Support to ZIMSTATS End of Project Evaluation

Report Cover Image
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

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR Zimstat End of Project Evaluation.docx tor English 51.83 KB Posted 56
Download document ZIMSTAT evaluation draft report 1.docx report English 234.24 KB Posted 82
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:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
  • 2. 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 $): 15,000
Source of Funding: DFID, UNDP
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 13,000
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
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:

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