Joint Programme Evaluation final evaluation report august 2016 DanChurchAid (dca) Jhamsikhel, Lalitpur Nepal Dr. Prakash Bhattarai and Dr. Dhruba Gautam

2.3 Efficiency

2.3.1 Migrant Rights Programme

The evaluation team found that the DCA’s MRP partners have successfully delivered the project as it was planned. Most of the national and regional level partners of DCA are recognised as champion in the field of migrant rights advocacy and prevention of human trafficking. Having competent project partners on board to the successful delivery of migrant rights programmes is considered as smart move of DCA to enhance the quality of intervention. What has been achieved by the NGO partners within the modest financial support received by DCA is considered as great achievements. Active technical and advisory support along with frequent monitoring visit provided by the concerned DCA staff was an added value for enhancing the efficiency of the project even within the limited budget given by DCA to its partners.
DCA’s approach to support varieties of interventions at different levels, working with multiple partners, and keeping some sorts of balance between them without undermining each other’s importance is considered as another beauty of project. This demonstrates the efficiency of DCA for managing a reasonable size of partners and their varieties of interventions.
DCA also seems an efficient institution to facilitate a good level of coordination and information sharing between the national level partners. In some cases, DCA has provided opportunities for national project partners even to share resources for common goal. For example, in Bangladesh, pre-departure booklet is developed jointly by both DCA partners (BOMSA and ORB Development Foundation) and which has been used as standardised information tool kit in all pre-departure orientation trainings conducted in Bangladesh. DCA, by supporting regional level partners like MFA and GAATW, have created significant linking, learning, sharing, and capacity development opportunities for its partners from Nepal, India, and Bangladesh.

2.3.2 Inclusive Citizenship for Accountable Governance

The evaluation team found that DCA partners have successfully delivered the planned ICAG programmes despite a number of external challenges (such as political instability and natural disaster in Nepal and Bangladesh and unfavourable work environment for NGOs in India) faced by them during the project period in all three programme countries. ICAG programmes are implemented by reputed national level organisations in Nepal, Bangladesh and India with strong local, national, as well as international connections. Such connections assisted DCA partners to work in coordination and collaboration with multiple stakeholders. There is also a good combination of DCA programme and project partners. Specialised organisations are chosen for implementing special programme theme in all ICAG programme countries. Selection of Dalit focused NGOs to reach out Dalit communities, women focused NGOs to implemented women focused programme, human rights NGOs for implementing human rights defender programme is one of the important aspects of programme. The evaluation team also found that ICAG programmes were managed by competent project officers at DCA as well as within the partner organisations. Likewise, DCA partners’ relationships with the government institutions both at the central level and district level have been significant for effective implementation of the programme. Whatever DCA partners have achieved under the ICAG programme is far more than the costs given to them. The achievements of ICAG programme is described under the Effectiveness section.
Despite the high efficiency of ICAG programme, the evaluation team has found two major problems. First, there was the lack of coordination and communication between national level ICAG programme partners of DCA who are working with more or less similar issues. Second, availability of limited budget for the DCA partner was another constraining factor to the successful implementation of the project. DCA partners receive limited budget that should spent for staff’s salary, administrative costs as well as local and national level programme costs. This has affected programme quality.

2.3.3 Resilient Livelihood and Sustainable Food Security

The evaluation team has assessed the efficiency of DCA’s RLSFS programme from the perspective of its timeliness, adequate use of human resource and budget management, capacity to manage emerging risks, addressing the food security needs strategically, and the effective use of planning and monitoring tools.
Timeliness: The timeframe of the RLSFS programme was squeesed from four years (2014-2017) to three years (2014-2016). In India, all partners were convinced to close field activities by December 2015. Despite this new arrangement, the programme delivered the key programmatic interventions timely and adequately albeit it has no proper catch-up plans in advance.
Adequate use of human resources: The programme and partner NGO staffs are found to be very clear about the local context, how the activities should be implemented, with whom to work with, and where to link the beneficiaries for the sustainability. As a result, the programme has optimised (in-country as well as regional) resources during the implementation phase of the programme. However, the field level staffs of RLSFS programme expressed that there was a rush to best utilise the available resources because of the large number of activities to be completed within a fixed timeframe, while the size of the staff was found lower as compared to the total volume of works. Staff turnover was another challenge. Yet, due to the well-designed programme management approach, limited staff body was strategically mobilised to provide technical backstopping.
Budget management: Majority of the partner NGOs consulted during the evaluation process expressed that the funding flow mechanism was timely and adequate to execute the planned interventions. The funds were spent strategically on the genuine needs of rights-holders and contributed to the overall goal of the programme. Variations between cost estimates and actual expenditure are not necessarily bad. Updated data revealed that there is a good correlation between progress and expenditure. The expenditure of project and cross-cutting cost of RLSFS programme is 98.6 percent and 100 percent respectively, which demonstrate a good budget utilisation. According to the views from stakeholders and beneficiaries, RLSFS programme is cost-efficient as it has generated large impacts through a modest grant provided by DCA.
Capacity to manage emerging risks: Nepal’s mega earthquake, political unrest, unofficial blockade at the Nepal-India border and closer of trade and transit has adversely affected the implementation of programme activities and increase the price of construction materials. To address these impacts, DCA advised its partners to revise the budget line items and action plan. Such flexibility has ensured the efficiency of the programme intervention.
Addressing the food security needs strategically: The RLSFS programme successfully involved target beneficiaries in each stage of the programme cycle. Such a high degree of involvement ensured efficient and dynamic action. It achieved strong outcomes because it adopted tried-and-tested approach from other DCA’s programmes and outside, thereby saving time and resources and reducing the risks of failure.
Effective use of planning and monitoring tools: The programme developed innovative planning and monitoring tools that were well structured because they were easy to understand and utilise. However, in the absence of separate monitoring unit at the SARO, the outcomes and impacts are not fully documented.
Inter-agency planning and management: Programmatic approach was to work in partnership and collaboration with different organisations. The management support played a crucial role to the achievements of programme goals and objectives. The management arrangement ensured an active participation of a wide range of stakeholders. In order to be more efficient, it also secured considerable managerial and technical support through partner NGOs. However, the absence of periodic partners’ meetings and review-reflection-action hindered sharing and cross learning between them.