NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Feasibility Review by Regional Office

General information

National Office Kenya Region East Africa

RO Contact Person Albert Siminyu Reviewed by RO and GC IPE, SOs
Date Sent for Review June 9th 2010 Date Reviewed July 2nd 2010

Part A - Review of Summary

1 Are the people assigned with primary responsibility senior enough to lead in their YE
NO X
respective roles in IPM adoption and revised CMS implementation S
(if no, please provide comments)

2 YE
Have the roles and their description been clearly assigned and defined? X NO
S
(if no, please provide comments)
The roles are present, but the description of the responsibilities seem not to be included. It was left as in the
template.
3 Do you foresee any gaps in terms of people assigned and or the scope of roles YE
NO X
covered? S
(if noYes, please provide comments)
It is recommended that the adoption committee has an advocacy person.

Any other comments or are there any unique strengths of their approach in this section that you would like to
highlight?

Part B. Review of Revised CMS Implementation Plan

1 Do the identified implications demonstrate that the NO has thought through the end-to-
end process of implementing the revised CMS? The implications identified should
include at a minimum:
- Capacity gaps / training needs
YES X NO
- Approach to RC monitoring plans and integration with program planning and
monitoring
- Roles of child monitors, ADP staff and partners
- Approach to utilization of STEP data within overall DME process
(if no, please provide comments on other implications for the NO to consider)
However, the NO needs to share more information on the implications of the approach to utilization of
STEP data within overall DME process
2 Do the recommended actions and changes adequately respond to each of the identified
YES NO X
implications?
(if no, please provide comments including suggested actions and changes for the NO to consider)
However, the NO needs to develop required actions / changes that respond to the implications of utilizing
STEP data within overall DME process
3 a) Does the implementation plan (narrative description and table of activities)
YES X NO
adequately cover the actions and changes required?
(if no, please provide comments including suggested actions and changes for the NO to consider)

NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |1
 b) Do the timeframes for activities seem feasible and align with the partnership
YES X NO
guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

c) Have the ‘resources required’ and ‘dependencies’ been adequately covered? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

4 a) Does the plan for Upgrading to STEP 3.0 and STEP Decentralization (if not
decentralized yet), which includes the narrative description and table of activities, YES X NO
adequately cover the actions and changes required?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

b) Do the timeframes for activities seem feasible and align with the partnership
YES X NO
guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

c) Have the ‘resources required’ and ‘dependencies’ been adequately covered? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

5 Does the schedule for ADPs seem feasible and align with the partnership guidance? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

6 Does the NO adequately describe how it will manage coordination and monitor
YES NO X
progress against the plan?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
RO will provide additional support to NO to compete this section.
7 Does the type and level of support needed seem appropriate based on your
understanding of the NO, and will this be adequate for the NO to successfully YES X NO
implement the revised CMS?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

Any other comments or unique strengths of the NO’s approach in this section that you would like to highlight?

Part C. Review of IPM Adoption Plan

1 Does the NO adequately describe the overall process and major milestones (reflecting
YES NO X
the scope of section C.5), and are these in alignment with partnership guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
The NO is focusing more on the initial stages. They need to focus on milestones that will relate to the
overall adoption plan, which would indicate milestones at different adoption periods
2 a) Does the schedule for IPM adoption by each ADP align with partnership guidance? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

b) Does the plan for using indicators for CWBO by each ADP align with partnership
YES X NO
guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

3 Do the identified implications demonstrate that the NO has thought through the YES NO X
implications of IPM adoption using Annex 4 of the guidance for NOs preparing to
adopt IPM (or similar tools)? The implications identified should include at a

NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |2
 minimum:
- To be included
- To be included
- To be included
(if no, please provide comments on other implications for the NO to consider)
 The only implication noted is phased training on IPM, yet majority of ADPs proposed for IPM
adoption are in existing. WVK needs to comprehensively identify the implications of IPM in
existing ADPs e.g. primary focus areas, working with partners (which may not necessarily be sub-
granting CBOs, as is already happening in most of these ADPs), organizational changes to support
IPM adoption etc.
 The office seem not to have had time to go through Annex 4. They mention in the document that
they will have a more detailed process in the future. Perhaps the timeline for preparing an action
plan was too short and the document Kenya sent mentions that they will need to have a more
detailed plan in the future. There is need to demonstrate use of annex 4 of the NO guidelines for
adoption
4 Do the recommended actions and changes adequately respond to each of the identified
YES NO X
implications?
(if no, please provide comments including suggested action and changes for the NO to consider)
 The recommended actions and changes are short statements that are not elaborated, and only one of
them is linked to identified implications, i.e. staff capacity building. In revising this section, either
provide more details in the implications section or elaborate more on the bullet points, e.g. “change
staff, partners and community approach to development”. What aspects of this needs to change,
why, what is the current practice and what will the desired change look like? This section would be
directly linked to no. 3 above when it is done appropriately.
 The office seems aware of going through the process of looking at the implications and actions to be
taken in the near future. They did identify the need for a more detailed process to evaluate
implications and actions to be taken.
5 a) Does the adoption plan (narrative description and table of activities) adequately
YES NO X
cover the actions and changes required?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 The adoption plan needs to correspond to the adoption timeframe. This only covers FY 10. Please
show what will be happening in future years. The changes required are not expected to be done at
once but the NO should plan to gradually address them
 The narrative section is missing, and the last column in the table of activities (dependencies) is
incomplete, i.e. has no info. Some of the resources required tend to raise questions e.g. time
availability. This is your plan; you are the ones crafting it, why should you then not set time for it?
Also explain the * used in the table
 The implications and actions described in the document seem to focus at the programme level,
however, little is mentioned on the implications and actions to be taken at the NO level.
b) Do the timeframes for activities seem feasible and align with the partnership
YES NO X
guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 As mentioned in (a) the adoption plan needs to be spread over the adoption period
 They still need to go through the Annex 4 of the Guidance for NO preparing to adopt IPM.
c) Have the ‘resources required’ and ‘dependencies’ been adequately covered? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 Some of the info on dependencies is missing, hence it is not possible to draw conclusions on these.
If the above sections 3,4,5 are done appropriately, it will be easy to identify appropriate resources
and dependencies as you will realize changes required are quite significant
 Although the response is no to this question, WV Kenya is aware of having to go through a more
detailed process for IPM adoption. There will be need to discuss with the NO on how they plan to
do this in more detail.
6 a) Does the NO adequately describe the plan to build capacity of NO and ADP staff to
YES NO X
understand and work with IPM (narrative description and table of activities)?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions to improve for the NO to consider)
 Narrative description is missing and dependency column is not complete. The revised plan should
not have section guide notes not just in this section but remove guide notes from all sections. The

NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |3
 CB plan also needs to reflect the multiyear adoption plan. How will capacity be built over the
adoption period?
 They describe a capacity building process mainly for the programme staff and little is mention about
the NO staff. It would be important that WV Kenya works a capacity building plan for the NO staff
too.
b) Do the timeframes for activities seem feasible and align with the partnership
YES NO X
guidance?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 Timeframe needs to be in alignment with the multiyear adoption plan
c) Have the ‘resources required’ and ‘dependencies’ been adequately covered? YES NO X
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 Dependencies need to be identified for all activities. Resources required for activity # 7 are not
indicated
7 Does the monitoring plan adequately describe how the NO will monitor progress
YES X NO
toward adoption of IPM?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)
 The monitoring plan gives general outline on IPM adoption monitoring. Although the M&E
coordinator will come up with a monitoring framework, the plan needs to clearly articulate broad
themes for monitoring, e.g. that all ADPs adopting IPM in FY 11 have budgeted for the same in FY
2011 plans
 But as mentioned in the document, they will have to consolidate an implementating plan of action in
order to know how they will monitor this plan.
8 Does the type and level of support needed seem appropriate based on your
understanding of the NO, and will this be adequate for the NO to successfully adopt YES NO X
IPM?
(if no, please provide comments including suggestions for the NO to consider)

Any other comments or unique strengths of the NO’s approach in this section that you would like to highlight?
 The plan for IPM adoption targets designing and re-designing ADPs which is in sync with partnership
guidelines. However, the plans needs to state clearly whether ADPs re-designing for transition in the
various FYs are part of IPM adoption or not.
 Too little detail. It would be good if WV Kenya look at other stakeholders (SO and GC) as more than
resources for funding.

Part D. Review of Integration of IPM Adoption and Revised CMS Implementation

1 Are the opportunities identified for integration appropriate and promoting greater
synergy between the processes for the implementation of the revised CMS and IPM YES NO X
adoption?
(if no, please provide comments including your suggestions for the NO to consider)
Revised plan should not have guide notes
2 Do the assumptions and risks stated seem appropriate and adequately stated? YES X NO
(if no, please provide comments including your suggestions for the NO to consider)
 The assumptions could be called killer assumptions, e.g. availability of the committee members and
them doing their job. Once again, since this is a WVK plan, done by WVK, why not ensure
accountability on the part of the committee?.
 It would be good to have more details on the risks and how they plan to mitigate them.

Any other comments or unique strengths of the NO’s approach in this section that you would like to highlight?
Overall comments of this plan (from SOs) ..see next page…

NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |4
 1 What do you see as the strengths of this plan?
 The NO is managing the rollout of IPM in a coordinated, gradual and resource efficient way. The plan to
begin IPM implementation with those IPAs/ADPs that are new or in re-design again makes perfect
sense. It is unlikely to seriously overstretch the capacity of the NO or require costly consultants.
 The rollout will utilize World Vision staff from the NO and RO in the rollout, which ensures that in-
house capacity for IPM is built and maintained.
 The plan recognizes the need for staff capacity building to enable them to see RC monitoring as beyond
data gathering to contributing towards child well –being.
2 What do you see as the challenges of this plan, and how could they be addressed?
 It might be useful to include an analysis of staff time and how their ability to perform their other duties
will be impacted by IPM rollout. How will the organization manage this?
 The plan should provide a detailed timeline for rolling out IPM in the 8 ADPs/IPAs redesigning in
FY11, so that not all evaluations are happening concurrently. This would allow WV Kenya to avoid
using consultants and also ensure the evaluation reports are ready in time for rolling out IPM in the
redesign. This plan should also highlight when exactly each ADP/IPA will complete the assessment tool
and other steps.
 There are a few important areas of the document that have not been completed. Please complete.
 The plan needs to mobilize sufficient resources in order to be achieved. For example the pilot ADP does
not have the resources needed to fully implement the revised CMS. Funds from the GC have been
promised, but this needs to be followed up on so that the CMS implementation plan is fulfilled.
 For ADPs/IPAs that are being redesigned there is likely to be significantly different community
expectations than for new IPAs. It would be helpful to clarify how these expectations will be managed
and what impact they may have on the redesign and effective rollout of IPM, if any.
3 Any other comments?
 Garbatulla is currently ending the design process in FY10 and WVC is expecting the design document
and picture folders shortly, yet it is listed as doing a design in FY11 using IPM. Please clarify.
 Mwatate is listed as Hong Kong funded when this assessment project is being funded by WVC
 SOs might also be able to provide some capacity building assistance. They have only been asked to
provide financial assistance. SOs will also need capacity building, but it would be helpful to broaden
their role from purely financial assistance. We recommend participation in redesign workshops and
evaluations to begin with.
 On page 13, Ijara IPA/ADP is described as being supported by WVUS. In fact, it is now supported by
WVUK, so this should be reflected in the document.
 The list of acronyms and abbreviations is missing quite a few that are in the narrative.


NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |5
Please find a summary of your adoption schedule that we have extracted from your NIAP. Kindly
confirm it as you also confirm the earliest date you would like training in IPM.

KENYA
Fiscal Ye ar De sign Re de sign Total

FY’10 0 0 0

FY’11 3 5 8

FY’12 6 10 16

FY’13 2 8 10

FY’14 0 13 13

FY’ 15 - -

Total 11 36 47

NIAP Review Tools: Template B for Quality and Timeliness Review by RO Page |6