Transcript Title of slide show

Programme Design & Institutional
Arrangements
Presented by:
Prof. Oladele Arowolo
HSRC
31 October 2013
Social Cluster Workshop
Outline of presentation
a) Background – EPWP Social Sector
b) Programme design : the context of ‘Theory of Change’
c) Programme coordination
d) The ‘Cluster’ system: challenges & opportunities
e) M&E strategy for the Social Cluster
f) Role for HSRC (IA Unit)
Social science that makes a difference
EPWP Social Sector
•
•
•
•
The EPWP social sector is set to achieve poverty alleviation through programmes focused on
reduction of income inequalities and human capital application.
The main objectives of this cluster are to improve: Education; Quality of life; Housing, shelter and
water; Health care; Social cohesion; and Social justice.
The EPWP Social Cluster comprises DoH, DoE & DSD, charged with creating work opportunities
in public social programmes (e.g. community-based health and social welfare care and early
childhood development).
Apart from home-based care and early childhood development, the Social Sector has identified
additional entry points for expanding the coverage of its EPWP interventions, as follows:
a) Within the Department of Education the following programmes have been identified as
areas for the expansion of the EPWP: School nutrition programme; School sports coaches;
Maintenance of schools; Construction of schools; Adult education; Teacher Aids in special
schools; Administrative support at schools &;Community development workers.
b) Within the Department of Health the programmes identified are: Directly Observed
Therapy (DOTS); Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT); Nutrition advisors; Lay
counselors; Malaria officers &; Community Health workers.
c) Within the Department of Social Development the programmes identified are:
Community Development Workers; Youth Care Workers; Child Care Workers; Emergency
food relief &; Social Security.
Proposals for the 3rd Phase
1.
2.
•
As the EPWP is going into Phase 3, the High Level (HL) proposals (August 2013) call for a shift in
orientation, which will require that a much stronger emphasis is placed on social protection, convergence
and capitalizing on developmental opportunities.
This calls for changing specific “design features of EPWP”, as well as improved implementation.
The HL proposals suggest the following changes in the design features of the EPWP:
• A strong increase in the scale of the non-state sector programmes – CWP and the NPO
programme with a large share of any available additional resources directed to these
programme.
• The introduction of a set of core principles to clearly distinguish the EPWP from other initiatives and
create a minimum level of uniformity and standardization across all EPWP programmes.
• A stronger emphasis on providing work opportunities that improve the regularity and predictability of
income so as to maximize social protection outcome
• The creation of both the policy space and specific mechanisms for convergence in particular areas
of the sectoral programmes to enhance synergies and avoid duplication
• Much stronger emphasis on the qualitative outputs of the programmes, including compliance with
core EPWP requirements and it is proposed that more stringent monitoring of some of these
aspects is introduced.
• A stronger focus on impact assessment so as to better understand and articulate the development
outcomes of the programme, and adjust design and implementation features to maximise these
impacts even further.
Programme Design
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy basis: EPWP policy
LogFrame conceptualization based on Outcomes system – emphasis is on
results rather activities
Goal of policy – Programme Outcomes
Outcome indicators
Baselines & Targets
EPWP Social Sector objectives
Strategy mapping & determination of programme outputs
Output indicators
Baselines & Targets
Programme activities in relation to specific outputs
Programme interventions (human, material & financial resources)
Implementation arrangements (coordination & collaboration)
Programme M&E framework and determination of ‘milestones’
Feed-back mechanisms
National coordination
a) National
•
The Cluster system has been introduced by Government “to instil and retain an
integrated and synchronised approach to policy formulation and coordination, to
combat a silos approach to governance, and to build a collegial approach and shared
perspective on government priorities”.
National level (2004/5-2008/9 Plan)
Provincial level coordination
b) Provincial
Provincial level (2004/5-2008/9 Plan)
Programme Coordination
C) Local Authorities
• Local governments also play a key role in mobilising community
action in planning and implementing EPWPs.
• District level managers are crucial to linking services to communitybased initiatives and integrating programmes into existing
community services and facilities.
• They also create effective referral linkages and thereby ensure the
accessibility of programmes at community level.
• The following support initiatives planned to support Local
Authorities:
a)The development of a set of ‘good practices’ case
studies by the EPWP project management team,
b) The development of a mentoring strategy for Local
Authorities pilots by the provincial management team.
Cluster strategy: challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HL proposals include the suggestion that the departments leading the sectors and
some of the key programmes should be strengthened in their capacity for
coordination.
Both the environmental and social sector foresee an expansion of their programmes
into the municipal sphere which requires coordination among a much larger number
of public bodies.
This also requires the creation or strengthening of an appropriate institutional
framework (viz. strengthening the Special Projects Office - SPO in DSD; the
establishment of dedicated EPWP units in the collaborating Departments).
In the drive for convergence, there is the need for more active collaboration between
sectors and the strengthening of the oversight of the EPWP.
Its success demands enhanced & additional capacity.
Coordination of 3 Departments and a large number of stakeholders at different levels
of governance.
Generation & reporting of adequate programme data for M&E.
Need for a dedicated Project Management team in each department, to be managed
by a Deputy Director.
The development and management of a comprehensive and responsive M&E
system.
Effective feed-back mechanisms for programme management.
Cluster strategy: opportunities
• Human and institutional capacity strengthening
• Collaboration in preparing Annual work plan to address aspects of
each output; and setting annual performance targets.
• Continuous monitoring of progress through structured meetings.
• Financial monitoring and annual audit (internal & external) in
support of efficiency of resource utilization.
• Periodic (quarterly, annual, etc) evaluation – Annual reporting
ensures effective delivery of interventions.
• Programme Evaluation (every 5 years or so), based on M&E
framework – progress reporting provides means of verification of
achievements and failures.
• Evaluation report/recommendations & Feed-back mechanism for
decision making.
Programme Monitoring & Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context: ‘A Theory of Change’
The overall national Government’s M&E framework has been developed within the
context of a ‘Theory of Change’, and it is expected that all Government Departments
and agencies such as EPWP will adapt it to their respective programme management
Focus on problem diagnosis, policy formulation, programming and programme
implementation, including monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment.
Defines the pathway of change or strategy mapping, to achieve a given programme
Outcome, and the programme interventions (institutional, human, financial and
material) that will bring about such a change.
Structured on a rigorous identification of programme ‘milestones’ as basis for
performance monitoring
It is programmatic (Logframe) and measurable – Outcome; Outputs; baselines;
targets; interventions; risks; management – monitoring and evaluation.
Research for programme data generation, collection and analysis for programme
management and development of Outcome/Output indicators
The theory advocates strong stakeholders’ participation in the process, from policy
and programme formulation to its management, including monitoring & evaluation
Also a form of RBM or HRBA to programming
Monitoring, Reporting & Evaluation
•
The High Level report (August 2013) proposed that the role of Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation
(M+R+E) in Phase 3 is:
“To efficiently gather information regarding the performance of EPWP programmes/ projects to monitor
and report implementation progress and evaluate the impact of the programme on the unemployed and
their communities.”
In this regard, the following principles & strategies are proposed for the 3rd phase:
•
Principles: International best practice (and techniques) used; stronger emphasis on process
evaluations to better understand how implementation procedures can be improved upon; increased
focus on measuring impact (on the lives of beneficiaries, on communities and municipal areas, and
he value of EPWP programmes on the broader economy, environment and society) and; increased
programme focus on the micro level but aim to gradually expand to the macro level over time.
•
What to Measure: objective and the indicators per sector for measuring performance.
•
Framework: a logical framework (logframe).
•
Monitoring will be strengthened by, among others, enhancing coordination structures to monitor
implementation progress, including re-activating the M&E forum so that M+R+E issues of common
interest can be discussed, challenges resolved and lessons shared.
•
The Reporting function will be enhanced through rationalising and focussing on the required (and
mandatory) reporting fields that will allow EPWP to adequately assess in-year progress; and identify
the data that will be gathered through other means (such as surveys, etc) to measure performance
and impact.
•
The type of Evaluation envisaged will be more or less in line with the existing framework except
that It will focus on: i) process evaluations ii) impact analysis iii) case studies on
programmes/projects specifically to highlight success stories and problem areas; iv) broadening the
performance indicators.
Role for HSRC (IA Unit)
•
As the EPWP moves to its 3rd phase, the Social Cluster could use the
expertise available in IA in particular and HSRC in general to address
aspects of the challenges faced and the HL recommendations, for a more
effective programme performance, such as:
•
Providing support to the SPO in framing the programme for the Social
Cluster
Supporting the Social Cluster in the design of a Monitoring and Evaluation
framework that addresses the HL recommendations and conforms to the
national M&E system.
Supporting the Social Cluster management in strengthening the monitoring
processes and undertaking specific evaluation and/or impact assessments.
Providing support to capacity enhancement (human and institutional) for a
more effective delivery of programme interventions
•
•
•
Development Cycle
Analysis
Policy
Assessment
Evaluation
Action
Programme
End
Thank You!