Final Evaluation of the NGO Joint

Initiative for Urban Zimbabwe

Community Based Support for
Vulnerable Populations

Full Report

Oxfam GB Programme Evaluation

April 2008

Commissioned by: Oxfam GB Southern Africa

Evaluators: Lovemore M. Zinyama, Bakhethisi K.T.
Mlalazi
 CONTENTS
page
ACRONYMS ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Joint Initiative Programme 1
1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation 3

2.0 THE EVALUATION PROCESS 4

2.1 Interviews with JI Partners, Donors and Other Stakeholders 4
2.2 Interviews with Beneficiaries 5
2.3 Review of Documents 5
2.4 Limitations of the Study 5

3.0 ASSESSING THE RESULTS, IMPACTS, RELEVANCE AND

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAMME 6
3.1 Key Outputs Against the Programmes Log-frame and Targets 6
3.2 Relevance of the Programme 11
3.2.1 Was the Programme Relevant? 11
3.2.2 Is the Programme Still Relevant Today? 13
3.3 Impacts and Broader Outcomes of the Programme 14
3.3.1 Programme Impacts on Beneficiaries 14
3.3.2 Broader Impacts and Outcomes 15
3.4 The Relationship between the JI and Other Programmes 16
3.5 The Consortium Approach 17
3.6 Programme Management 19
3.7 Major Challenges of the Programme 21
3.8 Where are the Gaps? 21
3.9 Political Context and Risk 22
3.10 Assessment of the Programmes Cost Effectiveness 23
3.10.1 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness 24
3.10.2 Was the Joint Mechanism Appropriate/Beneficial to the
Sectors? 25
3.11 Lesson Learning from the Programme 25

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

4.1 Conclusions 27
4.2 Recommendations 27
4.2.1 Improvements in Programme Management 27
4.2.2 Improvements in Programming Methodologies for
Future Implementation 27
4.2.3 Recommendation to the Donor Group 28

APPENDICES
1 Terms of Reference 29
2 Officials Consulted 32
3 Consultants Schedule of Work 34

i
 ACRONYMS

ACC Area Coordination Committee

AREX Agricultural Research and Extension Services, Ministry of Agriculture
AOB Sibambene AIDS Programme - Archdiocese of Bulawayo
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
CBO Community Based Organisation
CHBC Community Home Based Care
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CIO Central Intelligence Organisation
CP Child Protection
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DAAC District AIDS Action Committee
DFID Department for International Development
EFZ Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe
HBC Home Based Care
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
HPZ Housing People of Zimbabwe
IGA Income Generating Activity
IOM International Organisation for Migration
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
ISAL Internal Savings and Lending
JIG Joint Initiative Group
LIG Low Input Garden
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NAC National AIDS Council
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OFDA Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID)
OVCs Orphans and Vulnerable Children
PMU Programme Management Unit
PRP Protracted Relief Programme
SDC School Development Committee
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID US Agency for International Development
WFP UN World Food Programme
ZAN Zimbabwe AIDS Network
ZNPP+ Zimbabwe National Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS
ZPT Zimbabwe Project Trust

ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The JI Programme was launched to address urban poverty and vulnerability resulting
from the decline in the macro-economic environment in Zimbabwe, the collapse of
social welfare and municipal services, and in response to Operation
Murambatsvina. It was set up in 2005 by 7 international NGOs with their local
implementing partners and was supported by group of 5 donors through pooled
funding. The over-arching goal of the programme is to restore dignity and reduce
suffering for the most vulnerable in urban and peri-urban areas of Zimbabwe.

The agreement entered into by the donor group and the NGO partners provided for a
mid-term review (carried out in June 2007) and a terminal evaluation. This is the
report of the end-of-programme or terminal evaluation.

Purpose of the Evaluation

This evaluation was meant to consider the rationale for the type of approach used in
the Joint Initiative and also to consider measurements of success the programme had
achieved in meeting its goals.

Evaluation Process

The evaluation was undertaken by two consultants over a 10-day period, and was
done through perusal of relevant documents, interviews with the donor group and JI
partners, and visits to implementation sites to observe interventions and discuss with
beneficiaries and key stakeholders.

Findings

The JI programme has largely achieved its objectives and has had a noticeable impact
on the lives of beneficiaries and the practices of implementing partners. The
interventions were selected as a result of research on the needs of potential beneficiary
communities and are, as a result, relevant to the needs of the communities and to the
urban environment. With the deterioration of the economy in Zimbabwe, the
interventions of the programme are even more relevant today.

Major challenges faced in implementing the programme included adjusting to

operating in an urban environment, dealing with heightened political tensions and
sensitivities, and operating in a highly volatile macro economic environment. These
have combined to affect aspects of programme implementation, but the JI managed to
successfully navigate through most of these challenges.

The management of the programme has been effective and parties to the initiative
(donors, local and international NGOs) expressed general satisfaction with how the
programme has been managed. Areas that could be improved to enhance effectiveness
include more effective ACCs, greater harmonisation of methodologies and deliberate
lesson learning.

iii
Relations have been developed with a wide range of stakeholders at all levels and
these have benefited the programme. Relations and networks have been particularly
useful in lobbying and dealing with the authorities, but they have also benefited
programme implementation through sharing information and skills.

Conclusions

There is no doubt that the JI programme has been an innovative approach in providing
support to poor and vulnerable urban households. Overall, the programme
successfully met its targets and objectives. The partners, both local and international,
should be commended for what they have achieved, especially given the continually
deteriorating socio-economic conditions and worsening poverty and a hostile political
environment.

Recommendations

Improvements in Programme Management

Standardise and improve the functioning of the ACCs across all the sites;
The lead agency to ensure that feedback in the from of progress reports are
disseminated down to both international as well as their local partners as part
of the process of information sharing and engendering a feeling of genuine
partnership;
JIG to ensure that its contingency plan is functional.

Improvements in Programming Methodologies for Future Implementation

Agree on best practices and adopt these frameworks for interventions and
approaches;
Ensure that beneficiary verification attains 100% in all interventions as much
as possible and provide a forum for community contribution, but without
compromising the JIs criteria;
Work towards greater collaboration with those outside the consortium who are
working in the same sectors;
Consortium allocates more resources towards research and documentation of
its experiences, successes and failures (e.g. in advocacy and lobbying local
authorities, best practices);
Improve lesson learning, ensure that sector meetings are held more regularly
and provide a forum for sharing;
Ensure that M&E is placed more strategically;
Consider modalities for community M&E;
Provide more opportunities for consultation with children on child protection
issues and child rights and respond to their needs;
Liaise with DAACs and other stakeholders for a review of the contents of the
standard HBC kit so that it takes account of emerging health status of
HIV/AIDS patients so that it reflects the needs of the beneficiaries (i.e. less
emphasis of wounds and more hygiene items);
JI to continue efforts to improve the programmes cost effectiveness.

iv
Recommendation to the Donor Group

Overall, the consultants strongly urge the donors to continue with funding support to
the Joint Initiative for the reasons presented in this evaluation report.

v
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Joint Initiative Programme

Urban vulnerability in Zimbabwe has deepened during the past few years. With
formal unemployment over 80%, an annual inflation rate of 100,580% (January
2008), and average incomes of less than US$1 per day, many urban households are
finding it increasingly difficult to access most basic commodities, services and shelter.
Recent government policies have also increased the vulnerability of the urban poor,
notably the urban clean-up operation dubbed Operation Murambatsvina launched in
May 2005 which left an estimated 700,000 people homeless and decimated many
informal small and medium enterprises and the June 2007 price freeze that emptied
shops and supermarkets of almost all kinds of goods, including most basic foodstuffs.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic also presents additional problems for many urban
households. Meanwhile, standards of service delivery by the urban local authorities
have deteriorated sharply during the past five years or so. Many suburbs are going
without clean water for long periods of time, refuse collection is erratic or non-
existent, liquid sewerage flows unattended through the streets where children play,
while electrical power outages have become a very regular occurrence.

In late 2005, concerned about the deteriorating conditions of many urban households,
seven international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) decided to strategically
combine their capacities and resources in order to address the acute needs of
vulnerable groups in urban areas of Zimbabwe. The seven agencies collectively
known as the Joint Initiative Group (JIG) are: (i) Africare, (ii) CARE International,
(iii) Catholic Relief Services (CRS), (iv) Mercy Corps, (v) Oxfam GB, (vi) Practical
Action and (vii) Save the Children UK.

The JIG developed a programme called the NGO Joint Initiative for Urban
Zimbabwe which is a coordinated humanitarian response to address the short and
medium term needs of highly vulnerable urban communities through integrated
programming. The over-arching goal of the programme is to restore dignity and
reduce suffering for the most vulnerable in urban and peri-urban areas of
Zimbabwe. The programme has been supported through a system of pooled funding
by major international donors, namely DFID, USAID, AusAID, the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, until recently, CIDA and SIDA.

The JI programme started in June 2006 and sought to assist up to 12,000 vulnerable
urban households. It should have ended in November 2007, but was given a three-
month no-cost extension to the end of February 2008. Members of the JIG seek to
work on a collaborative basis, utilising their collective organisational strengths,
human resources and networks to provide critically needed assistance through client-
prioritised interventions. The programme was implemented in the following
cities/towns and suburbs across the country: (i) Harare (Mbare), (ii) Bulawayo
(Mzilikazi, Makokoba and Njube), (iii) Chitungwiza (St. Marys), (iv) Mutare
(Sakubva), (v) Gweru (Mkoba, Mtapa, Senga and Mambo), and (vi) Masvingo
(Mucheke and Rujeko).

A needs assessment conducted among applicants for assistance at the beginning of the
programme identified the following as the areas where assistance was most needed:

1
(i) livelihoods support, (ii) food security, (iii) shelter, (iv) education and (v)
HIV/AIDS. Child protection was subsequently integrated into the programmes of all
the JIG partners as a cross-cutting issue. In some communities, the JIG partners were
directly implementing their projects; in other areas, JIG partners have been working
with local NGOs as the implementing agencies.

The interventions may be summarised as follows:

1) Support for household livelihoods comprising (a) the formation of voluntary

and self-selecting internal savings and lending (ISAL) groups, and (b)
assistance with the construction of market stalls at approved vending sites, as
well as training the vendors in business management and basic bookkeeping.
Formation of the loans and savings groups has been encouraged among people
that know each other in order to minimise the risk of defaulting on
repayments.

2) Households identified as experiencing food insecurity have been (a) provided

with monthly food vouchers and (b) were given assistance to establish low
input gardens (LIGs) at their homes together with training and the provision of
basic inputs. The LIGs were designed in such a way that the beneficiaries
would operate in cells or groups, with lead members mentoring others.

3) Shelter provision entailed assistance with construction of new houses or house

extensions and support with the establishment of building material enterprises
(e.g. brick moulding) for small scale entrepreneurs. The beneficiaries were
organised into groups through which they provided labour such as moving
bricks, digging the foundations, and mixing mortar and concrete, working
under a qualified bricklayer.

4) The education intervention entailed the waiver of school fees for two years for
50 OVCs in each participating primary or secondary school in lieu of which
the school received a block grant equivalent to US$2,500 to cover the costs of
approved projects such as the purchase of furniture, textbooks and equipment
to support income generating projects. Schools also received support and
training to establish after-school clubs for the children.

5) The HIV/AIDS intervention involved (i) the distribution of home-based care

kits through municipal clinics, supported by a network of community-based
care facilitators to families living with HIV/AIDS, (ii) training of primary care
givers, as well as (iii) awareness raising and training among youths and other
groups.

6) As mentioned above, child protection was incorporated as a cross-cutting issue

to be implemented by all partners in their interventions and programmes.

The interventions by the JIG represent probably the first major collaborative thrust by
international and national NGOs to assist poor and very poor urban households in a
comprehensive manner. Previously, humanitarian and development agencies have
focused their activities in rural areas in the belief that this was where assistance was

2
most needed. Thus, many NGOs operating in Zimbabwe have acquired a lot of
experience of working in rural areas, but still need to learn to operate in urban areas.

The interventions were developed within the context of a definition of what

constitutes humanitarian assistance that is perhaps broader than that of the donor
community. The partners definition of what constitutes humanitarian assistance has
been informed by the realities of the Zimbabwe situation. In the past, urban workers
contributed significantly to rural livelihoods and household incomes through urban-to-
rural remittances in cash or kind. Today, many of these support systems have broken
down. Urban dwellers are failing to meet their basic needs, let alone support their
extended rural families, because of the severity of the prevailing economic meltdown
which has hit the urban populations hardest. While the impact of the economic decline
may not be immediately visible as would be the case in the aftermath of a natural
disaster (a tsunami, flooding, etc), it is nonetheless harsh, widespread and prolonged,
resulting in ever growing numbers of urban poor and destitute households.

1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation

This evaluation was meant to consider the rationale for the type of approach used in
the Joint Initiative and also to consider measurements of success the programme had
achieved in reaching its goals. The full Terms of Reference for the evaluation are
attached to this report as Appendix 1.

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

1. Evaluate the achievements of outcomes/results of the NGO Joint Initiative

programme against milestones and outputs outlined in the original JI targets,
baseline conditions, implementation plans and log-frame.

2. Review wider programmatic issues relating to the approach to management

and implementation and how this impacted on the effectiveness and
appropriateness of interventions and on targeting.

3. Provide lessons learned and recommendations for improvements in both

management and programming methodologies for future implementation.

The evaluation sought to address the following questions:

Results: Did the program attain its goals and objectives?

Cost effectiveness: Was the programme design one that created cost efficiency
and effectiveness? Was the joint mechanism appropriate/beneficial for these
sectors?

Relevance: Was the program relevant? Necessary? Did it meet the needs of the
most vulnerable?

3
2.0 THE EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 Interviews with JI Partners, Donors and Other Stakeholders

The evaluation was undertaken by a two-member team. It was conducted over a two-
week period, 6-19 March 2008. The team conducted interviews with as many as
possible of the JI partners comprising the INGOs, local NGOs, donors, other
stakeholders such as government and local authority officials as well as a non-random
sample of beneficiaries in selected locations. The officials that were interviewed and
the organisations that they represent are shown in Appendix 2. The purpose of the
interviews with the partners and stakeholders was to obtain the respondents views
with regards to issues such as (i) achievements made by the JI programme, (ii)
relevance of the programme, (iii) wider programmatic issues relating to the
consortium approach, management and implementation, and (iv) lessons learnt for the
future.

Field visits were conducted to project communities in (i) Mbare, Harare, (ii) St.
Marys, Chitungwiza, (iii) Masvingo and (iv) Bulawayo. The consultants field data
collection schedule is shown in Appendix 3. The types of interventions being
implemented and the agencies involved in each of the field sites visited during the
evaluation are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Priority interventions and implementing agencies canvassed during the

evaluation

Types of Responsible JIG

City Suburb Interventions Agency Local Partner
Harare Mbare Livelihoods Africare
Shelter Practical Action
Food, HIV/AIDS Oxfam GB Zimbabwe Project Trust
Chitungwiza St. Marys Livelihoods Africare
Shelter Practical Action HPZ
Education Mercy Corps EFZ
Bulawayo Mzilikazi Livelihoods CRS Sibambene AIDS Programme
Makokoba - AOB
Njube
Food, HIV/AIDS Oxfam GB LEAD Trust
Masvingo Mucheke Livelihoods CARE
Rujeko
Food CARE
HIV/AIDS CARE
All Cities All suburbs Child Protection Save the Children All Partners
(UK)

4
2.2 Interviews with Beneficiaries

The views of the beneficiaries were obtained through one-on-one interviews as well
as through group discussions. The interviews and group discussions took place at
whatever places the beneficiaries were found. Thus, some of the respondents were
interviewed in their homes. Others were interviewed at their business premises (e.g. in
the case of vendors). In other instances, the implementing agency had organised
groups of beneficiaries specifically to meet the consultants for discussions. The
interviews and discussions sought the views of the beneficiaries on issues such as (i)
the types of benefits they were receiving, (ii) impact of the interventions on their
social and economic wellbeing, and (iii) problems experienced.

2.3 Review of Documents

The consultants also reviewed a number of background and technical documents on

the programme. These included the programme proposal submitted to donors in 2006;
mobilisation and targeting guidelines used during the selection and screening of
beneficiaries, the programmes M&E plan, several progress reports to the donors and
M&E reports compiled by the partners, the report of the baseline study conducted
during December 2006-February 2007, a study of beneficiary household profiles
conducted in September 2007, as well as proposals for the second phase of the
programme submitted to the donors for funding.

2.4 Limitations of the Study

The field data collection for the evaluation was conducted over a period of six days,
followed by another four days of data analysis and preparation of the report
interspaced by additional stakeholder interviews. Due to time and budget constraints,
it was not possible to visit all the project sites as would normally be expected of a
terminal project evaluation study. Thus, Gweru and Mutare were excluded from the
field itinerary. Instead, the consultants visited Bulawayo and Masvingo, locations that
had been excluded during the mid-term review in May-June 2007. Even in those sites
that were visited, it was not possible to meet all the actors, and especially the
beneficiaries.

The evaluation took place shortly before the national presidential and legislative
elections held at the end of March 2008. It had been feared that the consultants
ability to move in the communities and interview beneficiaries would be severely
restricted because of the politically charged pre-election atmosphere. In the end, this
was not the case. Within the limited time available, the consultants were able to
interview the relevant people that they needed to meet, both beneficiaries and
government officials, even in Mbare and St Marys where there had been fears that
the evaluation would be compromised.

5
3.0 ASSESSING THE RESULTS, IMPACTS, RELEVANCE AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAMME

3.1 Key Outputs Against the Programmes Log-frame and Targets

By the beginning of 2008, the JI partners had successfully met most of the targets set
out at the commencement of the project, and in most instances had exceeded the
original targets (Table 2). A total of 11,816 vulnerable urban households, out of
20,508 registered on the programmes database, were benefiting from one or more
interventions, thereby almost meeting the overall target of 12,000 households the
programme had set out to assist. (There were some recent registrations that were still
to be captured into the central database at the time of the evaluation). The total
population in beneficiary households was 58,220, with an average of five persons per
household. Some 7,900 beneficiary households (67%) were female-headed and 34%
had one or more chronically sick person in the household. Almost one-third (31%) of
the households were benefiting from two or more interventions.

Among the beneficiaries were OVCs and child-headed households. In those locations
(i.e. in Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru and Masvingo) where the food intervention was
being implemented, all 48 registered child-headed households were receiving monthly
food vouchers.

Highlights of the key outputs of the interventions include:

Livelihoods: 5,558 households had joined ISAL groups which are a means of
raising working capital for their income generating activities, compared with
the original programme target to improve the economic capacity of 5,000
vulnerable households. A total of 558 permanent market stalls have been
constructed to regularise informal vending activities of the beneficiaries,
although some of the stalls were still in the final stages of construction or were
still to be allocated to the beneficiaries.

Food Vouchers: 8,780 households were receiving monthly food vouchers

entitling them to food rations, against an original programme target of 7,000
households. Over the past year, as a consequence of the rapidly deteriorating
economic environment and difficulties in accessing food, the food voucher
system had turned from being a supplementary source to become a major
source of food for many households.

Low Input Gardens: 1,840 beneficiaries had established LIGs, representing

71% of the programme target of 2,600. The programme had failed to reach its
target partly because of severe water restrictions in all the locations and partly
because many of the beneficiaries lack access to land by virtue of being
tenants at their places of residence rather than property owners. One-fifth of
the food voucher beneficiaries had established LIGs, thereby increasing the
amount and variety of food available to them.

Education Support: 1,400 OVCs (the original target number) were receiving
support for their primary or secondary education. Over half (54%) of the
beneficiaries were girls. After-school clubs have been established in all the 29

6
 participating schools to provide a safe environment for the children, and
mentors recruited from among the teaching staff trained to run the clubs. The
clubs are used to raise awareness of child rights among both the pupils and the
facilitators.

HIV/AIDS: 500 chronically ill beneficiaries were receiving home-based care,

compared with a programme target of 250; 50 secondary community-based
care facilitators and 500 primary care givers were trained. All 500
beneficiaries were on food vouchers and some were participating in ISALs and
LIGs.

Child Protection: staff in the JI partner organisations have been trained on

child protection issues and there is a greater awareness to incorporate CP in
their programming. Pupils receiving education support have been trained on
child rights, HIV/AIDS and other CP issues. Child friendly centres have been
established in conjunction with the local authorities. At least two facilitators
from each school that is participating in the education support component and
other youth peer educators have been trained. Child feedback meetings were
held in all the sites in conjunction with all the implementing partners.

However, attendance at capacity building training workshops by staff from

some of the JI partners was not as well as it was supposed to be. Some of the
staff had failed to attend the full package of four training modules on child
protection conducted by Save the Children (UK). According to the
implementing partner, commitment to CP by senior management varied
management in some JI partners had shown greater commitment and were
more willing to release their staff for training. At the same time, Save the
Children had also experienced staff constraints, especially at the beginning of
the programme when it only had one person to run its training programme.

Shelter: The original target for this intervention had to be revised downwards
from 500 to 372 new houses/house extensions mid-way during the project
after it became apparent that work was behind schedule. At the end of the
programme, some 30 houses were still to be completed, the likely completion
date being end of March, 2008.

However, the establishment of small-scale building materials enterprises (e.g.

brick moulding) was on target, with 30 such enterprises formed and their
members trained. Other successes achieved related to (i) assisting 1,413
households obtain building plan approvals from the respective local planning
authorities in the three sites, representing a potential future housing space of
50,860 m2 and (ii) assisting 1,115 households to clarify their housing tenure
status with the local authorities from an original target of 500 households.

From the above summary, in all but two interventions (shelter and LIGs), the original
targets were either met or exceeded within the agreed 18 month time-frame (plus the
additional 3-month no-cost extension). Progress has been made in mainstreaming
child protection, but there is still need to enhance staff capacity through training.
Additional information on the performance under each intervention is provided in
Table 2 below which is derived from the JI log-frame and M&E Plan.

7
Table 2: Summary of key outputs against the programmes targets and milestones at the end of the project (February 2008)

Overarching Goal: Restore dignity and reduce suffering for the most vulnerable in urban areas of Zimbabwe
Objective 1: Seven urban communities have strengthened mechanisms for collaboratively and transparently managing resources to address priority needs
Key Outputs/Milestones JI
Interventions Achieved Comments/Observations
Community groups Livelihoods ISAL groups ISAL groups have been established in Mbare (1,345 households/members), St Marys (272), Gweru (667), Sakubva
created and/or formed with 5,558 (707), Bulawayo (1955) and Masvingo (612). Group formation and membership met the original targets or exceeded
strengthened to manage members them in all areas.
programme activities ISAL groups are self-selecting and self-managing. The number of groups and membership is continually increasing
as new members join. New members are being inducted and trained by peer facilitators that have been trained by the
Shelter 613 beneficiaries JI partners.
trained in basic ISAL groups were trained in basic bookkeeping/business management; they are now running their group lending
construction skills activities with minimal supervision and are confident that they will be able to continue even after the withdrawal of
(bricklaying, the JI partners.
mortar mixing, etc) Market stall-holders in St. Marys have independently engaged the services of a professional security company to
provide armed security guards at night. Money for security services is raised through monthly contributions
Education 29 SDCs organised by a committee chosen from among the beneficiaries.
support strengthened, after- Shelter beneficiaries were encouraged to organise themselves into groups to supply construction labour in Mbare, St
school clubs Marys and Sakubva, each group managed by an elected committee, thereby contributing to the construction of their
established, houses.
mentors and youth School Development Committees strengthened; after-school club mentors (teachers) and leaders (pupils) trained to
peer educators run the clubs.
trained
OVCs and mentors trained in child protection issues through the after-school clubs.

Objective 2: Vulnerable populations in seven urban communities have increased access to priority needs and services
Improved economic Livelihoods Market stalls to ISAL members are encouraged to venture into income generating activities.
capacity for 5,000 hold 558 vendors ISAL groups have facilitated capital formation with which to order larger volumes of goods for resale. Beneficiaries
vulnerable households to constructed reported that they had used some of the improved profits on meeting family needs such as the purchase of bicycles,
access basic needs and wheel-burrows, household utensils (pots), as well as paying school fees for their children. Others have been able to
services acquire equipment for their enterprises (e.g. for making candles or peanut butter).
Shelter 51 construction- ISAL members in Masvingo are providing education support to 5 OVCs; those in Bulawayo are supporting 50
related income OVCs.
generating groups ISAL membership provides financial and other support in times of illness or family bereavement.
formed or Construction of market stalls completed in St. Marys to accommodate 240 vendors against an original target 220.
strengthened One of the sites is already occupied by the beneficiaries; allocation at the other two sites has been held up because of
misunderstandings with the local authority over beneficiary selection.

8
 In Gweru, construction of market stalls at two remaining sites is expected to be completed by the end of March 2008.
A total of 318 will be accommodated and some beneficiaries have already moved into the market stalls. The market
stalls are provided with water, toilets and perimeter fencing for security.
Construction of market stalls in Mbare was not implemented because of problems in acquiring suitable sites.
Income generating groups formed to supply the construction sector (stone-crushers, brick moulders, carpentry)
Reduced food insecurity Food 8,780 households Monthly food vouchers being given to 4,400 households in Mbare, 1,750 in Bulawayo, 1,837 in Gweru and 793 in
for 7,000 vulnerable vouchers on food vouchers Masvingo. Target exceeded by 25%.
households in Mbare All 48 registered child-headed households receive food vouchers.
(Harare), Mkoba (Gweru), Because of deteriorating economic conditions and difficulties in accessing food, vouchers have become the main
Mucheke (Masvingo), source of food for many of the beneficiaries, not a supplement as originally envisaged.
Mzilikazi and Makokoba 1,840 households had established LIGs; this was 71% of the original target of 2,600; a contributing factor was that
(Bulawayo). some of the beneficiaries have no access to land (i.e. tenants) and therefore unable to establish LIGs; also water
shortages a major constraint.
20% of the food voucher recipients are also on LIGs.
Training of lead farmers/facilitators was conducted.
Establishment of community gardens for those without access to land (i.e. tenants) has been delayed by need to drill
boreholes to supply water; use of treated municipal water not permitted.
40,000 sq. m. of additional Shelter 372 houses or The target number of houses/extensions to be constructed was revised from 500 beneficiary house-owners to 372
habitable space in St extensions because of delays and complexities in shelter provision (e.g. regularising title to the land, getting planning approval,
Marys (Chitungwiza), constructed (342 etc). Some 30 of the 372 houses in St. Marys still await completion for several reasons, e.g. unavailability of
Mbare (Harare) and fully completed asbestos roofing sheet in the country, need to verify the ownership status of the plot, getting plans approved, delays
Sakubva (Mutare). and 30 still to be in the commencement of the project, political interference leading to banishment of the implementing partners from
completed). the project site for about three months. Houses in Sakubva and Mbare have been completed.
1,413 plans Equipment and training was provided to small-scale building materials enterprises (e.g. brick moulding) in Mbare
approved and St Marys. All the 30 (target) enterprises are now established and operating.
Brick moulding enterprises are contracted to supply bricks for house construction.
Essential education Education 1,400 OVCs in 29 1400 OVCs in 14 schools in St Marys and 15 schools in Sakubva had fees waived for 2 years in return for block
services are accessible for support schools receiving grants (50 pupils per school). Pupils also receive learning materials (exercise books, pens, pencils, etc).
1,400 orphans and support, 54% of 54% of the 1400 beneficiaries are girls.
vulnerable children them girls All the schools have received either textbooks, school furniture, borehole drilling and equipment, roofing materials,
(OVCs) in 28 primary and etc. from their block grants.
secondary schools in St Some 567 of the pupils also got additional support in the form of school uniforms, footwear, etc.
Marys (Chitungwiza) and All OVCs received blankets donated by UNICEF.
Sakubva (Mutare). After-school clubs attended by mixed groups of pupils (OVCs and non-OVCs) to avoid stigmatisation have been
established at all the schools; mentors drawn from among school teachers and club leaders from amongst the pupils
have been trained. Schools are provided with sports kits (uniforms, balls, footwear). OVCs receive psycho-social
support through the clubs.
Hurdles in the running of after-school clubs arise from problems facing the education sector in general (high staff

9
 turnover, low teacher morale, repeated strike actions, etc).
Reduced suffering and HIV/AIDS 500 chronically ill Distribution of home based care kits to 500 chronically ill beneficiaries through municipal clinics, supported by
improved resilience for supported community-based care facilitators.
250 HIV and AIDS All 500 beneficiaries receive food vouchers and a significant proportion is also on LIGs; gardens help to improve
affected households in their nutritional status by providing them with a better range, quantity and quality of produce.
Mkoba (Gweru) and 50 community-based facilitators and 500 primary care givers were trained.
Mucheke (Masvingo) All beneficiaries are encouraged to join HIV/AIDS support groups.
New beneficiaries are registered periodically to replace those that will have died.
Experience has shown that the standard HIV/AIDS home based care kit set by NAC needs revision with less
emphasis on management of wounds from bedsores to more hygiene essentials as most patients are not necessarily
bed-ridden these days.

Objective 3: JI international and national partners demonstrate increased capacity to identify and integrate child protection considerations in their programmes
Child protection plans are A cross- Staff of JI partners Partners in all the locations have had training on child protection and reported that they are now better able to
fully integrated into JIG cutting issue trained in CP. mainstream CP in their programming.
programming in each of Partners now However, staff from some of the partners had not attended all the 4 modules on CP insufficient management
the seven target suburbs mainstreaming CP support for CP among some partners.
issues in their Youth friendly centres have been established and equipped at municipal community halls and clinics; training and
programming counselling on HIV/AIDS conducted by youth peer educators and other facilitators, focusing on behaviour change.
Childrens feedback workshops conducted in all the locations by JI partners supported by Save the Children (UK).

10
3.2 Relevance of the Programme

3.2.1 Was the Programme Relevant?

The justification for the JI programme was provided in the proposal document
submitted to the donors in February 2006. The need for such a programme was
informed by the difficulties confronting poor and vulnerable urban households,
notably:

a rapidly deteriorating social, political and economic situation in the country

with the most rapidly contracting economy in the world, triple-digit inflation,
high unemployment, shortages of foreign currency which negatively affected
the importation and supply of essential items such as fuel, drugs and other
basic commodities;
the invasion, starting in 2000, of white-owned commercial farms which
resulted in the rapid contraction of the commercial farming sector, massive
job losses in agriculture and related sub-sectors, displacement of thousands of
farm workers to urban and peri-urban areas, and ultimately leading to
increasing shortages of basic foods; and
the launch by government, in May 2006, of Operation Restore Order
(Murambatsvina), a programme supposedly aimed at addressing issues of
overcrowding, crime and lawlessness in the high density urban suburbs, but
whose most visible results were the destruction of urban dwellings and
vending sites, the arrest of thousands of informal traders, and the loss of
livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of people.

The interventions implemented under the JI programme sought to meet the

immediate needs of the displaced and their hosts, decrease urban vulnerability, and
strengthen the coping mechanisms and resilience of communities.

The relevance or appropriateness of the programme and its interventions can be

assessed at two levels: at the community level and at the individual household level. A
vulnerability assessment conducted in January 2005 sought to identify needs and
priorities at the community level. The exercise included key informant interviews
with knowledgeable community leaders and representatives and a meta-plan
exercise with members of the community to identify the needs and priorities in each
area. The information was used to determine the top three priorities for intervention in
each location (Table 3). These priorities were then used to determine the types of
interventions for each area.

11
Table 3: Top three needs and priorities identified by the vulnerability assessment
for each location

Top three priorities identified Interventions

Location Livelihoods Food Shelter Education HIV/AIDS implemented
Mbare All three
(Harare)
St. Marys, All three
(Chitungwiza)
Mzilikazi, Shelter not
Makokoba implemented
(Bulawayo)
Mkoba All three
(Gweru)
Mucheke All three
(Masvingo)
Sakubva, All three
(Mutare)
Child protection implemented as a cross-cutting issue in all locations

Source: JI proposal document submitted to donors (February, 2006)

At the second level, the registration and verification of beneficiary households

provided an opportunity for the JI partners to ensure that (i) only the most deserving
poor and very poor were supported and (ii) households received support that was most
appropriate for their situation. In particular, the verification process was important to
screen out undeserving cases and, more importantly, to match household needs and
priorities with the types of interventions to be provided. The higher the level of
verification for a particular intervention, the greater was the likelihood that the most
deserving households received it. The proportion of beneficiaries that were verified
for each intervention varied, being full (100%) verification for food vouchers, shelter,
and education support, down to approximately 30% for livelihoods. It was important
to ensure a high verification rate where beneficiaries were receiving some tangible
goods (e.g. food, building materials or home-based care kits), and less so where they
were receiving services (e.g. training and capacity building).

Overall, the programme and the interventions implemented by the partners were
directly relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries. Information provided by the
beneficiaries during field visits for this evaluation confirmed that the programme had
positively addressed their pressing needs.

However, while the verification process helped to reduce errors of inclusion, there is a
high probability that many more deserving cases could have been left out of the
programmes interventions. Errors of exclusion could have arisen from a number of
sources. Some bed-ridden people could have been missed in the mobilisation phase
and therefore not registered; not all poor and destitute people can read such that they
could have missed the notices that were published and distributed during the
mobilisation phase; and people that did not attend church could also have been
missed. At the beginning, there was some scepticism among potential beneficiaries
about the intentions of the programme. For instance, there was a perception that food
vouchers were intended for people living with HIV/AIDS and therefore joining the

12
programme would be viewed as a public admission of being HIV positive. It is,
however, noted that the JI partners were aware of these problems and made provision
for the inclusion of deserving cases that came up after the initial registration. This was
done by holding back approximately 10% of the target for each intervention in order
to accommodate late registrants.

In respect of the shelter component, the need for beneficiary to have legal entitlement
to a piece of land on which to build meant that those in real need of housing (i.e.
lodgers and the homeless) were automatically excluded.

3.2.2 Is the Programme Still Relevant Today?

The JI programme was a co-ordinated humanitarian response to address the short

and medium-term needs of highly vulnerable communities. In this regard, it had been
expected, especially by the donors, that the programme would have a short duration to
meet emergency needs arising in large part from Operation Murambatsvina.
However, social and economic conditions in Zimbabwe have continued to deteriorate
during the past few years such that even larger proportions of the urban population
have become poorer and more vulnerable. The conditions that JI sought to address
are, in most instances, worse today than when the programme started in 2006. A brief
review of the current situation with respect to the various indicators of urban poverty
shows that social, economic and political conditions have worsened. As a
consequence, the JI programme and its interventions are, in fact, more relevant today
than they were two years ago.

Livelihoods: Urban unemployment has worsened since 2006 when the JI programme
started, with even larger numbers of people resorting to vending, cross-border trading
and other forms of self-employment, together with a variety of illegal and/or
socially unacceptable activities such as dealing in foreign currency and transactional
sex in order to make a living. At the same time, vending without a license and from
unauthorised sites continue to be frowned upon by the authorities, with the attendant
risk of having ones wares being confiscated.

Food: The availability of food in the country has deteriorated considerably since June
2006 when the government imposed a price freeze on all goods and services in an
effort to fight inflation. An immediate consequence of the freeze was the
disappearance of virtually all goods from supermarket shelves, including basic
foodstuffs. Since then, foodstuffs have remained in short supply or are only available
on the black market at highly inflated prices. Accessing food has therefore become
more difficult for most urban and even rural households. Even the urban middle class
have been struggling to access food, many of them resorting to periodic shopping trips
to South Africa to purchase basic commodities.

The aim of the JI food voucher system was to supplement beneficiary households
own food supplies. However, it became apparent during the field visits that the
monthly food allocation had become a major component of the beneficiary
households total food supply. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that households
on the JI food voucher system actually have better access to food (in terms of both
quantity and variety) than many other low income households.

13
Education: As the economic situation has deteriorated and inflation worsened, many
more parents and guardians are failing to pay school fees, and children are being
withdrawn from school. OVCs are particularly vulnerable in this regard. Learning
materials such as textbooks, exercise books, pens and other items are either
unavailable or expensive for most households. At the same time, conditions for
learning, especially in the public school sector, have deteriorated with schools facing
acute shortages of qualified teachers (many having abandoned teaching to either
emigrate to neighbouring countries or go into other sectors of the economy where
remuneration is somewhat better), shortages of school furniture and dilapidated school
buildings.

HIV/AIDS: Although recent data show an improvement in the national HIV infection
rates, those already infected and affected by the pandemic remain highly vulnerable
because of the worsening economic and social conditions prevailing in the country.
Drugs for the treatment of opportunistic infections, ARVs and other hygienic
essentials are either unavailable or too expensive for a majority of people that are
chronically sick. Health services in general have collapsed - hospitals and clinics are
understaffed, lack qualified personnel, and are poorly equipped with poor and erratic
supplies of essential drugs. Many poor people can no longer afford hospital fees, let
alone the cost of consulting private medical practitioners. Overall, the burden of
HIV/AIDS is increasingly borne by individual households with little support from the
state sector.

Shelter: Shelter remains a long-term need for low and middle income households.
The deterioration in shelter provision may not be as obvious as the other conditions
described above. However, increased costs of construction, non-availability of
building materials (e.g. cement), and the high cost of acquiring land for construction
are making it even more difficult for the poor to access adequate and affordable
housing. Furthermore, rental accommodation has become very expensive. Even in low
income suburbs, some landlords are charging rent in foreign currency or in kind (i.e.
in the form of grocery items that may be quite expensive or difficult to obtain).

Other evidence of urban environmental collapse: Other manifestations of the

deteriorating urban social and economic environment include increasingly poor water
supply and sanitation with the consequent risks to public health, prolonged disruptions
to electrical power supplies and a disintegrating road network. The state does not
provide any meaningful safety net for the poor and vulnerable while traditional
extended family support mechanisms are stretched to the limit.

3.3 Impacts and Broader Outcomes of the Programme

3.3.1 Programme Impacts on Beneficiaries

The interventions implemented by the JI programme have had a number of traceable

impacts on beneficiaries across all implementation sites. Table 4 (together with Table
2) below summarises some of those impacts.

14
Table 4: Impacts of the programme on beneficiaries and their households

Intervention Some Impacts

Food vouchers For some beneficiaries the JI food basket is now main source of food
LIG improved variety of food, better diets. Income from sale of
vegetables used to meet household needs, e.g. school fees
Improved health for beneficiaries living with HIV can now take ARVs
for instance
Livelihoods Saved recipients from hunger
Improved diet
Income generation. Better business for vendors
Skills developed
Meeting household economic needs , medical expenses and school fees
HIV/AIDS Improved health care for beneficiaries
Combined with food and provision of ARVs, has resulted in reduction in
deaths from AIDS.
Community home based care facilitators and primary care givers more
motivated to do their work due to provision of supplies to do the work
Support for clinics and DAAC, HIV support structures
Networking with other players
Education Children going to school who would otherwise not
Improved facilities at schools other children also benefit
After school activities improves childrens self-esteem
SDCs strengthened
Teacher skills for counselling ad mentoring improved through training
Shelter Accommodation, status, tenure secured, wills, skills developed-
construction and interpersonal, community spirit - good neighbourliness
Child Protection More awareness of child rights issues schooling, abuse - by NGOs and
communities
Support for Child Protection Committees

3.3.2 Broader Impacts and Outcomes

In addition to the proximate impacts relating to the beneficiaries, the JI programme

has also had some boarder impacts and outcomes.

The JI partners reported that they have strengthened their capacity to deliver urban
programmes. They have acquired new skills, adopted new approaches and developed
more suitable tools and systems. They have developed a better understanding of
operating in the urban areas, and have established new relationships and networks that
will continue to be useful in the future.

In addition to immediate benefits from the interventions, beneficiaries indicated that

they had derived long lasting, broader benefits from the programme. Income
generating activities have provided beneficiaries with improved incomes to meet their
immediate needs such as food, health, rent and school fees and provided them with
sustainable means of livelihoods. A number of community structures (e.g. housing
cooperatives, vendor associations, LIG cells, etc.) were created or supported as part of
programme implementation and because they are led by the beneficiaries, they will
continue to operate and provide psycho-social support among members even after the
programme has wound up.

15
The JI has strengthened local institutions that were collapsing or non-functional for
lack of resources. For instance, the Community Home Based Care (CHBC)
component has boosted clinics through which they issue HBC kits by providing
refresher training and enabling staff to make more home visits and provide basic
medicines and materials for patient care. Some of that care is provided to non-JI
patients. In addition, CHBC facilitators supported by the programme reported during
interviews that they believe their roles were now more effective and fulfilling than
before they assist their clients with access to food and basic medicines and take
more pride in their work. Also, the HBC programme, jointly with other interventions
such as food vouchers and livelihoods, has resulted in more disclosures of HIV status
and a reduction in social stigma. As a result, more people have sought assistance,
thereby enhancing their quality of life and reducing deaths through AIDS.

The approach adopted by the JI has assisted in community re-awakening. The

community approaches to shelter construction, gardening, HIV/AIDS and school
development have strengthened community bonds and neighbourhood collaboration.
The training provided to beneficiaries in technical, community participation and
leadership skills has contributed to a more aware and informed citizenry.

Overall, awareness of community social responsibility has also been enhanced.

Beneficiaries report that they have assisted each other to meet life challenges (meeting
health needs, raising money to pay fees, in times of bereavement, etc.). In Bulawayo,
beneficiaries from income generating activities (IGAs) have entered into agreements
with the JI implementing partner to support OVCs with school fees. At present, fees
for 54 OVCs are being paid by members of the IGA groups, and a further 140
vulnerable children have been identified for support from the second term of this year.
This initiative not only assists OVCs, but is also a communitys investment into the
future. In addition, it gives the sponsors of these children an immense sense of pride,
and converts them from beneficiaries into benefactors.

3.4 The Relationship between the JI and Other Programmes

The main question from the terms of reference was the extent to which the JI
overlaps, complements, duplicates, or works against other programmes. Although new
to the participating partners, the urban environment is the domain of many other
initiatives aimed at improving the lives of the urban poor. The HIV/AIDS field is the
domain of many local and international NGOs, CBOs, support groups of people living
with AIDS and networks such as ZAN and ZNPP+ and institutions created by the
state to combat the epidemic, such as the National AIDS Council (NAC). The shelter
component overlaps with activities of housing cooperatives, shelter advocacy groups,
INGOs such as the IOM, as well as government and municipal initiatives. The food
security and livelihoods components interface with urban feeding and livelihood
programmes by, for instance, the WFP and PRP, funded by donors who also fund the
JI and executed in some cases by JI partners and their local implementing partners.
Similarly, there are many NGOs and CBOs active in the education and childrens
rights initiatives in urban areas. To the extent that many of these programmes target
the same beneficiary population and seek to achieve the same purposes, effectiveness
requires that they should collaborate to create synergies.

16
A key pillar of the JI approach is that it seeks to support and work through existing
structures and institutions, instead of creating parallel ones. Hence, for instance, the
programme has worked through exiting School Development Committees, municipal
clinics and CHBC facilities set up under the NAC programmes. It works mostly
through local NGOs as implementing partners, and some of these also work with
CBOs and community groups.

JI structures such as the ACC involve key local stakeholders in programme

implementation. Members of ACCs include not only relevant government and
municipal officials, but also staff from NGOs operating in the sectors in which the JI
is active. In the west of the country, the JIG participates in the Matabeleland NGO
Forum, which acts as a coordinating vehicle with OCHA.

The JIG also makes significant use of the expertise of other organisations, especially
in training for beneficiaries and facilitators. For instance, the CHBC component uses
expertise of the NAC and PSI for training instead of developing its own courses. The
child rights component has close links with Childline and the shelter component
works with various cooperatives and legal services organisations to support
beneficiaries in their dealings with municipalities.

So, both in design and execution, the JI programme is largely a synergistic

programme. However, the collaboration has tended to be at the operational level.
More could be done at the strategic and policy level to leverage the programmes
contribution to the debates and practices in the intervention sectors. More engagement
with, say ZNPP+, ZAN and other national players in HIV/AIDS sector would be most
beneficial, and the programme could also cooperate more with IOM and the UN on
shelter to influence government policy and build national consensus on housing
standards.

It is possible that the degree of engagement at the strategic level was impacted on by
the duration of the programme not having enough time to establish linkages and to
invest that level of effort. Phase II should have greater focus at the strategic interface
and dialogue with other programmes, in order to create greater harmonisation and to
influence and shape the debate.

3.5 The Consortium Approach

The mid-term review conducted in May 2007 listed a number of advantages the JI
partners, both local and international, had enjoyed from working as a consortium. All
the partners that were interviewed during this evaluation reported that they would
want to continue working within the consortium in the future. Briefly, the advantages
of working as a consortium include:

(a) sharing experiences and information between the consortium members and
drawing on the synergies and complementarities existing between them;
(b) exposure to new perspectives that they were now incorporating into their own
programming, most notably child protection issues;
(c) simplification of the requirements for reporting to the donors as, under the
consortium, this was being done through the Programme Management Unit at
Mercy Corps;

17
(d) establishment of an Area Coordination Committee for each location which had
encouraged members to work together and provides a vehicle for
incorporating other stakeholders such as local authorities and security agencies
into the consultative process, thereby creating an improved enabling
environment within which the partners are able to operate despite the
restrictive political conditions;
(e) the adoption of a harmonised systems, including the mobilisation, registration
and verification of beneficiaries, a common database and M&E system which
ensures against duplication of effort and double dipping by beneficiaries;
(f) the database of beneficiaries is also shared with other NGOs outside the JI
consortium in order to harmonise service delivery and avoid double dipping.

The advantages of working as a consortium were clearly illustrated during this

evaluation when Oxfam was denied permission by the police to take the consultants
into Mbare to interview beneficiaries. Practical Action was able to use its construction
activities in the area to provide cover for the interviews with the beneficiaries to take
place. Thus, members have been able to leverage each others strengths and networks
for the good of the entire group.

Another advantage of the consortium has been the flexibility of programming. For
instance, when it became apparent that providing school fees for OVCs addressed
only part of their problems, the consortium was able to extend support by providing
uniforms, and learning materials (exercise books and stationery). In Bulawayo, the
partners have added a water and sanitation element in response to the health threats
posed by drought and water shortage.

Overall, the consortium approach has brought significant value-addition in several

areas, notably

(i) programming - giving holistic support to beneficiaries and providing

flexibility of response and beneficiary updating and registration;
(ii) streamlined administrative and reporting arrangements; and
(iii) harmonisation of donor funding, a development that is in line with the Paris
Declaration.

By the end of the programme, there were only a few burning problems raised by the
partners with regards to the consortium approach, including the following:

(a) One or two of the partners had experienced problems with certain aspects of
their budgets. For instance, HPZ reported that, when it prepared its budget at
the beginning of the programme, it had overlooked providing for such items as
project vehicles and computers. Consequently, it had ended up using resources
from other programmes to support JI activities. Similar problems had been
raised by other local partners during the mid-term review (e.g. DOMCCP in
Mutare). Likewise, Save the Children reported that it had underestimated the
budget and personnel requirements for capacity building on child protection
issues. At the start of the programme, it only had one person to conduct the JI
training, but had subsequently increased the number to four.

18
(b) Another problem that was still evident concerned the manner in which the
ACCs were operating in some of the locations. In many instances, although
ACC meetings were held regularly, members were not fully exploiting the
opportunities for sharing ideas and experiences and programming their
activities. In practice, each partner would present a narrative report of its
activities for the past month and planned activities for the coming month.
There was little or no effort to discuss and investigate how some of these
planned activities could be more fully integrated between the partners or actual
sharing of lessons from previous activities. Inconsistency in terms of
representation at the ACC meetings (e.g. where an organisation is represented
by a different person from the one that had attended previous meetings) would
also compromise the degree of information sharing and decision-making.

In some of the locations, the Core ACC meetings involving the partners were
not held as planned, i.e. once a month. However, the Extended ACC involving
other stakeholders were usually held as scheduled, i.e. quarterly. (The Core
ACC comprises the local and international partners operating in each location;
the Extended ACC includes other stakeholders such as the security agencies,
municipal officials and other stakeholders. In Masvingo, the only
implementing agency is CARE, as a result of which the concept of a Core
ACC becomes an internal meeting of staff on the JI programme).

Some questions also remain, especially among the donors, about the modus operandi
of the consortium and whether it had indeed fully exploited all the advantages and
synergies of working together. For instance, it was noted that:

There could have been greater sharing of resources and information in the
implementation of the interventions. An example of this failure was
demonstrated by the case of EFZ which reported during the interviews that it
had experienced problems during the construction of a staff-room in St Marys
as part of one schools block grant. With hindsight, these problems could have
been resolved in consultation with Practical Action which was also engaged in
construction in the same location.
In practice, the JI partners had operated more or less as separate entities
implementing their assigned interventions within their designated locations,
despite being members of a consortium. An alternative approach could have
been for them to identify and agree on a best practice for each intervention,
and for the respective partners to adopt that model in their respective locations.
For instance, if the model for LIGs being implemented by CARE in Gweru
and Masvingo was agreed as the best practice, then all the other partners
doing LIGs would adopt that model in their respective locations. To their
credit, it was observed that Oxfam and ZPT in Mbare have recently moved in
that direction by learning from, and adopting CAREs CHBC model whereby
they are using municipal clinics for distribution of HIV/AIDS home based care
kits and patient monitoring.

3.6 Programme Management

At the time of the mid-term review in June 2007, the programme management
structures (the donor group, the JI Steering Committee, Area Coordination

19
Committees, Programme Management Unit, and the partners own operational and
management teams) were all in place and most systems (targeting, selection,
reporting, M&E etc.) were operational. As structures and systems have been stable,
these will not be described again in detail in this report. Instead, the focus will be on
how they have matured and functioned in the intervening period to the end of the
programme.

There were changes in the donor group, as DFID has taken over the lead role from
USAID. Group members are satisfied with the rate of meetings among the group and
with the JI partners. The group would like to see more donors come on board. As
preparation for Phase II of the programme comes towards finalisation, two of the
original donors have indicated that they will not participate, and the JIG is seeking
new donors.

The Steering Committee has been meeting less frequently than before the mid-term
review, but whenever it is deemed that meetings are necessary, there have been no
difficulties in convening them.

At a crucial time in the life of the programme, with the need to intensify
implementation and during preparation for Phase II, there was disruption of the
Programme Management Unit, when it was not possible to renew the Programme
Managers work permit. This affected continuity in programme management, but the
consortium continued to function. A new Programme Manager has since been
appointed. The M&E Unit is now fully staffed and members of the team have been
attending ACC meetings regularly. The beneficiary data base is mostly complete, but
it is not fully up-to-date.

Since the mid-term review, the functioning of the ACCs has to a large extent been
standardised. Most sites hold monthly Core ACC meetings and Extended ACC
meetings every quarter. However, while there is general satisfaction with the
regularity of the meetings, there was a feeling that the meetings could be made more
fruitful: i.e. should be effective platforms for joint planning, debate, sharing of
experiences, lesson learning and joint solutions. There are plans by the Programme
Management Unit to make ACCs more effective during the second phase of the
programme.

There was general satisfaction with reporting and communication within the JI.
Reports have been submitted regularly by the partners, and the Programme
Management Unit follows up on outstanding issues and provides guidance. However,
local implementing partners were concerned that when they submitted reports to the
PMU, they would get feedback on reporting shortfalls, but did not always receive the
consolidated progress reports that would give them a global picture of what was
happening in other sites and interventions. Communication could be improved by
making sure that all partners got regular feedback on the consolidated JI situation.
This information should also be shared with members of the extended ACCs.
Hopefully, the proposal to appoint an Information Officer in Phase II will contribute
to greater information sharing.

20
3.7 Major Challenges of the Programme

An undertaking such as the JI, with its multiple interventions, launched

simultaneously in several urban areas, involving several layers of partners and the
cooperation of various stakeholders with differing interests could not be without
challenges. One of the earliest challenges faced by the programme was starting up.
Partners had to get to know each other, agree on a degree of harmonisation of
approaches and methodologies, and finalise contractual arrangements. The sum total
was that the programme took time to get off the ground, and this caused some
concerns to donors, who had expected a sharp short emergency programme.
The JI partners found working in an urban environment challenging since most of
them were more experienced in operating in rural areas. The urban environment is
more demanding, and the partners have had to navigate a lot more regulations.

The programme also needed to balance the identified needs of the potential
beneficiaries and requirements of the main donors sources of funds emergency
humanitarian assistance. Some of the interventions, especially shelter, were felt by
donors to be inconsistent with their funding. It is in part due to this tension that the
shelter component has been omitted in Phase II despite its acknowledged contribution
in reducing vulnerability for beneficiaries. To a large extent, the programme
succeeded in this balance, although more dialogue with the donors could have gone
some way to lessen tensions among the donors with regards to the JI partners broader
definition of what constitutes humanitarian assistance.

3.8 Where are the Gaps?

The design of the JI programme sought to provide a circle of support to beneficiaries

holistic support depending on need by harnessing the combined strength of the
partnership. As the assessment of the impact of the programme shows, to a large
extent this circle of support was provided. Where the programme worked well, the
poorest and most vulnerable beneficiaries received food, were supported in setting up
LIGs, and were encouraged to participate in some income generating activity, mainly
ISAL and/or vending. Those who were chronically ill received HBC support.
Additionally, they also received shelter and/or education support where available.

Field visits confirmed that the provision of holistic support depending on need tended
to have the most significant positive impact on beneficiaries. However, in Phase I, the
JI was not able to make this holistic support available is all the sites. This shortfall is
addressed in the proposals for Phase II. More could also be done to improve
programme effectiveness.

Programme effectiveness could have been improved through greater harmonisation

developing common frameworks for interventions and adopting implementation
approaches based on best practice. Programmes tend to have the same names, but look
different on the ground because partners have different approaches. However, it is
recognised that, during the first phase of the programme, some measure of flexibility
and creativity were necessary as a way of identifying best practices for subsequent
adoption in Phase 2.

21
The livelihoods component has the potential to have the most lasting impact on
beneficiaries. It enables beneficiaries to be less dependent on support, and could be
sustainable. The intervention could be made more robust by expanding the range of
income generation activities on offer, and being positioned more strongly as a means
of graduating some of the beneficiaries from dependence. Our observations suggested
that the intervention in Bulawayo is much stronger than in other sites, even though it
could also be strengthened.

Engagement with other programmes at the operating level was good. However, this
could be strengthened at the higher levels to ensure that the JI participates in shaping
the agenda and policy at that level.

Discussions with various stakeholders (donors, NGOs and government officials)

suggested that the issue of public health, especially availability of clean water and
associated sanitation issues, was now a higher priority than when the JI programme
was initiated. A number of JI partners are already addressing this priority through
other programmes, and in Bulawayo the JI is incorporating health and hygiene
activities.

The JI partners report that they have developed a comprehensive contingency plan,
taking into account likely disaster scenarios. However, this plan does not seem to be
active, as no simulations have been attempted, partly because there has been
uncertainty over Phase II.

3.9 Political Context and Risk

The observation made in the mid-term review report in May 2007 regarding the
political environment in Zimbabwe and how the JI partners had successfully created
space for themselves to operate remains true today:

All the partners acknowledged that they had learnt very important lessons on
how to create operating spaces for themselves in the face of the unwelcoming
political environment that currently exists in urban Zimbabwe. Despite
obstacles placed in their way, each ACC was eventually able to resolve its
problems, and was able to negotiate a reasonable operating space to enable it
to implement its projects. It is to their credit that the partners were determined
to invest so much in terms of effort and time to negotiate the operating space
they currently enjoy, developing relations and networks with key
stakeholders (from the JI mid-term review, 2007, p. 17).

The partners have continued to invest a lot of time in creating good relationships with
local stakeholders. In some locations (e.g. Bulawayo, Gweru and Mutare), the
partners have continued to experience good cooperation from all stakeholders. Where
residents associations exist, they have been included as members of the extended
ACCs. Schools Development Committees have been involved in the identification and
verification of children in need of educational support. The police, CIO and local
municipal officials have been kept updated through the quarterly ACC meetings. In
Masvingo and other locations, JI partners attend meetings of the DAAC, convened by
the National AIDS Council and the local municipalities. As a strategy for ensuring
good working relationships, local officials have been invited to officiate at ceremonies

22
to hand-over items (e.g. home based care kits) to beneficiaries. At these hand-over
events, the JI partners have, to their credit and through careful diplomacy, ensured
that the ceremonies are not turned into a political platform for one party or the other.

Nonetheless, incidences of political interference continued to occur in other locations,

notably in Mbare and St Marys within Greater Harare. Despite the political
interference, the partners are to be commended for adhering to their original criteria
for selection and lists of beneficiaries in all cases of attempted political interference.
As an example, at the end of February 2008, Africare had problems when it was
allocating market stalls to beneficiaries at two of the recently constructed vending
sheds in St Marys, Chitungwiza. The District Administrator opposed the allocation of
the stalls to people on Africares beneficiary list, alleging that 95% of them were
supporters of the opposition political party whom he wanted vetted first by officials of
the ruling party. This was despite the fact that all the beneficiaries were on the list
attached to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Africare and the
Municipality of Chitungwiza. The District Administrator promptly cancelled a hand-
over ceremony that had been scheduled for two days later and which would have been
officiated by the Provincial Governor and Resident Minister for the Harare
Metropolitan Region. At the time of this evaluation, the impasse had still not been
resolved and the two vending sheds remained unoccupied. Africare was planning to
lodge an appeal with the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National
Housing who had intervened on its behalf in a previous incident. In the meantime,
Africare staff were keeping a low profile while supervising the erection of a security
fence around the three vending sheds. Members of the vendors committee at the shed
where allocation had been completed reported during interviews that they feared
being evicted by local leaders from the ruling party.

Earlier, Practical Action was forced by the District Administrator to withdraw from St
Marys, Chitungwiza for a while after being accused of siding with the opposition
political party. Apparently, the opposition member of the Legislative Assembly for St.
Marys had told a public meeting that he had been responsible for bringing the project
to construct houses to the constituency. According to the District Administrator,
Practical Action should have taken immediate action to dissociate itself from the
claim. By remaining silent, it was being accused of complicity with the opposition.
Publication of a public retraction and apology in the press were still not sufficient for
the local officials and the ban was lifted only after a direct appeal to the Ministry of
Local Government, Public Works and National Housing.

In Masvingo, CARE had to suspend the construction of market stalls and the drilling
of boreholes for community gardens because of delays in decision-making by the
local authority. Apparently, the local authority wanted more upmarket stalls than what
CARE was proposing, arguing that they were looking ahead to being a host city for
visitors to, and warm-up matches before, the 2010 World Cup Soccer tournament in
South Africa.

3.10 Assessment of the Programmes Cost Effectiveness

The assessment of the programmes cost effectiveness seeks to answer two questions
posed in the Terms of Reference: Was the programme design one that created cost

23
efficiency and effectiveness? Was the joint mechanism appropriate/beneficial for the
sectors?

3.10.1 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness

The review did not attempt to make a detailed financial analysis of the JI or compare
mechanisms. Instead, broad indications were obtained from the donors and JI
partners. Overall, the design of the JI is cost effective - this was one of the selling
points of the initiative. It provides for one contracting partner, harmonised financial
and procurement rules and unified reporting. This streamlines costs for both donors as
well as the NGOs and their partners.

Joint delivery of holistic support is also cost effective, in that the NGOs deploy
existing skills and can specialise instead of trying to deliver services in areas outside
their competence. This reduces inefficiency and boosts impact.
The joint nature of the programme means that all the partners donors and NGOs
can legitimately claim credit for all the outputs and impacts. So, for every dollar and
level of effort contributed, each partner can claim the outputs and impacts of the
whole programme.

The JI programme sees itself as an alternative to financing through the UN system.

On a purely cost basis, there does not seem to be a vast difference in the cost of
overheads. The JI administration cost is 7% and indications are that UN
administration costs are not too dissimilar 8% was indicated by some of our
informants. The UN system is effective in mobilising quickly and on a large scale. It
is also strong in working with government structures and influencing policy, and the
various UN organisations are acknowledged as leaders in their areas of operation.
The JI on the other hand offers greater technical capacity to deliver programmes on
the ground, grater accountability for how funds are used, closer monitoring and
evaluation, and keener interest in impact on beneficiaries.

In many instances, JI partners did not budget all their administration cost, and instead
directed more of the funds received towards programme activities. This has had the
effect of subsidising the JI activities, giving the programme greater cost efficiency.
Furthermore, many partners are continuing with JI activities such as income
generation activities, CBHBC and low input gardens even when funding for the first
phase has ended.

However a few issues impacted on the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.
The JI was a new initiative so there was a lot of learning in Phase I, and new systems
and processes had to be developed. This investment will, however, be utilised in
Phase II, to the benefit of both donors and implementing partners. If the scale of the JI
is reduced significantly, its cost effectiveness could be reduced, since the overheads
my not be reduced proportionately. As a joint programme involving many donors and
implementing partners, the JI involves a significant amount of consultation to reach
consensus. Sometimes decision-making has been slow as a result. For instance, even
though there is consensus that Phase II is desirable, a decision to commence has not
yet been made, with the result that there will be discontinuity between the phases in
some cases. Finally, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, the possible synergies in
the partnership have not always been leveraged to the fullest.

24
3.10.2 Was the Joint Mechanism Appropriate/Beneficial to the Sectors?

This question is largely answered in the rest of the report. The broad answer is yes.
The implementing partners indicated that they learned a lot from working within the
JI and have improved their practices. Joint action strengthened the partners lobbying
with both donors and government agencies. The mix of INGO skills and local IP
networks and areas of specialisation made the partnership more effective than if the
organisations acted individually. The partnership also made testing of new ideas in
practice more effective.

A question that has not yet been answered conclusively is to what extent the JI can be
a vehicle for scaling up implementation in urban areas. How far can it expand
geographically, and in numbers of partners both donors and NGOs - before it
reaches the point of diminishing returns?

3.11 Lesson Learning from the Programme

The JI programme is unique in many respects and, because of this, both the partners
and the donors have been on a steep learning curve for much of the time. The mid-
term review made a number of recommendations that were intended to improve the
management of the programme and implementation of its activities. Many of these
recommendations were accepted and have been implemented by the partners and the
Programme Management Unit (PMU). Many lessons have been learnt during the past
two years and, and these have been carried forward into the second phase of the
programme (e.g. improving the effectiveness of ACCs and sector coordination
meetings, increased networking with other complimentary sectors, etc).

The JI programme was designed to maximise lesson learning by all the partners,
incorporating joint planning, joint activity implementation, a lead agency to
coordinate other implementing agencies, urban construction involving numerous
complex issues of legal entitlement, planning permission and standards, as well as the
use of networks. There is substantial evidence that the partners have learnt many
valuable lessons through working together as a consortium, both from each other and
from interacting with new stakeholders and beneficiaries in an urban context.

Lesson learning during the life of the programme has occurred in several respects,
including the following:

international NGOs working with local NGOs and vice versa;

joint reporting framework, both on finances and activities/outputs;
use of common systems, e.g. joint M&E framework;
close working relationships and information sharing within sectors;
joint planning and information sharing through the ACC in each location;
lobbying and managing political risk that is higher in urban than in rural areas;
joint resolution of problems confronting the programme;
jointly interacting and developing networks with stakeholders and local
authorities;
flexibility and responsiveness to new requests for support and adoption of
additional interventions;
improved targeting (identification and verification) of beneficiaries;

25
 use of a common package of core interventions (food, livelihoods,
HIV/AIDS);
use of a system of multiple support which has greater impact in reducing
vulnerability;
use of a common beneficiary database to avoid double dipping and regular
updating of the database;
promotion of self-selecting groups of beneficiaries (e.g. for ISALs), rather
than groups imposed by NGOs;
use of experts drawn from other organisations outside the JI group (e.g. health
experts for the HIV/AIDS support intervention); and
capacity building for the beneficiaries.

However, there are also areas where lesson learning could have been greater and, in
so doing, enhance the competencies of the partners. It is noted that the JIG has also
recognised some of these areas and taken steps to improve on them during Phase II of
the programme. These include:

sharing of experiences within the ACCs by using the meetings less for
reporting and more for discussing problems and suggestions for resolving
them;
improving feedback mechanisms between the PMU and the partners, for
instance, by sharing the programmes reports between both management and
operational/field staff as well as documenting and sharing problems and
experiences;
organising fora (e.g. workshops and retreats) for discussion of issues among
staff from all the partners (management and operational staff);
conducting research to document specific issues/themes for future reference
and for sharing with the wider community both in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.
(It is noted that Oxfam has made some progress in this regard to document
some of its work and experiences; Save the Children (UK has recently
commissioned an external evaluation of its child protection component of the
JI programme);
identifying best practices in order to standardise the package of
interventions across different sites, thereby enhancing the quality of service
delivery to beneficiaries by giving support that offers the greatest prospects for
sustainability (e.g. income generating activities that can support other
initiatives).

26
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

There is no doubt that the JI programme has been an innovative approach in providing
support to urban poor and vulnerable households. Overall, the programme
successfully met its targets and objectives. The partners, both local and international,
should be commended for what they have achieved, especially given the continually
deteriorating socio-economic conditions and worsening poverty and a hostile political
environment. In brief, the following conclusions can be drawn from the programme:

The JI has proved that urban programming can be executed successfully;

Impact on beneficiaries has been substantial;
Implementation of the programme has been effective in terms of management,
quality of programming, cost effectiveness, and so forth;
The programme has achieved most of its targets and objectives;
The programme achieved good long-term relations among partners, with
donors and key stakeholders and full advantage should be taken of these
networks in the future;
The programme provided a forum for the donors to cooperate more, in line
with international trends.

4.2 Recommendations

4.2.1 Improvements in Programme Management

Standardise and improve the functioning of the ACCs across the different
locations;
The lead agency to ensure that feedback in the from of progress reports are
disseminated down to both international as well as their local partners as part
of the process of information sharing and engendering a feeling of genuine
partnership;
JIG to ensure that its contingency plan is functional.

4.2.2 Improvements in Programming Methodologies for Future Implementation

Agree on best practices and adopt these frameworks for interventions and
approaches;
Ensure that beneficiary verification attains 100% in all interventions as much
as possible and provide a forum for community contribution, but without
compromising the JIs criteria;
Work towards greater collaboration with those outside the consortium who are
working in the same sectors;
Consortium allocates more resources towards research and documentation of
its experiences, successes and failures (e.g. in advocacy and lobbying local
authorities, best practices);
Improve lesson learning, ensure that sector meetings are held more regularly
and provide a forum for sharing;
Consider modalities for community M&E;

27
 Provide more opportunities for consultation with children on child protection
issues and child rights and respond to their needs;
Liaise with DAACs and other stakeholders for a review of the contents of the
standard HBC kit so that it takes account of emerging health status of
HIV/AIDS patients so that it reflects the needs of the beneficiaries (i.e. less
emphasis of wounds and more hygiene items);
JI to continue efforts to improve the programmes cost effectiveness.

4.2.3 Recommendation to the Donor Group

Overall, the consultants strongly urge the donors to continue with funding support to
the initiative for the reasons presented in this evaluation report.

28
 Appendix 1: Terms of Reference

Final Evaluation of The NGO Joint Initiative for Urban Zimbabwe

Community Based Support for Vulnerable Populations

This evaluation is meant to consider both the rationale for the type of approach used
in the Joint Initiative and also to consider measurements of success this program
achieved in reaching its goals. Both of these aspects of evaluation analysis should be
fully considered in final reporting.

Evaluation Objectives

4. Evaluate the achievements of outcomes/results of the NGO Joint Initiative

programme against milestones and outputs outlined in the original JI targets,
baseline conditions, implementation plans and log-frame.

5. Review wider programmatic issues relating to the approach to management

and implementation and how this impacted effectiveness, appropriateness of
interventions and targeting.

6. Provide lessons learned and recommendations for improvements in both

management and programming methodologies for future implementation.

Scope

The evaluation should address the following questions

Results: Did the program attain its goals and objectives?

Were objectives reached as a result of the activities in the program?

What impacts and broader outcomes, both intended and unintended,
can be seen as a result of the program activities?
In what ways does the program overlap, complement, duplicate or
work against other programs?
In what ways was the multi-NGO/multi-Sector approach able to
increase impacts?
What were the most significant challenges to obtaining objectives?
Assess benefit/value added of joint NGO approach
Political Assess to what extend the risks from the present political
context to urban programming, bearing in mind the fact that urban
areas are political hot beds, have been taken into account and
strategically responded to. Assess the extent to which political
interference has affected programme targeting and implementation.

Cost effectiveness:

Was the program design one that created cost efficiency and
effectiveness?
Was the joint mechanism appropriate/beneficial for these sectors?

29
 Develop recommendations for improvements in approach to increase
cost effectiveness.

Relevance: was the program relevant? Necessary? Did it meet the needs of the
most vulnerable?

Were the activities clearly linked to the overall objectives of the

program?
Are the program objectives/mandate still relevant?
Where are the gaps? Are the project interventions providing holistic
support and to what extent are they strengthening community coping
mechanisms?
Were the appropriate beneficiaries targeted? Was this targeting
updated through-out the program sufficiently?
What have been the key gaps, who did we miss and what can we do to
improve targeting in urban environments
Assess programs ability to link up with wider debate/programming

Methodology

The methodology should include but not be limited to the following;

Desk Review of appropriate documents (see attached list)

Key Informant Interviews all JI partners including Mercy Corps JI
management team, Donor Group representatives and relevant stakeholders
(Department/ Ministry of Social Welfare, District Administrators office,
DAAC, Education Officers and relevant departments from local authorities
etc.)
Site visits interview of beneficiaries, local partners and local stakeholders
Case Study reviews
Expert Opinion interview of non-participating authorities/donors/experts?

Reporting

The consultant will produce a report of the evaluation which should be presented to
the donor group and JI partners. The report should clearly show:

Achievements against objectives

Cost effectiveness of joint approach
Relevance of implemented activities
Lessons learned and recommendations for future programming

Formatting of the report will be agreed upon before the final report is submitted. A
format outline will be submitted to the JI 7 days prior to the final report deadline. The
consultants will also give a short debriefing presentation to the donor group and JI
partners at the end of the in-country visit. The presentation should highlight the key
issues from the visit and provide recommendations on the appropriateness of a second
phase.

30
Timeframe

The consultancy will take place 10 March through 21 March, 2008.

Management

The consultants main contact person is Erica Krug/Tricia Matthews with Mercy
Corps.

Team Composition

Given the broad scope and different interventions within the JI, it is important to
engage a multi-disciplinary team of experts (2 people) who can adequately address the
issues raised above.

Consultant should have the following expertise:

Social Development
Institutional/governance
Livelihoods (with strong urban experience)

31
Appendix 2: Officials Consulted During the Course of the Evaluation

[Appendix Removed]

32
 Appendix 3: Consultants Schedule of Work March 2008

Day Date 0800-1000 1000-1230 1400-1500 1530-1700

1 Thursday Meetings with JI NGO Partners: (i) Africare; (ii) Mercy Corps; (iii) Catholic Relief Services; (iv) CARE; (v) Save the Children (UK); (vi) Practical Action;
06/03/08 (vii) Oxfam GB
2 Friday Interview JI Donor Group Consultant 1: Interviewing beneficiaries in St. Marys, Chitungwiza (livelihoods, shelter, education, child protection)
07/03/08 Representative (DFID) Consultant 2: Interviewing beneficiaries in Mbare, (shelter, livelihoods, food, child protection)
Sunday 09/03/08: Consultants travel to Bulawayo and Masvingo
3 Monday Consultant 1: Masvingo - Interviewing implementing NGOs field staff and beneficiaries in Mucheke and Rujeko (livelihoods, food, HIV/AIDS, child
10/03/08 protection)
Consultant 2: Bulawayo - Interviewing implementing NGO field staff and beneficiaries in Mzilikazi, Makokoba and Njube (livelihoods, food, child
protection)
4 Tuesday Consultant 1 Interviewing Masvingo City Council officials and other
11/03/08 stakeholders Consultants travel back to Harare in the afternoon
Consultant 2 Interview Bulawayo City Council officials and other
stakeholders
5 Wednesday Interviewing local implementing NGO partners in Harare: HPZ and EFZ
12/03/08
6 Thursday 1015-1115 Consultant 1: Interview Seke District 1600-1700
13/03/08 CIDA Administrator USAID
Consultant 2: Interview Harare City Health
Department
7 Friday Interviewing JI programme 1115-1215 1200-1230 Report preparation
14/03/08 management (Mercy Corps) ZPT AusAID

8 Monday Preparation of draft report SIDA Norwegian Embassy

17/03/08 1400-1445 1530-1630
9 Tuesday Report preparation (contd) 1400-1530
18/03/08 Interviewing Mercy Corps Country Director
10 Wednesday Team leader consolidates inputs and finalises draft report
19/03/08

33
 Oxfam GB 2008

First published online by Oxfam GB in 2010.

This document is part of a collection of programme evaluations available from Oxfam GB in

accordance with its evaluation policy.

This document was originally written for internal accountability and learning purposes, rather
than for external publication. The information included was correct to the evaluators best
knowledge at the date the evaluation took place. The views expressed in this report are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect Oxfams views.

The text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education,
and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests
that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any
other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation,
permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. Email [email protected]

For further information on the issues raised in this document email [email protected]

Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC 039042).
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.

www.oxfam.org.uk