(iv) management cost-effective? design of the next and AACES AACES management costs to phase determine if Fund costs are low, matrix ODE’s ANCP evaluation (2015) moderate or high Final evaluation of AACES program (2016) Comparison of Fund, ANCP and AACES management effectiveness to determine if Fund management effectiveness is low, moderate or high Mapping Fund ratings against the cost-effectiveness matrix M To what extent do the Fund’s DFAT WSH, FMF, MERP Document review, particularly Fund PAF, Qualitative analysis to the Survey (v) management arrangements give and CSOs – to inform regular reporting from the FMF and CSOs, strengths and weaknesses of the due regard to advancing equity the remainder of the AQCs and website documents current approaches and possible and inclusiveness, particularly in Fund improvements for the next phase relation to gender and disability? Online survey of CSO project managers DFAT WSH – to inform design of the next phase
(iv) management cost-effective? design of the next phase and AACES ODE’s ANCP evaluation (2015) Final evaluation of AACES program (2016) AACES management costs to determine if Fund costs are low, moderate or high Comparison of Fund, ANCP and AACES management effectiveness to determine if Fund management effectiveness is low, moderate or high Mapping Fund ratings against the cost-effectiveness matrix matrix M (v) To what extent do the Fund’s management arrangements give due regard to advancing equity and inclusiveness, particularly in relation to gender and disability? DFAT WSH, FMF, MERP and CSOs – to inform the remainder of the Fund DFAT WSH – to inform design of the next phase Document review, particularly Fund PAF, regular reporting from the FMF and CSOs, AQCs and website documents Online survey of CSO project managers Qualitative analysis to the strengths and weaknesses of the current approaches and possible improvements for the next phase Survey
evaluation-of-the-management-arrangements-of-civil-society-water-sanitation-hygiene-fund.DOCX