Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation – Capacity Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.1 Data Data was entered for 186 projects from 23 CARE Country Offices located in four CARE regions. 3 The spread of COs and projects is as depicted in Figure 1. The distribution of projects by region ranged from 70 projects in East Africa to a low of 30 projects from the Asia region. By country, the distribution of projects was 17 from India to two projects from Malawi. Figure 1: Distribution of Projects by Country Office and Region Haiti (10) Nicaragua (13) Peru (13) Bolivia (10) Latin America & Caribbean (46) Egypt (4) Niger (13) Mali (8) Sierra Leone (3) Benin/Ghana/Togo (5) Rwanda (5) East Africa (70) West Bank/Gaza (6) Zambia (3) N Sudan (9) S Sudan (9) Ethiopia (9) Somalia (9) Kenya (11) Tanzania (8) Mozambique (6) Malawi (2) South & West Africa (40) Afghanistan (4) India (17) Bangladesh (9) The results section of the report follows a ‘project lifecycle’ approach to project development and assessment. 2.2 Limitations Before proceeding further with this report, certain caveats in the analysis and interpretation of results should be borne in mind. These are – • Different versions of the questionnaire required choosing the ‘closest’ response to at times somewhat differently worded questions. 3 These CAs were conducted before the new Mid-East Regional Management Unit had been formed. Therefore the results from Egypt and West Bank/Gaza are listed under East Africa in this report. DME CA Global Synthesis 2 Asia (30)
• On one occasion, respondent generated codes had to be altered to fit in with the codes used by other Country Offices. Likewise, there were some alterations in the ordering of responses that had to be modified prior to data entry • The sample is too small for some of the analysis; hence only numbers and not percentages are presented by country. • The spread of projects by region / Country Offices tends to give weightage to the results from select regions / Country Offices • Sector information for projects is currently unavailable to use as an analysis filter, consequently all the projects are viewed as a whole. • Tremendous spread of projects by beneficiaries reached and lack of information on this for all projects doesn’t allow assignment of weights. • It appears that at times the questionnaire has been filled up by individuals rather than as part of a group exercise. (See section 3.6: Numbers ranged from one individual to 50 project staff participating in the DME CA). • Definitive response categories considered – only responses that were an unqualified ‘Yes’. This may tend to present a pessimistic picture, by not counting “possibly” or “to some extent”. • Tremendous variation in projects within a country in terms of their Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation make it difficult to paint a true Country Office-specific picture. • These were self-assessments by project staff. The answers represent their own perceptions. In some cases, outside experts facilitated DME CA sessions. It is hoped that they helped to provide some objectivity. Nevertheless, all of these results need to be interpreted as “according to those participating in these DME CA exercises”. • It is apparent that CARE staffs have a variety of interpretations of some DME terms. One example is “registry” for counting participants/beneficiaries. While many projects say their M&E MIS uses a “registry” it is doubtful they all do keep track of individuals, especially given the size of some projects (with as many as 16.5 million beneficiaries). • Narrative summaries were available for a sub-sample of the 23 Country Offices. 3. Results Some of the key results of this analysis were that 84% of projects have a log frame; 20% of projects were based on a full Household Livelihood Security (HLS) assessment; 73% of projects say their final goal is addressed at the household impact level; 45% of projects have some form of evaluation plan; 43% of projects had a quantitative survey as a baseline; and in 65% of projects, staff were measuring or processing outcome data. It is evident that the DMECA has led to the systematization of reflection and varying levels of analysis of the state of DME in the Country Offices. Summary results were reported in the Executive Summary. Detailed results are divided into the following sub-sections: Concept for Projects (3.1); Diagnosis, Design, Goals, and Indicators (3.2); Monitoring and Evaluation (3.3); Information Processing and Use (3.4); Training and Use of DME Skills (3.5); and DME CA Process (3.6). DME CA Global Synthesis 3
Page 1 and 2: Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary Introduction: Dur
Page 5 and 6: What methods are used to count and
Page 7 and 8: The self-ratings and the measures o
Page 9: 1. Introduction CARE’s work in ov
Page 13 and 14: Table 3.1.1: Concept Paper, Source
Page 15 and 16: Eighty-four percent of projects hav
Page 17 and 18: 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Boliv
Page 19 and 20: Table 3.2.4: Initial Diagnosis, Log
Page 21 and 22: Table 3.2.5: Review of Proposals Pr
Page 23 and 24: 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 5 4
Page 25 and 26: Country Office and Region Table 3.3
Page 27 and 28: Table 3.3.2: Pattern and Rigor of B
Page 29 and 30: Between 62 and 78% of all projects
Page 31 and 32: 2.0 (Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone
Page 33 and 34: 3.3d Tracking Project Participants
Page 35 and 36: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NOT AVAILABLE B
Page 37 and 38: MIS needs attention. Box 2: The Sta
Page 39 and 40: Country Office and Region * Multipl
Page 41 and 42: Table 3.5.1: Training, DME Skills,
Page 43 and 44: hoc across regions without any soun
Page 45 and 46: esults that the analyzed data has b

Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation – Capacity Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?