Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background 7


Recommendations Arising from Responses to Evaluative Questions



Download 467.92 Kb.
Page9/16
Date09.01.2017
Size467.92 Kb.
#7992
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   16

4.4 Recommendations Arising from Responses to Evaluative Questions



Recommendation 16

That the outcome level components of the AAA M&E framework be urgently refocussed in line with data collection and analysis approach suggested in Annex 1 of this IPR.



Recommendation 17

The program should focus on achieving a basic degree of relevant outcome monitoring before considering expansion into any more complex approaches to M&E, including those proposed in the IAAMP Outcomes Evaluation report



Recommendation 18

Course providers should be required to provide simultaneous translation of short course delivery, as necessary.



Recommendation 19

Consideration be given to passing on a greater degree of responsibility for administrative and logistic workloads associated with short course delivery to course providers (including responsibility for awardee travel and visa acquisition), particularly when non-standard delivery options are proposed.



Recommendation 20

Consider using ancillary awards to further increase the participation of women, disabled persons and candidates from non-English African speaking countries in the LTA component of the program.



Recommendation 21

Conduct a rapid review of target organisations to assess real world availability of female candidates and use of this information to review blanket targets or reassess reporting against blanket targets. AusAID should consider how addressing gender and equity issues fits in with the larger overall HRD strategy.


Recommendation 22

The option of provision of awards to both disabled persons and people working in disability sectors as a means of addressing disability targets should be continued provided care is taken to ensure that this does not impede the persons living with a disability from accessing awards.



Recommendation 23

A Critical Incident Management Team should be created for addressing unforseen problems faced by applicants, awardees or alumni, and the creation of this team and the procedures for them to follow be reflected in amendments to the QAM.4.5 Ratings against each Criterion


Table 2.

(Please note: this is an overall assessment and is not directly always reflective of contractor performance)


Evaluation Criteria

Rating

Explanation

Relevance

5

All forms of award constitute tools that can be used to address necessary capacity building conditions for generating development impact. This was confirmed by all stakeholders.

Effectiveness

3

The information gathered directly by the IPR provided consistent evidence of significant development impacts by returnees. Linkages were less well achieved. Raising the profile of Australia has been achieved at higher levels within partner governments, but penetration of awareness of how to benefit from the program needs to be extended into line ministries, if the maintenance of this improved profile is to be sustained.
The IPR team had limited exposure to private and civil society sectors and therefore reserves it judgement on associated impacts.
The program’s own systems for collecting outcome information used to date were often anecdotal or perceptional and were therefore not of much use in making the above determinations.

Efficiency

4

Scale-up targets were met well within schedule. The joint effort between AusAID and MC staff that made this possible was mutually defensive at times and this resulted in iterative tasking that did not at times rather than cooperative. This lost some efficiency

Sustainability

5

General development impacts of alumni appear to be significant and sustained over many years (and in some cases decades). Provision of targeted assistance to alumni to maximize their development impact is only cursory and has not been broadly implemented to date.

Gender Equality

3

While gender targets have been met, the MC has neglected a number of key requirements of the SoS for much of the program life to date. A Gender Study has only just been completed, and the Gender Equity and Access Fund has been under-utilized to date because of a lack of clear guidelines defining what constitutes legitimate use. The application of blanket gender targets may be unrealistic and consequently require approaches to selection that are damaging to gender sensitivity of the program.

Monitoring & Evaluation

3

Systems for tracking basic output data has significantly improved. Tools used for collecting outcome and impact level data should be revised to focus on collection of more relevant data.

Analysis & Learning

4

The MC and AusAID appear to be continually attempting to identify improvements to the program, particularly in selection processes and have been implementing these as the need arises. However, this has largely been a reactive process, and there are areas of improvement that have been neglected (promotional approaches and M&E systems).

Rating scale: 6 = very high quality; 1 = very low quality. Below 4 is less than satisfactory.


Download 467.92 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   16



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
full range
overall quality
full scope
different forms
initial design
governor general
bigger picture
failure rate
short life