1992-1997 UNCDF Project Evaluations - Overall Findings
Prepared by the Policy, Planning and Evaluation Unit (PPEU)
STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES MATRIX
| 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | Average 1992 - 1997 | |||||||||||||||
| + | M | -- | + | M | -- | + | M | -- | + | M | -- | + | M | -- | + | M | -- |
STRONG +% |
MIXED 0% |
WEAK |
|
| Project Concept | 83 | 17 | 0 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 44 | 44 | 11 | 79 | 14 | 7 | 75 | 19 | 6 | 73 | 23 | 4 |
| Formulation/Technical Design | 17 | 67 | 17 | 20 | 70 | 10 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 22 | 22 | 56 | 29 | 29 | 43 | 27 | 46 | 27 | 19 | 48 | 30 |
| Needs Identification | 50 | 17 | 33 | 70 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 56 | 33 | 11 | 50 | 36 | 14 | 81 | 13 | 6 | 60 | 23 | 14 |
| Accurate/Adequate Basic Data | 56 | 11 | 33 | 14 | 36 | 50 | 44 | 31 | 25 | 38 | 12 | 36 | |||||||||
| Attainment of Immediate Objectives 1/ | 17 | 50 | 33 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 11 | 78 | 11 | 36 | 43 | 21 | 64 | 19 | 19 | 33 | 46 | 21 |
| Targetting of Beneficiaries | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 44 | 44 | 11 | 29 | 43 | 29 | 69 | 25 | 6 | 65 | 22 | 12 |
| Community Sensitization | 67 | 17 | 17 | 40 | 0 | 60 | 67 | 0 | 33 | 25 | 63 | 13 | 29 | 43 | 29 | 46 | 15 | 39 | 46 | 23 | 32 |
| Community Participation | 0 | 20 | 80 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 43 | 14 | 43 | 38 | 46 | 15 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 31 | 28 | 41 |
| Women’s Participation | 0 | 20 | 80 | 40 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 33 | 17 | 50 | 42 | 25 | 33 | 50 | 36 | 14 | 28 | 19 | 56 |
| Appropriate Technical/Equipment Specs | 33 | 17 | 50 | 40 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 56 | 11 | 33 | 50 | 8 | 42 | 58 | 25 | 17 | 40 | 31 | 36 |
| Technical Assistance | 0 | 33 | 67 | 40 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 67 | 22 | 11 | 54 | 38 | 8 | 36 | 28 | 36 | 33 | 18 | 47 |
| Training/Knowledge Transfer | 33 | 17 | 50 | 70 | 0 | 30 | 75 | 0 | 25 | 43 | 57 | 0 | 43 | 29 | 29 | 43 | 36 | 21 | 51 | 20 | 26 |
| Monitoring and Supervision | 17 | 33 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 89 | 11 | 0 | 43 | 21 | 36 | 50 | 22 | 38 | 50 | 22 | 33 |
| Institutional Capacity | 67 | 17 | 17 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 75 | 0 | 25 | 22 | 11 | 67 | 57 | 21 | 21 | 38 | 38 | 24 | 50 | 19 | 32 |
| Effective Utilization of Outputs | 83 | 0 | 17 | 30 | 30 | 40 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 44 | 44 | 11 | 23 | 54 | 23 | 74 | 13 | 13 | 55 | 22 | 17 |
| Effective Maintenance | 67 | 17 | 17 | 10 | 60 | 30 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 42 | 50 | 8 | 11 | 33 | 66 | 28 | 38 | 31 |
| Support to Local Govern/ Decentr. | 0 | 100 | 0 | 67 | 33 | 0 | 38 | 50 | 12 | 35 | 68 | 4 | |||||||||
| Support to Civil Society Strengthening | 80 | 20 | 0 | 64 | 36 | 0 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 75 | 30 | 0 | |||||||||
| Coordination at Project Level | 33 | 17 | 50 | 60 | 10 | 30 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 11 | 22 | 43 | 21 | 36 | 56 | 6 | 38 | 60 | 13 | 29 |
| Coordination at District/Sectoral Level | 33 | 0 | 67 | 70 | 0 | 30 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 11 | 44 | 31 | 23 | 46 | 22 | 22 | 66 | 50 | 12 | 42 |
| On-time, within budget | 17 | 17 | 67 | 30 | 10 | 60 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 78 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 21 | 64 | 31 | 44 | 25 | 37 | 17 | 46 |
| Timely Procurement/Recruitment | 17 | 17 | 67 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 33 | 11 | 56 | 7 | 43 | 50 | 44 | 12 | 44 | 34 | 11 | 53 |
| Performance of UN Cooperating Agency | 55 | 27 | 27 | 38 | 38 | 24 | 47 | 30 | 26 | ||||||||||||
| Overall Assessment of Evaluators | 57 | 29 | 14 | 62 | 18 | 18 | 60 | 31 | 16 | ||||||||||||
| TOTAL NUMBER OF EVALUATIONS | 7 | 10 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 16 | |||||||||||||||
+ = Strength -- = Weakness M= Mixed "blank" = not assessed by evaluators





