Management response to the Summative Evaluation of 5 MNCH Projects in Haiti, 2016 to 2021
|Recommendation||Accepted / Accepted but Modified / Rejected||Commitments||Actions||Responsibility Centre||Completion Date (DD/MM/YYYY)||Revised Completion Date (DD/MM/YY)||Status|
|1. That KFM, in collaboration with the other GAC divisions concerned and with the health authorities of partner countries, develop a programming framework specific to the health sector.||Accepted but modified |
Developing a sector-specific programming framework with each of the countries eligible for development assistance is the responsibility of the bilateral programs.
For its part, KFM must coordinate its activities with the geographic programs to ensure the priorities of the countries of implementation are taken into account.
|The accountability framework of the 10‑year commitment to health and rights should make it easier for KFM and the other branches to coordinate health programming. This commitment was made after the Partnerships for Strengthening Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PSMNCH) projects were implemented, that is, in June 2019, but it will guide future health programming. |
KSNH and KFM will continue to manage future health projects from this perspective. We will actively participate in meetings with the missions of countries where KFM has a significant presence to ensure effective coordination and information sharing.
|Maintain open communication regarding health commitments with colleagues from the geographic divisions and those in charge of health files on the ground (embassies) in the countries of implementation. |
Incorporate guidelines on health commitments into the financial instruments of organizations with health projects.
|The geographic programs and the missions concerned, in consultation with KFM. |
Coordination with MNG for the 10‑year commitment to health and rights.
|Since this varies by country, the commitment will be reviewed on an annual basis or other appropriate time frame.||Ongoing|
|2. That KFM, on the recommendation of the host country’s health authorities, identify priority intervention locations for projects in their country based on the nature of the program’s support, the other actors present and Canadian technical expertise.||Rejected |
In cases where KFM uses the call for proposals mechanism, it is impossible to know in advance in which countries the funded projects will be implemented.
Therefore, while missions can raise concerns at the call for proposals stage, it is difficult to push for overly specific geographic targeting in such calls.
However, KFM is able to advocate to ensure site optimization once projects are approved
|Continue to encourage partners to conduct meaningful local consultations, including in order to identify priority intervention locations. |
At the proposal evaluation stage, continue to emphasize local consultations by means of the evaluation grids. This is even more important in the current context that gives priority to localized approaches (localization).
KFM will continue to consult the geographic programs and the missions when evaluating proposals to ensure coordination with current bilateral initiatives in the same programming sector.
|3. That KFM, through project management structures, make Canadian and national partners accountable in terms of identifying, implementing and achieving project results. This means implementing formal agreements between stakeholders to make them more accountable for outcomes, while giving them the flexibility they require to adapt their interventions to evolving contexts and emerging needs.||Accepted but modified|
This recommendation is relevant, but it falls within the responsibility of the geographic programs, with follow‑up from KFM. Generally speaking, when it is appropriate to do so, it is the missions that sign memorandums of understanding with national bodies for bilateral projects.
|It is the financial instrument entered into by GAC and an organization that sets out the commitments or deliverables, as well as the roles and responsibilities. |
GAC and officials from the countries of implementation attend the meetings of project governance committees. There are discussions and follow‑up on results at those meetings.
|KSD will continue to use project governance committees to improve coordination and local ownership, in coordination with the embassies and colleagues on the ground.||The geographic programs and the missions concerned, in consultation with KFM.||Since this varies by country, the commitment will be reviewed on an annual basis or other appropriate time frame.||Ongoing|
|4. That KFM require projects to incorporate an explicit theory of change that serves as a basis for their action and determines the factors at play, as well as their dynamics in achieving major outcomes.||Accepted||Recommendation already implemented. Ever since the implementation of projects from the call for proposals entitled Partnerships for Strengthening Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PSMNCH), new calls for proposals have put more emphasis on the theory of change. More space is devoted to the theory of change in GAC templates, such as the application form, the results-based management tools and the new report template. The theory of change is an evaluation criterion in the proposal evaluation grid.||MNG partnered with the Bruyère Research Institute to develop a methodology for the collection and analysis of stories of change as part of our efforts to better communicate the results of GAC’s investments in health and nutrition. |
Also, KFM’s internal capacity‑building activities will ensure that the theories of change associated with the various projects that are selected and implemented will be monitored fully.
|KSD, in collaboration with MNG |
|5. That KFM ensure that projects have an explicit and complete gender equality strategy, that this strategy is rooted in a gender‑based analysis, and that it contains specific gender equality results in the logic models and corresponding indicators in the performance measurement framework.||Accepted||Recommendation already implemented. Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy was launched in June 2017, nearly 2 years after the contribution agreements for PSMNCH projects were signed. Through that policy, the department has made a commitment that 95% of bilateral assistance will target or integrate gender equality and that gender equality will be the main goal of 15% of all bilateral investments. |
The gender equality strategy is a mandatory element of the project implementation plan, as stated in Appendix D of the contribution agreements.
|Continue selecting projects that are coded GE‑02 or GE‑03 in calls for proposals and as part of other funding mechanisms. |
Keep the gender equality strategy as a mandatory element of project implementation plans, as stated in Appendix D of the contribution agreements, and ensure that this strategy receives input from gender equality specialists within KFM and, as much as possible, through Field Support Services projects (FSSPs).
Also, KFM’s internal capacity‑building activities will ensure that the gender equality components of the various projects that are selected and implemented will be monitored closely.
|6. That KFM ensure that implementing agencies have, on their project team, expertise in health systems governance.||Accepted but modified |
GAC strongly encourages the presence of resources specializing in gender equality and the environment on projects, but it is not a requirement. Therefore, the onus is on the organizations to ensure that they have the human resources needed to implement their projects, including in the areas of health systems governance and strengthening if the project context requires it.
|When analyzing proposals, KFM ensures that the proposed human resources are adequate so they can ensure project results are achieved. |
KFM may suggest helpful technical resources such as governance expertise, where appropriate, but cannot require this.
|Continue selecting projects with adequate resources to provide expertise in health systems governance. Where this is not possible, there may be follow‑up during the contribution agreement negotiation process (for example, by raising preliminary issues when reviewing the budget). These missing technical resources could be suggested at that time, but they cannot be required.||KFM||Since this varies depending on the project, the commitment will be reviewed on an annual basis or other appropriate time frame.||Ongoing|
|7. That KFM realistically set out its expectations and requirements with regard to the sustainability of results when calls for proposals are launched or no later than when project implementation plans (PIP) are being developed, and that KFM inform national partners of the duration and continuity of its commitment to them.||Accepted but modified |
KFM’s mandate relates to Canadian organizations, whereas the bilateral programs are responsible for political negotiations with host countries.
Canadian partners are responsible for informing and engaging national partners. KFM monitors this aspect, notably in collaboration with our embassies, when necessary and relevant.
|KFM now sets out its expectations with regard to the sustainability of results when calls for proposals are launched. Sustainability is an element on the proposal evaluation grid (see the Call for proposals – Health and Rights for Women, Adolescent Girls and Children).||Keep sustainability as an element on the proposal evaluation grid (see the Call for proposals – Health and Rights for Women, Adolescent Girls and Children). |
Continue to require a sustainability plan as an appendix to the project implementation plan. In the final report, continue to require that the partner explain how the sustainability of results will be ensured when projects end. These requirements are already set out in Appendix D of the contribution agreements of projects from the Call for proposals – Health and Rights for Women, Adolescent Girls and Children (2021 to 2027).
|8. That KFM conduct an impact evaluation on the effects that awareness and training activities supported by MNCH projects in Haiti have had on behavioural changes among target beneficiaries.||Rejected|
The large number of health projects in Haiti and the large number of factors that are external to KFM projects make it difficult to evaluate impact, especially when it comes to the attribution of results and the sustainability component. Evaluating impact is important, but in the current context, it would be difficult to judge the reliability of the conclusions of such an evaluation (political instability, natural disasters, security issues, etc.).
|The 5 projects in question were implemented in many regions of the country, and the cost of an impact evaluation of that scope would be prohibitive given the likelihood of reaching any sound conclusions.|
- Date Modified: