Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A N N E X 2 – T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E c) Actively promote the implementation of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action in relation to civil society (“good donorship”). Sweden is so far the only core donor to the AGIR programme. Denmark supports one intermediary (SCC) and the Netherlands will support one intermediary (Oxfam Novib), with the Netherlands intending to enter as core donors after the current agreement period. Evaluation purpose, intended use and intended users The Mid-Term Review is meant to provide the existing donors and the intermediaries with recommendations on how to improve the programme guidelines or the functioning of the programme to ensure more effective and efficient implementation to reach the desired outcomes and impact. The Mid-Term Review is also supposed to give new donors interested in joining the programme valuable insights to guide their decisions on support. The Mid-Term review should: 1. Assess the value added of the AGIR programme approach; 2. Determine the programme’s effectiveness regarding achieving results at outcome level as well as to determine the programme’s relevance and potential for impact; 3. Advice on changes needed in the programme guidelines or in the general functioning of the programme; 4. Serve as a basis for decisions on continued Swedish support and the possibility of accepting more donors into the programme. Evaluation questions and expected results 1. To learn if the programme is having the intended outcomes – and if not, why. 2. To learn if the programme is likely to also produce the expected impacts (and also if the initial focus on national partners has had a negative influence on this). 3. To advice on impact reporting and results-based management. 4. To assess how effectively the programme is being implemented and to recommend improvements to the implementation. 5. To learn about partner satisfaction with the programme and about how the programme has contributed to their internal development from the start. 6. To suggest changes to the general guidelines or functioning of the programme (an update of the requirement for partner organisations to have a national impact for example). 7. To suggest improvements that will make the programme more likely to achieve expected outcomes and impact. 8. To advice on how to better address cross-cutting issues (especially gender). 9. To determine the suitability of accepting more donors to the programme. 10. To advice on the underlying principles for accepting more donors, as well as formats for cooperation between donors. 81
A N N E X 2 – T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 11. To learn about how the programme is perceived and accepted in civil society as a whole and among other donors as an alternative approach to support civil society. 12. To learn the level of interaction and cooperation between the intermediaries and how they have managed to pursue AGIR as one programme, with four sub-programmes, and how synergies are being sought and achieved. 13. To determine if the balance between the need for local partners to have necessary capacity to receive core funds and the interest of intermediaries to disburse funds is kept at an adequate level as to ensure quality and minimising fiduciary risks. 14. To learn if AGIR has had the intended effect in the Swedish Embassy, i.e. more time for programme officers to focus on content and qualitative followup of local partner organisations, and more programme officers involved in monitoring our civil society support. Methodology The evaluating team will be expected to gather and analyse information through document reviews, interviews and field visits to produce an evaluation report. An outline of the planned methodology should be described and justified in the tender documents. It is important that “second opinions” are gathered from other sources than actors involved in the programme. A meeting should be held with all intermediaries and partner organisations to present draft conclusions, discuss the implications of these and gather completing information. The consultants are expected to have an open and transparent discussion with key stakeholders on each of their main conclusions, on the type of sources they were able to use, the extent to which they were able to corroborate or triangulate the conclusion by other sources with a different perspective or stake, or if they have any alternative explanation of their observations. Stakeholder involvement The evaluation team is expected to meet with the donors, intermediaries and a representative sample of partner organisations and beneficiaries both in Maputo and in several provinces. In addition to this, the team should gather information from independent sources to be able to get a comprehensive picture of the programme and its outcomes. The donors, intermediaries and partner organisations should furnish the evaluating team with documents, briefings and interviews as requested by the team. The rights and welfare of participants in the evaluation should be protected. Anonymity and confidentiality should be protected when requested and as needed. 82
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 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?