Critique and Evaluation Report for Health Improvement Project Proposal
Verified
Added on 2023/06/04
|5
|1893
|221
AI Summary
This report evaluates and critiques the Health Improvement Project Proposal for Country X and Country Y. It provides a score for each section of each plan and a recommendation for funding.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Project proposal critique and evaluation report: in response to Health Improvement call made by the Griffith UniBank By: …………………………………. (Your name) Please complete this overall critique and evaluation report following your individual proposal critique. Please provide a score for each section of each plan, as well as comprehensive justification for each score using the statements provided as a guide. Please then make a clear recommendation – 1, 2 or 3 with detailed justifications for your recommendation. You may recommend both are funded if justification supports this. SectionProposal for Country XProposal for Country Y ScoreJustificationScoreJustification Background and relevance The proposed project aims to address a clearly demonstrated public health need. The proposal is based on a comprehensive situational analysis. The underlying causes of the public health problem are identified. The target population are explicitly identified and necessary background provided by relevant and up to date scientific knowledge The proposal highlights the ways in which the proposed project is complimentary to the existing country priorities and initiatives. 13/1 5 Project proposal has clearly demonstrated the public health need which is to contain Ebola virus. Comprehensive situational analysis have been executed thoroughly for sector, country and institutional context. Underlying causes Ebola have been mentioned but not thoroughly enough. Points have been deducted for this reason Target population have been identified explicitly whom are mothers and children. Proposal also highlights how the proposed project complimentary to the country’s need. 12/1 5 Proposal aims have clearly addresses the public health need which is to prevent malnutrition and HIV. Situational analysis have been executed thoroughly for country, sector and industrial context. Underlying cause for malnutrition is not clearly mentioned. Points have been deducted for this. Target population for HIV and AIDS have not clearly mentioned. Points have been deducted for this. Proposal goals are complimentary to county’s priorities and initiatives as the country’s initiative is also to lower the HIV/AIDS infection rate. Project objectives, design and beneficiaries, Outcomes clearly defined, realistic and measurable. The goal of the project logically flows from the problem. Programme logic of the proposed project is clear. 22/2 5Outcomes are well defined, measurable and realistic in detailed manner. Goal has been logically derived from the flaws to handle the health need. 22/2 5Realistic, measurable and well defined outcome have been determined for this project. Problem oriented goal has been selected to tackle the health need. Programme logic of the proposal is
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Proposed methods suggested for the project are well described The proposal clearly articulates how the proposed project addresses the health problem. Programme logic is clear and well- articulated and in accordance with the health need. Suggested methods are well- defined and clearly described. Does not clearly describes how the proposal address the health, only implied. Points have been deducted for this reason. interconnected between malnutrition and HIV/AIDS. Proposed methods have been clearly mentioned in detail. Proposal does not clearly emphasises on how it would affect the health problem. Points have been deducted for this. Engagement, implementation arrangements and sustainability Organisational arrangements for implementation are clearly described.The implementing organisations have demonstrated sufficient knowledge and experience to implement the project.Approaches to stakeholder engagement and communication are outlined. The proposed project is informed by project implementation knowledge.Considerations and plans for the sustainability of the project are outlined. 11/1 5 Implementation arrangements have been outlined clearly with organisational structure with the previous lessons learned from HIV/AIDS epidemic. PCU will hire relevant people with technical knowledge and there will also be a steering committee. No mention of stakeholder engagement. Points have been deducted for this reason. Project will be handled by professionals with knowledge and sustainability of the project have been considered. 12/1 5 Organisational arrangements for implementation have been clearly mentioned which will be handled by DNHA and NAC. NAC have experience with handling this kind of project and DNHA have experience handling project although they have not implemented in UniBank project. Points have been deducted for this. Project will be handled by experience professionals and sustainability of the project were also considered. No mention of stakeholder engagements. Points have been deducted for this. Budget The budget is comprehensive and accounts for all costs directly related to the project. The budget has a clear justification. The budget adds up correctly. The budget accounts for the Monitoring and Evaluation of the project. The budget clearly indicates any other funding sources contributing to the project outcomes. 9/10 The budget is detailed and all the costs are related to the budget which is USD 15 million. Total cost sums up correctly and has clear justification for each category. The budget also takes monitoring and evaluation cost into account. No clear mention whether there will be any other funding source or not. Points have been deducted due to this reason. 8/10 All cost of the budget are directly related to project. This project proposal will be co funded by GFATM and CIDA. IDA financing portion will be USD 80 million. Clear mention of how the funding will be divided between parties. However, there is no allotment for monitoring and evaluation of the project. Points have been deducted owing to this.
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan It clearly describes the methods for the M&E of the proposed project.Indicators are provided for M&E at all levels of the hierarchy of the programme logic which align with the SMART criteriaIt provides details for the M&E including who will conduct the M&E, when, how often, sources of data to be used, etc.It describes what will be done with the results from the M&E. 20/2 5 M&E methods have been described clearly with detailed information in table form. Indicators and levels of hierarchy have been outlined clearly in the proposal aligned with SMART criteria. Detail mentioned of who, when and how often the data will be collected. No planning or actions for the data collected from M&E. Points have been deducted because of this. 24/2 5 Detailed methods for M&E have been provided and handled by DNHA & NAC for component A & B respectively. Levels of hierarchy and indicators have been provided in detail in table format which is in align with SMART criteria. Details have been provided in through manner for who, when and how often data will be collected. Plan for improvements have been mentioned with the collected data. Risk Assessment and management, including environmental and social safeguards The proposal considers cross-cutting issues such as gender, human rights, etc. Social and environmental considerations are made, including the consideration of vulnerable populations. Key risks to the proposed project are clearly outlined Concrete plans to address key identified risks (risk management) are provided. 6/10 No proper plan or actions mentioned to tackle human rights situation that may arise. Although, impact on gender has been communicated. Points deducted due to this reason. Environmental and social considerations were made in the proposal. Key risks have been clearly outlined with substantial risk ratings. No action plan for risk management in identified area. No points have been given for this part. 8/10 No action plan to handle issues like gender and human rights. Points have been deducted for this reason. Key risk areas have been assessed in detail with overall moderate risk ratings. Detailed risk ratings were also provided for different category. The project will also consider social accountability instruments to ensure transparency. Project proposal has also provided with measure to handle the key risk area. Total Score81/10086/100 Recommendation(1, 2 or 3) 1- fund; 2 - reconsider if additional information provided; 3- do not fund 11 Justification for recommendation provided above.Consider the aspects of the The proposal is well articulated, structured and organised. The proposal This proposal of country Y is well organised, properly structured and well-
proposal assessed above in terms of their inclusion/exclusion in the proposal, quality, and logic/linkage. Summarise the positive features and limitations of each proposal in your justification has strong relevance for public health in country X as well as in global health. The objectives, reasoning, methodology and linkage have been sound. Budget of this proposal is proper and just. There is a minor flaw in monitoring and evaluation as the project does not mentioned any plan for monitoring data. Only limitation for this is risk assessment. Risk has been assessed correctly but not counter measures have been provided. Hence, this project proposal is recommended for funding. reasoned. The proposal is also very relevant to public health as it deals with mal nutrition and HIV/AIDS prevention. The objectives, procedure and aim of this proposal is well structured and very well- reasoned. The project is a collaborative project but clearly mentioned how the money will be divided and handled. This project proposal has got high score in every evaluation criteria. Therefore, this project proposal is recommended for funding.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Summary of the assessment The project proposal for both country X and country Y have been well structured, organised and very much relevant to current health need of African population. Both project objectives and goals are important to the respective country’s health need as well as global health. Both project proposal have secured high evaluation score for their project proposal. Country X’s evaluation score was 81 out of 100 while country Y’s evaluation score is 86 out of 100. Both the proposal are very well structured, compact and organised in their aims, objectives, logical reasoningandmethodology.However,boththeprojecthasverylittlelimitationand weakness which, I believe, will not have significant effect in proper implementation of the projects. Therefore, the recommendation for the projects as follows: Recommendation for the project proposal of country X:Fund. Recommendation for the project proposal of country Y:Fund.