEE. Vous pouvez mettre fin à votre participation à la discussion à tout
moment. Avez-vous des questions concernant ce que je viens de mentionner ?
 Si OUI, répondez à toutes les questions des participants et continuez.
 Si NON, continuez.

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 140

Avons-nous votre accord pour participer volontairement à cet entretien ?
☐ OUI -> continuez.
☐ NON -> les remercier pour leur temps, faites une note qu’il / elle ne voulait pas participer.

Avons-nous votre permission d’enregistrer l’entretien avec notre enregistreur audio ?

☐ OUI -> commencez l'enregistrement audio après avoir reçu le consentement.
☐ NON -> confirmez que vous n'enregistrerez pas la conversation et poursuivrez sans activer l'enregistrement
audio.

Questions d'entretien
Nous allons commencer en parlant de votre expérience avec le projet GLEE et des activités spécifiques
du projet.

1. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer votre rôle dans le centre de santé ?

2. Quels types d’activités le projet met-il en œuvre et à quelles activités avez-vous participé ?

3. Pensez-vous que le projet et ses activités ont répondu aux besoins des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Pourquoi ou pourquoi pas ? Donnez des exemples.

4. Quel est l’appui du projet GLEE pour améliorer les pratiques de la santé des filles adolescentes ?
Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet, quelles sont les activités les plus efficaces ? Pourquoi ?
Selon vous, parmi les activités du projet que vous avez mentionnées, quelles sont les activités les
moins efficaces ? Pourquoi ?

5. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent
cette école/CSA ont-ils changé en ce qui concerne les activités WASH et l'hygiène menstruelle ?
Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples des changements ?

6. Pensez-vous que la COVID-19 a eu un impact sur l'accès à l'éducation des filles adolescentes de
votre communauté ? Veuillez expliquer. Quel a été le rôle du projet GLEE dans la gestion de
l'impact du COVID-19 sur l'accès à l'éducation au sein de la communauté ? Le projet GLEE a-t-il
relevé efficacement les défis posés par la COVID-19 ? Pourquoi, ou pourquoi pas ?

7. Selon vous, l'attitude de la communauté dans son ensemble a-t-elle changé à l'égard de
l'éducation des filles et de la sécurité à l'école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples de ces
changements ?

8. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à

Bandiagara et Douentza. Quels sont les composantes ou les activités spécifiques du projet qui,

141
 selon vous, ont le plus de chances de continuer après la fin du projet? Pourquoi ? Donnez des
exemples.

9. A BANDIAGARA/DOUENTZA: Que pourrait faire le projet GLEE pour permettre la

continuation de ces activités après la fin du projet ? Pour chacune des activités auxquelles vous
pensez, précisez les possibilités.

10. A KAYES: Voyons maintenant la durabilité du projet GLEE à Kayes. Quelles sont les composantes
ou activités spécifiques du projet qui ont continué depuis la fin du projet ? Donnez des exemples.
Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des défis dans le cadre de ces activités ? Si oui, comment y avez-
vous répondu ?

11. A KAYES: Quelles sont les activités qui n'ont pas été poursuivies ? Pourquoi ? Y a-t-il quelque
chose d’autre que le projet GLEE aurait pu faire avant la fin du projet pour soutenir la continuation
des activités ?

12. Envisagez-vous de poursuivre les activités que vous avez animées dans le cadre du projet GLEE
une fois le projet terminé ? Si oui, comment et avec quelle ressource ? Si non, qu’est-ce vous
empêcheriez de continuer ?

13. Selon vous, est-ce que les parents et les membres de la communauté ont changé leurs perceptions
en ce qui concerne la violence sexuelle à l’école ? Pouvez-vous donner des exemples ?

14. Selon vous, est-ce que les attitudes et les comportements des adolescentes qui fréquentent les
écoles du projet ont changé en ce qui concerne la planification familiale ? Pouvez-vous donner des
exemples des changements ?

15. Avez-vous, vous et vos collègues modifié la manière dont vous fournissez des services de
planification familiale aux adolescentes en vous appuyant sur les acquis du projet ?

16. Avez-vous des conseils sur la manière dont les futurs projets d'éducation pourraient améliorer
leurs activités pour les adolescentes ?

17. Dans l'ensemble, pouvez-vous citer un résultat inattendu du projet GLEE dans votre
communauté ? Veuillez préciser.

Conclusion
Ce sont toutes les questions que j'ai pour vous. Avez-vous des questions ou autre chose à partager ?

Nous vous remercions pour votre participation. Si vous avez la moindre question concernant cette étude,
n’hésitez pas à contacter… (partagez les coordonnées de contact aux participants en cas de besoin)

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 142

ANNEX IV: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

AWARENESS OF ASCS AND GLEE PROJECT

Table 1: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: “Were you enrolled in a GLEE ASC before attending this school?”

Age group No Yes

10/14 62.7% 37.3%

15+ 66.1% 33.9%

Total 63.3% 36.7%

Table 2: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: “Are you familiar with the GLEE project?”

Age group No Yes

10/14 11.3% 88.7%

15+ 12.0% 88.0%

Total 11.4% 88.6%

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Table 3: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Were you absent from school last week?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 84.8% 15.2%

15+ 81.4% 18.6%

Total 84.2% 15.8%

Table 4: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "How many days were you absent from school last week?"

Age group 1 2 3 4 5

10/14 34.3% 21.3% 8.1% 13.9% 22.4%

15+ 23.0% 22.8% 17.5% 6.0% 30.7%

143
 Age group 1 2 3 4 5

Total 31.9% 21.6% 10.1% 12.2% 24.2%

Table 5: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Were you enrolled in school last year?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 13.2% 86.8%

15+ 8.6% 91.4%

Total 12.3% 87.7%

Table 6: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you plan to continue school next year?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 0.1% 99.9% 0.0%

15+ 0.4% 99.3% 0.3%

Total 0.1% 99.8% 0.1%

RESPONSIBILITIES OUTSIDE SCHOOL

Table 7: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I have to work at home to help the family with household chores,
including cooking, cleaning, laundry, younger siblings, collecting water and wood, etc."

Age group No Yes

10/14 2.4% 97.6%

15+ 2.3% 97.7%

Total 2.4% 97.6%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 144

Table 8: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I have to work on the family farm or in the family business."

Age group No Yes

10/14 44.6% 55.4%

15+ 46.6% 53.4%

Total 44.9% 55.1%

Table 9: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I have to work outside of the home to earn money or get some
kind of remuneration, in order to help my family."

Age group No Yes

10/14 64.6% 35.4%

15+ 53.4% 46.6%

Total 62.6% 37.4%

Table 10: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do these responsibilities ever prevent you from studying at home
before or after school?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 79.1% 20.9%

15+ 78.4% 21.6%

Total 79.0% 21.0%

Table 11: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do these responsibilities ever prevent you from going to school or
getting there on time?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 74.0% 26.0%

15+ 73.3% 26.7%

Total 73.9% 26.1%

145
PERCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY

Table 12: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Women have the right to hold leadership positions in the
community."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 1.1% 5.8% 28.4% 64.7%

15+ 1.3% 4.8% 32.4% 61.4%

Total 1.2% 5.4% 30.0% 63.4%

Table 13: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Girls can be leaders at school."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 1.0% 4.1% 28.4% 66.5%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1.0% 4.1% 28.4% 66.5%

Table 14: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A female president can be just as effective as a male president."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 3.8% 12.4% 28.1% 55.7%

15+ 8.9% 14.1% 24.2% 52.8%

Total 4.7% 12.7% 27.4% 55.2%

Table 15: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Girls have as much right to go to school as boys."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 0.3% 3.7% 24.6% 71.5%

15+ 0.1% 3.5% 32.9% 63.4%

Total 0.2% 3.6% 26.1% 70.0%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 146

Table 16: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, most boys finish grade 6."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 0.3% 5.7% 31.2% 62.8%

15+ 0.7% 6.3% 29.0% 64.0%

Total 0.4% 5.8% 30.8% 63.0%

Table 17: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, most girls finish grade 6."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 0.6% 8.7% 33.5% 56.7% 0.6%

15+ 0.7% 4.6% 34.1% 60.5% 0.0%

Total 0.6% 7.9% 33.6% 57.4% 0.5%

Table 18: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, most boys finish grade 9."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 0.7% 7.7% 35.9% 55.7%

15+ 0.9% 7.3% 31.4% 60.4%

Total 0.7% 7.7% 35.1% 56.6%

Table 19: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, most girls finish grade 9."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 4.8% 19.7% 37.4% 38.1% 0.0%

15+ 0.5% 16.7% 32.0% 50.7% 0.0%

Total 4.0% 19.1% 36.4% 40.4% 0.0%

147
Table 20: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, boys and girls have the same opportunities to
do Cycle 1."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 0.1% 7.3% 36.0% 56.6%

15+ 0.0% 3.9% 40.5% 55.6%

Total 0.1% 6.7% 36.8% 56.5%

Table 21: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, boys and girls have the same opportunities to
do Cycle 2."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 2.9% 20.4% 39.2% 37.6%

15+ 1.8% 14.6% 42.5% 41.0%

Total 2.7% 19.3% 39.8% 38.2%

Table 22: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A young woman with a child (or children) has the right to stay in
school and continue her education.”

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 12.6% 14.4% 28.5% 44.5%

15+ 12.6% 9.3% 33.9% 44.2%

Total 12.6% 13.5% 29.5% 44.4%

Table 23: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A young man with a child (or children) has the right to stay in
school and continue his education.”

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 5.7% 7.6% 27.0% 59.8%

15+ 5.7% 4.9% 27.7% 61.7%

Total 5.7% 7.1% 27.1% 60.1%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 148

Table 24: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A young married woman has the right to stay in school and stay in
school and continue her education."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 13.5% 15.7% 26.7% 44.0%

15+ 17.9% 10.8% 31.6% 39.8%

Total 14.3% 14.8% 27.6% 43.3%

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

Table 25: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Girls have the right not to be mistreated."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 0.7% 0.9% 14.3% 84.1% 0.1%

15+ 2.4% 2.1% 16.9% 78.6% 0.0%

Total 1.0% 1.1% 14.8% 83.1% 0.0%

Table 26: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Boys have the right not to be mistreated."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 1.3% 4.6% 19.1% 74.9% 0.0%

15+ 5.5% 8.5% 21.9% 64.2% 0.0%

Total 2.1% 5.3% 19.6% 73.0% 0.0%

Table 27: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Girls are safe at school."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 3.4% 4.3% 26.0% 66.2% 0.0%

149
 Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

15+ 4.1% 3.5% 36.8% 55.7% 0.0%

Total 3.5% 4.2% 27.9% 64.3% 0.0%

Table 28: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Boys are safe at school."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 2.9% 3.4% 27.6% 66.0% 0.1%

15+ 4.1% 4.1% 33.6% 58.2% 0.0%

Total 3.1% 3.5% 28.7% 64.6% 0.1%

Table 29: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "There are places in or near the school where girls are not safe
when they are by themselves."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 41.1% 25.7% 16.8% 16.4%

15+ 34.9% 22.5% 23.5% 19.0%

Total 40.0% 25.1% 18.0% 16.9%

Table 30: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "There are places in or near the school where boys are not safe
when they are by themselves."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 46.7% 29.9% 12.7% 10.7%

15+ 40.1% 19.7% 19.1% 21.1%

Total 45.5% 28.1% 13.9% 12.6%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 150

Table 31: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Older boys and men make comments about girls' bodies when
they're on their way to school."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 24.0% 25.5% 26.9% 22.7% 1.0%

15+ 23.1% 17.6% 30.3% 28.9% 0.2%

Total 23.6% 22.4% 28.2% 25.1% 0.6%

Table 32: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Teachers in my school touch children's thighs, buttocks or private
parts."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 71.6% 20.3% 4.9% 3.1% 0.0%

15+ 58.1% 22.7% 12.7% 6.2% 0.3%

Total 69.2% 20.7% 6.3% 3.7% 0.0%

Table 33: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Teachers in my school demand to have sex with certain students."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 75.6% 17.3% 5.3% 1.8%

15+ 58.3% 23.8% 9.0% 9.0%

Total 68.9% 19.8% 6.7% 4.6%

Table 34: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Teachers don't have the right to demand sex from students."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 6.1% 3.3% 12.9% 77.7%

15+ 4.1% 2.2% 16.4% 77.3%

Total 5.4% 2.9% 14.3% 77.5%

151
Table 35: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Teachers are not allowed to touch children's thighs, buttocks or
private parts."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 6.1% 2.9% 11.5% 79.5%

15+ 0.9% 0.6% 19.8% 78.7%

Total 5.2% 2.5% 13.0% 79.3%

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Table 36: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Sometimes it's the girl's fault if a teacher sexually harasses her."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 28.1% 22.2% 29.3% 20.4%

15+ 22.0% 25.6% 30.6% 21.7%

Total 25.7% 23.5% 29.8% 20.9%

Table 37: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Sometimes it's the girl's fault if a student sexually harasses her."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 24.1% 26.5% 28.5% 20.9%

15+ 24.3% 22.2% 33.5% 20.0%

Total 24.2% 24.8% 30.4% 20.6%

Table 38: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Sometimes it's the girl's fault if a teacher touches her thighs,
buttocks or private parts."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 25.6% 29.7% 29.9% 14.8%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 152

 Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

Total 25.6% 29.7% 29.9% 14.8%

Table 39: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Sometimes it's the girl's fault if a student touches her thighs,
buttocks or private parts."

Refuse to
Somewhat Somewhat respond/No
Age group Disagree disagree agree Agree response

10/14 26.2% 30.7% 30.8% 12.2% 0.1%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 26.2% 30.7% 30.8% 12.2% 0.1%

MISSING SCHOOL BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT AND SECURITY

Table 40: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Have you missed one or more days of school this year because you
were afraid of being harassed by boys or teachers at school?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 98.0% 2.0%

15+ 97.1% 2.9%

Total 97.9% 2.1%

Table 41: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Have you missed one or more days of school this year because you
felt unsafe at the facility?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 92.1% 7.9%

15+ 92.5% 7.5%

Total 92.2% 7.8%

153
Table 42: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Did you miss one or more days of school this year because you felt
safe on the way to school?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 93.5% 6.5%

15+ 89.2% 10.8%

Total 92.7% 7.3%

INCIDENT BOX

Table 43: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know anyone in your class who has used the incident box?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 52.1% 26.7% 21.2%

15+ 59.7% 26.2% 14.1%

Total 53.5% 26.6% 19.9%

Table 44: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Why do you think more students aren't using this box?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

I've never had anything to report 42.6% 35.6% 41.2%

I don't know how to use it 8.6% 17.0% 10.3%

I don’t want to use it 4.4% 2.9% 4.1%

I'm afraid someone might see me if I use it. 6.0% 18.3% 8.5%

I don't think it's effective 2.8% 3.5% 3.0%

No incident box in the school 6.3% 3.0% 5.6%

Never seen/heard of an incident box 2.9% 0.2% 2.4%

Other 0.7% 0.2% 0.6%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 154

FAMILY PLANNING

Table 45: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Have you seen or heard anything about family planning
(FP)/reproductive health (RH) during the current school year (2022-2023)?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 35.2% 64.8%

15+ 18.0% 82.0%

Total 32.1% 67.9%

Table 46: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "If yes, through which source?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Peer educator 31.8% 14.9% 28.1%

Youth ambassador 6.9% 8.2% 7.2%

Mentors 73.6% 55.5% 69.6%

Grandmother 40.0% 16.7% 34.9%

Teachers 45.9% 37.8% 44.1%

Another GLEE representative 21.6% 25.7% 22.5%

CSCOM/health worker 14.8% 20.4% 16.0%

Radio program 3.8% 12.0% 5.6%

Television program 1.6% 7.4% 2.8%

Parents/Family members 3.9% 4.0% 3.9%

Friends/classmates 1.0% 2.5% 1.3%

Other 9.1% 9.4% 9.1%

155
Table 47: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Can you name any family planning (FP) methods you heard about
during the current school year (2022-2023)?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Condoms 21.9% 16.6% 20.7%

Abstinence 19.9% 22.0% 20.4%

Contraceptive pill 64.5% 69.0% 65.5%

Contraceptive shot 69.3% 75.3% 70.6%

Implant 59.9% 70.9% 62.4%

Rhythm method 22.9% 25.8% 23.5%

IUD 5.4% 8.1% 6.0%

Other 2.1% 2.5% 2.2%

Table 48: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Can you name any reproductive health (RH) messages heard during
the current school year (2022-2023)?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Early pregnancy 58.0% 73.4% 61.4%

HIV 32.5% 38.4% 33.8%

Menstrual hygiene 50.2% 61.5% 52.7%

Excision 17.6% 21.7% 18.5%

Other 5.0% 4.4% 4.9%

ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING

Table 49: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, we teach girls about family planning."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 5.2% 9.6% 34.7% 50.5%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 156

 Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

15+ 3.8% 8.1% 39.5% 48.6%

Total 4.6% 9.0% 36.6% 49.7%

Table 50: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "In my community, we teach boys about family planning."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 13.6% 23.5% 30.1% 32.7%

15+ 10.9% 21.9% 38.2% 29.0%

Total 12.6% 22.9% 33.3% 31.3%

Table 51: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A husband and wife should decide together how many children to
have."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 11.0% 13.8% 27.4% 47.9%

15+ 10.2% 6.8% 31.0% 52.0%

Total 10.7% 11.0% 28.8% 49.5%

Table 52: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "A mother and father must make joint decisions about their
children."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 3.5% 6.4% 27.6% 62.5%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3.5% 6.4% 27.6% 62.5%

Table 53: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Men need to know about family planning before marriage."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 4.4% 16.0% 34.7% 44.8%

157
 Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

15+ 3.2% 11.8% 38.6% 46.4%

Total 4.0% 14.4% 36.2% 45.4%

Table 54: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Men have the right to choose whom to marry."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 5.7% 6.1% 29.3% 58.8%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5.7% 6.1% 29.3% 58.8%

Table 55: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Women need to know about family planning before marriage."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 2.3% 9.3% 29.2% 59.3%

15+ 2.8% 6.8% 31.0% 59.3%

Total 2.5% 8.3% 29.9% 59.3%

Table 56: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Women have the right to choose whom to marry."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 7.1% 9.2% 27.2% 56.6%

15+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 7.1% 9.2% 27.2% 56.6%

Table 57: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I know where to go if I need contraception (birth control)."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 6.8% 6.3% 27.9% 59.1%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 158

 15+ 2.3% 5.2% 35.0% 57.5%

Total 5.0% 5.8% 30.7% 58.5%

Table 58: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I'd be too shy or uncomfortable about going to a clinic or center
to get birth control."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 12.9% 18.7% 33.5% 34.9%

15+ 11.6% 18.1% 30.2% 40.0%

Total 12.4% 18.5% 32.2% 36.9%

AWARENESS SESSIONS ATTENDED

Table 59: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "When did you attend the communication/awareness sessions you
mentioned?"

Age group This month This school year Last school year

10/14 11.7% 67.0% 21.3%

15+ 7.2% 65.7% 27.2%

Total 10.9% 66.8% 22.3%

Table 60: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you think the sessions you attended were useful?"

Age group Not at all useful Not really useful Somewhat useful Very useful

10/14 1.3% 2.0% 29.8% 66.8%

15+ 0.2% 0.9% 28.0% 70.9%

Total 1.1% 1.8% 29.5% 67.6%

159
Table 61: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Did you benefit directly or indirectly from anything else coming
from the GLEE project, etc.)? from what did you benefit?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Peer educators 35.9% 30.3% 34.9%

Youth ambassadors 10.5% 16.5% 11.6%

GLEE mentors 72.9% 71.6% 72.6%

Payment of school fees 28.7% 20.5% 27.3%

Means of transport to school (bicycle) 4.3% 7.5% 4.9%

Training for sanitary napkin production 46.4% 52.9% 47.6%

School supplies 33.4% 24.2% 31.8%

Hygiene materials 0.3% 4.3% 1.0%

Other 40.5% 36.0% 39.7%

Table 62: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Did any of the GLEE activities (list them)make you feel safer at
school or on the way to school?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Peer educators 26.3% 23.1% 25.7%

Youth ambassadors 8.1% 12.7% 9.0%

GLEE mentors 64.8% 66.5% 65.1%

Payment of school fees 21.8% 14.8% 20.5%

Means of transport to school (bicycle) 2.9% 5.2% 3.3%

Training for sanitary napkin production 29.1% 30.6% 29.4%

School supplies 6.7% 2.4% 5.9%

Grandmothers 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Teachers 5.1% 6.2% 5.3%

Hygiene materials 11.1% 9.3% 10.8%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 160

 Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Other 17.2% 10.2% 15.9%

Table 63: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Have any of the GLEE activities (list them) enabled you to attend
school more regularly?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Peer educators 23.6% 18.0% 22.5%

Youth ambassadors 7.1% 12.0% 8.0%

GLEE mentors 57.7% 62.3% 58.5%

Payment of school fees 24.1% 15.8% 22.6%

Means of transport to school (bicycle) 2.8% 5.5% 3.3%

Training for sanitary napkin production 31.6% 33.5% 32.0%

School supplies 16.5% 9.3% 15.2%

Grandmothers 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

Teachers 4.8% 5.9% 5.0%

Hygiene materials 7.6% 6.2% 7.3%

Other 27.4% 21.6% 26.4%

MENSTRUATION

Table 64: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know what menstruation is?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 50.4% 49.6%

15+ 9.8% 90.2%

Total 43.1% 56.9%

161
Table 65: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "What do you think menstruation is then?"

Age Normal loss of blood from The body's reaction to an

group the uterus aggression/annoying odor Other (specify)

10/14 99.8% 0.1% 0.2%

15+ 99.8% 0.0% 0.2%

Total 99.8% 0.0% 0.2%

Table 66: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know the average length of the menstrual cycle?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 83.5% 16.5%

15+ 42.4% 57.6%

Total 76.1% 23.9%

Table 67: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "In your opinion, what is the average length of the menstrual cycle?"

Age group 15 days 21 days 28 days 30 days

10/14 8.2% 16.0% 48.1% 27.7%

15+ 4.9% 16.9% 46.5% 31.8%

Total 6.7% 16.4% 47.4% 29.5%

Table 68: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know of at least one risk to the girl during menstruation?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 87.9% 12.1%

15+ 55.2% 44.8%

Total 82.0% 18.0%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 162

Table 69: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Can you name at least one risk to the menstruating girl?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Risk of infection 62.4% 77.4% 69.1%

Irritation 40.3% 27.6% 34.6%

Absorption of flora 1.5% 5.4% 3.3%

Stomachache 8.8% 3.2% 6.3%

Abdominal pain 1.8% 0.9% 1.4%

Other 15.6% 7.7% 12.1%

Table 70: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the
following statement: A girl who has seen her period is a' comfortable."

Strongly
Age group No opinion Strongly agree Agree Disagree disagree

10/14 70.7% 1.7% 4.7% 17.9% 5.1%

15+ 18.6% 11.1% 17.7% 29.0% 23.6%

Total 61.3% 3.4% 7.0% 19.9% 8.4%

Table 71: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know what to do to avoid infections during a period?"

Age group No Yes

10/14 83.1% 16.9%

15+ 40.4% 59.6%

Total 75.5% 24.5%

Table 72: Proportion of girls' responses by age group who cited "washing genitals well with water" as a good practice for avoiding infection
during menstruation.

Age group No Yes

10/14 42.7% 57.3%

163
 Age group No Yes

15+ 30.5% 69.5%

Total 37.4% 62.6%

Table 73: Proportion of girls' responses by age group who cited "Changing towels at least 2 times a day" as a good practice for avoiding
infections during the menstrual period.

Age group No Yes

10/14 8.9% 91.1%

15+ 16.0% 84.0%

Total 12.0% 88.0%

Table 74: Proportion of girls' responses by age group who cited another practice to avoid infection during menstruation

Age group No Yes

10/14 96.4% 3.6%

15+ 98.6% 1.4%

Total 97.4% 2.6%

Table 75: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: “Have you started menstruating?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 77.5% 13.7% 8.8%

15+ 13.6% 84.1% 2.3%

Total 66.0% 26.3% 7.7%

Table 76: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you know where to go (or who to talk to) if you need
information about the menstrual cycle?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 16.2% 67.3% 16.5%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 164

 Age group No Yes Don’t know

15+ 8.7% 88.0% 3.4%

Total 14.9% 71.0% 14.1%

Table 77: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Do you feel comfortable going to school with your period?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 54.1% 41.2% 4.7%

15+ 40.2% 59.6% 0.2%

Total 46.1% 51.8% 2.1%

Table 78: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "Have you ever stayed home instead of going to school when you
had your period?"

Age group No Yes Don’t know

10/14 86.6% 12.7% 0.7%

15+ 89.1% 10.9% 0.0%

Total 88.1% 11.6% 0.3%

Table 79: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "The last time you had your period, how many days did you stay at
home instead of going to school?"

Age group 1 2 3 4 5 7

10/14 24.9% 55.0% 10.1% 8.3% 1.6% 0.0%

15+ 4.5% 29.5% 17.1% 35.9% 11.0% 2.0%

Total 13.8% 41.2% 13.9% 23.3% 6.7% 1.1%

Table 80: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "What was the reason you stayed home during your period?"

Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Pain/cramps/headaches 89.9% 98.2% 94.4%

165
 Age group 10/14 15+ Total

Diarrhea 1.8% 23.9% 13.8%

Heavy bleeding 34.4% 45.5% 40.4%

Lack of sanitary towels 1.5% 6.3% 4.1%

Abdominal pain 1.8% 0.9% 1.4%

My family doesn't want me to go to school when I have my period 1.8% 2.0% 1.9%

Other 8.3% 29.7% 20.0%

Table 81: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I'm ashamed of my body when I get my period."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 19.0% 21.9% 29.2% 29.9%

15+ 25.6% 37.3% 19.6% 17.5%

Total 22.8% 30.9% 23.6% 22.7%

Table 82: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "It's important that I keep my period a secret."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 2.4% 3.6% 22.6% 71.4%

15+ 0.3% 7.2% 26.5% 66.1%

Total 1.2% 5.6% 24.8% 68.3%

Table 83: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "I'm proud to have my period."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 9.6% 30.2% 30.1% 30.1%

15+ 7.8% 15.2% 36.4% 40.6%

Total 8.5% 21.4% 33.8% 36.3%

USAID.GOV USAID GLEE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 166

Table 84: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the statement: "Getting my period isn't a big deal for me."

Age group Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree

10/14 9.3% 22.6% 35.4% 32.8%

15+ 3.3% 16.6% 47.8% 32.3%

Total 5.8% 19.1% 42.6% 32.5%

Table 85: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "What is the main method you currently use to manage your
period?"

Sanitary Other
Level of education Cotton Piece of fabric towels Toilet paper (specify)

Primary 25.1% 37.0% 37.4% 0.0% 0.5%

Secondary 48.7% 29.1% 21.6% 0.2% 0.4%

ASC 20.9% 44.0% 35.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 34.8% 33.9% 30.8% 0.1% 0.4%

Table 86: Proportion of girls’ responses by age group to the question: "In the past three months, have you ever not had access to this
material?”

1B. Level of education No Yes

Primary 87.0% 13.0%

Secondary 88.3% 11.7%

ASC 73.1% 26.9%

Total 87.1% 12.9%

167