Nascoh

0

Evaluation Final Report

nascoh February 11, 2014

Programme Identification Details

 

Document Title Final Evaluation Report 
GTF Number 88
Programme Title Enfranchising People With Disabilities to exercise their constitutional right to vote and facilitating their inclusion in governance systems 
Name of  Lead Institution National Association of Societies for the Care of the Handicapped (NASCOH)
Implementing Partners Disabled Women Support Organisation (DWSO)Jairos Jiri Association (JJA)

Zimbabwe Association of the Visually Handicapped (ZAVH)

Zimbabwe Parents of Handicapped Children Association (ZPHCA)

Zimbabwe National Association of the Deaf (ZIMNAD)

Zimbabwe National Association for Mental Health (ZIMNAMH)

Zimbabwe National League of the Blind (ZNLB)

Programme Period 12 November 2008 to 11 November 2013
Amount of DFID Funding £3 million
Target Groups and Wider Beneficiaries People with Disabilities in Zimbabwe 
Lead Consultant Lindiwe Chaza Jangira
Associate Consultants Monica MandikiKundai Magodora

Caleb Mutandwa

Place and Date HARARE NOVEMBER 2013 

 

 

Table of Contents

Abbreviations/ Acronyms iii

Executive Summary iv

INTRODUCTION viii

Background viii

Purpose of Evaluation ix

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY x

Approach x

Scope of Evaluation x

Data Collection and Analysis xi

Limitations xii

EVALUATION FINDINGS xii

3.1. Relevance xii

3.2. Impact xiv

3.3. Economy xix

3.5. Effectiveness xx

3.6. Equity xxi

3.7. Value for money xxii

3.8. Sustainability xxii

3.9. Replicability xxiii

3.10. Evaluability xxiii

INNOVATION AND LESSONS LEARNED xxiv

RECOMMENDATIONS xxv

Programme Design xxv

5.2. Programme Management xxv

6. ANNEXES xxvi

6.1. Annex 1 Achievement Rating Scale xxvi

6.2. Annex 2 Beneficiaries Reached from program areas According to NASCOH 41

6.3. Annex 3 Program to Non Program Costs Analysis 42

6.4. Annex 4 Evaluation Schedule Approved by NASCOH 30 October 2013 47

6.6. Annex 6 Research Tools 50

Abbreviations/ Acronyms 

 

AC Associate Consultant
DFID Department for International Development
DSW Department of Social Welfare
DWSO Disabled Women Support Organisation
CSO  Civil Society Organisation/s 
FGD Focus Group Discussion/s 
GTF Governance and Transparency Fund
IGP Income Generating Project/s
JJA Jairos Jiri Association 
MSC Most Significant Change 
MTR Mid Term Review
NANGO National Association of Non Governmental Organisations
NASCOH National Association of Societies for the Care of the Handicapped
NGO(s) Non Governmental Organisation/s
PWDs People with Disabilities
WDC Ward Disability Committee/s
ZAVH Zimbabwe Association of the Visually Handicapped
ZECZESN Zimbabwe Electoral CommissionZimbabwe Election Support Network
ZIMNAD Zimbabwe National Association of the Deaf
ZIMNAMH Zimbabwe National Association for Mental Health
ZNLB Zimbabwe National League of the Blind
ZPHCA Zimbabwe Parents of Handicapped Children Association 

 

Executive Summary

This is a report of the end of programme evaluation of a programme that was implemented by the National Association of Societies for the Care of the Handicapped (NASCOH) and seven of its member organisations (sub grantees) from 12th of November 2008 to the 11th of November 2013. The programme was on “Enfranchising People with Disabilities (PWDs) to exercise their constitutional right to vote and facilitating their inclusion in governance systems.” It was funded by the DFID to the value of £3 million.

The methodology was participatory allowing for input from beneficiaries and other stakeholders as well as the recognition of human rights and gender equality perspectives throughout the evaluation process which involved debriefing and literature review, developing an action plan, field work, data analysis and report writing. The research tools followed themes as well as used indicators derived from the programme logframe.

The major achievements of the programme included:

  • Increased awareness on PWDs rights on the part of the PWDs, the community and government officials;
  • Facilitating the acquisition of birth – certificates and national identity documents for PWDs that are essential for their participation in governance and other spheres of their lives.
  • Increased PWDs who participated as election observers in 2013 harmonised elections;
  • Increased PWDs who registered to vote and cast their votes in 2013 harmonised elections;
  • Immense contribution to the amendment of the Constitution and the Electoral Act to include PWDs’ rights and their representation in Senate;
  • Adoption of policy positions such as the policy by the Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Empowerment to include a PWDs in each Community Share Ownership Trust Board.
  • Increased representation of and by PWDs through the formation of Ward Disability Committees in communities;
  • Election of two senators with disabilities;
  • The buy – in of traditional leaders and government officials, which facilitated access to services by PWDs.

The achievements above show that the programme contributed to increasing the voice of PWDs and accountability on the part of the government. Regarding responsiveness, it was noble but over ambitious to expect that by the end of five years PWDs would contest in most national positions and be elected into office as well as get appointed to many positions of authority. This is in light of the barriers that continue to confront them.

The Consultants concluded that the programme worked with government ministries and departments. The challenge was however that these ministries and departments were depending on the programme rather than committing financial resources for the benefit of PWDs. The donor dependence syndrome is still very strong.

Key lessons from the programme evaluation are:

  • The use of traditional leaders as opposed to elected leadership as entry points into communities facilitated the acceptance of the programme, especially in a polarised environment obtaining in Zimbabwe. The involvement of traditional leaders further enhances sustainability, as these are permanent. It is therefore preferred that where similar programmes are to be replicated, they should be introduced through traditional leadership structures.
  • The engagement of relevant government ministries and departments for them to commit financial resources for PWDs to enjoy their rights is critical. This is particularly so at national level where government should budget for disabilities. In addition to financial commitment, these government ministries and departments should play a central role is coordinating stakeholders efforts to ensure sustainability.
  • Programmes of this nature should be linked to addressing the basic needs of PWDs since failure to do so compromises their relevance to PWDs and inhibits their intended impact, as PWDs would continue to face barriers that hinder their active participation in governance. It emerged that the PWDs who actively sought offices or were appointed into offices are those who are educated and financially independent. PWDs also appreciated more the programme components that leveraged resources to address poverty and meeting their basic needs.
  • Programmes for PWDs should be long term for them to lift the PWDs to the stage where they can not only vote but also actively seek office. To this end, the approach of starting in seven districts and then move to the last seven districts should have been avoided for it compromised on impact that could be achieved during such short periods.
  • The programme has also revealed the potential in PWDs. When barriers that disable them such as attitude, poverty and ignorance are removed PWDs able to participate in all spheres including in governance processes. They can operate successful livelihoods projects and earn a living for themselves if they are given the necessary support, skills training and seed money.
  • Participatory programming including in evaluation is critical. In some cases, communities were able to tell their stories of success which some programme officers were not able to articulate.

The following recommendations emerged from the evaluation:

Programme Design 

  • NASCOH should urgently mobilise resources to support the WDC until they are effectively mainstreamed within other community structures.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should advocate for budget allocation by government at national level and local level to ensure that PWDs start to enjoy their rights enshrined in the new Constitution and in the resolutions some councils have passed.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees together with partners like ZEC should in future ensure that activities such as voter education are further decentralised to village level to address mobility challenges faced by PWDs.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should continue to include the acquisition of birth certificates and national identity cards by PWDs in future programmes.
  • NASCOH should actively seek to link the programme to other livelihoods and income generating projects run by other stakeholders so that PWDs can get comprehensive support which promotes their financial independence.
  • Development partners are encouraged to consider supporting education, skills building and income generating projects for PWDs.
  • NASCOH should continue to strengthen the capacity of traditional leaders who should have opportunities for peer education to help share lessons and replicate good practices and experiences.

 

Programme Management

 

  • There is need to strengthen NASCOH and its sub grantees’ monitoring systems including information management.
  • In the face of limited resources, NASCOH should develop criteria for targeting PWDs who are most vulnerable to support materially and financially. Such criteria should involve communities in the identification and prioritization of PWDs and the pressing needs.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should put in place a Conflict of Interest Policy since four of the sub grantees were also Board Members of NASCOH making it difficult to distinguish on who has oversight over the other in relation to the programme.
  • NASCOH should make a distinction between its responsibilities as grant holder and implementing partner and those of the sub grantees.
  • There is need for NASCOH and its sub grantees to institute staff retention mechanisms in order to safeguard the gains already made.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should strengthen their resource mobilisation to avoid reliance on a single donor, as was the case with most sub grantees.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should have documented risk plans in place.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should develop a file retrieval system to ensure the security of documents.
  1. INTRODUCTION 
  1. Background 

The National Association of Societies for the Care of the Handicapped (NASCOH) is an umbrella body of 70 organizations of and for people with disabilities (PWDs) in Zimbabwe, representing the mentally and physically challenged, the visually and hearing impaired, and those with conditions like epilepsy and Down syndrome. NASCOH formulated a five-year programme titled “Enfranchising People With Disabilities to exercise their constitutional right to vote and facilitating their inclusion in governance systems.” NASCOH’s motivation for the programme was driven by the rampant and institutionalized marginalization and social exclusion of PWDs from all aspects of social, political, economic life, its philosophy of inherent equality of all regardless of difference and conviction that people are disabled by society’s reaction to their impairment, and not by their impairment. The Department for International Development (DFID) funded the programme to the value of £3 million. NASCOH and seven of its member organisations implemented the programme from the 12th of November 2008 to the 11th of November 2013. These seven member organisations (sub grantees) and the respective geographical areas they implemented the programme are provided in the table below.

 

Name of Organisation  Districts 
Disabled Women Support Organisation (DWSO) Mberengwa & Chegutu
Jairos Jiri Association (JJA) Mutoko & Mudzi
Zimbabwe Association of the Visually Handicapped (ZAVH) Chivi & Zaka
Zimbabwe National Association of the Deaf (ZIMNAD) Mutare Rural & Mutare Urban
Zimbabwe National Association for Mental Health (ZIMNAMH) Masvingo & Bindura
Zimbabwe National League of the Blind (ZNLB) Gwanda & Umzingwane
Zimbabwe Parents of Handicapped Children Association (ZPHCA) Goromonzi & Bikita

 

 

The Programme aimed:

  • To secure the inclusion of people with disabilities in Zimbabwe’s governance systems through their participation in all elections, running for local and parliamentary elections in their respective constituencies, advocating for polling stations accessibility to people with disabilities and their voting secretly and independently;
  • To ensure proportional representation of PWDs in parliament and other decision making bodies;
  • To ensure a quota system in employment;
  • To lobby for the creation of a disability ministry;
  • To lobby for the enactment and implementation of conducive disability legislation by the government.

The programme expected to achieve the following outputs;

  1. Strengthened Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs) (sub-grantees) in the fight for self representation and inclusion of PWDs,
  2. Contribute to changes required to the National Constitution, legislation and built environment to allow the participation of PWDs in elections,
  3. Increased PWDs who participate as election observers in the country’s local and national elections,
  4. Increased PWDs who cast their votes in the country’s local and national elections,
  5. Increased PWDs who stand as candidates and elected and appointed as Members of Parliament, senators and councillors in the country’s local and national elections,
  6. Increased PWDs appointed to positions of authority (at least head of department) in the country’s public and private sector and in community structures,
  7. Government departments, Councils & Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) provide PWDs with material and support services.

The Consultants were engaged to conduct the Final/End of Project Evaluation of the programme on the 29th of October 2013. This is a report of that exercise.

  1. Purpose of Evaluation

The purpose of the final evaluation was to provide an independent assessment on whether the programme purpose was achieved. In this regard the evaluation measured the extent to which PWDs and their support organizations are now capable of representing their social and political interests and holding Government to account for its actions at all governance levels.

The evaluation also analyzed how the programme has contributed to the overall Governance Transparency Fund (GTF) objectives of strengthening capability, accountability and responsiveness to make governance work for the poor. The evaluation was thus intended to:

  • Identify the impact of the programme and ways that this may be sustained;
  • Record and share lessons;
  • Account to local stakeholders for the programme’s achievements;
  • Improve future programme design and management;
  • Verify funds were used effectively and efficiently to deliver results; and

Enable DFID to evaluate the performance of the GTF as a whole, making sure the overall portfolio has increased accountability and responsiveness.

  1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
    1. Approach 

The Consultants, with input from NASCOH, developed a methodological approach which encompassed both quantitative and qualitative methods that were appropriate to address the main evaluation questions. The methodology was participatory allowing for input from beneficiaries and other stakeholders as well as the recognition of human rights and gender equality perspectives throughout the evaluation process which involved debriefing and literature review, developing an action plan, field work, data analysis and report writing. The research tools followed themes as well as used indicators derived from the programme logframe.

  1. Scope of Evaluation

The evaluation covered the programme period from 12th of November 2008 to 11th November 2013. While the literature review considered all the districts covered by the programme, the fieldwork focused on Harare and seven selected districts as indicated in the table below.

 

Name of Organisation  Districts 
Disabled Women Support Organisation Chegutu
Jairos Jiri Association Mutoko
Zimbabwe Association of the Visually Handicapped Zaka
Zimbabwe National Association of the Deaf Mutare Rural
Zimbabwe National Association for Mental Health Bindura
Zimbabwe National League of the Blind Umzingwane
Zimbabwe Parents of Handicapped Children Association Goromonzi

 

 

The selection for the focus areas took into account the following:

    • The need to have a balanced geographical coverage of the programme areas;
    • The need to have a balanced representation of disabilities covered by the programme;
    • The need to focus on Districts which were not covered during the Mid-Term Review (MTR) which was done in April 2011;  and
    • The need to include all the seven sub grantees and NASCOH.

In each district, apart from having key informant interviews, the Consultants met the beneficiaries. The Consultants also met some respondents in Mutare, Masvingo and Bulawayo from some of the sub grantees which were implementing the programme. These respondents included those from ZAVH and ZNLB which are headquartered in Masvingo and Bulawayo respectively. A list of respondents is attached hereto as  Annex 5.

  1. Data Collection and Analysis 

The Consultants used an array of methods and tools in collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data for the evaluation.

  1. Literature review

The Consultants analysed documents availed by NASCOH which included the GTF Grant Arrangement between NASCOH and DFID and its attachments such as proposal, logical framework and budget, Annual Reports, the MTR Report, various feedback documents from the Grant Manager at KPMG, financial reports and audited accounts. All these key documents are attached to the report. The literature review also considered other documents such as the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and Disabled Persons Act, which were sourced by the Consultants. This literature review informed the inception report together with the evaluation tools which were accepted with comments by NASCOH. The literature review continued throughout the evaluation process.

 

  1. Focus Group Discussions

A Focus Group Discussion Guide was developed; the same is attached at the end of this Report an Annex 6 and used during the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) which were held in one ward of each of the seven selected districts. The FGD targeted 10-12 community members who included beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. The Consultants worked with the sub grantees to ensure representation of men and women, PWDs, and the youth.

These provided their perspectives on how the programme performed, how they were involved and participated in the programme, and how they and their families and the community at large benefited.

 

  1. Interviews

The Consultants held interviews with key informants who included traditional and elected local leaders and other people knowledgeable about the programme such as Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) officials, members of Ward Disability Committees (WDC), Councillors, and Government Officials. These were interviewed at national, district and community (local) levels. In addition to interviews with key informants, the Consultants held interviews with beneficiaries in each selected ward. They targeted four beneficiaries in each ward with emphasis on gender and age representation. Interview guides which are attached hereto as Annexes 6 were developed and used in conducting these interviews.

 

  1. Meetings

The Consultants held meetings with NASCOH and sub grantees staff who provided data on the programme and input to the documents they produced such as the inception report, evaluation tools and draft evaluation report. The staff gave their perspectives of programme performance against the evaluation criteria and such perspectives were tested against the findings from other sources.

 

  1. Data analysis

The data collected was collated and analysed throughout the evaluation exercise using both qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods.

  1. Limitations 
  • NASCOH advised that the Consultants should focus on the seven new districts leaving out the seven districts that had been covered by the MTR. This limited the impact assessment and comparison between such districts. However, the Consultants included two old districts in the evaluation, discussed with staff members and reviewed documents relating to the old districts.
  • The Consultants faced challenges in accessing some documents requested more so where Finance Officers and Programme Officers had left the organisations after the expiry of their contracts on the 30th of September 2013.
  1. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

3.1. Relevance

Government officials considered the programme to be in sync with government priorities. Officials from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) expressed that the government wants every Zimbabwean, including PWDs, who has attained the age of 18 years to be able to vote. The programme allowed the ZEC to reach out to PWDs who had been marginalised in previous elections with voter education. This was complemented with the construction of ramp facilities in some voting centres and the amendment of the Electoral Act to enable PWDs to be assisted with a person of their choice during the voting process.  Those from the Registrar General’s department also affirmed that the government is committed to ensuring that every Zimbabwean is registered and given a birth certificate and, for those who have attained the age of 16 years, a national identity card. The programme allowed the department to reach out to PWDs, most of whom did not have these crucial documents. The Zaka District Registrar has established a disability desk owing to this programme. The Department of Social Welfare (DSW), which is mandated to administer the Disabled Persons Act, also underscored the role played by this programme in ensuring that it delivers to PWDs services it was not able to deliver on its own due to resources constraints. The relevance of the programme to government priorities was most exhibited by the Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Empowerment  which has taken a policy decision that every Community Share Ownership Trust must have a PWD within its board and in areas like Bindura 10% of the community share has been reserved for PWDs.

Some government officials also considered the programme relevant in the sense that it empowered PWDs, community leaders and even the government officials on the rights of PWDs, including the right to participate in the governance of their country, right to birth certificates and other services available to them. Prior to this programme, some PWDs were hidden by their families who considered them a curse and they were also excluded by society which regarded them as not being capable of anything. They also looked down upon themselves. The programme addressed such attitudes.

Most beneficiaries, supported by some government and sub grantee officials, however felt that the programme’s focus on governance, particularly issues to do with voting and being voted into office, was not a primary priority for them. Most PWDs and their families are living in extreme poverty. They do not have their basic needs such as food, shelter and clothes and their children are out of school. Faced with this, they do not appreciate how they can aspire to be voted into office. They echoed the message that was received during the MTR that the programme should have focused first on empowering them economically through training so that they can start their own projects and providing financial support for Income Generating Projects (IGP). It is because of this perspective that programme activities, which gave material support like assistive devices and birth registration initiatives, were appreciated as being relevant. These were in fact considered necessary in enhancing PWDs’ participation in governance issues.

While the Consultants found evidence of NASCOH and its sub grantees working to bridge this gap by networking with government officials as recommended by the MTR which added output seven which aims at Government departments, Councils & Civil Society Organisations provide PWDs with material and support services. The Consultants noted that not all sub grantees sought to engage these institutions to provide PWDs with material and support services. In comparison to the needs there was inadequate resource mobilisation among institutions that work on humanitarian assistance and poverty reduction programmes. Government and Council officials whom the programme engaged accepted their responsibility to provide services to PWDs but further expressed that they did not currently have resources to meet those needs; they were in fact relying on the programme to provide them with resources to reach out to PWDs. The gap therefore remains glaring in the eyes of the beneficiaries and it compromised the relevance of the programme to them. In spite of these shortfalls, the programmes enabled mainstreaming of disability to HIV and AIDS programs.

The Consultants noted a close link between the programme and the DFID Country Assistance Plans. The DFID country plan among others has been supporting the following programmes in Zimbabwe in the past six years;

  • Protect and rebuild Zimbabwe’s capacity to deliver basic services to the poor through the behaviour change communication.
  • Support a peaceful democratic transition in Zimbabwe and a stable economy through the constitution making process and strengthening government of Zimbabwe capacity for pro poor policy.

The programme fits well within the DFID’s governance thrust.

3.2. Impact

3.2.1. Capability

Output vii: Government departments, Councils and CSOs provide PWDs with material and support services.

This output was added following the MTR. There was evidence of the sub grantees engaging government departments such as the DSW, Ministry of Health and Child Care, rural and town authorities and the Registrar General to provide services to PWDs. These government departments relied on the programme to reach out to PWDs with services like health, and birth registration. In Mutoko, the rural council has passed a resolution to ensure that all public buildings are accessible to PWDs. Chegutu Town Council is constructing the first public toilet at Pfupajena Clinic with facilities which are friendly to PWDs. The programme contributed to a referral system between the government and the NGOs involved. The DSW reported that due to the awareness raising by the programme, demand for its services increased. In Umzingwane, the DSW received 28 applications for 2011/12 and 20 applications for 2013 from PWDs who intended to enrol for vocational training at Jairos Jiri and Ruwa Rehabilitation Centre respectively. NASCOH and its sub grantees have compiled databases for PWDs which the government can now use for planning purposes. Government at local and national level has however not committed adequate financial resources to meet basic needs of PWDs. It in fact largely relied on the programme to provide assistive devices and government respondents often recommended that the programme budget should be increased.

In some cases the programme engaged other stakeholders like the private sector who provided material support to PWDs. ZIMNAD engaged Mercy Corp which provided assistive devices to PWDs. Critical though was the ability of some PWDs to engage and obtain results. In many areas the WDC have managed to engage the Grain Marketing Board and Agriculture Extension Services for PWDs to be included in grain and seed distribution. On the date of interview, a FGD was held at Peak Business Centre, Mutare where there was a seed distribution exercise and the PWDs confirmed having received their quota. In the same area, a PWD married couple engaged a mobile telecommunication company, Econet, and was given a mobile cash transfer business Econet Green Kiosk. In Masembura Ward, Bindura, the WDC successfully engaged Mbada Diamond, which donated assistive devices. This Committee was able to donate one wheelchair to a local clinic to be used by patients. However demand outstrips the supply.

 

3.2.2. Accountability

Output i: Strengthened NGO (sub grantees) in the fight for self-representation and inclusion of PWDs.

 

The Consultants observed that evidence of self-representation and inclusion on PWDs exists in the form of WDC that have been formed and focal persons with disabilities in most wards covered by the programme, the engagement of local authorities by sub grantees and inclusion of PWDs in voter education and during the voting process. Through Ward Disability Committees PWD are represented in governing structures that include Ward Development Committees and local authorities. It is through these structures that PWDs are able to influence government and local authorities. It also emerged that sub grantees were at different levels in terms of their capacity. Gaps however remain in the strength of the sub grantees involved in the programme, to fight for self-representation and inclusion of PWDs. Most sub grantees remain weak in areas including resource mobilisation, financial management, governance and monitoring and evaluation. These areas affect their ability to fully engage governance structures. Many of these sub grantees were relying solely on the DFID funding and some have already lost their key staffs who were working on the programme. Many sub grantees admitted that they had challenges with monitoring and evaluation and were not able to continue supporting the WDC and focal persons.

 

Output ii: Contribute to changes required to the National Constitution, legislation and built environment to allow the participation of PWDs in elections.

 

NASCOH and some of its sub grantees worked to have PWDs have a voice during the constitution making process. They mobilised PWDs participation and worked with Constitution Parliamentary Select Committee (COPAC) in producing disability friendly material in Braille. ZNLB was outstanding in this regard. Districts like Gwanda, where the programme was operating, recorded the highest number of PWDs participating at COPAC outreaches. Apart from participating in the general COPAC outreaches across the country, NASCOH and its members lobbied for a special outreach to seek the views of PWDs and about 7126 PWDs were consulted during the special outreach. NASCOH and the consortium presented position papers at the first and second COPAC All Stakeholders’ Conferences. This culminated in the current constitution, which provides for the rights of PWDs.

The ZNLB supported its members in launching the Supreme Court application challenging the provisions of the Electoral Act and this together with other advocacy efforts by NASCOH and other stakeholders resulted in the amendment of the Act to allow PWDs to be assisted by a person of their choice. NASCOH and its sub grantees worked with ZEC in all the districts in voter education and urging communities to ensure that polling stations were accessible to PWDs. ZEC Goromonzi District even wrote a letter to schools asking them to construct ramps. Some communities responded positively. Some gaps remain in the electoral system, for instance, there were no Braille ballot papers and not all polling stations were easily accessible to PWDs during the voting process. Most ZEC officials stated that voter education carried out with assistance of ZEC was not targetting those with hearing and speech impairments.

Output iii: Increased PWDs who participate as election observers in the country’s local and national elections.

NASCOH and its sub grantees worked with ZEC to train 139 female and 165 male observers with disabilities. Collaboration with ZEC allowed ease accreditation of those who were trained to observe the 2013 harmonised elections. NASCOH with assistance of ZEC, NANGO and ZESN, deployed 326 trained observers during the 2013 harmonised elections.  Of these observers, 304 were people with disabilities.

Output iv: Increased PWDs who cast their votes in the country’s local and national elections. 

 

Most respondents, including those who were involved in the electoral process in 2008 and 2013, were convinced that the voter education which for the first time paid attention to the rights of PWDs resulted in more PWDs coming out of the closet to register and cast their votes. The education was complemented by the free acquisition of birth certificates and identity cards which also targeted PWDs. Some PWDs consulted confessed that it was their first time to vote in 2013, having been convinced by the programme that their vote would make a difference. In all the districts visited, the respondents, including those from sub grantees and ZEC, were however not able to provide statistics of the actual numbers of PWDs who voted. These could also not be established from ZESN and ZEC, as had been anticipated in the logical framework. NASCOH however compared the statistics supplied by its observers from the programme areas and non programme areas and concluded that there was an increase from 0.01 to 3.6% of the PWDs who voted in 2013 in the programme areas as compared to 1.12% increase in non programme areas. Challenges of unavailability of Braille ballot paper and some inaccessible polling stations, outlined above, however prevented some of PWDs from voting.

3.2.3. Responsiveness

Output i: Increased PWDs who stand as candidates and elected and appointed as Members of Parliament, Senators and Councillors in the country’s local and national elections. 

Two PWDs were elected as Senators following the new Constitution which provided for election of two PWDs into the Senate. These are Ms Anna Shiri and Mr Nyamayavo Mashavakure. There were 26 candidates with disabilities who contested for the two senatorial seats which were won by Mr Mashavakure and Ms Anna Shiri. From 165 aspiring Council and Members of Parliament candidates only 15 contested as council candidates. As result of the lobbying through this programme, 26 councillors with disabilities had been nominated  in 12 rural authorities and 14 urban councils before the adoption of the new constitution. Unfortunately the new constitution is silent on appointment of special interest councillors hence affecting the gains obtained in this area. However, one such person, Mr Zano Kahuni who used to be a special interest councillor in Mutoko and went on to contest council election in ward 20, won. He was elected to be the Mutoko Rural District Council Chairperson, a position he is holding.

Some respondents enumerated barriers to PWDs being voted into office or appointed into positions of authority. These included:

  • Fear of violence, because the past elections were characterized with violence. PWDs were not sure of what would happen after the election. One respondent said 2013 election was a surprise;
  • Perception that PWDs would not be neutral since they are supported by NGOs;
  • Poverty. PWDs have limited resources to campaign;
  • Illiteracy. Many PWDs have low literacy due to poverty and disability. This limits their ability to interact. 
  • Limited time. In some areas visited, the programme only started in 2012 hence there was very limited time for it to make an impact.

Output ii: Increased PWDs appointed to positions of authority (at least head of department) in the country’s public and private sectors and in community structures. 

The Ministry of Youth Indigenisation and Empowerment has taken a policy decision to include PWDs in the Community Share Ownership Trusts and in Bindura, Umzingwane and Mutoko the Consultants met with PWDs who now sit in boards of these Trusts. There was also evidence that PWDs are now included in community structures. For, example, Godfrey Dzveta enrolled at Mutare Teachers’ College owing to the empowerment he got in this programme and is graduating as a secondary school teacher in 2013. While at Mutare Teacher’s College he was elected into the Students Representative Council in which he held the position of Gender and Inclusive Secretary. He was further appointed by the College Principal into the Advisory Council of the College. Godfrey successfully applied for the Disability Revolving Fund administered by the DSW in 2010 and 2011 and used the funds to do income generating projects which sustained him while at College. In Umzingwane some members of the WDC are now members of the Child Protection Committees set up by the DSW and in many areas they have been incorporated into the Ward Development Committees. While districts like Chivi, Zaka and Mutoko had adopted resolutions to appoint special interest councillors, the idea suffered a knock with the new constitution, which does not provide for such councillors. The Consultants therefore did not meet any special interest councillor.

NASCOH provided the Consultants with names of PWDs occupying positions of authority at national and local level totalling 1219 with 520 being women and 699 men.

The bulk of these were PWDs in community structures such as WDCs. The challenges were in determining who among these is occupying “at least head of department” position as prescribed by the logframe, and through programme influence. At national level, few women are occupying any position of authority.

3.2.4. Most Significant Results

The programme addressed what one respondent described as “attitude disability” by both PWDs and the society requiring their rehabilitation. It empowered PWDs who went on to form structures such as the WDC and are now demanding their rights from government officials as well as engaging other stakeholders such as the private sector and CSOs for them to realise their rights. Using these structures, PWDs have been able to source for material support and fight for inclusion. Apart from addressing PWDs, government officials testified that their attitude towards disability has changed due to the programme. ZEC produced voter education material targeting PWDs, Zaka District Registry created a disability desk and many council authorities such as in Umzingwane, Zaka, Mutoko and Gwanda passed resolutions covering buildings, special interest councillors and budget allocations. In communities, families are beginning to bring out PWDs who have been hidden and some traditional leaders have decreed against the use of derogatory language when referring to PWDs.  Some PWDs themselves now exude confidence. Felix Navo was allocated land during the land reform programme. Some war veterans sought to dispossess him saying a PWD cannot own land. He was assisted by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights to sue the war veterans and retain his land. As a result of his case, the District Administrator even gave another woman with a disability land in that resettlement area. Felix is aiming to have a field day at his farm where he will invite other PWDs so that he can inspire them. Nyasha Mutserukwa stated that “now when people see me, they see a person with ability.”

The programme also had significant impact on legislative and policy framework. The inclusion of disability rights and provision for senatorial representation in the Constitution was a major breakthrough of the programme. The process leading to such left PWDs with confidence that they can participate in national issues. The Electoral Act has also been amended to accommodate the interests of PWDs. The Ministry of Youth Indigenisation and Empowerment has taken a position to include PWDs in all the Community Share Ownership Trusts. This is critical given the government thrust on indigenisation and empowerment of the previously marginalised.

The programme’s material and support services component left an indelible mark in communities. Some were given assistive devices like wheelchairs which enabled them to realise their other rights like education, in the case of children, and even to vote as they were now mobile. The programme also assisted some PWDs to acquire essential documents such as birth certificates and national identity cards which they can continue to use to enjoy other rights. It was however unfortunate that the coverage of this component was limited yet communities valued it the most.  In summary, the programme addressed the three disability barriers which are attitude, legislation and accessibility.

3.3. Economy

NASCOH and its sub grantees generally managed to spend the amounts allocated to them to pursue fulfilment of programme objectives.  To this extent, NASCOH and its sub grantees ensured the required inputs necessary to implement the work were in place. Internal systems and controls were used to ensure best value for money. However, given that this programme was an innovation, working in the area of governance, made it difficult to make quantifiable judgements on whether NASCOH and sub grantees delivered maximum economy in programme implementation. Some line items had to be viramented to meet the needs on the ground. These changes included increase in budget for appliances, which was worthwhile.  In addition while NASCOH’s accounting manual stipulates that officers should use “Three Star” hotel accommodation a lot of savings were made through use of unproven rates of sixty five dollars per person per day. Areas that could have been used to reduce costs and increase programme coverage, however, include utilisation of cheaper hotel venues for training in towns where allowable accommodation costs is 150 USD per person. Maximum limits of amounts to be expended on accommodation could be reduced.  Subsistence allowances could similarly have been standardised at comparable rates to ensure equity and value for money. Admistrative costs including salaries were considerably high. This however was attributed to unavailability of other resources to cost share. Most subgrantees had the DFID grant as the only funds available to programme with.  Having in place strong monitoring and evaluation systems on the ground and use of technology in data transmission to and fro would reduce costs considerably. NASCOH could have reduced monitoring visits to subgrantees if sub grantees had qualified monitoring and evaluation staff.

 

4. Efficiency

While almost every organisation in the Consortium had the minimum required financial control systems such as Financial Policies and Procedures Manual and Human Resources Manual, challenges were in implementation. For instance, NASCOH disbursed funds to sub grantees for salaries after the programme had ended to help with the finalisation of the documentary, evaluation and audit against a non-existent grant agreement, funds requests and budgets for these amounts from the sub grantees. NASCOH stated that they used their monitoring and evaluation budget line for this.

Save for JJA the sub grantees lacked sound segregation of duties as they had one finance person. For ZPHCA, ZIMNAD and ZIMNAMH that person had already left at the time of the evaluation, their contracts having been terminated on the 30th of September 2013, leaving an administrator or volunteer to perform their functions. That finance person would prepare voucher packages, payment requisitions, disburse funds and distribute payments with only the Director’s approval. The same person has purchasing and capturing responsibilities. The entire financial system is based on the honesty of the finance person who can easily manipulate it.

3.5. Effectiveness

The major achievements in this programme were in the increased PWDs who participated as election observers and who voted in the country’s 2013 local and national elections. This was largely due to the voter education work done by NASCOH and its sub grantees working with ZEC. More PWDs could, however, have been reached and voted  if the voter education had been decentralised to village levels rather than ward level in view of the mobility challenges they face. Further, more PWDs such as those with hearing and speech impairments, could also have participated if the preparations had focused on them. The programme also made immense contribution to the National Constitution and the amendment of the Electoral Act to allow PWDs to be assisted by a person of their choice during the voting process. Practice however still lags behind the legislative framework.

NASCOH managed to have the sub grantees participate in representing the PWDs and having the PWDs representing themselves. The formation of WDC stands as testimony. The strength of the sub grantees is however threatened by lack of funding, with most of them having been relying on the DFID funds.

Feedback mechanisms from and between the PWDs groups and NASCOH and its sub grantees were limited. This absence of strong monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, especially among the sub grantees, inhibited the ability to gather information from the WDC and support them on a regular basis.

The programme worked with government departments in providing the available material and support services to PWDs and some councils have committed to creating an environment that is friendly to PWDs. The challenge however was that those government departments were mainly riding on this programme to provide such services and could not commit to financially sustain the activities and impact of the programme upon the end of funding. In many districts, the government departments were not left with mechanisms in place to carry out their responsibility to continue the work.

In all districts visited it was evident that the link to skills building and livelihood programmes was weak as many PWDs have yet to access capital and skills building.

The programme was not that successful in increasing PWDs who stood as candidates and got elected as Members of Parliament, and councillors in the country’s local and national elections. The reasons for this were many, a number of them having been articulated already in this report. The programme approach of starting in seven districts before moving to the last seven districts could also have contributed to this. Since the field work focused on the last districts respondents often said it was still early for them to have contested elections or been appointed into positions of authority.

3.6. Equity

The services targeted PWDs who are among the vulnerable and excluded groups. There was however no criteria for selecting the most vulnerable among the PWDs. The programme did not particularly focus on those with hearing and speech impairments and respondents disclosed that cases where girls and women who have these impairments are sexually abused often have unsuccessful prosecutions. People with such impairments were not well catered for during the voter education and voting exercise. It also emerged that apart from material and support services, the programme did not target children as has been envisaged in the project proposal. Children would not ordinarily participate in the voter education campaigns which were conducted in collaboration with ZEC.

3.7. Value for money 

The Consultants found it difficult to clearly state whether value for money was achieved for the reasons articulated in the economy, efficiency and effectiveness sections. These include:

  • The weaknesses in the monitoring and evaluation system which made it difficult, to not only the Consultants but also to NASCOH and its sub grantees, to determine whether all the outcomes were achieved.
  • The lack of a comparator since this was a new approach addressing the rights of PWDs by securing their inclusion in the Zimbabwe’s governance systems through their participation in elections.

This should however not overshadow the achievements made in raising awareness on PWDs’ rights and mobilising PWDs to vote and participate as observers during the 2013 harmonised elections as well as in legal and policy reform. A noble cause was addressed.

3.8. Sustainability 

At the legislative and policy level, a new Constitution with rights of PWDs and provision for their representation in Senate has been passed. The Electoral Act has been amended and various councils have passed resolutions covering issues like building facilities which are friendly to PWDs and budget lines for PWDs. Evidence is emerging of building facilities which are friendly to PWDs while councils are still to put budget allocations to PWDs. Two PWDs have been elected as Senators to spearhead disability issues at national level.

The programme worked with government institutions leading to institutionalisation of disability issues. ZEC has developed voter education material which is friendly to PWDs, particularly the visually impaired which it can continue to use. The Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Empowerment has adopted a policy to include PWDs in Community Share Ownership Trusts and a number of PWDs are already occupying positions in Trust Boards. These government institutions will continue to further the rights of the PWDs in executing their mandate.

In all areas covered by the programme, WDC have been established and some are being mainstreamed in other structures such as the Ward Development Committees and Child Protection Committees. In some cases, the programme has also engaged and earned the support of traditional leaders such as headmen and village heads who are geared up to continue sustaining its impact. Headman Nyamutsahuni in Mutoko has been organising the International Day of the Disabled in his community annually for the past 3 years and banned the use of derogatory language.

It was however clear from the respondents that the sustainability of programme impact will be affected by the end of funding. Respondents, even from the government, seemed to hinge the continuation of the programme activities to funding which government has not committed to provide. This is because the programme was being used to reach out to PWDs with the government contributing nothing financially. The relevance of funding to sustainability was also visible in that most of the sub grantees were relying solely on DFID funding and some critical staff have already left employment and some sub grantees were not able to support WDC in the old districts in which they were initially working.

A National Policy on Disability, employment quota, separate ministry on disability and disability levy which were envisaged by the end of the programme are yet to be realised. Finally, although at some point some council authorities might have accepted to appoint special interest councillors at the time of the evaluation, there was no such councillor appointed. One reason for this was that the new Constitution makes no provision for special interest councillors.

3.9. Replicability 

There are a number of initiatives that can be replicated from the programme. The programme was well received where it was introduced through the traditional leadership rather than the elected leadership. This was to do with the political environment in which NGOs are viewed as political opponents and traditional leaders are viewed as allies of the ruling party.
The establishment of WDC and appointment of focal persons worked well for the inclusion and participation of PWDs. These however needed more support to sustain the programme and would need to be coordinated beyond the programme, a role DSW should have been empowered to fulfil in line with the Disabled Persons Act.

The inclusion of government stakeholders promoted the mainstreaming of the rights of PWDs in their work and allowed PWDs to obtain services such as birth certificates, identity cards and voter education which they had previously been deprived. The human rights approach was critical and some beneficiaries eventually valued the empowerment when they started using the information to demand and access services on their own. This approach was likened to teaching one how to fish rather than giving them the fish.

3.10. Evaluability 

One shortcoming identified by sub grantees during the evaluation related to monitoring and evaluation. Some programme officers were not able to articulate the results of the programme as measured against the logframe. Critical to note is the fact that in all the sub grantees visited the Consultants did not meet persons dedicated to monitoring and evaluation. NASCOH stated that this function was reserved for the Director of each sub grantee. Further, it was not clear what the reporting chain was from the WDC to ward development committee, to district, to sub-grantee then on to NASCOH and the reverse. Feedback mechanisms were not so apparent.

  1. INNOVATION AND LESSONS LEARNED 
  • The use of traditional leaders as opposed to elected leadership as entry points into communities facilitated the acceptance of the programme, especially in a polarised environment obtaining in Zimbabwe. The involvement of traditional leaders further enhances sustainability, as these are permanent. It is therefore preferred that where similar programmes are to be replicated, they should be introduced through traditional leadership structures.
  • The engagement of relevant government ministries and departments for them to commit financial resources for PWDs to enjoy their rights is critical. This is particularly so at national level where government should budget for disabilities. In addition to financial commitment, these government ministries and departments should play a central role is coordinating stakeholders efforts to ensure sustainability.
  • Programmes of this nature should be linked to addressing the basic needs of PWDs since failure to do so compromises their relevance to PWDs and inhibits their intended impact, as PWDs would continue to face barriers that hinder their active participation in governance. It emerged that the PWDs who actively sought offices or were appointed into offices are those who are educated and financially independent. PWDs also appreciated more the programme components that leveraged resources to address poverty and meeting their basic needs.
  • Programmes for PWDs should be long term for them to lift the PWDs to the stage where they can not only vote but also actively seek office. To this end, the approach of starting in seven districts and then move to the last seven districts should have been avoided for it compromised on impact that could be achieved during such short periods.
  • The programme has also revealed the potential in PWDs. When barriers that disable them such as attitude, poverty and ignorance are removed PWDs able to participate in all spheres including in governance processes. They can operate successful livelihoods projects and earn a living for themselves if they are given the necessary support, skills training and seed money.
  • Participatory programming including in evaluation is critical. In some cases, communities were able to tell their stories of success which some programme officers were not able to articulate.
  1. RECOMMENDATIONS
    1. Programme Design 
  • NASCOH should urgently mobilise resources to support the WDC until they are effectively mainstreamed within other community structures.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should advocate for budget allocation by government at national level and local level to ensure that PWDs start to enjoy their rights enshrined in the new Constitution and in the resolutions some councils have passed.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees together with partners like ZEC should in future ensure that activities such as voter education are further decentralised to village level to address mobility challenges faced by PWDs.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should continue to include the acquisition of birth certificates and national identity cards by PWDs in future programmes.
  • NASCOH should actively seek to link the programme to other livelihoods and income generating projects run by other stakeholders so that PWDs can get comprehensive support which promotes their financial independence.
  • Development partners are encouraged to consider supporting education, skills building and income generating projects for PWDs.
  • NASCOH should continue to strengthen the capacity of traditional leaders who should have opportunities for peer education to help share lessons and replicate good practices and experiences.

 

5.2. Programme Management

 

  • There is need to strengthen NASCOH and its sub grantees’ monitoring systems including information management.
  • In the face of limited resources, NASCOH should develop criteria for targeting PWDs who are most vulnerable to support materially and financially. Such criteria should involve communities in the identification and prioritization of PWDs and the pressing needs.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should put in place a Conflict of Interest Policy since four of the sub grantees were also Board Members of NASCOH making it difficult to distinguish on who has oversight over the other in relation to the programme.
  • NASCOH should make a distinction between its responsibilities as grant holder and implementing partner and those of the sub grantees.
  • There is need for NASCOH and its sub grantees to institute staff retention mechanisms in order to safeguard the gains already made.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should strengthen their resource mobilisation to avoid reliance on a single donor, as was the case with most sub grantees.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should have documented risk plans in place.
  • NASCOH and its sub grantees should develop a file retrieval system to ensure the security of documents.

 

6. ANNEXES

6.1. Annex 1 Achievement Rating Scale

 

 

Objective Statement Achievement Rating for whole Programme Period Logframe Indicators Baseline and Target for Indicators Actual Achievements demonstrated by the end of the Programme Comments on Final Results, Including Unintended Impacts
Purpose: Strengthened PWDs and their support organisations capable of representing their social and political interests and holding Government to account for its actions at all governance levels  

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

  1. All 7 NASCOH sub-grantees are able to provide services to PWDs in key aspects of good governance by the end of 5 years.
  2. Increase in the number of pro-PWDs policies and programmes as a result of civil society advocacy through this Programme.
  3. Self Representation by PWDs at all levels
Few PWDs participate in elections, have access to support services and organisations have no capacity to provide meaningful services; This is worsened by the  lack of disability sensitive constitution. -New Constitution with PWD’s rights-Amendment of Electoral Act

– United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been ratified

-Increased PWDs who voted and participated as observers during the 2013 elections

-WDC formed and Focal Persons appointed

-Some councils had accepted to appoint Special Interest Councillors and NASCOH submitted 26 candidates to Minister of Local Government before the new Constitution.

-National Disability Policy still outstanding-Disabled Persons Act not amended

-most sub grantees do not have funding and employees under DFID have since left employment.

-limited number of PWDs in positions of authority and elected as councillors, MPs and Senators.

-limited evidence of government and local authorities budgeting for PWDs.

Outputs:3.1. Strengthened Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs) (sub-grantees) in the fight for self representation and inclusion of PWDs,  

 

 

 

 

 

2

  1. Increase from two to seven sub-grantees by end of 2010 and 10 other NGOs which can provide training in: the Voting Process, Advocacy, human rights, Leadership and governance to PWDs by 2013.

 

1.2 From the seven sub-grantees in this programme only two have good financial systems and the capacity provide training in: the Voting Process, Advocacy, human rights, Leadership and governance to PWDs3.2.Mainstream NGOs have no capacity to mainstream disability and provide rehabilitative and livelihood services to PWDs -Formation of Ward Disability Committees by sub grantees.-Appointment of Community Focal Persons with disabilities.

-NASCOH trained 15 more DPOs using funding from USAID.

-Most sub grantees were just relying of the DFID funding and contracts for staff employed under the programme have since terminated.
  1. Contribute to changes required to the National Constitution, legislation and built environment to allow the participation of PWDs in elections,
 

 

 

 

 

2

  1. Constitution & Electoral Act by end of 2011 which allow full and effective  participation of PWDs
  2. Accessible electoral built environment (polling Stations, Voter registration Centres, Voter Education Centres and furniture) in the districts of programme operation by end of 2012.
  3. Voting related material in adaptive formats distributed to visually impaired and Hearing-impaired persons. (Braille, Large Print, and Sign language).
Zimbabwe constitution does not recognise certain disabilities and the Electoral Act makes it difficult for PWDs to vote. Built environment makes it difficult for PWDs to vote. -The New Constitution provides for PWDs’ rights and representation of PWDs by two senators.-Electoral Act amended to allow assistance of PWDs by a person of their choice during voting.

-Some schools which were used as polling stations constructed ramps.

-Some voter education material was produced targeting PWDs.

The National Disability Policy is still a draft.PWDs still faced mobility challenges to the polling stations.
  1. Increased PWDs who participate as election observers in the country’s local and national elections,
 

1

  1. Increase from 77 to 400 by end of 2011 with proportional representation of major disabilities and 50% being women with disabilities.
77 Participated in 2008 139 females and 165 males with disabilities were trained to be election observers. These were deployed to observe the 2013 harmonised elections. The target of those deployed was achieved by 76%, with 46% being women.
  1. Increased PWDs who cast their votes in the country’s local and national elections,
 

 

 

 

1

Increase from 0.01% to at least 2% of the total constituency voters representing all disabilities with 50% being women with disabilities. 0,01% of voters in 2008 were PWDs NASCOH compared the statistics supplied by its observers from the programme areas and non programme areas and concluded that there was an increase from 0.01% in 2008 to 3.6% of the PWDs who voted in 2013 in the programme areas as compared to 1.12% increase in non programme areas. - ZEC, ZESN, and sub grantees did not have disaggregated data on PWDs who voted in the programme districts. 
  1. Increased PWDs who stand as candidates and elected and appointed as Members of Parliament, senators and councillors in the country’s local and national elections,

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

1. Increase from 2 to at least 20 candidates with equal representation of major disabilities and 50% being women with disabilities.2. Increase from 0 to at least 10 Councillors, 5 MPs 2 senators, with equal representation of major disabilities and 50% being women with disabilities by end of 2012. 1. Only 2 candidates with disabilities participated as candidates2. No known MP, Senator and Councillor with disability after 2008 general elections.

 

 

 

-16 Candidates (7 women and 9 men) contested for the two Senatorial Seats reversed for PWDs.-Two PWDs are now senators. Information on those who voted was difficult to get i.e. number, gender and type of disability, -The field work, including consultation with PWDs and ZEC officials, showed that very few PWDs contested for office for reasons articulated in the report. 
  1. Increased PWDs appointed to positions of authority (at least head of department) in the country’s public and private sector and in community structures,
 

 

 

 

 

 

2

  1. Increased from 0 to 10 with equal representation of major disabilities and 50% being women with disabilities By 2012 and increased to 20 by 2013.
  2. At least 2 PWDs are appointed in positions of authority in each ward in the programme area.

 

  1. No PWDs held a position of authority as in 2008.

 

2. No PWDs sat in Village and Ward development committees or appointed as village heads in rural areas.

-PWDs have been appointed in Government bodies such as the Community Share Ownership Trust-According to NASCOH 1219 PWDs (520 being women and 699 men) occupy positions of authority.

 

-The statistics however do not reflect whether PWDs are now heads of departments in the private and public sector.-There is limited representation of women.

 

  1. Government departments, Councils & Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) provide PWDs with material and support services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

1. Increase from 1% to 10% of PWDs benefitting from requiring appliances.2. Increase from 2% to 50% benefitting from social protection programmes run by the Central Government Department of Social Welfare.

3. Council budgets for PWDs’ needs in programme areas increase from 0% to at least 1% of total council budget by end of 2013.

 

1. Only 1% of PWDs benefitted from appliances2.  2% PWDs benefitted from Social protection schemes run by the Central Government Department of Social Welfare

7.2.2 No Council had a budget for PWDs needs

-Some PWDs benefited from the assistive devices provided under the programme.-Some of went on to benefit from other sources like Mbada Diamond, Enonet, and MercyCorps. -Quantitative indicators proved a challenge to the Consortium members. It could not be said that the 10% and 50% targets have been met. As for the latter, very few PWDs met were benefiting from DSW social protection programmes.-There were still no budgets for PWDs in all councils visited during the evaluation.

-There was limited evidence of active attempts to engage CSOs. This is perhaps a result of there being no indicator and means of verification in the logframe for this aspect.

Activities Output 1

Training of trainers,

Membership and

Staff development

Comparative visits

Provision of Institutional support (purchase of equipment & vehicles)

Commemoration of the International day of the Disabled

Research among people with disabilities

All activities were carried out as planned; 21 trainers were trained; 15 Members organisations received training in governance, strategic planning, leadership etc, 

 

 

 

 

-The above indicated areas such as governance where capacity gaps still exist.-It is difficult to appreciate how activities like Commemoration of the International Day of the Disabled and research among people with disabilities could have strengthened sub grantees in the fight for self-representation and inclusion of PWDs.
Output 2Meetings & workshops with Parliament & civil society

Consultative workshops and meetings on the constitution and contribution on the National Constitution

Audit of the Electoral Act, Labour Act, Education Act

Lobby for further amendments of Disabled Persons Act

Stakeholders workshop on disability policy

5 Acts of parliament have been audited to date and brought to the attention of relevant authorities -Apart from the Constitution and Electoral Act, all the other targeted Acts have not been amended and there was no evidence that the relevant ministries are taking steps to amend them.More lobbying with parliamentary committees is required until all audited Acts are amended.
Output 3Training of 400 observers with disabilities (representing all disabilities

Deployment of observers during elections

Participation of PWDs as election observers

157 females and 169 males were trained by NASCOH and ZEC to be election observers.  -There was no evidence that all the trained observers were deployed but the Consultants met some of those who were trained who actually observed the elections in 2013.
Output 4: Voter education targeting PWDsWorkshops to acquaint election authorities.

Voter registration and Verification.

Disability sensitization workshops with political parties.

Media sensitization workshops.

Media supplements and adverts.

Production of quarterly newsletter.

Provision of assistive devices.

-Most of the activities were achieved. -There was generally consensus among the respondents including PWDs that more PWDs voted in 2013 than in the previous elections.
Output 5Training of PWDs

Disability sensitization workshops with political parties

Verification of registration of PWDs as candidates

Human Rights Training to PWDs

Media sensitization workshops

Media supplements and adverts

Meeting with President

Meeting & workshops with Parliament & civil society

Most of the activities were done.  -The challenge was in linking the activities to the intended outcome of increasing the number of PWDs who contested and were elected to Councillors, MPs and Senators. In this regard, there was no evidence that NASCOH and its sub grantees verified on the registration of PWDs as candidates.
Output 6Meetings & Workshops with Councils

Lobby parliament for proportional representation of PWDs and in other decision-making bodies.

Lobby parliament for introduction of a quota system on employment for PWDs

Meetings and workshops with representative employment bodies and local councils.

Most activities were done. Again, the challenge is in linking the activities with the intended results. It is not disputed that Parliament has not passed any law apart for the Constitution providing for proportional representation of PWDs in decision making bodies and introducing a quota system in employment.
Output 7Research & needs

assessment of PWDs

Lobbying councils, CSOs and government to include PWDs in their budgets and plans

Meeting & workshops with Parliament & Civil Society

Meetings and workshops with urban and rural councils.

Public expenditure tracking of funds allocated for social protection & disability programmes

Provide PWDs with material & support services.

While most activities were carried out Public tracking of funds shall only be done once government department and local authorities allocated budgets to disabilities. -Generally, government at national and local level is still to commit financial resources to issues affecting PWDs. The last ARS submitted with the fifth Annual Report recognised this and recommended that more engagement and lobbying was required for government departments and councils to allocate budgets for disabilities.

 

6.2. Annex 2 Beneficiaries Reached from program areas According to NASCOH

 

 Activities  Male Female Total
PWDs who participated in the constitution making process 3615 3550 7165
%age of PWD who voted 1.9% 1.7% 3.6%
Deployment of election observers 139 165 304
Participation in voting exercise 9191 1571 10762
Voter Education 24639 23393 48032
Acquisition of Identity documents 2048 2313 4361
Acquisition of Birth Certificates 1292 1413 2705
Distribution of  disability  devices 1220 953 2173
Nomination of Councillor 15 11 26
Human Rights Training to PWDs 24383 24212 48595
Total Ward Committees which were set up 0 0 369
Aspiring Candidates Councillor 70 26 96
Aspiring candidates: MP/Senator 43 5 48
Candidates who contested as Senators /MP 9 7 16
PWDs appointed to positions of authority 699 520 1219
PWDs employed 185 143 328
Provision of services to PWDs by Government Departments 3957 4239 8196
Provision of services to PWDs by Local authority 913 1402 2315
Provision of services to PWDs by COSs 1115 1245 2360

 

 

 

6.3. Annex 3 Program to Non Program Costs Analysis

This Annex tabulates the proportion of Administration cost to Program costs. According to DFID regulations, Program costs should constitute 75% of the total grant and any non-programmatic activities should constitutes 25% of the total grant.  In the tables below reports availed to the consultants were used to tabulate averages and annual proportions.

  1. DWSO

 

The DWSO table is an extract from the April 2009-Mar10, April 2010-Mar11, April 2011-Mar12 and April 2012-Mar13 and April 2013 – Sept 2013 Annual Financial Reports which were found on file.

  1. ZIMNAD

 

The ZIMNAD table is an extract from the April 2009-Mar10, April 2010-Mar11 and April 2011-Mar12 Annual Financial Reports which were found on file.

  1. ZIMNAMH

 

The ZIMNAMH table is an extract from the April 2010-Mar11 and April 2011-Mar12. Annual Financial Reports which were found on file.

  1. ZNLB

 

The ZNLB table is an extract from the April 2010-Mar11, April 2011-Mar12 and April 2012-Mar13 Annual Financial Reports which were found on file.

  1. JJA

 

The JJA table is an extract from the April 2009-Mar10, April 2010-Mar11, April 2011-Mar12 and April 2012-Mar13 Annual Financial Reports which were found on file.

  1. ZAVH

 

Started implementing 2010 since they had no Board – it’s first disbursement came on 29 April 2010 for April –March 2011. Since ZAVH Annual Financial Report for April -March 2011 is not on file the ZAVH table is an extract from the April 2011-Mar12, April 2012-Mar13 and April’13 – Oct 2013 Annual Financial Reports.

 

  1. ZPHCA

 

  1. NASCOH

 

NASCOH’s Report ending November 2013 is the 2013/14 draft annual report, this report is not the final report as NASCOH’s yet to account for the final disbursement received end of November.  All reports were available to tabulate averages.

Commenting on the above analysis, the NASCOH Director stated that sub grantees were spending very little on program activities and hiding behind the programme’s salaries as they were budgeting the programme salaries very high and putting programme cost under this budget line. As a mitigatory measure, NASCOH wrote a letter directing that the programme officer costs should be moved to personal costs while they maintain the 75% Program to 25% Administration Cost Ratio.

6.4. Annex 4 Evaluation Schedule Approved by NASCOH 30 October 2013

6.5. Annex 5 List of Respondents

 

6.6. Annex 6 Research Tools 

 

    1. Key Informants (KIs) Interview Guide

District………………………Ward if applicable …………………………..

Name:…………………………..Sex:                         Male     Female

Position:………………………….      Organisation   ………………………………..         

Date of interview………………………………….

The KI interview should cover, but not be limited to the following: Legislators, parliamentarians, community leaders, clinic staff, NGO, Local Govt. officials, etc)

 

  1. What is your understanding of NASCOH’s programme in the area in terms of purpose, objectives and activities?
  2. How relevant is the programme intervention from your view point?
  3. What is your agency/organisation’s involvement in programme?
  4. Have you or other representative of your organisation ever visited any of programme’s project sites? Purpose………………………………………………………
  5. Did the project benefit any of the following groups of people and in what way?
  6. Do you know any disabled persons who have occupied positions of authority in the past 5 years and whose election to the positions may be fully or partially attributed to the programme activities?
  7. Did the work of implementing organisation have any impact on voting patterns of disabled persons?
  8. If yes what changed?
  9. What could have been done differently in the project to achieve better impact?
  10. What has been the Most Significant Change (MSC) in the community as a result of the programme?
  11. What are the challenges and constraints (political & socio-economic) that impinge on the rights of PWD?
  12. Do you think the activities that were implemented in the 5 years targeting disabled persons will continue in the future?
  13. What will continue to drive the programme now that the project has ended?
  14. Additional questions to be posed to specific Key Informants: ZEC/ZESN/NANGO
  1. How was Voter Education designed to accommodate people with visual and hearing impairment?
  2. What challenges were experienced with regard to voter confidentiality?
  3. What are the ZEC and ZESN structures at District level?  How accessible are they including in terms of proximity, for PWD?
  4. What recommendations do you have for future participation of PWD? 15.
  1. MPs/SENATORS/GOVT. OFFICIAL
  1. At District level, what is the representation of women with Disabilities in strategic positions?
  2. What positions of authority are occupied by People with Disabilities?
  3. How does NASCOH/your office/the system facilitate them to make a meaningful contribution?
  4. How do they exercise their authority and do they get the respect and recognition they should be accorded? Provide examples.

 

  1. WARD DISABILITY COMMITTEES/COUNCILLORS
  1. When was the Committee established?.Who established it?
  2. What is the role of the Committee?
  3. What Advocacy activities have been initiated by the Committee and what was the outcome?
  4. What support does the Committee receive from NASCOH/Partner Organization?.How will Committee be supported after the Programme has ended?
  5. What is the representation of women on the Committee?

 

 

    1. Staff Interview Guide 

The evaluator(s) will:

Introduce themselves to staff {(Director and programme officers (minimum 3)} ,

  1. Explain the purpose of the exercise,
  2. Encourage openness in interview,
  3. Where pictures are taken, get prior permission to take picture and ask KI for permission to use picture in the report,
  4. Where quotation is going to be attributed to individual by name or by position in a way that enables her/him to be identified, ask the informant for permission to use her/his name on the quotation in report, and
  5. Take detailed notes on answers, points, issues and observations

The table below lists some of the areas that will be interrogated based on the project log frame.  Evidence that may be requested for inspection and verification is also listed. Record answers in answer section. Time approximately 2 hrs

 

Name of Organisation…………………… Date of Interview ………………………………

Programme Coverage…………Wards   District ………………………………………

 

Narrative summary Guiding questions Answers
1. GoalThe Gov. and NGOs are more accountable and responsive to enable PWDs to exercise their social and political rights as Zimbabwean Citizens Is there evidence to show that after project implementation policies have changed for better?What are the gaps still existing?

Have you improved programming for PWDs?

 

 

 

 

 

2 PurposeStrengthened PWDS and their supporting organizations capable of representing their social and political interests and holding Government to account to its actions at all levels What evidence is there to demonstrate your ability as an organization / and PWDs to hold Govt. accountable to its commitments around PWDs?Reports? Policies? Budget allocations?  

 

 

 

 

 

3 AccountabilityStrengthened NGOs (sub grantees) in the fight for self representation and inclusion of PWDs To what extent did your organization fight for inclusion of PWDs?  What activities did you carry out? What evidence is available that you achieved what you intended? How have you ensured beneficiaries have a voice in the programme?  

 

 

 

 

3.1 Contribute to changes in the National Constitution legislation and built an environment that allows participation What activities did your organization undertake to ensure participation of PWDs in the constitution making process?Were any materials available to inform PWDs on process? Target? Braille, sign language, large print?  

 

 

 

 

3.2 Increased PWDs who cast their vote  in national and local  elections  in the country Were any PWDs in your constituency able to be observers?To what extent did you increase voting of PWDs? Give numbers.

What is the ratio of participation of women?

 

 

 

 

4. ResponsivenessIncreased PWDs appointed to positions of authority (at least head of department) in the country’s public and private sector and community structures Since programme inception how many PWDs can your organization confidently say you have supported to rise to positions of authority?Can you name them and position they occupy? Any senators, MPs, Councilors?

Any PWDs in positions at ward level?

5. Capability Government departments and Councils and CSOs provide PWDs with material and support services What if any are the material and support services that PWDs received in your constituency? Any appliances provided?Which organizations provided this support? Any support from Govt?

How much influence have you had to ensure the inputs?

6. Programme Design Contribute to changes in the participation and inclusion of PWDs What activities did you undertake to ensure project objectives and outcomes were achieved? Which of the methods were most effective and why?What do you do to ensure inclusion of women? Youth?  

 

 

 

 

7. Relevance Assessing how well programme fits in Govt priorities and frameworks? How well do your programmes fit with Govt  priorities and strategic direction? How well did the programme fit with DFID’s country assistance plan? Were any diversions made to accommodate the Govt priorities?
8. Impact Intended beneficiaries benefitting from the programme What has been the overall impact of your programme on the lives of PWDs? Anyone else beside PWDs that benefitted from the programme? Who benefitted? Disabled persons – women, men, youth, children? Others vulnerable groups?  

 

 

 

 

9. Efficiency Value for money in delivery of services Could the same results have been achieved with same resources? Any cost cutting measures the organization undertook? Were stakeholders involved in delivery of services? How were they engaged? Were risks properly managed? Example?  Financial systems operation? How well did they operate?
10. EffectivenessThe extent to which intended outputs and results were achieved Did you meet all your expected outputs? If not which areas have gaps and what are the reasons for non achievement? How have you used the log frame to track progress? With hind sight how could the programme have been improved?
11. Sustainability Potential for continuation after end of  programme What prospects are there that the interventions initiated will continue after programme end? What measures have you taken to ensure continuity? What evidence is there that Govt and its Governance structures will continue to support PWDs?
12. Equity Inclusion of all groups How has the programme catered for women? Children? Youth? Poor? Any group of disabled persons not adequately addressed?  

 

 

13 Replicability The extent to which programme can be implemented elsewhere If programme were to be implemented elsewhere what should change for greater impact? What context is best? What lessons were learnt?  

 

 

14. Operating environmentAssess facilitating factors and challenges Any challenges in engagement of Govt and local authorities by PWDs and NGOs representing them? Any incidences that occurred and prevented PWDs to exercise right to vote? Any indications that this is likely to occur? Any indications that the environment will improve in terms of transparency? Policies? Good governance?  

 

 

 

 

 

    1. Community Focus Group Discussion Guide

  

Group of 10-15 people

The evaluator(s) will:

  1. Introduce selves and invite participants to introduce themselves.
  2. Explain the purpose of the exercise.
  3. Give assurance of confidentiality of people’s identities,
  4. Describe focus group process and  encourage openness and honesty in discussions
    1. No right or wrong answers,
    2. Everyone should participate,
    3. Respect the opinions of others,
    4. Discussions will last approximately 1 hour.
  5. Be aware of who is talking and who is not and encourage all to participate.
  6. Use broad, open-ended questions.
  7. Always probe.
  8. Where pictures are taken, get prior permission to take picture and ask people appearing in the picture for permission to use picture in the report,
  9. Take detailed notes on answers, points, issues and observations by discussants.

 

The focus group discussion should cover, but not be limited to the following:

  1. Venue of meeting (evaluators to also note date of meeting)
  2. Identity of group (e.g. village/headman/chief’s names under which the group falls)
  3. Numbers of participants (disaggregated by gender)
  4. Outline of activities under programme from the community’s understanding/perspective of programmes.
  5. Role of community in implementation of programme interventions?
  6. How relevant has community found the programs to be?
  7. Roles played by community in supporting PWD activities?
  8. Involvement of other stakeholders in program activities targeted at PWDs (e.g. government departments, traditional leaders, councillors, etc)?
  9. How do community structures (in 8 Districts) work with PWDS and other agencies?
  10. How have programmes helped community better understand PWD rights?
  11. How have programmes helped community to better uphold PWD rights?
  12. Who is benefiting from the programme activities and in what ways?
  13. Any exclusion, who, why and how?
  14. What is the most significant change (MSC) in the community as a result of programme?
  15. What has worked well with programme interventions in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of inputs/activities?
  16. What are the enabling factors?
  17. What were the constraints and challenges for the programme intervention?
  18. How will community ensure activities continue into the future?
  19. What are the main lessons the community takes from the programme?
  20. What recommendations to various stakeholders does the community have on issues being addressed by the programme?

 

 

    1. Programme Beneficiaries Questionnaire

 

 

Interviewer: District 
Date of interview: Name of respondent:
Section A: About Respondent
Q1. Name of ward? (if applicable ) ………………………….
Q2. Sex of respondent.1= male;      2= female Q3. Age of respondent ………………………..years.
Q4. Marital status?1=  single;       2= married

3= widowed;   4= divorced;   5= other ………………

Q5. Level of formal education of respondent1= not been to school;          2= primary;

3= secondary;                       4= tertiary education

Q6. Type of disability 1= blind ; 2= deaf;     3= physical disability;

4= mental illness;      5= other …………….

Q7. What is your occupation?1= employed    2= unemployed   3= own business

Describe job………………………………………..

Q8. Have you heard and/or been involved in NASCOH programmes since 2008 to 2013?1= yes    2= no      3= other……………………………….
If answer to Q8 is no (= don’t know about NASCOH/Partner organisation programs) then don’t continue with the interview
SECTION B: Understanding of Programme 
Q9. What activities have you been involved in?1= voter education                 2= human rights education; 3=Income generation? 4=consultations     5= advocacy Q10 Who provided the support you mentioned:1=NASCOH,      2= ZEC        3= Other ……………….
Q11 How has the information been given to you?  Q12 Have the programmes targeted at disabled persons changed your thinking or behaviour in anyway?1= yes             2= no
Q13. In what ways have programmes for disabled affected you?
SECTION C: Behaviour Pattern in Relation to Voting Processes 
Q14. Did you vote in 2002 General Elections?1= yes               2= no Q15. If no to Q14 what were the reasons you did not vote
Q16. Did you vote in 2008 General Elections?1=  yes                2=  no Q17.If no to Q16 what were the reasons you did not vote 
Q18. Did you vote in 2013 General Elections?1=  yes                2=  no Q19. If no to Q18 what were the reasons you did not vote?
Q20. Are you going to vote in the future elections? 1=  yes                2=  no Q21a. If no to Q20 what are your reasons? Q21b. If yes what motivates you to vote again?

 

Q22. What are your recommendations to improve future participation of disabled persons in elections?
Q23. Did you participate in the constitution making process? 1= yes                       2= no  Q24. If yes what did you do? 
Q25. If no to Q23 what were the reasons? 1= Bad experience in last voting exercise

2= Do not see value of voting

3= Difficult to access polling station

Q26. Have you seen a copy of the constitution1=yes 

2=no 

Q27. What changes were effected in the new constitution to benefit People With Disabilities?
SECTION D: Governance and  Inclusion 
Q28. Who do you think is benefiting the most from the NASCHO activities?1= Women                             2= Men

3= Girls                                   4= Boys

5= Other………………………………………

Q29. Are there any groups of persons in the community who are needy and deserving but are not receiving assistance from NASCHO programmes? Who are they?  ……………………………………………………
 Q30. Do you know any persons with disabilities who now occupy positions of authority because of the work of NASCOH and Partners?Yes                                        No

Name                                               Position 

Q31. What do you consider as the most important contribution from NASCHO/Partner organisation to you and your household in the past 4 years? 

…………………………………………………………

Section E: Impact on Livelihood 
Q32. Has your life changed in any way because of the activities undertaken in the past 4 years?
SECTION F: Future Direction
Q33. What would you want to see happen in the future in the area of:

  1. Governance 
  2. Participation/Inclusion 
  3. Voting 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Login to your account

Can't remember your Password ?

Register for this site!