You are on page 1of 7

WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT REPORT

PROJECT PROPOSAL FORMULATION AND GRANTS MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN WEST AFRICA

DATE: 16-18 February, 2011 VENUE: WACSI Secretariat

1

Introduction The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) established by the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) and the George Soros Foundation organised a 3 day training workshop from16-18 February, 2011 at the WACSI Secretariat in Accra, Ghana focused on EU, USAID, WB, UN Grant requirements titled “Project Proposal Formulation and Grants Management” for Civil Society Organisations in West Africa. The workshop attracted 30 participants’, 11 females and 19 males from civil society organisations across West Africa. This included the Project Director of Mano River Union Training Project Orando B. Yanquoi from Sierra Leone, the Finance and Administration Manager of NDI Abibath Bodea from Nigeria, the Regional Finance and Support Services ManagerWest Africa West Regional Office of Sight Savers Bakary Marong from Senegal, the Deputy Executive Secretary of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, Raymond Bob Katta amongst others. At the end of the 3 day Training workshop, participants assessed the delivery of the workshop by answering the questions in a questionnaire given to them. The questionnaire was in three sections- Overall Course Delivery, Course Content and Course Duration respectively. Below is a compiled response of the participants’

SECTION A
Overall Course Delivery
In this section participants’ were asked to rate their satisfaction in relation to the overall delivery of the workshop and give reasons to support their ratings. The ratings ranged from 3, 2 and 1 indicating, Very Satisfied, Satisfied and Not Satisfied respectively. Below is a tabular presentation of the ratings in percentages by the participants’.

2

Percentage Rating Participants Areas of Assessment 1. 2. 3. Overall Impression Where your objectives met? Rate your satisfaction with training materials Very Satisfied 73,33% 53,33% 53,67% 60% Satisfied 26,67% 46,67% 43,33% 40%

Outcomes Not satisfied 0% 0% 0% 0%

of

4. Did the workshop help build on knowledge & skills? 5. How effective was The discussions the methodology? The exercises

50%

50%

0%

53,67%

43,33%

Participants Response to Ratings Overall Impression To response of this the participants, the participants gave the following answers to explain their ratings.  The workshop was very good  The workshop was well organised  The workshop has increased understanding in the specific area  It was conducted in a good atmosphere (friendliness and familiarity)  The approach used by the trainers was really practical  The workshop provided a platform for sharing experiences  Trainers had excellent knowledge of the subject  The training framework was adequate and perfect  The workshop met expectations  Punctuality was respected  The group dynamic was excellent  Consistency of sections was perfect  The workshop enabled exchange

3

Were your objectives met? To answer to the above question, participants responded as follows:  The workshop satisfied participant concerns  The workshop met expectations  The workshop strengthened and equipped skills  The workshop has improved knowledge in project formulation and grants management Course Training Materials According to the participants’, the course training materials were:  Useful  Rich in terms of content and presentation  Relevant to the course  Enhances work  Well taught out and could form basis for in house training  Satisfactory  Good  Comprehensive  Detailed  Practical  Excellent  Well developed Knowledge and skills Acquisition Participants acknowledged the usefulness of the workshop referring to their previous level of knowledge on the subject Responses were among others:  The workshop consolidated skills  Learnt a lot of key concepts on Project Proposal  Improved knowledge  Shared experiences  The workshop provided information on the concept of log frame(problem tree, objective tree)  Knowledge has been acquired  Capacity has been enhanced Training Methodology Discussion The answers given by participants on the methodology were among others:  Very rewarding  Methodology adopted was suitable for the adult learning  Allowed to benefit from others' experiences  Participatory  Interaction between participants  Allowed all participants to speak 4

The practical Sessions Participants said the practical sessions were:        Increase the duration to five days Real life practical session The time allocated for the group discussion was not enough Comprehensive but rewarding Instructive in teamwork and good brainstorming Sharing and learning ideas Provided opportunity to learn from each other

SECTION B
Course Content How effective was the components (listed in the box below) in building your Project Proposal knowledge and skills. Use the following code and write the number which represents your opinion in the box Project Proposal Formulation and Grants Management Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participants Very useful, Satisfied with Not satisfied, am very this topic, may may not be satisfied be useful useful 100% 0% 0%

1 Session 1: Project Proposal Formulation Process 2 Session 2: Grants reporting requirements EU, USAID, UN, WB and others Session 3: Proposal Marketing the Project

76,66%

13,33%

0%

3

73,33%

26,66%

0%

4 Session 4: Logical Framework Matrix

93,33%

6,66%

0%

5 Session 5: Designing and Utilising a 83,33% Monitoring and/or Evaluation Tool based on the Logical Framework of the Project

16,66%

0%

5

6 Session 6: Utilisation

Funds

Allocation

and 66,66%

33,33%

0%

7 Session 7: Ethics in Grants Management

76,66%

20%

3,33%

8 Session 8: Risk Management

73,33%

26,66%

0%

9 Session 9: Project Implementation

76,33%

23,33%

0%

Write one or two sentences to describe what you learned from the workshop.  Learnt how to write a good proposals  Learnt the importance of M&E  Learnt about the log frame  Learnt networking and being proactive  Learnt the project formulation process  Clearer understanding of the process of designing the log frame  Had a better idea on the need to court donors  Learnt the difference between Input, Output and Outcome  Demystified the jargons of Grant proposals and the M&E systems  Learnt how to do an Objective and Problem Tree  Opened my ideas to certain critical issues: lobbying, taking into account the detail requirement of donors and the need to never give up in any process  Improved capacity on project writing  Learnt about professionalism Advice for Trainers in adapting and delivering this workshop  This training must continue to strengthen CSOs in West Africa and thereby making them responsible development partners  Should give more time to exhaust topics  Trainers should be urged to keep it up  More practicable exercises  More icebreakers to maintain energy level

6

Assessment of Trainers in their delivery and engagement with participants  Very professional in delivering and managing time  Good trainers  Very good and friendly  Competent  Good communication skills  Clear understanding of the topics  Excellent facilitating skill  Professional, explanatory, with energising strategies  Excellent delivery

SECTION C
Course Duration Percentage Rating Outcome of Participants Course duration Too Long 3,33% Too Short 73,33% About Right 30%

7