Zambia - Innovation Grant Facility

Metadata Updated: February 23, 2019

The performance evaluation of the IGP is structured according to five phases of IGP implementation that we have identified for each grant cycle: start-up, selection, implementing the award, completing the award, and revising the process. These five phases differ slightly from the six main steps identified in the IGP grant manual; however, all of the activities reflected in the grant cycle implementation figure (p. 19 of the grants manual) are included in the five phases below. We chose to establish slightly different grant cycle implementation phases so the performance evaluation can address a critical element not reflected in the IGP manual's phases: “revising the process.” This phase is a critical component of the performance evaluation of the IGP facility. AIR's performance evaluation of the IGP is structured around the five phases of IGP implementation mentioned above. AIR will use the following overarching questions as a framework to the evaluation question design: · Did the program achieve its objectives using the implementation model envisioned? · Did the IGP adhere to its objectives: 1. To increase and sustain the access of the poor to quality water and sanitation and improved drainage maintenance through solid waste management? 2. To enhance the functioning of the water supply, sewerage, and drainage systems? 3. To demonstrate an innovative approach or technology to improve water use, sanitation, and hygiene practices among the poor? 4. To identify and provide assistance to innovative partnership arrangements, particularly through private sector engagement? 5. To provide significant access by women and vulnerable groups to the IGP and its benefits? 6. To expand opportunities for entrepreneurship and income-generating activities related to water supply, sanitation, and drainage maintenance through solid waste management? · Did the grant selection process prioritize interventions based on its key objectives, and was process an efficient and effective way to identify the “best” projects? · Is grant oversight sufficient? Is it cost-effective? · How can the Innovation Grant Program better mobilize private-sector resources? · How can MCC specifically or another organization best replicate this program? Start-up: During start- up, we will investigate the effectiveness of the IGP solicitation process to potential grantees. Another key area of interest will be gathering the demographic information of the grantees. The evaluation of the IGP's start-up phase will be based on the questions below: · What is the implementation plan for the grants? · How is information about the program disseminated? · Have there been specific outreach and dissemination activities targeting potential grantees that are best qualified to provide high quality services to women's groups, poor communities, and new entrepreneurs? · Does the MCA provide assistance with grant development, funding guidelines, and budgeting? · Does MCA facilitate connections between (potential) applicants or between applicants and government agencies? · Do targeted communities and stakeholders understand the intention and structure of the grant program? · What is the proportion of grantees from each technical intervention area (i.e. solid waste removal)? · What are potential grantees' and their communities' expectations of the program? · How well informed are potential grantees of the application and selection process, and of the available resources and support to help them participate? · How many grantees apply and how many applications do grantees submit? · How many applications meet the basic qualifications for participation in the program? · Do the interventions supported by the IGP clearly benefit poor communities, women's groups, and small entrepreneurs? · To what extent do the number and nature of applications meet MCA expectations? · To what extent do the applications cover a broad range of services and service areas? · Are proposals received highly relevant to the proposal call area and well distributed across the different calls areas? · Do the problem statements and proposal calls address areas that key IGP stakeholders perceive to be high impact? Selection: During selection, we will investigate the selection process of the IGP with particular focus on the scoring procedures of the grants. Additionally, AIR will also examine the ways in which selection decisions are communicated to the grantees. Selection questions include: · Does IGPM follow its rules for reviewing, rating, and ranking grant applications? · Are the reviewers adequately trained and supported? · Is the review process fair, efficient, and responsive to the needs of potential grantees? · Are grantees notified of the grant decision in a timely and effective way? · Are grantees provided with feedback that enables them to improve their grant application and resubmit? · Do rejected applicants understand and accept the outcome of the selection process? · Do rejected applicants plan to resubmit revised applications? · Are rejected applicants requesting assistance with resubmission? · How many grants are awarded? · What is the average grant size? · What proportion of available funds is committed to accepted grants? · Is the grant selection process an efficient and effective way to identify the “best” projects based on how the projects align with IGP investment criteria? Implementing the award: During the implementation phase, we will investigate the process of implementing the award. AIR will closely examine the negotiations of grantees' contracts, the process in which funds are disbursed, and the ability of grantees to successfully meet their quarterly goals. Illustrative research questions include: · How did the negotiations of the contract impact the implementation of the award? · Are grantees adequately supported with necessary technical and managerial assistance? · Are funds transmitted to grantees in a timely and efficient way? · Are grantee spending and performance adequately and efficiently monitored? · Do grantees receive timely feedback on their performance? · How does MCA monitor its own performance in the operation of the grant program? · Is MCA meeting its own expectations for successful implementation of the grant program? · How well is the grant program integrated into other compact activities? · What proportion of awarded grant funds is spent on time and on target? · What proportion of grantees achieves their performance objectives at various points throughout the grant period? · Is MCA's oversight of the grants sufficient and cost effective in terms of spending and M&E targets?
· Does MCA-Zambia/IGPM verify that applicants have met quarterly milestones before awarding the conditional grant disbursements? · What percentages of applicants fail to receive disbursements on time due to failure to meet quarterly milestones? Completing the award: During the completion phase of the award, we will investigate the sustainability and impact of the grantees' programs. In particular, how effective IGP efforts were in increasing access to clean water and sanitation to vulnerable communities. AIR will pay particular attention to grantees' ability to successfully sustain its programs efforts and the impacts of these programs on their catchment communities. As part of these efforts, AIR will examine the perceptions of relevant stakeholders regarding grantees' programs. However, it is important to note that a full assessment of IGP may not be possible due to the short timeframe. Illustrative questions include: · What proportion of grantees is still active in business at the end of the grant period? · What proportions of the grants demonstrate potentially viable, long-term, profit-generating business opportunities? · How do civil society organizations and policy makers perceive the changes the program has made to the overall infrastructure for water, sanitation, and drainage services in Lusaka? · How aware of the program are households, civil society organizations, policy makers, and other water and sanitation focused stakeholders? · Has the grantee spurred “copycat” organizations? · Did the grantees feel that they received adequate time to thoroughly complete all of the interventions? · To what extent are the benefits of the program cited as reasons for larger systemic changes by policy makers and compact implementing entities? · What is policy makers and compact implementing entities' perception of the extent to which the program has created individual interventions and structures that are sustainable even after program funding ends? · Has the grant program led to new partnerships between organizations in water, sanitation, or solid waste value chain? · Has the grant program led to new private sector investment in the sector? · Has the grant program led to new/ refined models of pro-poor service delivery? · What is the perception of benefits to the poor and vulnerable populations? Revising the process: During this phase, AIR will investigate IGP's ability to successfully meet its objectives. As part of this process, AIR will examine the ways in that the IGP process could be further improved. Illustrative questions include: · Did the program achieve its objectives using the implementation model envisioned? · How can the IGP better mobilize private sector resources? · How can MCA specifically or another organization best replicate this program?

Access & Use Information

Public: This dataset is intended for public access and use. License: No license information was provided. If this work was prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties it is considered a U.S. Government Work.

Downloads & Resources

Dates

Metadata Created Date November 30, 2017
Metadata Updated Date February 23, 2019

Metadata Source

Harvested from MCC Data.json

Additional Metadata

Resource Type Dataset
Metadata Created Date November 30, 2017
Metadata Updated Date February 23, 2019
Publisher Millennium Challenge Corporation
Unique Identifier DDI-MCC-ZAM-IGP-WASH-2017-v01
Maintainer
Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation
Maintainer Email
Public Access Level public
Bureau Code 184:03
Metadata Context https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.jsonld
Schema Version https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema
Catalog Describedby https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/catalog.json
Datagov Dedupe Retained 20190222230752
Harvest Object Id 7e943194-0be5-473d-b972-499361f28600
Harvest Source Id 56258383-6604-4f83-87c7-7d7be329c1b3
Harvest Source Title MCC Data.json
Homepage URL https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/197
Data Last Modified 2019-02-20
Program Code 184:000
Source Datajson Identifier True
Source Hash e17ac269a0a48898cbaf4a0ca0123ebad05883de
Source Schema Version 1.1

Didn't find what you're looking for? Suggest a dataset here.