Between October 2007 and October 2011, UNICEF with funding from the European Union implemented the Sustainable Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Initiative for the Rural Poor in 21 Districts in Uganda. The Project’s specific immediate objective was to ensure that “25% of the communities in the 21 remote poverty-stricken and conflict-affected districts enjoy the health and economic benefits of having increased access to safe drinking water, basic sanitation, and improved hygiene behavior”. Following the expiry of its term, Prof. Narathius Asingwire of SEDC was contracted to evaluate this project

PROJECT TITLE

End of Term Evaluation for Sustainable Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Initiative for the Rural Poor in 21 Districts in Uganda


Client

United Nations Children Fund

Services

Impact evaluation

Sector

Water and Sanitation

Date started

2012-04

Lead consultant

Prof. Narathius Asingwire


PURPOSE

To undertake an in-depth assessment of the extent to which the Project achieved its objectives.


OBJECTIVES / QUESTIONS

1) To assess the extent the project’s objectives were met and factors that facilitated/constrained achievements of the planned activities
2) To identify the level of effectiveness/impacts of the Project on its target groups and the people it worked with (planned and unintended)
3) To assess the efficiency with which the Project was implemented to achieve results and objectives
4) To document two to three cases and lessons learnt in the implementation of the Project for replication of good practices
5) To assess the sustainability of the Project in relation to results, outcomes and impact, and identify which activities were the most relevant to ensure sustainability
6) To make recommendations to strengthen the scope of WASH initiatives in project districts and Uganda in general


METHODOLOGY

This Evaluation used both quantitative and qualitative methods of study participant selection and data collection. The evaluation covered 10 out of 21 Program districts for in-depth analysis and verification of Programme’s performance. Quantitative data was collected using a structured questionnaire and an observation checklist. The remaining 11 districts were covered through the use of a desk review and high-level district interaction through e-mail/mail and phone interviews.


PROJECT ATTACHMENTS