You are on page 1of 8

POST EVALUATION REPORT

PROJECT PROPOSAL FORMULATION AND GRANTS MANAGEMENT TRAINING WORSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN WEST AFRICA, APRIL 19-21 2011. WACSI SECRETARIAT, ACCRA, GHANA

Rapporteur: Assiatou Diallo

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 for the second time a 3 day training workshop on 19-21, April, 2011 at the WACSI Secretariat 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 22 participants’, 10 females and 12 males from civil society organisations across West Africa. This included the Project Directors and Managers from Senegal, Finance and Administration Managers from Nigeria and Directors from Ghana. At the end of the three day training workshop, participants assessed the delivery of the workshop by completing a questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into three sessions- Overall Course Delivery, Course Content and Course Duration respectively. Below is a compiled response of the participants’

SESSION A
Overall Course Delivery
In this session participants’ were asked to rate their satisfaction in relation to the overall delivery of the workshop and provide 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 Outcomes of Participants Areas of Assessment 1. 2. 3. 4. Overall Impression Where your objectives met? Rate your satisfaction with training materials Did the workshop help build on knowledge & skills? How effective was the methodology? The discussions Very Satisfied 45,45% 36,36% 45,45% 77,27% Satisfied 54,54% 63,63% 54,54% 22,72% Not satisfied 0% 0% 0% 0%

5.

54,54%

45,45%

0%

The exercises

54,54%

45,45%

0%

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 training period was short  The workshop achieved it set out objective  The workshop was well organised  The workshop was interactive and practical  Trainers were short, other facilities were adequate  The workshop needed to improve resource mobilisation work by all CSOs managers  It was timely calculated and imitation done  The workshop was very educative and the sessions effort toward tackled development issues in West Africa in terms of building capacities of CSOs  The course content was relevant to my expectations  Proposal writing skills were enhanced and participants feel confident  Purpose achieved  The workshop has provided and increased in the specific area  It was conducted in a good atmosphere (friendliness and familiarity), time conscious as well 3

   

The approach used by the trainers was really adopted The topics discussed met aspiration The workshop met expectations Consistency of sections was perfect

Were your objectives met? To answer to the above question, participants responded as follow:  Yes satisfy the concerns,  Yes objectives have been fully achieved  Yes but expected to meet more resource persons from donors agencies  Yes and will need a lot of practice to master lesson learnt  Yes mostly on the logframe development  Yes but needed more practical works to prove upon  Yes, because the workshop had already taken into account the expectations  The workshop strengthened and more equipped in the area  Yes very well and more  The workshop has improved an exhaustive knowledge on writing winning proposal  Yes, because my knowledge base has been improved and this will affect proposals writing  Goals were achieved or even exceeded because the participants are left with clear ideas on the development of the project and donors cycle Course Training Materials According to the participants’, the course training materials were:  Very useful more practical  Very well presented with more information  Have not had a time to go through the course material  More training material including bags could have been provided  Well research  Good but the material were not given us to determine the quality even during the training  Would like received the training material before  Well prepared  Were adequate  Satisfactory superb because it will guide for the future  Were not presented at time of the evaluation but the presentations and explanations were satisfactory  Wish I had the material with slides so we could take notes beside them as we listened  Rich in terms of contents and presentation  Good 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: 4

 The workshops allowed learn the consolidation of skills.  Yes has really widened my knowledge base in this area  Yes it did because I was not a key team member in the drafting of proposal within my Institution, but the knowledge acquired these three days period will help me to contribute effectively to the process  Learnt a new training methodology and improved skills and knowledge  Yes some element of the proposal formulation steps are clearer  Learnt some basics and what it takes to write a winning proposal  Learnt a lot of key concept on Project Proposal  Learnt a lot of new concepts on the management cycle  Improved knowledge  Shared experiences  The workshop provided information on the concept of log frame(problem tree, objective tree and M&E)  Understand now more project proposal and Grants management  Knowledge has been disseminated and received  It must be applied down the line  Has expended my knowledge in the topic treated  Capacity has been enhanced Training Methodology Discussion The answers given by participants on the first methodology were among others:  Very rewarding  Were informative  Not at all times  Could be more participatory on day one  Very interactive  Listened to various perspectives on given issues have been useful  Very educative  Allowed to benefit from others' experiences  Enhance participation and alertness  Effective participation  Interaction between participants  Very good active participation of the participants  Allowed all participants to speak The practical Sessions Participants said the practical Sessions were:  Enforced and clarified all confusions  Very relevant  Allowed exchange of ideas  Ayes open and real hard experience  Allowed for practice of discussion 5

            

Should have loved to have more Extremely good Very engaging Not enough time to finish the group works Were useful in term of sharing other people views Needed more practical exercises There was room for synergiging ideas Real life practical session The time allocated for the group discussion was not enough Hard but rewarding Instructive in teamwork and good brainstorming for Proposal development Sharing and learning ideas Provided opportunity to learn from each other

SESSION 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, am very satisfied Satisfied with this topic, may be useful Not satisfied, may not be useful

1 Session 1: Project Proposal Formulation Process 95,45% 2 Session 2: Grants reporting requirements EU, USAID, UN, WB and others Session 3: Marketing the Project Proposal

4,54%

0%

77,27%

18,18%

4,54%

3

72,72%

27,27%

0%

4 Session 4: Logical Framework Matrix 95,45% 4,54% 0%

6

5 Session 5: Designing and Utilising a Monitoring and/or Evaluation Tool based on the Logical Framework of the Project 6 Session 6: Funds Allocation and Utilisation

81,81%

18,18%

0%

90,90%

9,09%

0%

7 Session 7: Ethics in Grants Management 72,72% 27,27% 0%

8 Session 8: Risk Management 86,36% 13,63% 0%

9 Session 9: Project Implementation 90,90% 9,09% 0%

Write one or two sentences to describe what you learned from the workshop.  Learnt how to write a good proposals and steps to follow  Learnt the important of M&E  Learnt appropriate way of writing a log frame and M&E  Learnt that a winning proposal must meet requirement of donors  Learnt to always keep trying  Learnt networking, being proactive to conduct donors and writing winning proposals  Learnt the project formulation process and the process of designing the log frame  Learnt that donor can be also involved in project implementation  Learnt the need to identify stakeholders for effective implementation of success project  To always follow the guide line for any grants application  Learnt to get your project tittle from the combination of both the goal and the objective  Learnt to know the donor interest and its area of focus while writing a proposal  Learnt analysis and design of interventions  Learnt details understanding on how to develop 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  They should develop an excellent proposal  To keep it on with their good facilitation skills and reply to our mails if he happens to received mails from us 7

          

The number of says of training is quite short and training are rushed Should applied more energizers and teasers Should give much time for such training Was good This training must continue that with capacitate full-running of NGOs in West Africa and there by making them responsible development partners To add a couple more exercises Excellent Should give more time for exhaust topics Were wonderful, instead of advice, I would urge them to keep it up More practicable exercises Keep it up

Assessment of Trainers in their delivery and engagement with participants  Very professional in delivering and managing time  Good trainers  Very good and friendly  Evidence of competence  Their were on top of the issues and exposed us to a lot of information  Satisfactory and excellent in accepting participants errors, in a non-judgmental way  Very articulate and clear  Very informative and social  Very Good communication of the subject matter  They were good and had a clear understanding of the topics  They have a very good attitude  Excellent facilitating skills, keep the training session lively  They both professionals, explanatory, with energizing strategies to support teaching  Excellent in delivery, warm in engagement  Effective in transfer of knowledge

SESSION C
Course Duration Percentage Rating Outcome of Participants Course duration 0% Too Long Too Short 36,36% About Right 63,63%

8