Katine Mid-term Review Annexes

Annexes: Mid–Term Review of the Katine Community Partnerships Project

August 2009

Hazel Slavin

Table of Contents Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................ii Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Mid–Term Review of the KCPP, July 2009.........................1 Annex 2: Itinerary..........................................................................................................................5 Annex 3: KCPP Bibliography/Timeline..........................................................................................9 Annex 4: KCPP Visitors Log Sept 2007–July 2009.......................................................................11 Annex 5: Partner–oriented progress reporting in the KCPP..........................................................15 Annex 6: KCPP achievements since January 2008......................................................................16 Annex 7: Self–assessment............................................................................................................20 Annex 8: Quick survey July 2009..................................................................................................27 Annex 9: Villages x project activities matrices...............................................................................33 Annex 10: Achievement rating scale (MTR)..................................................................................43 Annex 11: A process review of the Mid–Term Review...................................................................46

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



Acronyms

AIDS............................ Acquired Immuno–deficiency Syndrome AMREF....................... African Medical and Research Foundation ANC............................ Ante Natal Care ARVs........................... Antiretrovirals ASRH.......................... Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health DAC............................ Development Assistance Committee DEO............................ District Education Officer DFID............................ Department for International Development (UK) DSC............................ District Steering Committee DWO........................... District Water Officer GoU............................. Government of Uganda HIV.............................. Human Immuno–deficiency Syndrome HSSP.......................... Health Sector Support Plan HUMC......................... Health Unit Management Committee ITNs ........................... Insecticide Treated Nets KCPP ......................... Katine Community Partnerships Project LC............................... Local Councilor MDD............................ Music Dance and Drama MDGs.......................... Millennium Development Goals M&E............................ Monitoring and Evaluation MTR............................ Mid–term review MoU............................ Memorandum of Understanding NGO............................ Non–Governmental Organisation NUSAF . ..................... Northern Uganda Social Action Fund OOP............................ Out of Pocket Expenses PTA............................. Parent/Teacher Association PDC ........................... Parish Development Committee PEAP ......................... Poverty Eradication Action Plan PHASE........................ Personal Hygiene and Sanitation Education PLWHA........................ People living with HIV and AIDS PREFA........................ Protecting Families for HIV/AIDS (an NGO) PM . ............................ Project Manager PMC ........................... Project Management Committee (at sub–county level) PO............................... Project Officer PSC . .......................... Project Steering Committee (at District level) PSC . .......................... Parish Sanitation Committee PTA ............................ Parent/Teachers’ Association RBA . .......................... Rights Based Approach SMC ........................... School Management Committee TASO ......................... The AIDS Support Organisation ToR . ........................... Terms of Reference UGX............................ Ugandan Shillings UWESO ..................... Uganda Women’s Effort to Save Orphans VCT ............................ Voluntary Counseling and Testing VDC............................ Village Development Committee VHT............................. Village Health Team VSLA .......................... Village Savings and Loan Association WATSAN .................... Water and Sanitation WSC............................ Water Source Committee

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

ii

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Mid–Term Review of the KCPP, July 2009 1. Background to the review 1.1 Summary of the project In partnership with the Guardian Newspaper and Barclays Bank and with technical advice from FARM–Africa, AMREF, a health based NGO, is implementing a three–year integrated development project to improve the lives of people living in the Katine sub–district of northeastern Uganda, one of 17 sub–counties in Soroti district which had the worst indicators for poverty and underdevelopment. The £2.6m project over three years is being funded by donations from Guardian readers and Barclays. The project brings sustainable benefits to communities in Katine by improving access to health services, water, education, livelihoods and training and by strengthening its civic committees and decision–making structures. What is unprecedented is that simultaneously, as the project interventions are being delivered, successes and pitfalls are being tracked by Guardain journalists. Guardian readers can debate, blog and follow the story of community based development via a multimedia website (www.guardian.co.uk/katine) where all project documentation can be reviewed and commented on. AMREF UK, based in London, manages the relationships with the partners, the fundraising, communications, and advocacy components of the project within the UK, working with the Guardian to facilitate reporting, while AMREF Uganda has the technical expertise and delivers the project on the ground in Katine. The Katine Community Partnerships Project (KCPP) addresses the key constraints to sustainable community development by taking an integrated approach. The specific objectives are: ● Improved community health ● Improved access to quality primary education ● Improved access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene ● Improved income–generating opportunities (also referred to as improving livelihoods)* ● Communities empowered to engage in local governance FARM–Africa is a technical advisor to the livelihoods component of the project which lies outside of AMREF’s core competencies. CARE International and local implementing partner Uganda Widows Effort to Save Orphans (UWESO) are delivering a community–based microfinance project complementary to KCPP. The CARE–UWESO ’Katine Village Savings and Loans’ project is funded by a small grant from Barclays and contributes to the livelihoods component.” Expected outcomes include: ● Increased community awareness, access to and utilisation of health services in community and health facilities. ● Improved access to quality primary education for all children and greater community involvement in school governance. ● Increased community access to and utilisation of improved water and sanitation facilities. ● Improved hygiene practices in households. ● Improved operations and maintenance of water sources. ● Recovery of livelihoods through diversified and improved sources of income. ● Stronger ability of rural institutions to access both advisory services and markets for their products for increased production and income. ● Increased community capacity to plan and budget for community needs. ● Stronger community capacity for data gathering and utilisation. ● Community demanding and achieving their rights and services. AMREF’s key development goal is to close the gap between communities and basic service delivery systems through its Community Based Development (CBD) approach. This is achieved through building the capacity of communities, strengthening systems of service delivery and undertaking operational research to

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



develop, share, scale up and advocate for best policy and practice changes. The KCPP project is strengthening the functionality of existing community–based structures like water source committees, Village Health Teams (VHTs) and Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs). Simultaneously, it works with and builds the capacities of local government structures like the parish development committees, the parish sanitation committees, the sub–county health committee and the farmers’ forums to ensure that they play their roles effectively. The approach also ensures that the project components of health, water and sanitation, education, livelihoods and community empowerment work to re–enforce each other to ensure integrated development. The project management structure A sub–county project management committee has been established to provide oversight to the operational aspects of the project. The committee is involved in the project activities and action plans are shared on a regular basis. It is chaired by the sub–county chief and co–chaired by the AMREF Deputy Country Director. At the district level, the district steering committee’s role is to ensure that the project is aligned to relevant government policy and programmes including the district development plan and sector strategies and has effective partnerships. It is chaired by the Chief Administrative Officer who is the head of the civil service at the district level; the AMREF country director also co–chairs the committee. At the midterm point of the project, AMREF will work with the governance structures and project partners to develop exit, scale–up and sustainability strategies. The project will strengthen the management and technical capacity of the community, sub–county and district structures. It will also strengthen links and dialogue between community groups and local government as a basis for advocacy, better planning and raising resources beyond the lifespan of the project as AMREF’s role decreases. 1.2 Purpose of the midterm review The purpose of the mid–term review is to assess progress against objectives in all 5 components to assess to what extent the project is on track to improve the quality of life for the people of Katine. The MTR will also provide lessons learnt to date with clear recommendations to inform future implementation and improve project delivery for the remainder of the project. The review process should allow communities, local government to reflect and learn from the approach to development with consideration of how the learning can be applied to future plans and policies. 1.3 Scope of the mid–term review The scope of the review should focus on interim results at outcome level that contribute to achieving the longer term goal of improving the quality of lives for the people of Katine, what has helped and what has hindered (in terms of expected and unexpected outcomes) and also provide recommendations of how to strengthen outcomes for sustainability for the remainder of the project. The MTR should look at: ● Changes to people’s lives in the areas of livelihoods, health, water and sanitation and education. (considering impact and equity of approach to date). ● Changes to community and government structures in terms of their capacities and the impact this has on the delivery of the project and people’s lives i.e. are we seeing a more active community or policy change? (considering sustainability and effectiveness). ● The contribution of: 1) AMREF’s activities 2) Partners activities e.g. UWESO, FARM–Africa, CARE (considering relevance, effectiveness and efficiency3) Role of other NGOs operating in Katine, considering to what extent the partnerships and collaborations have hindered or helped towards achieving the end goal. ● The gender dimensions of the project and how gender equity can be enhanced. ● Explore factors that affect the delivery of project activities. ● Review and identify sustainability mechanisms, what needs to happen from mid way until the end of the project and after the project lifetime to ensure sustainability i.e. replication of the model/ scale up and an exploration of opportunities to support that. ● Note unexpected outcomes of the project. ● Risks and assumptions: consider assumptions in initial design of project, what has been learnt to inform future implementation.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



2. Methodology 2.1. Basic methodology of the mid–term review The mid–term reviewer will choose the methodology for collecting and analysing the information based on accepted professional standards.  The mid–term review should be participatory as much as possible and include feedback from the key partners in Uganda and in the UK (Barclays, Guardian and FARM–Africa). Technical support on methodology will be provided by  the external evaluator Rick Davies (see further below). Reading the key sources of documentation and key informants such as community survey, baseline, and project reports will be required preparation. The reviewer will be expected to provide the fully completed questionnaires to the KCPP and all the manuals for the training and all the other related recordings if any. It is proposed that the mid–term reviewer facilitates a participatory and consultative process involving all stakeholders. 2.2. Tentative timetable The mid–term review process is divided into five phases, specified below: Phase 1: Development and agreement on the ToR , agreement on membership of MTR team, recruitment and briefing of the team leader–May Phase 2: Lead consultant to provide a review timetable and process. Phase 3: Conduct review. Phase 4: Briefing of key stakeholders at end of field work process. Phase 5: First draft of the report shared with AMREF Uganda staff for initial comments (2nd week of August) draft to be shared electronically with AMREF UK and AMREF HQ for review. Phase 6: Second draft report shared with partners (Barclays, Guardian and FARM–Africa) for final comments (through email) Phase 7: Final report produced, emailed to all partners for dissemination on the Guardian, Barclays and AMREF websites and shared in a 2 day Action Planning workshop in Katine with project stakeholders on 15th and 16th September 2009. The workshop will enable partners to internalise the findings and recommendations of the MTR, reach consensus on next steps, discuss legacy options. Outputs will be a strategy developed for legacy options for Katine based on MTR. The results of the workshop will be shared with all stakeholders and disseminated as above. 3. Expected outputs 1. A  report of about 25 pages with an executive summary that provides an overview of what has been achieved to date to improve the lives of the people of Katine. 2. Recommendations on what strategies to adopt to strengthen the outcomes of the project.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



3. Suggested options for what next post Katine. 3.1 Final report Both a soft copy and hard copy reports will be submitted to KCPP. 4. Expertise required / Reviewer The reviewer is required to have the following qualifications and expertise: 1. Good knowledge and general familiarity with the implementation of community development projects. 2. Knowledge & experience of carrying out similar studies with reputable organisations. 3. Academic and working knowledge in the areas of health, education, water and sanitation, livelihoods and community empowerment. 4. Familiarity with the political, economic, social, technological legal environment and institutional conditions in Uganda in general. 5. Understanding of the cultures of the rural communities in the developing countries. 6. Sensitivity to socio–cultural and gender issues in Soroti. 7. Knowledge and experience in using the evaluation criteria of Transparency, Equity, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, relevance and sustainability. 8. Proven practical experience in project/programme evaluation particularly in participatory evaluation. 9. Ability to analyse and synthesise and to write clear reports. 10. Ability to see the wider scope of the project in terms of it’s focus on cross sector partnership for delivery and in context of the project being seen as means of communicating development. 11. Fluency in English and preferably an ability to understand Ateso/Kumam. 12. Ready to abide by the ethical principles that guide research and studies. The reviewer should be familiar and conversant with suitable techniques for facilitation of group discussions and analysis and have proven practical experience on this. The reviewer also needs be able to work under pressure and in not–optimal physical conditions. The independent consultant should have excellent report writing skills and have the ability to listen, negotiate and collaborate is essential as well as the ability to bring together different points of view. Role of the external evaluator  he (Guardian contracted) external evaluator will be a member of the MTR team, lead by the reviewer ● T contracted by AMREF. ● He will be part of the review team and contribute to the design and implementation of the review. The reviewer will be responsible for the preparation of the MTR report. ● He will also monitor the review process, and provide an annex to the MTR report on the review process. His views will be shared with the reviewer during the review, and with the Guardian and others on the completion of the review. The external evaluator and the reviewer will both acknowledge minority views if and where they are important.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



Annex 2: Itinerary Hazel Slavin, MTR Consultant Rick Davies, External Evaluator Katine Project 10/06

Meeting

Hazel Slavin, MTR Consultant Rick Davies, External Evaluator Katine Project

23/06

Meeting at AMREF, UK

Claudia Codsi, AMREF Grace Mukasa, AMREF Madeleine Bunting, Guardian Joe Confino, Guardian Helen Barnes, CARE Maude Massu, CARE Ed Watkiss, Farm Africa Rick Davies, External Evaluator (RD) Hazel Slavin, MTR consultant (HS)

24/06

Telephone call with HS

Liz Ford, Guardian Katine Website Manager

Telephone call with HS

Maude Massu, CARE, Microfinance Advisor

25/06

Telephone call with HS

Madeleine Bunting, Guardian

26/06

Telephone call with HS

Sarah Boseley, Guardian

Telephone call with HS

Helen Barnes, CARE, Corporate Partnerships

29/06

Meeting at AMREF, Kampala

Joshua Kyallo, AMREF Country Director Susan Wandera, Deputy Country Director

30/06

Meeting at CARE, Kampala

Grace Majara, VSLA Prog Manager

Meeting at UWESO, Kampala

Bosco Epila, Socio–economic Prog Manager

Meeting at AMREF, Kampala

Joshua Kyallo, Country Director Susan Wandera, Deputy Country Director

30/06

Drive Kampala to Soroti/Katine 01/07

Meeting with Project Team, Soroti

Oscar Oketch, Project Manager Olwney Martha Kavuna, M&E officer Lilian Viko, Project Officer, Education Amerua Molly, Project Assistant, Education Otim Joseph, Project Officer, Health Okurut Alfred,Project Assistant, Health Venansio Tumuhaise, Project Officer, Livelihoods Ogwang David,Project Assistant, Livelihoods Kasule John Leonard, Project Officer, WATSAN Okello Anthony,Project Assistant, WATSAN Opesen Richard, Community Empowerment Simon Mugenyi, Communications Officer

 Attend all meetings unless indicated  Attend all meeting unless indicated until 09/07

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



02/07

03/07

Meetings with RD,HS and team members Steering Committee

12 men 2 women

Management Committee

21 men 4 women

Ojom Parish Development Cttee

22 men 14 women

Ojoma Parish Development Cttee

22 men 10 women

Meetings with RD, HS and team members Asst DHO & staff

Dr Olhadhi Charles Stephen, Asst DHO Rosemary Anaso, Nursing Officer

Ojum Health Centre 2 RD meeting HUMC HS meeting VHT Visit to Centre

4 members (3 men, 1 woman) 16 members (9 men 7 women) Lucy Ariamo, Nurse in–charge

Tiriri Health Centre 4 Meeting with HUMC (RD) Meeting with VHT (HS) Visit to Centre

2 members (men) 7 members (5 men 2 women) Juventine Emayu, sister in–charge Alibu Francis, Records Office

04/07

Work in Office

05/07

Random walks in Merok and Katine Parishes

06/07

Meetings with RD, HS and team members

RD, HS, Project Director

Deputy District Education Officer School Inspector Katine

Okello Everest with RD and team member Charles Okiror with HS and team member

Visit to Adamasiko School Meeting with teachers (HS) Meeting SMC and PTA (RD)

Engwedu William, Headmaster 7 members (4 men 3 women) 13 members (11 men 2 woman)

Members of School Health Team (RD/HS)

Head Girl and Head Boy

Meeting with Centre Co–ordinating Tutor

Joshua Okekeny

Meeting with users of Community Resource Centre (HS)

5 members (2 men, 3 women) Joseph Malinga

07/07

Visit to Ojom Primary School Meeting with Teachers (HS) School Health Committee (HS) Meeting with SMC and PTA (RD)

Ekotu Francis, Head Teacher 7 members (6 men, 1 woman) Head Girl and Head Boy 13 members (11 men, 2 women)

08/07

Omulai Water Source Committee

9 members (5 men, 4 women)

Sub–County Sanitation Committee

10 members (9 men, 1 woman)

Olwelai Parish Sanitation Committee

13 members (12 men, 1 woman)

Matali Water Source Committee

5 members (2 men, 3 women)

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



09/07

10/07

11/07

Rick Davies leaves Uganda District Water Office

Peter Opwanya, District Water Officer Adoa Stephen, WO, Health and Sanitation Francis Opolot, WO, Community Education Epeet Thomas, CWO, Soroti Emesu Simon Peter, CWO, Serere Mulala Fabian, DWD TSU 3

Sub–county Health Committee

15 members (13 men, 2 women)

Ojama Parish Sanitation Committee

7 members (5 men, 2 women)

Meeting at District Production Office

Oketta WW , District Production Co–ordinator Eyudu P, District Veterinary Officer Adutu Patrick, District Natural Resources Officer Olupot Maurice, Community Development Officer

Soroti District Veterinary Office

Opama Moses, Para–vet Aaco Angella Immaculate, Para–vet Eidu Joel, Para–vet Ereu Felix, Para–vet

Ojemorun United Farmers Group

29 members (9 men, 20 women)

Obalanga Atamakisi Farmers Group

20 members (8 men, 12 women) & 2 non–members

UWESO Office, Soroti

Owera Jeffrey, Programme officer Patrick Osure, Programme officer

Akiro Pote VSLA Group

12 members (5 men, 7 women)

Acanmire VSLA Group

20 members (7 men, 13 women)

12/07

Preparation for de–brief & planning

13/07

De–brief and planning meeting

Oscar Oketch, Project Manager Olwney Martha Kavuna, M&E officer Lilian Viko, Project Officer, Education Amerua Molly, Project Assistant, Education Otim Joseph, Project Officer, Health Okurut Alfred,Project Assistant, Health Venansio Tumuhaise, Project Officer, Livelihoods Ogwang David,Project Assistant, Livelihoods Kasule John Leonard, Project Officer, WATSAN Okello Anthony,Project Assistant, WATSAN Opesen Richard, Community Empowerment Ochan Lennox, Asst Clerk of Works Nicodemus Tumukwasibwe, Project Manager, EU Integrated Project, Soroti George Ekochu, AMREF accountant, Soroti

14/07

Meeting at Farm Africa, Mbale

Shamilah Namusisi, Training & Advisory Unit Coordinator

Return to Kampala 15/07

Preparation and writing

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



16/07

De–brief AMREF Kampala

17/07

HS leaves Uganda

20/07

De–brief AMREF UK

Joshua Kyallo, AMREF Country Director Susan Wandera, Deputy Country Director Jo Ensor Grace Mukasa Claudia Codsi

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



Annex 3: KCPP Bibliography/Timeline Rick Davies, July 2009 Format: Year, Month, Document, Author Unknown date ● Guardian Sponsored Village (invitation for proposals), Unknown ● Putting African Communities First. Enhancing Capacity and Participation to Close the Gap in Health Systems AFRICAN MEDICAL & RESEARCH FOUNDATION Strategy 2007—2017, AMREF Board 2007 September ● AMREF Katine (rural) Guardian proposal, Susie Hares ● Community Needs Assessment—Overview, Sonja Patscheke ● Community Needs Assessment (full report), Carol Idusso, Tim Bromfield (budget) 2007 October ● Engagement & Communications Plan, Sonja Patscheke ● Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Approach DRAFT, Graham KJ ● KCPP Conceptual Framework, Tim Bromfield (Accenture) ● Health Facility Database, Albert Killian ● Katine Outputs Tracking Database, Rebecca Copeland ● Village Health Team database, Rebecca Copeland ● Contract between Guardian and Rick Davies ● Online survey of expectations of external evaluator, Rick Davies ● Draft workplan, Rick Davies ● Guardian: Opening of KCPP, Alan Rusbridger 2007 November ● Initial Action Plan (Quick Wins), unknown ● Community Survey: In November 2007, a survey was carried out to obtain information on what resources existed in the target communities at project start–up in the areas of interest in health, water and sanitation, education, and livelihoods. The Community Survey had three components: a Village Survey, Health Facility Survey, and a School Survey. Information was collected from all 65 villages, 13 schools and three health units. Rebecca Copeland ● Partnership Workshop: 27th November 2007, Manny Amadi ● Comments on Community Needs Assessment—Overview, Rick Davies 2007 December ● M&E Plan, Rebecca Copeland ● Three year costed plan, Tim Bromfield ● Three year implementation plan, Tim Bromfield ● 1st quarter implementation plan, unknown ● Katine: It starts with a village: (basic information briefing for Barclays ● Comments on the KCPP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Version 3 29/11/2007, Rick Davies 2008 January ● Baseline survey, Rebecca Copeland and Uganda Bureau of Statistics ● Year 1 Implementation plan, Unknown ● Impact Assessment report on SUSTAIN, Xavier Nsabagasani et al ● Uganda Country Strategic Plan 2007–2011, Rebecca Copeland and Kathy Attawell 2008 February ● FARM–Africa staff visit to Katine Village Project 28th January to 1st February 2008, Martin Roberts 2008 March ● VSLA proposal for Barclays, Aguga ● Draft: A project by UWESO in partnership with CARE International Community–led financial services for the Katine community in Uganda, Unknown and undated  With AMREF Katine team and Sarah Majota  With AMREF Katine team (and Sarah Majota

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes



● T  he Katine Community Partnerships Project (KCPP) First Visit Report, by the M&E Consultant—January 2008, Rick Davies 2008 April ● Katine stakeholder meeting and Preliminary project steering committee meeting. Soroti Hotel April 3, Carol Idusso ● Minutes of 16 April district partners meeting with AMREF Uganda, Carol Idusso ● KCCP—UK Partnership meeting April 30th 2008–05–02, Claudia Codsi ● Comments on Baseline Community Survey January 2008, Rick Davies 2008 June ● Minutes of 2nd KCPP Project Management Committee meeting held on 13/06/2008 at Katine Sub County Lukiiko Hall, Richard Opesen ● Katine Community Partnerships Project 6 MONTHS PROGRESS REPORT (OCT 2007 TO MARCH 2008) Submitted to: The Guardian and Barclays, Oscar Oketch and Claudia Codsi 2008 July ● M&E Framework, Becky Copeland ● Care Uganda Proposed Budget To Barclays Bank For Implementation Of VSLA In Katine Soroti, Korus ● Minutes Of The 1st KCPP Project Steering Committee Meeting 14/07/08 From 10:30–15:30 Soroti District, Richard Opesen 2008 October ● Monitoring The Katine Community Partnerships Project (KCPP)The Second Visit Report by Independent M&E Consultant. August 2008, Rick Davies 2008 November ● AMREFReflections On 2nd External Evaluation Of KCPP, Claudia Codsi 2008 December ● Report of the Baseline Survey of the Village Savings and Loans Associations in Katine Sub county, Soroti District. Prepared for SUSTAIN, Kemigisa Margaret ● Katine Community Partnerships Project Annual Narrative Report Submitted to: The Guardian and Barclays Project Duration: Three Years. October 2007–September 2010, Oscar Oketch 2009 January ● Report On Katine Partnership Orientation Attended By CARE—AMREF And UWESO Staff Katine Subcounty–Soroti District Eastern Uganda Region 19th To 22nd January 2009, Sylvia Kaawe 2009 February ● Report On Katine Field Visit By CARE Uganda Pd And CARE UK MF Advisor Katine Subcounty–Soroti District Eastern Uganda Region10th To 12th February 2009 2009 March ● CARE—UWESO FIELD VISIT FOLLOW UP MEETING held on 2nd March 2009 at UWESO head office 2009 June ● Katine Community Partnerships Project 6 Month Narrative Report October 2008–March 2009 Duration: Three Years. October 2007–September 2010, Oscar Oketch and Claudia Codsi ● Comments on the 6 Month Narrative Report October 2008—March 2009, Rick Davies

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

10

Annex 4: KCPP Visitors Log Sept 2007–July 2009 Estimated hours spent with visitors Date

Name of Visitor

Organisation

Staff Involved

Activities

Hours spent

12–17 Sept 07

John Vidal

Guardian

Carol Idusso Hellen Akiteng Joseph Epuru

Field visits

96

9–11 Oct 07

Alan Rushbridger Lindsay Mackie Dan Chung Ben Green Xan Rice Jo Ensor Sue Hollick Rachael Barber

Guardian Guardian Guardian Guardian Guardian AMREF UK Barclays

All Katine

Field and office visits

128

25–26 Oct 07

Sarah Margiotta Dr. Mike Marks Sarah Thurston

Management Consultant Direct Relief International

Richard Opesen

Field visits

14

07–14 Nov 07

Sarah Boseley

Guardian

Carol Idusso Hellen Akiteng Epuru Joseph

Field visits

70

8–9 Nov 07

Dr. Florence Muli–Musiime Dr. Peter Ngatia Dr. Daraus Bukenya Bob Kioko

AMREF HQ

Hellen Akiteng Joseph Epuru Richard Opesen

Field visits

28

14–16 Nov 07

Gib Buloch Phoebe Bennett

Accenture–ADP Partnerships

Hellen Akiteng Joseph Epuru

Field visits

14

14–26 Jan 08

Rick Davies

Guardian Evaluator

All staff

Field and office visits

140

20 Feb 08

Marie Witts Lindsay Pouton

Guardian Films

All staff

30 Apr 08

Florence Musiime

AMREF

All staff

Field visit

15

9 May 08

William Durban

Barclays UK

Comms officer

Field visit

15

14 May 09

Jim Sampson David Watts Kenny Ebony Susie Hares

Individual Barclays staff and two partners on private visit

All staff

Office and field visit

15

15 May 08

Barclays Vice–Chairman Garry Hoffman, Madeleine Bunting and team (7)

Barclays/ Guardian

All staff

Field visit

42

7–10 Jul 08

Martin Godwin

Guardian

Katine Staff

Mobilising community Facilitating transport Interpretation General facilitation

21

Chris Emeu

15

 Time spent is roughly estimated as 7 hours for each day for one member of staff. Number of days/staff is underestimated to err on the side of caution.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

11

Date

Staff Involved

Activities

Hours spent

Name of Visitor

Organisation

9 Jul 08

Cathy Bryant and team (4).

LEMU researchers

All staff

Researchers

21

30 Jul 08

Bara Del Fieiro

EU

Comms staff

Field visit

15

28–31 Jul 08

Anne Perkins

Guardian

Katine staff

Briefing staff on the visit Mobilising area of coverage General facilitation Facilitation in transport

28

25 Jul–8 Aug 08

Rick Davies

Guardian Independent Evaluator

Katine Staff

Briefing from staff Mobilising possible area to visit Updates by components Meetings with community structures General facilitation Facilitation in transport

140

13–15 Aug 08

Liane Farrer

AMREF UK/HQ

Driver Communications officers PM

Get general overview of project area

28

12–25 Sep 08

Sarah Nason

Guardian

Chris Emeu Comms Officer David Ogwang Alfred Okurut

Gather film resources for the Guardian Xmas appeal

150

25–27 Sep 08

Claudia Codsi Craig Pollard

AMREF in UK

All Staff

Briefing Field visits Updates by components Meetings with community members General facilitation Facilitation in transport

32

06–14 Oct 08

Sarah Boseley Martin Godwin David Smith

Guardian/Observer

PM Drivers Comms Officer M&E officer Livelihoods officers Health Assistant

Field visit

105

27–30 Oct 08

John Vidal

Guardian

M&E officer Comms office Livelihoods officers Driver

Field visit

30

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

12

Date

Name of Visitor

Organisation

Staff Involved

Activities

Hours spent

27–29 Oct 08

Alistair Boyd

Ex–Board Member AMREF

All staff

Advisory Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

21

10–11 Dec 08

AMREF HQ (5) led by the deputy director general Florence Musiime

AMREF HQ

All staff

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

28

Dec 2008

Dan Chung

Guardian photographer

Comms officer and driver

General facilitation

32

12–15 Jan 09

Pragna Gandesha

Barclays Bank Staff from UK

All Staff

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

21

20–21 Jan 09

DFID Uganda country director John Turkington, Alistair Robb, Jo Lofthouse World Bank Country Manager and team

DFID Uganda

PM Comms officer Education officers Health officers M & E officer

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

14

28 Jan 09

Farm–Africa UK programme director George Mukath

Farm–Africa UK programme director

PM Livelihoods staff, M & E officer Drivers

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

14

3 Feb 09

Soroti District Vice Chairman Michael Ewamu Community Devt Officer

Soroti District officials

All Staff

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

12

12 Feb 09

Ivan Lewis MP, Minister for African Development DFID Uganda Country Director John Turkington, Alistair Boyd and team

UK Ministers

PM Health officers Education officers Comms officer Drivers

General facilitation

18

18 Feb–3 Mar 09

George Omonposah

Guardian film maker

Livelihoods staff PM Drivers Comms Officer

General facilitation

140

23–28 Feb 09

Jo Confino Laurence Confino videographer, Liz Ford Website editor

Guardian

All staff

Field visits Updates by components General facilitation

60

23–26 Feb 09

Annie Kelly–freelance journalist for the website

Guardian

All staff

Field visits Updates by components

21

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

13

Date

Name of Visitor

Organisation

Staff Involved

Activities

Hours spent

Mar 09

Country Manager Nathan Wassolo

GSK

All staff

Updates by components General facilitation

10

24–27 Apr 09  

Sarah Boseley         

Guardian

Driver Comms officer

General facilitation

21

29 Apr–1 May 09

Madeleine Bunting  

Guardian

All staff

Updates by components General facilitation Field visit

35

29–30 Apr 09 

Four UN–MDV Staff. Dr. Richard Ayam, Dr. John Okorio Joelle Bassoul.

The Millennium Development Village Project

All staff

Updates by components General facilitation Field visit

21

27 Apr–4 May 09

Laurence Topham, Film maker

Guardian

Driver Comms officer

General facilitation

49

20 May 09

Grace Mukasa, Claudia Codsi

AMREF UK

All staff

7–14 Jun 09

Paul and Dan Chung

Guardian

Driver Comms officer

General facilitation

49

13 Jun 09

Lillian Byrauhanga, Michael Kaddhu

Barclays Uganda

Comms Officer Education Officer

Field visit

12

15 Jun 09

Chairman Barclays Bank, Marcus Agius and Team (9)

Barclays

All staff

Field visit

35

1–13 Jul 09

Hazel Slavin Rick Davies

AMREF/Guardian

All staff

Mid term review Briefing from staff Updates by components Meetings with community structures General facilitation Facilitation in transport

251

14–18 Jul 09

Sarah Boseley Martin Godwin

Guardian

Driver–Eugene Health Officer

Collecting story on how the project affects children

35

15 Jul 09

GSK President Andrew Witty and team And 7 others

GSK

All staff

Field visits

35

14

Estimated total hours

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

2110

14

Annex 5: Partner–oriented progress reporting in the KCPP Rick Davies, 7 July 2009 1. T  he last 6 Month Narrative Report was 32 pages long, excluding annexes. Within that the main section describing progress against plans is 16 pages long (pages 11–27). The headings and sub–headings of that section are based on the AMREF KCPP work plan headings and sub–headings. As a result these are focused on different categories of AMREF activities.  he alternative is to structure the headings and sub–headings of this section around the types of 2. T partners AMREF is working with, and differences amongst these partners. This would make the whole report much more partner–oriented, building on the useful section 5 which provides a good overview of “partnership and coordination with other bodies”.  ome examples of how the “Progress of Activities” section could be restructured: 3. S ● Education sector partners (previously “Improved access to quality education”) ● Community Schools ● Teachers ● School Management Committees ● Parent Teachers Associations ● School Health Committees ● Government Schools ● Teachers ● School Management Committees ● Parent Teachers Associations ● Soroti Primary Teachers College ● District Education Office ● Education Sector Coordination Meetings group  nder each of these headings and sub–headings AMREF could describe: (a) how it has been work4. U ing with that partner, including the types of assistance given, and (b) evidence of development of that partner’s capacities.  uch of the material in section 5 on “partnership and coordination with other bodies” could be included 5. M in this re–structured section. 6. In the “Health sector partners” section information about the community’s health status could be described in the sub–section on the health centres, in paragraphs dealing with what the health centre knows about community health status.  nnexes could be included of the type being developed this week, providing detailed supporting infor7. A mation on what types of AMREF supported inputs have been provided to which villages, schools and health centres.  final note: If AMREF 6 months narrative report is shared with partners in Soroti district then partner– 8. A oriented progress reporting might be make the report much more readable to them.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

15

Annex 6: KCPP achievements since January 2008 Component

Health

Infrastructure and Hardware

Training

Fridge and cold chain facilities

15 Community vaccinators

Bicycles provided

272 VHTs

Laboratory at Ojom Health Centre 11

78 Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) 130 Community medicine distributors 5 lab technicians trained 27 health workers 3 Health Unit Management Committees

Results Increased immunisation coverage for <5 (43% at project start) to 89.3% (against polio, TB, whooping cough, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria and haemophilus influenzae)

Increased knowledge/awareness on HIV/AIDS Psycho–social support for PLWHA Counseling/testing for HIV promoted (874 pregnant women, 145 children>18 1,441 adults) Referrals of sick persons to health centers (9 out of 10 compared to 2 out of 10 at start up) Disease surveillance increased Reduction in cases of diarrhoea (from 38% at baseline to 6% children >5 and 1.4% <5 Promotion of family planning methods has not been a success Promotion of deliveries by skilled attendants (33% at baseline to 3%) has reduced the number of deliveries by TBAs (38% at baseline to 27%) Home–based care of childhood illness Improved diagnosis and treatment of TB, HIV, STIs, malaria, URTI, anaemia, worms. Increase in uptake of services. ITNs provided to high risk groups Refresher training on PMTCT Management processes, planning, budgeting, monitoring, infection control, drug management, leading to improved management and no loss of staff

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

16

Component

Education

Infrastructure and Hardware Rehabilitation Katine P/s–5 classes, 1 office, 1 store Ochuloi–8 classes, 1 office, 1 store Oimai–4, 1 office, 1 store Ojama–library, 1 class Construction Amorikot–7 classes, 1 office, 1 store 3161 Text books 510 Desks Sports kits supplied to 13 schools kit includes–(2 javelins, 2 discuses, 2 short puts, 1 volleyball, 2 netballs rings, 2 football nets, 1 volleyball net, 2 footballs and 2 netballs ) 2 sets of relay batons for sub–county 4 bicycles to Katine best 2 girls and best two boys in PLE 15 sets of MDD equipment set includes (10 T/shirts for dancers,12 rafia skirts, 5 rolls of kitenge material, I big drum, 1 medium drum, 1 small drum, 1 tube fiddle, 1 big thumb piano,1 small thumb piano, 1 hand shaker, 1 xylophone)

Training 26 teachers trained in games and sports 102 teachers trained in Child to child, Rights of the child PIASCY and Adolescent reproductive health 90 teachers trained in PHASE 26 female teachers trained in gender as role models for girls

Results Katine has 15 primary schools compared to baseline of 13. ( 2 schools Ojom and Ogwolo were pre–schools during baseline now upgraded to Primary schools) School enrollments of 361, Ojom and 362 at Ogwolo School enrollment increased from 7531 at baseline to 9071. Numbers decrease at P.7 to 426 Books supplied to Ochuloi, Oimai, Ojama, Ojago, Katine , Katine Tirirri, Adamasiko, Olwelai, Ajonyi, Merok, Obyarai, Amorikot, Kadinya and wall charts for 13 schools Desks delivered to Amorikot, Kadinya Katine Tiririri, Katine , Adamasiko Ochuloi and Oimai schools Advocacy for increasing female teachers in schools and participation in leadership roles in the community

26 teachers trained in MDD

15 PTA committees strengthened to improve school management

63 PTA members trained on roles and responsibilities

15 School Management Committees strengthened, for monitoring and supervision

72 SMC members trained on roles and responsibilities

Improved lesson planning

Production of local teaching materials

Reduction of teacher absenteeism

12 teachers guided 270 parents in developing local teaching material 1800 parents attended sensitisation rallies on OVC and UPE 300 children trained and participated in PHASE event

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

17

Component

WATSAN

Infrastructure and Hardware 5 boreholes rehabilitated, 3 repaired, 8 new boreholes with hand pumps, 5 shallow wells constructed and 3 springs protected. 13 panel toilets in schools, 9 four stance VIP latrines with washrooms, and urinals in 8 Primary Schools and 9 Ecosan latrines in 9 schools. 8 rainwater harvesting tanks in schools

Training 4 District staff 172 VHTs 21 Water Source Committees 6 Parish Sanitation Committees. 40 Community masons (10 for latrines, 24 for sanplats, 6 for water jars) .

Results 2856 households with access to safe, clean water within 1.5klms, improved access to 65.5%. Water quality surveillance to WHO and GoU standards. Facilities for girls has improved attendance 3 equipped with Hand pump tool kit, trained on data collection and maintenance skills. 21 established & trained in management of water source, monitoring, administration of funds. 6 established & trained.

3 Hand–pump mechanics Water source committees 6 Parish sanitation committees

240 sanitation kits to 13 schools and communities to aid in latrine digging and construction. Livelihoods

450 bags of improved cassava varieties 8000kgs groundnut seeds 1200kgs upland rice ( 50g each of tomatoes, cabbage and onions, 18 sets of nursery bed management implements–36 wheel barrows, 36 watering cans, 36 rakes, 54 spades, 36 forked hoes, and 18 50m–tape measure.

18 Farmers Groups 7 paravets 20 Extension staff through TOT trainings ( 4 sub county, 9 district and 7 community) Visit to National Agricultural Research Station Innovations in agriculture, business skills and marketing

18 Farmers groups/VSLA set up Livelihoods stakeholders forum established (Includes CCF, UWESO, TPO, government programmes such as NAADS, sub–county and district representatives, PAG (Pentecostal Assemblies of God).) Skills in improved planning Nursery beds established in18 farmers groups Group demonstration gardens established for cassava, groundnuts, and upland rice Individual farmers access to improved planting materials from the cassava demonstration gardens (both members and non–members of the groups) Increased saving culture amongst group members Increased borrowing for investment among group members

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

18

Component

Infrastructure and Hardware

Training

17 Radio talk shows

30 IEC working group

Media Centre equipped with 4 desk top computers

62 members in 6 parish development committees 16 Project Management Committee (PMC) 11 Project Steering Committee (PSC) (15 members) 100+ community members 30 persons 40 schoolchildren

Results Development of posters with key messages Reach beyond the District with callers from neighbouring area Development plans reflecting priorities from villages upwards 5 meetings–ensures involvement of District staff, provides guidance to and monitors Project 1 meeting basic training in computer skills 25 persons, on average, use the media centre each day Videos of Katine on Guardian Katine website

Media Centre Committee 18 community members Video filming training run by the Guardian

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

19

Annex 7: Self–assessment Health Component—Self Assessment of Achievement Objectives and Activities

Comments

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

1

Improved Community Health

1.1

Improve community–based prevention, treatment and care for HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, RH, and childhood illnesses

1.1.1

Strengthen the capacity of Village Health Teams (VHTs)

1.1.1.1

Provide training to Village Health Teams on family planning methods

1 VHT per village for

66

100

100

1.1.1.2

Provide training to Village Health Teams on issues of monitoring drug adherance related to HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB (through CB DOTS—Community Based Directly Observed Treatment Services)

2 VHTs per village

132

100

100

1.1.1.3

Provide training to Village Health Teams on counseling and offering psycho social support for people living with HIV/ AIDS and their families

5 people parish

30

100

100

1.1.1.4

Provide support to VHTs on home based management childhood disease, including malaria (fever), pneumonia, diarrhoea diseases, skin and eye infections, immunization, growth monitoring, nutrition.

1.1.1.5

Train community vaccinators in EPI and record keeping and support immunization outreach

4

75

100

1.1.1.6

Support to activities of traditional birth attendants i.e on community mobilization and referral system

4

100

100

1.1.2

Strengthen Community Outreach Initiatives

1.1.2.1

Strengthen timely community outreach around services provided by Community Health Centres (such as Child Immunization day to improve childhood immunization coverage, HIV tests, VHT services)

134

95.5

100

1.1.2.3

Establish a community–based ITN distribution system prioritising the U5s, pregnant women and PLWA emphasis will be on re–treatment of ITNs

1

100

100

1.1.2.4

Support village health teams on family planning(including condom use for HIV prevention)

10

75

100

1.2

Improve quality of health services for HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, RH, and childhood illnesses

1.2.1

Strengthen Community Health Centre lab facilities for improved diagnostics and treatment of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria

1.2.1.1

Provide Community Health Centres with equipment and supplies for diagnosis of HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria (e.g. HIV test kits)

1

100

100

1.2.1.2

Train lab personnel for improved diagnostics and treatment (of HIV/AIDS—including OIs and STIs, TB, malaria, urinary tract infections, anaemia, meningitis, worms, diabetes, eclampcia, hypertension and syphilis)

0

100

100

1.2.1.3

Renovate and improve Community health centres HC IV and HCIIs

1

0

100

1.2.2

Strengthen health care service provision

1.2.2.1

Provide refresher training for Community Health Centre workers on management and treatment of HIV/AIDS (includes ART), malaria (including severe malaria, IPT and ACTs), TBCB DOTS

2

100

100

1.2.2.2

Train Community Health Centre workers to promote counselling and testing services related to HIV/AIDS

1

1.2.2.3

Train Community Health Centre workers on PMTCT—Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission of HIV/ AIDS

1

100

100

1.2.2.4

Provide refresher training to Community Health Centre workers on Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) through on job training in form of support supervision

4

75

100

1.2.2.5

Train community health centre workers (including midwives) on safe delivery methods and emergency obstetric care (EMOC)

1

0

1.2.2.7

Train Community Health Centre workers to ensure proper methods of infection control and medical waste disposal

1

100

100

1.2.2.8

Facilitate community health centre staff and health unit management committees on logistics management of essential medicines and lab supplies and procurement of equipment (to include training on roles & responsibilities)

1

100

100

1.2.2.8

AMREF corporate technical support

1.3

Strengthen rural health systems

1.3.1

Strengthen health information and management systems

0

one meeting per 3 months

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

20

Objectives and Activities

Comments

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

1.3.1.1

Train VHTs on planning and budgeting for community health needs to contribute to district development plans

0

1.3.1.2

Train VHTs on community–based information systems including immunization coverage, birth and death registration

66

128

128

1.3.1.3

Train Community Health Centre Health Unit Management Committee on management processes—planning, budgeting, financial, performance management, monitoring quality of care, infection control, medical waste disposal, access to drugs and drug management

1

100

100

1.3.1.4

Strengthen system for regular meetings, supervision, and reporting of VHTs at health centre, parish and HSD levels

12

75

100

1.3.2

Strengthen referral and supply systems between VHTs and the appropriate level of the health facility

1.3.2.1

Conduct joint training of VHTs and health centre staff on referral system and VHT supply system (e.g. HOMAPAK, condoms)

1

100

100

1.3.2.2

Strengthen referral system from VHT to appropriate level of health facility and track referrals

0

1.3.2.3

Provide a multi–purpose bicycle to each VHT member as a form of transport to the Community Health Centre

0

0

0

1.3.2.4

Provide each VHT with a drug storage kit

0

0

0

1.3.2.5

Strengthen procedures for tracking and replacing VHT drop outs

4

50

75

1.3.2.7

Explore options for funding motivation package for VHTs (e.g. torch, gumboots, umbrella, books, pens)

1080

Education Component—Self Assessment of Achievement Objectives and Activities

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

2

Improved Access to Quality Education

2.1

Improve teaching and learning environment

2.1.1

Train teachers on child centred methodologies to improve academic performance

1

100

100

2.1.2

Train teachers to promote adolescent friendly reproductive health counselling.

3

67

100

2.1.3

Provide teaching materials to teachers to facilitate teaching and learning (including materials for reproductive health)

4

50

100

0

Train teachers to develop local materials to facilitate teaching and learning—local materials development

1

100

100

2.1.5

Support supervision and follow up of teacher training

6

67

100

2.1.6

Rehabilitate existing classrooms

15

50

100

2.1.7

Increase seating facilities

13

100

100

2.1.8

Construct new classrooms

10

50

100

2.1.9

Establish community committees to oversee the construction of classrooms

6

100

100

2.1.10

Strengthen linkages between schools and the communities to promote personal hygiene and sanitation education–phase

6.5

100

100

2.1.11

Improve sanitation facilities for girls and boys, providing accessibility for the disabled and special facilities for girls (including bath shelters, changing rooms)

0

0

0

2.1.12

Source affordable sanitary pads or train girls on how to make their own

1

100

100

2.1.13

Use music, drama, sports and other activities to strengthen the capacity of school health clubs in hygiene promotion

3

67

100

2.1.14

AMREF Corporate technical support

2.2

Promote inclusive education of girls, disabled children, orphans, and vulnerable children

2.2.1

Sensitise communities about the importance of enrolling and supporting marginalised children, especially orphans and vulnerable children, and children with disabilities (through child rights training and sensitisation campaigns)

6

100

100

2.2.2

Conduct an advocacy forum with female teachers to be role models for girls

3

100

100

2.2.3

Promote school drama, music festivals, and sports events to attract children to stay in school (e.g. provide small inputs such as soccer and volleyball balls, nets)

0

0

0

2.2.4

Promote disability–friendly teaching methods and materials, and school infrastructure

0

0

0

2.3

Strengthen community ownership over school supervision

£–

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

21

Objectives and Activities

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

2.3.1

Facilitate information sharing forums between school management committees and inspectors to improve performance

3

67

100

2.3.2

Train Parent Teachers Associations for improved community management of school learning and teaching processes and to empower the community to advocate for improvements to schools at the district level

3

67

100

2.3.4

Provide training to the stakeholders, including children, to collect data and monitor progress in schools

3

67

100

2.3.5

Support the establishment of education management information systems in target schools and link to the district education system

0

0

Additional activities undertaken but not in the 2nd year plan

% achieved by June 09

Female involvement in football tournament

20

Education sector coordination meetings

10

Katine Childrens chat

5

Parish Monitoring Committee/District Steering committee meetings

10

SMC/PTA meetings

50

Preparation for the visit of Barclays bank chairperson visit

10

Community resource mobilisation

80

Interviews for skilled masons

% achieved by Sept 09

10

Time taken by additional activities, as a percentage of all work done in Oct 2009–June 2009

x%

WATSAN Component—Self Assessment Of Achievement Objectives and Activities

Targets year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

3

Improved access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene

3.1

Increase access to safe water

3.1.1

Rehabilitate existing boreholes

0

3.1.2

Drill new boreholes and install with hand pumps

0

3.1.3

Identify and train community hand pump mechanics

0

3.1.4

Procure hand pump tool kits & protective ware

0

3.1.5

Install 10,000 litre PVC rain water tanks in schools

5

60

60

3.1.6

Construct household water jars for harvesting rain water

8

12.5

12.5

3.1.7

Provide on–the–job training to community members to construct water jars

8

100

100

3.1.8

Protect open springs

0

3.1.9

Rehabilitate protected springs

1

0

0

3.1.9.1

Construct shallow wells

0

3.1.9.2

Water quality survailance

0

3.1.9.3

Water Qaulity consumables

1

0

0

3.1.9.4

Water testing Kit

0

3.2

Increase rates of personal hygiene and access to basic sanitation

3.2.1

Construct 4 stance panel toilets in primary schools

13

69

100

3.2.2

Construct 3 stance Ecosan toilets for primary schools

5

80

100

3.2.3

Provide schools with sanitation kits for digging latrines.

0

3.2.4

Provide parishes with sanitation kits on a monthly loan basis

3.2.5

Provide slabs to support house hold latrine construction

3.3

Facilitate community empowerment to effectively manage water sources

3.3.1

Establish and train sub county health committees

0

3.3.2

Facilitate sub county monthly health committee meetings

0

3.3.3

Strengthen the Sub–County Operation & Maintenance working group

0

3.3.4

Strengthen the Sub–County Sanitation working group on O&M of san facilities

0

3.3.5

Strengthen the Sub–County hygiene working group in hygiene promotion

0

3.3.6

Establish parish sanitation committees

0

3.3.7

Strengthen the parish sanitation committees

0

0 120

100

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

22

Targets year 2

Objectives and Activities

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

3.3.8

Provide bicycles to committees and mechanics

0

3.3.9

Provide training to VHTs on hygiene and sanitation promotion

0

3.3.9.1

support VHTs to conduct home visits providing hygiene & sanitation promotion

0

3.3.9.2

Suppport sub–county sanitation working committees to supervise and monitor activities

0

3.3.9.3

Establish water source committees as part of CASHE

11

100

3.3.9.4

Train Water Source Committees

11

50

3.3.9.5

Establish sub county water source accounts

11

0

0

3.3.9.6

Train Water Source Committees in managing water user fee accounts

11

50

50

3.3.9.7

IEC Materials

0

3.3.9.8

Quarterly joint–monitoring visits

0

3.3.9.8

Quarterly joint–monitoring visits

4

75

100

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

Additional activities undertaken but not in the 2nd year plan

50

Water quality survailance

33

100

Water and sanitation coordination meetings

75

100

Participated in the regional launching of the international year of sanitation

100

Localising millennium development goals for WATSAN

100

Operationalising spare parts supply chain

50

50

support VHTs to conduct home visits providing hygiene & sanitation promotion

66

68

Organising drama clubs to perform during the foot ball tournament

100

Time taken by additional activities, as a percentage of all work done in Cct 2009–June 2009

x%

Livelihood Component—Self Assessment Of Achievement Objectives and Activities 4

Improved income generating opportunities

4.1

Increase capacity of rural innovation groups (RINGS) to manage themselves for improved and sustainable livelihoods

4.1.1

Group formation

Comments

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

4.1.1.1

Selection of villages (3/parish) for group formation

0

4.1.1.2

Conduct community village meetings to create awareness and seek commitment

0

4.1.1.3

Selection of group members (incl. wealth ranking)

0

4.1.1.4

Conduct baseline assessment and documentation of group and individual member capacity

0

4.1.1.5

Basic Training in group dynamics

0

4.1.1.6

Election of group management committees

0

4.1.2

Group management capacity building

4.1.2.1

Training in needs assessment skills

0

4.1.2.2

Group management, group dynamics and gender concerns

1

0

100%

4.1.2.3

Leadership and communication skills training, conflict resolution, Group financial management,

1

0

100%

4.1.2.4

Group planning, visioning, monitoring and evaluation

1

0

100%

4.1.2.5

Ongoing support and capacity monitoring

18

0

100%

4.1.2.6

TOT training for extension staff

1

0

100%

4.2

Rural livelihoods stakeholders forum established for sustainable coordination of livelihoods activities

4.2.1

Initial development of TOR

4.2.2

Consultative meeting with other stakeholders and formation of the forum

0

4.2.3

First meeting to agree TORs, advocacy priorities, etc

0

4.2.4

Quarterly meetings involving representatives for two key commodities

4

50%

75%

4.3

Technology is harnessed to improve food security, nutrition and income generation

Group review meetings

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

23

Objectives and Activities

Comments

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

4.3.1

Basics for improvement in technology harnessing and utilization

4.3.1.1

Diagnostic survey of group and community technology needs and priorities

0

4.3.1.2

Agree areas of need and cooperation with NARS (Serere, Tororo) and finalize MOU

0

4.3.1.3

Farmers’ visit to Serere and / or other research stations

1

0

100%

4.3.2

Support farmer innovations for crop production

4.3.2.1

Technical training on on–farm trials and demonstrations, soil erosion control, fertility management, fodder production etc

2

50%

100%

4.3.2.2

Ongoing training on crop management, IPM, etc

2

50%

100%

4.3.2.3

Establishment of farmer led on–farm trials and demonstrations including input acquisition

18

100%

4.3.2.4

OFT open days for farmer innovations: Public presentation and displays

1

0

100%

4.3.4

Support for community animal health services

4.3.4.1

Baseline assessment of animal health services in the subcounty and county (by FARM Africa TAU)

4.3.4.2

Agree on an MOU with FARM–Africa TAU on CAHW training and select two CAHWs per group

0

4.3.4.3

Training needs assessment and development of training program: contract TAU FARM Africa

0

4.3.4.4

Training of CAHWs by TAU

1

0

100%

4.3.4.5

Provision of drug kits

7

0

100%

4.3.4.6

CAHW exchange visit with Mbale counterparts.

0

4.3.4.7

Ongoing support and refresher trainings: Logistics, DVO Soroti

1

0

100%

4.3.4.8

Coordination and experience sharing meeting

2

0

100%

4.4

Business & marketing skills are enhanced to access better markets for their products

4.4.1

Support to agro–enterprise development

4.4.1.1

Farmer exchange visits for experience sharing on agricultural innovations & marketing (Nakasongola–cassava processing, St Jude Family Project Masaka, Lira Cooperatives, Nyabyumba United Farmers Association Kabale) and a successful Farmers saving and loan group

1

0

100%

4.4.1.2

Business management trainings for all group members

2

0

50%

4.4.1.3

Agricultural marketing trainings including collective marketing

2

0

50%

4.4.1.4

Group meetings for enterprise selection

0

4.4.1.5

Farmer led participatory market research/survey

0

4.4.1.6

Market value chain analysis (i.e. enterprise development of one selected commodity)

1

0

100%

4.4.1.7

Support for group storage and processing to develop best practice

1

0

100%

4.4.1.8

Discussion / agreement with groups and other stakeholders on co–funding on processing & marketing initiatives

1

100%

4.4.1.9

Establishment of market information system (MIS)

0

4.4.2.1

Identify existing and potential alternative IGAs

4.4.2.2

Provide technical support to existing livelihood alternatives / IGAs

4.4.2.3

Co–funding of alternative livelihoods (livelihood diversification) e.g. craft making

Need to review how to best use this money (with District pdn office)

4.4.3

Microfinance Support

with UWESO/ CARE

Livelihoods annual impact assessment Additional activities undertaken but not in the 2nd year plan Weekly VSLA coordination meetings with UWESO

To contract FARM Africa TAU (Mbale)

Kits to also include bicycle

Discuss with District pdn office on parish or subcounty level store

0

2

50%

100%

18

0

100%

1

0

100%

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

5%

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

24

Objectives and Activities

Comments

Year 2

% achieved by June 09

Attending to visitors including journalists

10%

Attending meetings organised by district partners

5%

Responding to comments on the website

5%

Participating in proposal write up

5%

Time taken by additional activities, as a percentage of all work done in Oct 2009June 2009

x%

% achieved by Sept 09

30%

Governance Component—Self Assessment Of Achievement Objectives and Activities

Year 2 Target

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

5

Communities empowered to engage in local governance

5.1

Strengthen local governance

5.1.1

Facilitate community information sessions with IEC materials on the community’s rights to basic services such as water, health, education

5.1.1.1

Sub–County level consulative meetings on IEC materials

0

60

5.1.1.2

Workshop with key district partners to review and identify required IEC materials/key messages 2

50

100

5.1.1.3

Village level FGDs to pretest the applicability of IEC materials

1

0

100

5.1.1.4

Feed back meeting with key district partners on the IEC materials developed

1

0

100

5.1.1.5

Procurement of the IEC materials

200

0

50

5.1.1.6

Parish level meeting for identification of trainees to desiminate IEC materials/messages

2

50

100

5.1.1.7

Training in IEC use

1

100

100

5.1. 2

Carry out local radio programmes to inform communities about VHTs

5.1.2.1

VHT Data Asessment

5.1.2.3

Development of VHT Key Messages for Radio programes

1

0

100

5.1.2.4

Conducting VHT Radio programmes

5

100

100

5.2

Enhance community planning to better meet community needs

5.2.1

Train relevant community structures (PDCs, Sub–County Technical Committee, SMCs, PTAs) to plan and budget for feasible and cost–effective basic services

5.2.1.1

Assesment & Selection of the trainees

5.2.1.2

PDC training

1

100

100

5.2.1.3

SMC and PTA training

0

5.2.1.4

SCTC training

1

0

100

5.2.2

Pilot a model of community partnering from a rights–based approach that can be replicated by AMREF, government and other actors

5.2.2.1

AMREF Staff orientation on RBA

0

5.2.2.2

Consultative Meeting for Selection of potential RBA partners

1

0

100

5.2.2.3

RBA orientation at Parish & Sub–County level

1

0

100

5.2.2.4

RBA quarterly Community Sensitization Meetings

4

0

0

5.2.2.5

RBA Stakeholders Workshops at district level

1

0

100

5.2.3

Train teachers, Community Health Centre workers, extension workers on information management

5.2.3.1

Assesment & Selection of the trainees

5.2.3.2.

Joint training for teachers, HC staff and ext workers

3

0

30

5.2.4

Install community–based information systems

5.2.4.1

Procurement and instalation of IT systems ( desk top computers and printers)

1

100

100

5.2.5

Train key users in basic IT skills for managing community–based information

5.2.5.1

Joint training for teachers, CHC workres & ext workers in basic IT skills

4

50

75

5.2.6

Set up office and comm. resource center

5.2.6.1

Establishment of functional Office and Comm. resource center

5.2.7

Set up Radio Hub

5.2.7.1

Establishment of functional radio hub in office

0

5.2.8

AMREF Corporate technical support

1

5.2.9

Governace meetings

5

0

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

25

Objectives and Activities

Year 2 Target

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

5.2.9.1

District stakeholeders meetings

1

0

100

5.2.9.2

Project Steering Committee quaterlly meeting

4

75

100

5.2.9.3

Project Management committee monthlly meeting

8

63

100

% achieved by June 09

% achieved by Sept 09

100

100

30

100

Additional activities undertaken but not in the 2nd year plan 1

Football competetion

2

RBA staff Orientation/Training Time taken by additional activities, as a percentage of all work done in Cct 2009–June 2009

x%

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

26

Annex 8: Quick survey July 2009 N= 53 NAME OF VILLAGE NAME :

M = 34

Who are you? Father = 32

F = 19 Mother = 19 Other = 2 teachers

AGE under 24

9

25–34

12

35–44

16

45–54

12

55–64

3

65+

1

Total

53

Have their been any changes in your and your family’s life in EDUCATION since the start of 2008? Prompts: Does your child talk about things happening in school? YES=51 NO= 2 If so, what? (tick) — DO NOT READ OUT THIS LIST — TICK ONLY IF MENTIONED School latrine

35

Football competition

34

Renovated school

31

New desks/seats

28

Text books

26

New school construction

15

Water tanks in place

11

New training for teachers

10

MDD kits

7

Sanitation kits

6

Active PTA

5

School kitchen garden

2

Other?... ● Footballs/football pitch ● Clean and well organised compounds ● Improved teaching methods ● Increased school enrolment ● Film show ● Talking compound ● Training for sanitation/hygiene—health clubs ● Active SMC

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

27

● Games uniform ● Good teaching and time keeping by teachers /no longer drink Which is the most important and why? ● School/classroom renovation 21 ● School construction 8 ● Latrine construction 5 ● Text books 5 ● Desks 3 ● Increased school enrolment 3 ● Water tank at school (water is life) ● Improved educational performance ● MDD kits–enhance performance ● Increased school enrolment 3 ● Water tanks ● Active PTA ● Football Comments: ● With school rehabilitation parents can save money for teachers houses ● Children will be attracted to school if it has new classrooms ● No more studying under a tree ● The rain won’t come in 2 ● Improves learning environment ● Helps children study ● Our children are studying well ● Everything has helped children to stay at school in a good learning environment and sports ● Classrooms–good learning environment for our children ● School latrines prevent spread of diseases ● Improves quality and school enrolment ● Closed classroom leads to concentration ● Desks mean children can sit properly and don’t dirty uniform Have their been any changes in your and your family’s life in HEALTH since the start of 2008? Prompts: Child immunised? Attending for ante–natal care? YES 52 NO 1 If so, what? (tick) — DO NOT READ OUT THIS LIST — TICK ONLY IF MENTIONED Immunisation/vaccination

48

Treated bed net

42

Visit from VHT member

35

Trained TBA

14

VHT advising on IMCI

14

School Health Committee

2

VHT giving FP advice

13

VHT providing Counselling

13

Renovated health centre

8

School Health Committee

2

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

28

Other?... ● Clean homestead ● Mothers for ante–natal care ● Pit latrines ● Building shelters ● De–worming of children and adults ● Reduced illnesses eg: malaria, diarrhoea ● Getting drugs from VHT (eg; albendazol and for malaria) 4 ● Bicycles for VHTs Which is the most important? ● Immunisation 17 ● Treatment for worms 2 and filariasis ● Mosquito nets 8 ● Drugs for malaria 3 ● VHT training and visits–reduced frequency of going to hospitals/educated on illness prevention, better informed/brought health services closer/VHTs having drugs 7 ● Construction of health centre at Ojom 3 ● Health Centre 3 ● Teaching our children ● Bed nets 3 ● Drugs at health centres ● Household hygiene and sanitation Comments: ● My grandchildren benefited, they sleep under an net and they don’t fall sick and the family is happy Have their been any changes in your and your family’s life in WATER AND SANITATION since the start of 2008? Prompts: Clean water available nearer to home; Latrines constructed YES 52

NO 1

If so, what (tick) — DO NOT READ OUT THIS LIST — TICK ONLY IF MENTIONED Sanitation kit

36

Visit from VHT member

30

Latrine constructed

29

Bore hole rehabilitated

18

New bore hole

12

Hand pump mechanics trained

9

Mosquito breeding sites removed

5

Wells rehabilitated

3

Springs protected

2

Other?... ● Sensitisation on clean homesteads ● Drying racks ● Bathing shelter ● NUSAF borehole ● Sanitation and hygiene education 3 ● Improved hygiene in homestead 2 ● Which is the most important?

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

29

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Improved hygiene Bore hole/clean water 19 School bore hole Latrine construction 13 Latrine construction in school had improved hygiene greatly Sanitation kits 5 Ideal homesteads Very happy to have clean water Hygiene education to prevent diseases The visit from VHT member which enabled latrine building 4 Drying racks 2

Comments: ● Home is kept clean and not smelling ● Clean water so may not fall sick of water diseases ● Faeces spoil the compound Have their been any changes in your and your family’s life in your FARMING since the start of 2008? Prompts: New types of seeds; Irrigation methods YES 38 NO 15 If so, what? (tick) — DO NOT READ OUT THIS LIST — TICK ONLY IF MENTIONED Joined a VSLA

24

Improved ground nut seeds

20

New cassava strain

20

Farmers Group training

15

Improved vegetable seeds

12

School kitchen garden

6

Tools

5

Improved rice seeds

1

Other?... ● Planted oranges ● Study visit to Serere ● NAADS group member ● CIDI gave cows and seedlings ● Heard about new cassava strain, Farmers Group training and VSLAs ● Heard about VSLA Which is the most important? ● Improved cassava strain seed/cuttings 6 ● Ground nut seeds 3 ● Seeds 2 ● VSLA 5 ● Heard that VSLA members have money/helps you save ● Farmers group/training is very important 3 ● Farm inputs ● School kitchen garden so children can have something to eat 2 ● Importance of good cassava ● Tools 2

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

30

Are you or any of your family a member of any COMMUNITY COMMITTEES YES 27 NO 9 Which? (tick) — DO NOT READ OUT THIS LIST — TICK ONLY IF MENTIONED VHT

9

School Health Committee

3

PDC

7

VDC

0

SMC

2

HUMC

0

PTA

5

Farmers Group

8

LC, 1, 2, 3

10

VSLA or other credit group

16

Church Youth Leader

2

Clan Committee member

3

Water Source Committee

2

Other?... ● Church development committee ● Home visitor for CCF (NGO) ● Funeral Committee (2) ● UWESO Committee ● Palamio Trading Centre Development Committee ● Religious Leader ● Catholic Church Committee ● Caretaker NUSAF Borehole ● CIDI contact farmer ● Treasurer, football club ● Sanitation group

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

31

Any comments? What hasn’t changed that you had expected to change? Clean water/bore hole drilled/repair of spring well 23 Farm tools like hoes, pangas 10 Oxen, cows and goats 10 New, nearby health centre 8 Seeds and supplies 6 VHTs should have malaria/drugs 4 More classrooms 4 Construction of teachers houses 3 Nursery school 2 Improved household income 2 Drugs at the health centre 2 No school feeding programme Drugs for children under five CMDs with malaria drugs No skills training eg: tailoring Income generation projects eg: poultry rearing Wanted blankets for children Special support for the elderly Special support for widows and orphans Training of PDCs Communities to receive food Some community members have completely refused to improve sanitation & hygiene Refresher training for VHTs Longer project duration Scholastic materials Support for the disabled 2 Farming hasn’t changed–only a few villages Income is still low Reduce price of slabs Footballs/goal posts/football boots/sports fields

What changes would you like to see? Clean water/bore holes 23 Reduction in famine/food security/better nutrition–eat three meals a day 10 Bulls/Oxen/Goats/ Cows/poultry 10 Nearer health centre/services 6 Drugs distributed by VHTs 6 Improved household income/standard of living 4 Drugs at the health centre 4 Living in a permanent house 5 Farm inputs–tools, ploughs 5 Teachers houses 5 Healthy communities/improved Health/absence of sickness 3 Seeds 3 Latrine in every home 2 Pre–school for children 2 More training for VHTs Ideal homesteads Focus on people with disability in terms of treatment & education Clean homes Renovation of schools Income generating activities for youth New bed nets School feeding programme More farmers in the farmers groups Malaria drugs available More pump mechanics Spare parts for pumps Support children to go to school

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

32

Annex 9: Villages x project activities matrices

Merok

Ochuloi

VHT members trained as community medicine distributors /vaccinators

VHT members trained in integrated management of childhood illness

TBAs who have received training from AMREF

Immunisation campaign

Households received insecticide treated nets

Bicycles for the VHT members

VHT members trained on refferal from AMREF

VHT members trained on community based health information management systems

VHT members who have received T–SHIRTS from

VHT members with drug storage kits

Ojama

VHT members trained in HIV/ AIDS counselling

Katine

VHT members trained in family planning

Parish

Old Village Health Teams reformed

Health Component

Obiol

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

70

4

4

2

4

2

Katine

4

1

1

2

4

3

4

57

4

4

2

4

2

Ajobi

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Olocoi

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Omulai

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

59

4

4

2

4

2

Awidiang B

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Omariai

4

2

2

2

4

1

4

61

4

4

2

4

2

Obalanga

4

1

1

2

4

4

4

58

4

4

2

4

2

Ojama

4

1

1

2

4

4

4

56

4

4

2

4

2

Oomai

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

59

4

4

2

4

2

Abia

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

61

4

4

2

4

2

Atirir B

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Atirir A

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

58

4

4

2

4

2

Orieta

4

2

2

2

4

2

4

56

4

4

2

4

2

Village

Abarilela

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

56

4

4

2

4

2

Agora A

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

84

4

4

2

4

2

Aputon

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

81

4

4

2

4

2

Abata

4

2

2

2

4

1

4

90

4

4

2

4

2

Agule

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

73

4

4

2

4

2

Omolokony

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

84

4

4

2

4

2

Ojwiny

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

80

4

4

2

4

2

Merok

4

1

1

2

4

3

4

79

4

4

2

4

2

Aber

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

73

4

4

2

4

2

Oyimai

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

75

4

4

2

4

2

Orechoi

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

80

4

4

2

4

2

Acam

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

54

4

4

2

4

2

Awidiang A

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

53

4

4

2

4

2

Agaja

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

53

4

4

2

4

2

Abari A

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

53

4

4

2

4

2

Abari B

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

52

4

4

2

4

2

Ajonyi A

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Ajonyi B

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

53

4

4

2

4

2

Obyarai B

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

56

4

4

2

4

2

Obyarai A

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

61

4

4

2

4

2

Ogur

4

2

2

2

4

0

4

52

4

4

2

4

2

Adamai

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Olano

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

53

4

4

2

4

2

Ojago

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

62

4

4

2

4

2

Omodoi

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

33

Old Village Health Teams reformed

VHT members trained in family planning

VHT members trained in HIV/ AIDS counselling

VHT members trained as community medicine distributors /vaccinators

VHT members trained in integrated management of childhood illness

TBAs who have received training from AMREF

Immunisation campaign

Households received insecticide treated nets

Bicycles for the VHT members

VHT members trained on refferal from AMREF

VHT members trained on community based health information management systems

VHT members who have received T–SHIRTS from

VHT members with drug storage kits

Awaca

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

51

4

4

2

4

2

Ocholai

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

51

4

4

2

4

2

Oyama

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

59

4

4

2

4

2

Ominit

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

56

4

4

2

4

2

Onongo

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

58

4

4

2

4

2

Odwogai

4

1

1

2

4

3

4

70

4

4

2

4

2

Ojemorun

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

59

4

4

2

4

2

Obongoi

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

57

4

4

2

4

2

Agora

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Adamasiko

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Obochoi

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

61

4

4

2

4

2

Olusai

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Matali

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Alungar

4

2

2

2

4

0

4

55

4

4

2

4

2

Olwelai

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

87

4

4

2

4

2

Amorikot

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

89

4

4

2

4

2

Samuk

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

84

4

4

2

4

2

Oderai

4

2

2

2

4

3

4

91

4

4

2

4

2

Alere

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

87

4

4

2

4

2

Agora C

4

1

1

2

4

0

4

89

4

4

2

4

2

Ojiji

4

1

1

2

4

3

4

89

4

4

2

4

2

Amutur

4

1

1

2

4

2

4

88

4

4

2

4

2

Kalela

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

87

4

4

2

4

2

Oburitok

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

85

4

4

2

4

2

Ogwolo

4

1

1

2

4

1

4

89

4

4

2

4

2

Kadinya

4

1

1

2

4

5

4

89

4

4

2

4

2

Parish

Ojom

Olwelai

Village

Key Sampled non–livelhoods Sampled livelihoods Non–sampled livelihoods Notes: ● The ITNS targeted only children under five and people living with HIV. ● Four immunisation campaigns have so far been done this excludes the routine static and out–reaches. Campaigns include child health days and mass measles and polio campaign.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

34

Schools with teachers trained finance nd planning

Schools with teachers trained in local materials development

Schools with teachers trained in lesson planning

Schools with teachers trained in PHASE (personal hygiene and education)

Schools with female teachers trained re role models for girls

Schools provided with MDD materials and training

Schools with repaired classrooms

Schools with books supplied

Schools with desks supplied

Child to child teaching methods

Thematic curriculum

Rights of the child

Guidance and counselling

Schools provided with sports materials and training

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Katine

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ajobi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omulai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Atirir B

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Atirir A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omariai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Awidiang B

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obiol

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abia

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omunyal

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojama

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Oomai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Orieta

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abarilela

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agora A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Merok

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agule

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omolokony

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojwiny

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Oimai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Orechoi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abata

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ajonyi B

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omodoi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ajonyi A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Village

Obiol

Olocoi

Ojama Obalanga

Merok

Aputon

Aber

School

Katine

Katine Tiriri

Ojama

Merok

Oimai

Agora Ochuloi

Awidiang A

Ajonyi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abari A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obyarai B

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ocholai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obyarai A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Awaca

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ogur

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Omodoi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abari B

Obyarai

Schools with new classrooms

Schools with teachers trained in ARH

Katine

Parent Teacher Associations trained

Parish

School Management Team trained

Education Component

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

35

Schools with teachers trained in local materials development

Schools with teachers trained in lesson planning

Schools with teachers trained in PHASE (personal hygiene and education)

Schools with female teachers trained re role models for girls

Schools provided with MDD materials and training

Child to child teaching methods

Thematic curriculum

Rights of the child

Guidance and counselling

Schools provided with sports materials and training

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojago

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Acam

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Adamai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Olano

Acam

Ojom

Ojago

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agaja

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Awaca

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ajonyi A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Olano

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojom

Ochuloi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ominit

Ojom

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Onongo

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Odwogai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Alungar

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agora Adamasiko

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Olusai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Adamasiko

Ojemorun

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obochoi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obongoi

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Amutur

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Oderai

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agora C

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Matali Olwelai

Schools with desks supplied

Schools with teachers trained finance nd planning

1

Adamai

Schools with books supplied

Schools with teachers trained in ARH

1

School

Schools with repaired classrooms

Parent Teacher Associations trained

1

Village

Schools with new classrooms

School Management Team trained

Parish

Olwelai

Amorikot

Olwelai

Amorikot

Samuk

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojiji

1

1

1

1

1

1

Agora C

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ogwolo

1

1

1

1

1

1

Alere

Kalela

Ogwolo

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Oburitok

Kadinya

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Kadinya

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Key Sampled non–ivelhoods Sampled livelihoods Non–sampled livelihoods

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

36

Katine

1

1

Ajobi

1

1

1

1

1

Olocoi Omulai

1

1

Awidiang B Ojama

Omariai

1

Obalanga

1

1 1

1

Ojama Oomai Abia

1

1 1

Atirir B

1

Atirir A Orieta

1

1

Abarilela Merok

Agora A

1

Aputon Abata

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

Omolokony

1

1

1

1

1

1

Aber

1

1

Oyimai

1

1

Orechoi

1

1

1

1

Awidiang A

1

1

Agaja

1

1

1

1

1

Acam

1

1

1

Abari B

1

1

1

Ajonyi A

1

1

Ajonyi B

1

1

Obyarai B

1

1

1

1

Ogur

1

1

Adamai

1

1

Olano

1

1

1

1

1

1

Awaca

1

1

Ocholai

1

1

Oyama

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abari A

Obyarai A

1

Ojago

1

Omodoi

1

Ominit Onongo

1

1

1

1 1

1

Rainwater tanks in schools

1

Construction of sandplats

1

1

Rainwater jars

1

School latrines constructed

1

1

Merok

Ojom

1

Agule Ojwiny

Ochuloi

Parish sanitation committees trained

“Community based masons” trained

Hand pump mechanics trained

Springs protected

Wells rehabilitated

Wells constructed

Boreholes rehabilitated

Boreholes drilled

Obiol

Received sanitation kits

Katine

Village

Old Water source Committee strengthened

Parish

New Water Source Committees formed

WATSAN Component

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

1

37

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Kalela

1

1

Oburitok

1

1

Ogwolo

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Obochoi Olusai Matali

1

1

Alungar Olwelai

Olwelai

1

Amorikot

1

1 1

1

Samuk Oderai Alere

1

1

1

Agora C Ojiji Amutur

1

Kadinya

1

1

Rainwater tanks in schools

School latrines constructed

1

Adamasiko

Construction of sandplats

Parish sanitation committees trained

1

1

Rainwater jars

Received sanitation kits

1

1

“Community based masons” trained

1

Agora

Hand pump mechanics trained

1

Springs protected

1

1

Wells rehabilitated

1

Obongoi

Wells constructed

Ojemorun

Boreholes rehabilitated

1

Boreholes drilled

1

Old Water source Committee strengthened

1

Village

New Water Source Committees formed

Odwogai

Parish

1 1

1

1

1

Key Sampled non–livelhoods Sampled livelihoods Non–sampled livelihoods Notes: ● Two new WSC of Katine and Aboka formed in Katine village ● Three HPMs trained to cover the entire sub county ● Ten community masons trained to construct ECOSAN toilets primary schools in the sub county ● Twenty four community masons trained on productionn of sanplats/slabs, 4 per parish ● Six community masons trained on construction of water jars, 1 per parish ● Six community masons trained on spring protetion, 2 per site. ● Sanitation kits were rotated to all villages on loan basis then later distributed to individual villages. ● All villages are represented in the parish sanitation committee. ● One rain water jar constructed during training of local masons. ● One casting yard for sanitation platform/ slab identified per parish

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

38

Ochuloi

Ojama

Improved varieties of cassava

Trained paravets

Improved upland rice seed distributed

Improved vegetable seeds distributed

Improved groundnut seed distributed

Equipment set for nursery bed management

Training in improved farming

Training in buisness and marketing

Training in natural resources management

Participation in exchange visits

Training in group formation and Mgt

Training in M&E, Planning,Visioning

Ajobi

1

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

Awidiang B

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Katine

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Obiol

0

5

5

5

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

Olocoi

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Omariai

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Omulai

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Okwetai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Owayai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Abata

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Aber

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Village

Old VSLA groups re–stablished

Training in VSLA concept

Merok

New VSLA groups formed

Katine

First training in Savings &Loan Repayment

Parish

Farmers Groups formed

Livelihood Component

Agora A

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Agule

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Aputon

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Merok

1

3

3

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

Ojwiny

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

0

Omolokony

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Orechoi

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Oilmai

0

4

4

4

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Anyeri

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Obiol

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Olel

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Abari A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Abari B

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Acam

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Adamai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Agaja

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Ajonyi A

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Ajonyi B

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Awaca

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Awidiang A

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Obyarai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Obyarai A

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Obyarai B

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Ochuloi Rock

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Ogur

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Ojago

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Olano

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Omodoi

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Agule

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Ocolai

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Ajonyi

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Abarilela

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Abia

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

39

Olwelai

Training in VSLA concept

Improved varieties of cassava

Improved upland rice seed distributed

Improved vegetable seeds distributed

Improved groundnut seed distributed

Equipment set for nursery bed management

Training in improved farming

Training in buisness and marketing

Training in natural resources management

Participation in exchange visits

Training in group formation and Mgt

Training in M&E, Planning,Visioning

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Atirir B

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Obalanga

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Ojama

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Omulai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Orieta

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Oimai

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Olochoi

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Omunyol

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Atirir T/C

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Adamasiko

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Trained paravets

New VSLA groups formed

Atirir A

Village

Old VSLA groups re–stablished

First training in Savings &Loan Repayment

Ojom

Farmers Groups formed

Parish

Agora

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Alungar

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Matali

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Obochoi

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Obongoi

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Odwogai

1

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

Ojemorun

1

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

Olusai

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Ominit

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Onongo

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Oyama

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Damasiko

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Agora C

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Alere

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Amorikot

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Amutur

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Kadinya

0

3

3

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Kalela

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oburitok

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oderai

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Ogwolo

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Ojiji

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Olwelai

1

4

4

4

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

Samuk

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Alere–Angai

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Key Sampled non–livelhoods Sampled livelihoods Non–sampled livelihoods Notes: ● One para–vet per parish; 6 in all; 1 extra managing drug store conflicts and conflicts resolution, constitution making, 4 household per village 2 = farmers group and school; 1 = farmers group only records ● Group formation and mgt training = Group formation, record and record keeping, conflict and conflict resolution, leadership, constitution making. ● The villages set in blue are new villages appearing in UWESO RECORDS but not in KCPP database. ● The villages set in red appear in Ochuloi parish but look like part of either Ajonyi A or Ajonyi B; clarification needed from UWESO.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

40

1

1

1

4

1

Katine

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1 1

3,4

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

1

Ajobi Olocoi

1

Omulai

1

Awidiang B Omariai Ojama

1

Obalanga Ojama

1

Oomai Abia

1

Atirir B Atirir A

1

Orieta Abarilela Merok

1

4 1

1

Members trained in IEC Development/Use

Represented in PMC meetings

1

Represented in the Resource Center Committee

Local Councillors 1 trained

Katine

Village

Represented in IEC committees

Parish Development Committee members trained

Obiol

Parish

Represented in SC

Individuals have been trained in IT skills

Governance Component

1

3,4

1

1

3,4

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

Agora A Aputon

1

Abata Agule

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

Omolokony Ojwiny

1 1

1

1

Aber

1

1

1

Oimai

1

3,4

1

4

1

Merok

Orechoi Ochuloi

3,4 1

1

1

1

Acam

4

1

Awidiang A Agaja 1

Abari A Abari B

1

1

1

4 4

Ajonyi A Ajonyi B

1

1

1

1 1

1

3,4

Obyarai B 1

Obyarai A

4

1

Ogur Adamai Olano

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ojago Omodoi Awaca

1

1

Ocholai Ojom

Oyama Ominit

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

41

Ojemorun

1

1

1

1

4 4

Members trained in IEC Development/Use

1

Represented in the Resource Center Committee

1

Represented in IEC committees

Odwogai

Represented in SC

Local Councillors 1 trained

1

Represented in PMC meetings

Parish Development Committee members trained

1

Village

Individuals have been trained in IT skills

Onongo

Parish

1 1

1

Obongoi Agora Adamasiko

1

1

4

Obochoi

1 1

Olusai

Olwelai

Matali

1

4

1

Alungar

1

3,4

1

3,4

1

3,4

1

Olwelai

1

1

Amorikot

1

1

Samuk Oderai

1

1

Alere

1

1

1

1

4

1 1

Agora C Ojiji Amutur

1

4

1

1

Kalela Oburitok Ogwolo

1

Kadinya

1

4

1

Key Sampled non–livelihoods Sampled livelihoods Non–sampled livelihoods Notes: ● 2 = PDC Village reps trained ● 3 = IEC sub–county committee members ● 3, 4 both IEC sub county and IEC parish committee ● 4 = IEC parish Committee members

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

42

Annex 10: Achievement rating scale (MTR) 1 = fully achieved, very few or no shortcomings 2 = largely achieved, despite a few shortcomings 3 = only partial achievement, benefits and shortcomings finely balanced 4 = very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings 5 = not achieved KCPP Objectives

Summary

Improved community health Improved access to quality primary education Improved access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene Improved income–generating opportunities (also referred to as improving livelihoods) Communities empowered to engage in local governance

All five key objectives have been addressed in the first 18 months of the KCPP. Key outputs are shown below. Unplanned outputs included the Football tournament, repairing the roof of the Catholic–funded health centre and the need to replace plastic panel latrines that were not able to withstand strong rains. Drought has caused severe problems for farmers Appropriateness: all outputs are appropriate Quality: mostly good but variable (bore holes/school building problems), training quality appears good Sufficiency: quantity training is good, not enough infrastructure (water sources, classrooms, desks) Efficiency and timeliness: some outputs slow and no rights–based training. Overall score = 2.9

Expected outcomes

Outputs

Comments

Increased community awareness, access to and utilisation of health services in community and health facilities.

Knowledge of HIV increased through trained VHTs. Increase in VCT: 874 pregnant mothers, 145 children between 5–18 years and 1441 adults Referrals to health centres increased from 2/10 to 9/10 Reduction of diarrhoea from 38% at baseline to 6% for children > 5 years, 1.4% for children < five by CMDs work at household level Training of VHTs in FP; no significant change Improved health planning and budgeting through VHT training Increase in immunisation; 89.3% of children > 5 from 80% in the year 1 and from 43% at baseline Increase in access to ANC 92% compared to baseline 36% Reduction in deliveries by TBAs to 27% from 38% at baseline Increase in births in health centre to 53% from 33% at baseline Renovated and equipped laboratory at Ojom H/C II for diagnosis of TB, HIV, STIs malaria and other diseases ARV and TB drug adherence improved through VHT training Improved drug stock management after training IITNs provided to high risk groups improvements staff management after refresher training for 45 members of HUMCs Improved access to PMTCT 874 expectant mothers accessed PMTCT VCT of which 57 mothers tested HIV+ (prevalence 6.5%) and seven HIV+ mothers received ARVs (coverage 12.3 %). Provision of equipment to make visits (T–shirts, gumboots) and bicycles Provision of equipment too TBAs (gumboots)

More intensive work needs to take place on FP

Rating 2.0

This is almost at national target of 90% Training TBAs to recognise danger signs and refer for ANC is very successful Laboratory requires trained staff Drug stockouts still exist Expansion of PMTCT services is necessary More equipment for VHTs needed

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

43

Expected outcomes

Outputs

Comments

Improved access to quality primary education for all children and greater community involvement in school governance

2 community schools built increasing number form 13 at baseline to 15 Increased school enrolment from 7351 at baseline to 9071 Increased number of OVC attending school Increased number taking Primary leaving exams, reduced number unable to sit exams from 5% at baseline to 2.5% and total passed from 300 to 426 Improved lesson planning after teacher training Reduction of teachers absent from school Production of learning aids Text books delivered to 9 schools Reduction in desk sharing from 10:1 at baseline to 6:1 Classrooms renovated Increase in uptake of sport, 26 teachers trained Increased in MDD Effective management in schools increased through active PTAs and SMCs established and members trained

Desk sharing still double GoU target

Increased community access to and utilisation of improved water and sanitation facilities

Increased safe water access from 42% at baseline to 63% Decrease in walking time to source from 2.5klms at baseline to 1.5 klms results in more time available for girls and women Increase in latrines built to 43% of households from 7% at baseline Increase in hygiene coverage in schools from 25% at baseline to 75% Increase in school latrines in 8 schools Demonstration ECOSAN latrines in 4 schools Increase in sanitary facilities for girls Increase in rain water harvesting tanks in schools

Law enshrined to fine those without latrines

Improved hygiene practices in households

Sanitation & hygienic practices in households increased from 7% at baseline to 43% Increase in rain water harvesting in the home through training of community masons to produce jars Increase in number of drying racks 350 sanplats bought and in place

Improved operations and maintenance of water sources

Revised GoU targets for 100% access to water Hand Pump mechanics trained and operating Functioning WSCs

KCPP not equipped to meet this target with current resources Not all WSCs performing efficiently and effectively

Recovery of livelihoods through diversified and improved sources of income

Established 18 farmer groups moving from production to marketing Functioning Farmer’s Group VSLA Planned produce store to be set up with co–funding Planting of new crops (strains of cassava, ground nuts, upland rice etc) Establishment of nursery beds

VSLA groups saved up to 3 million UGX and diversified business

Stronger ability of rural institutions to access both advisory services and markets for their products for increased production and income

Trained para–vets for better animal husbandry Simple equipment (hoes etc) delivered Ran 2 study tours for farmers

Para–vets still without appropriate kit

Rating 2.5

SMCs recognised as being successful

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

3.0

3.5

44

Expected outcomes

Outputs

Increased community capacity to plan and budget for community needs

Established and trained committees across sub–county at all levels from District to Village for planning and budgeting

Stronger community capacity for data gathering and utilisation.

Collection of data by VHTs/health centres/schools and Parish level committees

Community demanding and achieving their rights and services

Debate on rights and services enhanced within and outside Katine through radio talk shows Functioning and used media centre

Comments

Rating 3.5

No Rights–based training started

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

45

Annex 11: A process review of the Mid–Term Review of the Katine Community Partnerships Project Rick Davies, External Evaluator, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 Contents 1. Why have a process review? 2. The process review—a quick summary 3. Issues arising—about the MTR process 4. Issues arising—about the KCPP project 5. DFID “Quality at Exit” checklist: An assessment of the MTR Report 1. Why have a process review? In my experience at least, most Mid–Term Reviews (MTR) are contracted by the donor organisation funding the project under review. In this respect the 2009 MTR of the Katine Community Partnerships Project (KCPP) is unusual. The KCPP MTR was contracted by the project manager i.e. AMREF. Although unusual, this step was consistent with a process proposed to the Guardian in 2008, that the role of the Guardian contracted external evaluator should be progressively reduced over time. Behind this proposal were two assumptions: (a) that the M&E capacities of the KCPP project staff would be improving as the project developed, through the efforts of the M&E Officer in Katine, supported by an M&E officer at the AMREF headquarters in Nairobi, (b) that the Guardian would gain confidence over time in AMREF’s ability to objectively monitor and evaluate its own work in Katine. ● In practice the amount of M&E support provided by the Nairobi HQ seems to have been limited. Nor has dedicated M&E support been available from the Uganda country office. However, the London office has had a very significant role, both in refining the draft six monthly narrative reports and in drafting the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MTR. ● AMREF Uganda has experience with the management of MTRs. There have been a least four other MTRs of AMREF projects in Uganda over the past few years. In each case it has been AMREF who has contracted the MTR consultant, not the donor. The MTR can be considered as an evaluation, given that DFID (amongst others) have defined an evaluation as “The systematic and objective assessment of an on–going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation, and results in relation to specified evaluation criteria”. Within the lifespan of the KCPP it is probably the most important evaluation event, more so than an “end–of–project” evaluation that might expect to be scheduled around the end of 2010. This is because the MTR results have the potential to not only affect the course of the project in the period remaining until the end of 2010, but also the decisions about what, if anything, should happen beyond that date. An “end–of–project” evaluation in late 2010 will be too late to influence judgments about activities (and funding thereof) in the post–2010 period. Funding decisions will need to be made well before then. With this view in mind it was proposed that while the management of the MTR process should be in AMREF’s hands, it would still be useful for the Guardian to have some form of involvement in the MTR process. My proposal was that the external evaluator should provide an independent review of the MTR process, by being involved in both the planning and implementation stages of the MTR. This kind of “meta– evaluation” function is now being seen as an essential part of the long term process of improving the quality of evaluations . In the last year or so both DFID and AusAID have institutionalised a process of peer review of their contracted evaluations, and both have developed a set of procedures for those processes. For the    

It was reported that they did not make a significant contribution to the design of the MTR Terms of Reference There is no M&E officer position at the Uganda country office The UK’s policy on independent evaluation for international development, DFID, March 2009, page 6 See Michael Scriven’s editorial “Metaevaluation Revisited” in the January 2009 edition of the Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

46

KCPP MTR I proposed the use of two sets of DFID checklists for reviewing evaluation plans and reports. These would be used in an open and constructive manner with the MTR consultant, to be shared with them as the MTR process and edited in the light of their comments. Both the MTR consultant and AMREF London office were initially uneasy with the external evaluator being in such a “school inspector” type of role. Concerns were also expressed about the ethics of such an approach, for reasons that were less clear. They proposed that the external consultant should be more engaged with the MTR process, by commenting on and proposing methods of inquiry, and by taking part in the MTR interviews and meetings. This was agreed to, so long as the AMREF contracted MTR consultant remained the person responsible for delivering the MTR report. While this decision may have been at the cost of the external evaluator’s independence it was expected that it would add value to the MTR process. Feedback received so far suggests that the external evaluator’s involvement did add value. 2. The process review—a quick summary The external evaluator was involved in a number of stages during the MTR process, as follows: ● Commenting on the draft Terms of Reference, by email and face to face meetings in the UK ● Commenting to Guardian and AMREF on the selection of the MTR consultant ● Discussion with the MTR consultant re the proposed schedule of activities to make up the MTR process, including data collection activities prior to the MTR, and stakeholder groups that could be engaged. ● Provision of interim feedback to the MTR consultant on the plan for the MTR, via the use of an adapted DFID checklist, prior to the beginning of the fieldwork in Uganda ● Participation with the MTR consultant in meetings with different stakeholders in Kampala and Soroti ● Commenting on the draft MTR report, by email and meetings with the MTR consultant. (NB: Detailed comments were also provided by AMREF UK, and AMREF Uganda) ● Providing feedback on the completed MTR, via the use of a second DFID checklist (in section 4 of this annex) ● Summarising issues arising from the MTR, via sections 2 and 3 of this annex. 3. Issues arising—about the MTR process A preface: The working relationship between the MTR consultant and external evaluator was positive and constructive throughout the MTR process. While both had different approaches to evaluation these differences were a source of creative thinking, not conflict and confusion. Design of the ToRs:  re the ToRs an agreement about what needs to be done, or a set of guiding suggestions that can be ● A used as needed? My view erred towards the former, and the MTR consultant erred towards the latter. While I acknowledge that it is frequently the case that not all expectations in a ToRs can be met in practice, there is an obligation to address those that can and explain where and why others cannot be. ● Do the TORs belong to AMREF and reflect their concerns, or should they also reflect the concerns of other key stakeholders? While the MTR consultant erred towards the former, my view erred towards the latter. The members of the Steering Committee in Soroti and the Guardian and Barclays in London represented two other stakeholders groups whose interests should ideally be captured in the ToRs for a MTR. This was done to some extent through a meeting between AMREF, Guardian, Barclays, the MTR consultant and myself, organised shortly before the beginning of the MTR. While we did seek the views of the Steering Committee at the beginning of the MTR it would have been preferable to do so before the MTR started. Duration of the MTR  hen planning an MTR, should the focus be on minimising demands on AMREF staff member’s time or ● W ensuring that all relevant stakeholder groups were contacted? The former was of concern to the MTR  “Quality Assurance : Template for Entry level” and “Quality Assurance : Template for Exit level”  This ended unexpectedly on July 9th, because a family crisis that I needed to attend to in Australia

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

47

consultant, whereas the latter was of greater concern to the external evaluator. In practice the total demand on the time of each component staff member was probably about three days including initial briefing, field work split between two, assigned tasks, and the debriefing. The greatest time demand was on the M&E officer who participated in meetings on most days. The reverse was the case with the Project Manager, who was not as engaged as much as might have been expected, given the importance of the MTR. Overall, most of the stakeholders that were proposed for contact were met. However, with the wisdom of hindsight, it could have been very useful to bring together the stakeholders for each component, to discuss issue that connected them. With the MTR process that was used there was no opportunity for communications between stakeholder groups. This may or may not be possible during a project planning meeting proposed for September 2009. AMREF staff engagement ● A  t the beginning of the MTR review process KCPP project staff were openly sceptical about the value of the MTR process as described, questioning its ability to be objective and to be credible in the eyes of others. This was partly due to their frustrations with the lack of information they had been given about the MTR and partly because of concerns that their own views would not be seen as credible by others, including any survey data they might gather from households. The latter concern seems to have been influenced by the degree of public scrutiny that the staff feel the project is under, via the Guardian website. While the MTR team did manage to allay staff concerns and obtain their cooperation, they have also implicitly taken on a responsibility to produce a report that will withstand critical public scrutiny. Participants’ views  hat is more important, how stakeholders see their role in the KCPP or how they see the relevance and ● W value of the assistance provided by AMREF? The draft MTR report gives a detailed account of the views of the many different stakeholder groups of the value of the assistance provided by AMREF. It gives less attention to analyses of the function of these different groups and how they relate to each other (ideally and in practice). Yet the project is called the Katine Community Partnership Project, and it is these groups who are not only the key recipients of AMREF assistance but also the vehicles through which social change is expected to happen. Expectations about their relationships fall into the category of project design issues, which were raised being of concern in the London consultation on the ToRs. Compared to what? ● T  he MTR report correctly points out “A major constraint in attempting to review and give an achievement rating to the Project is the lack of a succinct LogFrame”. The KCPP Conceptual Framework details the expected Outputs (things to be delivered by AMREF staff) but the expected Outcomes (mainly changes in peoples’ lives) are described only by broad inclusive statements e.g. “Increased community awareness of, access to and utilisation of health services in community and health facilities”. The “Specific Objectives” referred to in the ToRs, and narrative progress reports, are less specific e.g. “Improved community health”. The Conceptual Framework does list “example indicators for each of the expect Outcomes. The subsequently produced Monitoring and Evaluation Framework then lists the indicators that the project will monitor, but without any commitment to specific targets that the project (i.e. AMREF and its partners) hopes to achieve. Both lists of indicators are a mix of outputs (what AMREF staff will provide), outcomes (changes in the functioning of community structures and services) and impact measures (changes in people’s lives). ● The MTR report’s Annex 10 tabulation of “achievement ratings” has inherited this confusion, mixing up different kinds of changes (in households, community groups and in AMREF staff activities) in one as Included here are the Parent Teachers Associations, the School Management Committees, the School Health Committees, the Village Health Teams, the Water Source Committees, the Farmers Groups, the VSLAs and the government and quasi government bodies they are linked to including the 13 schools, the 2 health centres, the Health Unit Management Committees, the Parish Development Committees, the Sub–County Health Committee (and sub–committees), and others possibly not included here  The question asked by Groucho Marx, when his friend complained to him that “Life is difficult”  The M&E Officer reported that data is being systematically collated on these indictaors. But for reasons not yet identified, this data is not being systematically reported in the six monthly narrative reports to the Guardian and Barclays Bank

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

48

sessment. In Mid–Term Reviews that I am familiar with10 it is important to assess these types of changes separately, and to try to identify the extent to which changes at one level have contributed to changes in the other11. For example, how have AMREF staff activities (outputs) contributed to changes in the capacities of the School Management Committees and Parent Teachers Associations (outcomes), and then how have changes in those groups’ functioning affected children’s attendance and performance at school. It is quite possible for project activities to be successfully implemented, but have no significant effects on such community groups, and vice versa, for improvement to take place in the capacities of such groups, despite project activities not being implemented successfully. Multiple sectors, multiple activities  ow do you make overall judgements about the progress of a multi–sectoral intervention, involving a ● H range of activities in each sector? Some form of judgement like this is required by the first of the three purposes outlined in the ToRs (The purpose of the mid–term review is to assess progress against objectives in all 5 components to assess to what extent the project is on track to improve the quality of life for the people of Katine). One section of the MTR report does examine each component, in terms of staff member’s success in implementing activities as per their workplans, during the second year of the project. However, the decision to structure most of the report around different “levels” of organisations (e.g. district, sub–county, parish, households) has meant that in the main text of the report there has been no corresponding analysis of the success of each component at the outcome level (changes in the functioning of different community groups). There are two annexes that disaggregate performance by components (Annex 6: KCPP Achievements since Jan 2008) and Annex 10: Achievement Rating Scale). The first of these lists various “Results” for each component along side the inputs provided (infrastructure and hardware, training). The second goes further and generates an “Achievement rating” for each component. Unfortunately the changes listed as the basis for each component rating conflate changes in outputs (what staff have done), outcomes (changes in the functioning of community groups) and impacts (changes in people’s lives)12. Additional difficulties have been created by the absence of targets, of what was expected to be achieved. ● Ideally an evaluation will make use of multiple information sources, including pre–existing data collected by others. The current MTR report provides information from group and one–to–one interviews, a household survey, a staff self–assessment and a database of villages x project activities. However these are reported in separate sections. An analysis of component by component would allow these sources to be integrated into one composite picture. Information was also available from past narrative progress reports and baseline surveys, but this has not been used as much as might be expected. Future plans ● T  he draft report listed a set of 13 activities that project staff thought were of the highest priority during the final year of the project. These were identified through a staff workshop facilitated by the MTR consultant, at the end of the MTR process. While seen as a valuable exercise, the list needs to be supplemented with some explanations for the reasons behind these choices, so that the underlying strategy is more evident, along with any associated assumptions and risks. That is what AMREF Kampala, the Guardian and Barclays should then be attending to when considering these priorities. This kind of information should also be of interest to other participants in the proposed September workshop. ● Because it was not yet completed the draft report did not make any recommendations about the proposed September workshop, or possible post–2010 activities to be funded by the Guardian and or others (other than that the project should be extended for at leas an extra year). I subsequently provided some suggestions on how proposals for the third year, and a one year extension, could be developed via a stakeholder consultation process during the proposed September workshop (and possibly extended thereafter). These are given in para 18 below.

10 Often called “Output to Purpose Reviews” 11 See the DFID Annual Review format, for a detailed example of the kind of analysis expected, at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/funding/ wahrf–annual–review.xls 12 The same is the case with Annex 6, which includes as results activities carried out by AMREF e.g. provision of books and desks

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

49

Risks and assumptions  ost evaluations will seek to identify important risks and assumptions being made by the project manag● M ers and/or in the project design. Similar expectations were built into the ToRs for this MTR, in the “scope” section. In the draft version of the MTR these issues were not yet addressed. One important area where assumptions could be usefully discussed is that of drug supply. The original needs assessment studies identified problems in this area, but the subsequent project design did not make it clear AMREF’s expectations about how these problems could best be responded to. Other risks seem to be present with the arrangement for money management by the Water Source Committees. Our two visits suggested that neither government nor project staff were fully informed about the financial status of the groups visited. Yet proposals have been made by some to extend the roles of these groups to take on savings and credit services. 4. Issues arising—about the KCPP project A preface: The response of the AMREF UK and Uganda offices to the MTR report has been very positive. The issues raised below are ones that struck the external evaluator as especially important. Project costs ● In the meeting with the Steering Committee there was an intense discussion of project costs, including questions about the contribution of the AMREF Kampala and other offices. In response, the Project Manager offered to provide more information on how project costs were broken down. The Guardian and Barclays Bank could take a further step, and request that each six monthly narrative report on the KCPP includes a section on the activities of the AMEF London and Kampala offices and the costs they have incurred in carrying out these activities. If this step is taken, these narrative reports should then be routinely shared with the Steering Committee and Management Committee, as well as being made publicly available via the Guardian website as at present. ● There is an important larger lesson here. Aid projects like the KCPP involve long and complex supply chains, bringing funds and technical expertise to communities of concern, from distant locations. In the private sector intense effort is invested into making every part of supply changes work as quickly and efficiently as possible. But in the world of development aid often the focus is almost wholly on the final link in the chain, the organisations delivering assistance at the grassroots level. Very little attention is given to the more expensive13 parts of the supply chain lined up behind them. Given that the Guardian has reportedly found the costs of delivering aid much more expensive than they expected perhaps they should turn their journalistic attention towards the issue of supply chain costs in international aid delivery. ● See diagram below for a summary view of the supply chain. (There are likely to be some errors in this diagram which will need correction) Government contributions ● In 2009 AMREF switched its approach to the building of school classrooms in Katine, from centrally contracted construction to locally contracted construction, plus some material and labour [check] input from the surrounding communities. Requiring these types of co–contributions is a commonplace aspect of rural development work. In other parts of the project there are government contributions, most notably in the form of training of community groups by local government staff. But these training inputs are paid for by the project (in the form of meals and travelling allowances and [check]). What appears to be missing is any form of contractual agreement about the nature of government contributions that should match AMREF inputs. For example, in the form of additional staffing to the health centre facilities or to the schools. ● This experience could inform the design of the remaining period of the project to the end of 2010, and any extension of activities thereafter. Agreements about new inputs to be provided by AMREF, especially those most desired by local government (e.g. physical infrastructure), should include details of the contributions that government will also make. In the case of staffing commitments, the beginning of new infrastructure works should be dependent upon fulfilment of staffing commitments to previously completed infrastructure work 13 In terms of the costs of staff time and transport costs involved

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

50

Thick blue lines = financial transfers. Broken blue lines = information transfers (not including most of those between yellow nodes (intermediaries between donors and recipients))

Provision of training ● M  ore than 50% of all the activities in the three year workplan for the KCPP are training activities. AMREF considers these as an essential part of the project, enabling the many community groups and government services that it is working with to function better than in the past. Without these improvements the benefits obtained from new physical infrastructure will be reduced. ● Many of the training activities involve both AMREF staff and government staff working together. Ideally AMREF staff would be helping build the training capacities of these government staff. However, if AMREF is simply “sub–contracting” government staff to provide training then this relationship is more questionable. In that case it might be argued that the Guardian should simply provide part of its funding direct to local government, and “cut out the middle man” and their associated costs. However, if AMREF is in fact trying to build staff training capacities then we need to see some reporting on this aspect of their work in future narrative progress reports. That is, not just data on who was trained, but who did the training and how their training capacities have been improved. ● In interviews with government official at the district and sub–county levels it was clear that budgets available for training (and supervision) were very limited. This means the prospects for a continuation of training activities on the scale introduced by AMREF are very small. Yet ongoing training will be needed, because of staff turnover in schools and health centres and membership turnover in the community groups. These considerations do not seem to have visibly influenced the design of the KCPP development strategy. There are however two ways in which it could:  Cut back on the breadth of training activities under each component, to focus on those with the mos potential to be continued by government bodies, after the cessation of AMREF inputs  Build in commitments to modest increases in government funded training activities during the lifetime of the project, as part of the agreements proposed above on government co–contributions. Planning for the future: The following suggestions were made to the MTR consultant regarding the recommendations that had been made (on page 7 of the draft MTR report) for the one–year extension of the project. ● T  he September workshop needs to clearly identify what is expected to be achieved by the end of 2011. It is unlikely that any donor would agree to a funding extension without clarity in this area.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

51

● N  ot in terms of what inputs AMREF will deliver, but in terms of expected improvements in the functioning of different groups and services (e.g. VHTs, HCs, SMCs, PRAs, Schools, Health Centres, WSCs, etc). These are outcomes that should lead to some longer term impacts on people’s lives ● Those changes will need to be clearly prioritised, otherwise it will be difficult to make an appropriate allocation of resources (or resources will be allocated according to the priorities of those holding the resources) ● The 2011 targets could be defined in relation to existing national targets or national averages ● Associated with this clarification of expectations, agreements need to be developed that will spell out not only what AMREF will provide, but also what communities will provide, AND what the government will provide. Multiple agreements may be needed, perhaps component by component. One generic agreement will probably not work, because responsibilities will become too generalised and fuzzy. ● The resulting plan should be publicised as a Katine Community Partners plan, not an AMREF plan. One in which both government partners and community groups are committed to and claim as their own. ● The recommendations (page 28) for the third year activities should connect to this longer term plan. Performance during this third year should be sufficient to give a donor confidence that a fourth year of funding will be worthwhile. ● One criteria could be that the September workshop is able to deliver the kind of results outlined above, and ● That progress in 2010 meets a series of benchmarks identified during the September workshop ● There is a risk that the current donors will not support a fourth year extension, or may change their mind by the end of 2010. With this in mind, the September workshop should be designed such that the partners involved could take all or part of their developed plans to other donors, to seek replacement funding from them (with the interesting challenge—can you be a better donor than G&B?) ● This is an additional reason why the 2011 plan might bets be made up of multiple parts ● In the argument above my assumption has been that AMREF thinks that a fourth year is necessary, and therefore if G&B will not fund it then funding will need to be sought elsewhere. Any plans to close down AMREF’s involvement in project at the end of 2010 would undermine any argument for the need for extended funding from G&B. They could also undermine AMREF’s reputation amongst other development agencies ● The draft report proposes three criteria for selecting activities to be continued, which could be applied in the September workshop: impact, sustainability, and what the community wants. Impact and sustainability criteria will lead in different directions (e.g. material support versus training). The alternative is to focus on those activities that government and communities are most willing to co–invest in, along with AMREF resources. Assessing impact on people’s lives ● In December 2008 CARE contracted an independent Ugandan consultant to carry out a baseline survey of households’ socio–economic status in Katine sub–county and a control group in Kamuda sub–county (232 households in all). Because of the simplicity of the method used to collect that data (known as the Basic Necessities Survey) it will be relatively easy and inexpensive for CARE or AMREF to fund a repeat of this survey in late 2010 (or later). ● The data that was collected in late 2008 has not yet been fully analysed. Nor has its potential been realised for publicly communicating how people are living in Katine. For example, using the survey data it is possible to provide a graphic description of (a) what people in Katine thought were the basis necessities that everyone should be able to have and not have to go without, and (b) what in fact the average household in the sampled group actually possessed in December 2008. ● I have offered to complete the analysis, pro bono. I have also encouraged CARE to ensure that multiple copies of the survey data are made (and stored separately) to ensure that the survey results are still available in 2010 and beyond14. 5. DFID “Quality at Exit” checklist: An assessment of the MTR Report (and the field work process leading to that report)

14 At present the only digital and hard copies of the survey data are being held by the baseline survey consultant.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

52

1

Is there a clear rationale for why the study is being done, why now and who it is for?

Partly so. There could be a more explicit reference back to the three purposes of the MTR, as stated in the 1.2 Purpose of the midterm review section of the Terms of Reference. And to section 3. Expected outputs.

2

Does the report describe the scope and coverage of the evaluation? Is the rationale of the intervention or policy clear?

Partly so. The bullet pointed list in the scope section of the ToRs should be included in the Introduction section of the MTR. However, these are available in the full text of the ToRs in Annex 1.

Is the policy, development and institutional context of the intervention clearly assessed, including political economy, poverty, gender, environment and rights issues?

To some extent. There is a reference to the fit between the project activities and the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) on page 14. Attention has been given to data collected on national targets and averages, relevant to one component (Education), but not others. In 2008 AMREF commented on the External Evaluators’ August Visit report: Analysis of KCPP did not fully take into account the wider development context of Katine, Soroti district and Uganda. However in their comment on the draft MTR they have not highlighted this as an issue.

Is the evaluation framework established and was it appropriate, ensuring that diverse views were heard?

An evaluation framework was established and used. The Introduction to the MTR gives a quick overview of the methods used and the evaluation issues attended to. The results of the different methods used are clearly documented in the report.

3

4

5

6

7

8

While the activities and objectives of the project are well documented the rationale of the project is not clear. AMREF’s views on working with partners, providing models, undertaking operational research and advocacy all have a place here

A diversity of views has been documented, Different community groups and government bodies, at district, sub–county, parish and village level were interviewed and reported on.

Was the data collected sufficiently disaggregated to enable diverse views to be reflected; was it collected in an appropriate manner and was information sufficiently triangulated?

The report separately documents the view of many different government bodies and community groups. Views were obtained through structured meetings, household surveys and random walks

Does the report indicate the stakeholders consulted, the criteria for their selection, and the methods and reasons for selection of particular stakeholders?

Annex2 lists all groups that were met. The decision to meet contrasting pairs of community groups has been made clear on page 27, but not the criteria behind the choice of “well” and “less–well” performing groups. These are important because the “success” criteria used may or may not fit well with the official objectives of the project.

Have Paris Declaration Principles been addressed in the evaluation?

Alignment with government policy was mentioned via references to the PEAP and government targets for each sector

Are some of the DAC evaluation criteria1 reflected in an appropriate way?

To some extent. The DAC+ criteria were used to inform the questions asked during interviews, but the findings on each of these criteria are not easily accessible in the report as currently structured. Relevance and effectiveness of AMREF activities, as seen by different stakeholders, have been emphasised the most. Discussion of issues of impact, sustainability and transparency are less evident. Gender and equity issues have been analysed in the final version of the report.

There was no dis–aggregation of the household survey data There was some triangulation of data e.g. by relating household survey responses to staff data on coverage of each village by each project activity. More use might be expected of data available in the narrative reports and baseline surveys

Harmonisation efforts with other NGOs have not been described / analysed. Information was collected and could be used (e.g. on the district level forums for water and education activities)

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

53

9

Is the analysis sufficiently robust?

All the recommendations are supported by some prior discussion. There is a significant section of the report (pages 20–27) that are descriptive with little analysis of issues arising (and any recommendations that could relate to those issues). There needs to be some form of summarizing or synthesizing here. As noted below, all respondents’ view of project benefits seem to be accepted at face value, and of equal value. In practice some views will be more important than others, both to the individual respondents and given the strategy of the project

10

Are the findings valid, balanced and adequately supported by evidence?

The findings appear balanced, and have been accepted by AMREF, even though some are quite critical of AMREF practices. The achievement ratings in Annex 10 have been made on the basis of a mixed set of data on outputs, outcomes and impact, and in the absence of defined targets or comparators. They must therefore be regarded as impressions. These limitations need to be clearly stated

11

Are the recommendations sufficiently clear, targeted and practical?

Yes. But some seem to assume some background knowledge about the issues involved. A non–AMREF audience might need some more context / explanation. Some will need clarification even to the parties referred to, such as those regarding the need for MoUs and Rules of Engagement

12

Are the lessons2 clearly presented and applicable for wider use?

Lessons learned have not been explicitly documents as such. In their comments on the draft MTR report AMREF London have since requested “key learning that will impact what we can do differently” To some extent this request is covered by the list of recommendations, but these are not easily read as generalisations that might be relevant to other AMREF project

13

Are the evaluation results sufficiently independent and impartial, (from the evidence available)? 3

The report appears independent and impartial. However, perhaps some of the data that has been collected needs to be viewed more critically. All respondents’ view of project benefits seem to be accepted at face value. VSLA have been judged as highly successful (according to member views), but some hard data e.g. on membership turnover in groups, would be more persuasive still. Training is reported as appreciated by many, but there is no reference to any technical assessments of training programs that have been provided.

14

Has the evaluation process and report adequately addressed the information needs of the commissioning body and other users; and does it address the questions in the TOR?

Feedback on the draft report from AMREF London was positive, with requests for further information on: ● k ey learning that will impact what we can do differently ● why report sections were organised according to parish and governance level ● more pointers on a 4th year and what we need to consider for the project to be sustainable ● Performance measurement against each component (using DAC criteria) ● Integration of project activities, across components (RD) Looking at the ToRs, there are a number of aspects of the Scope of work not yet addressed (4 of 8). More information could be provided and/or reasons given for not covering these issues (e.g. in the Introduction): ● C  hanges to community and government structures in terms of their capacities and the impact this has on the delivery of the project and people’s lives i.e. are we seeing a more active community or policy change? (considering sustainability and effectiveness) [Not addressed] ● The contribution of: Partners activities e.g. UWESO, FARM–Africa, CARE (considering relevance, effectiveness and efficiency3) Role of other NGOs operating in Katine, considering to what extent the partnerships and collaborations have hindered or helped towards achieving the end goal [Partly addressed] ● Review and identify sustainability mechanisms, what needs to happen from mid way until the end of the project and after the project lifetime to ensure sustainability i.e. replication of the model/ scale up and an exploration of opportunities to support that. [Not addressed] ● Risks and assumptions: consider assumptions in initial design of project, what has been learnt to inform future implementation.[Not addressed]

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

54

15

16

Have stakeholders in countries and other users been sufficiently engaged in the evaluation process4; and has communication been sufficiently transparent?

Largely so. Consultations on the ToRs took place within AMREF, and with the Guardian, CARE, Farm Africa and Barclays. The Steering Committee did not appear to be involved in the development of the ToRs.

Is the Executive Summary clear, balanced and of appropriate length5; and does it sufficiently reflect the findings and tone of the main report? Are the appropriate Annexes available and of sufficient quality?

An Executive Summary has been provided, of appropriate length. The sequence of findings could be improved, with method descriptions in one place (e.g. paras 1, 3, 5) and overall assessments in another place (e.g. paras 4, 8). The description of the achievement ratings need to be associated with a caveat, relating to unclear objectives and poor data, documented in the report. Some statements are a bit skeletal, and may leave the reader puzzled e.g. paras 8, 13

AMREF Katine staff participated in all field visits, meetings and interviews. A planning workshop was held with AMREF Katine staff on the final day of the fieldwork A debriefing of the results of the MTR took place in Kampala, and will also take place in London. A stakeholders meeting is scheduled for mid–September, and it is expected the MTR results will be discussed there. The finalised MTR will be available on the Guardian website, and should be provided to the Steering Committee in Soroti.

A list of Recommendations is also provided. These would benefit by references to specific sections of the main text where they are discussed in detail e.g. See page… The Annexes provide substantial supplementary information

(Footnotes) 1 Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability plus the additional 3 criteria of coverage, coherence and coordination. 2 Note: Recommendations are actionable proposals and lessons learned are generalisations of conclusions applicable for wider use. 3 It is recognised that the QA Assessor may not be able to make a valid judgment, because of lack of evidence; in which case, there should be an/a response. 4 The evaluation approach should include learning and participation opportunities (e.g. workshops, learning groups, debriefing, participation in field visits) to ensure key stakeholders are fully integrated into the evaluation learning process. 5 Up to four pages.

Mid–Term Review Katine Community Partnerships Project, July 2009 — Annexes

55

Designed by Ken Swann www.kswann.com