Project Summary
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Fellowship for Government of Southern Sudan
What support will the UK provide?
Secondment of ODI Fellows to Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) costing up to
£690,000 for two batches of Fellowship including:
3 Fellows – October 2009 to September 2011 costing upto £270,000
4 Fellows – October 2010 to September 2012 costing upto £420,000
Period of funding – 36 months
Why is UK support required?
What need are we trying to address?
The problem that the project addresses is the lack of capacity in the Government of
Southern Sudan, especially (but not only) in the Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning (MoFEP) and Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation
(SSCCSE) to undertake high quality economic analysis, including in the areas of budget
planning, aid policy, trade policy, and sectoral economics. The ultimate beneficiaries of the
project are the citizens of Southern Sudan as a result of improved planning and
administration of public expenditure and delivery of public services.
What will we do to tackle this problem?
The programme funds ODI secondments with GOSS.
valued by GoSS given its capacity weaknesses.
These secondments are highly
What are the expected results?
What will change as a result of our support?
There will be improved capability in target Ministries to perform their functions, especially to
make better use of data to develop policy and strategy.
What are the planned outputs of the project attributable to UK support?
The outputs of the scheme comprise the annual objectives of the ODI Fellows during their
assignments, which aim to improve the capacity of Ministries and support in the production
of strategy, policy and analytical work.
How will we determine whether the expected results have been achieved?
We plan to evaluate the programme, as part of the design of a broader capacity building
programme, using methodology that would be based on a largely perceptions-based
survey of the performance of the ODI fellows. Annual reviews will assess progress and
success against a jointly agreed workplan. The secondees will also be required to submit a
six-monthly progress report, which will be reviewed for compliance against work plan and
further payment.
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for DFID intervention
Following the signing of the CPA, GOSS was formally established in October 2005.
GOSS aims to achieve its development goals in the context of a decentralised system of
governance that is characterised by transparency, accountability and equitable resource
allocation. As a first step in setting up its administrative machinery, the GOSS created the
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP) in October 2005.
The initial support through ODI Fellowships in South Sudan, which began in January 2008,
was funded through a sub-project of DFID’s Strategic Development Fund (SDF)
Programme, which ended in December 2010. The SDF’s purpose was to provide technical
assistance to priority activities which were not catered for by other DFID funding
arrangements. The SDF was specifically intended to support small-scale policy analysis,
research and capacity building initiatives, whether by government or non-governmental
actors, through streamlined approval procedures.
The current project extends the support provided under the SDF: capacity-building
programmes will remain necessary in South Sudan for many years and the ODI fellowship
programme is valued by GoSS.
B. Impact and Outcome
The expected outcome is improved capacity and better quality products within the partner
Ministries in relation to data analysis, strategy and policy making. The impact will be
improved, more evidence-based policies in GoSS.
Appraisal Case
A. Determining Critical Success Criteria (CSC)
Each CSC is weighted 1 to 5, where 1 is least important and 5 is most important based on
the relative importance of each criterion to the success of the intervention.
1. GOSS commitment to make good use of ODI fellows
2. Quality of Fellows recruited by ODI
CSC
1
2
Description
GOSS commitment
Quality of Fellow recruited
Weighting (1-5)
5
4
B. Feasible options
This scheme is on-going and the only immediate alternative is to cease funding it. DFID
has no capacity in the short-term to design an alternative programme to deliver similar
objectives.
In the table below:


the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited,
the likely impact on climate change and environment is categorised as A, high
potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk / opportunity; C,
low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Option
Evidence rating
1
2
Medium
Medium
Climate change and environment
category (A, B, C, D)
C
C
Option 1: ODI Fellowship Scheme secondments.
Option 2: Counterfactual – cease support through ODI
Option 1 does not have significant environmental risks or opportunities attached beyond
additional flights.
Background
The ODI Fellowship provides young economists to work in Developing Country government
line posts for a period of two years each. The purpose is to fill gaps and provide capacity
of developing countries where gaps in local expertise exist in economics and related
disciplines, and where possible to build long term capacity through transfer of skills. The
outputs of the scheme are the supply of young skilled overseas economists, the filling of
posts in low income countries, the expansion of the scheme in scale and scope, the
transfer of skills and building of capacity, and the creation of a cadre of experienced
development professional economists.
The scheme is managed by the Overseas Development Institute. ODI is Britain’s leading
independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Its mission
is to inspire and inform policy and practice, leading to the reduction of poverty, the
alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing
countries. They do this by producing high-quality applied research, providing practical
policy advice, and undertaking policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with
partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.
The ODI Fellowship Scheme is the operational programme of ODI, which places over 30
young economists a year to work in the governments of developing countries on two-year
assignments. There are currently around 70 fellows in total (funded from a variety of
sources), covering both second year and first year assignments. ODI Fellows are not
restricted to UK nationals but are recruited from UK postgraduate courses.
Following a further review of the Scheme undertaken in October 2005, DFID senior
management indicated a strong desire to expand the scale of the ODI Fellowship scheme,
working towards a total of 100 Fellowships at a time (of which around half would be
appointed in a particular placement year).
C. Appraisal of options
Appraisal
The ODI Fellowship is a tried and tested approach which has evolved over time. Given the
nature of this project, a precise quantification of the benefits is not possible. Assessment of
the benefits will rely primarily on a review of the perceptions of GoSS staff, ODI fellows and
donor staff (including DFID’s) of the impact of the assignments.
In absence of the secondments supported by this project, the consequent capacity gaps
would lead to slow down and reduction in quality of Government’s analytical, policy and
strategy work in areas where the ODI fellows are currently working.
With a per person year cost of technical assistance of around £30,000, the ODI scheme
represents good value for money in comparison with traditional forms of technical
cooperation. Unlike many other form of technical assistance, the ODI Fellowship scheme
is not seen as closely linked in with any donor agenda, which creates scope for strong
ownership by recipients.
The review of the scheme globally reported that the scoring of the end-of-fellowship reports
and interviews conducted would suggest the following results:

10 – 15% excellent performance, i.e. above expectations, good working
relationships, clear results, appreciation by colleagues and employers;

55 – 60% good performance, ie. according to expectations;

25 – 30% poor performance, below expectations.
The review concluded that the scheme is particularly effective in gap filling, though often
with less strong progress in broader capacity building and institutional development.
Nevertheless the Fellows do provide capacity to their host organizations, and good transfer
of skills takes place in the more successful cases. The question of increasing the long term
impact of ODI fellows in South Sudan will be considered in any future programme of
support.
D. Comparison of options
Analysis of options against Critical Success Criteria
Option 1:
Option 2: Do
Secondment
nothing
Weight Score Weighted
Weighted
CSC
Score
(1-5)
(1-5)
Score
Score
1
5
4
20
0
0
2
4
5
20
0
0
Totals
40
0
DFID transaction and management costs: Option 1 enables us to deliver impact and
outcome with low DFID transaction and management cost. By buying into an already
established global initiative, we do not have to invest heavily in administrative costs
associated with managing the resources.
Counterfactual: Without DFID’s intervention, GOSS’ capacity would develop but more
slowly, and the quality of analytical, policy and strategy work would suffer. DFID’s early
engagement with ODI has been instrumental in GOSS’ ability to devise economic and aid
policy.
E. Measures to be used or developed to assess value for money
To measure progress against the expected benefits, an annual review will be undertaken to
ensure that the project is on-track to deliver the expected outcomes and value for money.
Commercial Case
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention –
distinguishing between direct and indirect procurement.
There is no procurement involved in this arrangement.
Financial Case
A. How much it will cost
Each batch is for two years.
BATCH 1: 1 Oct 2009 – 30 Sep 2011
Oct 09 –
Nick Travis
June
77,687.38 Jul – Sep
11,372.50
2011
Peter
Oct 09 –
78,423.19 Jul – Sep
11,772.50
Lilford
June 11
Vinayak
Oct 09 75,627.11 Jul – Sep
13,622.50
Uppal
June 11
TOTAL
231,737.68
TOTAL
36,767.50
89,059.88
90,195.69
89,249.61
268,505.18
BATCH 2: 1 Oct 2010 – 30 Sep 2012
Claire Allen
Oct 10 –
June 11
James
Oct 10 –
Bonner
June 11
Samantha
Oct 10 –
Burn
June 11
Elizabeth
Oct 10 –
O’Neill
June 11
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
29,857.56
29,979.49
30,606.23
29,395.77
119,839.05
£351,576.73
Jul 10 –
Sep 12
July 10 –
Sep 12
July 10 –
Sep 12
July 10 Sep 12
TOTAL
GRAND
TOTAL
74,469.50
104,327.06
74,469.50
104,448.99
73,889.50
104,495.73
74,794.50
104,190.27
297,623.00
417,462.05
£334,390.50
£685,967.23
B. How it will be funded: capital/programme/admin
Costs will be charged to the DFID South Sudan programme budget.
C. How funds will be paid out
Funds will be reimbursed on a quarterly basis using the Accountable Grant mechanism.
D. How expenditure will be monitored, reported, and accounted for
Costs of Fellows relating to travel, accommodation and other local costs will be
monitored through quarterly reimbursement claims. All transactions will be routed
through the ARIES accounting system for DFID approval providing an audit trail. The
DFID South Sudan project team will monitor the quarterly spending.
Management Case
A. Oversight
The Accountable Grant between DFID and ODI governs how this project will be managed.
B. Management
The Fellowship scheme is financed currently from DFID programmes. Although Fellows
are selected and appointed by ODI, they are employees of the governments or public
organisation for which they work. The latter bear local employment costs while ODI
supplements Fellows’ income and meets the costs of the Fellows’ passage and other
related expenses. The precise division of responsibilities is normally as follows:
The local employer is responsible for:


Paying the salary for the post which would be payable to a locally recruited national
with similar qualifications and experience.
Providing similar conditions of service (e.g. accommodation, end-of-contract gratuity,
leave, travel allowance on duty, medical treatment) as for national staff in similar
grades. If the employer operates special terms of service for expatriate officers in
similar posts to Fellows, similar conditions may also apply to ODI Fellows.
ODI is normally responsible for:


Recruitment and selection of Fellows; arranging placements; providing Fellows’ predeparture briefing and allowances; technical and specialised support to Fellows in
post.
Paying monthly supplementation. This is an allowance that takes into account local
income and costs. Supplementation is designed to absorb the extra cost of living in
the local country and is revised annually.
The programme is managed in DFID by the Deputy Programme Manager. DFID
programme management responsibilities include:
Approval of new funding

Disbursement of payments

Reviewing reports from ODI

Commissioning periodic evaluations
C. Conditionality
None
D. Monitoring and Evaluation
Evidence Base
DFID has used secondments with a wide range of organisations and has recently
established a Policy framework for outward secondments which sets out lessons from
past secondments and the future strategic direction for secondments1. This paper set out
a range of factors which make secondments most effective.

The host organisation is used to accepting international secondees and has
systems and processes for ensuring that they are properly managed, including
identifying a clear role.

The secondment arises from a clear demand from the host organisation, which
identifies an area where it wants DFID expertise.

Secondments have, in general, been less effective where DFID or the individual
secondee has driven the secondment.

The secondment is timely and taking advantage of a clear opportunity to influence,
such as during a process of policy reforms or on new policy objectives.

Secondees have clear objectives which are agreed by the host, and where the
host actively manages the secondment to ensure that the objectives remain
relevant.

Secondees are working in strategic roles in influential parts of host organisation.
The Fellowship scheme rates highly against these factors.
Monitoring
The Fellows will set out a detailed workplan which will be agreed by GOSS. They will
produce a six monthly assessment of progress against the workplan. ODI will collate and
furnish six-monthly reports to DFID.
Evaluation
Towards the end of the programme there will be a joint evaluation by DFID and ODI.
The evaluation will build on the monitoring information and will specifically consider the
following questions:

What outputs have been produced as a result of the secondment? Have these
been integrated into GOSS or were they done as a separate activity?

What was the wider outcome of the programme in GOSS?

Has the secondment built capacity within GOSS such that the work/benefits are
sustainable? Is there any evidence of how the secondment has build capacity in
the GOSS? Was the secondment for the right period of time to be sustainable?
Was there a clear exit strategy prepared in advance for the work?

How has the Fellow benefited from the secondment? This could be in terms of
gaining new skills, developing knowledge, understanding another organisation
and/or new ways of working?

Has the Fellow had the support they needed from ODI?
The results of this evaluation will be used to influence out future engagement with these
organisations and will also feed into DFID’s wider work on secondments.
1
Policy Framework for Outward Secondments to International Development Partners (QUEST DOC
2686364)
E. Results and Benefits Management
The key outputs/outcomes of the scheme relate to the work that the ODI Fellows
undertake during their assignments. DFID will evaluate the performance of the project.
F. Risk Assessment
The overall risk of the project is judged as medium.
The corruption risk is minimal. All DFID funds will be managed by ODI. Payments will be
made on a reimbursable basis.
The likely impact and probability of each of the risks is assessed in the table below along
with mitigating actions and the monitoring mechanism which will be put in place.
Risk Description
RISK 1
Weak
institutional
capacity of
GOSS to sustain
system
improvements by
the Secondees
RISK 2
Secondees lack
authority and/ or
skills to
implement
changes
(management
risk)
Impact
on
success
Probability
of
occurring
Mitigating actions
The Secondees
will monitor this
situation and
report on it as part
of their bi-annual
reporting to DFID.
H
H
L
L
The secondment
will be evaluated
after the first year
and will not be
continued if there
is a major issue
with weak
capacity.
DFID will ensure a
rigorous selection
process within
ODI and monitor
to check on
progress.
Monitoring
Mechanism
Part of biannual
progress
reports by
Secondees
Annual
assessment
by DFID
Key risks will be monitored and updated biannually as part of the progress reports by the
secondee.
There are no significant climate and risks associated with the programme