This stream contains information and resources for academic researchers, interested in learning about the Project and its methodology

Academics homepage

 Introduction

 Views on poverty

 Profile of IHAUDP

   Background statistics

   Identification of needs

   Preintervention features

 Redd-Barna programme

 Culture and philosophy

 IHAUDP's unique strength

 Objectives

 Programme summaries

 Plan and agreement

 Procedures

 Achievements

 Phase-out

Section guide

Simply click the headings above to go to each page

Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures

Plan as well as Sustainability and Phase out Strategy

How Monitoring and Evaluation is done at IHA-UDP

Together with planning and budgeting and program implementation, monitoring and evaluation systems have to be put in place. These are all part of the general effort to make programs sustainable. The importance of monitoring and evaluation cannot be emphasized enough. IHA-UDP team believes that transparency, credibility, accountability, efficiency and professionalism can only be sustained if only continuous monitoring and evaluation processes are built into the routine working procedure. Quality of work will only continue to improve when a team is 'process oriented' and is not only willing to continuously engage in self-analysis but also to constructively use feed back from the target community, public authorities and last but not least donors.

Reporting Systems

A quarterly reporting system operates based on the government and donors reporting requirement and guidelines adopted to IHA-UDP operational procedure. If government and donors require the coverage of their own specific period and formats then IHA-UDP is under obligation to meet that requirement. Quarterly reports are regularly sent to all donors as well as government regulatory agencies. The main features are reports on objectives set for the quarter achievement and performance in regard to budget utilization. Unless there are adequate reasons for failure to implement or utilize budget, the report compels each component to be transparent enough to state the reasons for not accomplishing plans.

On-going Evaluation and Monitoring

1. The quarterly report sent out to donors is structured in such a way that each programme states its plans, accomplishments and budget.

2. Monthly and quarterly Educational Extension Workers and Neighbourhood Group meetings have an open forum to discuss progress or failure of planned programme implementation and give a feed back to the Project staff.

3. Monthly and/or quarterly meetings held with Woreda and Kebele officials who are members of the Advisory committee also receive quarterly reports.

4. The annual seminars for community leaders, relevant regional/local and central government representatives get detailed activity and financial reports and have an open forum to give feedback to the Project. It is also a forum where issues and plans are discussed and approved.

5. The various community leaders: the neighbourhood groups, the youth as well as the elders have forums in which reports are given, dialogues and interactive discussions are carried out and feedback is given to the project.

6. Donors, besides getting quarterly, half yearly and annual reports, actually come and visit the Project to get first hand information and follow-up.

7. The quarterly community meetings are the best forums for up-dating, dialoguing, interacting and carrying out an on-going evaluation.

Regular and Set Evaluation

Three formal evaluation procedures are part of IHA-UDP routines and donors are under obligation to fund them. These are:

1. mid term evaluation

2. pre phase out evaluation

3. post phase out evaluation

These are done to measure plans against performance and progress made following the original baseline survey identification of needs. They also assess whether objectives are achieved, that time frameworks for implementation is realistic, and that appropriate and adequate fund utilization match the plans.

It also gives the Project feedback on weaknesses and strengths. If weaknesses are identified they can be corrected and the course of action can be altered within the context. The government also conducts different evaluations at different times with its own objectives.

IHA-UDP Methods in Evaluation Procedures
 

Prior to the above set evaluation periods, the community is informed well in advance in community meetings.

EEWs, NHG, the Youth, Kebele officials, Community workers representatives are given orientation and training.

The objectives of the orientation and training is to explain the importance of 'the community diagnosis'. Awareness has to be created to point out the importance of objectivity, transparency, ethics and clear understanding of purposes

• To most people, evaluation means fault finding. However, these sessions, like other teaching sessions, are backed up with audio visuals, interactive discussions prompted by drama or sketch to provoke thoughts and spontaneous brainstorming - this is also part of the conscientization process.

• The staff are also given orientation sessions which encourage transparency, clear understanding and the advantage of self evaluation. This process has been very important in giving the staff confidence to be objective and honest.

• Local professional evaluators representing the three major Components (Health, CD and PUG) are head hunted.

• External evaluators (one from one of the donors' countries and one from a Third World country) are proposed by donors. Alternatively, the Project head-hunts them. The credential of these evaluators are circulated and approved by donors. Local professional evaluators representing the three professions of the three components conduct the evaluation first. Discussions are conducted. External evaluators use the research material from local professionals and combine their own additional information and prepare the final evaluation report.

• At all levels, dialogues, discussions and feedback on findings and reviewing different draft documents are carried out.

Specifically Requested Evaluation

During the life span of the project, additional specific evaluations had been done upon the request of donors and the project team.

In socio-economic (CD) issues:

1. Repeated evaluation of at least three different income generating units.

2. Education:

1. specifically on Alemaya School

2. the Kindergarten in general and the Mentally Retarded children's programme in particular.

3. Rehabilitation :

1. the old person's programme

2. the delinquency programme
    

In Health:

1. The impact of the Mother and Child Health programmes (2 times)

2. Nutrition programmes (2 times)

Others:

1. Child focus evaluation, commissioned by Radda Barnen

2. The annual financial auditing

Some important recommendations that necessitated changes and adjustment and time frame work in the life of the Project as the result of evaluations are as follows:
 

a) The midterm evaluation (1993)

• This identified the problem the project was facing: in the early stage in fund raising and change of government/change of policy etc.. and all that it entailed.

• It recommended extension in the life span of the project.

• It was therefore decided and agreed by donors to extend the life of the Project up to the end of 1997. The FRDCB also signed an agreement with IHA-UDP extending the lifespan of the project to December 1997.

• It recommended that the Income Generating Unit should be recognized and be made profit making, otherwise it was identified as being non-profit making. The beneficiaries should be informed and alternative plans be made.

b) The pre-phase out evaluation

• It was felt that implementation against objectives and plans were adequately addressed

• Issues of sustainability and strategy on phase out were on target.

• The project should phase out as planned end of December 1997.

• Future: advice on public relations promotion and information documentation (demographic).

• It recognized the difficulty the project faced in relation to commitments not honoured by the government concerning the Health Component and education in particular.

c) Income Generating

• Radical changes recommended and in depth study indicated drastic action - duly in process.

• Major weakness in IHA-UDP general activities is identified to be income generating (IGU) programmes.

d) Ex-delinquents programme
 

Found a unique success therefore to be replicated.
 

e) Nutrition
 

The importance of continuity was recognized and it would be supported by the Weaning Food Plant.
 

f) Health
 

The importance of scaling up to a clinic, and sustaining the programme was recognized.
 

Almost all the above important recommendations made by evaluators at different times were accepted and implemented; but alternative plans had to be made for certain issues such as phase out strategy and post phase out funding.

Next: Achievements

Return to Academic Section Homepage

Previous: Plan and agreement

Glossary:
 

AHISDO: Addis Hiwot [New Life] Integrated Sustainable Development Organization

CBISDO: Community-Based Integrated Sustainable Development Organisation

CD: Community Development

EEW: Educational Extension Worker

IGU: Income Generating Unit

IHA-UDP: Integrated Holistic Approach Urban Development Project

NHG: Neighbourhood Group

PUG: Physical Upgrading

PHC: Primary Health Care

Is anything missing?  If you think it would be helpful to add other terms to this list, please simply email the web editor.