Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation – Capacity Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 3.2.5: Review of Proposals Proposal reviewed by Sector Country Director / Country Office and Project Coordinator Assistant CountryCI Consultant Region Manager* * Director* HQ* * N Latin America and the Caribbean 21 31 19 2 3 46 Row (%) 45.7% 67.4% 41.3% 4.3% 6.5% 100.0% Column (%) 38.9% 57.4% 19.2% 10.0% 13.6% 24.7% Bolivia 2 6 9 0 0 10 Haiti 4 6 3 1 1 10 Nicaragua 2 6 7 1 2 13 Peru 13 13 0 0 0 13 East Africa 24 10 53 10 15 70 Row (%) 34.3% 14.3% 75.7% 14.3% 21.4% 100.0% Column (%) 44.4% 18.5% 53.5% 50.0% 68.2% 37.6% Egypt 0 1 2 1 2 4 Ethiopia 7 0 6 0 1 9 Kenya 1 0 11 1 2 11 Rwanda 0 0 4 0 1 5 Somalia 1 4 9 1 3 9 Sudan (North) 6 5 9 3 0 9 Sudan (South) 7 0 8 0 2 9 Tanzania 1 0 4 4 0 8 West Bank / Gaza 1 0 0 0 4 6 S. and W. Africa 6 9 13 4 3 40 Row (%) 15.0% 22.5% 32.5% 10.0% 7.5% 100.0% Column (%) 11.1% 16.7% 13.1% 20.0% 13.6% 21.5% Benin, Ghana, & Togo 0 0 2 1 0 5 Malawi 0 0 0 0 0 2 Mali 0 6 4 2 0 8 Mozambique 0 0 4 0 1 6 Niger 6 3 1 1 0 13 Sierra Leone 0 0 1 0 1 3 Zambia 0 0 1 0 1 3 Asia 3 4 14 4 1 30 Row (%) 10.0% 13.3% 46.7% 13.3% 3.3% 100.0 Column (%) 5.6% 7.4% 14.1% 20.0% 4.5% 16.1% Afghanistan 0 0 2 2 0 4 Bangladesh 3 1 7 0 0 9 India 0 3 5 2 1 17 Total 54 54 99 20 22 186 Row (%) 29.0% 29.0% 53.2% 10.8% 11.8% 100.0 * Multiple Responses DME CA Global Synthesis 13
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 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: Table 3.2.4: Initial Diagnosis, Log
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?