Evaluation of Community Resilience and Development Programme (CRDP)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2017, Palestine
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
12/2014
Completion Date:
12/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
26,050

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR Ext Evaluation_CRDP_Final.docx tor English 24.45 KB Posted 424
Download document Final Report 31 December 2014 kw.pdf report English 1380.08 KB Posted 758
Download document CRDP management response - UNDP January 2015.docx related-document English 39.73 KB Posted 298
Title Evaluation of Community Resilience and Development Programme (CRDP)
Atlas Project Number: 00084013
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2017, Palestine
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2014
Planned End Date: 12/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.4. Frameworks and dialogue processes engaged for effective and transparent engagement of civil society in national development
Evaluation Budget(US $): 26,050
Source of Funding: Project
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: Yes
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Arab Work for Research and Development (AWARD) Company nader@award.org OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: PA ministries, Sida, ADA, UN agencies, INGOs, LNGOs, LCBOs, benificiaries
Countries: OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 1. Complete the implementation of the current phase of the CRDP, combining options 1 and 3 presented above, i.e., complete the rounds 2-3 contracted projects with the proposed improvements, and option 3: use the balance of funds to pilot a new comprehensive approach with a design focused on resilience and sustainability criteria.
2 2. Organize a major meeting (or series of meetings as appropriate) with the PA (including representatives from governorates), donors and implementers, to share the knowledge acquired from the CRDP, and establish the commitment to a stronger and expanded CRDP program as a major tool to give a chance to the two-state solution.
1. Recommendation: 1. Complete the implementation of the current phase of the CRDP, combining options 1 and 3 presented above, i.e., complete the rounds 2-3 contracted projects with the proposed improvements, and option 3: use the balance of funds to pilot a new comprehensive approach with a design focused on resilience and sustainability criteria.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/03/30]

Sustainability / Focus / Risk management (recommendations 1 and 2, pages 5 and 6): The UNDP believes that sustainability needs to be analyzed at different levels, both based on current targets as well as based on program results at the outcome level. As sustainability is critical, not only as part of a pilot phase but certainly for any further support to be provided to national strategies in Area C, UNDP is proposing the following: For ongoing projects, and building on the sustainability criteria built into the selection criteria for the projects, field visits will be organized to monitor and further support implementing partners on the ground, on a project basis. These visits will be conducted and reported against by end March. On the operational front, reinforcing measurement of the sustainability of the interventions on the ground is obviously critical as this should be the appropriate way of measuring resilience building, both in the selection and monitoring of projects. In this regard, sustainability measures were already revisited after the selection of projects and before signing agreements. For example, the team has clarified how implementing partners will make sure that water networks, solar kits, mobile libraries and clinics will be operational and maintained after completion of works. Also, Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) committed to build on projects? results in various ways, such as directing additional funds to capitalize on additional water resources. Further measures, linkages with other projects and future PA contribution will be discussed during the area committee meetings. On the other hand, UNDP is of the view that, building on the experience of the pilot phase, a more precise and geographically based analysis of the determinants of resilience, enabling a more rigorous definition of the needed response should be produced. The effort, to be built essentially on a renewed analysis of available information and data, should primarily support the revision of which ones of these determinants the program ambitions to respond to, knowing CRDP is not the only intervention in Area C and others could be geared to complement, but also noting the potential through the program to consider Area C in conjunction with areas A and B. Based on this analysis, and starting with East Jerusalem, UNDP is proposing to revisit the outcomes and outputs as well as the theory of change building on consideration to criticality of the investments and potentiality of the impact (somewhat similar to a best result for money approach), giving due consideration to other interventions and actors in Area C. This should allow to focus interventions and funds on the selected variables the program ambitions to target in each area and thematic sector. The proposal would include a revised results matrix for each of East Jerusalem and Area C, in addition to proposals for the utilization of other implementation modalities other than the call for proposals for the selection of interventions. It is UNDP?s opinion that this approach may be more adequate than the area based pilot initiative proposed by the evaluation. Although the CRDP was designed as a high-risk program, the bulk of the program has been implemented with low negative return. Minor activities (less than 3%) faced risks since the launch of projects in Area C. Having said that, a risk management system is still a pending item. It is our view that regardless of the shape the program takes, its strategic potential might be better fulfilled through supporting the setup of a risk management system for Area C to support government tracking of interventions rather than a risk management system limited to the program. It is proposed for such a mechanism to be developed through the program, linked to existing interventions and partners. This will build on existing mechanisms, such as the HCT developed system for Area C. By the end of February, UNDP will develop a proposal that will be shared for review and decision-making. Budget for contingency: Project budgets already include a contingency item (4%) that could be freed to respond to emergencies and risks. Additional reallocation among budget items could also be utilized, conditions of which were explained during a workshop with partners in December 2014. This will be further clarified with partners in the coming month. Operational procedures (reduce disbursement tranches and bureaucratic requirements): UNDP is the development arm of the UN and as such expected by those entrusting it with funds to abide by certain standards in administrative and financial management. This in no way should be interpreted as lack of flexibility. In the specific case of the CRDP, and based on the content of the evaluation report, there is no doubt that the program has suffered from some inefficiencies that need to be addressed. UNDP is committed to fully addressing them, starting with making it clear from the documentation that the PMU is not an isolated entity with different sets of responsibilities as the evaluation implies was envisaged in the project document. Various contractual modalities were already used so as to allow to accommodate both partner?s capacities and implementation requirements. Disbursement tranches were calculated intelligibly in line with a detailed and clear implementation plan. In relation to other bureaucratic requirements, e.g. work plan and reporting, one work plan is requested by PMU. PMU requested from partners to submit a monthly calendar of main events. PMU is currently engaged with partners and further explained the rationale for requesting the calendar of major events that could be visited by donors and PA officials. As for reporting, the template was developed to provide more information on gender, end beneficiaries, risks faced and mitigation measures, sustainability activities, networking, synergy with other projects (including building on humanitarian projects), impact, and additional needs by the community. On the basis of the above, and notwithstanding progress hitherto accomplished, UNDP will organize a consultation meeting with all implementing partners in order to better assess and address the issues, building on its context specific intervention modes and actual needs. Knowledge sharing: In addition to the regular meetings of partners and stakeholders operating in each of the geographical areas, several meetings will be organized with a focus on lessons learned and risk management.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
For ongoing projects, and building on the sustainability criteria built into the selection criteria for the projects, field visits will be organized to monitor and further support implementing partners on the ground, on a project basis. These visits will be conducted and reported against by end March. On the operational front, reinforcing measurement of the sustainability of the interventions on the ground is obviously critical as this should be the appropriate way of measuring resilience building, both in the selection and monitoring of projects. In this regard, sustainability measures were already revisited after the selection of projects and before signing agreements. For example, the team has clarified how implementing partners will make sure that water networks, solar kits, mobile libraries and clinics will be operational and maintained after completion of works. Also, Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) committed to build on projects? results in various ways, such as directing additional funds to capitalize on additional water resources. Further measures, linkages with other projects and future PA contribution will be discussed during the area committee meetings. UNDP is of the view that, building on the experience of the pilot phase, a more precise and geographically based analysis of the determinants of resilience, enabling a more rigorous definition of the needed response should be produced. The effort, to be built essentially on a renewed analysis of available information and data, should primarily support the revision of which ones of these determinants the program ambitions to respond to, knowing CRDP is not the only intervention in Area C and others could be geared to complement, but also noting the potential through the program to consider Area C in conjunction with areas A and B.
[Added: 2015/03/30] [Last Updated: 2017/10/13]
Policy Advisor 2017/10 Completed Update - Meetings were conducted with IPs to ensure that the mentioned recommendation is discussed and operationalized. Gender and sustainability indicators have been stressed in each project log frame. Template for implementing partner's progress reports was updated to reflect sustainability and gender in a clear way. Assessment for the individual projects conducted by M&E coordinator.
2. Recommendation: 2. Organize a major meeting (or series of meetings as appropriate) with the PA (including representatives from governorates), donors and implementers, to share the knowledge acquired from the CRDP, and establish the commitment to a stronger and expanded CRDP program as a major tool to give a chance to the two-state solution.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/03/30]

UNDP and MOPAD are currently preparing for such a meeting. UNDP also aims to convene a meeting with the PA and donors on Area C and East Jerusalem by 20 February

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
In addition to the regular meetings of partners and stakeholders operating in each of the geographical areas, several meetings will be organized with a focus on lessons learned and risk management.
[Added: 2015/03/30] [Last Updated: 2018/01/03]
Policy Advisor 2015/03 No Longer Applicable [Justification: Project Closed.]
Meeting to be started by February 2015 and continue through out the year

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org