The project was poorly managed, and there was little apparent coordination among the partners in Afghanistan. Contracts were agreed between the grantee and two of its implementing partner yet management denied their existence, and no reference to them is made in project reports.

The Project Document indicated the intention to conduct activities in 15 of 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces, situated in all four geographic regions of the country. In mounting such an ambitious effort, the grantee reduced the prospects for achieving results through a scattering of activities in locations throughout the country. It is apparent that the grantee failed to appreciate the scale of the risk it was taking on. Beyond this, weak integration of activities by project management, and a failure by the grantee to collaborate closely with its implementing partners, limited both the effectiveness and the impact of the project.

The focus on “Afghan women” was hardly a focus at all. Findings of a baseline study, which indicated the particular need for learning about their rights on the part of less-educated women, were ignored. In fact, during implementation, project beneficiaries were principally better-educated, younger women.

Single television or radio programmes, with no linkage to ongoing campaigns or educational work, are unlikely to make a difference in enhancing the knowledge of viewers or listeners in Afghanistan.

The Project Document would suggest that the grantee was to take a strong role in the coordination of the project, as well as in management and monitoring of all activities. In practice, for the most part, the grantee contracted out responsibility for design and implementation of activities to its three partners, and that it played a minimal role in direct engagement with project activities, even where its specific role was explained in the Project Document.