Mid Term Evaluation of Support to Parliament

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Zimbabwe
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2017
Completion Date:
10/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
42,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Final MTR Review Report JLMM.docx report English 244.86 KB Posted 162
Download document UNDP Zimbabwe- Terms of Reference for Parliament Support Programme Mid-Term Review.docx tor English 61.48 KB Posted 73
Title Mid Term Evaluation of Support to Parliament
Atlas Project Number: 00087153
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Zimbabwe
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2017
Planned End Date: 09/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.1. Parliaments, constitution making bodies and electoral institutions enabled to perform core functions for improved accountability, participation and representation, including for peaceful transitions
Evaluation Budget(US $): 42,000
Source of Funding: EC and UNDP
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 45,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: EC, UNDP and Government of Zimbabwe
Countries: ZIMBABWE
Lessons
1.

There is scope for sustainability of organizational and individual capacity development efforts through documented training manuals, organizational systems manuals etc. but continuation is likely to be constrained by the lack of financial resources for continued implementation

There are opportunities for self-funding given its Constitutional independence

Sustainability of capacity, while anchored on the training manuals produced, is not broad enough to formulate a system that allows regeneration of capacity to the levels of that developed by the PSP

Citizen participation in legislation is likely to be stalled unless alternative and effective means are identified and piloted


Findings
1.

The review made the following findings:

On Strategy, the review finds that:

  • although the PSP asserts that it is anchored in key national and UN strategy papers and agreements with development partners, insufficient attention was paid to linking these strategies to the PSP strategy and outcomes, in order to be able to make the connection between PSP results and the national strategic outcomes, except for the Parliament’s Institutional Strategic Plan (ISP).
  • The theory of change did not adequately analyze the logic and assumptions of the intervention in relation to the results sought. It merely restated the strategy and summarised the results framework.
  • There is insufficient recognition of lessons learned from previous PSP programmes informing the design of the current PSP
  • The project document does not present, analyze and justify the partnership model used in the support to PoZ. It is assumed to be both understood and acceptable.
  • The project timeframe is not aligned to the key strategies it purports to be based on. Duration alignment is necessary, with carefully timed overlaps to allow to allow completion and start-up support.
  •  
  • Ownership was a positive design and implementation preoccupation  and was in accordance with the principles of the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action.
  • The programme design process was transparent in that it followed an inclusive consultative process, encompassing all stakeholders, including development partners. Steering Committee and Project Board further reinforce transparency
  • Inclusiveness is reinforced by the  gender mainstreaming outcome, but there is need to include  other categories missing in the project design (youth, disabled and minorities etc.)

On relevance, the review finds that;

  • The PSP draws its outcomes directly from the ISP objectives, which makes it relevant to an important national strategy.
  • It would have been helpful to prioritize the five outcomes and the outputs within these on the basis of both relevance and impact.
  • While the outcomes fit directly in the ISP, there is need to be clear on the strategic fit of PSP vis a vis core funding of parliament from the fiscus. Such clarity will show the degree to which  the PSP is a strategic intervention as against being a supplementary funding instrument to PoZ
  • The strategic decision by UNDP and development partners to continue to support PoZ was relevant and directed at the core of the agenda to consolidate democratic governance in Zimbabwe.
  • Chosen outcomes are relevant to context of parliament and of the governance landscape in Zimbabwe

On Efficiency, the review finds that;

  • The basket fund has provided a platform for the convergence of all PoZ’s development partners, including those not contributing to the basket
  • The PSP has enabled PoZ to effectively coordinate support from development partners enhancing efficiency of support
  • Such enhanced coordination is reflected in AfDB contributing to PCU and positive sentiments from CSOs and other UN agencies working PoZ
  • While there are opposing views on duplication among DPs in the basket and outside the basket, PoZ and UNDP, the review finds no evidence of real duplication: funding the same person to do the same thing…but rather facilitated the consolidation of inputs to enhance scale which improved effectiveness e.g. OAG is a clear example
  • PoZ could exert leadership to ensure DPs without significant constraints to fund through the basket do so to enhance alignment and predictability
  • Despite parallel funding by some donors, the basket fund has provided a platform for aligning support to parliament from multiple funders creating opportunities for cost sharing that enhance the depth and quality of intervention
  • To support DPs contribution to the basket fund, there is need to resolve the issue of DSA…opportunity exists at project formulation and signing of cooperation agreement
  • Conclusion: multi-donor approach symbolized by the basket fund is an appropriate approach for enhancing efficiency in support to parliament
  • Programme management is cost-efficient but investments and quality of support in M&E need to increase
  • Public hearings, benchmarking visits, conferences, and workshops, while useful and essential, are expensive and there is need to develop more cost-effective approaches to meeting the same objectives.
  • Women voices not being heard enough and consultation process does not always facilitate participation of women and other vulnerable groups
  • PSP has spread itself too thinly across PoZ resulting in less depth of intervention and Value for money of the PSP can, therefore, be improved with reduced scope of the project

On effectiveness, the review finds that;

  • The project has made significant contribution to results observed in parliament and OAG but remains off course to meet its targets
  • This is as much a function of slow implementation (average 50.2% delivery rate) as unrealistic targets and faulty indicators

On management and coordination, the review finds that;

  • Overall management and coordination arrangements were appropriate and in accordance with UNDP practice
  • However, although UNDP RR and Speaker do meet informally to discuss institutional blockages and other matters requiring higher level input, the Steering committee has not met consistently to provide the needed policy guidance and oversight to the project
  • The project board has effectively monitored project performance and results and given feedback to PCU through UNDP, leading to improved reporting
  • The programme made strategic use of coordination, partnerships, synergies and linkages and collaboration with other partners to increase its effectiveness and impact
  • However, M&E of the PSP is inadequate
  • Project Coordination Unit has made significant contributions to efficiency of implementing the PSP within its capacity constraints
  • It has not been successful in steering the programme to achieve its set targets
  • But…it has been successful in maximising opportunities where they arose
  • By bringing the opinions of a parliamentary expert to review the project UNDP played its role of leveraging global expertise, but  could have  done more….1) supporting M&E design and implementation….2) Linking PSP outputs with other interventions in the Governance Unit for mutual reinforcing…3) regular availability of senior technical parliamentary support expertise to tap into the global knowledge of UNDP and DPs

On sustainability, the review finds that;

  • The Programme lacks a strategy for sustaining results being achieved, especially in the current economic and fiscal context.

Recommendations
1

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that UNDP Zimbabwe develop a theory of change for each of their major sectoral clusters. One such theory of change should be developed for governance to help explain and clarify the logic and assumptions underlying the achievement of governance results over time in Zimbabwe.

2

Recommendation 2: Meanwhile the ToCToC in the PSP under review should be significantly improved to enable a more coherent understanding of the logic and development assumptions behind the programme design, which will contribute to better articulation, M&E and final evaluation

3
  • Recommendation 3: The review recommends that the Steering Committee authorizes an extension for the PSP as far as six months into the life of the 9th Parliament. This extension should be more focused on strategic interventions targeted at specific outputs and institutions (e.g. key committees rather than all committees). The extension should also support the next ISP preparation as well as fund start-up activities for the 9th Parliament that will input into the design of the next PSP. This extension should, of course, be a with-cost-extension. 
4
  • Recommendation 4: The review identified a missed opportunity in creating complementary actions between the outputs from parliament and work of civil society and media. Such linkages would enhance the effectiveness of the PSP. It is recommended that Project Board explores, further opportunities for linking outputs from the PSP with citizen voice, transparency and accountability programmes funded by the EU, GOS and UNDP. Such an approach is likely to reinforce results of the PSP. 
5
  • Recommendation 5: Although the PSP model has helped limit duplication per se, it is still recommended that donor support to related priority for parliament be much more coordinated to enhance synergy in strategy, implementation and results reporting.
6
  • Recommendation 6: UNDP and its partners should do more to leverage technical support for parliament to add value to both capacity development, improved legislative processes and enhanced oversight function to ensure that the PSP resources achieve more than plug a funding gap created by the shrunk fiscus.
7
  • Recommendation 7: Parliament should be more pro-active in engaging with the executive to improve the supply of bills as well as to ensure the implementation of recommendations from parliamentary committees.
8
  • Recommendation 8: While maintaining interventions during parliamentary seating the PCU needs to more systematically plan ahead to maximise the number of activities carried out through these windows. 
9
  • Recommendation 9: The departments of parliament need to be held more accountable for their own delivery under the PSP so they are less reliant on the PCU. 
10
  • Recommendation 10: Alternative and cost-efficient ways need to be explored that ensure: a large proportion of the population is reached and citizen engagement and discussions are well-informed to ensure quality of participation
11
  • Recommendation 11: The review team observed significant number of achievements that remain undocumented. The review therefore recommends that UNDP and POZ, go through a process of identifying results in each of the outcomes. This should go beyond quantification of results but also document the qualitative achievements that have been achieved e.g. changing relationships and attitudes, commitments, and changing confidence levels. 
12
  • Recommendation 12: The PSP has instruments to strengthen gender mainstreaming that include the ZWPC strategic plan and the Gender Policy of Parliament. The review team recommends that in the remaining period, the PSP should prioritise facilitating implementation of the ZWPC strategic plan. 
13
  • Recommendation 14: The weakness of the current M&E system for the programme is well known to the Project Board. Attempts to rectify the challenge are still to yield the required results. UNDP, working with POZ, should revise the M&E system and associated tools informed by global good practice for measurement of results from parliamentary support programmes for which UNDP is a global leader.   
14
  • Recommendation 15: It is recommended that in the final evaluation of the PSP, resources (time, money and expertise) be made available to include lessons learnt. This could include from previous PSP’s.
15

Recommendation 18: The review team recommends that Parliament should consider options for sustaining individual and organisational level results through institutionalisation of capacity development and resource mobilisation from treasury.

1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that UNDP Zimbabwe develop a theory of change for each of their major sectoral clusters. One such theory of change should be developed for governance to help explain and clarify the logic and assumptions underlying the achievement of governance results over time in Zimbabwe.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop the revised TOC for the project
[Added: 2018/08/10]
UNDP AND PCU 2017/12 Completed
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 2: Meanwhile the ToCToC in the PSP under review should be significantly improved to enable a more coherent understanding of the logic and development assumptions behind the programme design, which will contribute to better articulation, M&E and final evaluation

Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

This is noted. The management team agreed that the recrafting of the TOC will need to be done to show logic between proposed interventions and results. This will positively impact the work to be done in 2017, no-cost extension period. The revised TOC will incorporate smarter, realistic and more measurable indicators and targets for the Programme. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop a revised theory of change
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/08/10]
GGM and M&E 2018/01 Completed Zero-draft log frame and TOC in place by the project Board. Steering Committee is yet to be consulted. Zero draft -log frame has been developed. This has been finalized, adopted and signed off by the EU. History
Develop a log frame
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/03/22]
GGM and M&E 2018/01 Completed Zero draft -log frame has been developed This has been completed and see attached the document. History
1.3 Revise Indicators and targets of the project
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/03/22]
GGM and M&E 2018/01 Completed There is a draft available already for finalization. This has been finalized, adopted and signed off by the EU. History
Develop the revised logical framework which mirror the TOC
[Added: 2018/08/10]
UNDP 2017/12 Completed Completed refer to the attached documents.
3. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 3: The review recommends that the Steering Committee authorizes an extension for the PSP as far as six months into the life of the 9th Parliament. This extension should be more focused on strategic interventions targeted at specific outputs and institutions (e.g. key committees rather than all committees). The extension should also support the next ISP preparation as well as fund start-up activities for the 9th Parliament that will input into the design of the next PSP. This extension should, of course, be a with-cost-extension. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

UNDP acknowledges the need for a no-cost extension to finalize key activities of the project. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 Develop Annual workplan and budget for the no-cost extension period
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2017/12/18]
GGM, PCU and M&E 2017/12 Completed 1)The no-cost extension was approved by the project Board and Steering Committee 2)A draft annual workplan and budget has been developed and currently awaiting approval. Attached as evidence are the draft documents which are to be signed off in the next few weeks History
4. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 4: The review identified a missed opportunity in creating complementary actions between the outputs from parliament and work of civil society and media. Such linkages would enhance the effectiveness of the PSP. It is recommended that Project Board explores, further opportunities for linking outputs from the PSP with citizen voice, transparency and accountability programmes funded by the EU, GOS and UNDP. Such an approach is likely to reinforce results of the PSP. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

This is noted and management has already started responding to this by collaborating with specialized CSOs such as CARL and SAPST in civic engagement especially of public hearings

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Capitalize on Speaker series supported by CSOs
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
PCU, GGM 2018/12 Completed Discussion to take collaborative actions have taken place with CARL and SAPST, and this will still be ongoing in 2019 History
SDG speaker series could be used to engage CSOs for the development of knowledge material
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
PCU, GGM 2018/12 Completed This was initiated in 2018, and will continue and be rolled over into 2019, as part of the new programme which is being developed. History
Engage CSOs on public engagement activities
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
PCU, GGM 2018/12 Completed Whilst progress has ben made on this, this will continue into 2019, as part of the new programme which is being developed. History
5. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 5: Although the PSP model has helped limit duplication per se, it is still recommended that donor support to related priority for parliament be much more coordinated to enhance synergy in strategy, implementation and results reporting.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

As part of coming up with a new TOC, it is important to develop tools and systems to effectively measure progress.  With one year to consolidate results of the   project, there will be increased effort to showcase results using reports and social media. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Development and utilization of tools for capturing results across all departments of Parliament, PCT
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/09/20]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed This has been an ongoing process since the MTR held last year and progress has been made by the PCU. History
Follow up on working session on M&E tools and strategies
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. History
Showcasing of results and donor partner support
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. Development partners have indicated that they will support another phase of the parliamentary support programme in 2019. History
6. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 6: UNDP and its partners should do more to leverage technical support for parliament to add value to both capacity development, improved legislative processes and enhanced oversight function to ensure that the PSP resources achieve more than plug a funding gap created by the shrunk fiscus.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

UNDP will utilize its internal resources in the office from a pool of economists, lawyers and environmental and gender specialists to support the work of Parliament. Regional and international experts will be drawn in to provide technical support for capacity development, legislative processes, and oversight function.  Further, appropriate tech support will be tapped in from EU and SIDA drawing lessons from their support to Parliamentary development globally.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engage UNDP HQ, Inclusive Political Processes Unit for technical advice
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGM 2018/12 Completed Initial engagement with the IPP experts at UNDP HQ done and technical expertise provided which was shared with the Board members. This will be an On-going process. The Future Programme will ensure that key stakeholders such as SIDA and EU are consulted up-front to share experiences. History
Engage EU and SIDA for sharing of best practices in Parliamentary Development
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGM 2018/12 Completed This was comprehensively undertaken in 2018, as a follow-up to the MTR process.This is still an ongoing process, as part of donor relations into 2019. History
7. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 7: Parliament should be more pro-active in engaging with the executive to improve the supply of bills as well as to ensure the implementation of recommendations from parliamentary committees.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

It was agreed that the executive is in control of supplying bills to Parliament. It is therefore necessary to regularly engage the Executive. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Regular engagement between Parliament and the Executive
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/11/13]
PCU 2018/09 Completed The Clerk of Parliament is now part of the IMT engaging directly the PC of Justice and the AG. planning of training for govt liaison officer AG updated the LCC on alignment of laws in October 2017. History
8. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 8: While maintaining interventions during parliamentary seating the PCU needs to more systematically plan ahead to maximise the number of activities carried out through these windows. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
There is need to train the PCU Administration as well as staff from the OAGs office on internal project management capacities.
[Added: 2018/08/10] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
UNDP and PCU 2018/12 Completed This process of capacity building based on identified gaps has commenced and is still ongoing within the institution. More is planned within the new third phase of the project which is being worked on. History
9. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 9: The departments of parliament need to be held more accountable for their own delivery under the PSP so they are less reliant on the PCU. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19]

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The parliament departments to develop departmental action plans in line with the defined prodoc results and the Institutional Strategic Plan.
[Added: 2018/08/10] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
PCU 2018/12 Completed Preparation on this workshop are almost finalised in response to this recommendation. However the PSP will be having a third phase which has a lot of action points and lessons learnt from the previous phase. The above has also been fully brought on board in the next phase. History
10. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 10: Alternative and cost-efficient ways need to be explored that ensure: a large proportion of the population is reached and citizen engagement and discussions are well-informed to ensure quality of participation
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

This is well noted. Parliament of Zimbabwe understands and appreciates that Section 141 of the Constitution requires public consultations in the legislative process and that these can take any form although there will remain emphasis on identified popular Bills. Parliament has already started exploring alternative cost-efficient means of conducting public consultations including radio programmes and online submissions. Management has agreed to continue piloting these and other means of public consultations during the remaining programme period and have regular monitoring and analysis on effectiveness of these processes in promoting citizen participation. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. Scale up use of social media in soliciting public views on Bills
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
PCU and GGM 2018/12 Completed This will be an ongoing activity throughout the no-cost extension period. UNDP and Parliament are making use of the radio for public hearings especially after the MTR process and findings. History
Identify partnerships with development partners and NGOs to share responsibilities
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/11]
PCU and GGM 2018/11 Completed The CO is in the process of developing a new produce of the 3rd phase of this project and this has been duly taken on board. History
1.3 Targeting/identification of Bills to be specifically supported by the PSP
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
PCU and GGM 2018/12 Completed In 2018 the NPRC Bill, Electoral Act where specifically targeted given the elections in 2018. History
11. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 11: The review team observed significant number of achievements that remain undocumented. The review therefore recommends that UNDP and POZ, go through a process of identifying results in each of the outcomes. This should go beyond quantification of results but also document the qualitative achievements that have been achieved e.g. changing relationships and attitudes, commitments, and changing confidence levels. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

As part of coming up with a new TOC, it is important to develop tools and systems to effectively measure progress.  With one year to consolidate results of the   project, there will be increased effort to showcase results using reports and social media. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Development and utilization of tools for capturing results across all departments of Parliament, PCT
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. History
Follow up on working session on M&E tools and strategies
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. History
Showcasing of results and donor partner support
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. Development partners have indicated that they will support another phase of the parliamentary support programme in 2019. History
12. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 12: The PSP has instruments to strengthen gender mainstreaming that include the ZWPC strategic plan and the Gender Policy of Parliament. The review team recommends that in the remaining period, the PSP should prioritise facilitating implementation of the ZWPC strategic plan. 
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

This is noted. Gender mainstreaming is a critical element of the Parliamentary support being provided for Parliament.  Implementation of the ZWPC strategic plan and the PoZ Gender Policy

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Integrate support to the ZWPC and mainstreaming in the work of parliament targeting specific committees
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/03/22]
GGM, M&E and Parliament of Zimbabwe 2018/01 Completed Draft TOC refers to Gender as a cross-cutting issue however, this need strengthening to elaborate on a two-pronged approach of mainstreaming gender in the work of Parliament and affirmative to support ZWPC prioritizing political participation in preparation of the 2018 elections. History
Support the finalization of the PoZ Gender Mainstreaming policy and strategy
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/03/22]
GGM 2018/01 Completed History
13. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 14: The weakness of the current M&E system for the programme is well known to the Project Board. Attempts to rectify the challenge are still to yield the required results. UNDP, working with POZ, should revise the M&E system and associated tools informed by global good practice for measurement of results from parliamentary support programmes for which UNDP is a global leader.   
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

 As part of coming up with a new TOC, it is important to develop tools and systems to effectively measure progress.  With one year to consolidate results of the   project, there will be increased effort to showcase results using reports and social media. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Development and utilization of tools for capturing results across all departments of Parliament, PCT
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/12 Completed This is not really a completed process and it is still ongoing into 2019 History
Follow up on working session on M&E tools and strategies
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/12 Completed History
Showcasing of results and donor partner support
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM, M&E and PCU 2018/09 Completed Bilateral meetings have been held with the PCU and are still ongoing, despite the project coming to an end in December. Plans for the M&E workshop which was to be held in July 2018 were postponed due to the elections, and moved to months after the new prodoc has been developed and it is envisaged the capacity building around M&E will be ongoing. Development partners have indicated that they will support another phase of the parliamentary support programme in 2019. History
14. Recommendation:
  • Recommendation 15: It is recommended that in the final evaluation of the PSP, resources (time, money and expertise) be made available to include lessons learnt. This could include from previous PSP’s.
Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

It is necessary for a final evaluation to be undertaken incorporating milestones achieved in the no-cost extension period. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Engagement of a consultant to undertake final evaluation of the PSP
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/12/31]
GGM, M&E, PCU 2018/12 Completed A lite end of project evaluation is planned in 2019, as the project comes to an end. History
15. Recommendation:

Recommendation 18: The review team recommends that Parliament should consider options for sustaining individual and organisational level results through institutionalisation of capacity development and resource mobilisation from treasury.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/10/19] [Last Updated: 2017/11/16]

There has been ongoing engagement with PoZ which reflect the intention to intergrate PCU in the structures of Parliament. It is acknowledged that there is a need to have a sustainability plan. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop a sustainability and exit strategy plan
[Added: 2017/11/16] [Last Updated: 2018/10/24]
GGM and PCU 2018/09 Completed Draft workplan incorporating activities to intergrate the PCU has been developed. Development partners have indicated that they will support another phase of the parliamentary support programme in 2019. History

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