1 / 20

Results Management in IFAD-funded Programmes in the Philippines

Results Management in IFAD-funded Programmes in the Philippines. EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES 1 st M&E Network Forum , 7-8 November 2011, Crown Plaza, Manila, Philippines. Background - IFAD’s Quandary.

mohawk
Download Presentation

Results Management in IFAD-funded Programmes in the Philippines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results Managementin IFAD-funded Programmes in the Philippines EVALUATION THEORY, APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES1st M&E Network Forum, 7-8 November 2011, Crown Plaza, Manila, Philippines

  2. Background - IFAD’s Quandary • Since its inception 35 years ago, IFAD focused on rural poverty reduction. IFAD programmes/projects aim to increase incomes of rural poor • Measurement of incomes has traditionally proven to be a challenge, even for well-qualified research outfits • Project managers, often operating in remote areas, do not have access to human & technical resources necessary for results measurement

  3. What to do about M&E? Performance of M&E systems was habitually one of the weak spots in IFAD projects

  4. “A Guide for Project M&E” • In 2001, IFAD developed its highly referenced Guide for Project M&E -- http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/ providing essential tools and guidance (methodology, templates for ToRs, logframe applications, etc.)

  5. IFAD’s Challenge • But, the MDGs set out poverty/hunger reduction as Goal Number 1 • IFAD faced a need to report on results & impact in terms of MDGs– harmonisation and aid effectiveness agenda

  6. Results & Impact Management System (RIMS) • Standardised methods were therefore developed- “RIMS” • Comprehensive system for results and impact measurement in use by all IFAD-funded projects • Based on a standard list of indicators (output/outcome/ impact) • Mandatory, periodic reporting to IFAD-HQ Weaknesses persisted in collecting information required to report on aid effectiveness

  7. RIMS in a Nutshell 1st LEVEL RESULTS [OUTPUTS] 2nd LEVEL RESULTS [OUTCOMES] IMPACT Annual reporting to IFAD from PY1 onwards Annual reporting from PY2/PY3 onwards Reporting three times in project cycle: baseline, mid-term and completion Project M&E system RIMS Impact Surveys

  8. Example of RIMS 1st and 2nd Level Results

  9. RIMS Impact Survey • IFAD’s RIMS mandatory, proxy measures to demonstrate increasing income: • Asset ownership, using Principal Components Analysis • Child nutrition (anthropometrics) • RIMS also includes measures for other MDG-related indicators • Impact-level indicators are measured at baseline, mid-term and completion (normally a 5 to 7 year span)

  10. Impact indicators measured through RIMS surveys

  11. Implications of RIMS • From IFAD pre-defined standard indicators, projects select only relevant output/outcome measures • Standardisation means data can be aggregated at province, agency, national, regional or global level • RIMS as minimum requirement: projects expected to develop more extensive M&E base • Impact indicators focused on goal and objective level: contribution rather than attribution • Impact assessment focuses on most essential questions: minimalist survey • Harmonisation: Anthropometric data in accordance with WHO and UNICEF global standards • Avoid duplication in efforts: Where UNICEF or national agencies provide data for project area, nutrition surveys not required

  12. RIMS in the Philippines: Ensuring Partnership in Making Sense of Data RIMS was introduced in the PH in 2006. Most projects conducted baseline impact surveys only, but are regularly reporting 1st and 2nd level indicators. • Project RIMS progress reporting focuses on quantitative data. Qualitative reviews are undertaken during supervision • RIMS level 1 & 2 data are validated through joint supervision missions with NEDA, and annual country programme reviews • Learning approach: involving project and agency staff

  13. Example of persons reached by 3 projects

  14. Example of persons trained by 3 projects

  15. Example of Impact Survey Findings: Sudan Distribution of Wealth Quintiles in GSLRP

  16. An Example of Impact Survey Findings: Sudan

  17. An Example of Impact Survey Findings: Sudan

  18. Some Lessons • Standardized indicators permit to track project progress as well as aggregate measures across all projects; • RIMS is low cost and can be implemented by project teams or its partners. Results can be validated by other exercises like supervision mission, annual country programme reviews; • Some impact indicators are difficult to interpret; e.g. food insecurity are highly sensitive to annual variations in food production; • Outcome surveys may be needed to show trends in short/medium-term outcomes, & explain results chain (links from outputs to impact);

  19. Opportunities and Recommendations RIMS has ability to report across agencies, provinces and projects on overall country programme. However, it requires: • Computerized MIS that can facilitate and validate data entry, accessible to stakeholders; • Improved data collection at grassroots level (timely, complete, accurate way).

  20. Thank You! Contact: t.el-zabri@ifad.org y.arban@ifad.org

More Related