00060467 People Centred Development Programme (PCDP) Final Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2014
Completion Date:
08/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
25,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_InterNational _PCDP Evaluation_Final.doc tor English 204.00 KB Posted 512
Download document Report of the Final Evaluation of PCDP_ERC.docx report English 2439.69 KB Posted 748
Title 00060467 People Centred Development Programme (PCDP) Final Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00060467
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2014
Planned End Date: 12/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
Evaluation Budget(US $): 25,000
Source of Funding: PCDP Project
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nisar Ahmad Khan Evaluator, Leader Niskhan65@yahoo.com PAKISTAN
Farsidah Lubis Evaluator, Member Farsidah@hotmail.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Bappenas, Bappeda Papua and West Papua
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
1.

1.       The PCDP Phase II project believed that in the medium to longer term, CSOs would continue to be the delivery agents of services to remote and isolated communities. The project perceived that as a consequence, there is a need to place greater quality control over government services.  Under Output 2, CSOs were expected to pilot government minimum service standards by means of integrating/synergizing delivery of government and CSO service provision. This would ensure that remote and rural communities would not be disadvantaged by, for example, being provided with substandard services as compared to the quality of services provided to their more affluent coastal neighbors.  

2.       The PCDP project did not actively involve District health and education functionaries in the development and testing of the service delivery models. The activities were carried out by CSOs under the supervision of provincial BPMs without much interaction with district level health and education authorities. This may have implications for sustainability when the model is replicated on a wider scale. District authorities are already implementing PAUD and POSYANDU programmes in a number of villages. Factors such as intermittent availability of financing and inadequate human resource capacities, however, limit the effectiveness of the interventions. Government delivery mechanisms supply services separately through the respective district level offices. These service delivery mechanisms do not involve CSOs.      

3.       The pilot models were effective in streamlining and delivering PAUD and POSYANDU services. The participatory way in which the models were tested, especially with the involvement of CSOs, was very effective.


Findings
1.

Findings from evaluation are;

1.       The project’s logical framework is well formulated. It exhibits sound cause and effect linkages among the project’s activities, outputs, and outcomes. The project’s expected results were conceived to, along with the expected results of other projects, contribute towards the attainment of the GOI/UNDP CPAP Outcome 1.1. The focus of this evaluation is on the production and value of the PCDP Phase-II project’s Outputs. It is presumed by design that if the PCDP project succeeds in producing its expected outputs, then it would have categorically also achieved its objective of contributing towards the attainment of the GOI/UNDP CPAP Outcome 1.1. The magnitude of the project’s contribution, however, can only be measured by an evaluation at the programme level.

2.       The PCDP project’s objective of enhancing the capacities of local development stakeholders to achieve Human Development and MDG targets in the Papua region is highly relevant to and consistent with the Government of Indonesia’s National, Provincial, and District level policies and programs. It is also relevant to and consistent with UNDP’s development support priorities as well as the development agenda of the project’s external donors

3.       PCDP has contributed towards the improvement of local development planning capacities and mechanisms by incorporating Human Development and MDG indicators and targets in the ongoing and upcoming provincial medium term development plans (RPJMD West Papua 2012-16 and RPJMD Papua 2013-2017). Indonesia’s national government’s drive to achieve the country’s MDG targets, prompted PCDP to support the redirection of the focus of the regional medium term development plans towards poverty reduction and human development. MDG indicators were useful in setting targets and monitoring their achievement in the RPJMDs.

4.       The project initiated the establishment of Data Forums at provincial level and in its pilot districts, and supported the process of their accreditation by regional regulations. The services offered by these Forums are instrumental in producing data for the development of Regional Medium Term Development Plans (RPJMDs) and the formulation of development planning instruments such as HD Reports, MDG Reports, Gender-Based HD Reports and Gender Mainstreaming Actions Plans.

5.       PCDP has contributed to the improvement of local development planning mechanisms by incorporating Human Development, MDG as well as Gender indicators and targets in ongoing and upcoming provincial Medium Term Regional Development Plans (Papua RPJMD 2013-2017 and West Papua RPJMD 2012-16). Government officials find HD, MDG and Gender indicators useful in establishing and monitoring RPJMD achievement targets. The project supported the formulation of Provincial Gender Mainstreaming Action Plans based on which all SKPDs (Regional Government Work Units) are now directed to employ Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) in their planning and budgeting exercises.

6.       PCDP provided expertise to help improve delivery systems for health and education services in selected communities. The project developed and piloted integrated service delivery models for basic health and early childhood education services. The aim of integration was to synergize the delivery of services provided by the Early Childhood Education programme (PAUD) with the delivery of services offered by the Integrated Services Posts (POSYANDU) programme by convening them in one location.

7.       PCDP provided technical support to UP4B to develop and implement mechanisms for local government agencies to administer and coordinate accelerated development. Provincial and District Government Agencies found the planning and monitoring applications useful in formulating and monitoring accelerated plans. They are, however, skeptical of UP4B’s interventions, believing them to be imposed, top-down national government edicts.

8.       The PCDP Project succeeded in raising the awareness of development stakeholders in Papua and West Papua, including that of regional government officials, of the need to address gender issues in development planning and implementation. The project introduced the concept of gender as a social construct that affects the role and particularly the welfare of women. This awareness needs to be reinforced by enhancing the skills of development stakeholders on how to employ gender analysis to conceive strategic interventions to reduce disparities in status and welfare between men and women.

9.       The project’s activities were well conceived. Their completion, however, suffered considerable delays. The project’s duration was originally planned for two years, from 2011 up to 2012, but the end date eventually had to be extended. Late start-up, long recruitment processes, lengthy consultations among project implementing partners, high turnover of project and government staff and protracted delays in receipt and disbursement of funds were among of the range of issues that slowed down the project’s progress. The delays caused many of the project’s achievement target due dates to spill over to subsequent years, extending the project’s completion date from 2012 to 2013. Project implementation was also challenged by Papua’s geography and the remoteness of the project’s target villages. Distance, topography, poorly maintained roads, and absence of efficient public transportation altogether raised the cost of project implementation in terms of time and financing to levels higher than originally estimated and provided for.

10.   Provincial and district governments express high levels of commitment to and ownership of the improved planning mechanisms promoted by PCDP. Data Forums, MDG Working Groups and Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups have been formalized under Government Decrees, making them integral participants of development planning and budgeting processes. Incorporation of HD and MDG indicators and targets into provincial and district RPJMDs also reflects the commitment of local governments to continue using these development planning, budgeting and monitoring instruments. Although MDG targets are binding only until 2015, local authorities have expressed their intention to continue using them in their future planning, budgeting, and monitoring processes.


Recommendations
1 Recommendation 1: The agenda of reducing poverty and improving education, health and livelihood conditions in Papua is unfinished. Therefore it is strongly recommended to continue external technical support to further improve and strengthen capacities of relevant institutions towards achieving desired goals.
2 Recommendation 2: PCDP during its second phase has extended commendable support and has closely collaborated, especially with provincial government institutions. However discussions suggest that collaboration with district and sub-district level institutions was considerably limited. Since actual implementation mandate especially for delivery of health and education services lies at district and sub-district level, therefore there is a greater need for fostering collaboration at the district and community level. It is therefore recommended that future such projects shall by design extend maximum support and collaborate closely with the institutions at the district and sub-district level.
3 Recommendation 3: Evidence based planning and implementation remained the hallmark of PCDP-II overall strategy. Substantial capacities have been built for provincial and selected district authorities in collection, management and use of data for planning and monitoring purposes. However these mechanisms are still in early stages of development, therefore it is recommended to continue project support to fully strengthen desired capacities. Furthermore there is also a strong need to extend data acquisition and management related facilitation to all districts, even villages in Papua region.
4 Recommendation 4: PCDP has developed and successfully piloted model for integrated education and health services at the village level. However the actual benefits will flow only once this model is implemented on a large scale in the whole of Papua region. Therefore it is strongly recommended to foster advocacy efforts for the adoption and replication of the proposed model on a wider scale. The process needs to be fully documented and manuals prepared and disseminated to all stakeholders. In this regard some sort of action plan need to be devised with provincial and especially district level stakeholders for the large scale replication of the proposed model especially in the remote villages.
5 Recommendation 5: The model for integrated service delivery was actually developed with the active participation of local CSOs. Therefore large scale replication of the model will certainly require the due involvement and expertise of these CSOs. However discussion suggests that CSOs involvement in state funded delivery services is viewed with skepticism. Therefore it is recommended that the mandatory involvement of CSOs in scaling up of the model services should be strongly advocated with local governments and standard operating procedures developed and implemented for inclusion of CSOs during large scale replication of the model.
6 Recommendation 6: Project interventions were too thinly spread over Papua region, with isolated interventions in distant and remote areas. This spread over has somehow diluted the efficiency, effectiveness and especially impact of these small endures. Therefore it is recommended that such pilot projects should better concentrate all interventions in a specific geographical area, may be a couple of district in each province. On one hand this will give way to greater efficiency and on the other it will also generate some measurable impact. These districts may serve as model districts for rest to follow.
7 Recommendation 7: Future such projects needs to be designed using logical framework analysis techniques (involving all stakeholders especially communities) to give way to a strong logic among activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. Overall project results are meant to contribute to overall CPAP outcomes, duly supported by indicators and targets and regularly reported on. However CPAP outcomes are cumulative country (national) level outcomes, whereas a number of initiatives and projects are contributing to achieve a single outcome. This makes it cumbersome to assess the extent of contributions made by an individual project like PCDP towards broader CPAP outcome. To measure contributions of individual projects identification of project specific intermediate outcomes is considered important. These project level outcomes can be linked to CPAP outcomes and should be made integral part of the RRF duly supported by measurable indicators, baselines and specific targets. Furthermore periodic data needs to be regularly collected to measure progress toward desired outcomes at the project level
8 Recommendation 8: Future projects need to advance their interventions from focusing on women?s participation to gender mainstreaming in all stages of development including project/programme planning, implementation, budgeting and monitoring and evaluation. Provision of technical support to existing Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be continued and new Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be established and supported in other districts.
9 Recommendation 9: A number of stakeholders both internal and external are actively involved in perusing same goals in Papua region. However sometime they operate in isolation without interacting or sharing experience with each other. This at times leads to duplication and overlap of interventions. There is a strong need to synergize collective efforts and to further strengthen existing coordination forums and mechanisms to learn from each other experience and avoid duplication. It is recommended that future such projects shall incorporate some sort of communication and coordination strategy in their designs.
10 Recommendation 10: As mentioned PCDP-II was marred heavily by high turnover of project staff, hampering the overall efficiency and effectiveness. On one hand Papua region is a very remote and difficult place to work in and, on the other there is very limited availability of local qualified and experienced professionals. Thus most of the project staff is brought in from outside Papua, which in turn are not very sustainable. Therefore to avoid frequent turnover of project staff some sort of contractual and career incentive mechanisms should be sorted out to keep staff motivated to work in Papua region.
11 Recommendation 11: The people of Demaisi village, during evaluation team visit, also strongly voiced their need for transportation of their agricultural produce to main market in Monakwari city. The current cost of transportation on individual basis is too high for profitability. Therefore it recommended that PCDP, in collaboration with PERDU- a local CSO, shall explore the possibilities of developing an arrangement for transport of products from the village to the market on an initially subsidized cost sharing basis. This can be done immediately as PCDP component-3 (systems for livelihood improvement) is still ongoing through 2014. It is believed that this small intervention may bring substantial extra income and will improve livelihoods. Based on its success the facility can be sustained by communities and extended to other villages.
1. Recommendation: Recommendation 1: The agenda of reducing poverty and improving education, health and livelihood conditions in Papua is unfinished. Therefore it is strongly recommended to continue external technical support to further improve and strengthen capacities of relevant institutions towards achieving desired goals.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

One of the PcDP?s exit strategies is to coordinate with line ministries who has similar programme that can continue the ground works which has been prepared by PcDP. BAPPENAS as the NPD has been facilitated to take the lead in coordinating this response.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Exit strategy meeting with Papua and West Papua stakeholders and line ministries.
[Added: 2014/12/19] [Last Updated: 2018/11/07]
DGPRU NPD PcDP 2015/03 Completed Due to inauguration of new government and awaiting the mid term development plan some programme directions for Tanah Papua are awaiting this national guideline. History
2. Recommendation: Recommendation 2: PCDP during its second phase has extended commendable support and has closely collaborated, especially with provincial government institutions. However discussions suggest that collaboration with district and sub-district level institutions was considerably limited. Since actual implementation mandate especially for delivery of health and education services lies at district and sub-district level, therefore there is a greater need for fostering collaboration at the district and community level. It is therefore recommended that future such projects shall by design extend maximum support and collaborate closely with the institutions at the district and sub-district level.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Recommendation 3: Evidence based planning and implementation remained the hallmark of PCDP-II overall strategy. Substantial capacities have been built for provincial and selected district authorities in collection, management and use of data for planning and monitoring purposes. However these mechanisms are still in early stages of development, therefore it is recommended to continue project support to fully strengthen desired capacities. Furthermore there is also a strong need to extend data acquisition and management related facilitation to all districts, even villages in Papua region.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Recommendation 4: PCDP has developed and successfully piloted model for integrated education and health services at the village level. However the actual benefits will flow only once this model is implemented on a large scale in the whole of Papua region. Therefore it is strongly recommended to foster advocacy efforts for the adoption and replication of the proposed model on a wider scale. The process needs to be fully documented and manuals prepared and disseminated to all stakeholders. In this regard some sort of action plan need to be devised with provincial and especially district level stakeholders for the large scale replication of the proposed model especially in the remote villages.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Recommendation 5: The model for integrated service delivery was actually developed with the active participation of local CSOs. Therefore large scale replication of the model will certainly require the due involvement and expertise of these CSOs. However discussion suggests that CSOs involvement in state funded delivery services is viewed with skepticism. Therefore it is recommended that the mandatory involvement of CSOs in scaling up of the model services should be strongly advocated with local governments and standard operating procedures developed and implemented for inclusion of CSOs during large scale replication of the model.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Recommendation 6: Project interventions were too thinly spread over Papua region, with isolated interventions in distant and remote areas. This spread over has somehow diluted the efficiency, effectiveness and especially impact of these small endures. Therefore it is recommended that such pilot projects should better concentrate all interventions in a specific geographical area, may be a couple of district in each province. On one hand this will give way to greater efficiency and on the other it will also generate some measurable impact. These districts may serve as model districts for rest to follow.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Recommendation 7: Future such projects needs to be designed using logical framework analysis techniques (involving all stakeholders especially communities) to give way to a strong logic among activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. Overall project results are meant to contribute to overall CPAP outcomes, duly supported by indicators and targets and regularly reported on. However CPAP outcomes are cumulative country (national) level outcomes, whereas a number of initiatives and projects are contributing to achieve a single outcome. This makes it cumbersome to assess the extent of contributions made by an individual project like PCDP towards broader CPAP outcome. To measure contributions of individual projects identification of project specific intermediate outcomes is considered important. These project level outcomes can be linked to CPAP outcomes and should be made integral part of the RRF duly supported by measurable indicators, baselines and specific targets. Furthermore periodic data needs to be regularly collected to measure progress toward desired outcomes at the project level
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Recommendation 8: Future projects need to advance their interventions from focusing on women?s participation to gender mainstreaming in all stages of development including project/programme planning, implementation, budgeting and monitoring and evaluation. Provision of technical support to existing Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be continued and new Gender Mainstreaming Working Groups need to be established and supported in other districts.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Recommendation 9: A number of stakeholders both internal and external are actively involved in perusing same goals in Papua region. However sometime they operate in isolation without interacting or sharing experience with each other. This at times leads to duplication and overlap of interventions. There is a strong need to synergize collective efforts and to further strengthen existing coordination forums and mechanisms to learn from each other experience and avoid duplication. It is recommended that future such projects shall incorporate some sort of communication and coordination strategy in their designs.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Recommendation 10: As mentioned PCDP-II was marred heavily by high turnover of project staff, hampering the overall efficiency and effectiveness. On one hand Papua region is a very remote and difficult place to work in and, on the other there is very limited availability of local qualified and experienced professionals. Thus most of the project staff is brought in from outside Papua, which in turn are not very sustainable. Therefore to avoid frequent turnover of project staff some sort of contractual and career incentive mechanisms should be sorted out to keep staff motivated to work in Papua region.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Recommendation 11: The people of Demaisi village, during evaluation team visit, also strongly voiced their need for transportation of their agricultural produce to main market in Monakwari city. The current cost of transportation on individual basis is too high for profitability. Therefore it recommended that PCDP, in collaboration with PERDU- a local CSO, shall explore the possibilities of developing an arrangement for transport of products from the village to the market on an initially subsidized cost sharing basis. This can be done immediately as PCDP component-3 (systems for livelihood improvement) is still ongoing through 2014. It is believed that this small intervention may bring substantial extra income and will improve livelihoods. Based on its success the facility can be sustained by communities and extended to other villages.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org