MAIN CHANGES TO LOGFRAME TEMPLATE – PRAG 2015 / PRAG 2016

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Il Project Cycle Management :A Technical Guide The Logical Framework Approach 1 1.
Advertisements

United Nations Statistics Division
© Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved. Review of Partnership Working: Follow Up Review Vale of Glamorgan Council Final Report- November 2009.
Prepared by BSP/PMR Results-Based Programming, Management and Monitoring Presentation to Geneva Group - Paris Hans d’Orville Director, Bureau of Strategic.
MINISTRY OF DEVOLUTION AND PLANNING. M&E DEPARTMENT WELIME Using Technology in Monitorin g and Evaluation (e-ProMIS)
Results-Based Management: Logical Framework Approach
Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar January 2014 Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar.
A Human Rights-Based Approach to Monitoring Session 6 (cont.)
Proposal Writing for Competitive Grant Systems
This project is funded by the EUAnd implemented by a consortium led by MWH Logical Framework and Indicators.
May 12 th Monitoring and Project Control. Objectives Anticipated Outcomes Express why Monitoring and Controlling are Important. Differentiate between.
IPA Funds Programme Management sept Bölgesel Rekabet Edebilirlik Operasyonel Programı’nın Uygulanması için Kurumsal Kapasitenin Oluşturulmasına.
Promising Ideas and Issues to Consider in Reaching Reading and Literacy Goals Logistics of supervision, training, support to teachers Sakil Malik Director.
Evaluation Plan New Jobs “How to Get New Jobs? Innovative Guidance and Counselling 2 nd Meeting Liverpool | 3 – 4 February L Research Institute Roula.
UK Aid Direct Introduction to Logframes (only required at proposal stage)
SUB-MODULE 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESULTS BASED LOGICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS BASED LOG-FRAME TRAINING Quality Assurance and Results Department (ORQR.2 )
Southend Together Board - 21 March Southend Local Area Agreement - update Southend Together Board - 21 March 2007.
Monitoring and Evaluating in the PHEA Educational Technology Initiative Patrick Spaven.
Objectives Targets & Indicators for Adaptation to Climate Change A presentation to the expert meeting on climate change vulnerability and adaptation indicators,
M&E TRAINING MODULES Different tools for different applications.
Information Session CSOs Call for Proposals – Liberia Reference: EuropeAid/151494/DD/ACT/LR.
NFM: Modular Template Measurement Framework: Modules, Interventions and Indicators LFA M&E Training February
Monitoring and Evaluation for UNDP/GEF projects MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF UNDP/GEF PROJECTS Inception Workshop, Baikal Lake Watershed Project,
Marelize Gorgens The World Bank An M&E strategy Monitoring & Evaluation strategy Master & Execute Money and Energy is a waste of M&E that we do not M&E.
Logical Framework Approach to PSIP formulation By Edward Joshua (Chief Economist, EP&D) Presentation 10 : 2015 PSIP Process Review Workshop 1.
Recommendations on project/action design and structure.
Stages of Research and Development
Building an ENI CBC project
Small Charities Challenge Fund (SCCF) Guidance Webinar
M&E Workshop for Full Proposal
Provide instruction.
Implementation Plan I want to plan a project
Impact-Oriented Project Planning
Gender-Sensitive Monitoring and Evaluation
Gender-Sensitive Monitoring and Evaluation
The Hope Foundation Presentation on Pre-Funding Appraisal For Partners and New Applicant Organisations.
Introduction - Final activity reporting
Preparing a Logic Model and Gantt Chart:
Session 1 – Study Objectives
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for NARS Organisations in Papua New Guinea Day 2. Session 6. Developing indicators.
Using Logic Models in Program Planning and Grant Proposals
Measuring Outcomes of GEO and GEOSS: A Proposed Framework for Performance Measurement and Evaluation Ed Washburn, US EPA.
Prepared by BSP/PMR Results-Based Programming, Management and Monitoring Presentation to Geneva Group - Paris Hans d’Orville Director, Bureau of Strategic.
Small Charities Challenge Fund (SCCF) Guidance Webinar
Logical Framework I want to design a project by planning out the logic
GRANTS – WORKPLAN AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) INSTRUCTIONS
FP7 SCIENTIFIC NEGOTIATIONS Astrid Kaemena European Commission
منهج الإطار المنطقي وإطار الرصد والتقييم وإطار النتائج
Results of the Organizational Performance
FP7 SCIENTIFIC NEGOTIATIONS
Information session SCIENTIFIC NEGOTIATIONS Call FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage "Environment (including climate change)" Brussels 22/05/2013 José M. Jiménez.
Information session SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS Call FP7-ENV-2013-WATER-INNO-DEMO "Environment (including climate change)" Brussels 24/06/2013.
Session 9 Recap on LFM and IL.
PROJECT CHANGES Rachel Burn, Joint Secretariat
4.2 Identify intervention outputs
Introduction to M&E Frameworks
Amending the Performance Framework
CATHCA National Conference 2018
Project Management Training
Monitoring and Evaluation
There is a significant amount of diversity across the 38 rural councils in terms of the challenges faced, as well as capacity, resourcing and uptake.
Understanding logic, structure and documentation of the project
Part B: Evaluating Implementation Progress and Impact of Professional Development Efforts on Evidence-Based Practices   NCSI Cross-State Learning Collaboratives.
What is your impact pathway?
Civil Society Facility and Media Programme Call for proposals: EuropeAid/162473/DH/ACT/Multi Webinar no. 3: Preparing effective Concept Note.
Integrating Gender into Rural Development M&E in Projects and Programs
Monitoring and Evaluation
How is an M & E framework derived from the logframe?
Gender Training Workshop Name of Institution Place Date
Who can apply? Applicants should be:
Presentation transcript:

MAIN CHANGES TO LOGFRAME TEMPLATE – PRAG 2015 / PRAG 2016 Based on: CONCORD Guidance Notes on Application forms London, November 16th, 2016

Introduction/background In the PRAG 2015, an amended version of the logical framework was introduced for quality assurance (need for quality and simplification) DEVCO was probably inspired by DFID and introduced results chain terminology. Aim is to foster its use as flexible tool for monitoring performance - not only during the proposal design preparation, but also during the implementation and the evaluation of the action. APPLICANTS ARE NOW EXPECTED TO SEND THE UPDATED LOGICAL FRAMEWORK WITH THEIR REPORTS TO THE DONOR

main changes Objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) have been separated into their component elements (Indicators, Baseline, Current value, Targets) Expected results are replaced by intermediary outcomes. The LF now includes outputs as “the direct/tangible outputs (infrastructure, goods and services) delivered by the project” Then overall objective is IMPACT, specific objective/s become OUTCOME/S, activities remain activities PROBLEM: In some calls (which still use the PRAG 2015 templates), inconsistent terminology between concept note (still referring to expected results) and LF (referring to outputs)

How to deal with these CHANGES? As for the LF, no clear guidance from DEVCO as to what is optional vs. mandatory to fill in at the proposal stage and what is required to complete at the reporting stage Initially, DEVCO explained that in the baseline column, applicants were not requested to fill in the information if the baseline was one of the (initial) activities of the proposed action. BUT: more recently, Desk Officers have encouraged organisations to fill in the logical framework to the maximum extent possible

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS Have only one specific objective which will be the main outcome of the project, (unless the project is a large/complex one) Include expected results as intermediary outcomes. Develop outputs (per each intermediary outcome) as the direct products of the activities*. * N.B.: In CONCORD guidance notes, they seem to suggest that expected results should be included as outputs! Where possible, complete baseline data for project (this can be changed at implementation, e.g. in interim report with explanation). E.g.: For a project to improve governance, a grant applicant might previously have included at Results level: “Target communities have increased skills and confidence to engage with local government departments”. This Result implies behaviour change. An acceptable Output would now be the number of people trained, for example

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS (cont’ed) If baseline is to be conducted in the first months of the action, mention it clearly in the logical framework (and the narrative!). Current value is to be filled during interim and final reports (not necessarily every year!) In case of doubt, DEVCO recommends applicants to ask clarifications to the Unit in charge of the call – SUBMIT QUESTIONS!

Thanks! Let’s hear from you now…

main changes Results chain Indicators Baseline Current value Targets (incl. reference year) Current value Reference date Targets Sources and means of verification Assumptions Overall objective: Impact The broader, long-term change which will stem from the project and a number of interventions by other partners. Measure the long-term change to which the project contributes. To be presented disaggregated by sex. Ideally, to be drawn from the partner's strategy   To be drawn from the partner's strategy. Specific objective(s): Outcome(s) The direct effects of the project which will be obtained at medium term and which tend to focus on the changes in behaviour resulting from project Outcome = Oc (possibly) intermediary Outcome = iOc Measure the change in factors determining the outcome(s). To be presented disaggregated by sex The starting point or current value of the indicators. The value of the indicator at the indicated date The intended value of the indicators. Sources of information and methods used to collect and report (including who and when/how frequently). Factors outside project management's control that may impact on the outcome- impact linkage. Outputs The direct/tangible outputs (infrastructure, goods and services) delivered by the project. Output = Op Op 1.1. (related to Oc 1) Op 1.2. (related to Oc 1) (…) Op 2.1. (related to Oc 2) (…) Measure the degree of delivery of the outputs. Idem as above for the corresponding indicators. Idem as above for the corresponding indicator. Factors outside project management's control that may impact on the output- outcome linkage.