Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation – Capacity Assessment

The proposal review process is depicted in Table 3.2.5. Country Directors / Assistant Country
Directors were reported involved in reviewing 53% of all project proposals. The Project
Managers and/or Sector Coordinators reviewed twenty-nine percent of project proposals. CIHQ
was involved in 11% of project proposal reviews. In analyzing by region, we find in the Latin
America region more project proposals were reviewed by the Project Manager (46%) and/or
Sector Coordinator (67%). While in the East Africa region, more project proposals were
reviewed by Country Director/Assistant Country Director (76%) and/or Consultants (21%) than
any of the other regions.
In Table 3.2.6 are depicted the helpfulness of the review process and the changes occasioned by
it. Sixty-four percent of projects were reported as having benefited from the process of review of
proposals while 36% of projects say they (or their CO) had clear guidelines for review. More
projects in Latin America and East Africa reported finding the review of proposals helpful and
having clear guidelines for the review of proposals than in any of the other regions. In Sudan, an
identified area of weakness was the “project design being ever modified”. This in spite of
having strengths in “existence of concept papers”, “realistic proposals”, and “quality of project
design”.
Fifty-five percent of projects had a separate Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). All of the
projects from India had a separate DIP.
Major changes in the project design (including log frame) were initiated in 48% of proposals,
while changes in the project design were systematically documented in 43% of projects. (The
projects that documented changes were not necessarily those that reported changes in their
design). There were fewer major redesigns of projects in South and West Africa.
The self-rated quality of submitted proposal for 164 projects with available information ranged
from a low of 0 (individual projects in Bolivia and West Bank / Gaza) to a high of 5 (individual
projects in Afghanistan, Egypt, Benin/Ghana/Togo, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger,
Somalia, and North Sudan). The median ratings of the quality of submitted proposals by
Country Office (Figure 4) ranged from a low of 1.0 (Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru, and South Sudan)
to 4.5 (Afghanistan and Malawi).
The quality of Detailed Implementation Plans for 157 projects with available information ranged
from a low of 0 (individual projects in Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, and Zambia) to a high of 5
(projects in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda,
Somalia, North Sudan, and West Bank / Gaza). The median ratings of the quality of DIPs by
Country Office (Figure 5) ranged from a low of 1.5 (West Bank/Gaza) to a high of 4.5 (Malawi).
DME CA Global Synthesis 12