Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
tionalisation is still mostly done as four sub-programmes that share common
areas. Therefore sub-programme consistency is better than programme consistency.
Despite efforts in joint coordination, implementation and reporting
(apart from the common areas), it is sometimes not clear to what extent subprogramme
outcomes and results are feeding into programme impact. The
mid-term review team agrees with the conclusions of the 2012 semi-annual
report that, while general reporting has improved, the programme needs to
start analysing how various outcomes of the thematic areas can be clustered
and reported as a set of consistent programme results that clarify and strengthen
the ability of AGIR to document and report on outcomes as a cohesive
programme. A ‘spheres of influence model’ helps us to understand how
AGIR has established these ‘pathways of change’, through which funding and
support flow out to partners where change takes place at the organisational
level of the CSO, and then through them, to the benefit of beneficiaries. This
model can also help in demonstrating that the need for the programme to plan
for, implement, monitor and report as a programme is critical to maintaining
these pathways as a cohesive approach that decreases the threat of programme
fragmentation and less effective implementation and reporting on results.
A central mechanism for the capacity strengthening of CSOs within AGIR
takes place through the provision of training on a wide range of issues, techniques
and processes. This training is focused at both the organisational and
individual levels. The mid-term review team however, has found a widespread
low level of satisfaction among AGIR CSOs in the area of capacity strengthening
as it relates to a range of critical issues. Furthermore, the review team
has noted that there is very limited replication of training at the provincial level,
where capacity is generally substantially lower than at the central level.
Networking within the AGIR programme is generally weak, although some
organisations have created networks and linkages. The objectives for AGIR
state that networks should be created in relevant areas. While there are relatively
strong networks vertically within sub-programmes, there are weak horizontal
linkages between sub-programmes. Within AGIR, most contacted partners
are part of, or are in contact with, external national and even international
networks; and they are able to illustrate how some of these networks/linkages
have led to advocacy results.
Reporting on outcomes at all levels within the AGIR programme varies but
has been improving with support from the intermediaries. As an example,
Diakonia (International Non-Governmental Organisation, Swedish) works
with partners to build the narrative establishing linkages between interventions
and results. Similarly Oxfam, from the beginning of the programme, has
been concerned with building a narrative of how outputs lead to outcomes and
acknowledging the difficulties of attributing some results to the direct intervention
of the programme. Generally, however, all intermediaries claim that
partners’ reporting is weak and tends to be activity-focused, hence challenging
the reporting on outcomes. Training has been provided in this area, but it is
still among the weakest of the skills held by CSO partners. While reporting is
improving with the AGIR programme both the intermediaries and partner
8