CSCF Annual Report - template and guidance
Global Poverty Action Fund
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2014
Please read the following instructions carefully.
This annual report template includes DFID reporting requirements for 2014. It is designed to:
✓ provide assurance on project progress and management;
✓ check compliance with the terms and conditions of your grant;
✓ inform a wider analysis of all GPAF projects; and
✓ Contribute to learning on emerging results.
What has changed from last year’s (2013) template?
The template has been revised in response to feedback from grant holders reporting in 2013, the Fund Manager’s experience from previous rounds, and comments from the GPAF Evaluation Manager.
The key changes are:
➢ The template is no longer protected to make it easier to complete.
➢ The guidance notes and the structure of some questions have been amended to improve clarity, particularly in relation to value for money.
➢ Additional questions have been introduced to enable reporting of unintended outcomes and consequences, and project efforts towards gender mainstreaming.
➢ The guidance and structure of ‘Annex A - Outcome and Output Scoring’ has been amended to ensure that the reporting is complementary to the information on progress included in the ‘Reporting Logframe’. There is also new guidance on the definition of project beneficiaries for GPAF.
What is required?
How?
➢ Where relevant, refer back to your 2013 Annual (or Interim) Report feedback letter
➢ Use the Annual Report template (this document). Please note that in response to feedback, the template is now an unprotected WORD document. Please do not alter the structure of the template.
➢ Cover the period between 1st April 2013 and 31st March 2014
➢ Try to keep within the page length limits.
➢ Submit your Annual Report and all accompanying documentation, including separate annexes as WORD / Excel documents, rather than PDF files.
➢ Send all required documents by email to gpaf@. Hard copies are not required.
When?
Your report is due by 30th April 2014
What to send? (Use as checklist)
1. Narrative Report (this document)
|Mark with an |Section and Title |Page limit |Notes |
|“X” | | | |
|X |1 |Basic Information |2 |Basic project data. |
|X |2 |Summary, Progress & Results |6 |A narrative summary of progress and results. |
|X |3 |Value for Money |2 |A summary of actions and achievements in relation to value for |
| | | | |money. |
|X |4 |Sustainability |1 |Progress towards ensuring sustainability |
|X |5 |Project Accountability to |1 |Information on project mechanisms to enable beneficiary feedback.|
| | |Stakeholders | | |
|X |6 |Learning |3 |Lessons from project implementation for learning and |
| | | | |dissemination to others. |
|X |7 |Responses to Due Diligence |1 |Information on actions undertaken following Due Diligence review |
| | |Recommendations | |(if not already reported). |
|X |Annex A |Outcome and output scoring |12 |A record of progress against the milestones and targets in your |
| | | | |project logframe. Includes an assessment of progress against each|
| | | | |indicator and the evidence which supports the statements of |
| | | | |achievement. |
|X |Annex B |Consolidated beneficiary table |2 |An summary of the number of individual project beneficiaries. |
|X |Annex C |Portfolio Analysis |3 |Some basic information about your project to feed into an |
| | | | |analysis of the whole portfolio of GPAF projects. |
2. Project Documents (attachments)
|Mark with an |Document |Notes |
|“X” | | |
|X |Photograph(s) |New photograph(s) which illustrates or tells a story of your project. |
| | | |
| | |Attach as a separate file(s) (i.e. do not embed into another document), preferably as |
| | |a JPEG file. |
| | | |
| | |IMPORTANT: In separate document please provide: |
| | |* captions or explanations of the photo(s); |
| | |* the photographer’s name, if possible; |
| | |* assurance that subjects have given their consent, both for the photograph to be |
| | |taken and for its possible use in learning/publicity materials. |
|X |Reporting Log frame |Most recently approved Logframe and Activity Log in Excel format, with ‘Achieved’ |
| | |boxes completed for each indicator, and each relevant milestone. |
| | | |
| | |Please label this document: “GPAF (ref. no.) Reporting Logframe (+ date prepared)”. |
|n/a |Revised Log frame |To be submitted if you are proposing a revision to the logframe – see section 2.9 of |
| | |the report. |
| | | |
| | |Please label this document: “GPAF (ref. no.) Revised Logframe – Proposed (+ date |
| | |prepared)”. |
|n/a |Revised Risk Matrix |Highlights any new risks, if applicable - see section 2.10 of the report. |
3. Financial Report (attachment - use the most recent Excel template circulated with this report template)
|Mark with an |Document |Notes |
|“X” | | |
|X |Annual Financial Report + Variance Notes |Two worksheets on Excel template showing expenditure over 2013/14, compared|
| | |to budget. |
|X |Financial Summary |Worksheet on Excel template showing a summary of expenditure over the life |
| | |of your project, compared to budget. |
It is very important to note that:
➢ Project expenditure must be reported against the full budget agreed by Fund Manager and not the summary budget used for expenditure claims.
➢ Any variances in excess of 10%, either positive or negative, (or transfers between main budget-sub-headings) must be explained.
➢ You should show any variances both in terms of total amount in GBP (£) and as a percentage of budget.
Background References:
Further Guidance documents that may help with the completion of this annual report:
Gender and Diversity:
• Gender guidelines prepared specifically for the GPAF: Gender and the Global Poverty Action Fund
Value For Money:
• BOND VFM Guidelines
• BOND – Integrating VFM into the Programme Cycle Diagram
• DFID VFM Guidelines
Quality of Evidence:
• BOND Quality of Evidence Guidelines
• DFID How-To-Note – Assessing the Strength of Evidence
Any Questions?
If you have any questions about the completion of your annual reporting requirements, please contact the Fund Manager at gpaf@ or on 0208 788 4680.
Common questions and answers will be circulated as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
|GPAF ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT |
|SECTION 1: BASIC INFORMATION |
|This information is needed to update the Fund Manager’s records |
| |Grant Holder Organisation Name |Concern Worldwide (UK) |
| |Grant Holder Organisation Address |13/14 Calico House |
| | |Clove Hitch Quay |
| | |London |
| | |SW11 3TN |
| |Project partner(s) | |
| |List implementation partners. |i) Doaba Foundation; ii)Lodhran Pilot Project (LPP) |
| |Highlight any changes to partners. |No change to report |
| |For multi-country projects, please indicate which | |
| |partner is in which country |Not Applicable |
| |Project Title |Reducing Poverty for Extremely Poor Men and Women by Increasing Sustainable Income, |
| | |Improving Food Security, and Enhancing Social and Political Participation in District |
| | |Layyah, Pakistan |
| |GPAF Number |GPAF-IMP-096 |
| |Countries |Pakistan |
| |Location within countries |Choubara Tehsil, Layyah District, Punjab Province, Pakistan |
| |Project Start & End Dates |Start: 01/12/2013 |
| | |End: 30/11/2016 |
| |Reporting Period |From: 01/12/2013 |
| | |To: 31/3/2014 |
| |Project Year (e.g. Year 1, Year 2) |Year 1 |
| |Total project budget |£ 2,055,000 |
| |Total funding from DFID |£ 1,438,505 |
| |Financial contributions from other sources |Total £ 616,495 |
| |Please state all other sources of funding and | |
| |amounts in relation to this project. Sources should|List all contributions |
| |be listed in brackets, e.g.: |£ 616,495 (Concern Worldwide) |
| |£75,000 (ABC Foundation) | |
| |Date report produced |30/04/2014 |
| |Name and position of person(s) who compiled this |Name: Ms Aisha Jamshed |
| |report |Position: Grants Specialist |
| | |Name: Mr Sherzada Khan |
| | |Position: Assistant Country Director Programmes |
| | |Name: |
| | |Position: |
| |Name, position & email address for the main contact|Name: Ms Claire Parfondry |
| |person for correspondence relating to this project |Position: UK Programme Funding Coordinator |
| | |Email 1: Claire.parfondry@ |
| | |Email 2: |
| |Secondary contact person (optional) |Name: |
| | |Position: |
| |Acronyms |
| |Please try not to use too many acronyms, and explain all that you do use e.g. CHW – Community Health Worker. |
|Acronym |Explanation |
|CMST |Community Management Skill Training |
|CO |Community Organisation |
|CRM |Complaints Response Mechanism |
|CSO |Civil Society Organisation |
|DRR |Disaster Risk Reduction |
|HCUEP |How Concern Understands Extreme Poverty |
|IEC |Information, Education, and Communication |
|PDMA |Provincial Disaster Management Authority |
|UC |Union Council |
|SECTION 2: SUMMARY, PROGRESS AND RESULTS (Aim for no more than 6 pages) |
| |PROJECT SUMMARY (200 words) |
| |In your own words please describe your project and its context. |
|The ‘Reducing Poverty for Extremely Poor Men and Women by Increasing Sustainable Income, Improving Food Security, and Enhancing Social and Political |
|Participation in District Layyah, Pakistan’ project targets one of Punjab’s most remote and vulnerable Districts, which falls in the top-five Districts |
|with more than 31 per cent of the population living beneath the poverty line (Sustainable Development Policy Institute, 2013). Under this project, the |
|six-most vulnerable Union Councils (UCs) of Choubara Tehsil have been identified for various interventions aimed at assisting the extreme poor who have |
|severely limited resources/assets or very low returns on assets, which are contributing to their vulnerability and poverty. To contribute to poverty |
|reduction and improve food security in target areas, the primary project activities include: improvement of agricultural techniques; introduction of |
|high-efficiency irrigation systems; capacity-building/awareness-raising of communities on various topics (Disaster Risk Management, advocacy, participatory|
|development/management, equality/human rights, among others); and development of entrepreneurship skills to diversify livelihoods/income sources. |
|Throughout the project, Concern/partners are also facilitating the involvement of Government departments to bridge the gap between communities/authorities,|
|which will help ensure that communities become more self-reliant in the long term with the linkages necessary to advocate for their development needs in |
|the future. |
| |RELEVANCE |
| |Does your GPAF project remain relevant in the context where you are working? Please explain what you have done to ensure that the |
| |interventions represented in the log frame and activity log continue to respond to the needs of the target population. |
|Layyah District is one of the most under-served and remote areas of Punjab Province. As noted above, the District has the fifth-highest incidence of severe|
|poverty among the 36 Districts of Punjab. Within Layyah, Choubara Tehsil is the poorest out of all three Tehsils in the District. In evidence of this, the |
|baseline study conducted at the start of this project (February-March 2014) revealed that 91 per cent of the population has insufficient income to meet |
|their basic needs. The monthly income for male-headed households was found to be at GBP 56.36/ month, while for female-headed households it is just GBP |
|42.88/month, meaning that on average both male- and female-headed households survive on less than GBP 1.50/day. In addition, 79 per cent of female and male|
|respondents are not satisfied that their voices are being heard by formal institutions. |
| |
|Compounding this poverty and exclusion, the target area is also prone to natural disasters, including flood and drought, which have increased the |
|vulnerability of the extreme poor and their food insecurity. The baseline study revealed that only 14 per cent of the targeted population has sufficient |
|food stock to satisfy their needs for the whole year, whereas the remaining 86 per cent borrow food supplies from their neighbours or purchase it on |
|loan/credit from the market adding to their existent food insecurity. Women also appear to experience disproportionate marginalisation among the targeted |
|populations, as only 10 per cent of male community members reported positive perceptions about gender/women rights. Furthermore, approximately 86 per cent |
|of extremely poor men and women are not aware of their basic rights. Based on the above-mentioned factors, the project activities will continue to meet the|
|needs of the target groups and the project objectives by increasing/diversifying income-generating opportunities, building capacity for more participatory |
|development and advocacy, and awareness-raising of communities about their rights and particularly those of women and marginalised groups. |
| |EQUITY (GENDER & DIVERSITY) |
| |Does this project continue to contribute to equity (i.e. equitable poverty reduction and empowerment of men, women, girl and boys and relevant|
| |marginalised groups to participate in decisions that affect them at the local and national level)? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box) |
| |Yes |
|The project has continuously sought to ensure that project activities foster inclusivity and equitable representation, especially for those who were |
|previously marginalised from decision-making. Women, the elderly, people with disabilities, and minorities are being facilitated to participate in |
|community forums, and approximately 40 per cent of membership in community organisations (COs) is held by women. In addition, the project has promoted the |
|inclusion of women and ethnic minorities in the leadership roles in these community structures by electing/selecting 40 women as executive members (office |
|bearers) of the COs (out of a total of 90 executive members). Although the participation of women in COs does not in itself guarantee that they are any |
|more able to participate in decision-making than before, the fact that so many women are among the office bearers is significant: not only are the |
|individual women emopowered, but their presence lends confidence to the women in the community as a whole. We will be evaluating this during the mid-term |
|and annual reviews and will share the subsequent findings. |
| |
|As well, the project’s kitchen gardening activity (300 packages) was specifically designed targeting women who have a large number of children, low |
|mobility, and limited access to the markets and other services. The provision of kitchen gardening kits/demonstrations thus provides them with the skills |
|and inputs necessary to contribute to their household’s food security and nutrition. In addition, by empowering women with these skills, providing them |
|with both access to and control over the kitchen gardening tools/inputs (a significant achievement given that most women lack control over household |
|income-generating/livelihoods resources), and forming a basis from which their meaningful contribution to the household is more formally recognised, this |
|activity also shifts perceptions of women’s roles and encourages women to be more actively involved in a range of productive activities. The importance of |
|this change should not be underestimated: where men previously controlled vegetable consumption (through the decision on what vegetables to buy), the |
|handing over of this apparently low-level household decision to women is a real marker of change in the household dynamic. |
| |What has the project done this year in relation to gender mainstreaming (efforts to ensure gender issues are addressed in all aspects of |
| |project management and in organisational policies and practice – including the project staffing profile)? (Please refer to the guidance note |
| |‘Gender and the GPAF’) |
|During the reporting period, gender considerations have been mainstreamed throughout all stages of the project cycle (design through implementation thus |
|far). To this end, the project design and budget was developed taking into account the detailed gender analysis conducted during the project needs |
|assessment, with specific activities to encourage and involve women and other marginalised groups in the program (at both the community and District |
|levels), including women, men, girls, boys, minorities, old age, people with disability, etc. At the field level, Concern/partners have used a range of |
|approaches to encourage and ensure female participation; for example, in areas where it was feasible given the cultural/social context, joint male/female |
|village organisations were formed, yet in areas in which such a joint formation would have acted as a barrier to women’s participation, Concern/partners |
|established separate female and male organisations. In addition, as noted in Section 2.2 above, the kitchen gardening specifically represented an activity |
|targeted directly at women and aimed at improving their household control over/access to livelihoods assets. As well, throughout the capacity-building |
|activities under Output 3, capacity building of COs was conducted along with community management skills training was conducted for CO office bearers. |
| |
|With regards to Concern/partners’ mainstreaming of gender into their project management and staffing, the project has hired gender-balanced teams for |
|implementation, as female staff are required in order to access female community members and beneficiaries in many of the target areas. To ensure this, the|
|implementing partners have recruited and deployed female staff (DOABA female staff at 43% of the total project team and LPP at 20%) to work on the project.|
|As well, women with the required experience and qualifications were also encouraged to apply for project management positions; as a result, one female |
|Project Manager has been hired by one of the implementing partners. |
| |KEY RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS |
| |Please provide a summary of the three most significant project results or achievements over the last year. This section provides you with an |
| |opportunity to tell the story of the project’s successes this year. Please specify the target groups; how many citizens benefited (men/women; |
| |girls/boys); and how they have benefitted. Also make it clear where the results and achievements were made in coalition or partnership with |
| |other, non-project actors. |
|Target groups are provided with improved agricultural, livestock and agro-forestry inputs and are trained on agriculture and livestock management practices|
|Provision of improved agriculture inputs (wheat, gram, vegetable seeds, and fertilisers): Because both wheat and gram are Rabi crops (i.e. winter crops, to|
|be harvested in spring) and the project commenced in the middle of Rabi season, for this reporting year Concern/partners did not distribute inputs for this|
|year’s Rabi wheat/gram crop. However, seed packets for Rabi vegetables and kitchen gardening toolkits were distributed. The project baseline study was also|
|conducted, and has illustrated that targeted communities are more inclined to use traditional crops and had not been engaging in kitchen gardening. Due in |
|part to this lack of household vegetable growing, households spend on average 53 per cent of income to purchase daily consumption products, including |
|vegetables. In response to this and to ensure food security and improved nutrition in the target communities, women were encouraged to organically grow |
|vegetables on household kitchen gardening plots. Therefore, in the Rabi season, 300 female beneficiaries were selected (in consultation with COs and then |
|through verification by Concern) for this kitchen gardening activity, prioritising women who have up to five Marla (0.03 acres) in land and wish to grow |
|household vegetables. The vegetable seeds for the kitchen gardens were procured from the local Agriculture Department, and beneficiaries were also provided|
|with basic training on how to grow organic vegetables and received kitchen gardening toolkits. |
|Target groups are provided with vocational/skill development trainings and are supported in enterprise development |
|No activities were planned under this result in reporting year |
| |
|Extreme poor women and men are mobilised and organised to obtain their rights and access the basic services provided by the Government |
|Formation of male and female COs: During the reporting period, 20 COs have been formed with membership of 1,997 individuals (972 men and 1,025 women). Each|
|CO has also elected/selected their executive body from amongst their members. Out of 90 total executive members, 40 are females. These executive members |
|are local leaders/activists responsible for running the CO as per pre-defined by-laws. These COs were organised and sensitised about rights-based |
|approaches and linkages are being developed between COs and relevant local institutes for joint advocating and lobbying at the local and sub-District |
|levels on behalf of COs and community-level needs and rights. To enhance the capacity of executive members of the newly formed COs, a five-day in-house |
|Community Management Skills Training (CMST) was conducted with a focus on basic concepts of development, planning, rules/regulations, record keeping, local|
|conflict resolution, communication, linkage development, basic human rights, local advocacy, and resource mobilisation. |
|Training and awareness raising (street theatre, IEC) of communities, COs, and stakeholders on participatory development and management, equality, human |
|rights, and DRR: In the reporting period, two stakeholder workshops with participation of 201 participants (170 men and 31 women) were organised at the |
|field level for community members, civil society networks, and government line departments. These meetings served as the initial platform for communities |
|to interact with various service providers. These workshops were conducted to introduce communities to the project, begin project inception, and provide an|
|overview of the implementation process for the coming years. As well, these meetings also promoting sharing of information/learning by other organisations |
|working in the target areas to avoid duplication of activities. The project plans and techniques were appreciated by the various government departments, |
|whose technical input will be sought throughout the project for better facilitation and coordination. As per the plan, the next reporting period will |
|witness a lot of activities for communities/stakeholders on participatory development and management, equality, human rights, and DRR. |
| |PROGRESS AGAINST DELIVERABLE AND TIMESCALES |
| |How would you describe the current status of project progress in relation to the original time-scale? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate |
| |box) |
| |This project is on track against its deliverables and original timescale |X |
| |This project is off track but expected to be back on track in the next reporting period | |
| |This project is off track and not expected to be back on track in the next reporting period | |
|Please list key factors that have contributed positively to progress: |
|The project was thoroughly planned in advance and in consultation with target communities and a diverse range of stakeholders (see above description of the|
|stakeholder workshops), ensuring that the project design is appropriate for the local context. In addition, the human/financial resources have thus far |
|been effectively and efficiently used. |
|Concern/partners’ strong coordination with all stakeholders has helped to ensure that activities are executed as per the project timeline. In addition, an |
|effective feedback mechanism was developed to identify gaps and overcome any project issues as they arise. |
|The procurement and provision of all project inputs by partners was made on a timely basis and in line with the area’s seasonal calendar, which helped the |
|project to progress on track. |
|The security situation in the targeted areas remained stable, over the course of the reporting period, which minimised any potential issues/challenges with|
|access or field movements. |
|Local authorities and civil society networks were extremely supportive of the project and its implementation thus far. |
|List key challenges and how they have been addressed: |
|In order to avoid duplication and direct the project’s assistance towards the communities most in need, two UCs that were initially targeted were replaced |
|by two other UCs, given that other organisations are currently working in those initial UCs to deliver similar inputs/activities. |
|There was a delay in the issuance of the No Objection Certificates from the Government of Punjab’s Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA). To |
|speed this process, Concern/partners are currently coordinating with the PDMA in Lahore and District authorities in Layyah and in consultation with these |
|authorities, the activities have been able to commence while the formal No Objection Certificate is awaited. |
|If the project is considered to be ‘off track’ please explain what measures are being taken to get the project back ‘on track’: |
|N/A. The project is on-track, and all activities were implemented according to the project implementation plan. |
| |CHANGES TO PROJECT STATUS |
| |In the last reporting period have there been any significant changes in relation to the following? Tick the boxes as appropriate. (Mark with|
| |an “X” in the appropriate box) |
| |Project design | |
| |Partner(s) | |
| |Context | |
| |Availability of match-funding (where relevant) | |
| |Provide a brief explanation of what has changed and why: |
|N/A. There have been no changes to the project status. |
| |UNINTENDED (POSITIVE) OUTCOMES |
| |Are there any unintended outcomes that have been observed as a result of your project implementation during this reporting period? Please list|
| |below. If these require a revision to the project logframe, please incorporate into your response to question 2.9. |
|As the project is still in its initial stages (having commenced in December 2013), no unintended outcomes have been observed as of yet. These will be |
|reported in subsequent reports once activities are further underway. |
| |UNINTENDED (NEGATIVE) CONSEQUENCES |
| |Has the project implementation led to any unintended negative effects during this reporting period? Please list and explain below. |
| |If these are considered to have a negative effect on the outcome of the project, do they require a revision of the project risk matrix? If so,|
| |please incorporate into your response to question 2.11. |
|As the project is still in its initial stages (having commenced in December 2013), no unintended outcomes have been observed as of yet. These will be |
|reported in subsequent reports once activities are further underway. However, a risk management plan has been developed to overcome potential negative |
|factors that might arise during the full project period. |
| |CHANGES TO THE PROJECT LOGFRAME |
| |Please answer the question below. Note: All changes to logframes require approval from the Fund Manager. If you wish to change your logframe|
| |please attach a justification and a copy of your revised logframe highlighting the proposed changes. (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate |
| |box) |
| |Do you need to make changes to your most recently approved logframe? |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |RISK MANAGEMENT & MITIGATION |
| |Risk management matrix: Please use the table below to describe the risks you faced in the reporting period and how you dealt with them. |
|Which risks materialised during the year? |Was the risk |What action did you take to address the risk? |Was this action |
|Describe briefly. |anticipated? Yes / No|Briefly explain. |sufficient? |
| |/ To some extent | |Yes / No / To some |
| | | |extent |
|1. As noted above, the Government of Punjab’s PDMA |No |In response to this delay, Concern/partners are |To some extent. We |
|delayed granting the No Objection Certificate, which is | |currently coordinating with the PDMA in Lahore and |have been given |
|required to implement in the target areas. This is a | |District authorities in Layyah, and in consultation |assurance that NOC |
|newly introduced regulation by the provincial | |with these authorities, the activities have been able |will be granted |
|government. | |to commence while the formal No Objection Certificate |soon |
| | |is awaited. | |
| |Are you expecting significant new risk(s) in the next reporting period that would affect project performance or completion? If yes, tick the |
| |box and list the new anticipated risks in |
| |the table below. |
|Anticipated risks |Intended mitigating actions |Risk rating: Your assessment of risk |
| | |probability & impact |
|n/a | | |
| |If you anticipate new risks please submit a revised risk matrix. |
| |Revised risk matrix attached highlighting new anticipated risks? |
| |
| |Economy: What has the project management done this year to buy and employ inputs at an optimum value-for-money price (DFID considers inputs to |
| |include: staff, consultants, raw materials and capital to produce outputs)? In other words, what has the project done to drive down costs while|
| |maintaining the required standards of quality? Include references to the use of any relevant unit cost benchmarks. |
|Under the project, all activities capitalised on local resources and maximised economy. During the provision of kitchen garden inputs and toolkits, |
|subsidised seeds were procured from the Government of Punjab’s Agriculture Department. These seeds have the same quality as standard goods in the market |
|but were procured at a lower cost of GBP 100 (against the market rate of GBP 233.) |
| |Efficiency: How do you ensure resources (inputs) are used efficiently to maximise the results achieved? Include references to the use of any |
| |relevant cost comparisons (benchmarks) at the output level (e.g. standard training cost per trainee); and any efficiencies gained from working |
| |in collaboration with others. |
|The project has adopted several processes to ensure that funds are being used effectively to result in outcome-level change for a maximum number of |
|beneficiaries, given the project funding/resources. To this end, local staff were hired to ensure that the project successfully reaches the target |
|communities and is able to involve them in all aspects of the project (for which nuanced knowledge of local staff and existing relationships with target |
|communities and local authorities is critical). In addition, a local consultant was hired to build the capacity of COs in CMST so that they are best able |
|to manage their inputs at a low cost and achieve maximum outcomes with those limited inputs. |
| |Effectiveness: To what extent do you consider the project to be effective in bringing about the anticipated changes for beneficiaries and |
| |target groups? How well are the outputs of the project working towards the achievement of the outcome? |
|All the activities and the inputs provided were designed to achieve maximum outcome-level change with the allocated resources. The project is thus far on |
|track to achieve effectiveness in its activities and benefits for target communities. However, as the project is still at the initial stages (having |
|commenced in December 2013), such achievements and effectiveness will be documented in future reports. |
| |Are there multiplier effects from this project? e.g. potential for leveraging additional funds; longer term or larger scale implementation; or |
| |replication of approaches and results? Where additional project funds have already been secured, how have they been used to enhance delivery? |
|As this project is still at the initial stages (having commenced in December 2013), such effects and results/ replication will be documented in future |
|reports. |
|SECTION 4: SUSTAINABILITY (Aim for no more than 1 page) |
| |What have you done during this reporting period / what are the plans to ensure that positive changes to peoples’ lives will be sustained beyond|
| |the lifetime of the GPAF grant? |
|Even in its first four months of implementation, the project has adopted a participatory approach. All relevant stakeholders, such as civil society |
|networks and Government line departments, were involved in the stakeholder workshops. Such involvement from stakeholders helps to ensure their support for |
|and commitment to the project, which are essential for fostering their buy-in and willingness to engage in the project and continue the achievements of the|
|project even after project conclusion. Given the project design, this is especially critical, as these stakeholders represent key sectors from whom target |
|communities are currently marginalised but will be linked under the project. Therefore, their involvement in the project is essential to form lasting |
|linkages between communities, authorities, and civil society that will help holistically reduce the marginalisation and vulnerability of target communities|
|in the long term. |
| |
|In addition, Concern is working through local partners to implement the project, with specific selection of the partners taking into account those |
|organisations that are deeply aware of the local context and that have history of working in the area on similar projects and with other international |
|NGOs/funding agencies. By choosing local partners with a long-term previous presence in the community as well as commitment to remain in the target areas |
|for the future, the project is maximising the ability for the partners to continue working with the target communities on similar and/or follow-up |
|projects. As well, the local partners’ roots in the community will allow for post-project follow up ensuring that results are lasting. |
| |
|Our hypothesis is that Concern’s CO capacity-building model will also contribute to the sustainability of the project. Under this model, COs will be |
|capacitated and linked with local institutes for advocacy around their basic development rights. Such activities aim to produce local leaders/activists |
|within the targeted communities who will have the skills and linkages necessary to follow-up and carry out future advocacy/activism, even establishing |
|local-level institutes on their own after project conclusion or if existing institutes/NGOs exit the area. The hypothesis will be tested through the |
|lifetime of the project and beyond it. |
| |
|The project is also providing several platforms to bridge communities with Government authorities so that communities are empowered (both men and women) to|
|voice their needs and prevailing issues facing them, and to take part in decision-making to resolve these issues and meet their urgent needs. To this end, |
|each CO will develop a Village Development Plan with assigned roles/responsibilities, defined timelines, and a mechanism to achieve the development plans. |
|Different social structures will be formed in community to ensure sustainability e.g. Community organisations, sub-committees in CO, village level forums |
|will be formed and strengthened to ensure sustainability. |
| |
|As well, a range of activities are included in the project to develop men’s and women’s income-generating skills and capacities (i.e. provision of |
|enterprise-development support through training, enterprise grants, and linkage development with markets and microfinance institutes). Such project |
|activities are creating opportunities for local families to have more sustainable livelihoods and improved food security. These activities will be followed|
|by the development of individual enterprise and sustainability plans to ensure the maximum outcome and impact of the activities and that livelihoods are |
|made less vulnerable and more sustainable for the long-term future. |
| |If the project is introducing new or improved services that need to continue beyond the life of the grant, what have you done / what are the |
| |plans to ensure the sustainability of the service? |
|Under the project, Concern/partners are working with communities to develop five-year Village Development Plans that will therefore continue to serve as a |
|guiding tool for prioritising their development needs and advocating with relevant authorities/departments after the lifespan of the project. |
| |
|As well, the COs that are being formed/strengthened under the project will also continue beyond the life of the grant, and their capacity for management, |
|resource mobilisation, and other topics is being built as well as their linkages with authorities and civil society so that they have the long-term skills |
|and relationships to continue promoting the needs of their communities even without external funding. |
|SECTION 5: PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO STAKEHOLDERS |
|(Aim for no more than 1 page). |
|DFID is particularly interested in project mechanisms to enable beneficiaries to provide feedback to project managers. The questions below aim to enhance |
|understanding of the use of beneficiary feedback mechanisms within the GPAF portfolio. |
| |It is understood that the majority of GPAF projects collect feedback from beneficiaries. What questions does your project seek to answer in |
| |collecting this type of data? |
|Concern adheres to its commitments under the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership at all levels of programme implementation. To meet these commitments, |
|a number of specific procedures and mechanisms have been developed to ensure that it remains accountable to its project participants, including both |
|partners and target communities. Concern shares all project information, making it publicly and safely available to beneficiaries, communities, agency |
|staff, and other stakeholders. Such project information that is regularly provided includes Concern’s organisational background, funding sources for the |
|project, progress updates, beneficiary selection criteria, etc. Concern/partners provide all information in local languages, formats, and media that are |
|accessible and comprehensible for beneficiaries and specified stakeholders (including pictoral communications materials where necessary in light of |
|literacy constraints). All beneficiaries and their representatives (COs) are provided with equal opportunities to participate in programme decisions, and |
|their informed consent and input was sought in activity planning. As well, during beneficiary selection, COs are consulted to identify the most vulnerable,|
|extremely poor, and marginalised households (according to established beneficiary selection criteria that takes into account gender, disability, age, etc.)|
|and these household selections were then verified by Concern/partners to ensure the project truly will reach the most in-need community members. |
| |
|Complaints Response Mechanism (CRM): Concern’s CRM has been implemented in the project’s target villages, with the contact telephone number, email, and |
|individuals displayed and circulated during all CO meetings. Project staff were all oriented on the CRM at the project inception stage. The CRM signs and |
|notifications providing instructions on how to submit a complaint about the project, Concern/partner staff conduct, etc. have been posted in central, |
|accessible, and safe locations. |
| |
|Regular Monitoring and Follow-Up: Concern/partners have developed an extensive Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to ensure that timely feedback is received |
|from beneficiaries and others stakeholders and course corrections can be made if necessary to ensure that the project is as effective and efficient as |
|possible at achieving its outcomes. A range of participatory techniques are being employed to collect such feedback, including the below sample of |
|questions that are asked (among others) at the field level during Concern’s monitoring visits: |
| |
|How was the CO engaged in beneficiary selection? |
|How appropriate were the inputs that were provided to the beneficiary? |
|What was the quality of the inputs given to the community? |
|Is the community satisfied with the selection of beneficiaries, CO formation process and staff behaviour? |
| |How often do you collect and analyse beneficiary feedback data? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box) |
| |When a complaint is made by beneficiaries |X |
| |Once a year |X |
| |Mid-term | |
| |Final evaluation | |
|The CRM number and emails are available to the targeted community, and they can approach any relevant staff person/organisation at any time to lodge a |
|complaint without reprisal or recrimination. They also receive short sessions/topics during each sensitisation session about the CRM to ensure that they |
|continue to know how to access and use the Mechanism and feel safe doing so. |
| |
| |
| |
| |Provide brief example(s) of how beneficiary feedback has influenced project decisions on implementation. |
|The establishment of the CRM will provide a valuable channel throughout the project for receiving regular feedback from community members, which will be |
|integrated into the project implementation methodologies. Although the project is still in the initial stages, Concern anticipates positive responses from |
|community members in the coming year and will incorporate such positive as well as any negative feedback to ensure that the project is effectively |
|providing beneficiaries with the most appropriate assistance possible. Thus far, however, beneficiary feedback was taken on board during beneficiary |
|selection, in which target communities provided vital information about what households and families are most in need and adjusted target beneficiaries |
|according to such identification by beneficiaries. |
| |After their views are analysed, what feedback if any does the project provide to beneficiaries and how? |
|Concern/partners’ field teams regularly conduct meetings with targeted as well as non-targeted beneficiaries to collect feedback from communities about the|
|project intervention and approaches and provide them with feedback about their questions/concerns/complaints. Capacity-building sessions are also planned |
|for staff and communities to handle any complaints and provide timely feedback to those who submitted the complaints. A tracking document is also in the |
|process of being developed to record communities’ complaints/feedback and promote accountability and record-keeping to promote timely responses to those |
|who submit feedback/complaints. In light of the short duration of the project thus far and the aforementioned tracking document under development, more |
|detail on the effectiveness of the tracking document and feedback provided to beneficiaries will be provided in upcoming reports. |
|SECTION 6: LEARNING (Aim for no more than 3 pages) |
|Please note you do not have to provide lessons learned under each area. Try to identify clear and specific lessons from your project so far; how you have |
|applied these lessons to improve project delivery and achieve results; and/or explain how your learning might be useful for other GPAF projects. Try to |
|avoid presenting obvious lessons (e.g. “the participation of women in project activities is key to their empowerment”). |
| |Innovation: Describe lessons learned from any project innovation[1] which have the potential for scaling-up or replication by your own or other|
| |organisations. |
|Central to the project is the introduction of livelihoods and food security activities that are not being practised in the target area. However, to ensure |
|that the project delivers innovative, new, but also appropriate activities to beneficiaries that they will take on board and practise (both during and |
|after the conclusion of the project), Concern’s partners have in the initial stages engaged with those in the target areas on a regular basis to identify |
|new approaches that are preferred/opted by communities, and that have the potential for being scaled up and/or replicated. One example of this has been the|
|formation of youth groups under the umbrella of COs, which will foster the participation of younger generations in the development process, raising their |
|awareness, using them as agents of change, and promoting their sharing of their awareness/learning to their households/communities. Further results about |
|the effectiveness of such youth groups will be reported in future reports and learning documents/case studies. |
| |Equity and gender: What are the key lessons learned from the project's approach to reducing inequalities between men women, girls and boys or |
| |other relevant aspects of diversity, particularly in relation to participation and empowerment in decision-making? |
|The baseline study revealed that only 5 per cent of women in targeted communities have meaningful participation in decision making, and 76 per cent have |
|limited/no access to or control over assets. During the reporting period, project staff ensured gender equality in all interventions and provided |
|opportunities for women and other marginalised groups to represent themselves in the new local structures (COs). Where the joint COs were formed, women |
|were also given executive positions to play a leadership role. In addition, female-targeted activities (e.g. kitchen gardening) were introduced to enhance |
|their access to and control over agriculture inputs and contribute towards household livelihoods. |
| |Capacity building: Describe any key lessons learned from your experiences of building the capacity of civil society to address poverty and/or |
| |to negotiate and claim their rights? Which approaches have been most successful? |
|As this project is still at the initial stages, such key lessons and approaches will be documented in future reports. |
| |Monitoring & Evaluation: What lessons have been learned from the tools and methods you have designed and used for measuring and demonstrating |
| |results and evidence of the project (including beneficiary feedback mechanisms)? |
|The project has very well defined monitoring mechanisms. The M&E plan was developed at the initial stage of the program with involvement of all relevant |
|stakeholders. It clearly indicates the person responsible for the monitoring and the methodology to be adopted at field level. Both Concern worldwide and |
|partners staff are regularly visiting the field to observe gaps and devise appropriate correction strategies. |
| |Approaches to Empowerment and Advocacy: a) What lessons have you identified and learned from in relation to factors that enhance approaches to |
| |empowerment or advocacy processes? b) What lessons have you identified and learned from in addressing resistance against the empowerment of |
| |marginalized groups? |
|As the project is still in its initial stages, learning related to empowerment/advocacy will be reported in upcoming reports. |
| |Other lessons learned: Please include any other key lessons learned that you think may be useful for other partners, grant holders or DFID |
|As above. |
|SECTION 7: RESPONSES TO DUE DILIGENCE RECOMMENDATIONS |
|(Aim for no more than one page) |
|Please provide an update on any actions taken during this period in response to the recommendations of the Due Diligence Assessment of your organisation by|
|KPMG (Please note that you do not need to comment on recommendations included as specific terms and conditions in section 4 of your Grant Arrangement). |
| |
|From due diligence report (dt 16/08/13), Section 4 ‘Detailed Findings’, subsection 1.1.2 ‘Ongoing Findings’: |
| |
|Finding 1, Results and Impact: Within three months of the start date of the project as detailed in paragraph 2 of the Grant Arrangement, you must complete |
|the baseline survey and use the baseline data to prepare an up to date version of your project logframe. The Fund Manager will provide feedback and support|
|to refine the logframe. |
|Response: The baseline survey has been completed and the final analysis and report are awaited. These can be made available if desired when they are |
|ready, but in the meanwhile the findings are being heavily drawn upon in fine-tuning the project planning on the ground and also in terms of finalising the|
|logframe. The latter, as noted above, is in the process of being overhauled in consultation with TripleLine, and the second version will be submitted in |
|the next few weeks. |
| |
|Finding 2, Governance: You are required to draw up and agree project-specific MoUs with all project partners who are administering project funding. The |
|MoUs must be approved by the Fund Manager prior to signature. The MoUs must be agreed and signed by all parties prior to any transfer of funds to the |
|partners. |
|Response: Done, and MoUs fully signed off by TripleLine |
| |
|Finding 3, Environmental risk management: [In the absence of a formal environmental policy] The Grantee should implement its plan to document its |
|environmental policy and strategy |
|Response: This remains on the organisational agenda. In the meanwhile, various directives remain in force, by which we continue to be guided – for |
|instance on international flights etc. |
| |
| |
ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING
Please read the instructions on this page carefully and complete all sections
Before working on this section, please complete the relevant indicator ‘achieved’ boxes on your ‘Reporting Logframe’ (which should be based on the the most recently approved version of your logframe).
SCORING
ANNEX A asks you to score performance against your Outcome and Outputs making a judgement based on the actual achievements compared to expected results as indicated in the logframe milestones for this reporting period. Use the five-point scoring system below to rate your achievement of results.
• Complete what has been ‘achieved’ under each outcome and output indicator in your logframe
• Within this document (Annex A) provide an overall score against the outcome and each output.
• Provide an explanation for each outcome and output score describing the progress made against the outcome or output indicators in the reporting year. Do not simply describe activities.
• Back up statements of progress/achievements with references to evidence that can be checked if necessary, and comment on the strength of evidence provided.
|ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING |
|(Aim for no more than 12 pages). Retain in portrait format |
| |
|OUTCOME |
| |Outcome: write in full your project outcome in the box below |
|Target groups in Layyah District (Punjab, Pakistan) are better organised and empowered to obtain rights and access basic services provided by the |
|Government, helping to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. |
| |Outcome Score: Please provide an overall outcome score (C – A++) |
|A (This indicates our confidence that the project is on track to achieve its intended outcome, rather than a claim at this early stage that it has actually|
|done so) |
| |Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against outcome indicator milestones in the log frame. Please |
| |explain how you determined this score. |
|The awareness levels among target men and women about their basic rights was found to be very low and their participation extremely discouraging. In |
|evidence of this, almost 78 per cent of community members in the baseline study either had no information about the mechanisms that are supposed to be in |
|place to participate in community-level decision making, or they had just token representation. Thus far, the project has successfully formed 20 COs with a|
|total of 1,997 registered members and equal participation of women and men. These COs were established after broad-based meetings with target communities |
|to facilitate the involvement of those who might not have previously participated in community processes and used pre-established criteria to disseminate |
|information also to the wider communities. These COs are responsible for working at the local levels with their communities to identify issues/needs and |
|then advocate for these needs with local authorities. |
| |For each of the indicators: Write in full each outcome indicator as included in most recently approved log frame and provide a narrative |
| |clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement. |
|Indicator 1: |
|Percentage change in female headed household and male headed household income. |
|No activity toward this indicator has been executed thus far in initial four months of the project. However, the baseline has been conducted to validate |
|the secondary information findings. This baseline data reveals that target communities are highly inclined towards traditional crops (i.e. wheat) and lack |
|knowledge about alternative crops/techniques to enhance their incomes and food security. The average household income is GBP 633/annum (GBP 641/annum for |
|male-headed households and GBP 482/annum for female-headed households); given local market prices and the information families provided, this is |
|insufficient to satisfy all the needs of families. However, potential new skills, such as stitching and embroidery (for women), were found to exist in the |
|target areas and hold potential for increasing incomes. Therefore, these will be integrated into the project training topics to create multiple options for|
|entrepreneurship/business development (accompanied by the provision of small grants). |
|Indicator 2: |
|Percentage change in female-headed household and male-headed household food stock from own production. |
|The baseline report indicates that the majority of households cultivate wheat. However, given the low yield of wheat (20 maunds or 800kg/acre on average), |
|food availability is a challenge for families over the course of a year. The majority of the community (86 per cent) do not have food stocks for 4-5 |
|months; during the periods of recession/lack of food, households usually barrow food from neighbours or purchase from the local market on loan/credit. To |
|diversify the food base and to reduce the hunger gap, in the first four months of the project, Concern/partners introduced kitchen gardening targeted |
|towards women to ensure increased production and availability of vegetables. During the reporting period, 300 families were provided with vegetable seed |
|packets and training for kitchen gardening in this Rabi season. |
|Indicator 3: |
|Percentage of male and female citizens satisfied their voice is heard by formal institutions (disaggregated). |
|The target areas have extremely limited access to government services. As illustrated in the baseline report, only 28 per cent of women and 37 per cent of |
|the men are currently availing various services from local authorities. This low percentage is either due to lack of awareness by communities about the |
|existence of/where/how to access such services or limited ability to access these services. In addition, only 21 per cent of men and women were found to be|
|satisfied that their voice is being heard by public institutions, while 78 per cent of the targeted population does not have currently have access to any |
|form of community-based organisation (e.g. COs). Among the few COs that exist, only 3 per cent of women were found to be on their leadership committees. |
| |
|To address such needs, 20 COs were established with a membership of 1,997 individuals (972 men and 1,025 women), including 90 executive members, 40 of |
|which are women. These COs will work as the local system through which the Village Development Plans will be developed to raise community-level issues to |
|government institutions and service providers. Two stakeholder workshops were also conducted with participation from 201 community members, civil society |
|networks, and government representatives to coordinate activities and avoid duplication. |
| |
| |Disaggregate the number of citizens benefitting from this outcome; describe briefly who they were and how they benefitted NB. Adult = 18 years |
| |and above; Child = below 18 years. |
|Adult |Adult Female |
|Male | |
|Full records and a database have been maintained for beneficiary information. Regular field visits were organised to report the above-described activities,|
|and reports were generated integrating this field-level information. Concern is also using its One M&E system to track progress of outputs and outcomes. |
| |
|OUTPUT 1 |
| |Output 1 Write in full |
|Target groups are provided with improved agricultural, livestock and agro-forestry inputs and are trained on agriculture and livestock management |
|practices. |
| |Output 1 score (C – A++) |
| A |
| |Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain|
| |how you determined this score. |
|As the project is still in the initial stages, only the kitchen gardening activity has been implemented, so we are not suggesting that the output has been |
|achieved. However, the activities are on track, hence the score. |
| |For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved logframe and provide a narrative clarification |
| |of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if |
| |required). |
|Indicator 1.1: |
|Percentage of target women who have access to and report control over agricultural assets. |
|In this reporting period, only the kitchen gardening activity has been implemented. Under this activity, 300 women were targeted to receive vegetable |
|inputs and tools. All the set targets for this activity were achieved (300 families were provided with kitchen gardening tool kits and seeds for growing |
|vegetables in their households). These beneficiaries were selected after conducting a detailed assessment in the field to identify the most vulnerable and |
|nutritionally poor families. The distribution of the inputs/tools was complemented with a one-day training session on methods and techniques to grow the |
|vegetables. |
|Indicator 1.2: |
|Percentage change in yields of major crops. |
|No activity was planned in this reporting period; however, the baseline study has shown that 97 per cent of households have access to land, yet the land |
|ownership pattern varies. On average, land ownership was found to be 4 acres, with communities practicing mono-cropping (69 per cent sow wheat, and 43 per |
|cent sow gram or chickpea (Cicer arietinum). These communities are largely using traditional techniques, which are resulting in low yields. According to |
|the baseline findings, the average wheat yield was 20 maunds/ acre, while it was 1.5 maunds/ acre for gram. |
| |
|In light of these findings, the project has designed its activities to enhance the potential yield of targeted households through the provision of |
|yield-improving inputs (e.g. wheat demonstration plots, gram demonstration plots, fodder inputs, bio-pits and bio gas plants provision). These inputs and |
|technical support is anticipated to increase yields by up to 40% and 60% respectively for wheat and gram crops. These activities will formally start during|
|the next reporting period (in line with the seasonal cropping calendar). |
|Indicator 1.3: |
|Percentage increase in yield per livestock unit and increase in number of small ruminants. |
|The baseline study found that 95 per cent of families in the targeted UCs are engaged in livestock management with an average of 5 small ruminants and 2 |
|poultry. However, 57 per cent of families lack knowledge about improved livestock management practices that could increase the resilience, outputs, and |
|income derived from their livestock. Similarly, only 19 per cent of the surveyed families are familiar with fodder management techniques, and 24 per cent |
|have knowledge about watering, vaccination, hygiene, and poultry management. |
| |
|In addition, the poor management and health of the livestock is affecting production: 80 per cent of the ruminants provide 2-6 litres of milk per day, |
|which is not sufficient generally to meet domestic needs. The project will therefore deliver trainings to improve livestock management and will distribute |
|small ruminants, sheep, goats, and poultry to vulnerable households. |
| |Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged; NB. Adult = 18 years |
| |and above; Child = below 18 years. |
|Adult Male |Adult Female |
| |
| |
|Output 2 |
| |Output 2 Write in full in the box below |
|Target groups are provided with vocational/skill development trainings and are supported in enterprise development. |
| |Output 2 score (C – A++) |
|n/a |
| |Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the log frame. Please |
| |explain how you determined this score. |
|No activity has been done thus far under this output. However, during the reporting period, the baseline study has provided detailed information about the |
|context. The data from key informants shows that different skills (i.e. embroidery, stitching, and match-making) exist in the targeted UCs. In addition, 44|
|per cent of members from each surveyed household possess vocational skills, but 40 per cent of the community is not utilising these skills effectively to |
|earn income. As well, only 10 per cent of the surveyed households are involved in the enterprise-related activities. However, none of the surveyed families|
|have acquired knowledge about enterprise management from any external source, perhaps suggesting that more families would engage in enterprise-related |
|income generation if they had the proper training to do so. A value-chain analysis will be carried out in the target area to finalise the trades for the |
|project’s trainings, which will be conducted in the second year of the project. |
| |For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved log frame and provide a narrative clarification |
| |of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if |
| |required). |
|Indicator 2.1: Percentage of target women with increased skills in enterprise development. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
|Indicator 2.2: Number of target women and men skills trainees who are successfully utilising newly acquired skills, have established their enterprises and |
|are earning their income. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
|Indicator 2.3: Number of women and men whose existing enterprises are strengthened and are continued to increase their income to provide for their |
|essential households needs. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
|Indicator 2.4: |
| |Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged; NB. Adult = 18 years |
| |and above; Child = below 18 years. |
|Adult Male |Adult Female |
| |
| |
|Output 3 |
| |Output 3 Write in full in the box below |
|Extreme poor women and men are mobilised and organised to obtain their rights and access the basic services provided by the Government |
| |Output 3 score (C – A++) |
|n/a |
| |Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain|
| |how you determined this score. |
|Although the activities for this output were not completed during this reporting period (and weren’t planned to be), the baseline study revealed that the |
|extremely poor target communities have very limited access to basic government services. In addition, very few people (10 per cent) hold positive attitudes|
|about women and gender rights/empowerment. Finally, a mere 14 per cent of surveyed community members are aware of their basic rights and what few services |
|are available. |
| |For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved logframe and provide a narrative clarification |
| |of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if |
| |required). |
|Indicator 3.1: |
|Percentage of women that report meaningful participation in decision making in COs. |
|The baseline study showed that only 5 per cent of the surveyed women have meaningful participation in COs. To meet this need, 20 COs were formed in the |
|reporting period, with a total membership of 1,997 (972 men and 1,025 women). Of the total 90 executive body members, 40 are women; in other words, 44 per |
|cent of women are on leadership roles in the COs. Separate female COs were formed in those target communities where the local cultural/social conditions |
|would not permit women to participate in mixed-gender COs. |
|Indicator 3.2: |
|COs/interest groups are effectively working on their Village Development Plans (VDPs) to address their prioritised issues. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. However, in preparation for the development of the Village Development |
|Plans, thus far 50 men and 40 women from 20 COs have participated in capacity-building sessions to enhance their community management skills. |
|Indicator 3.3: |
|Percentage of extremely poor women and men aware of right to access to basic services. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
|Indicator 3.4: |
|Percentage of extremely poor women and men aware of right to access to basic services. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
| |Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged; NB. Adult = 18 years |
| |and above; Child = below 18 years. |
|Adult Male |Adult Female |
|4 Community Management Skill Training (CMST) events were conducted with participation of 90 members. For these events, event reports, consultancy |
|agreement, training attendance sheets and monthly report from partner along with monitoring visits were evidence for progress. |
| |
|Output 4 |
| |Output 4 Write in full in the box below |
|Extreme poor women and men are more resilient to hazards and shock, and are better able to mitigate against the risks. |
| |Output 4 score (C – A++) |
|During the reporting period, no significant activities were conducted under this result, so progress will be reflected in next year’s report. |
| |Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the log frame. Please |
| |explain how you determined this score. |
|During the reporting period, no significant activities were conducted under this result, so progress will be reflected in next year’s report. |
| |For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved log frame and provide a narrative clarification |
| |of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if |
| |required). |
|Indicator 4.1: |
|Number of communities in risk prone areas with preparedness plans. |
| |
|Number of communities in risk-prone areas with preparedness plans. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
|Indicator 4.2: |
|Issues of risk-prone women, men and children are reflected in district disaster management plans. |
|This activity is planned for the next year and will be reported in future reports. |
| |Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged; NB. Adult = 18 years |
| |and above; Child = below 18 years. |
|Adult Male |Adult Female |
|During the reporting period, no significant activities were conducted under this result, so the evidence/progress will be reflected in next year’s report. |
|Score |Description of Score |
|A++ |Output/outcome substantially exceeded expectation |
|A+ |Output/outcome moderately exceeded expectation |
|A |Output/outcome met expectation |
|B |Output/outcome moderately did not meet expectation |
|C |Output/outcome substantially did not meet expectation |
|ANNEX B: CONSOLIDATED BENEFICIARY TABLE: |
|To be completed by all projects (Aim for no more than 2 pages) |
| |
|You will need to use the beneficiary figures for the outcome level in Annex A to arrive at a consolidated total number of people benefitting at outcome |
|level. |
| |
|If the same beneficiaries are represented in more than one of the outcome indicators, ensure you do not double count them when calculating the consolidated|
|total. |
| |
| |Consolidated Beneficiary Table |Gender and Age Disaggregation |
| |
|Thus far, the project has ensured the inclusion of the most vulnerable individuals and families in all aspects of project design, planning, and |
|implementation. Beneficiaries were selected to receive inputs for kitchen gardening, including those beneficiaries who are female-headed households with |
|large numbers of children or elderly (dependents). Similarly, people with disabilities and the chronically ill (widow 7, disable 3 and chronically ill 14) |
|were particularly targeted by the project and efforts were made to facilitate their involvement in activities, especially as representatives in the COs |
|that were established, as these COs will serve as the primary channels/mechanisms through which communities will prioritise their needs and voice them with|
|government and civil society. |
|How many of the project beneficiaries were unintended and how did they become beneficiaries? |
|This response should be coherent with the response to question 2.7 above regarding ‘Unintended Outcomes’ |
|N/A |
|Indicate or estimate the percentage or number of disabled beneficiaries reached in the box below. |
|Three beneficiaries with physical disability (0.0012 % of the total reached beneficiaries) |
|How has the collection of disaggregated data improved project approaches to reducing gender inequalities in participation and empowerment in |
|decision-making. Please provide an example in the box below. |
|All the databases and reports were designed to ensure the collection of gender-sensitive information, including gender-disaggregated data. Such data has |
|proven critical to identify the key vulnerabilities/risks and barriers to participation and income-generation particularly facing women. Through the |
|collection of this data, Concern is in the process of further refining its activities to ensure that they provide meaningful improvements in women’s |
|opportunities. As well, the gender-disaggregated baseline data, which was collected during the baseline study completed during the reporting period, will |
|provide a foundation of data from which to ensure that the project is resulting in demonstrated improvements in women’s control over and access to |
|livelihoods resources, decision-making, and income-generating opportunities. |
BENEFICIARY DATA
ANNEX A also asks you to summarise disaggregated beneficiary data at the Outcome level.
DFID is also interested in finding out about the number of people engaged by the project at Output level, and the nature of their engagement. The delivery of the outputs is considered as the means of achieving the desired changes to the lives of the beneficiaries identified at the outcome level. Although many of those engaged at output level will experience positive changes to e.g. skills, awareness or improved capacity, for the purposes of this GPAF progress reporting, they are not defined as beneficiaries.
ANNEX B asks you to record the total consolidated outcome level beneficiary numbers without double-counting individuals who may benefit in different ways.
|ANNEX C: PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS |
|To be completed for all projects (Aim for no more than 3 pages) |
| |
|DFID aims to capture and compare performance and results across the whole GPAF portfolio based on the information provided in the Annual Reports. |
| |
|Please Answer each of the following questions. |
| |
| |Which of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is your project |Please indicate: |Please indicate: the relative level of |
| |contributing to directly? You may choose up to 3 |1 = Primary MDG |contribution to the selected MDGs as a |
| | |2 = Secondary MDG |percentage |
| | |3 = Tertiary MDG |(sum of entries should = 100%) |
|MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty |1= |70% |
|MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education | | |
|MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women |1= |30% |
|MDG 4: Reduce Child Mortality | | |
|MDG 5: Improve Maternal Health | | |
|MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases | | |
|MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability |3 |0% |
|MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development | | |
| |
| |What is the main methodological approach being used by the project to bring about the changes envisaged? Please select up to three factors and|
| |prioritise them as 1, 2 and 3 (with 1 being of highest significance). |
| Rights awareness |1 |
|e.g. making ‘rights holders’ more aware of their rights so that they can claim rights from ‘duty bearers’ | |
| Advocacy |2 |
|e.g. advocating publicly for changes in policy and/or practice on specific targeted issues | |
| Modelling |3 |
|e.g. demonstrating best practice / approaches / behaviours which can be adopted or relicated by others to bring wider| |
|improvements in policy or practice | |
| Policy engagement | |
|e.g. building relationships with decision-makers behind the scenes, pragmatic collaboration on policy development to | |
|achieve incremental improvements | |
| Service provision in collaboration with government | |
|e.g. working with government to enhance the services already provided | |
| Service provision in parallel to government | |
|e.g. providing an alternative service | |
| Monitoring of government policy | |
|e.g. monitoring budget-making or enforcement of rights | |
|If you are using other methodological approaches please note in the box below. |
| |
| |
| |Whose capacity (in the main) is being built through the project? Select (by mark with an “X” in the appropriate boxes) a maximum of 3. |
|End-beneficiaries (poor and vulnerable groups) |X[2] |
|Local leaders / change agents | |
|Local community-based organisations |X |
|Civil society organisations / networks | |
|Local government | |
|National government | |
|Local implementing partner(s) | |
|Trade unions | |
|Private sector organisations | |
|Other (Please name below) | |
| |
| |
| |Environmental Impact and Climate Change Mitigation |
| How would you describe the project’s environmental impact? (Mark with an “X” as appropriate) |
|Negative |
| Describe actions the project took to reduce negative environmental impact (use bullet points) |
|The project is continuously ensuring that the inputs provided are not causing unintended harm to the environment. |
| Describe any activities taken by the project to build climate change resilience (use bullet points) |
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------
[1] DFID defines successful innovation as: 'the creation and implementation of new or improved processes, products, services, methods of delivery or other aspects of an approach that result in significant improvements in impact, outcomes, efficiency, effectiveness or quality’ (GPAF Impact Window Guidelines, 25 Nov 2013).
[2] Going forward, other categories like ‘Local leaders / change agents, Civil society organisations / networks’ Local government, Local implementing partner(s) etc. will also add to this capacity building list.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- simple annual report template free
- annual report template word
- free annual report template publisher
- free annual report template download
- annual report template doc
- annual financial report template free
- annual report template word free
- annual business report template free
- annual report word template free
- annual financial report template word
- annual report template download
- annual report template free