- Evaluation Plan:
- 2016-2020, Zimbabwe
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 02/2018
- Completion Date:
- 01/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 15,000
Support to ZIMSTATS End of Project Evaluation
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 ToR Zimstat End of Project Evaluation.docx |
tor | English | 51.83 KB | Posted | 72 |
| ZIMSTAT evaluation draft report 1.docx |
report | English | 234.24 KB | Posted | 119 |
| Title | Support to ZIMSTATS End of Project Evaluation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00062464 | ||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2016-2020, Zimbabwe | ||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||
| Completion Date: | 01/2018 | ||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 02/2018 | ||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017) |
|
||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 15,000 | ||||||||
| Source of Funding: | DFID, UNDP | ||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 13,000 | ||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||
| Mandatory Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | No | ||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||
| Countries: | ZIMBABWE | ||||||||
| Comments: | This evaluation was not done well by the hired consultant and the CO raised issues on the quality of the report that was produced by the consultant which is of very poor standard which lacked indepth data analysis and evidence to substantiate the findings in the report that the consultant put together. Furthermore, the report did not meet the requirements of the TORs that were given to the consultant to guide the scope of his assignment.
Due to the sub-standard report the CO has withheld part of his payment awaiting for him to resolve the issues that are pending since end of 2017. |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| 1. | A number of pertinent lessons emerge from the above analysis. Key ones are that development projects interventions, such as this project, should address real causes and not problem symptoms and effects; projects should be differentiated from programmes; harmonising operational regulations and practises of development partners will minimise implementation challenges each time a donor financed project is availed; the political system should monitor and enforce the provisions of statutory legal provisions, with special reference to ZIMSTAT as the producer and disseminator of national statistics; participatory project management institutional frameworks, involving beneficiary and partner development institutions, are necessary for speedy and effective decision making and timely activity implementation; Transparency in project implementation dynamics, in particular the interface between regulations of the development partners and those of the targeted beneficiaries, in this case ZIMSTAT, is required at inception stages to minimise misunderstanding and conflicts at project implementation and Statistical units in line ministries have to be institutionalised and not be personalised. Project successes, in particular, the conducting of national surveys, can be replicated if the institutions coordinating national statistics such as ZIMSTAT has appropriate staff, IT equipment and transportation(hired/or owned). |
| Findings | |
| 1. | Project successes included efficient activity implementation, the achievement of project targets and realisation of planned outputs and outcomes. The project thus contributed to ZIMSDTAT and NSS capacity building, as reflected in surveys done and disseminated. These achievements were supported by a number of factors including a UNDP sponsored project management, UNDP capacity to manage pooled funds, in particular from DFID; effective project oversight by UNDP and ZIMSTAT; adequate budgetary support from DFID, USAID SERA, AFDB and UNDP and commitment from ZIMSTAT officials. |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | This project evaluation was poorly done by the hired consultant and CO raised isseus on the quality of the report that was produced by the consultant which was of very poor standard which lackeed indepth data analysis and evidence to substantiate the findings in the report that the consultant put together. Furthermore, the report did not meet the requirements of the TORs that were given to the consultant to guide the scope of his assignment. Due to the sub-standard report the CO has withheld part of his payment awaiting for him to resolve the issues that are pending since end of 2017. |
1. Recommendation:
This project evaluation was poorly done by the hired consultant and CO raised isseus on the quality of the report that was produced by the consultant which was of very poor standard which lackeed indepth data analysis and evidence to substantiate the findings in the report that the consultant put together. Furthermore, the report did not meet the requirements of the TORs that were given to the consultant to guide the scope of his assignment.
Due to the sub-standard report the CO has withheld part of his payment awaiting for him to resolve the issues that are pending since end of 2017.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/03/29]
In view of the poor quality report the management response could not therefore be developed.
Key Actions: