Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A N N E X 3 – I N C E P T I O N R E P O R T continues to increase in response to the work of the intermediary organisations. As discussed earlier, active established CSO partnerships have now reached 47 52 surpassing the 37 partnerships that were expected by the end of 2014. This growth is important. A key component of the evaluative review will be an examination of the partnership strategies used by the intermediaries. Examining these strategies will be critical to assessing the sustainability of the programme and the ability of the intermediaries to continue with the level of support they currently provide to their CSO partners. It should be mentioned that a few overall critical issues came out of the review team’s initial meetings with the intermediary organisations. One concern relates to the critical balance between quantity and quality. By taking in many partners, are the qualitative outcomes of the AGIR programme in danger of being compromised? What happens if AGIR capacity building and support become too mechanical and structured? If so, is there a real danger of damping the process of creating a vibrant civil society that requires a more dynamic approach with support process oriented and tailored in accordance with the specific level of capacity and local circumstances surrounding an individual organisation? Another concern relates to the balance between the basic requirements of internal democracy and transparency of CSO partners while maintaining openness to support more loosely organised networks and initiatives. It has been mentioned in initial discussions with intermediaries that a too-strong focus on requiring partners to fit one ‘mode for all’ might negatively affect their initiative and creativity. In this context, one of the intermediaries has expressed openness to, and stimulation of, loose regional CSO networks by AGIR. Finally, as addressed in the ToRs “Evaluation Questions”, the need to understand how the program is functioning as “one programme” with sub-programmes (not as separate distinct sub-programmes only) will be an important element of the mid-term review. While the intermediaries are not directly the subjects of this mid-term evaluative review, identifying and assessing intended outcomes associated with the functioning of the intermediaries and the capacity strengthening work that they undertake with their CSO partners, is a primary focus. Relevance and Evaluability of Evaluation Questions 52 This number does not include some partner organisations whose contracts have been suspended, due to non-adherence to internal governance criteria, these measures relate to i.e. MONASO, MEPT and MISA. 97
A N N E X 3 – I N C E P T I O N R E P O R T Recommendations regarding evaluation questions In the terms of reference for the Mid-Term Evaluative Review, a number of evaluation questions are proposed by Sida to guide the evaluative process. These questions take into account issues of capacity strengthening, partnership development, monitoring and reporting processes, and the effectiveness of the programme and will be addressed in this section using the evaluative criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. Additional questions have been added and will be used to structure the overall evaluative process and in interview protocols. (a) Relevance Four questions are proposed in relation to relevance and are to be addressed within this evaluative review. The questions are: i) To what extent are the CSO partners satisfied with the programme and how it has contributed to their internal development? ii) How is the programme perceived and accepted within civil society as a whole? Is it seen by other donors as an alternative approach to supporting civil society? iii) How can the programme better address cross-cutting issues (especially gender)? iv) What should be (and what are) the current underlying principles for accepting more donors? What formats for cooperation between donors would be best? Additional questions to be considered are: i) Do the CSOs feel that the internal capacity development they have received through the AGIR programme has strengthened them in terms of their external work with local communities? ii) Are there additional areas of capacity strengthening that CSOs believe would be beneficial to their work? (b) Effectiveness Four questions are proposed in relation to effectiveness and are to be addressed within this evaluative review. The questions are: i) How effectively is the programme being implemented and what recommended improvements would help in its future implementation? ii) What changes can be made to the general guidelines for function of the programme? iii) What is the level of interaction and co-operation between intermediaries and how they have managed to pursue AGIR as one programme, with four subprogrammes? How are synergies being sought and achieved? iv) Are the monitoring and reporting structures within the AGIR programme adequate? Do these structures/mechanisms assess all levels of results from outputs to immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes? Do baselines exist? Additional questions to be considered are: i) What is the level of interaction and co-operation between CSO partners? ii) Are there effective networking mechanisms for CSO partners both internally within the programme and externally to the wider civil society? 98
Page 1:
2013:3 Kevin Kelpin Vibe Johnsen Jo
Page 4 and 5:
Authors: Kevin Kelpin, Vibe Johnsen
Page 6 and 7:
Abbreviations and Acronyms AAAJC Pa
Page 8 and 9:
Preface This evaluation of AGIR (Ac
Page 10 and 11:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y The
Page 12 and 13:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y CSO
Page 14 and 15:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y imp
Page 16 and 17:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y eff
Page 18 and 19:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y iv)
Page 20 and 21:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y act
Page 22 and 23:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y ges
Page 24 and 25:
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y des
Page 26 and 27:
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N ited numb
Page 28 and 29:
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1.2 EVALU
Page 30 and 31:
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N Field Vis
Page 32 and 33:
1 I N T R O D U C T I O N aftermath
Page 34 and 35:
2 F I N D I N G S tendency for the
Page 36 and 37:
2 F I N D I N G S ganisations work.
Page 38 and 39:
2 F I N D I N G S jor reason for th
Page 40 and 41:
2 F I N D I N G S This observation
Page 42 and 43:
2 F I N D I N G S 2.3.4 AGIR CSO Pa
Page 44 and 45:
2 F I N D I N G S gender policy, -
Page 46 and 47:
2 F I N D I N G S The mid-term revi
Page 48 and 49:
2 F I N D I N G S 2.4 EFFECTIVENESS
Page 50 and 51: 2 F I N D I N G S be relevant for t
Page 52 and 53: 2 F I N D I N G S the AGIR programm
Page 54 and 55: 2 F I N D I N G S production and qu
Page 56 and 57: 2 F I N D I N G S 2.5 IMPACT OF AGI
Page 58 and 59: 2 F I N D I N G S number of positio
Page 60 and 61: 2 F I N D I N G S Accountability o
Page 62 and 63: 2 F I N D I N G S Through campaign
Page 64 and 65: 2 F I N D I N G S offices, since th
Page 66 and 67: 2 F I N D I N G S Akilizetho has a
Page 68 and 69: 2 F I N D I N G S political partici
Page 70 and 71: 2 F I N D I N G S support the capac
Page 72 and 73: 2 F I N D I N G S The sustained par
Page 74 and 75: 3 C O N C L U S I O N S AGIR progr
Page 76 and 77: 2 findings 4 Recommendations The ke
Page 78 and 79: 4 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Ma
Page 80 and 81: 4 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S rea
Page 82 and 83: A N N E X 1 - A G I R P A R T N E R
Page 84 and 85: A N N E X 2 - T E R M S O F R E F E
Page 86 and 87: A N N E X 2 - T E R M S O F R E F E
Page 88 and 89: 2 findings Annex 3 - Inception Repo
Page 90 and 91: A N N E X 3 - I N C E P T I O N R E
Page 106 and 107: 2 findings Annex 4 - Documents Revi
Page 108 and 109: A N N E X 4 - D O C U M E N T S R E
Page 116 and 117: A N N E X 5 - P E O P L E I N T E R
Page 118: Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Program
show all

Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?