X hits on this document

PDF document

uaw I March 2000 - page 6 / 42

97 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

6 / 42

On each of the site visits, Mr. Riley was accompanied by a UAP Key Staff person who simultaneously conducted a monitoring visit. These visits have re-confirmedthe dire need for continued assistanceto the youth who are currentlybenefitting from the UAP. It is clearthat the literacy and personal development programs at these locations are desperately needed by these adolescentsif they are to make a successof their lives. The learning environment at all siteswas particularly difficult, and credit must be given to the teachers for being able to achieve the positives which they have with the adolescentsin these classes.

ir

Mr. Riley completed a draft of his report, which was discussed with all key staff on February 17. The report was subsequentlyrevised and submitted in final to the UAP by February 29. This activity was conducted to verify the level of NGO programs meeting the UAP Literacy Teaching Standard. We are pleased to report that 53% of the organizationssurveyeddo meet the standard which is much higher than the 25% we calculatedpreviously. We are also pleased to note that JAMAL found that most, if not all, of the sites are doing excellent work with the adolescents under harsh conditions. The next phase will be to arrange for literacy instructorsto receive further training at JAMAL's regional centers. This process will foster a close linkage between JAMAL and the NGOs through the supervisionand onsite follow-up monitoring provided by JAMAL. The completed report was edited for length, but not substance, and issued to all UAP Sub-Grantees in March.

@)

Development of a Methodolog to Evaluate & Rank Sub-GranteePrograms;

This activity was not proposed for action until April, after the conclusion of the external evaluationby

USAID. However, a draft checklist was prepared for internal UAP discussion in January. Consequent to the USAID Director's request for a meeting to discuss a frameworkwithin which the project could objectively rank the current Sub-Grantees for priority support in a post-UAP activity, it was decided to advance the Key Staff review of the draft which had been prepared. A meeting of UAP Key Staff on January 20 led to the revision of the draft, and this revision was shared with USAID at a meeting on January 24. However, at that meeting, USAID did not specify its focuswhich would affect the criteria for NGO selection. It is not expected that the checklist will be finalized until possibly May 2000, after the conclusion of the external evaluation,at which time it will be appliedto the NGOs, and the results provided to USAID for its use in designingthe follow-on or post-UAP activity.

I

As a result of discussionswith the USAID Evaluation team for the UAP, the formatwhich had been agreed to in January was used to make a preliminary assessment of the UAP Sub-Grantees, for inclusion in a follow-on activity which would concentrateon the out-of-school population. The key staff participated in thisjoint assessment,and a summarytable of all the scores was developed and shared with the USAID Evaluationteam. The EvaluationTeam subsequently reported their recommendationthat the in-school program should not be discontinued. Thus, it is likely that further revision will be necessary to the format, and the relative weights assigned to each factor re-assessed.

Q

D i s s e m i n a h o . . C o m p l e t i o n o f O ~ e r a t i o n R e s e a r c h G r a n t s & n o f R e s u l t s :

M & D completed all field work on its operationsresearch project with Children First, Spanish Town and the Western Society for the Uplihent of Children, Montego Bay. An initial draft report was submittedto Development Associatesin late December and reviewed in early January. After a meeting

Page 4

Document info
Document views97
Page views97
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 06:26:30 UTC 2016
Pages42
Paragraphs664
Words13011

Comments