GTF

Governance and
Transparency Fund

Power to the people:

Making governance
work for marginalised
groups
Project Completion Report
(2008-2013)

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

1. Programme identification details

GTF number

GTF 301

Short title of programme

Power to the People (P2P)

Name of lead institution

Christian Aid

Start date

12 August 2008

End date

11 August 2013

Amount of DFID Funding:

4,999,795

Brief Summary of Programme:

This programme aimed to nurture the development

of effective civil society movements and empower
marginalised and vulnerable people to hold community,
local and national authorities to account. The programme
included activities to secure increased participation by, and
government responsiveness to, marginalised groups, as
well as to build more effective civil society movements.
It involved partners and activities in ten countries in
Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America and the
Caribbean. A number of regional and global activities took
place during the life of the programme to share learning
between countries and partners, and to explore key
thematic issues, such as power relations. Some exchange
visits were organised to further embed this learning.

List all countries where activities have taken or

will take place

Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria,

Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda.

List all implementing partners in each country

Institute for Socio-Economic Studies (BR); Ecumenical

Service Coordination (BR); Popular University (BR); Centro
Bon, formally Jesuit Service for Migrants and Refugees
(DR); Institute of Democratic Governance (GH); Social
Enterprise and Development Foundation (GH and SL);
Rehabilitation, Education and Community Health (IQ);
Haki Kazi Catalyst (TZ); Refugee Law Project (UG); Uganda
Debt Network (UG); Northern Aid (KE); Kenyan Human
Rights Commission (KE); Centre for the Rehabilitation and
Education of Abused Women (KE); Justice, Development
and Peace Commission (NI); Association of Scientific and
Technical Intellectuals (TJ); Rights & Prosperity (TJ)

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

Target groups: wider beneficiaries

Our projects targeted approximately 78,491 people

from marginalised groups, including women and girls in
Tajikistan and Sierra Leone; Haitian refugees in DR, Somali
refugees in Kenya; marginalised ethnic groups in Brazil and
schoolchildren in Ghana.
We estimated that the programme could benefit up to
14 million people if service delivery and government
accountability improved and proper policies were agreed
and implemented.

Lead Contact

Kevin ODell, Programme Funding Officer, Global Initiatives

Uganda Debt Network (UDN) Magdalene Aguti and her family benefited from the work of the community-based monitors around
improved policy and delivery of the NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services) programme in Uganda. UDNs advocacy has
led to many improvements in NAADS, including a much-needed revision of the programmes guidelines to re-focus delivery towards
marginalised groups. With UDNs support, 668 community members participated in the revision of NAADS through community-based
monitoring and evaluation groups. Changes included making the beneficiary selection process more transparent and the service
less controlling and more enabling, for example through helping farmers to choose their own enterprises. UDNs awareness-raising
programme encouraged Magdalene and her community to get involved with NAADS. Now, Magdalene has access to the advice and
support she needs to manage her own land. She says: With my improving income levels as a result of citrus farming, I am now in a
position to send our children to school.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

2. List of acronyms
ARS

Achievement Rating Scale

GHS

Ghanaian Cedis

ASATU

Association of Anambra Town Unions

GIFNET

Governance Issue Forum Networks

GSFP

Ghana Schools Feeding Programme

GTF

Governance and Transparency Fund

HKC

Haki Kazi Catalyst

ASTI Association of Scientific and Technical

Intellectuals
BIOM

Ecological Movement BIOM

CA

Christian Aid

CB Centro Bon (formally Jesuit Service for

Migrants and Refugees)
CBM

Community-based monitors

CBO

Community-based organisation

CDF

Constituency Development Fund

CEB

Central Electoral Board

CEDLA

Centre for Development Learning and Action

CESE

Ecumenical Service Coordination

COMEN

Community Empowerment Network

CREAW Centre for the Rehabilitation and Education of

Abused Women
CSBAG

Civil Society Budget Action Group

CSO

Civil Society Organisation

CSOMPAN Civil Society Media Policy Advocacy Network

DACF

District Assembly Common Fund

DCMC

District Community Monitoring Committee

DFID

Department for International Development

DR

Dominican Republic

DV

Domestic violence

EA

East Africa

EAC

East African Community

FER

Final Evaluation Report

FGM

Female genital mutilation

FoM

Freedom of movement

HURINETs Human Rights Networks

IACHR

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

ICH

Inter-Church House (Christian Aid central office)

IDEG

Institute for Democratic Governance

IDS

Institute of Development Studies

INESC

Institute for Socio-Economic Studies

IWASCO

Isiolo Water Services Company

JDPC

Justice, Development and Peace Commission

JSRM Jesuit Service for Migrants and Refugees (now

Centro Bon)
KES

Kenyan Shillings

KHRC

Kenya Human Rights Commission

KPMG

Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler

KRG

Kurdish Regional Government

KWIGN

Kailahun Women in Governance Network

LAC

Latin America and Caribbean

LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty

LGA

Local Government Authority

M&E

Monitoring and evaluation

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding

MSR

Most Significant Result

MTR

Mid-term review

NAADS

National Agricultural Advisory Services

NAID

Northern Aid

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

NHIS

National Health Insurance Scheme

ODI

Overseas Development Institute

OPM

Office of the Prime Minister

P2P

Power to the People

PC

Public Chamber

PCR

Project Completion Report

PM&E

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

PSM

Platform of Social Movements

PWD

People with disabilities

R&P

Rights and Prosperity

REACH Rehabilitation, Education and Community Health

RLP

Refugee Law Project

SADA

Savannah Accelerated Development Authority

SEND

Social Enterprise and Development Foundation

SGBV

Sexual and gender-based violence

SMS

Short Message Service

THU

Town Hall Unions

TOC

Theory of Change

UDN

Uganda Debt Network

UGX

Ugandan Shilling

UNIPOP

Popular University (Brazil)

VAT

Value added tax

VFM

Value for money

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

3. Activities and achievements

3.1 Period since last annual report

(1 April 2013 11 August 2013)
In the last months of our GTF programme we focused on
finalising activities, sustaining and publicising achieved
results, and sharing learning globally.
Three regional learning events (Output 4.2, Activity 4.3):
Women in Governance and Leadership, West Africa (May
2013): Christian Aid staff, partners and project principals
from Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone attended a learning
event hosted by partner SEND. SEND presented their model
for increasing womens participation in politics in Kailahun,
Sierra Leone. The group analysed gender work undertaken
in each of their contexts and the extent to which successful
elements could be replicated.
Citizenship and Freedom of Movement in the East Africa
Community (Nairobi, May 2013 hosted by KHRC with
RLP and NAID presenting): Attended by CA staff, partners,
immigration officials, high level politicians, civil society
and private sector representatives, and refugees. The
conference aimed to increase understanding of the barriers
to citizenship rights and freedom of movement in EAC
countries, increase capacity to engage with the EAC, and
propose a joint CSO/private sector resolution to the EA
Legislative Assembly to improve citizenship and freedom of
movement rights.
Power, the Media and Political Reform for Marginalised
Groups (Brazil, April 2013): CESE and INESC jointly hosted a
workshop, bringing together for the first time 30 indigenous
and Quilombola leaders. The event was innovative and well
received, with leaders from both sides expressing solidarity
and the need to support one anothers campaigns. The
leaders had not previously engaged with national reform
beyond issues surrounding their own communities land
rights, and for INESC it was the first time they were able to
engage indigenous groups in their political campaign.
Research: Power and the GTF
We have commissioned an IDS consultant to review GTF
learning on power, which we expect to strongly influence
how Christian Aid thinks about and supports partners to
engage with power. This will culminate in a paper towards
the end of 2013.

Learning session: GTF evaluation and lessons learned

25 September 2013
The external evaluation team shared their key findings with
global Christian Aid GTF stakeholders, and the meeting
discussed the extent to which the programme had achieved
its objectives, and key learning points for the future.
Results and achievements
In Tajikistan, the Director of the Ombudsman confirmed
ongoing funding for all nine Public Chambers from
January 2014, guaranteeing their sustainability and the
future provision of free legal advice and aid to poor and
marginalised men and women.
In Nigeria, the expanded and extended governance and
transparency programme, Voice to the People, was launched
in Anambra State. The 2 million DFID funded programme
will see the GTF established COMEN network expand from
four to twelve LGAs, empowering 48,000 people to hold
their authorities to account.
In Dominican Republic, 249 young people participated in
three events in which a theatre group dramatised the plight
of Haitian citizens forced to migrate and the social, economic
and legal difficulties they face. Each event culminated in the
young people taking part in a campaign action targeted at
the Dominican Republic authorities.

3.2 For the entire programme duration

Over the last five years, our GTF programme, delivered by 16
partners across 10 countries, has successfully implemented
projects to empower marginalised groups such as women,
indigenous groups, children and people with disabilities, and
enable them to articulate their needs and demand their rights
from duty bearers. Some of our most significant results are
summarised below.
Ghana. Communities in the marginalised Upper West
region have been trained and supported to access propoor policies and social welfare.
The number of children receiving a free school meal a day
through the Ghana School Feeding Programme increased
from 5,000 to over 140,000, a 2,700% increase, over
the course of the GTF. The scheme was also re-targeted
to ensure that the poorest and most marginalised
communities are primary beneficiaries.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

In response to advocacy and recommendations, all

the Upper West district assemblies have opened bank
accounts and formed Fund Management Committees in
compliance with the disbursement and utilisation of the
3% share of the District Assembly Common Fund for
people with disabilities (increased from 2%). As at 2012,
655 people across five districts had received a sum of
GHS 467,158 (equivalent to 145,800).

Tajikistan. 594,900 poor and marginalised people in

nine districts now have access to free legal information
and aid, thanks to newly established Public Chambers.
2,405 legal claims (65% from women) have so far been
resolved in favour of the claimants. These have led to
improved services and infrastructure, schooling and
housing, as well as access to drinking water, welfare
and identity documents.

In compliance with the guidelines of the National Health

Insurance Scheme, 2,852 people from the Upper West
registered on the scheme and are accessing healthcare as a
direct result of partner initiatives, including 595 PWDs, 816
LEAP beneficiaries, 535 orphans and 906 otherwise entitled.

Iraq. 70% of community members reported improved

government responsiveness to their requests and claims
as a result of monitoring and advocacy by a network
of CBOs in 88 communities in Erbil and Sulaymaniyah
governorates (236 of 591 members being women).
6,576 people benefited from improved access to drinking
water; 730 children gained access to primary school;
6,748 people were given access to 12 or more hours of
electricity a day; 4,590 had improved roads or access; 627
had improved access to health care centres; 1,170 farmers
received agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers, etc.).

Nigeria. In Nigeria, the Anambra state government

now publishes a list of live projects for the public to see
(shared with community leaders), with clear statements
that they must legally award contracts for planned
projects to local providers and allow local monitoring for
effective project implementation.
Budget monitoring by 10 trained community groups (300
volunteers, 55% women) in four local government areas in
Anambra has led to the completion of basic rural projects
which had been budgeted for but not started, including
a bridge, two health centres and surrounding fencing,
three primary schools, a 2km road and junction, erosion
and flood control, solar street lighting and four boreholes,
benefiting more than 290,000 people from poor and
marginalised communities.
Sierra Leone. In the elections of 2012, Kailahun was the
only district which exceeded its 30% quota of women
candidates. 36% of councillor nominations (31 of 89)
were women, with 41% (12 of 29) being elected. 28%
(5 of 18) MP candidates from the district were women,
with 13% (1 of 8) being elected into national office. This
result was achieved through the actions of a network
set up in Kailahun District to train and support women
to participate in local and national politics. The network
encompasses 107 groups with a total of over 5,400
women, specifically including those from marginalised
and remote communities.

Legislative changes brought female genital mutilation within

the remit of the Law Against Domestic Violence which
defines punishment for those found guilty of its practice.
Dominican Republic. 130 of 212 (61%) citizenship
cases in domestic courts relating to Dominicans of
Haitian descent have received favourable rulings, setting
important legal precedent for stateless Dominican
citizens. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
hearings have concurred that the national policy of
citizenship withdrawal in these circumstances is against
the human rights of those affected and six cases are
pending in the IACHR. 66 advocacy and support groups
of 2,468 Haitians and their descendants have been
established across six areas of the Dominican Republic.
Kenya. Partner advocacy-influenced citizenship-related
legislation within the countrys new constitution includes
the Identification and Registration of Kenya Citizens
Bill, the Birth and Death Registrations Bill, the Kenya
Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service Bill,
the Kenya Citizens Immigration Bill and the Refugee Bill
2011. Waiting periods for essential citizenship documents
in northern Kenya have since reduced from five to six
months to two to three weeks and transparent processes
have reduced discriminatory judgments towards people
from northern communities.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

The northern district of Isiolo has seen improved

governance surrounding water service delivery as a result
of partners monitoring and nation-wide benchmarking.
Of the 70,000 people covered by IWASCO, the Isiolo
Water Services Company targeted by this programme,
monitoring shows that the average distance people
have to travel to access water has subsequently
vastly reduced. Kakili communities, for example, have
decreased distance from 13km to 1km and Kiwanja
communities now access shallow wells 200 metres from
the village instead of having to go 6km to Isiolo River.
The incidence of outbreak of waterborne diseases has
decreased due to better water quality, and improved
service provision has led to more efficient meter readings,
timely sealing of leakages, house-to-house delivery of
water bills on time, and timely response to complaints
within 24 hours (70% satisfaction of beneficiaries).
Pricing has also been made more equitable, ending
instances of the poorest communities paying inflated
prices for water. All operations within the company
have been computerised, resulting in more transparent
information sharing. IWASCO has also improved
the governance structure of its board, by increasing
womens representation to a third and including a CSO
representative. Isiolo Councils revenue has risen from up
to KES 800,000 (5,889) a year before the GTF to KES 3
million (22,082) annually. IWASCO also raised KES 600
million (4,415,953) from the African Development Bank
to fund further water delivery projects.
Tanzania. The number of citizens participating in statutory
meetings in five districts (Longido, Meru, Arusha Rural,
Monduli and Arusha City) has increased from an average
of 50 people per meeting in 2011/12 to an average of 280
people in 2012/13, at both village and mitaa levels. During
2012/13, 12,300 citizens took part in statutory meetings
as a result of partner activities.

Brazil. The Ficha Limpa (Clean Sheet) Law was passed

following country-wide campaigns and a petition signed
by more than 2 million people, meaning no one with a
criminal record can stand for political office.
Following campaigns by indigenous and Quilombola
groups, 65,000 hectares were returned to the Xavante
indigenous group of Mariwatsd, ending a 40-year
struggle. Similar partner advocacy supported 512 families
living in the Quilombola Brejo dos Crioulos community to
have their land rights recognised and upheld following a
presidential decree which allowed the removal of illegal
rural settlements in the area.
Uganda. Legislation was passed benefiting more than
190,000 refugees and asylum seekers currently living in
the country, including the waiving of the 25 birth and
death registration fees for refugees and the inclusion
of refugee rights in the training curriculum for new
police cadets. Some 5,500 police cadets and constables
have completed their training using this curriculum.
Twelve refugee advocacy and support groups have been
established, giving refugees a collective voice to support
themselves and engage in advocacy.
Other significant changes: Progress towards redressing
power imbalances in favour of poor and marginalised
groups has also been made in other areas through our GTF
programme. In Uganda, our partners key position within
a Civil Society Budget Action Group and ability to leverage
results from grassroots monitoring, coupled with research
and targeted advocacy, guided legislation surrounding public
procurement and more stringent penalties for flouting
procurement laws. Similar advocacy within the same forum
influenced pro-poor decisions at national level, including
the removal of VAT on water and basic commodities; the
reinstatement of the agricultural credit facility for two more
years; promotion of girls education, for example through
provision of materials such as free sanitary pads; increased
allocation to essential drugs in the national budget and
increased funding for vocational education. Teachers saw
a 15% salary increase; and the tax threshold has been
increased from UGX 130,000 (32) to UGX 235,000 (58).

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

In Kenya, partners successfully advocated for the

implementation of a Vetting Board of the Council of Elders
to facilitate the selection of prospective political candidates
in the marginalised North Eastern district of Mandera. In
the 2012 Kenya elections, the newly established Council
interviewed and vetted 54 ward representatives, 12 MP
candidates, three candidates for Governor, three candidates
for Senator and three candidates for womens representative
according to their development plans for the region,
minimising opportunities for corruption and bribery in the
selection process and helping to ensure that the intentions
of candidates were focused on the positive development of
the regions people.
In Brazil, a website promoting political reform to ensure
greater inclusion of the voices of the marginalised was
viewed over 16 million times between its launch in 2010 and
the close of the programme. The signatures on its campaign
petition advocating for these issues reveal significant
momentum and a wide geographical reach, as remote
communities are engaging with information about rights and
representation for the first time.

Power a cross-cutting issue: Our GTF programme

focused strongly on issues of power. Christian Aid contends
that ongoing poverty, and difficulty in overcoming it, are
both the result of unequal power dynamics and the abuse
or protection of power by those who hold it. This theme
was brought out early in the programme and developed as
a cross-cutting learning opportunity. All partners carried out
projects to assess the extent to which an understanding of
power helped them to achieve their aims and objectives.
These learning initiatives involved partners using power
analysis to tackle specific blockages within their projects,
such as a stakeholder they were struggling to engage, the
mainstream media, for example; or reasons why projects
worked better in some areas than others. Partner feedback
has shown that this learning and analysis provided space for
deeper, more context-based strategic thinking around the
work and stakeholders involved, and many have incorporated
analytical tools such as power mapping into their ongoing
planning. This work has sharpened the focus on power in
Christian Aids own organisational strategy, and we are
currently undergoing a review to draw out further learning
and recommendations from the programme which will be
fed back to partner organisations.

CESE Chief Damio Paridzan, leader of the Xavante indigenous people of Mariwatsd, Brazil. This group had their land rights
ratified in 1998, but they were not enforced and illegal settlers continued to live on the land. Following GTF funded campaigns at
the Rio+20 Summit (2012) where the community lobbied, marched and received wide media coverage, the authorities agreed to the
removal of the settlers from 165,000 hectares of their land, enforced by 2013.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

4. Key findings

4.1. Management response to Final Evaluation

Final Evaluation Conclusions

Management Response

1. The indicators [O1] do not address how well the partners

1. Although it is not explicitly stated, we contend that the
have carried out their work on supporting marginalised
indicators do contain elements relating to confidence, for
people especially in the key area of confidence. Ideally
example the use of the words clearly articulating. We
there would be more input from target beneficiaries on
agree that this could have been clearer.
how they perceive the changes in their competencies. [19]

Beneficiary input is a separate issue, and is an area where
it was always a challenge to balance what we would have
liked to do with what was possible.
2. The Evaluation Team is not convinced that this [Output
indicator 2.1] is a clear indicator of authority being held to
account. [25]

2. Looking at this alone is probably insufficient to meet the

overall objective; the logframe needs to be looked at as a
cumulative set of activities and outputs.

3. Overall it seems clear that the three different [Output 2]

indicators are unequal in their ability to demonstrate a
capacity to hold authorities to account. [32]

3. We are unclear about the meaning of unequal given

that the interpretation and representation of the three
indicators was different in each country context. We
would suggest that there was no intention for them to be
equal; they were representative of what were considered
to be the key elements of the outcome focus.

4. T
 he very fact of working together should not be enough
to score here but the global logframe is completed
by evidence of collaboration which is not necessarily
supported by additional results from the collaboration.
[33]

4. A
 gain this is context specific, and while we would agree
that collaboration with evidence of action is desirable, we
would also challenge that collaboration cannot be a result
in itself, as in many challenging contexts it is.

5. The question that the P2P proposal raises is focused on

the conditions under which a pragmatic alliance of CSOs
can become a movement and what differences this
might make to impact on governance and accountability.
[36]

5. We hoped that the evaluation would explore this

question more deeply, but we are now doing our own
analysis to try to pull out learning from our programme to
provide insight to answer this question.

6. A
 lot of the reporting of, for example, contact with media
does not appear to be in the spirit of the indicator since
the media are only playing a dissemination role. [37]

6. T
 his is true, and we have found across the programme
that it has been very difficult to engage the media on a
deeper, more analytical level, which is a lesson in itself.

7. A better more nuanced understanding perhaps a

categorisation of different ways/types of engagement
would be useful. [38]

7. We agree, and a useful outcome from the global GTF

learning would be to collate some good practice around
this.

8. The evaluation team was unable to identify clear

examples of partners or beneficiaries making use of
research institutes to advance their effectiveness. [45]

8. Whilst it may have been good to have more academic

input, there were no clearly defined moments when the
partners felt that such input could be properly engaged.

9. The P2P is remarkable for the investment in learning and

the object of envy of staff in other programmes. [47]

9. We are pleased that this is noted, as we tried hard to

make sure that this element of the programme was a
strong one.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

10. T
 he development and operationalisation of the Power
Analysis took time and this may have limited its impact
on some parts of the programme. [47]

10. P
 ower analysis did indeed take longer than we had
planned, but as this was the first real attempt to
mainstream this in a programme we had no frame of
reference. This is a learning point for our work on power.

11. Output 4 appears at first glance to be focused on

dissemination but in fact this is the weakest area of the
work done under this heading. [52]

11. Whilst dissemination has been somewhat limited, we

did host a significant VFM event under the GTF banner
with some 80 sector representatives present. It may
be that from now on, the main weight of learning and
dissemination happens as programme activities end and
more focus is placed on analysis.

12. N
 ot updating the logframe allowed it to become a
less accurate description of the P2P programme and
perhaps led to a missed opportunity to examine the
effectiveness of global-level logframes in management
of diverse projects in very different situations. [53]

12. T
 his was a key decision, the trade-off being a potentially
stronger logframe versus allowing partners and staff to
focus on their work after very heavy M&E requirements.
We chose the latter and were supported by our MTR
evaluators. We would challenge that it became less
accurate: at outcome level it remained very accurate,
with projects adapting the indicators to suit their
contexts.

13. There has been relatively little impact at national level.

The suggestion that civil society movements could
be created or nurtured within five years appears
overambitious now. [55]

13. Our work largely happens at local level, so it was not

expected that there would be significant national
impact. However, we are able to show contribution
to national change in at least five of ten countries.
The ambition of this depends somewhat on the
interpretation of created and nurtured, and we suggest
both are reasonable in five years.

14. The Goal appears to be a more achievable end than the

Purpose. [59]

14. I n retrospect, we would probably have more

differentiation between our goal and purpose
statements, but these were agreed and signed off as
workable at the time.

15. It could be argued that holding a government to account 15.This is a somewhat circular argument, saying holding
is not the clearest way of expressing the overall purpose
authorities to account may not be sufficient, but then
of this part of the P2P. The point is that citizens are
suggesting that the ideal would be that communities use
empowered and become better able to engage with the
their skills and confidence to engage leaders on services,
authorities that they seek to change. The empowerment
which to us sounds like holding them to account.
in terms of skills, information and confidence is what
matters as it enables people at community level to
continue to engage with the authorities for longer term
improvements in the services and protection they
receive. [60]

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

16. Christian Aid staff suggest now that the spread of

countries was probably too wide and the number of
projects too high. There are more significant results
from projects which received larger sums, which
seems to support this view. [63]

16. Whilst it is hard to prove the counterfactual at this stage,

certainly a smaller focus can be more effective, though
not necessarily so. That larger sums equated to bigger
results may not be an accurate statement in terms
of the relative costs of operation in the countries, as
well as many other variables. Certainly some projects
achieved a great deal with some of the smaller funding
allocations.

17. There is little evidence of synergy or cooperation

between projects. Perhaps a programme designed to
build alliances between projects would not be expected
if the overall purpose was to learn about individual
project situations. [64]

17. To some extent we challenge this, where collaboration

would have been an exercise in box ticking rather than
adding value. Staff and partners were brought together
annually and involved in cross-cutting learning on power,
which brought the programme together. Regionally,
there were good links, though perhaps more so latterly.
We do affirm that the key was learning about individual
project situations, and only now are we really trying to
pull out bigger lessons. The context-specific nature of
our work meant that cross-country learning was always
going to be limited.

18. A
 ttribution becomes an important aspect of working
with longer-term partners where impacts are observed
and seen to be the result of work started some time
before the GTF funding became available. [66]

18. A
 ttribution is important per se, and in some cases it
may be easier to show this over the long term. In others
it will be much harder as a far larger set of factors will
come into play.

19. It is possible to argue that better governance benefits

19. Though this may not have been explicitly spelled out,
all people and tends to benefit the least well off most as
we would suggest that the title of our programme
they may depend more on government services. This
making governance work for marginalised groups,
argument is not presented by Christian Aid in its project
strongly suggests that this was our consideration when
proposal and the intention to provide support to the
designing the programme.
vulnerable and disadvantaged appears as a conventional
poverty focus. [67]
20.It may be that there would be attempts to link projects
around themes while still allowing partners to work to
their strengths in terms of their links to community level
and ongoing work. [69]

20. In the latter stages of the programme, this did happen,
so that partners in LAC focused on the media; in west
Africa they looked at gender; and in east Africa at
citizenship. Potentially we could have done this from
the start, but there is no guarantee that this would have
worked, and this way enabled a more evolutionary
development of themes that speak strongly to the work
the projects were doing.

21. The case [sustainability] needs to be supported by

21. If we look at SENDs work, we can see that this is
observations of real instances where work is maintained
exactly what is happening, as they use their wide
by a partner with many sources of income despite the
funding portfolio to ensure that substantive elements of
withdrawal of funding by Christian Aid. [73]
the GTF work continue.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

22.The reasoning offered for the absence of capacity

building from the programme plan was that not all
partners need capacity strengthening and that it would
be wrong to suggest that Christian Aid was the source
of expertise that should be bestowed upon partners
and that perhaps stronger partners could support the
weaker. [78] It is clear that Christian Aid will have an
active role in promoting the necessary learning so it
could have been described as capacity building. [82]

22. We see the point being made, but havent really
resolved this. On one hand there could have been
benefit in including capacity building, knowing that it is
a valid and useful part of how we work; on the other it
would have then become something we were bound
to deliver, which could have reduced the benefit of the
flexible, implicit capacity building that we ended up
providing throughout the programme.

23. The evaluation team is of the view that the cost-benefit

case of the learning events could be made but it needs
to be researched more to produce reliable justification.
[87]

23. On one level, that we agreed a learning budget at the

start of the programme is in itself an example that this
judgement was made and agreed. But we agree that
some level of ex post analysis of all activities would be
beneficial, including learning events.

24. It must be acknowledged that reporting honestly about

complexity and being modest about contributions does
not always fit easily with the results agenda which
encourages claims of attribution as a minimum. [90]

24. This is no small issue in development generally, but

we have felt that our reporting in GTF has not unduly
pushed us towards claiming attribution where it was not
clearly the case.

25. The increasing GTF drive for results in terms of impact

rather than learning works against testing innovations.
[94]

25. We did try hard to balance the need to make sure
partners were following through their activities to
outputs and outcomes, while at the same time allowing
them the space to be more creative. We may not have
succeeded. Our power learning work was an attempt
to allow them time, space and money to explore things
creatively, though of course this came with additional
reporting requirements too.

26. The approach of developing indicators with each partner 26. We are glad that this participatory approach is validated,
has been a strength in the P2P programme and has
as we felt it was and is important.
helped some partners to appreciate the logframe and
better understand the overall programme. It is difficult
It would be good to get more clarity on the problem
however to make sense of very different performance
of making sense of performance. It sounds as if this
on very different types of observation in terms of
means its hard to aggregate across the programme,
attainment of indicators and achievement of outputs.
which we would agree with, but point out that we
[100]
would not strive to do this except where clearly possible
and of value.
27. M&E was launched with some interesting scorecard
approaches and these were abandoned during the
MTR and this seems a shame as their continued use
might have led to some useful insights both into how
governance projects can work and also into how they
can be assessed. [100]

27. This was a result of the ongoing challenge of balancing

additional M&E against the constraints the partners
were under to manage even the core work. It was clear
that these scorecards were not delivering value, and so
we decided that they should be discontinued.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

28. It might have been possible to argue for a greater

proportion being spent on management as part of
increasing the VfM of the programme especially
given the initial requirements for good learning from
the programme and the later requirements for good
evidence of impact. [101]

28. This may be true, but the difficulty was not just one of
funds (as a number of countries did not use all of their
support budgets) but the time and capacity to do more,
with staff and partners usually working on numerous
other projects.

29. The reporting burden was even more intense at the

end of the programme when partners were required to
provide three almost simultaneous reports and despite
efforts made by ICH staff to absorb the pressure some
demands were inevitably passed on to partners. [102]

29. This was unfortunate, and though we tried to minimise

this, taking on a weight of the reporting in head office as
noted, it was a period of intense demand. We suggest
that programme managers and DFID reflect further on
the value of such reporting.

30. T
 he global logframe for the GTF itself was not
developed until after the grants had been approved and
this was probably not helpful. [104]

30. T
 his is a historic GTF issue covered in previous reports
and evaluations, which all have noted this as being a
problem.

31. The fact that Christian Aid did not update the logframe
and KPMG did not object means that the learning by
staff and partners on how to make governance projects
work is not recorded in the logframe structure and the
logframe as a management tool of a global programme
was not put to the test. [105]

31. We would challenge that revising the logframe would

have made this learning easier; it may even have
impeded it further.

32.The ability to work successfully at local level is a key

feature of the Christian Aid approach of working through
local partners. [110]

32. We are glad that our model of working has been
affirmed.

33. Reporting seems to have become divorced from

learning. [118]

33. We strongly challenge this statement as it stands.

Reporting is both a contractual obligation and a
learning tool and process. Reporting on results does
not preclude learning. P2P management spent a lot of
time going over reports, pulling out key learning points
and feeding these back into the programme. Staff and
partners consistently put time and thought into their
reports and our follow up processes.

34. T
 he regional and global learning events have produced
important improvements in programme quality and
created links between partner agencies that could not
have been created by other means. [115]

34. W
 e affirm this, and would set this against the
observation above that there needs to be a clearer
statement of the value of the learning events.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

10

Final Evaluation Recommendations

1. There is therefore a case for linking to national level
actors and for building alliances to increase the scale and
reach of results. [114]

1. We agree, though this has to be assessed in the context

of what is possible and achievable given the nature and
context of the work.

2. The learning from the programme should be better

disseminated to research institutes and Christian Aid
should be effectively credited where it is the source of
helpful learning and this may be achieved through review
work done in collaboration with IDS staff in September
2013. [117]

2. We fully support the need to factor learning from

programmes such as the GTF back into the sector, and
are working with KPMG, ODI and others to find ways
of doing this. DFIDs support in doing this would be
welcome.

3. Prepare for future evaluations and improve management

of cost-effectiveness by working through some VfM
issues. [119]

3. VfM is a perennial challenge for CA, and indeed most

organisations. There is no one clear standard or definition
on this, even within DFID, and we are working hard to try
to support all staff in gaining confidence in dealing with
VfM in their work. We are keen to use the GTF to help
illustrate different aspects of VfM, linked to learning as
above.

4. S
 elect a smaller number of initiatives so that
management and support is easier. [124]

4. W
 e would suggest that its not necessarily about
selecting a smaller number of initiatives, but about
making sure that the appropriate number is selected,
balancing ambition with evaluability and delivery.

5. Invest in management so that projects get sufficient

support and are able to provide good learning. [124]

5. We agree.

6. S
 tick with those projects where engagement is positive
even where progress is limited. [125]

6. D
 epending on what engagement is positive means,
we agree, recognising of course that a lack of progress
cannot always be excused.

7. Use TOC to discuss project design and progress. [127]

7. We agree, and are working across our organisation and

the sector to nuance the use of TOC to make it a more
realistic, flexible tool which all project stakeholders can
use to design and monitor programmes.

8. Take a lead in the development of ideas of what

8. We are working on this, and play a prominent role in a
constitutes a clear line of sight to poverty reduction. [129]
range of networks, groups and conversations around
many aspects of effective development programming.

4.2. Programme Management

Personnel: The programme manager was replaced in
2011 when she went on maternity leave; she did not
return to post. The support officer was replaced in 2012
after an internal secondment, and in early 2013 this role
was upgraded to a full time project officer role, with the
programme manager function moving to one of oversight

and less direct day-to-day involvement to reflect the nature

of the latter stages of the programme. In East Africa, an
internal personnel issue in 2011/12 led to the removal of the
GTF officer. Legally, the issue was required to play out over a
set period of time, and so support to EA partners was limited
and funding releases disrupted for just over a year.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

Local partners: An early concern was the number and

capacity of partners in the programme, the former hindering
our ability to address the latter. Relatively small grants also
limited both resources and incentive for quality reporting.
By the end of the first year of implementation, we pulled
out from Nigerian partner JDPC Auchi due to concerns
about their ability to manage the programme. Funds were
used to give yearly top-up M&E and translation grants to all
partners. By the end of year two, and for the same reason,
we withdrew from UNIPOP in Brazil and transferred their
grant to CESE and INESC. Following recommendations in
the MTR, our partner portfolio was reviewed again, leading
to withdrawal from ASTI in Tajikistan, freeing up resources
for R&P, which was already delivering impressive results.
In 2011/12, partnership with CREAW ended based on an
assessment that they were unable to deliver the level and
quality of results that the programme required. Funds were
reallocated between EA partners to scale up their work.
Logframe and M&E: The introduction of a logframe
requirement in the GTF programme after the design
stage, and the subsequent need to move towards a
more results-based management approach, dominated
programme management in the first two to three years as
the necessary M&E systems were set up with partners. In
these early stages, we struggled to balance accountability
to donors against accountability to partners, leading the
MTR to advise that we refocus on delivery. We have since
worked alongside partners to build their M&E capacity and
not adapted the logframe further (refer to external evaluation
and management response).
Risk management: Throughout the GTF, we have taken a
proactive approach to mitigating and managing both internal
and external risks. As well as having a risk management
matrix in place, which was regularly reviewed, we mapped
and planned for key external moments such as elections
that were likely to affect programme delivery. Our risk
management processes relied heavily on good quality,
regular communication and open feedback between
partners, country programme and UK staff to identify risks
as they arose and define together appropriate plans and
responses from maintaining watching briefs to actively
changing strategic approaches. Together with the flexibility

11

offered by the fund management, this enabled us to respond

to specific risks as they arose. Examples include:
-

 atural disaster - The Haiti earthquake in 2010 led

N
to our Dominican Republic partners attention being
temporarily diverted towards supporting the sudden
influx of Haitian refugees to the DR. The subsequent
backlash of public sympathy and government support
for these groups created a more challenging advocacy
environment. Our partner redefined campaign strategies
and work with the media and communities accordingly.

- 
Political restructure - In Uganda, constituency
boundaries were redrawn during the GTF period,
so community-based monitors have had to monitor
different budgets and forge new relationships with
LGA officials. New systems were also required for
monitoring programme impact.
- 
Political will - In Brazil, Dilma Rousseffs administration
has proven less supportive of indigenous and
Quilombola groups than the previous government, and
the last five years have seen the mainstream media
depict these groups as criminals. This has meant fewer
lands have been entitled and there has been little
enforcement for entitled groups from authorities. Again,
partners have achieved key successes through adapting
their strategies by winning international popular support
and harnessing social media networks.
Many internal risks, and risks of working in partnership
with delivering organisations, are mitigated by our
embedded policies and organisational processes. These
include regular performance management, partner
monitoring visits and assessments, and partner reports
submitted biannually and reviewed by country and UK
office staff. Each partner has developed mechanisms for
downward accountability to target groups embedded
within their programmes, which in most cases have
provided effective transparent channels for communities
and marginalised groups to raise issues. And in turn,
Christian Aid has open formal and informal channels
of communication which ensures its own accountability
to partners.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

4.3. Programme Results and Impact

a) What has changed:
Policy: in Brazil there have been a number of positive
rulings on the land rights of indigenous and Quilombola
communities, and the Clean Sheet Law was passed,
preventing people with criminal records from standing for
elected office. In Dominican Republic, refugees have been
able to acquire legal documentation so they can access
services, and an Inter-American Committee on Human
Rights hearing rebuked the government for its treatment
of Haitian refugees, stating that its policy of withdrawing
citizenship from the descendants of Haitian refugees is
against their human rights. In Sierra Leone, the Kailahun
district government voted to incorporate the partners
gender action plan into their working practice. In Iraq, a law
was passed that finally put female genital mutilation in the
same bracket as domestic abuse, making it far easier to
prosecute. Uganda has also allowed refugees access to legal
documentation that enables them to access benefits and
services, and fees for refugees registering births and deaths
have been waived. Policy surrounding procurement has
been amended to make processes more transparent, and
corruption easily punishable. The promulgation of the new
Kenyan constitution created unprecedented opportunities for
civil society to influence the countrys legislation. Advocacy
around citizenship legislation has led to waiting periods
for essential citizenship documents in northern Kenya to
reduce from five to six months to two to three weeks.
The countrys Constituency Development Fund, which has
held back development in the north of the country since
its establishment, due to discriminatory distribution, was
rebalanced through an equalisation fund which ensures fair
distribution according to the needs of each devolved county,
driven by widespread campaigns involving partners who are
now monitoring CDF allocations.
Practice: in Tajikistan, the network of Public Chambers
established by partners provides a new and effective way
for people from marginalised rural areas, especially women,
to access free legal advice and remedies, previously
unavailable. In Nigeria, the Anambra state government
now publishes details of all major planned and actual
infrastructure projects for public scrutiny, and awards

12

contracts to local providers. In northern Kenya, a new

community-led vetting system for electoral candidates
attempts to ensure a focus on pro-poor policies as well
as giving greater transparency to the whole process.
Governance surrounding water service delivery in the Isiolo
region has improved as a result of partners monitoring and
nationwide benchmarking. This has led to communities
travelling vastly reduced distances to access water, and
has limited instances of ethnic-based rivalry triggered by
territorial claims over water access. In Ghana, significantly
more children in the most deprived areas of the country
are benefiting from the Ghana School Feeding Programme,
and disabled people are benefiting from a higher budgetary
allocation and improved environment that addresses their
physical needs and constraints. In Uganda, improved
NAADS guidelines following partner advocacy have led to
the pro-poor agricultural benefits reaching marginalised
groups such as urban farmers. Layers of ineffective
bureaucracy in the implementation of the scheme have also
been streamlined to reduce costs and improve transparent,
accountable implementation.
Behaviour: The focus of our programme has been to improve
our partners and beneficiaries capacity to engage their
leaders. In Sierra Leone, the Kailahun Women in Governance
Network is offering new opportunities for more than 5,000
women to get involved in politics and governance, as well
as supporting the continuation of advocacy to keep gender
on the district council agenda, leading to high levels of
female elected representatives. In Brazil, a highly active
social movement takes on all manner of social issues,
drawing attention and galvanising the support of many
millions of people and reaching and representing the most
marginalised groups in the country. In Nigeria, Uganda, Iraq,
Tanzania and Ghana, partners have trained up networks
of community-based monitors, who are now able to hold
their leaders to account on a range of issues, and are better
informed about and motivated to act on key issues. In
Tanzania, the partners actions have seen a marked rise in
the frequency of and attendance at statutory meetings of the
local council, providing a platform for communities to assess
their officials performance in terms of budget and service
delivery, and make demands. In Uganda the government and
the police now show much improved attitudes and practice
towards refugees due to increased collaboration and the

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

incorporation of refugee rights and issues into the training of

new police and prison officers. On top of this, the refugees
have begun to independently form support and advocacy
groups to find ways to improve their own livelihoods. In
Iraq, partners are better able to engage with the local and
national government on social and service delivery issues,
seeing improvement and change in both areas, and women
from impoverished rural areas with FGM incidence of over
75% have successfully been supported to campaign for
legislation change in the Kurdistan region. In the Dominican
Republic, a new network of community-based advocacy and
support groups has unified and empowered Haitian refugees
and their descendants across the country to campaign
for their rights. The locally-driven Reconoci.do campaign
provided a platform for these groups to grow and engage
with social media and international networks, to challenge
the discriminatory attitudes and practices of the Dominican
Republic authorities. As well as providing free legal advice
and aid through Public Chambers, volunteers in Tajikistan
have led outreach in awareness-raising projects to tackle
local issues head on, such as through awareness raising and
training on higher education for girls to combat high drop-out
rates, domestic violence issues and high suicide rates
among women.
Changes in power relations: our dedicated work on power
in our GTF programme has been based on the idea that
everything is an expression of power relations, and so
all changes, big and small, positive and negative, are an
example of shifting power relations. Particularly notable
shifts of power towards those we have been working with
are those where refugees in Kenya, Uganda and Dominican
Republic have gained access to legal documents through
their own work, partner advocacy and external pressure;
where women are now more able to take decisions on their
own lives or resist decisions being made about them, such
as in Iraq, Tajikistan and Sierra Leone; and where systems
have been shifted and improved on a wholesale basis, thus
benefiting large numbers of people, such as in Ghana.
b) Who has benefited:
As the Most Significant Results analyses evidence, our GTF
programmes have benefited targeted marginalised groups
across the world. In Dominican Republic, this was Haitian
refugees; in Brazil, indigenous communities and a network

13

of other marginalised groups; in Nigeria, Tajikistan and Iraq,

poor communities, with a focus on women and girls. In
Ghana it was children and disabled people; in Sierra Leone,
women; in Kenya, refugees, and also poor and marginalised
groups more generally via the new constitution; and in
Uganda it was refugees and also marginalised communities,
most of which were in impoverished rural areas.
c) How the change occurred:
Our programme used a common methodology, reflected
in our theory of change and logframe, which all the country
projects adhered to and adapted to fit their context and
focus. This methodology addresses on one hand the capacity
of CSOs to be able to hold leaders to account, and on the
other the mobilisation of CSOs and civil society movements
to hold leaders to account. Capacity issues related to any
number of things from internal systems and processes
to the ability to analyse national budgets. Mobilising and
holding leaders to account took many forms, from a more
collaborative, consensual working relationship that we saw
in Sierra Leone, to one based on large-scale mobilisation
of public voice against government decisions, such as in
Brazil. Between this, many of our projects were consistently
working to find ways to effectively engage with authorities,
adapting their approach as they went along in response to
changing circumstances.
This adaptation was facilitated by the work that we did
across the programme looking at power, and using power
analysis as a tool to better understand contexts, therefore
suggesting new and improved ways to engage with
structures and holders of power. As expected, this has had
varied results in terms of both depth and type of result it
has helped to achieve. In Brazil the focus was on the mass
media and how the partners could interact more effectively
with them, but this was always with the understanding that
the media is in the hands of the elite, and so was going to
be extremely difficult to change significantly. In Ghana, the
partners power analysis revealed that there was a specific
individual in the local government who was key to getting
their work in district assemblies accepted, and so they were
able to focus their work accordingly. In Iraq, the partners
were able to assess in detail the gender dynamics at play
in two separate areas, and use this as a basis for a more
nuanced and appropriate strategy for engaging with their

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

local authority, leading to a better quality of services being

delivered.
d) Why
If we look at our programme as a whole, it strongly reaffirms
the principle that context is and should be the driving
determinant of the intervention, and the more focused
the context, the more focused the work and the better the
chances of delivering deep, meaningful and lasting change.
So while it is possible to frame a multi-country programme
in a single way, as we did in terms of the facilitation of
social movements and voice, the interpretation of this
in each context has to be allowed to develop and evolve
independently, otherwise the work is being manipulated to
fit the design rather than the other way round. Certain project
contexts could be considered fragile, and all are in areas of
marginalisation and poverty. As such, it is necessary to be
very clear what issue is being addressed, and even more
aware of the political economy, re-analysing this regularly as
things can and do change frequently in such environments.
We found that attempting to do too much, or expecting
results to be achieved quickly, were both likely to result in
disappointment. All of our partners were aware that the work
that they were doing formed just part of much longer term
and more detailed processes of social change, and that they
were unlikely to see ultimate success during the GTF period.
This required a more realistic M&E system and general
appreciation of impact reporting within the partners and
Christian Aid. We are comfortable in stating that our work
has contributed to successes rather than struggling to prove
attribution. This approach is also highly empowering, and
more effective as it allows the work to happen naturally, and
gives all stakeholders more time to do what is important,
though we accept that we did not consistently get this
balance right and in the latter stages of the programme the
reporting burden became excessive.
We feel that our programme was successful because we
were clear but modest in our goals, and allowed our partners
and staff the freedom to make the projects work in the way
they felt best. This was helped by our own freedom to be
able to manage funds with some flexibility, and also by us
encouraging the partners not to be too ambitious but rather
to focus strongly on something that they really felt could
be achieved in the time they had. We also used our learning

14

budget to support the partners to consolidate regional

learning towards the end of the programme, which was a
very good way to showcase what had been achieved, to
build regional linkages and to help the partners look for new
ways to sustain their work. This learning focused on issues
of women and girls in West Africa, media engagement in
Latin America and the Caribbean, and citizenship and rights
in East Africa.
These factors meant that some unexpected results were
achieved, such as Haitian refugee issues being taken to the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which we
would never have predicted or planned for, though on the
whole there were not significant unexpected results.
In terms of obstacles, the main, perennial one, and one
that was expected from the start, is around political will, or
the ability of authorities to respond to demands from civil
society. This is at the core of our power analysis, that shifting
power is always a challenge because power holders are
either unable or unwilling to cede their power, or indeed that
the initial targets may not really be the power holders that
are relevant to the particular issue. For example, many local
governments are as frustrated by their lack of resources
and influence as the citizens to whom they are supposed
to be delivering services. This is not usually a problem to be
solved as such, but an ongoing challenge that all civil society
groups and movements need to aware of and consistently
assessing if they want their work to deliver results.
In terms of sequencing, rather than looking at things
in a strictly linear way, with one stage naturally leading
to another, the broad outcomes of the global logframe
enabled the country projects to work in a more circular way,
implementing a number of activities simultaneously, and
feeding learning from this back into future phases of activity.
This is reflective of the nature of working on governance
issues, and it would have been a mistake to expect things to
move in a predictable or neat progression.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

4.4 Sustainability and Value for Money

The nature of our programme, focused on voice and
accountability, and the fact that it operates entirely through
local partners means that we havent delivered any services at
all. So our assessment of sustainability focuses on impact.
We are confident that all of our partners, and many of the
communities they work with, have improved capacities to
speak up about their rights and hold leaders to account. The
space to enable them to do this is very context-dependent:
in some cases it has been claimed, in others created, in
others co-opted; and, in all circumstances, what space there
is can change at any moment, sometimes with little notice.
Where impact has been a result of more collaboration, this
space is more secure than where it is more combatively
held, but even then a change in government personnel can
easily cause this space to close. But the fact partners have
stronger capacity is one factor that can help in keeping such
spaces open or creating new ones. Where legal or policy
change has happened, there is a much stronger basis for
expecting that changes will not be reversed, or, if they are,
that a clearer basis now exists for mounting a campaign to
stem the reversal.
Sustainability is, therefore, a product of things that are
both internal and external; within and outside the partners
control. As the ultimate results are likely to be long term,
it will only be over a longer period of time that an accurate
assessment of sustainability can be made. For example,
if we look at the work in Tajikistan, the fact that there is
no funding to carry on the work of the Public Chambers is
negative, but then the government is keen to take on the
structure, offering an extended lifeline to this important
work. But this may also be a way of the government
co-opting and neutering something effective.
In Nigeria, the work will be continuing as the country
programme has secured 2 million of funding to explicitly
carry on and expand the work of the GTF, though this is the
only example of that kind from our programme. However, in
other examples, the work that the partners have been doing
is embedded in their own workplans, and will therefore be
sustained as long as the partners are still operating and have
workable budgets from other sources. For example, in Sierra
Leone, SEND has multiple funding sources and the Womens
Network is a key element of various interventions and so will

15

continue after the GTF. KHRC in Kenya will also continue with
their work with school children and on issues of citizenship.
We are confident that our programme represents very
good value for money. Within the budget that was agreed,
each of the projects and the programme as a whole used
the relatively small funding available to deliver very strong
results that have had significant changes on the lives of
very marginalised women and men, at least meeting the
expected outcomes in the original programme plan.
As this was not a programme of direct implementation, and
was focused on mobilising voice via civil society groups and
movements, there was little actual procurement that we can
use as a basis for core economy assessments. Instead, we
must tie economy to efficiency, effectiveness and equity, as
what we were buying was changes in power and capacity
of individuals and groups, and indirectly the use of this
power and capacity to hold leaders to account and demand
rights and change.
Our management costs have been kept to a minimum, almost
excessively so as several independent evaluations have noted
(an interesting example in itself of where striving for economy
can negatively impact upon effectiveness). Country teams
often gave above and beyond what was expected of them.
As agreed with GTF management, when we had underspent
funds, we were able to use these to our discretion to best
support emerging impact across the programme, which is a
key example of enhancing the value that the programme was
delivering with no additional overall cost.
Aside from the measurement of VFM, there is also the
management of VFM, that is, the quotidian, often informal
processes and decisions that determine how things are
implemented and how best to deliver work given specific
contextual knowledge and circumstances. Again, we would
strongly contend that all our country office staff, working
with partners, have consistently shown that they are able
to make such decisions, ranging from decisions to close
stalled partnerships to how best to use additional funds to
enhance impact.
Our first evaluation report noted that we have focused
strongly on learning, and we feel that this is an important
factor of our VFM. This programme is generating a significant
weight of analysis which is, and will continue to be, collated

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

and fed back into Christian Aid and into the sector with the
aim of improving knowledge and performance.
In summary, therefore, this programme has shown that it is
economical, that it is both efficient and effective and that it
has delivered equitable change.

4.5 Innovation
We are aware that recently there has been a greater focus
on closing feedback loops in service delivery using new
technology, but it would have been very difficult to bring
such things into our programme artificially, and it is unlikely
that there would have been capacity to manage such things
effectively. In Sierra Leone, a mass-SMS system was put
in place, but only had limited use. The Platform of Social
Movements in Brazil was very active on new media, but how
far this can be considered innovative is up for debate.

16

The establishment of Public Chambers was an innovation

in geographic terms, as no similar service was available
beforehand in Tajikistan. Its institutionalisation within the
framework of the newly established Ombudsman is also
new, and confirmed at the end of the programme. Similar
institutions are available in other countries.
Our work on power is not founded on new concepts, nor is
it particularly different from other types of context analysis,
including theory of change, of which it can play a crucial part.
However, we do feel that the use of these concepts at the
local level has proven to be innovative, and certainly was
perceived as such by a number of the partners who found
it useable, interesting and effective, and implemented it
within their GTF projects and in some cases throughout their
organisations strategic planning.

SEND Posters of women candidates standing in the 2012 elections. Kailahun was the only district in Sierra Leone which exceeded
its 30% target of women candidates in local and national elections, following partner awareness raising and empowerment activities.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

17

5. Recommendations

DFID/KPMG
1. Learning is not an add-on.
We feel very strongly that the lack of a clear, operational
learning strategy for the GTF is a significant missed
opportunity, and one that can only have a negative effect on
the programmes overall value for money, as well as on the
international network of grantees, who have hardly had any
opportunity to engage with one another or share learning
from each others programmes. The few learning events that
were organised have not fed back into the programme in a
meaningful way. There was no place online where grantees
could interact, which could have been a very easy win. In
future programmes it is essential that the learning strategy is
agreed and ready by the end of inception, so that all grantees
can benefit from and plan for it.
2. Lessons from the Most Significant Results
a) This was an interesting exercise in drawing out and
reflecting on the key results from across the programme
and interrogating the scale, depth and sustainability
of change. The template was well thought out and
comprehensive.
b) The VFM analysis was particularly interesting. Although, as
described above, we feel that our programme offers very
good value for money, only some MSRs ticked the right
boxes and were clearly measurable against the defined
criteria. Moreover, this VFM evaluability did not necessarily
indicate the most impactful results. This was particularly
the case where partners were involved in widespread
movements leading to top level change, such as INESCs
Ficha Limpa result.
c) As a last-minute new requirement with tight deadlines for
the levels of analysis required, the process was difficult
to manage. Our partners were already working on final
annual reports, participating in the external evaluation and
working towards project completion as well as finishing
activities. This meant that gathering the results and drafting
the analyses were largely top-down exercises, with
Christian Aid staff communicating with partners principally
to verify facts and ensure coherence of how success is
perceived. It would be interesting to have had the chance
to properly interrogate communities perceptions of each
projects most significant result and to know whether the
statements submitted would have looked different. Time

and budget did not allow for this, but from recent reports
received and conversations with partners, it is interesting
to note that less tangible improvements in empowerment
and subtle changes to discriminatory attitudes are
perceived as the most significant changes in the lives of
marginalised groups. These impacts do not neatly fit into
results statement templates.
d) Without a clearly communicated vision of how these
results and the rest of the achievements fed in through
our Project Completion Report and Achievement Rating
Scale will be used, it is a concern that our whole
programme may be boiled down to mean only these MSR
statements. It is our feeling that this would not sufficiently
capture the empowerment successes of our programme,
and other results and stories of change that cannot be
easily aggregated may slip through the net.
3. Better assess trade-offs between and within M&E and
effectiveness.
Reporting is of course necessary, but how and when it is
done can be adapted and achieved in a variety of ways. A
clearer idea of how to do this earlier in the programme would
help to reduce later stress and focus on gathering results in
a way that actually draws attention away from delivery.

DFID
4. Be more involved.
We understand that programmes need to be managed by
intermediaries, but this doesnt mean that there has to be
such a degree of remove from DFID. That this was the case
actually gave the impression that there was a lack of interest
in the programme, and certainly didnt help when it came to
managing aspects of the programme such as learning.

CSOs/NGOs
5. Be more assertive about what works, and how best to
implement programmes.
We should push back when we are confident we know how
things could best operate and that our contextual knowledge
is important.

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

6. Plan programmes flexibly to enable them to adapt

to the needs of their context.
In order to deliver strong programmes, it is essential to have
a strong basis in contextual understanding that reflects
the realities of power dynamics rather than assumptions
of what should be the case. This understanding needs to
be constantly updated and assessed, and project delivery
adapted to meet changing circumstances. Power analysis,
properly factored into a programme with sufficient time,
budget and support to do it properly, can be a powerful and
effective way of doing this. Of course a key part of this is the
willingness of all parties to respond to the outcomes of such
analysis. Analysing where power blockages and potential
openings may be are only interesting in and of themselves;
they become useful when the project is able to adapt
what it is doing to try to avoid or exploit such challenges or
opportunities. On a small scale this may not be an issue,
but if it becomes clear that a key tenet of a programme
is ineffective, it may require that donors support a more
wholesale change of approach.
7. Plan programmes with sufficient resource to manage
donor M&E requirements.
In the current donor environment, results-based
management is an essential element of programme
management and ongoing M&E. This should be integrated
into budgets and made clear to partners from the beginning
of programmes, so that the necessary capacity building can
take place and focus and funds are not diverted away from
planned delivery in order to meet reporting requirements. It
is important that current donor expectations for incredibly
low cost, highly demanding M&E are re-adjusted to allow
grant applicants to realistically estimate their M&E costs to
meet the demands of results-based management, and dont
end up absorbing them at the cost of the programme.

Children receiving lunch through the Ghana School Feeding

Programme, now available in poor and marginalised
communities across the Upper West District. Over the course
of the GTF, access to the programme has increased by 1,400%
to over 140,000 children following community awareness
raising and monitoring

18

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

Annexes

Annex 1

Final Achievement Rating Scale*

Annex 2

Final Logical Framework*

Annex 3

Final Financial Report

Annex 4

Final List of Material Produced during Programme*

Annex 5

Most Significant Results Analyses*

Annex 6

Final Evaluation (Available on request)

Annex 7

Politically sensitive information

*Available on request please contact Kevin ODell,

Programme Funding Officer, Global Initiatives, at kodell@christian-aid.org

19

20

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

Annex 3 Final
Financial Report
This report presents actual expenditure against our agreed detailed budget (not the summary budget used for Funding
Requests). Expenditure variances in excess of 10% of the agreed budget have been submitted as separate notes to our
financial report.

3.1 Programme Identification

3.3 Funds received from DFID during Final

Reporting Period

1. GTF Reference No.

GTF-301

2. Organisation Name

Christian Aid

3.2 Final Reporting Period

1. Start of Period

01 April 2013

2. End of Period

31 Oct 2013

Payment No.

Date Received

Amount

Payment 1

03/04/2013

120,194.73

Payment 2

16/07/2013

10,360.00

Total received during Period

130,554.73

3.4 Expenditure during final Reporting Period

Agreed Budget Lines
Christian Aid staffing

Agreed Budget for

Period

Actual Expenditure
for Period

Variance

Variance %

99,471.64

89,849.03

-9,622.61

-9.67%

-6,295.64

-6,295.64

Output 1 Knowledge,
awareness and organisation

0.00

Output 2 Action and

Interaction with Authorities

0.00

-4,907.743

-4,907.74

Output 3 Civil society

working together

0.00

-2,430.804

-2,430.80

Output 4 Experience
sharing activities

70,366.12

51,615.385

-18,750.74

-26.65%6

Partner support grants

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00%

169,837.76

127,830.23

-42,007.53

-24.73%

Total for period

2 Negative amount due to returns of unspent fund balances from partners.

3 See note 1 above
4 See note 1 above
5 Includes returns of unspent fund balances from partners
6 Primarily due to partner returning unspent funds from Partner Learning Events
7 See notes 1 to 5

Power to the People: Making Governance Work for Marginalised Groups Project Completion Report

21

3.5 Expenditure since start of Programme

Agreed Budget Lines

Total Agreed
Programme Budget

Total Expenditure

Variance

Variance %

462,218.55

452,595.94

-9,622.61

-2.08%

Output 1 Knowledge,
awareness and organisation

1,476,656.46

1,470,360.82

-6,295.64

-0.43%

Output 2 Action and

Interaction with Authorities

1,458,884.75

1,453,977.01

-4,907.74

-0.34%

Output 3 Civil society

working together

1,013,013.17

1,010,582.37

-2,430.80

-0.24%

Output 4 Experience
sharing activities

485,586.45

466,835.71

18,750.74

3.86%

Christian Aid staffing

Partner support grants

Total to Date

103,435.62

103,435.62

0.00

0.00%

4,999,795.00

4,957,787.47

-42,007.53

-0.84%

3.6 Asset register

Available on request

3.7 Detailed Financial Breakdown

Available on request

Annex 7
There is no politically sensitive information.

christianaid.org.uk
christianaid.ie
UK registered charity number 1105851 Company number 5171525
Scotland charity number SC039150
Northern Ireland charity number XR94639 Company number NI059154
Republic of Ireland charity number CHY 6998 Company number 426928
The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian Aid
Poverty Over is a trademark of Christian Aid.
Christian Aid November 2013 14-122-J1873
Cover image: R&P The deputy Ombudsman from Dushanbe opens the
first Public Chamber jointly established by Christian Aid partner Rights &
Prosperity and the National Ombudsman for Human Rights. R&Ps Public
Chambers initiative has been so successful that the Ombudsmen is keen
to establish many more throughout the country to reduce corruption,
help people access their rights, benefits and entitlements and hold
the government to account. The Ombudsman recently committed to
financing and sustaining the network of nine Public Chambers across
Tajikistan established through the GTF from January 2014.
Credit: Christian Aid/Amanda Farrant, UDN/Walter Akwat, OPAN/Adriano
Gambarini, SEND, KHRC