Name of document
|
AGO - LUPP Impact Evaluation 08-06
|
Full title
|
Luanda Urban Poverty Programme (LUPP) Impact Evaluation Report FINAL
|
Acronym/PN
|
LUPP
|
Country
|
Angola
|
Date of report
|
August 2006
|
Dates of project
|
2003 - 2006
|
Evaluator(s)
|
Janet Gardener (GHK)
|
External?
|
Yes
|
Language
|
English
|
Donor(s)
|
DfID
|
Scope
|
Program
|
Type of report
|
final evaluation
|
Length of report
|
36 pages
|
Sector(s)
|
Governance, civil society
|
Brief abstract
|
LUPP has been implemented by CARE International, Save the Children U.K., and Development Workshop working in partnership with One World Action in the U.K. It is being implemented in four municipalities of Luanda -- Cazenga, Sambizanga, Kilamba Kiaxi, and Cacuaco.
|
Goal(s)
|
Purpose: Influence equitable, inclusive, pro-poor policies and best practices for poverty reduction in Luanda. The purpose indicators are:
Government policies are pro-poor and urban poverty reduction is prioritized
Impacts of government practices are equitable and inclusive
Increased allocation of resources to priority areas for poor people.
Replication of best practice methods and approaches to address urban poverty by GoA, civil society, administration and other key stakeholders.
Civil Society strengthened and empowered for collective action & to engage with Government around urban poverty issues
Increased use of participatory mechanisms for dialogue and action between state and citizens. (p.8)
|
Objectives
|
Best practice models, methods and approaches demonstrated and validated
Strategic information available to and acted upon by key stakeholders
Strengthened commitment and capacity of local authorities and civil society to promote and implement inclusive and participatory local development
Greater engagement, inclusion and accountability between government and civil society on urban issues (p.8)
|
Evaluation Methodology
|
The impact evaluation was undertaken through detailed documentation review; presentations by the LUPP team and follow-up discussions with each programme partner; field visits and focus group discussions with community actors and representatives; interviews with civil society representatives, and municipal, provincial and national government stakeholders. (p. 9)
|
Results (evidence/ data) presented?
|
Not separately
|
Summary of lessons learned
|
LUPP has had significant success in influencing the range of policy and practice necessary to address urban poverty in Luanda. Through its own project implementation, LUPP has itself benefited many thousands of poor families. It has influenced the replication of good practice, found ways to strengthen civil society and successfully demonstrated use of participatory mechanisms for citizen-state dialogue. To this extent, LUPP has achieved the latter three indicators (see below). However, LUPP cannot yet claim to have influenced government to the extent indicated in the first 3 indicators.
Key challenges remaining for LUPP are to provide rigorous evidence-based analysis to inform strategic and comprehensive approaches to urban poverty. (p. 30)
The purpose indicators are:
Government policies are pro-poor and urban poverty reduction is prioritized
Impacts of government practices are equitable and inclusive
Increased allocation of resources to priority areas for poor people.
Replication of best practice methods and approaches to address urban poverty by GoA, civil society, administration and other key stakeholders.
Civil Society strengthened and empowered for collective action & to engage with Government around urban poverty issues
Increased use of participatory mechanisms for dialogue and action between state and citizens
|
Observations
|
Important contribution to governance SII
|
|
Additional details for meta-evaluation:
|
Contribution to MDG(s)?
|
8:Civil Society (partnership with government)
|
Address main UCP “interim outcomes”?
|
Pro-poor, just governance policies and practices
|
Were goals/objectives achieved?
|
2=somewhat
|
ToR included?
|
Yes, p. 33
|
Reference to CI Program Principles?
|
Not specifically.
|
Reference to CARE / other standards?
|
Not specifically
|
Participatory eval. methods?
|
Somewhat: included focus group interviews
|
Baseline?
|
A Baseline Institutional Assessment (BIA) was conducted of the LUPP environment, to produce an Influencing Strategy and a common monitoring and evaluation plan for the programme. It was used to develop a common monitoring and evaluation framework.
|
Evaluation design
|
“Post project review” = Post-test only (no comparison group)
|
Comment
|
|
Yüklə 0.71 Mb.
Evaluation e-Library (EeL) cover page
