gtf project completion report 2008 2013

7/26/2019 GTF Project Completion Report 2008 2013

1/27

Power to the people:

Making governancework for marginalisedgroupsProject Completion Report(2008-2013)

GTF Governance andTransparency Fund


2/27

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report B

1. Programme identi cation details

GTF number GTF 301

Short title of programme Power to the People (P2P)

Name of lead institution Christian AidStart date 12 August 2008

End date 11 August 2013

Amount of DFID Funding: 4,999,795

Brief Summary of Programme: This programme aimed to nurture the developmentof effective civil society movements and empowermarginalised and vulnerable people to hold community,local and national authorities to account. The programmeincluded activities to secure increased participation by, andgovernment responsiveness to, marginalised groups, as

well as to build more effective civil society movements.It involved partners and activities in ten countries inAfrica, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America and theCaribbean. A number of regional and global activities tookplace during the life of the programme to share learningbetween countries and partners, and to explore keythematic issues, such as power relations. Some exchangevisits were organised to further embed this learning.

List all countries where activities have taken orwill take place

Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria,Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda.

List all implementing partners in each country Institute for Socio-Economic Studies (BR); EcumenicalService Coordination (BR); Popular University (BR); CentroBon, formally Jesuit Service for Migrants and Refugees(DR); Institute of Democratic Governance (GH); SocialEnterprise and Development Foundation (GH and SL);Rehabilitation, Education and Community Health (IQ);Haki Kazi Catalyst (TZ); Refugee Law Project (UG); UgandaDebt Network (UG); Northern Aid (KE); Kenyan HumanRights Commission (KE); Centre for the Rehabilitation andEducation of Abused Women (KE); Justice, Developmentand Peace Commission (NI); Association of Scientic andTechnical Intellectuals (TJ); Rights & Prosperity (TJ)


3/27

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report C

Target groups: wider beneciaries Our projects targeted approximately 78,491 peoplefrom marginalised groups, including women and girls inTajikistan and Sierra Leone; Haitian refugees in DR, Somalirefugees in Kenya; marginalised ethnic groups in Brazil andschoolchildren in Ghana.

We estimated that the programme could benet up to14 million people if service delivery and governmentaccountability improved and proper policies were agreedand implemented.

Lead Contact Kevin ODell, Programme Funding Ofcer, Global Initiatives

Uganda Debt Network (UDN) Magdalene Aguti and her family beneted from the work of the community-based monitors aroundimproved policy and delivery of the NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services) programme in Uganda. UDNs advocacy hasled to many improvements in NAADS, including a much-needed revision of the programmes guidelines to re-focus delivery towardsmarginalised groups. With UDNs support, 668 community members participated in the revision of NAADS through community-basedmonitoring and evaluation groups. Changes included making the beneciary selection process more transparent and the serviceless controlling and more enabling, for example through helping farmers to choose their own enterprises. UDNs awareness-raisingprogramme encouraged Magdalene and her community to get involved with NAADS. Now, Magdalene has access to the advice andsupport she needs to manage her own land. She says: With my improving income levels as a result of citrus farming, I am now in aposition to send our children to school.


4/27

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report D

2. List of acronyms

ARS Achievement Rating Scale

ASATU Association of Anambra Town Unions

ASTI Association of Scientic and TechnicalIntellectuals

BIOM Ecological Movement BIOM

CA Christian Aid

CB Centro Bon (formally Jesuit Service forMigrants and Refugees)

CBM Community-based monitors

CBO Community-based organisation

CDF Constituency Development Fund

CEB Central Electoral Board

CEDLA Centre for Development Learning and Action

CESE Ecumenical Service Coordination

COMEN Community Empowerment Network

CREAW Centre for the Rehabilitation and Education ofAbused Women

CSBAG Civil Society Budget Action Group

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSOMPAN Civil Society Media Policy Advocacy Network

DACF District Assembly Common Fund

DCMC District Community Monitoring Committee

DFID Department for International Development

DR Dominican Republic

DV Domestic violence

EA East Africa

EAC East African Community

FER Final Evaluation Report

FGM Female genital mutilationFoM Freedom of movement

GHS Ghanaian Cedis

GIFNET Governance Issue Forum Networks

GSFP Ghana Schools Feeding Programme

GTF Governance and Transparency Fund

HKC Haki Kazi Catalyst

HURINETs Human Rights Networks

IACHR Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

ICH Inter-Church House (Christian Aid central ofce)

IDEG Institute for Democratic Governance

IDS Institute of Development Studies

INESC Institute for Socio-Economic Studies

IWASCO Isiolo Water Services Company

JDPC Justice, Development and Peace Commission

JSRM Jesuit Service for Migrants and Refugees (nowCentro Bon)

KES Kenyan Shillings

KHRC Kenya Human Rights Commission

KPMG Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler

KRG Kurdish Regional Government

KWIGN Kailahun Women in Governance NetworkLAC Latin America and Caribbean

LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty

LGA Local Government Authority

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSR Most Signicant Result

MTR Mid-term review

NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services

NAID Northern Aid


5/27

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report E

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NHIS National Health Insurance Scheme

ODI Overseas Development Institute

OPM Ofce of the Prime Minister

P2P Power to the People

PC Public Chamber

PCR Project Completion Report

PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

PSM Platform of Social Movements

PWD People with disabilities

R&P Rights and Prosperity

REACH Rehabilitation, Education and Community Health

RLP Refugee Law Project

SADA Savannah Accelerated Development Authority

SEND Social Enterprise and Development Foundation

SGBV Sexual and gender-based violence

SMS Short Message Service

THU Town Hall Unions

TOC Theory of Change

UDN Uganda Debt Network

UGX Ugandan ShillingUNIPOP Popular University (Brazil)

VAT Value added tax

VFM Value for money


6/27

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report 1

3.1 Period since last annual report(1 April 2013 11 August 2013)

In the last months of our GTF programme we focused onnalising activities, sustaining and publicising achievedresults, and sharing learning globally.

Three regional learning events (Output 4.2, Activity 4.3):Women in Governance and Leadership, West Africa (May2013) : Christian Aid staff, partners and project principalsfrom Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone attended a learningevent hosted by partner SEND. SEND presented their modelfor increasing womens participation in politics in Kailahun,Sierra Leone. The group analysed gender work undertakenin each of their contexts and the extent to which successfulelements could be replicated.

Citizenship and Freedom of Movement in the East AfricaCommunity (Nairobi, May 2013 hosted by KHRC withRLP and NAID presenting) : Attended by CA staff, partners,immigration ofcials, high level politicians, civil societyand private sector representatives, and refugees. Theconference aimed to increase understanding of the barriersto citizenship rights and freedom of movement in EACcountries, increase capacity to engage with the EAC, andpropose a joint CSO/ private sector resolution to the EALegislative Assembly to improve citizenship and freedom ofmovement rights.

Power, the Media and Political Reform for MarginalisedGroups (Brazil, April 2013) : CESE and INESC jointly hosted aworkshop, bringing together for the rst time 30 indigenousand Quilombola leaders. The event was innovative and wellreceived, with leaders from both sides expressing solidarityand the need to support one anothers campaigns. Theleaders had not previously engaged with national reformbeyond issues surrounding their own communities landrights, and for INESC it was the rst time they were able toengage indigenous groups in their political campaign.

Research: Power and the GTF We have commissioned an IDS consultant to review GTFlearning on power, which we expect to strongly inuencehow Christian Aid thinks about and supports partners toengage with power. This will culminate in a paper towards

the end of 2013.

Learning session: GTF evaluation and lessons learned 25 September 2013 The external evaluation team shared their key ndings withglobal Christian Aid GTF stakeholders, and the meetingdiscussed the extent to which the programme had achievedits objectives, and key learning points for the future.

Results and achievementsIn Tajikistan, the Director of the Ombudsman conrmedongoing funding for all nine Public Chambers fromJanuary 2014, guaranteeing their sustainability and thefuture provision of free legal advice and aid to poor andmarginalised men and women.

In Nigeria, the expanded and extended governance andtransparency programme, Voice to the People , was launchedin Anambra State. The 2 million DFID funded programmewill see the GTF established COMEN network expand fromfour to twelve LGAs, empowering 48,000 people to holdtheir authorities to account.

In Dominican Republic, 249 young people participated inthree events in which a theatre group dramatised the plightof Haitian citizens forced to migrate and the social, economicand legal difculties they face. Each event culminated in theyoung people taking part in a campaign action targeted atthe Dominican Republic authorities.

3.2 For the entire programme durationOver the last ve years, our GTF programme, delivered by 16partners across 10 countries, has successfully implemented

projects to empower marginalised groups such as women,indigenous groups, children and people with disabilities, andenable them to articulate their needs and demand their rightsfrom duty bearers. Some of our most signicant results aresummarised below.

Ghana . Communities in the marginalised Upper Westregion have been trained and supported to access pro-poor policies and social welfare.

The number of children receiving a free school meal a daythrough the Ghana School Feeding Programme increasedfrom 5,000 to over 140,000, a 2,700% increase, over

the course of the GTF. The scheme was also re- targetedto ensure that the poorest and most marginalisedcommunities are primary beneciaries.

3. Activities and achievements


7/27


In response to advocacy and recommendations, allthe Upper West district assemblies have opened bankaccounts and formed Fund Management Committees incompliance with the disbursement and utilisation of the3% share of the District Assembly Common Fund forpeople with disabilities (increased from 2%). As at 2012,655 people across ve districts had received a sum ofGHS 467,158 (equivalent to 145,800).

In compliance with the guidelines of the National HealthInsurance Scheme, 2,852 people from the Upper Westregistered on the scheme and are accessing healthcare as adirect result of partner initiatives, including 595 PWDs, 816LEAP beneciaries, 535 orphans and 906 otherwise entitled.

Nigeria. In Nigeria, the Anambra state governmentnow publishes a list of live projects for the public to see(shared with community leaders), with clear statementsthat they must legally award contracts for plannedprojects to local providers and allow local monitoring foreffective project implementation.

Budget monitoring by 10 trained community groups (300volunteers, 55% women) in four local government areas inAnambra has led to the completion of basic rural projectswhich had been budgeted for but not started, includinga bridge, two health centres and surrounding fencing,three primary schools, a 2km road and junction, erosionand ood control, solar street lighting and four boreholes,beneting more than 290,000 people from poor andmarginalised communities.

Sierra Leone. In the elections of 2012, Kailahun was theonly district which exceeded its 30% quota of womencandidates. 36% of councillor nominations (31 of 89)were women, with 41% (12 of 29) being elected. 28%(5 of 18) MP candidates from the district were women,with 13% (1 of 8) being elected into national ofce. Thisresult was achieved through the actions of a networkset up in Kailahun District to train and support womento participate in local and national politics. The networkencompasses 107 groups with a total of over 5,400women, specically including those from marginalisedand remote communities.

Tajikistan. 594,900 poor and marginalised people innine districts now have access to free legal informationand aid, thanks to newly established Public Chambers.2,405 legal claims (65% from women) have so far beenresolved in favour of the claimants. These have led toimproved services and infrastructure, schooling andhousing, as well as access to drinking water, welfareand identity documents.

Iraq. 70% of community members reported improvedgovernment responsiveness to their requests and claimsas a result of monitoring and advocacy by a networkof CBOs in 88 communities in Erbil and Sulaymaniyahgovernorates (236 of 591 members being women).6,576 people beneted from improved access to drinkingwater; 730 children gained access to primary school;6,748 people were given access to 12 or more hours ofelectricity a day; 4,590 had improved roads or access; 627had improved access to health care centres; 1,170 farmersreceived agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers, etc.).

Legislative changes brought female genital mutilation withinthe remit of the Law Against Domestic Violence whichdenes punishment for those found guilty of its practice.

Dominican Republic. 130 of 212 (61%) citizenshipcases in domestic courts relating to Dominicans ofHaitian descent have received favourable rulings, settingimportant legal precedent for stateless Dominicancitizens. Inter-American Commission on Human Rightshearings have concurred that the national policy ofcitizenship withdrawal in these circumstances is against

the human rights of those affected and six cases arepending in the IACHR. 66 advocacy and support groupsof 2,468 Haitians and their descendants have beenestablished across six areas of the Dominican Republic.

Kenya. Partner advocacy-inuenced citizenship-relatedlegislation within the countrys new constitution includesthe Identication and Registration of Kenya CitizensBill, the Birth and Death Registrations Bill, the KenyaCitizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service Bill,the Kenya Citizens Immigration Bill and the Refugee Bill2011. Waiting periods for essential citizenship documentsin northern Kenya have since reduced from ve to sixmonths to two to three weeks and transparent processeshave reduced discriminatory judgments towards peoplefrom northern communities.


8/27


The northern district of Isiolo has seen improvedgovernance surrounding water service delivery as a resultof partners monitoring and nation- wide benchmarking.Of the 70,000 people covered by IWASCO, the IsioloWater Services Company targeted by this programme,monitoring shows that the average distance peoplehave to travel to access water has subsequentlyvastly reduced. Kakili communities, for example, havedecreased distance from 13km to 1km and Kiwanjacommunities now access shallow wells 200 metres fromthe village instead of having to go 6km to Isiolo River.The incidence of outbreak of waterborne diseases hasdecreased due to better water quality, and improvedservice provision has led to more efcient meter readings,timely sealing of leakages, house-to-house delivery ofwater bills on time, and timely response to complaintswithin 24 hours (70% satisfaction of beneciaries).Pricing has also been made more equitable, endinginstances of the poorest communities paying inatedprices for water. All operations within the companyhave been computerised, resulting in more transparentinformation sharing. IWASCO has also improvedthe governance structure of its board, by increasingwomens representation to a third and including a CSOrepresentative. Isiolo Councils revenue has risen from upto KES 800,000 (5,889) a year before the GTF to KES 3million (22,082) annually. IWASCO also raised KES 600million (4,415,953) from the African Development Bankto fund further water delivery projects.

Tanzania . The number of citizens participating in statutorymeetings in ve districts (Longido, Meru, Arusha Rural,Monduli and Arusha City) has increased from an averageof 50 people per meeting in 2011/12 to an average of 280people in 2012/13, at both village and mitaa levels. During2012/13, 12,300 citizens took part in statutory meetingsas a result of partner activities.

Brazil. The Ficha Limpa (Clean Sheet) Law was passedfollowing country-wide campaigns and a petition signedby more than 2 million people, meaning no one with acriminal record can stand for political ofce.

Following campaigns by indigenous and Quilombola

groups, 65,000 hectares were returned to the Xavanteindigenous group of Mariwatsd, ending a 40-yearstruggle. Similar partner advocacy supported 512 familiesliving in the Quilombola Brejo dos Crioulos community tohave their land rights recognised and upheld following apresidential decree which allowed the removal of illegalrural settlements in the area.

Uganda. Legislation was passed beneting more than190,000 refugees and asylum seekers currently living inthe country, including the waiving of the 25 birth anddeath registration fees for refugees and the inclusionof refugee rights in the training curriculum for newpolice cadets. Some 5,500 police cadets and constableshave completed their training using this curriculum.Twelve refugee advocacy and support groups have beenestablished, giving refugees a collective voice to supportthemselves and engage in advocacy.

Other signicant changes: Progress towards redressingpower imbalances in favour of poor and marginalisedgroups has also been made in other areas through our GTFprogramme. In Uganda , our partners key position withina Civil Society Budget Action Group and ability to leverageresults from grassroots monitoring, coupled with researchand targeted advocacy, guided legislation surrounding publicprocurement and more stringent penalties for outingprocurement laws. Similar advocacy within the same foruminuenced pro-poor decisions at national level, includingthe removal of VAT on water and basic commodities; thereinstatement of the agricultural credit facility for two moreyears; promotion of girls education, for example throughprovision of materials such as free sanitary pads; increasedallocation to essential drugs in the national budget andincreased funding for vocational education. Teachers sawa 15% salary increase; and the tax threshold has beenincreased from UGX 130,000 (32) to UGX 235,000 (58).


9/27


In Kenya , partners successfully advocated for theimplementation of a Vetting Board of the Council of Eldersto facilitate the selection of prospective political candidatesin the marginalised North Eastern district of Mandera. Inthe 2012 Kenya elections, the newly established Councilinterviewed and vetted 54 ward representatives, 12 MPcandidates, three candidates for Governor, three candidatesfor Senator and three candidates for womens representativeaccording to their development plans for the region,minimising opportunities for corruption and bribery in theselection process and helping to ensure that the intentionsof candidates were focused on the positive development ofthe regions people.

In Brazil , a website promoting political reform to ensuregreater inclusion of the voices of the marginalised wasviewed over 16 million times between its launch in 2010 andthe close of the programme. The signatures on its campaign

petition advocating for these issues reveal signicantmomentum and a wide geographical reach, as remotecommunities are engaging with information about rights andrepresentation for the rst time.

Power a cross-cutting issue: Our GTF programmefocused strongly on issues of power. Christian Aid contendsthat ongoing poverty, and difculty in overcoming it, areboth the result of unequal power dynamics and the abuseor protection of power by those who hold it. This themewas brought out early in the programme and developed asa cross-cutting learning opportunity. All partners carried outprojects to assess the extent to which an understanding ofpower helped them to achieve their aims and objectives.These learning initiatives involved partners using poweranalysis to tackle specic blockages within their projects,such as a stakeholder they were struggling to engage, themainstream media, for example; or reasons why projectsworked better in some areas than others. Partner feedbackhas shown that this learning and analysis provided space fordeeper, more context-based strategic thinking around thework and stakeholders involved, and many have incorporatedanalytical tools such as power mapping into their ongoingplanning. This work has sharpened the focus on power inChristian Aids own organisational strategy, and we arecurrently undergoing a review to draw out further learningand recommendations from the programme which will befed back to partner organisations.

CESE Chief Damio Paridzan, leader of the Xavante indigenous people of Mariwatsd, Brazil. This group had their land rightsratied in 1998, but they were not enforced and illegal settlers continued to live on the land. Following GTF funded campaigns atthe Rio+20 Summit (2012) where the community lobbied, marched and received wide media coverage, the authorities agreed to theremoval of the settlers from 165,000 hectares of their land, enforced by 2013.


10/27


11/27


10. The development and operationalisation of the PowerAnalysis took time and this may have limited its impacton some parts of the programme. [47]

10. Power analysis did indeed take longer than we hadplanned, but as this was the rst real attempt tomainstream this in a programme we had no frame ofreference. This is a learning point for our work on power.

11. Output 4 appears at rst glance to be focused ondissemination but in fact this is the weakest area of thework done under this heading. [52]

11. Whilst dissemination has been somewhat limited, wedid host a signicant VFM event under the GTF bannerwith some 80 sector representatives present. It maybe that from now on, the main weight of learning anddissemination happens as programme activities end andmore focus is placed on analysis.

12. Not updating the logframe allowed it to become aless accurate description of the P2P programme andperhaps led to a missed opportunity to examine theeffectiveness of global-level logframes in managementof diverse projects in very different situations. [53]

12. This was a key decision, the trade-off being a potentiallystronger logframe versus allowing partners and staff tofocus on their work after very heavy M&E requirements.We chose the latter and were supported by our MTRevaluators. We would challenge that it became lessaccurate: at outcome level it remained very accurate,with projects adapting the indicators to suit their

contexts.13. There has been relatively little impact at national level.

The suggestion that civil society movements couldbe created or nurtured within ve years appearsoverambitious now. [55]

13. Our work largely happens at local level, so it was notexpected that there would be signicant nationalimpact. However, we are able to show contributionto national change in at least ve of ten countries.The ambition of this depends somewhat on theinterpretation of created and nurtured, and we suggestboth are reasonable in ve years.

14. The Goal appears to be a more achievable end than thePurpose. [59]

14. In retrospect, we would probably have moredifferentiation between our goal and purposestatements, but these were agreed and signed off asworkable at the time.

15. It could be argued that holding a government to accountis not the clearest way of expressing the overall purposeof this part of the P2P. The point is that citizens areempowered and become better able to engage with theauthorities that they seek to change. The empowermentin terms of skills, information and condence is whatmatters as it enables people at community level tocontinue to engage with the authorities for longer termimprovements in the services and protection theyreceive. [60]

15. This is a somewhat circular argument, saying holdingauthorities to account may not be sufcient, but thensuggesting that the ideal would be that communities usetheir skills and condence to engage leaders on services,which to us sounds like holding them to account.


12/27


16. Christian Aid staff suggest now that the spread ofcountries was probably too wide and the number ofprojects too high. There are more signicant resultsfrom projects which received larger sums, whichseems to support this view. [63]

16. Whilst it is hard to prove the counterfactual at this stage,certainly a smaller focus can be more effective, thoughnot necessarily so. That larger sums equated to biggerresults may not be an accurate statement in termsof the relative costs of operation in the countries, as

well as many other variables. Certainly some projectsachieved a great deal with some of the smaller fundingallocations.

17. There is little evidence of synergy or cooperationbetween projects. Perhaps a programme designed tobuild alliances between projects would not be expectedif the overall purpose was to learn about individualproject situations. [64]

17. To some extent we challenge this, where collaborationwould have been an exercise in box ticking rather thanadding value. Staff and partners were brought togetherannually and involved in cross-cutting learning on power,which brought the programme together. Regionally,there were good links, though perhaps more so latterly.

We do afrm that the key was learning about individualproject situations, and only now are we really trying to

pull out bigger lessons. The context-specic nature ofour work meant that cross-country learning was alwaysgoing to be limited.

18. Attribution becomes an important aspect of workingwith longer-term partners where impacts are observedand seen to be the result of work started some timebefore the GTF funding became available. [66]

18. Attribution is important per se , and in some cases itmay be easier to show this over the long term. In othersit will be much harder as a far larger set of factors willcome into play.

19. It is possible to argue that better governance benetsall people and tends to benet the least well off most asthey may depend more on government services. Thisargument is not presented by Christian Aid in its projectproposal and the intention to provide support to the

vulnerable and disadvantaged appears as a conventionalpoverty focus. [67]

19. Though this may not have been explicitly spelled out,we would suggest that the title of our programmemaking governance work for marginalised groups,strongly suggests that this was our consideration whendesigning the programme.

20. It may be that there would be attempts to link projectsaround themes while still allowing partners to work totheir strengths in terms of their links to community leveland ongoing work. [69]

20. In the latter stages of the programme, this did happen,so that partners in LAC focused on the media; in westAfrica they looked at gender; and in east Africa atcitizenship. Potentially we could have done this fromthe start, but there is no guarantee that this would haveworked, and this way enabled a more evolutionarydevelopment of themes that speak strongly to the workthe projects were doing.

21. The case [sustainability] needs to be supported byobservations of real instances where work is maintained

by a partner with many sources of income despite thewithdrawal of funding by Christian Aid. [73]

21. If we look at SENDs work, we can see that this isexactly what is happening, as they use their wide

funding portfolio to ensure that substantive elements ofthe GTF work continue.


13/27


22. The reasoning offered for the absence of capacitybuilding from the programme plan was that not allpartners need capacity strengthening and that it wouldbe wrong to suggest that Christian Aid was the sourceof expertise that should be bestowed upon partners

and that perhaps stronger partners could support theweaker. [78] It is clear that Christian Aid will have anactive role in promoting the necessary learning so itcould have been described as capacity building. [82]

22. We see the point being made, but havent reallyresolved this. On one hand there could have beenbenet in including capacity building, knowing that it isa valid and useful part of how we work; on the other itwould have then become something we were bound

to deliver, which could have reduced the benet of theexible, implicit capacity building that we ended upproviding throughout the programme.

23. The evaluation team is of the view that the cost-benetcase of the learning events could be made but it needsto be researched more to produce reliable justication.[87]

23. On one level, that we agreed a learning budget at thestart of the programme is in itself an example that thisjudgement was made and agreed. But we agree thatsome level of ex post analysis of all activities would bebenecial, including learning events.

24. It must be acknowledged that reporting honestly aboutcomplexity and being modest about contributions doesnot always t easily with the results agenda which

encourages claims of attribution as a minimum. [90]

24. This is no small issue in development generally, butwe have felt that our reporting in GTF has not undulypushed us towards claiming attribution where it was not

clearly the case.25. The increasing GTF drive for results in terms of impact

rather than learning works against testing innovations.[94]

25. We did try hard to balance the need to make surepartners were following through their activities tooutputs and outcomes, while at the same time allowingthem the space to be more creative. We may not havesucceeded. Our power learning work was an attemptto allow them time, space and money to explore thingscreatively, though of course this came with additionalreporting requirements too.

26. The approach of developing indicators with each partnerhas been a strength in the P2P programme and hashelped some partners to appreciate the logframe andbetter understand the overall programme. It is difculthowever to make sense of very different performanceon very different types of observation in terms ofattainment of indicators and achievement of outputs.[100]

26. We are glad that this participatory approach is validated,as we felt it was and is important.

It would be good to get more clarity on the problemof making sense of performance. It sounds as if thismeans its hard to aggregate across the programme,which we would agree with, but point out that wewould not strive to do this except where clearly possibleand of value.

27. M&E was launched with some interesting scorecardapproaches and these were abandoned during theMTR and this seems a shame as their continued usemight have led to some useful insights both into howgovernance projects can work and also into how theycan be assessed. [100]

27. This was a result of the ongoing challenge of balancingadditional M&E against the constraints the partnerswere under to manage even the core work. It was clearthat these scorecards were not delivering value, and sowe decided that they should be discontinued.


14/27


28. It might have been possible to argue for a greaterproportion being spent on management as part ofincreasing the VfM of the programme especiallygiven the initial requirements for good learning fromthe programme and the later requirements for good

evidence of impact. [101]

28. This may be true, but the difculty was not just one offunds (as a number of countries did not use all of theirsupport budgets) but the time and capacity to do more,with staff and partners usually working on numerousother projects.

29. The reporting burden was even more intense at theend of the programme when partners were required toprovide three almost simultaneous reports and despiteefforts made by ICH staff to absorb the pressure somedemands were inevitably passed on to par tners. [102]

29. This was unfortunate, and though we tried to minimisethis, taking on a weight of the reporting in head ofce asnoted, it was a period of intense demand. We suggestthat programme managers and DFID reect further onthe value of such reporting.

30. The global logframe for the GTF itself was notdeveloped until after the grants had been approved andthis was probably not helpful. [104]

30. This is a historic GTF issue covered in previous reportsand evaluations, which all have noted this as being aproblem.

31. The fact that Christian Aid did not update the logframeand KPMG did not object means that the learning bystaff and par tners on how to make governance projectswork is not recorded in the logframe structure and thelogframe as a management tool of a global programmewas not put to the test. [105]

31. We would challenge that revising the logframe wouldhave made this learning easier; it may even haveimpeded it further.

32. The ability to work successfully at local level is a keyfeature of the Christian Aid approach of working throughlocal partners. [110]

32. We are glad that our model of working has beenafrmed.

33. Reporting seems to have become divorced fromlearning. [118]

33. We strongly challenge this statement as it stands.Reporting is both a contractual obligation and alearning tool and process. Reporting on results doesnot preclude learning. P2P management spent a lot oftime going over reports, pulling out key learning pointsand feeding these back into the programme. Staff andpartners consistently put time and thought into theirreports and our follow up processes.

34. The regional and global learning events have producedimportant improvements in programme quality andcreated links between partner agencies that could nothave been created by other means. [115]

34. We afrm this, and would set this against theobservation above that there needs to be a clearerstatement of the value of the learning events.


15/27


Final Evaluation Recommendations

1. There is therefore a case for linking to national levelactors and for building alliances to increase the scale andreach of results. [114]

1. We agree, though this has to be assessed in the contextof what is possible and achievable given the nature andcontext of the work.

2. The learning from the programme should be betterdisseminated to research institutes and Christian Aidshould be effectively credited where it is the source ofhelpful learning and this may be achieved through reviewwork done in collaboration with IDS staff in September2013. [117]

2. We fully support the need to factor learning fromprogrammes such as the GTF back into the sector, andare working with KPMG, ODI and others to nd waysof doing this. DFIDs support in doing this would bewelcome.

3. Prepare for future evaluations and improve managementof cost-effectiveness by working through some VfMissues. [119]

3. VfM is a perennial challenge for CA, and indeed mostorganisations. There is no one clear standard or denitionon this, even within DFID, and we are working hard to tryto support all staff in gaining condence in dealing withVfM in their work. We are keen to use the GTF to helpillustrate different aspects of VfM, linked to learning asabove.

4. Select a smaller number of initiatives so thatmanagement and support is easier. [124]

4. We would suggest that its not necessarily aboutselecting a smaller number of initiatives, but aboutmaking sure that the appropriate number is selected,balancing ambition with evaluability and delivery.

5. Invest in management so that projects get sufcientsupport and are able to provide good learning. [124]

5. We agree.

6. Stick with those projects where engagement is positiveeven where progress is limited. [125]

6. Depending on what engagement is positive means,we agree, recognising of course that a lack of progresscannot always be excused.

7. Use TOC to discuss project design and progress. [127] 7. We agree, and are working across our organisation andthe sector to nuance the use of TOC to make it a more

realistic, exible tool which all project stakeholders canuse to design and monitor programmes.

8. Take a lead in the development of ideas of whatconstitutes a clear line of sight to poverty reduction. [129]

8. We are working on this, and play a prominent role in arange of networks, groups and conversations aroundmany aspects of effective development programming.

4.2. Programme ManagementPersonnel: The programme manager was replaced in2011 when she went on maternity leave; she did notreturn to post. The support ofcer was replaced in 2012after an internal secondment, and in early 2013 this rolewas upgraded to a full time project ofcer role, with theprogramme manager function moving to one of oversight

and less direct day-to-day involvement to reect the natureof the latter stages of the programme. In East Africa, aninternal personnel issue in 2011/12 led to the removal of theGTF ofcer. Legally, the issue was required to play out over aset period of time, and so support to EA partners was limitedand funding releases disrupted for just over a year.


16/27


Local partners: An early concern was the number andcapacity of partners in the programme, the former hinderingour ability to address the latter. Relatively small grants alsolimited both resources and incentive for quality reporting.By the end of the rst year of implementation, we pulled

out from Nigerian partner JDPC Auchi due to concernsabout their ability to manage the programme. Funds wereused to give yearly top-up M&E and translation grants to allpartners. By the end of year two, and for the same reason,we withdrew from UNIPOP in Brazil and transferred theirgrant to CESE and INESC. Following recommendations inthe MTR, our partner portfolio was reviewed again, leadingto withdrawal from ASTI in Tajikistan, freeing up resourcesfor R&P, which was already delivering impressive results.In 2011/12, partnership with CREAW ended based on anassessment that they were unable to deliver the level andquality of results that the programme required. Funds werereallocated between EA partners to scale up their work.

Logframe and M&E: The introduction of a logframerequirement in the GTF programme after the designstage, and the subsequent need to move towards amore results- based management approach, dominatedprogramme management in the rst two to three years asthe necessary M&E systems were set up with partners. Inthese early stages, we struggled to balance accountabilityto donors against accountability to partners, leading theMTR to advise that we refocus on delivery. We have sinceworked alongside partners to build their M&E capacity andnot adapted the logframe further (refer to external evaluationand management response).

Risk management: Throughout the GTF, we have taken aproactive approach to mitigating and managing both internaland external risks. As well as having a risk managementmatrix in place, which was regularly reviewed, we mappedand planned for key external moments such as electionsthat were likely to affect programme delivery. Our riskmanagement processes relied heavily on good quality,regular communication and open feedback betweenpartners, country programme and UK staff to identify risksas they arose and dene together appropriate plans andresponses from maintaining watching briefs to actively

changing strategic approaches. Together with the exibility

offered by the fund management, this enabled us to respondto specic risks as they arose. Examples include:

- Natural disaster - The Haiti earthquake in 2010 ledto our Dominican Republic partners attention beingtemporarily diverted towards supporting the suddeninux of Haitian refugees to the DR. The subsequentbacklash of public sympathy and government supportfor these groups created a more challenging advocacyenvironment. Our partner redened campaign strategiesand work with the media and communities accordingly.

- Political restructure - In Uganda, constituencyboundaries were redrawn during the GTF period,so community-based monitors have had to monitordifferent budgets and forge new relationships withLGA ofcials. New systems were also required formonitoring programme impact.

- Political will - In Brazil, Dilma Rousseffs administrationhas proven less supportive of indigenous andQuilombola groups than the previous government, andthe last ve years have seen the mainstream mediadepict these groups as criminals. This has meant fewerlands have been entitled and there has been littleenforcement for entitled groups from authorities. Again,partners have achieved key successes through adaptingtheir strategies by winning international popular supportand harnessing social media networks.

Many internal risks, and risks of working in partnershipwith delivering organisations, are mitigated by our

embedded policies and organisational processes. Theseinclude regular performance management, partnermonitoring visits and assessments, and partner reportssubmitted biannually and reviewed by country and UKofce staff. Each partner has developed mechanisms fordownward accountability to target groups embeddedwithin their programmes, which in most cases haveprovided effective transparent channels for communitiesand marginalised groups to raise issues. And in turn,Christian Aid has open formal and informal channelsof communication which ensures its own accountabilityto partners.


17/27


4.3. Programme Results and Impact a) What has changed:

Policy: in Brazil there have been a number of positiverulings on the land rights of indigenous and Quilombolacommunities, and the Clean Sheet Law was passed,preventing people with criminal records from standing forelected ofce. In Dominican Republic, refugees have beenable to acquire legal documentation so they can accessservices, and an Inter-American Committee on HumanRights hearing rebuked the government for its treatmentof Haitian refugees, stating that its policy of withdrawingcitizenship from the descendants of Haitian refugees isagainst their human rights. In Sierra Leone, the Kailahundistrict government voted to incorporate the partnersgender action plan into their working practice. In Iraq, a lawwas passed that nally put female genital mutilation in the

same bracket as domestic abuse, making it far easier toprosecute. Uganda has also allowed refugees access to legaldocumentation that enables them to access benets andservices, and fees for refugees registering births and deathshave been waived. Policy surrounding procurement hasbeen amended to make processes more transparent, andcorruption easily punishable. The promulgation of the newKenyan constitution created unprecedented opportunities forcivil society to inuence the countrys legislation. Advocacyaround citizenship legislation has led to waiting periodsfor essential citizenship documents in northern Kenya toreduce from ve to six months to two to three weeks.The countrys Constituency Development Fund, which hasheld back development in the north of the country sinceits establishment, due to discriminatory distribution, wasrebalanced through an equalisation fund which ensures fairdistribution according to the needs of each devolved county,driven by widespread campaigns involving partners who arenow monitoring CDF allocations.

Practice: in Tajikistan, the network of Public Chambersestablished by partners provides a new and effective wayfor people from marginalised rural areas, especially women,to access free legal advice and remedies, previouslyunavailable. In Nigeria, the Anambra state governmentnow publishes details of all major planned and actualinfrastructure projects for public scrutiny, and awards

contracts to local providers. In northern Kenya, a newcommunity-led vetting system for electoral candidatesattempts to ensure a focus on pro-poor policies as wellas giving greater transparency to the whole process.Governance surrounding water service delivery in the Isioloregion has improved as a result of partners monitoring andnationwide benchmarking. This has led to communitiestravelling vastly reduced distances to access water, andhas limited instances of ethnic-based rivalry triggered byterritorial claims over water access. In Ghana, signicantlymore children in the most deprived areas of the countryare beneting from the Ghana School Feeding Programme,and disabled people are beneting from a higher budgetaryallocation and improved environment that addresses theirphysical needs and constraints. In Uganda, improvedNAADS guidelines following partner advocacy have led tothe pro- poor agricultural benets reaching marginalisedgroups such as urban farmers. Layers of ineffective

bureaucracy in the implementation of the scheme have alsobeen streamlined to reduce costs and improve transparent,accountable implementation.

Behaviour: The focus of our programme has been to improveour partners and beneciaries capacity to engage theirleaders. In Sierra Leone, the Kailahun Women in GovernanceNetwork is offering new opportunities for more than 5,000women to get involved in politics and governance, as wellas supporting the continuation of advocacy to keep genderon the district council agenda, leading to high levels offemale elected representatives. In Brazil, a highly activesocial movement takes on all manner of social issues,drawing attention and galvanising the support of manymillions of people and reaching and representing the mostmarginalised groups in the country. In Nigeria, Uganda, Iraq,Tanzania and Ghana, partners have trained up networksof community- based monitors, who are now able to holdtheir leaders to account on a range of issues, and are betterinformed about and motivated to act on key issues. InTanzania, the partners actions have seen a marked rise inthe frequency of and attendance at statutory meetings of thelocal council, providing a platform for communities to assesstheir ofcials performance in terms of budget and servicedelivery, and make demands. In Uganda the government and

the police now show much improved attitudes and practicetowards refugees due to increased collaboration and the


18/27


incorporation of refugee rights and issues into the training ofnew police and prison ofcers. On top of this, the refugeeshave begun to independently form support and advocacygroups to nd ways to improve their own livelihoods. InIraq, partners are better able to engage with the local andnational government on social and service delivery issues,seeing improvement and change in both areas, and womenfrom impoverished rural areas with FGM incidence of over75% have successfully been supported to campaign forlegislation change in the Kurdistan region. In the DominicanRepublic, a new network of community-based advocacy andsupport groups has unied and empowered Haitian refugeesand their descendants across the country to campaignfor their rights. The locally-driven Reconoci.do campaignprovided a platform for these groups to grow and engagewith social media and international networks, to challengethe discriminatory attitudes and practices of the DominicanRepublic authorities. As well as providing free legal adviceand aid through Public Chambers, volunteers in Tajikistanhave led outreach in awareness-raising projects to tacklelocal issues head on, such as through awareness raising andtraining on higher education for girls to combat high drop- outrates, domestic violence issues and high suicide ratesamong women.

Changes in power relations: our dedicated work on powerin our GTF programme has been based on the idea thateverything is an expression of power relations, and soall changes, big and small, positive and negative, are anexample of shifting power relations. Particularly notableshifts of power towards those we have been working withare those where refugees in Kenya, Uganda and DominicanRepublic have gained access to legal documents throughtheir own work, partner advocacy and external pressure;where women are now more able to take decisions on theirown lives or resist decisions being made about them, suchas in Iraq, Tajikistan and Sierra Leone; and where systemshave been shifted and improved on a wholesale basis, thusbeneting large numbers of people, such as in Ghana.

b) Who has beneted:

As the Most Signicant Results analyses evidence, our GTFprogrammes have beneted targeted marginalised groups

across the world. In Dominican Republic, this was Haitianrefugees; in Brazil, indigenous communities and a network

of other marginalised groups; in Nigeria, Tajikistan and Iraq,poor communities, with a focus on women and girls. InGhana it was children and disabled people; in Sierra Leone,women; in Kenya, refugees, and also poor and marginalisedgroups more generally via the new constitution; and inUganda it was refugees and also marginalised communities,most of which were in impoverished rural areas.

c) How the change occurred:

Our programme used a common methodology, reectedin our theory of change and logframe, which all the countryprojects adhered to and adapted to t their context andfocus. This methodology addresses on one hand the capacityof CSOs to be able to hold leaders to account, and on theother the mobilisation of CSOs and civil society movementsto hold leaders to account. Capacity issues related to anynumber of things from internal systems and processesto the ability to analyse national budgets. Mobilising andholding leaders to account took many forms, from a morecollaborative, consensual working relationship that we sawin Sierra Leone, to one based on large-scale mobilisationof public voice against government decisions, such as inBrazil. Between this, many of our projects were consistentlyworking to nd ways to effectively engage with authorities,adapting their approach as they went along in response tochanging circumstances.

This adaptation was facilitated by the work that we didacross the programme looking at power, and using poweranalysis as a tool to better understand contexts, thereforesuggesting new and improved ways to engage withstructures and holders of power. As expected, this has hadvaried results in terms of both depth and type of result ithas helped to achieve. In Brazil the focus was on the massmedia and how the partners could interact more effectivelywith them, but this was always with the understanding thatthe media is in the hands of the elite, and so was going tobe extremely difcult to change signicantly. In Ghana, thepartners power analysis revealed that there was a specicindividual in the local government who was key to gettingtheir work in district assemblies accepted, and so they wereable to focus their work accordingly. In Iraq, the partnerswere able to assess in detail the gender dynamics at play

in two separate areas, and use this as a basis for a morenuanced and appropriate strategy for engaging with their


19/27


local authority, leading to a better quality of services beingdelivered.

d) Why

If we look at our programme as a whole, it strongly reafrmsthe principle that context is and should be the drivingdeterminant of the intervention, and the more focusedthe context, the more focused the work and the better thechances of delivering deep, meaningful and lasting change.So while it is possible to frame a multi-country programmein a single way, as we did in terms of the facilitation ofsocial movements and voice, the interpretation of thisin each context has to be allowed to develop and evolveindependently, otherwise the work is being manipulated tot the design rather than the other way round. Certain projectcontexts could be considered fragile, and all are in areas ofmarginalisation and poverty. As such, it is necessary to bevery clear what issue is being addressed, and even more

aware of the political economy, re-analysing this regularly asthings can and do change frequently in such environments.

We found that attempting to do too much, or expectingresults to be achieved quickly, were both likely to result indisappointment. All of our partners were aware that the workthat they were doing formed just part of much longer termand more detailed processes of social change, and that theywere unlikely to see ultimate success during the GTF period.This required a more realistic M&E system and generalappreciation of impact reporting within the partners andChristian Aid. We are comfortable in stating that our workhas contributed to successes rather than struggling to proveattribution. This approach is also highly empowering, andmore effective as it allows the work to happen naturally, andgives all stakeholders more time to do what is important,though we accept that we did not consistently get thisbalance right and in the latter stages of the programme thereporting burden became excessive.

We feel that our programme was successful because wewere clear but modest in our goals, and allowed our partnersand staff the freedom to make the projects work in the waythey felt best. This was helped by our own freedom to beable to manage funds with some exibility, and also by usencouraging the partners not to be too ambitious but ratherto focus strongly on something that they really felt couldbe achieved in the time they had. We also used our learning

budget to support the partners to consolidate regionallearning towards the end of the programme, which was avery good way to showcase what had been achieved, tobuild regional linkages and to help the partners look for newways to sustain their work. This learning focused on issuesof women and girls in West Africa, media engagement inLatin America and the Caribbean, and citizenship and rightsin East Africa.

These factors meant that some unexpected results wereachieved, such as Haitian refugee issues being taken to theInter-American Commission on Human Rights, which wewould never have predicted or planned for, though on thewhole there were not signicant unexpected results.

In terms of obstacles, the main, perennial one, and onethat was expected from the start, is around political will, orthe ability of authorities to respond to demands from civilsociety. This is at the core of our power analysis, that shifting

power is always a challenge because power holders areeither unable or unwilling to cede their power, or indeed thatthe initial targets may not really be the power holders thatare relevant to the particular issue. For example, many localgovernments are as frustrated by their lack of resourcesand inuence as the citizens to whom they are supposedto be delivering services. This is not usually a problem to besolved as such, but an ongoing challenge that all civil societygroups and movements need to aware of and consistentlyassessing if they want their work to deliver results.

In terms of sequencing, rather than looking at thingsin a strictly linear way, with one stage naturally leadingto another, the broad outcomes of the global logframeenabled the country projects to work in a more circular way,implementing a number of activities simultaneously, andfeeding learning from this back into future phases of activity.This is reective of the nature of working on governanceissues, and it would have been a mistake to expect things tomove in a predictable or neat progression.


20/27


4.4 Sustainability and Value for MoneyThe nature of our programme, focused on voice andaccountability, and the fact that it operates entirely throughlocal partners means that we havent delivered any services atall. So our assessment of sustainability focuses on impact.

We are condent that all of our partners, and many of thecommunities they work with, have improved capacities tospeak up about their rights and hold leaders to account. Thespace to enable them to do this is very context- dependent:in some cases it has been claimed, in others created, inothers co-opted; and, in all circumstances, what space thereis can change at any moment, sometimes with little notice.Where impact has been a result of more collaboration, thisspace is more secure than where it is more combativelyheld, but even then a change in government personnel caneasily cause this space to close. But the fact partners havestronger capacity is one factor that can help in keeping such

spaces open or creating new ones. Where legal or policychange has happened, there is a much stronger basis forexpecting that changes will not be reversed, or, if they are,that a clearer basis now exists for mounting a campaign tostem the reversal.

Sustainability is, therefore, a product of things that areboth internal and external; within and outside the partnerscontrol. As the ultimate results are likely to be long term,it will only be over a longer period of time that an accurateassessment of sustainability can be made. For example,if we look at the work in Tajikistan, the fact that there isno funding to carry on the work of the Public Chambers is

negative, but then the government is keen to take on thestructure, offering an extended lifeline to this importantwork. But this may also be a way of the governmentco- opting and neutering something effective.

In Nigeria, the work will be continuing as the countryprogramme has secured 2 million of funding to explicitlycarry on and expand the work of the GTF, though this is theonly example of that kind from our programme. However, inother examples, the work that the partners have been doingis embedded in their own workplans, and will therefore besustained as long as the partners are still operating and haveworkable budgets from other sources. For example, in SierraLeone, SEND has multiple funding sources and the WomensNetwork is a key element of various interventions and so will

continue after the GTF. KHRC in Kenya will also continue withtheir work with school children and on issues of citizenship.

We are condent that our programme represents verygood value for money . Within the budget that was agreed,each of the projects and the programme as a whole used

the relatively small funding available to deliver very strongresults that have had signicant changes on the lives ofvery marginalised women and men, at least meeting theexpected outcomes in the original programme plan.

As this was not a programme of direct implementation, andwas focused on mobilising voice via civil society groups andmovements, there was little actual procurement that we canuse as a basis for core economy assessments. Instead, wemust tie economy to efciency, effectiveness and equity, aswhat we were buying was changes in power and capacityof individuals and groups, and indirectly the use of thispower and capacity to hold leaders to account and demandrights and change.

Our management costs have been kept to a minimum, almostexcessively so as several independent evaluations have noted(an interesting example in itself of where striving for economycan negatively impact upon effectiveness). Country teamsoften gave above and beyond what was expected of them.As agreed with GTF management, when we had underspentfunds, we were able to use these to our discretion to bestsupport emerging impact across the programme, which is akey example of enhancing the value that the programme wasdelivering with no additional overall cost.

Aside from the measurement of VFM, there is also themanagement of VFM, that is, the quotidian, often informalprocesses and decisions that determine how things areimplemented and how best to deliver work given speciccontextual knowledge and circumstances. Again, we wouldstrongly contend that all our country ofce staff, workingwith partners, have consistently shown that they are ableto make such decisions, ranging from decisions to closestalled partnerships to how best to use additional funds toenhance impact.

Our rst evaluation report noted that we have focusedstrongly on learning, and we feel that this is an important

factor of our VFM. This programme is generating a signicantweight of analysis which is, and will continue to be, collated


21/27


and fed back into Christian Aid and into the sector with theaim of improving knowledge and performance.

In summary, therefore, this programme has shown that it iseconomical, that it is both efcient and effective and that ithas delivered equitable change.

4.5 InnovationWe are aware that recently there has been a greater focuson closing feedback loops in service delivery using newtechnology, but it would have been very difcult to bringsuch things into our programme articially, and it is unlikelythat there would have been capacity to manage such thingseffectively. In Sierra Leone, a mass-SMS system was putin place, but only had limited use. The Platform of SocialMovements in Brazil was very active on new media, but howfar this can be considered innovative is up for debate.

The establishment of Public Chambers was an innovationin geographic terms, as no similar service was availablebeforehand in Tajikistan. Its institutionalisation within theframework of the newly established Ombudsman is alsonew, and conrmed at the end of the programme. Similarinstitutions are available in other countries.

Our work on power is not founded on new concepts, nor isit particularly different from other types of context analysis,including theory of change, of which it can play a crucial part.However, we do feel that the use of these concepts at thelocal level has proven to be innovative, and certainly wasperceived as such by a number of the partners who foundit useable, interesting and effective, and implemented itwithin their GTF projects and in some cases throughout theirorganisations strategic planning.

SEND Posters of women candidates standing in the 2012 elections. Kailahun was the only district in Sierra Leone which exceededits 30% target of women candidates in local and national elections, following partner awareness raising and empowerment activities.


22/27


DFID/KPMG1. Learning is not an add-on. We feel very strongly that the lack of a clear, operationallearning strategy for the GTF is a signicant missedopportunity, and one that can only have a negative effect on

the programmes overall value for money, as well as on theinternational network of grantees, who have hardly had anyopportunity to engage with one another or share learningfrom each others programmes. The few learning events thatwere organised have not fed back into the programme in ameaningful way. There was no place online where granteescould interact, which could have been a very easy win. Infuture programmes it is essential that the learning strategy isagreed and ready by the end of inception, so that all granteescan benet from and plan for it.

2. Lessons from the Most Signicant Resultsa) This was an interesting exercise in drawing out and

reecting on the key results from across the programmeand interrogating the scale, depth and sustainabilityof change. The template was well thought out andcomprehensive.

b) The VFM analysis was particularly interesting. Although, asdescribed above, we feel that our programme offers verygood value for money, only some MSRs ticked the rightboxes and were clearly measurable against the denedcriteria. Moreover, this VFM evaluability did not necessarilyindicate the most impactful results. This was particularlythe case where partners were involved in widespreadmovements leading to top level change, such as INESCs

Ficha Limpa result.c) As a last-minute new requirement with tight deadlines for

the levels of analysis required, the process was difcultto manage. Our partners were already working on nalannual reports, participating in the external evaluation andworking towards project completion as well as nishingactivities. This meant that gathering the results and draftingthe analyses were largely top-down exercises, withChristian Aid staff communicating with partners principallyto verify facts and ensure coherence of how success isperceived. It would be interesting to have had the chanceto properly interrogate communities perceptions of eachprojects most signicant result and to know whether thestatements submitted would have looked different. Time

and budget did not allow for this, but from recent reportsreceived and conversations with partners, it is interestingto note that less tangible improvements in empowermentand subtle changes to discriminatory attitudes areperceived as the most signicant changes in the lives ofmarginalised groups. These impacts do not neatly t intoresults statement templates.

d) Without a clearly communicated vision of how theseresults and the rest of the achievements fed in throughour Project Completion Report and Achievement RatingScale will be used, it is a concern that our wholeprogramme may be boiled down to mean only these MSRstatements. It is our feeling that this would not sufcientlycapture the empowerment successes of our programme,and other results and stories of change that cannot beeasily aggregated may slip through the net.

3. Better assess trade-offs between and within M&E andeffectiveness. Reporting is of course necessary, but how and when it isdone can be adapted and achieved in a variety of ways. Aclearer idea of how to do this earlier in the programme wouldhelp to reduce later stress and focus on gathering results ina way that actually draws attention away from delivery.

DFID4. Be more involved.We understand that programmes need to be managed byintermediaries, but this doesnt mean that there has to besuch a degree of remove from DFID. That this was the case

actually gave the impression that there was a lack of interestin the programme, and certainly didnt help when it came tomanaging aspects of the programme such as learning.

CSOs/NGOs5. Be more assertive about what works, and how best toimplement programmes. We should push back when we are condent we know howthings could best operate and that our contextual knowledgeis important.

5. Recommendations


23/27


6. Plan programmes exibly to enable them to adaptto the needs of their context.In order to deliver strong programmes, it is essential to havea strong basis in contextual understanding that reectsthe realities of power dynamics rather than assumptionsof what should be the case. This understanding needs tobe constantly updated and assessed, and project deliveryadapted to meet changing circumstances. Power analysis,properly factored into a programme with sufcient time,budget and support to do it properly, can be a powerful andeffective way of doing this. Of course a key part of this is thewillingness of all parties to respond to the outcomes of suchanalysis. Analysing where power blockages and potentialopenings may be are only interesting in and of themselves;they become useful when the project is able to adaptwhat it is doing to try to avoid or exploit such challenges oropportunities. On a small scale this may not be an issue,but if it becomes clear that a key tenet of a programmeis ineffective, it may require that donors support a morewholesale change of approach.

7. Plan programmes with sufcient resource to managedonor M&E requirements. In the current donor environment, results-basedmanagement is an essential element of programmemanagement and ongoing M&E. This should be integratedinto budgets and made clear to partners from the beginningof programmes, so that the necessary capacity building cantake place and focus and funds are not diverted away fromplanned delivery in order to meet reporting requirements. Itis important that current donor expectations for incrediblylow cost, highly demanding M&E are re-adjusted to allowgrant applicants to realistically estimate their M&E costs tomeet the demands of results-based management, and dontend up absorbing them at the cost of the programme.

Children receiving lunch through the Ghana School FeedingProgramme, now available in poor and marginalisedcommunities across the Upper West District. Over the courseof the GTF, access to the programme has increased by 1,400%to over 140,000 children following community awarenessraising and monitoring


24/27


Annexes

Annex 1 Final Achievement Rating Scale*

Annex 2 Final Logical Framework*

Annex 3 Final Financial Report

Annex 4 Final List of Material Produced during Programme*Annex 5 Most Signicant Results Analyses*

Annex 6 Final Evaluation (Available on request)

Annex 7 Politically sensitive information

*Available on request please contact Kevin ODell,Programme Funding Ofcer, Global Initiatives, at kodell@christian-aid. org


25/27


Annex 3 FinalFinancial Report

This report presents actual expenditure against our agreed detailed budget (not the summary budget used for FundingRequests). Expenditure variances in excess of 10% of the agreed budget have been submitted as separate notes to ournancial report.

3.1 Programme Identication

1. GTF Reference No. GTF-3012. Organisation Name Christian Aid

3.2 Final Reporting Period1. Start of Period 01 April 2013

2. End of Period 31 Oct 2013

3.3 Funds received from DFID during Final

Reporting PeriodPayment No. Date Received Amount

Payment 1 03/04/2013 120,194.73

Payment 2 16/07/2013 10,360.00

Total received during Period 130,554.73

3.4 Expenditure during nal Reporting Period

Agreed Budget Lines Agreed Budget forPeriod

Actual Expenditurefor Period

Variance Variance %

Christian Aid stafng 99,471.64 89,849.03 -9,622.61 -9.67%Output 1 Knowledge,awareness and organisation

0.00 -6,295.64 2 -6,295.64 -

Output 2 Action andInteraction with Authorities

0.00 -4,907.74 3 -4,907.74 -

Output 3 Civil societyworking together

0.00 -2,430.80 4 -2,430.80 -

Output 4 Experiencesharing activities

70,366.12 51,615.38 5 -18,750.74 -26.65% 6

Partner support grants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Total for period 169,837.76 127,830.23 -42,007.53 -24.73%

2 Negative amount due to returns of unspent fund balances from partners.3 See note 1 above4 See note 1 above5 Includes returns of unspent fund balances from partners6 Primarily due to partner returning unspent funds from Partner Learning Events7 See notes 1 to 5


26/27


3.5 Expenditure since start of Programme

Agreed Budget Lines Total AgreedProgramme Budget

Total Expenditure Variance Variance %

Christian Aid stafng 462,218.55 452,595.94 -9,622.61 -2.08%

Output 1 Knowledge,awareness and organisation

1,476,656.46 1,470,360.82 -6,295.64 -0.43%

Output 2 Action andInteraction with Authorities

1,458,884.75 1,453,977.01 -4,907.74 -0.34%

Output 3 Civil societyworking together

1,013,013.17 1,010,582.37 -2,430.80 -0.24%

Output 4 Experiencesharing activities

485,586.45 466,835.71 18,750.74 3.86%

Partner support grants 103,435.62 103,435.62 0.00 0.00%

Total to Date 4,999,795.00 4,957,787.47 -42,007.53 -0.84%

3.6 Asset registerAvailable on request

3.7 Detailed Financial BreakdownAvailable on request

Annex 7There is no politically sensitive information.


27/27

christianaid.org.ukchristianaid.ieUK registered charity number 1105851 Company number 5171525Scotland charity number SC039150Northern Ireland charity number XR94639 Company number NI059154Republic of Ireland charity number CHY 6998 Company number 426928

The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian AidPoverty Over is a trademark of Christian Aid. Christian Aid November 2013 14-122-J1873

Cover image: R&P The deputy Ombudsman from Dushanbe opens therst Public Chamber jointly established by Christian Aid partner Rights &Prosperity and the National Ombudsman for Human Rights. R&Ps PublicChambers initiative has been so successful that the Ombudsmen is keento establish many more throughout the country to reduce corruption,help people access their rights, benets and entitlements and holdthe government to account. The Ombudsman recently committed tonancing and sustaining the network of nine Public Chambers acrossTajikistan established through the GTF from January 2014.Credit: Christian Aid/Amanda Farrant, UDN/Walter Akwat, OPAN/AdrianoGambarini, SEND, KHRC

gtf project completion report 2008 2013

Documents