Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF) Phase II (2011-2017) Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2017, Sudan
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
11/2017
Completion Date:
12/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
85,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR For DCPSF Phase II Evaluation Final 02 06 2016.docx tor English 58.16 KB Posted 141
Download document 170517 UNDP DCPSF_Inception Report_Final_Draft.docx related-document English 206.60 KB Posted 122
Download document UNDP_DCPSF_Evaluation_Final_2018.17.12.pdf report English 2368.00 KB Posted 104
Download document Management Response DCPSF Evaluation 26.02.2018 (Version 2).doc related-document English 96.00 KB Posted 86
Title Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF) Phase II (2011-2017) Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00050261
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2017, Sudan
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2017
Planned End Date: 11/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
  • 2. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 3. Cross-cutting Development Issue
  • 4. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 6.4. Recovery processes reinforce social cohesion and trust and enable rapid return to sustainable development
Evaluation Budget(US $): 85,000
Source of Funding: MPTF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 95,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Eero Wahlstedt Managing Director eero@forcierconsulting.com
Sarah Nijholt Research Manager nijholt@forcierconsulting.com
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: DCPSF donors, DCPSF beneficiaries, DCPSF implementing partner, government bodies and other development actors working on peace
Countries: SUDAN
Comments:

The main purpose of the evaluation is:

  • To establish and document the impact of DCPSF funded activities and the relevance of the DCPSF’s overall strategy for community stabilization in Darfur; to validate DCPSF results in terms of achievements toward the fund goal and outputs; and to examine to what extent DCPSF interventions supported peaceful co-existence efforts at the community level and strengthened local peace governance.
  • To assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and sustainability of DCPSF interventions
  • To document lessons learned, best practices, success stories and challenges to inform future initiatives.
  • To formulate informed recommendations on future programmatic vision for DCPSF, including the processes and governance mechanisms of the Fund.
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Based on the evaluations findings and conclusions, a number of recommendations at project-, program- and process-level are proposed, as well as for crosscutting themes and management.All are under reviews and discussions. Waiting for the final endorsed version by the Steering Committe.

2

Evaluation Recommendation 1 (= 4 Project Level):

M&E systems and conflict types: It is recommended that the M&E systems of partners can capture the different types of conflicts CBRMs engage in, as has been begun in the reporting systems for the CBRM itself, when measuring perceptions in the household level.

3

Evaluation Recommendation 2 (=5: Project Level):

Sustainability of CBRMs: For the sustainability of CBRMs it is recommended to create linkages to information exchange and knowledge sharing. This should not only happen within projects, but also between CBRMs implemented by different IPs in Darfur.

4

Evaluation Recommendation 3 (= 6: Programmed Level):

Follow-up system for CBRMs: DCPSF should consider developing a post-project follow-up system for the work of the CBRMs to ensure their continuation and role in reducing and solving local-level conflicts after projects and DCPSF-funded activities have ended in a community. This could include e.g. regular follow-up visits by DCPSF’s field officers and a simple long-term monitoring system. This would help to capture the role and work of CBRMs to be in a better position to know about their development without external project funding. When projects are closed, future follow-on visits could also be announced to the community. This could be a relevant contribution to increasing the sustainability of DCPSF-funded activities and allow the Fund to be in a better position to speak about the impact of its own work

5

Evaluation Recommendation 4 = (7: Programmed Level):

Revise and further develop the Theory of Change: It is recommended to revise and further develop DCPSF’s Theory of Change. At the programme level, a theory should be developed how the sum of projects adds up to a programme level impact and how the sum of project-level outcomes amounts to more than the sum of those parts. This includes considering and monitoring possible positive spillover effects between communities, i.e. to monitor whether stabilizing measures and the installation of CBRMs in one community has any positive effect on neighboring communities. It is also not clear whether the contribution of DCPSF to regional peace endeavors should be horizontal (stabilization in key locations organically spreads stability across other locations) or vertical (stabilization below creates pressure for solutions at a higher level). For a meaningful discussion on DCPSFs wider contributions, a theory of change for the expected effects would be required. The current DCPSF theory of change and partner ME systems only apply to the community level, limiting conversation on the topic to highly anecdotal levels

6

Evaluation Recommendation 5 (= 14: Process Level):

Linking DCPSF activities to government: One way of linking activities with the government is to involve the relevant line ministries. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture should be involved in conflicts about natural resources. However, individual IPs may not able to include the government in its activities. As such, it is recommended to ensure involvement from agencies such as the UNDP. If UNDP would take on a role to include the GoS more in the peacebuilding activities, the IPs may be able to better maintain a status of impartiality. 

7

Evaluation Recommendation 6 (= 15: Process Level):

Collaboration between three UN funds: It is recommended to continue the efforts to formalise collaboration between the DCPSF and other UN funds, which currently is often limited and occurs on an ad-hoc basis. More effective collaboration would not only make it possible to complement soft activities more effectively with hard activities and continue providing peace dividends past the stabilisation period, it would also provide better opportunities to address all the root causes of conflict and avoid duplication of efforts.

8

Evaluation Recommendation 7 (= 16: Crosscutting themes and management):

Improving monitoring and reporting on gender and female involvement: Currently, the exact number of female members in CBRMs cannot be fully established, as it has not been recorded throughout the program. However, in more recent reporting (post-2016), partners have disaggregated the CBRM members by age and gender. The continuation of this reporting method will produce an interesting dataset and can illustrate trends in the future, and should be encouraged.

9

Evaluation Recommendation 8 (= 17: Crosscutting themes and management):

Better integrating peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity: With conflict being a large driver for humanitarian need (and the potential of humanitarian activities feeding conflict) and a significant impediment to development, peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity should generally be more ingrained in any programming in Darfur, whether through DCPSF or other funds

10

valuation Recommendation 9 (=18: Crosscutting themes and management):

Strengthen conflict analysis: In order for the conflict analysis to become a useful programming tool, it needs to be strengthened. More specifically, it needs to be more in depth and it needs to be updated to accurately reflect the current situation in programming locations in Darfur.

1. Recommendation:

Based on the evaluations findings and conclusions, a number of recommendations at project-, program- and process-level are proposed, as well as for crosscutting themes and management.All are under reviews and discussions. Waiting for the final endorsed version by the Steering Committe.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/04] [Last Updated: 2017/12/04]

The evaluation report findings will guide the ToR and guide the Fund’s strategic visioning for the coming 2-3years. An international consultant hired by UNDP to support articulation of future DCPSF interventions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
An international consultant hired by UNDP to support articulation of future DCPSF interventions.
[Added: 2017/12/04] [Last Updated: 2018/02/28]
(1) DCD/P (2) Darfur Community Peace & Stability Fund (DCPSF), Head of Technical Secretariat. 2018/02 Completed The Final and Approved Report of the evaluation received and populated within the ERC. additional management responses plan are being added to this one accordingly. History
2. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 1 (= 4 Project Level):

M&E systems and conflict types: It is recommended that the M&E systems of partners can capture the different types of conflicts CBRMs engage in, as has been begun in the reporting systems for the CBRM itself, when measuring perceptions in the household level.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed, but noting that principal source of perception information is the annual perception survey, not partners reporting. Therefore, guidance should be provided to whomever the Technical Secretariat (TS) contracts to conduct the Perception Survey to ensure differentiation amongst the types of conflict handled.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. DCPSF TS to provide guidance to partners on reporting specifying perceptions around different case types should be differentiated, not just satisfaction with CBRM overall 1.2. When contracting to conduct the perception survey for 2018, TS should provide guidance to contracted party on the above.
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS 2019/04 Completed Perception Survey conducted between Jan-Apr 2019. History
1.2. When contracting to conduct the perception survey for 2018, TS should provide guidance to contracted party on the above
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS 2019/12 Completed PS Completed History
3. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 2 (=5: Project Level):

Sustainability of CBRMs: For the sustainability of CBRMs it is recommended to create linkages to information exchange and knowledge sharing. This should not only happen within projects, but also between CBRMs implemented by different IPs in Darfur.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed. DCSPF is in the process of revising the DCPSF Terms of Reference. Part of the proposed revision includes a re-thinking of the networking component of the fund, and DCPSF will facilitate active learning, sharing of good practice and knowledge management. It will ensure DCPSF implementing partners take a lead role in improved peacebuilding programming coherence

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. Finalize DCPSF Terms of Reference for 2018-2020
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/09/06]
UNDP Senior Management Steering Committee update: the final draft has been submitted by the consultant and it is under discussion by the TS. 2018/06 Completed History
2.2. Define specific objectives and supporting activities for the revised Output 4 – Improved networking, coordination, and learning between local and state level peace building institutions.
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS 2019/03 Completed Contracted organization to accomplish this task History
2.3 Finalize, contract, and support partner selected to implement Output 4.
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS & Implementing partner 2019/03 Completed Contracted organization to accomplish this task History
4. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 3 (= 6: Programmed Level):

Follow-up system for CBRMs: DCPSF should consider developing a post-project follow-up system for the work of the CBRMs to ensure their continuation and role in reducing and solving local-level conflicts after projects and DCPSF-funded activities have ended in a community. This could include e.g. regular follow-up visits by DCPSF’s field officers and a simple long-term monitoring system. This would help to capture the role and work of CBRMs to be in a better position to know about their development without external project funding. When projects are closed, future follow-on visits could also be announced to the community. This could be a relevant contribution to increasing the sustainability of DCPSF-funded activities and allow the Fund to be in a better position to speak about the impact of its own work

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed. While implementing partners are primarily responsible for project monitoring, the Secretariat supports this by commissioning a yearly perception survey and performing other types of monitoring to complement partners data. This would benefit from future follow-on visits as the evaluation report suggests. As several projects are ending during Q4 2017 and Q1 2018, a monitoring calendar could be developed to follow these into the next and following calendar years up to fund closure

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Incorporate visits to recently closed projects into 2018 monitoring plan
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/15]
DCPSF Technical Secretariat (TS) 2018/12 Completed update: Completed. monitoring plan has been included in the 2018 AWP. History
5. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 4 = (7: Programmed Level):

Revise and further develop the Theory of Change: It is recommended to revise and further develop DCPSF’s Theory of Change. At the programme level, a theory should be developed how the sum of projects adds up to a programme level impact and how the sum of project-level outcomes amounts to more than the sum of those parts. This includes considering and monitoring possible positive spillover effects between communities, i.e. to monitor whether stabilizing measures and the installation of CBRMs in one community has any positive effect on neighboring communities. It is also not clear whether the contribution of DCPSF to regional peace endeavors should be horizontal (stabilization in key locations organically spreads stability across other locations) or vertical (stabilization below creates pressure for solutions at a higher level). For a meaningful discussion on DCPSFs wider contributions, a theory of change for the expected effects would be required. The current DCPSF theory of change and partner ME systems only apply to the community level, limiting conversation on the topic to highly anecdotal levels

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed: DCSPF is in the process of revising the DCPSF Terms of Reference based on an in-depth stakeholder consultation and review. Part of this includes revising the Theory of Change.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1. Finalize DCPSF Terms of Reference for 2018-2020
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/09/06]
UNDP Senior Management snd the DCPSF Steering Committee 2018/06 Completed Update: Waiting for the approval of the TOR of the DCPSF new Phase. History
6. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 5 (= 14: Process Level):

Linking DCPSF activities to government: One way of linking activities with the government is to involve the relevant line ministries. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture should be involved in conflicts about natural resources. However, individual IPs may not able to include the government in its activities. As such, it is recommended to ensure involvement from agencies such as the UNDP. If UNDP would take on a role to include the GoS more in the peacebuilding activities, the IPs may be able to better maintain a status of impartiality. 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed. Under the proposed ToR, strengthening partnerships with key government partners will be realized’, and the partner will ensure leadership by and capacity development of the 5 State University Peace and Development Centres (PDCs), as well as the respective Ministries of Social Affairs / Welfare, as these are key Government partners for the reconciliation and conflict resolution activities. The project will aim to improve and scale up state level coordination.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Finalize DCPSF Terms of Reference for 2018-2020
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/15]
UNDP Senior Management and DCPSF Steering Committee 2018/12 Completed History
5.2 Solicit proposals for ‘Output 4’ big ticket project
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS 2019/03 Completed Contracted organization to accomplish this task History
7. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 6 (= 15: Process Level):

Collaboration between three UN funds: It is recommended to continue the efforts to formalise collaboration between the DCPSF and other UN funds, which currently is often limited and occurs on an ad-hoc basis. More effective collaboration would not only make it possible to complement soft activities more effectively with hard activities and continue providing peace dividends past the stabilisation period, it would also provide better opportunities to address all the root causes of conflict and avoid duplication of efforts.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed. The DCPSF technical secretariat will continue to improve coordination with UNDF, SHF, and other Funds.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 The UNDF is mapping all development projects in Darfur. TS will contribute to this mapping
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/10]
DCPSF TS supporting UNDF 2018/12 Completed This activity is ongoing. Mapping of all development projects in Darfur is going on. Consultant has been assigned for this tasks. History
6.2 TS continue to meet regularly with UNDF and SHF to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/10]
TS 2018/12 Completed Meetings are regularly held and are ongoing History
6.3 TS to evaluate whether to share back-office functions with UNDF to improve efficiencies
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/09/06]
DCPSF TS and UNDF 2018/12 No Longer Applicable [Justification: The mandate of the UNDF is not certain beyond December 2018. Therefor there is no clarity whether UNDF needs such functions.]
History
8. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 7 (= 16: Crosscutting themes and management):

Improving monitoring and reporting on gender and female involvement: Currently, the exact number of female members in CBRMs cannot be fully established, as it has not been recorded throughout the program. However, in more recent reporting (post-2016), partners have disaggregated the CBRM members by age and gender. The continuation of this reporting method will produce an interesting dataset and can illustrate trends in the future, and should be encouraged.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed.  The DCPSF TS ensures to collect gender-disaggregated data to reflect in CBRMs

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Annual and biannual reporting templates to maintain disaggregation of CBRM members by age and gender
[Added: 2018/02/28]
DCPSF TS 2018/02 Completed
7.2 Annual and biannual reports will report on CBRM members disaggregated by age and gender
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/15]
DCPSF TS 2018/12 Completed 2018 Biannual report completed and shared with partners. History
9. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 8 (= 17: Crosscutting themes and management):

Better integrating peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity: With conflict being a large driver for humanitarian need (and the potential of humanitarian activities feeding conflict) and a significant impediment to development, peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity should generally be more ingrained in any programming in Darfur, whether through DCPSF or other funds

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Limited agreement. The Output 4 project on horizontal and vertical networking should also support coordination between different Darfur projects. However, it is up to each programme to integrate conflict sensitivity into their activity plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1 Following approval of the draft ToR, Output 4 project to be called for and contracted
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2019/05/28]
DCPSF TS 2019/03 Completed Contracted organization to accomplish this task History
10. Recommendation:

valuation Recommendation 9 (=18: Crosscutting themes and management):

Strengthen conflict analysis: In order for the conflict analysis to become a useful programming tool, it needs to be strengthened. More specifically, it needs to be more in depth and it needs to be updated to accurately reflect the current situation in programming locations in Darfur.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/02/28]

Management Response: Agreed.  The quality of conflict analysis must be improved if it is to be a credible tool for project prioritization as well as a useful resource for stakeholders inside and outside of the fund.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 DCPSF to develop ToR for external consultant to oversee the conflict analysis process
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/10]
DCPSF TS 2018/12 Completed Q2. 2018 In preparation for potential allocation in Q3-Q4 Update: The consultant is under the recruitment process and also getting expertise from the \Regional Hub. History
9.2 DCPSF to support consultant to produce quality conflict analysis. DCPSF to disseminate and share conflict analysis with all relevant stakeholders
[Added: 2018/02/28] [Last Updated: 2018/12/15]
DCPSF TS 2018/12 Completed Q3-Q4 2018: It is initiated and going-on.. 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