Summary of lessons for future programming This section has explained how additional scrutiny on risk and risk management ensured VSCF project implementation throughout a period fraught with multiple risks. Lessons to be drawn for future programming include: • •
Enhance risk management processes as needed, and as contexts change. Clarify risk appetite with partners from the outset, ensure all partners are informed about risks, understand each other’s perceptions of risk, and collaborate on risk management. Agree timely, accurate and useful risk reporting to enhance decision making and support management and oversight. Use risk scenario planning to anticipate challenges and choose paths that can be managed.
• •
4. Monitoring and Evaluation for Results and Impact This section describes how the Facility Manager’s approach to monitoring and evaluation contributed to the VSCF’s achievements. It highlights how a focus on monitoring for impact and fast-tracking of data collection, enabled responsive decision-making by programme partners, informed programme direction and maximised value. The effectiveness of monitoring for ‘Results and Impact’ is evidenced by: • • • • •
BP4GG was awarded an A+ in the Annual Review 2020 and scored 76 on the FCDO Strategic Relationship Management scorecard - exceeding expectations. Increased reach from an initial target of reaching 200,000 people to reaching 1.4 million people by the end of the programme. Increased measures of VfM by a factor of 20 (4000 workers at £42.50 per beneficiary to 72,496 workers at £2.10 per beneficiary) by redirecting resources following the coup in Myanmar to the Bangladesh garments projects. Over achievement of outcome targets: 11 times more beneficiaries reporting changed workplace practices than the original target set. Over achievement of impact targets: 9 times more beneficiaries having improved livelihoods than the original target set.
Build the Theory of Change and logframe together, creating opportunities for ownership of the full theory of change and assumptions that underpin the change process. When FCDO decided to pivot the BP4GG programme and establish a COVID-19 rapid response Facility, the programme’s theory of change, and assumptions underpinning it, were revised. This created a unique opportunity for implementing partners to influence the full theory of change, which in turn created buy-in and ownership of the selected indicators of change used in the logframe. The theory of change reflected a ‘shared value perspective’ i.e., if partnership projects delivered social and economic interventions for vulnerable groups to help them deal with the impact of the pandemic, these initiatives would also support businesses to continue their operations in a safer and more responsible way. As it was impossible to predict what could realistically be achieved by the VSCF given the uncertainty of the pandemic, VSCF logframe targets were set with caution, whilst attempting to be realistic when ‘predicting the unpredictable’. Focus upon big picture outcomes - not inputs. Given the volatility of the COVID-19 situation and the likelihood activities would be disrupted, the Facility Manager focused on the overall value, and results to be achieved at outcome and impact levels, rather than fixating on activity and output level targets. This reflected the importance of targeted impact to ensure the VSCF delivered value for money. Managing Value for Money. Throughout implementation of the 8 chosen projects, the Facility Manager encouraged projects to improve value for money (VfM). The VfM improvements were managed in several ways, including through the identification of additional beneficiaries, and by adapting activities for greater impact. As a result, targets for indicators of VfM set at the beginning of the VSCF projects were exceeded. By the end of the programme, the cost per beneficiary reached with programme products and services (Output level) was £1.69 compared to a target of £11.87. At Outcome level, the cost per beneficiary reporting improved practices was £2.03 compared to the logframe target indicator of £23.75. At Impact level, the cost per beneficiary was £3.23 compared to the logframe target indicator of £29.68.
11
