Summary of IA
ASALGP
IA conducted in three stages
Stage 1: Initial Review This stage of the IA (summarized in this report) has assessed the impact of the 21 activities completed by the project up to the end of May 2004.
Stage 2: Ongoing Data Collection
During the period July to mid November 2004 data on impact gathered on an ad hoc basis by the ASALGP project team, advisers working in the field and through the Provincial Coordination Committee (PCC) meetings
Stage 3: Final Review
this final stage of the IA, activities reviewed during Stage 1 will be (briefly) revisited Determine the ongoing impact and a another review will be conducted of all activities completed at 31 October 2004. – Complete questionnaire, and Discussing it at this Seminar
During
Summary of Findings
The qualitative and quantitative findings for each activity Impact Assessment – Stage 1 Summary Report Amalgamated results based on responses to the questionnaire/interviews They indicate the overall level of impact of the ASALGP based on the opinions of all those interviewed/surveyed.
Impact at Time of Delivery:
of respondents said that the ASALGP activity they had been involved with had an absolute positive impact and 24% thought that the activity they had been involved with had a fairly positive impact at the time of delivery.
76%
Organisational Capacity:
64.7% felt that organizational capacity was definitely built as a result of the activity they had been involved with. 28.6% thought that a fair amount of organizational capacity was built and 5.7% thought that very little organizational capacity was built. 2.9 % thought that no capacity at all was built.
Individual Capacity:
felt that their individual capacity was definitely built through their participation in an activity. 17.1% thought that a fair amount of their individual capacity was build and 8.6% thought that very little personal capacity was built.
74.3%
Improvements in Service Delivery:
40% felt that service delivery has definitely improved as a result of the activity they were involved with 48.6% thought that service delivery improved fairly so. 8.6 % thought that service delivery improved very little 2.9 % thought that service delivery has not improved at all.
Partnerships:
48.5% felt that partnerships were definitely formed from the activity they were involved with. 30.3% thought that a fair amount of partnerships were formed. 12.1% thought that very few partnerships were formed 9.1 % thought that no partnerships were formed.
Practitioners:
felt that practitioners were the very best to do the job. 17.6 thought that practitioners were good. 11.8 % thought that practitioners were in a small measure the right people for the job.
70.6%
Creating the Right Environment:
There
was a high level of appreciation of the fact the ASALGP team spent much time on creating the required climate without which none of the activities could have been undertaken, or would not have had any impact.
Free State Readiness:
Officials
stated very honestly and openly that in local government circles in the Free State Province there is a perception that the ASALGP was “forced” upon them in the sense that they were not prepared for it and that they did not know “it was coming”.
Views of DPLG:
Some
senior officials in the National DPLG felt that officials from DPLG should have been part of the ASALGP management team as skills transfer at that level would have been of benefit to DPLG – never part of the project design
Use of Practitioners:
One
of the reasons that made most of the ASALGP activities more valuable than other capacity building projects was the employment and deployment of practitioners during the course of the program.
Differences between Australia and South Africa:
In
some instances, especially where officials from South Africa visited Australia, they became very aware of the differences between Australia and South Africa.
Partnership Approach:
It
was stated by many advisers and participants that a partnership approach is an excellent basis for capacity building through skills transfer and joint problem solving.
Study Tours:
Much positive comments were received on capacity building visits to Australia. Because those who visited Australian municipalities were focused and had been working with advisers from Australia on the issues covered during the visits, these “study tours” seem to have made a lasting impression on municipal officials.
Sustainability:
the case of many of the activities there are serious concerns about sustainability sustainability in the sense of taking forward and further developing knowledge and understanding gained during the ASALGP process.
In
Timing:
One
of the crucial success factors that heavily influenced the impact of an activity, is the “timing” of the activity.
Lessons learnt
The conduct of an IA faces many challenges. In hindsight a range of strategies put in place early in the project would have assisted with the process. These include: letting people involved in activities know at the time the activity was underway that the project will be following up to determine impact at a later date
establishment
of assessment criteria when activities are designed in consultation with Participants maintenance of a contacts or register of all those involved in each activity
establishment
of assessment criteria when activities are designed in consultation with participants maintenance of a contacts register of all those involved in each activity
News letter and Web Page
people interviewed have indicated much appreciation for the usefulness and the high standards of both these methods of sharing information These have added much value to the project as a whole as it helps to build up a collective knowledge on good practices and “lessons learnt”.
All
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the challenges faced during this first stage of the process, good quality data on the impact of the various activities has been gathered. During the second and third stage the database will continue to grow to ensure that the final report offers an honest, balanced view of the impact of the ASALGP.
THANK YOU