Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation – Capacity Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Country Office and Region Table 3.2.1: Initial Diagnosis, Log Frame, and Goals Formal Diagnosis Full HLS* Other Diagnosis* Log Frame Final Goal at HH Impact Int. Goal at Effect Higher Program Goal SMART Goal N Latin America and the Caribbean 4 15 10 35 40 37 37 29 46 Row (%) 8.7% 32.6% 21.7% 76.1% 87.0% 80.4% 80.4% 63.0% 100.0% Column (%) 6.9% 39.5% 18.2% 22.3% 29.4% 24.7% 26.6% 24.0% 24.7% Bolivia 0 0 2 9 9 9 8 3 10 Haiti 2 3 3 4 8 6 9 3 10 Nicaragua 0 0 4 9 10 9 7 10 13 Peru 2 12 1 13 13 13 13 13 13 East Africa 14 8 20 57 51 56 56 50 70 Row (%) 20.0% 11.4% 28.6% 81.4% 72.9% 80.0% 80.0% 71.4% 100.0% Column (%) 24.1% 21.1% 36.4% 36.3% 37.5% 37.3% 40.3% 41.3% 37.6% Egypt 4 0 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 Ethiopia 5 3 2 8 9 9 8 8 9 Kenya 0 1 2 8 4 6 4 7 11 Rwanda 0 0 4 5 5 5 5 0 5 Somalia 0 0 0 8 6 7 8 6 9 Sudan (North) 0 2 3 9 8 9 9 9 9 Tanzania 0 2 0 5 5 3 5 2 8 West Bank / Gaza 5 0 3 2 3 4 4 6 6 S. and W. Africa 20 12 9 37 20 34 19 22 40 Row (%) 50.0% 30.0% 22.5% 92.5% 50.0% 85.0% 47.5% 55.0% 100.0% Column (%) 34.5% 31.6% 16.4% 23.6% 14.7% 22.7% 13.7% 18.2% 21.5% Benin, Ghana, & Togo 0 1 1 4 1 5 3 3 5 Malawi 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 Mali 5 1 0 7 3 8 4 5 8 Mozambique 0 1 1 6 5 6 4 5 6 Niger 7 5 3 12 7 11 8 8 13 Sierra Leone 3 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 3 Zambia 3 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 3 Asia 20 3 16 28 25 23 27 20 30 Row (%) 66.7% 10.0% 53.3% 93.3% 83.3% 76.7% 90.0% 66.7% 100.0% Column (%) 34.5% 7.9% 29.1% 17.8% 18.4% 15.3% 19.4% 16.5% 16.1% Afghanistan 0 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 Bangladesh 7 1 2 9 9 4 9 5 9 India 13 1 13 15 13 16 14 11 17 Total 58 38 55 157 136 150 139 121 186 Row (%) 31.2% 20.4% 29.6% 84.4% 73.1% 80.6% 74.7% 65.1% 100.0% * Multiple responses DME CA Global Synthesis 8
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Bolivia Haiti Nicaragua Peru Figure 3: Clarity of Logical Linkage Latin America East Africa South & West Africa Asia Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Rwanda Somalia Sudan N Sudan S Tanzania W Bank / Gaza Benin, Ghana & Togo Malawi Mali Mozam bique Niger Sierra Leone Zam bia Afghanistan Bangladesh Note: Numbers represent Median Table 3.2.2: Full HLS, Goals, Indicators, and their M&E Full HLS Yes (n=38) No (n=59) Goals Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Contribute to Higher Program Goal (n=139) 32 84.2% 43 72.9% Final Goal addresses Household Impact (n=136) 32 84.2% 42 71.2% Intermediate Goal at Effect level (n=150) 32 84.2% 47 79.7% Indicators Satisfactory Indicators at Impact level (n=80) 21 55.3% 27 45.8% Satisfactory Indicators at Effect level (n=111) 22 57.9% 35 59.3% Satisfactory Indicators at Output level (n=136) 26 68.4% 47 79.7% M&E Project document containing evaluation design or plan (n=83) 14 36.8% 33 55.9% Sufficiently detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (n=67) 10 26.3% 19 32.2% DME CA Global Synthesis 9 India
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 and 10: 1. Introduction CARE’s work in ov
Page 11 and 12: • On one occasion, respondent gen
Page 13 and 14: Table 3.1.1: Concept Paper, Source
Page 15: Eighty-four percent of projects hav
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?