UGANDA JOINT PROGRAMME EVALUATION Drake Rukundo Maiken Mansfeld Ashanut Okille Final Report June 2015 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ACT Action by Churches Together ART Anti-Retroviral Therapy BCC Behaviour Change Communication C&D Cooperation and Development CBMES Community Based Monitoring and Evaluations Systems (CBMES) CBO Community Based Organization CHH Child Headed Household CIPA Community Initiative for the prevention of HIV/AIDS in Uganda COU Church of Uganda CSF Civil Society Fund CSO Civil Society Organization DAC District AIDS Committee DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DCA DanChurchAid DAC District AIDS Committee ELCT Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania FBO Faith Based Organisation GBV Gender Based Violence HTC HIV Testing and counselling HURINET Human Rights Network IEC Information, Education and Communication LWF Lutheran World Federation MARP Most at Risk Population MDG Millennium Development Goal MOH Ministry of Health MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTCT Mother to Child Transmission OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PLHIV People Living with HIV PMTCT Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission PO Programme Officer POZIDEP Pokot Zonal Integrated Development Programme RACA Rakai Counsellors Association RACOBAO Rakai Community Based AIDS Organization RR Regional Representative SAC Sub county AIDS coordination SASA Start Awareness Support Action SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence STI Sexually transmitted infections TEDDO Teso Dioceses Development Office TPO Trans-cultural Psychosocial Organization (Uganda) UAC Uganda AIDS Commission UHRC Uganda Human Rights Commission UNAIDS United Nations AIDS Program UNASO Uganda Network of AIDS Support Organizations USAID United States Agency for International Development VSLA Village Savings and Loans Association i| DCA Uganda Joint Programmes Evaluation – Final Report Table of Contents List of Abbreviations and Acronyms _______________________________________________ i Table of Contents _____________________________________________________________ ii Key Recommendations for Future Action __________________________________________ iii Executive Summary __________________________________________________________ vi EVALUATION RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 1 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMES’ RELEVANCE .................................................................................... 4 EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 10 EFFICIENCY OF THE USE OF RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 21 DCA APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................................... 27 ASSESSMENT OF DCA PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................................ 34 SUSTAINABILITY OF PROGRAMMES RESULTS .................................................................................... 38 WAY FORWARD ........................................................................................................................................ 40 ANNEX: 1 ACTIVE CITIZEN PROGRAMME ................................................................................................. i ANNEX 2: RIGHT TO FOOD AND HUMANITARIAN ACTION PROGRAMME ........................................ xvii ANNEX 3: HIV/AIDS AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS ..................................... xxiv LIST OF INFORMANTS - HIV/AIDS/SRHR PROGRAMME EVALUATION .............................................. LXI ii| DCA Uganda Joint Programmes Evaluation – Final Report Key Recommendations for Future Action Improve the implementation of DCA approaches and methodologies Overall, DCA through its partners has successfully introduced, applied and demonstrated many positive results from its core development approaches and methodologies such as the Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation Systems (CBMES), Farmer Field Schools (FFS), APFS, Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA), Start Awareness Support Action (SASA!), and CMDRR. Some of the methodologies applied provide good examples of a ‘RBA in action’ (CBMES; SASA!; VSLA in the form of empowerment). However, whilst methodologies like CBMES and VSLA are highly appreciated and good results have been obtained in a short time they are not all fully understood nor implemented consistently by partners. This can partly be explained by the fact that DCA’s partners work in some of the poorest parts of Uganda, and some of the target populations are amongst the chronically poor. As such, their focus until recently has been more on basic needs for survival. Some partners find that the application of a RBA does not easily give direct tangible results like those in service delivery projects. DCA and its partners also need to be aware of possible political interference and/or disruption of some of the groups created using the CBMES and VSLA methodologies and other groups. yet, political interference is not related to the way DCA has implemented the methodologies, but reflects the competitive political climate and also that politicians have realised that these groups have power in communities. Strengthen partnerships Areas that could be improved in relation to the partnership are how to better foster collaborative learning, working in consortia, and working towards a more ‘equal’ relationship with all partners. More capacity needs to be built to support implementation of methodologies, monitoring and evaluation, targeting and involvement of target groups in programming, M&E and fundraising. While training is conducted, DCA should seek to minimize unnecessary overlap in trainings by better coordination among ACT/other development partners, DCA should also follow-up training in certain methodologies to assess technical gaps that need to be addressed from time to time. In addition, more work is required to explain the partnership policy’s expectations especially to the new partners and also ensure appreciation within all staff at DCA GLRO. Communication between DCA and partners could be strengthened by making sure that bilateral annual meetings are held and documented. DCA should continue with the partner platforms and ‘exposure visits’ to increase synergy, mutual learning and coordination. An annual DCA partner handbook presenting brief sections on partner organisations was mentioned as a way to increase visibility and coordination. The management of consortium may be improved by having more regular meetings between implementing partners, as can the linkages between national organizations working with community/district based organizations under the DCA ‘umbrella’. Improve synergies The evaluation recommends increasing awareness within DCA on other current and related projects of their partners. In addition, it is recommended for DCA to support and encourage partner organisations to map and interact with organisations in the same district implementing related projects. Partners (with DCA oversight) should further be encouraged to register with their respective district NGO forums. While a lot of work has been done to ensure synergies between partners and within the ACT Forum Uganda, the evaluation notes that DCA could do more to identify and reduce unnecessary overlaps between the DCA and ACT partners in a iii| DCA Uganda Joint Programmes Evaluation – Final Report more collaborative fashion, while at the same time take more benefit of projects implemented in the same districts. Joint monitoring trips, joint advocacy activities and joint projects between ACT international partners have recently been introduced and such efforts should be sustained and scaled up where possible. The impact of advocacy at local level could potentially increase if areas of implementation (district and sub county level) were overlapping to a higher extent than what is currently the situation and a strong link to national level partners/organisations is ensured. Furthermore a visual mapping of ACT projects throughout the entire country could possibly be developed. Increase value for money The evaluation found that DCA could increase value for money could by: Improving synergies and selecting strategic partner, minimising overlaps with ACT partners, having longer project spans, deepening interventions with larger presence in fewer districts; focusing to a higher extent on quality; addressing identified thematic gaps; increase dialogue between project managers and duty bearers; increasing the inclusion of rights holders in programme/project design; implementing specific targeting of key actors/ vulnerable/high risk populations; buying in bulk; utilizing to higher extent change agents such as religious leaders; and introducing the use of IT technology. Mainstream SRHR in the new DCA country strategy As DCA HQ has decided to close the HIV/AIDS/SRHR programme type by end of 2016 in all countries, DCA GLRO should ensure that SRHR/HIV aspects be integrated in the new country programme for Uganda. Mainstreaming components for future DCA country programme include: Continuing SASA activism to increase the empowerment and participation of women and shifting the power balance in communities; Having training modular on HIV/SRHR for other groups (VSLA, CBMES etc.); Improving the targeting mechanism of members of groups; Maintaining the monitoring of