Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction
Date started: 1 March 2008
Date review undertaken: 25 April - 3 May 2012
Introduction and Context
What support is the UK providing?
The UK is helping to improve the livelihoods and living conditions of 3 million poor people in 30
of the largest towns and cities in Bangladesh, through a grant investment of £60 million over
6.5 years (2007-2014). The programme is implemented by the UN Development Programme
(UNDP) which is providing $US 3 million (£1.9 million), and in partnership with the
Government of Bangladesh which is providing about £2.5 million.
So far the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction programme (UPPR) is working in slums
and informal settlements in 23 cities and towns, with a special focus on women and children. It
is organising communities so they can manage and improve their own lives and demand
better services from Government. The project includes a settlement improvement fund (SIF) to
finance safe water, toilets and a range of other physical and environmental improvements, and
a socio-economic fund (SEF) providing grants for children to go to school, skills training and
apprenticeships, and grants for women to set up small businesses such as shops or tailoring
services. The SEF is also used to raise community awareness on key social issues like health
and nutrition, domestic violence and early marriage.
What are the expected results?
By 2015, UPPR will improve the living conditions of 3 million slum dwellers in Bangladesh:








The poorest urban settlements in 29 towns and cities will be identified, assessed and
mapped so support can be targeted at those most in need;
3 million people living in slums will be represented in community governance structures, to
help make sure their needs and views get attention;
2.75 million poor people will be covered by a programme of support to improve their nutrition
(poor nutrition is a serious problem across Bangladesh, especially for women and children);
615,000 people will have access to an improved water supply and 717,000 to improved
sanitation;
Better footpaths and drainage will be provided for 1.6 million people;
260,000 poor households will be supported through savings and credit groups to access the
finance they need e.g. to start small businesses or to cover short term needs;
72,000 people will be helped to improve their skills, incomes and assets and 140,000
extremely poor women will be helped to set up a small business to increase their income;
70,000 children will receive education grants to help them go to school (although schooling
is free, there are still other costs like uniforms and books and transport costs which are a
1
struggle for the poorest families).
The programme will also help Bangladesh as a country and affected communities to develop a
better long term response to urban poverty. It is doing this by helping community groups to work
together as federations and to make links with other organisations that can help them, so they
can raise awareness of the challenges they face and push for action to tackle these problems.
The programme also aims to help the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders to
identify practical ways forward on difficult issues like secure land tenure for people living in
slums and informal settlements.
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
Bangladesh has made impressive progress on many Millennium Development Goals,
including poverty reduction, education enrolment and maternal and child health. But the
population continues to grow and it is urbanising rapidly and this presents new challenges.
The urban population grew from 1.9 million in 1950 to 46 million in 2011. This represents an
increase from 4.3% to 28% of the total population in 60 years. By 2045 it is expected that half
the population of Bangladesh will live in urban areas.
According to the latest available data from 2010, 21.3% of the urban population (9.7 million
people) are poor1. Most of them live in slums and informal settlements which are characterised
by high levels of poverty and vulnerability and low socio-economic status; inadequate housing
and insecure land tenure; high population density and limited access to health, water and
sanitation services.
The Government of Bangladesh has only recently begun to put in place a clear policy on
urbanisation and urban poverty. The draft Urban Sector Policy is intended to provide better
coordination and policy guidelines. The new national development strategy (the ‘6th Five-Year
Plan’) allocates more resources for urban development. The Urban Forum held in Bangladesh
in December 2011 (with support from DFID) brought together Government, private sector,
experts, donor and civil society partners from across the country to discuss best to address
the challenges the country faces, and to learn from best practice in other countries.
1
Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2010, conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.
2
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
Output 1: Urban poor communities mobilized to form representative and inclusive
groups and prepare community action plans
Output 1 score and performance description:
Score: A - Output has met expectations
Performance Description: Overall, the output has met expectations. Over 0.68 million slum
households (2.86 million people) have been mobilised so far, including over 0.5 million
households (2.1 million people) mobilised into primary groups. This exceeds milestone targets.
However, the project has been unable to meet expectations on meeting milestone targets on
supporting homeless people. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the community
mobilisation is inclusive and is effective for the preparation of community action plans.
Progress against expected results:
Indicators
Milestones for Progress (as
this review
on 31/12/2011)
1.1 # of households and individuals in supported low-income settlements socially
mobilised into primary groups (PGs) disaggregated by household type
(a) Households mobilised
600,000
685,433
2,586,000
2,860,820
420,000
501,838
1,810,200
2,114,149
(e) Proportion of households into in PGs
70%
73%
(f) Female headed households mobilised
37,583
46,061
161,983
198,062
70%
83%
9,830
12,462
42,367
53,586
70%
79%
4,050
6,067
17,456
26,088
(n) Proportion of ethnic minority households mobilised
70%
70%
(o) Number of Schedule Caste households mobilised
3,121
4,323
13,452
18,589
(b) Individuals mobilised
(c) Households mobilised into PGs
(d) Individuals mobilised into PGs
(g) Individuals mobilised from female headed
households
(h) Proportion of female headed households mobilised
(i) Number of households with at least one disabled
member mobilised
(j) Individuals belonging to households with at least one
disabled member mobilised
(k) Proportion of households with at least one disabled
member mobilised
(l) Number of ethnic minority households mobilised
(m) Individuals belonging to ethnic minority households
mobilised
(p) Individuals belonging to Schedule Caste households
3
mobilised
(q) Proportion of Schedule Caste households mobilised
1.2 # poor homeless people supported under the
programme
1.3 % of households satisfied with CDCs/PGs
performance
70%
73%
5,000
3301
CDC – 70%
> 70%
PG – 70%
Output Indicator 1.1: # of households and individuals in supported low-income
settlements socially mobilised into primary groups (PGs), disaggregated by household
type
Results for all sub-indicators have moderately exceeded targets. Over 685,000 slum
households (2.86 million people) are benefitting including 236,658 slum households originally
mobilised under a previous project, the Local Partnerships for Poverty Alleviation Project
(LPUPAP), and which are continuing to receive support under UPPR. Of the total, 39% of
households are extremely poor. Representatives from over 500,000 households, most of
whom are women, have joined primary groups (PG) (of around 20 members) from which 2,221
community development committees (CDCs) have been formed so far. About 317,000 PG
members have become members of savings and credit groups generating savings of £2.3
million.
Output Indicator 1.2: # poor homeless people supported under the programme
Activities for this indicator have not achieved the milestone target. So far, 3,301 homeless
people have been supported through piloting 3 multi-purpose centres which provide a secure
place for belongings, sleeping and bathing facilities, access to health care, day care and nonformal primary education for children. The Centres facilitate the opening of savings accounts,
birth and ID registration, apprenticeships, business grants, among others. The centres have
also provided a focus for partnerships with the local Government and local voluntary
organisations. The target was set in the expectation that more homeless people might be
attracted to the centres but this was not based on any previous survey.
Output Indicator 1.3: % of households satisfied with CDCs/PGs performance
A beneficiary survey is planned for mid-2012 that would input into this indicator. Based on
anecdotal evidence from field visits, it seemed that more than 70% of household members
were satisfied with the performance of Community Development Committees (CDCs). In
addition, sample self-assessment surveys of the performance of these community structures
are positive. For example 95% of CDCs conduct monthly meetings and 88% of CDCs report
that at least 75% of Primary Group (PG) leaders attend all CDC meetings. 81% of CDCs
report that they are able to resolve conflicts. Thus it is likely that the present milestone of 70%
households satisfied is met.
Other Issues

It is important that this Output is not seen as a ‘means to the end’ for implementing
Community Action Plans (CAPs) and spending the Settlement Improvement or Socio
Economic Funds. The foundation of the UPPR approach is social mobilisation –
building community voice, self-initiative and partnerships building. It is an important end
in itself. Thus, ensuring that community mobilisers are well trained and appropriately
resourced is an essential input for the programme.

The formation of Federations of CDC clusters is low at only 4 towns and this is limiting
4
the collective strength of community organisations and the building of confidence for
independent initiatives. Activities such as exchanges within towns and between towns
which can strengthen clusters and Federations are needed.

The activities of CDCs, CDC clusters and Federations depend largely on UPPR
activities and funds. The costs of managing these community governance structures
rely in part on management fees on UPPR projects, rather than, for example a
membership fee. UPPR has noted that PGs function less well than CDCs and that
many CDCs are not holding annual general meetings and elections. Improved
accountability to PGs is needed. The on-going improvement to community savings
systems and the pilot governance improvement activities will help transparency and
confidence in the groups.

Sub-indicators of 1.1 are currently confusing. The first sub-indicator (1.1a) currently
totalling 685,433 households (2.8 million people) is actually the population in CDC
areas rather than the households/individuals mobilised. Mobilisation is more properly
defined by 501,838 households in primary groups with a population of 2.1 million
people. The first sub-indicator (population of CDC areas) is currently being used as the
indicator of the Outcome target of a 3 million beneficiary population. Whilst this can be
justified on the basis that all the population of the area, not just those organised into
groups, will benefit from the improvements to living conditions provided by the
programme, specifically for the infrastructure provision, and a discussion is needed on
whether all the population in the area are either mobilised or benefitting from improved
livelihoods. Finally, sub-indicator 1.1a – individual/households mobilised (population in
CDC areas) should be disaggregated for poor/extreme poor in order to inform the
Outcome target.
Recommendations:
 UPPR should place greater emphasis on social mobilisation as an end in itself. This
requires more focus on facilitating networking amongst CDCs promoting empowerment
for independent activity, and on building capacity of cluster and federations to take on a
support role.
 Community mobilisers, including those to be recruited under the newly developed
Organisational Development Plan that responded to the 2011 Annual Review, need
more thorough induction and refresher training on social mobilisation concepts as well
as technical procedure.
 The successes of the pilot governance improvements (e.g. social audit, contract display
boards, competitive bidding and Community Resource Centres) should be shared with
other towns, and the improvements to community banking management should be
scaled up as soon as possible.
 The sub-indicators of 1.1 need to be more clearly termed as:
- a) individuals/households included in CDC areas,
- b) individuals/households mobilised into primary groups,
- c) poor and extreme poor individuals/households included in CDC areas,
- d) poor and extreme poor individuals/households included in primary groups.
 Reduce the number of sub-indicators of Indicator 1.1 by summarising to:
- 1.1 d) ‘proportion of extreme poor households and individuals mobilised into
primary groups’. This may exclude households and individuals mobilised into
PGs under LPUPAP.
- 1.1 e) proportion of vulnerable and socially excluded group households i.e.
female-headed households, households with one disabled member, ethnic
minority or scheduled caste households
 A new indicator to reflect work of programme on developing leadership capacity of
5



women i.e. # of women serving as CDC Cluster and Federation office-bearers; and # of
women CDC leaders standing as Ward Councillors should be included.
The logframe milestones and targets should be revised to include the 236,658
households previously mobilised under the predecessor programme (LPUPAP). DFID
has agreed to include these households in the overall 3 million population target as
UPPR is providing ongoing services and grants benefiting these communities. The
support to homeless beneficiaries should also be included in the targets in the same
way.
Strengthen indicator on homeless to reflect access to services of other programmes –
e.g. # of homeless people receiving ID cards; and # of homeless obtaining employment
following apprenticeships
The planned survey capturing UPPR beneficiary’s perceptions of the value of
community structures (PGs and CDCs) should be repeated annually.
Impact Weighting (%): 20%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 2: Poor urban communities have healthy and secure living environments
Output 2 score and performance description:
Score: A - Output has met expectations
Performance Description: This output has met expectations with regards to milestone targets.
Although targets on sub-indicators (e.g. tube wells, reservoirs etc) are off track, the overall
number of people benefitting from infrastructure investments has exceeded targets. The
project has therefore met community demand for infrastructure as identified in their
Community Action Plans (CAP) and total Settlement Improvement Fund (SIF) expenditure on
community infrastructure such as toilets, footpaths etc. has exceeded the annual budget
allocation. Surveys to assess health outcomes and time benefits from improved infrastructure
are awaited but observation from field visits indicate that communities have benefited on both
counts.
Progress against expected results:
Indicators
Milestones for Progress (as
this review
on 31/12/2011)
2.1 # of beneficiary households in supported low-income settlements provided with
improved access to:
(a) Tube well
137,860
113,070
(b) Reservoir
87,300
10,246
(c) Sanitation/Toilets
99,219
89,901
(d) Drainage
137,860
60,845
(e) Footpath
No target for
2011-12 period
149,249
No target for
42,305
(f) Cooking stove
6
2011-12 period
Overall total number of households with improved
access to one of the items listed above
2.2 Better infrastructure facilities leading to reflect
improvements in sources of water and sanitation,
decrease in time in collecting water, and health
outcomes
462,239
465,616
No target for
2011-12 period
Survey results
awaited
Output Indicator 2.1: # of beneficiary households in supported low-income settlements
provided with improved access to water facilities, sanitation facilities (latrines),
drainage facilities, footpath facilities and cooking stoves
This indicator has moderately not met the target milestones. This is largely because of the
demand-driven nature of the infrastructure delivery under SIF component, where community
groups prioritise infrastructure requirement and, as result, it has been difficult for the UPPR to
predict the likely requirements and to set milestone targets.
Thus, while milestone achievement under water supply (especially reservoirs), sanitation and
drainage are below target, delivery against footpath/access roads and cooking stoves, which
do not have specified milestone targets, has been strong with an additional 190,000
households benefiting. UPPR also undertakes rehabilitation of water supply sources and these
have not been included in the achievement numbers. The programme is meeting the needs of
the community as articulated in their community action plans.
Evidence from field visits indicates that the quality of infrastructure delivered is of high
standard requiring low Operation and Maintenance (O&M) investments and thereby delivering
value for money. One of the biggest achievements is that all infrastructure projects are
identified, developed, implemented and maintained by CDCs. All CDCs have set up an O&M
account wherein 10% of total project cost is contributed by the community towards ensuring
proper O&M of the facility. To date, over £0.56 million (70 million BDT) has been collected by
CDCs in 15 of the 23 towns towards O&M, with a proportionate sum expected in the other
towns but not yet reported. Community management of the construction work required e.g.
footpath building also ensured 60 days of employment for the poorest people within the
community who did not have any employment for the last one month.
The project promotes integrated provision of footpath and drains. However, site visits revealed
that in some cases drains provided within slums were not connected to city-level drains
primarily because city-level infrastructure have not reached peripheries of most slums. Efforts
must be undertaken to link and integrate city-level services provided by GoB and through
other donor funding agencies with UPPR infrastructure wherever possible.
Output Indicator 2.2: Better infrastructure facilities leading to improvements in sources
of water and sanitation, decrease in time in collecting water, and health outcomes
No data/evidence is currently available. UPPR is planning to undertake a recall survey in
target slums to establish baselines and progress against the above. However, anecdotal
evidence from slum visits indicate that slum residents have benefitted from reduction in waterborne disease and reduction in time taken for collection of potable water.
Other Issues
Increase in rents in UPPR slums post infrastructure development is a concern – some
beneficiaries reported paying increased rents to private land lords once a slum had been
7
improved with paths, drainage, water and toilets etc. In addition, the continuing threat of
eviction of poor people from informal settlements and slums hampers local investments in
infrastructure and housing.
Improved living conditions may best be achieved by the integrated provision of the four critical
infrastructure services – water supply, toilets, footpaths and drainage. Many CDCs are able to
access several rounds of support from the CIF fund in order to address all of these issues, and
where this has happened the impact appears to be highest. However, given that these
investments are determined by communities themselves, UPPR should ensure that the
community action plan planning process informs people of the benefits of the integrated
approach as they are understandably more likely to prioritise investments like water supply
over toilets
Recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UPPR should support CDCs to promote and monitor agreements to ensure that slum
landlords do not increase rents for 3-5 years on account of infrastructure provided
under the project.
UPPR should explore working with favourable municipalities and, on a slum-by-slum
basis with CDCs and land-owners, to obtain agreements or statements of intent that
these communities will not be evicted at least for one generation (15-30 years) thereby
allowing inter-generational benefits to accrue through the project. Any such agreements
should be disseminated as examples for replication in other slums/towns/cities. Given
the political sensitivities around land tenure, UNDP and DFID should support UPPR to
facilitate such agreements by increasing their advocacy with Government to sustain the
improvements and investments in the slum communities, especially where they are on
Government land.
Indicator 2.1 should be changed to the standard DFID indicator of ‘number of people
with access to improved water supply’ and ‘number of people with access to improved
sanitation for easier aggregation of DFID contributions to improved water and sanitation
across a range of programmes.
Better reflect demand-driven nature of Output 2 by rationalising annual milestone
targets based on demand-driven trends of the last two years and projection of future
trends based on existing investments (If communities have already invested in water
supply, they are likely to prioritise other needs in subsequent CAP planning processes.
Alternately, set formal milestone targets at a higher level e.g. number of community
infrastructure projects completed, or number of people served overall, and then report
against different types just for information, aggregation etc.
Indicator 2.2 needs to be further strengthened focusing on ‘time taken for collection of
water’. An indicator on ‘number of children reporting diarrhoea’ may be included at the
Outcome/Purpose level as reduction in disease would be caused not only by improved
water supply and sanitation provision, but also by improved access to health care and
hygiene awareness. A 15-30 days recall period may be used for collection of health
data. Alternatively, data available from ICDDR-B (International Centre for Diarrhoeal
Disease Research, Bangladesh) can be used if found relevant.
UPPR should improve health and hygiene education as a part of the Community Action
Planning process and in association with water and sanitation provision.
Include new indicator:
- Proportion of CDCs with completed CAPs or re-CAPs
- Proportion of community contracts completed within 12 months of CAP
To achieve the intended Outcome, UPPR should encourage the provision of all four
basic infrastructure services - improved water supply, improved toilets, footpath and
drainage - so that health outcomes are not jeopardised. Specifically, improved water
8
supplies and footpaths must be designed with adequate drainage to avoid ponding and
waterlogging. Town teams should work with municipalities to connect with off-site
network drainage wherever possible. CDCs should be required to organise drain
cleaning as a part of general health and hygiene awareness.
Impact Weighting (%): 30%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 3: Urban poor and extremely poor people acquire the resources, knowledge and
skills to increase their income and assets
Output 3 score and performance description:
Score: A+ - Output has moderately exceeded expectations
Performance Description: This output has moderately exceeded expectations on account of
strong performance of Savings and Credit Groups (S&CG) and overall benefits from skills
development and wage employment schemes. It is estimated that S&CG groups have
collected over £2.3 million of savings while beneficiaries of skill and wage employment
programs have generated income of over £12.6 million.
Progress against expected results:
Indicators
Milestones for Progress (as
this review
on 31/12/2011)
3.1. # of female and male beneficiaries in supported
low-income settlements receiving skill development
training (apprenticeship)
37,800
38,733
None
28,637
No gender
disaggregated
targets were
provided
10,096
34,347
55,539
3.2. % of female and male beneficiaries in supported
low-income settlements who are employed 3 months
to 1 year after receiving
60%
78%
(a) skills development training (apprenticeships) –
female
60%
71%
(b) skills development training (apprenticeships) – male
60%
85%
(c) small enterprise block grant
60%
58%
(a) skills development training (apprenticeships) –
female
(b) skills development training (apprenticeships) – male
(c) small enterprise block grant
9
3.3. # of female and male children-years of
education delivered in supported low-income
settlements, by level of education:
36,350
(a) primary school
TBD
(b) secondary school
TBD
3.4. % of beneficiaries in supported low-income
settlements receiving iron and folic acid (IFA), and
micronutrient powder (MNP)
47,377
None
Reporting to
start from 201213
210,000
317,546
35%
42%
3.5. # of households saving and having access to
credit through savings and credit groups (S&CGs)
(a) # of households in S&CGs
(b) % of households in S&CGs
Output Indicator 3.1: # of female and male beneficiaries in supported low-income
settlements receiving skill development training (apprenticeship) and small enterprise
block grants
This indicator has moderately exceeded milestone targets with 38,733 poor people benefiting
from apprenticeship scheme and 55,539 people benefiting from small enterprise block grants
under the Socio-Economic Fund (SEF) component of UPPR. Under the apprenticeship
scheme, beneficiaries are paid between BDT 1,500 – 9,000 (£12 -£70) every month;
thereafter, beneficiaries have generated income worth over £10 million. Going forward, course
selection should be based on a review of local market requirements to ensure trainees can get
a job quickly in the trade for which they were trained. Enterprise grants of up to BDT 5000
(£38) have also been provided to women from extremely poor households to set up local
businesses, helping them make a profit of up to BDT 1000 (£7) per month; to date,
beneficiaries have generated additional total income worth over £2.6 million.
In addition, there are other SEF and income-generating activities, such as urban agriculture
that also have an impact on increasing income and reducing expenditure.
Output Indicator 3.2: % of female and male beneficiaries in supported low-income
settlements who are employed 3 months to 1 year after receiving skill development
training (apprenticeship) and small enterprise block grants
This indicator has met milestone targets with 71% female and 85% male beneficiaries of
apprenticeship programme continuing to remain employed after their training. The lower
retention of female beneficiaries is a concern. Anecdotal evidence from field visits suggests
that women find it more difficult to travel far and work odd hours. UPPR should assess more
closely the market potential of apprentice programmes before approving them for
beneficiaries. With the enterprise grants, only 58% of beneficiaries have managed to sustain
their businesses at a level of profitability (above BDT 2,000, or £15 monthly) which UPPR has
set as making a significant difference to their livelihoods. The UPPR team indicated that a
higher percentage would have been recorded as benefitting from block grants if this
profitability level was reduced to between BDT 1,000 and 2,000.
Anecdotal evidence from the field raised questions regarding the effectiveness of enterprise
grants, especially in generating sustainable income benefits. Currently they seem to be
viewed more as social rather than economic interventions, sometimes for single, elderly
women. If these are to continue, they need more considered analysis and design, building on
successes from other DFID funded programmes in urban areas e.g. the Economic
10
Empowerment of the Poorest Challenge Fund.
Output Indicator 3.3: # of female and male children-years of education delivered in
supported low-income settlements by level of education in primary schools and
secondary schools
The indicator has moderately exceeded milestone targets primarily on account of the
education grants provided to primary and secondary school drop-outs. Anecdotal evidence
from field visits suggested that this has allowed children of extremely poor families to go to
school who would have otherwise dropped studying due to cost of schooling. UPPR may want
to consider monitoring of performance of these children (on a sample basis) by interacting with
their respective schools. A recommendation of the previous DFID annual review has been
incorporated and this support has been extended to primary school drop-outs. This indicator
might usefully be disaggregated into grants for primary and secondary education.
In addition to the above, the SEF Social Development component has enabled CDC Clusters
to establish 35 pre-schools, 17 day-care centres, three basic education centres, and 30 adult
literacy centres benefiting an additional 3,680 people. The possibility of charging for such
services should be explored and could generate income for the community and make the
facilities more self-sustaining.
Output Indicator 3.4: % of beneficiaries in supported low-income settlements receiving
iron and folic acid (IFA), and micronutrient powder (MNP)
This indicator will be monitored from the 2012-13 period as implementation of this new
component has not yet begun.
Output Indicator 3.5: households saving and having access to credit through savings
and credit groups (S&CGs) – number and proportion
The indicator has exceeded milestone targets primarily on account of high perceived benefits
observed by the community, and transparency and accountability ensured. Over £2.3 million
of savings has been generated. Although targets are being exceeded, the overall proportion of
households enrolling into S&CGs remains quite low (42%). In response, UPPR has taken a
community banking approach rather than the traditional micro-finance approach. The latter
has both higher interest rates and higher management fees. In the pilot CDCs in 5 towns, the
improvements have increased the proportion of PG members enrolling in S&CG, encouraged
a 14% increase in savings and 30% increase in loans. Loan repayment has increased from
95% observed last year to 98% this year. CDCs now have the confidence to create a CDC
fund, cluster fund and welfare fund to, respectively, manage risk, support their cluster and
provide a safety net for their members. S&CGs are essential to sustaining community actions
within CDCs and any graduation/exit strategy for UPPR will need to keep S&CGs as the
centrepiece of its approach.
Recommendations:
 Under apprenticeship scheme, course selection should be done based on a review of
local market requirements to ensure beneficiaries find a job quickly.
 Need to focus more on training for wage employment (i.e. jobs) rather than selfemployment in the informal sector as a more strategic approach to poverty reduction.
 Sustainability of SEF component needs to be closely reviewed. In addition to logframe
indicators, SEF includes a number of other support initiatives. This adds to burden of
the project team in terms of implementation. UPPR should review which components of
SEF provide greatest value for money and, going forward, focus on these – in an easyto follow “menu” of “priced” choices outlining key benefits.
11




Stronger engagement with stakeholders is required so that UPPR can start phasing out
the socio-economic grants provided to communities and link them with other public and
private support. Handing over of SEF can be undertaken in a phased manner. UPPR
should target to hand over by end of 2013, with UPPR team providing technical and
administrative support to local Governments and other service providers after hand
over of SEF activities. This initiative will also need to be supported by DFID and UNDP
at Government level.
Indicator 3.2 should reflect if beneficiaries are employed in the same field as the
training provided.
Include milestones for Indicator 3.3.
Indicator 3.5(b) needs to be changed to proportion of primary group households in
S&CGs.
Impact Weighting (%): 30%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 4: Pro-poor urban policies and partnerships supported at the national and local
levels
Output 4 score and performance description:
Score: A - The output has met expectations.
Performance Description:
Four UPPR towns have officially recognised the low-income settlement maps prepared by the
Project; and UPPR has been successful in securing a sizeable number of partnerships (i.e.
working together with other service providers) and linkages (contacts and liaison) with donors,
civil society organisations and Government. Additional indicators are required to better reflect
the influences that UPPR has on policy and practice at national as well as local levels.
Progress against expected results:
Indicators
Milestones for Progress (as
this review
on 31/12/2011)
4.1. # of programme towns where low-income
settlements are officially recognised by Pourashava
Mayors
4.2. # of press reports covering urban poverty issues in
low-income settlements by (i) UPPR-commissioned and
(ii) others
3 Towns
4 Towns
Newly
introduced
milestone – no
targets yet
Not yet
available
40
92
4.3. # of town-led partnerships and linkages established
by the programme
(a) Partnerships
12
(b) Linkages
60
355
Output Indicator 4.1: # of programme towns where low-income settlements are officially
recognised by Pourashava Mayors
This indicator has moderately exceeded milestone targets. Mayors of four towns (Gopalganj,
Tongi, Narayangonj and Savar) have officially recognised the existence, location and
characteristics of low-income settlements in their areas, based on the Settlement Land
Mapping (SLM) exercise undertaken by UPPR. This has the potential to guide the towns to
plan for the improvement of low-income settlements and to direct future service provision. An
indicator of this would be the direct budgetary allocations by towns to local CDCs and/or
increased local Government budget allocations to infrastructure improvement and other
investments that benefit these communities.
Equally important is the potential this has for local recognition of land tenure security in low
income settlements. Although falling well-short of formally securing tenure, the local Mayors’
signing-off on SLM maps, does at least provide a basis for a strategic examination of slum
settlements in each town and for slum-by-slum approaches to securing more security for slumdwellers. This might be validated by adoption of some sort of agreement or ‘resolution’
developed between UPPR and municipalities.
Output Indicator 4.2: # of press reports covering urban poverty issues in low-income
settlements by (i) UPPR-commissioned and (ii) others
As yet no evidence is available on the number of press reports published on low income
settlements. UPPR has committed to entering into media monitoring arrangement from the
current reporting year and has offered only anecdotal evidence of widespread press coverage.
However, the team found that this is an inadequate and potentially misleading indicator of
performance for policy advocacy efforts. We recommend that it be replaced by measures
which reflect UPPR’s role within national lobbying, and its sponsorship of major advocacy
events and initiatives. These are specified in more detail below.
Output Indicator 4.3: # of town-led partnerships and linkages established by the
programme
This indicator has substantially exceeded milestone targets. The project achieved over 92
partnerships (defined as the formation of joint delivery and/ or advocacy arrangements) and
355 linkages (given by formal or semi-formal contacts with key stakeholders to obtain policy
outcomes, service improvements and additional resources) at the town and national level.
Partnerships have ensured real service benefits including among others: delivery of improved
water and sanitation to 28,000 school children in partnership with Coca-Cola; an improved
water supply to 3,000 slum households in Dhaka in partnership with DWASA (Dhaka’s Water
Supply Agency); 13,650 poor people receiving training in handicrafts and shoe making in
partnership with the Non-Government Organisation CARE; and improved access to healthcare
for 600,000 community members through the Urban Primary Health Care Programme
(UPHCP). It is estimated that the setting up of effective linkages has leveraged additional
resources for UPPR communities of around £1.5 million from various partners. To facilitate
and institutionalize these linkages and ensure sustained benefits, 28 clusters have established
Community Resource Centres (CRCs).
Other Issues
UPPR contributed substantially to the organisation of the first Bangladesh Urban Forum (BUF)
in December r 2011 where a range of national and international stakeholders, including the
13
Government of Bangladesh, UPPR staff and CDC members discussed and debated urban
issues. The BUF closed with an “Urban Declaration” committing stakeholders to
institutionalization of the Forum as a platform for informed debate, and a series of policy
responses to the major challenges faced in the urban sector. The Project will follow-up these
commitments, particularly in respect of the Urban Strategy published in 2010, but not yet
enacted by Government.
Secure tenure represents the primary policy challenge faced by the UPPR, and should be
reflected within the log frame at outcome level. Success is likely to be incremental with
individual practical advances at local level and the building of a coalition of interests at the
policy level. UNDP and DFID should also be involved in policy level support for UPPR and the
urban poor organised within the programme.
Recommendations:
 Include new indicators:
- 4.2: Number of towns where there is a basic public commitment to promoting the
integrity of low income settlements and the security of land tenure;
- 4.4: Value of municipal resources devoted to UPPR-related activities; or
alternatively, the number of towns supporting CDCs directly from their own budgets.
- Outcome indicator: National policy changes, notably adoption of the Draft Urban
Strategy and a framework for improved security of tenure in low income
settlements.
 Work with local Governments and local landowners to develop a more strategic
approach to obtaining security of tenure for slum dwellers based on the Settlement
Maps. This could include a process of slum categorisation and slum-by-slum
examination of tenure options.
 DFID and UNDP should jointly examine coordinated policy interventions to support
national policy changes, notably adoption of the Draft Urban Strategy.
Impact Weighting (%): 15%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 5: Effective project management systems established and operational
Output 5 score and performance description:
Score: B
Performance Description: Output has moderately not met expectations
There are no milestones defined for this output. However, as a basis for the assessment a
comparison to previous fiscal year outturns and total project budget have been used as a
proxy. Indicators expressing spending levels compared to budget and share of staffing
positions filled are however, not considered as the most appropriate indicators to express
“effective project management systems”. Against these simple indicators UPPR is on track.
14
However, assessing against how well UPPR Management have followed up on the 2011
Annual Review Recommendations reveals some delays, and some issues not yet resolved.
For example, the Management Review and follow up Organisational Development Plan were
delayed, and implementation of the recommendations has only just started. In addition, key
issues such as development of an exit strategy from towns supported under the predecessor
programme (Local Partnerships for Urban Poverty Alleviation Programme – LPUPAP) are still
outstanding.
The following presents progress against indicators in the current the log-frame (n.b. no specific
2012 milestones available).
Progress against expected results:
Milestones
for this
review
Budget 2011
Expenditure
20112
Total budget
2007-2014
Total
Expenditure
2007-2011
Percent of project budget
5.1. Amount of SIF budget
delivered in GBP
N.A.
NA
4,677,138
24,000,000
9,513,373
40%
5.1. Amount of SIF budget
delivered in USD
N.A.
4,125,000
8,114,347
46,800,000
16,504,712
35%
5.2. Amount of SEF budget
delivered in GBP
N.A.
NA
3,024,000
14,547,708
6,054,414
42%
5.2. Amount of SEF budget
delivered in USD
N.A.
4,800,000
5,246,325
28,358,031
10,503,777
37%
Indicators
Milestones
for this
review
2010
2011
5.3. % of project human resource
positions staffed
N.A.
93%
85%
5.4. % of new female staff
recruited (yearly)
N.A.
17%
21%
Indicators
Source: UNDP 2007 - 2010 certified statement of accounts and 2011 interim financial statement. Data for SIF and SEF
includes only amounts that have been charged to DFID’s contribution. UNDP has provided additional funding to SIF and SEF.
Output Indicator 5.1: Amount of Settlement Improvement Fund (SIF) budget delivered
In 2011 a total value of 7.4 million USD (4.7 million GBP) was transferred as SIF grants to the
CDCs as financial contributions in support of community and household investments. This
exceeded the budget allocated and is significantly above the grants transferred in 2010 to
CDCs. In total 16.5 million USD (9.5 million GBP) has been transferred as SIF grants to CDCs
since project inception. This is equivalent to 35% of the total budget allocation to this grant.
Measured in GBP the utilisation percentage is higher since the value of GBP to USD
(exchange rate) has declined over the years.
UPPR has positively responded to changing demands of CDCs in terms of the types of
community based infrastructure investments they have prioritised over the years. While initially
the project grants funded mainly basic water and sanitation infrastructure, other community
(footpaths, drainage) and household infrastructure (like improved cooking stoves) have
expanded with outreach to more communities and households
The increase in grant utilisation is also due to a more efficient process of contracting suppliers
and by diversifying contract entities to include CDC clusters.
The contract approval process, however, still involves several steps from appraisal of CDC
2
Includes only the amount of SIF and SEF that has been charged to DFID.
15
proposals to final approval and transfer of grants to CDCs through bank accounts managed by
the town administration. In some project localities there are insufficient technical staff to
support contract implementation, or an absence of town leaders with authority to process CDC
projects. UPPR is piloting web-based contract processing which will serve to reduce time
required for processing and approval of projects and thus utilisation of the grant.
Output Indicator 5.2: Amount of Socio-Economic Fund budget delivered (in GBP and
USD)
In 2011 a total value of 5.3 million USD (3.0 million GBP) was transferred as SEF grants to
CDCs as financial contributions in support of various social and economic activities including
employment generating opportunities. This is above the 2011 budget allocation of 4.8 million
USD and significant increase compared to 2010 with an amount of 3.7 million USD transferred
to CDCs. In total 10.5 million USD (6.0 million GBP) has been transferred as SEF grants to
CDCs since project inception. This is equivalent to 37% of the total budget allocation to this
grant.
The grants are utilised to support communities and households among others to promote
employment and income generation and school enrolment.
Output Indicator 5.3: % of project human resource positions staffed
According to data provided by UPPR there were 407 planned staff positions for 2011, of which
349 were filled i.e. 85%. The total number of UPPR staff increased from 2010 to 2011.
Recruitment is still a challenge, but the percentage of positions filled has improved.
Output Indicator 5.4: % of new female staff recruited (yearly)
By end of 2011, 21% of UPPR staff members were female. According to UPPR project
management, increasing this target is a challenge since female applicants for UPPR positions
are few. This is likely to reflect the difficult working environment the programme presents for
women staff members. However, given that the vast majority of target beneficiaries of the
project are women, it is important to increase the percentage of women working at both town
level and in senior management.
Overall assessment
Overall UPPR has continued to make great progress in the field. Although there were no
specific targets for this year, the above indicators on spend on grants vs overall budget,
staffing positions filled etc are overall on track. However, these are not the most relevant
indicators to measure the output “Effective project management systems”. This Review has
therefore also considered, for the purpose of scoring this output, how effectively the
programme management have taken up key recommendations from the Annual Review 2011.
While the DFID Project Memorandum specified that 65% of project contributions were to be
spent directly by communities themselves, the amounts actually disbursed are also not a
suitable indicator for this output. UPPR programmes SIF and SEF funds over the whole
programme period based on a CDC budget threshold (limit per CDC). The delivery capacity of
communities and delays in the contract approval process constrain funding for the community
grants. Furthermore, over the years, formation of CDCs has generated an increasing demand
for grants and in the last years demand has exceeded available funding. The current ratio of
overheads to programme costs (community grants) will not be sustainable over the life of the
programme (Please see Section B 2.1 on Costs and timescales).
16
CDCs decide themselves what type of investments/services their communities need. Some
are quick disbursing (like block grants for cooking stoves, enterprise development and school
grants). Others grants (like water and sanitation infrastructure) require more input in the form
of technical support and contract supervision. It is important to ensure that indicators don’t
incentivise ‘quick spend’ over the important principles of community led development, and
maintaining quality delivery.
Filling vacant positions is also a problematic indicator, as it does not allow for analysis of
whether the most important posts are filled. It may also incentivise over-staffing in some areas
– driving up costs, and not necessarily demonstrating improved programme management and
value for money.
An assessment of financial data suggests that the budget is not fully used as an effective
management tool to contain expenditures within approved ceilings. It further shows that staff
and consultancy costs have increased to improve programme delivery but this increase has
been faster than the number of households and communities mobilised/receiving support.
This is the opposite of what would be expected as a programme matured and began to be
able to show efficiencies of scale etc. In addition, standard budget management and project
progress reports are not always being produced on time, and do not in all cases appear to be
informing decision making. There are several challenges associated with the quality and
timeliness of project monitoring information, among others due to constraints in
implementation of a management and monitoring system. The project has not been reviewed
by external auditors. DFID is discussing with UNDP whether this would be appropriate, as part
of efforts to further tighter up financial management. Whether audits are done internally or
externally, it is vital that all audit recommendations are followed up in full and any issues
resolved urgently.
The Annual Review of 2011 noticed some areas of significant stress within overall programme
management. They recommended that the UPPR and UNDP hired a team of consultants to
do a Strategic Management Review (SMR) of the project. One of the outcomes of the review
has been the development of an Organisational Development Plan (OD Plan). The SMR and
OD Plan were somewhat delayed (and only agreed in March 2012). Therefore management
resources for this large and complex programme are stretched in some key areas.
Implementation of the OD plan recommendations will help to address the issues raised (e.g.
lack of strategic management, centralised decision-making, absence of systematic monitoring,
shortage of technical leadership capacity and too few community mobilisers).
In addition to the management review, the 2011 annual review also recommended action in
the following areas which have not been completed fully and remain as recommendations for
this review. Specifically these are to:

Developing clear work and resource plans, building ownership with Government
counterparts;

Improve Monitoring and Evaluation systems not just for inputs, activities and outputs,
but also for outcomes, and develop economic cost benefit analysis materials; and

Developing exit strategies from certain towns based on clear exit criteria (by 30 Sept
2011)
For these reasons, we consider the programme to be moderately not meeting expectations in
the area of management.
17
Recommendations:

Urgent implementation of the OD Plan is necessary to complete the proposed restructuring
and recruitment recommended in the SMR.

Indicators of effective project management are already included under outputs 1-3 (like
planned versus actual number of communities mobilised). In addition other indicators that
better reflect effective project management could be;
- processing time for different types of grants (i.e. reduction in time or within a service
target set for processing of some CDC proposals for some or all investments/grants);
- the share of personnel resources focussing on service delivery compared to general
project management and administration declining over time contained within a set ratio
(i.e. using the UPPR activity based budget to estimate a planned ratio);
- the extent to which expenditures are contained within budget ceilings (i.e. measured by
level of variance between budget and expenditures);
- that top quality management information is produced in a timely manner to inform
decision making (evidenced by output and financial data produced to agreed schedules,
with subsequent decisions informed by evidence).
 The project management needs to explore ways to increase the proportion of women staff.
It should pursue the gender consultancy as recommended by the Strategic Management
Review to review the UPPR’s programmatic and organisational policies with a focus on
ensuring they are addressing the needs of women and girls ensuring women are
employed at all levels of the programme UPPR should target women in recruitment, and
ensure their ongoing development and retention. This may include a review of the current
working culture/environment and assessment of what can be done to attract and retain
more women staff.
 Indicator 5.4 needs to be revised to encourage a greater gender balance of positions at
every level including senior management.
Impact Weighting (%): 5%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Section B: Results and Value for Money.
1. Progress and results
1.1 Has the logframe been updated since last review? Y
Yes. As recommended by the 2011 annual review, the logframe was updated primarily to
address: (i) overlap between output level indicators and purpose level indicators; (ii) need to
18
develop clearer indicators of impact and outcome which can be monitored more regularly; (iii)
harmonisation and standardisation of indicators across all the extreme poverty programmes
funded by DFID Bangladesh. At the time of this Review a number of indicators still do not have
milestones and targets. It is expected that the logframe including milestones and targets will
be finalised after this review.
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description:
A: Outputs met expectation
Output Scoring
Output number
Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction, Annual Review 2012
Output Description
Impact Weight (%)
Output Performance
1
Urban poor communities
mobilized
to
form
representative and inclusive
groups
and
prepare
community action plans
20%
Outputs
expectation (A)
met
2
Poor urban communities
have healthy and secure
living environments
30%
Outputs
expectation (A)
met
3
Urban poor and extremely
poor people acquire the
resources, knowledge and
skills to increase their
income and assets
30%
Outputs
exceeded
(A+)
4
Pro-poor urban policies and
partnerships supported at
the national and local levels
15%
Outputs
expectation (A)
5
Effective
project
management
systems
established and operational
5%
Outputs moderately did
not meet expectation
(B)
100%
All outputs scored
moderately
expectation
met
Annual Output Scoring
Annual Output Score
A
1.3 Direct feedback from beneficiaries
The UPPR does not systematically obtain feedback from beneficiaries. A beneficiary survey is
planned for later in 2012. The Review team was able to meet a cross-section of beneficiaries
during field visits to a number of slums in 4 towns and was impressed by the positive and
confident responses from women CDC leaders and from grant beneficiaries. The positive
feedback from the Mayors of the towns visited was also particularly encouraging.
The UPPR team collected direct feedback from community beneficiaries and from local
Government stakeholders including Mayors, member secretaries and ward councillors through
a focus group discussion and workshop. They carried out these focus group discussions in
Dhaka and Tongi. The following quotations were collected during those exercises. Whilst this
is not a statistically representative sample of opinion, it does reflect the views heard and other
19
observations during field visits.
Community feedback
Impact of community mobilization, leadership and empowerment. “Before UPPR: We
had limited control over our own development; our morale and self-esteem was very low;
community disputes were difficult to solve; and women did not have control over the
household’s financial resources.
After UPPR: we can identify and solve community issues
and plan actions that change our living conditions; solve community conflicts; lobby the local
authorities to provide public services; get crime cases resolved; get other organizations to
implement projects in the community. We have learned to manage our own bank accounts.
Some of us want to run for ward councillor positions. Most of us are now in control of the
household’s financial resources”.
Impact of toilets. “Before UPPR: we defecated in open fields/hanging toilets and were not
aware of hygienic sanitation practices. For privacy reasons, we women defecated only at
night and were scared of being physically harassed. We and our husbands sometimes missed
work and our children missed school due to suffering from diarrhoea, typhoid fever and skin
diseases. After UPPR: toilets are very close to our houses, and the signage on our toilets
reminds use of hygienic practices. As a result, diarrhoea, typhoid fever and skin diseases are
decreased substantially. We women enjoy privacy and round the clock access to toilets; our
social status has increased; and our health-related expenditures and work and school
absences are reduced”.
Impact of tube wells. “Before UPPR: water sources were stagnant and distant, about 30
minutes away; pregnant women in particular faced difficulties in collecting water; poor water
quality caused diarrhoea, typhoid fever and skin diseases; people missed work and children
missed school due to sickness. We spent our savings or took loans for medicine and medical
care. After UPPR: drinking water is at most 5 minutes away; water is accessed round the
clock; water borne diseases are decreased substantially; and health-related expenditures and
in work and school absences are reduced”.
Perceived tenure security after UPPR’s settlement and household improvement
interventions. “After UPPR: most of us believe that our CDC will not be evicted. Most of us
think that our community organisation will help us to avoid eviction should we become under
threat”.
Impact of micro-business grants and apprenticeships. “Before UPPR: many of us had no
sustained income source; we had very limited skills; we could not contribute to family
expenses; our parents and husbands were frustrated by their inability to conduct income
generating activities; we faced discrimination and verbal abuse from other community
members for being idle at home. After UPPR: our household income has increased; we can
afford fish and meat more often; we invest part of our income in children’s education and
household health; most of us are saving money regularly; our husbands appreciate and
sometimes help in running our business.
Impact of education grant. “Before UPPR: we were unable to afford school; we felt socially
excluded as others were attending school; we faced dropping out, child marriage, and child
labour; we had little confidence in finding a good job in future. After UPPR: we appreciate
receiving an education that will lead us to qualified employment positions; we feel more
included; and we drop out less.”
Most valued UPPR intervention. “While we think that settlement improvement interventions
are important, we rated household-level actions as the most important UPPR intervention, as
that these represented direct interventions that improved our livelihoods and helped lift us out
of out of poverty”. From the group discussion, 56% of people rated education grants as the
most important, acknowledging that education is the “backbone of the nation”; 25% rated block
20
grants as the most important; 12% rated footpaths as the most, citing improvements in health
and living conditions; and 7% rated drainage systems as the most important UPPR
intervention, citing improvements in health and living conditions.
An analysis by the UPPR team of the contents of the CAPs shows that demand within the SIF
and SEF activities changes over time as initial demands are met. Second round CAPs place
higher emphasis on household level provision such as cooking stoves or community facilities
such as community centres, from SEF, on education grants.
Local Government Feedback has been received from Mayors and local Government officials
through letters, verbally and through an official workshop in March 2012. Overall they are very
supportive of UPPR. Their support is reinforced by their willingness to increase their
engagement with the programme. At a recent local Government meeting participants reached
consensus that Local Government Institutions would formalise processes and mechanisms to
provide support to beneficiaries under the programme, including through registering
Community Development Committees, developing poverty reduction strategies for the town
and supporting community linkages with other service agencies.
1.4 Summary of overall progress
Overall, the programme has made good progress with most outputs either meeting or
exceeding expectations. Where specific targets have not been met, notably for Output 2, this
is not a reflection of poor programme delivery. It is the result of targets having been set in a
‘top down’ fashion which is not appropriate for a demand-driven programme which responds to
community-identified needs. Since overall number of beneficiaries of Output 2 exceeded the
milestone, this was scored as meeting expectations. The main concern remains the need to
implement the Organisational Development Plan which has progressed somewhat slowly
since the 2011 review identified the need for a Management Review.
The programme is delivering at scale both in terms of social mobilisation and in the delivery of
infrastructure and socio-economic benefits. Progress in 2011 shows a slight decline in social
mobilisation over 2009 and 2010 (4,458 PGs formed with 361,000 members), following
considerable acceleration in 2009. Expenditure of both investment funds (Settlement
Improvement Fund (SIF) and Socio-economic Fund (SEF) is above the annual budget
allocation for 2011 and showing an increase over 2010.
1.5 Key challenges
Achieving poverty reduction impact:
It is important for the programme to focus on those interventions that work best in helping to
improving living conditions and livelihoods for the poor and extreme poor.
This will mean monitoring:
• The extent to which households are benefitting from the programme. This should look
at whether impacts come from just access to services, or whether impacts require both
services (e.g. water, toilets, drains, paths etc) and support for livelihoods.
• The extent to which the programme is promoting a comprehensive approach to
infrastructure improvement i.e. integrating provision of water, toilets, drainage and
footpaths. This review suggests this approach may be necessary to achieve significant
health and livelihood outcomes
• whether this is a major change in livelihood security if people get formal wage
employment i.e. a job
• The extent to which SEF is being used for social welfare (e.g. for vulnerable elderly
21
women) rather than for enterprise development. If necessary, devise alternative
mechanisms to provide for their needs e.g. social welfare grant or use of CDC funds for
social welfare.
• opportunities to achieve more secure tenure for slum dwellers both at national policy
level and at a town level, developing practical options on a slum-by-slum basis
• opportunities to work with local Governments to better integrate slum communities
within municipal planning, resource allocation and service delivery
• Poverty impact. The Participatory Identification of the Poor methodology measures
relative poverty only and is therefore not an accurate measure of poverty impact.
Furthermore it does not capture households’ graduation from poverty and as benefits
are linked to poverty status, there is some disincentive for communities to acknowledge
improvements in their livelihoods through this approach. The progress made on the
Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) (see 3.1 below) may help with this and its
completion and update surveys should be rolled out as soon as possible.
Seeking sustainability for the UPPR model through:
• At programme level, improved engagement, ownership and adoption by local
Government to provide technical support and service delivery to CDCs and for a
gradual transfer of responsibility and resource allocation from the programme to local
Government
• At community level, strengthened community organisation sustainability by supporting
formation of clusters and Federations.
Also improve financial sustainability of
independent initiatives (such as child care facilities), and increase accountability to
primary group members.
Ensure sustainability of community infrastructure by
integrating slum infrastructure and service delivery with municipal services, and
effective use of CDC Operation & Maintenance accounts
• At household level, through increased effectiveness of skills training and block grants to
better reflect local markets and scaling up of the improved systems for Savings & Credit
groups.
Balancing the pressures to respond to needs and to develop sustainability for exit: The
settlement and vacant land mapping exercise has highlighted the scale of need within the
rapidly increasing urban poor population. Municipal leaders have limited resources for propoor expenditure and have expressed the desire to retain UPPR resources even in towns that
have been receiving support from the project and its predecessor for over 5 years. UPPR was
designed to leave behind strengthened capacity and partnerships to sustain initiatives for
poverty reduction. Phasing out of CDCs and towns is a key aspect of success, and was part of
the initial design. Meanwhile, there are 7 towns originally envisaged as being included in the
programme which have not yet received UPPR assistance, and are pressing to be included.
The UPPR urgently needs a strategic plan to identify conditions for exit from towns and/or
communities within those town based on criteria of sustainability, UPPR also needs a clear
model for expansion into new towns, defining a focused programme based on lessons learnt
so far.
Working in an unfavourable policy environment: It continues to be important for UPPR,
UNDP and DFID to work together to promote pro-poor urban policy initiatives such as the Draft
Urban Strategy and the Bangladesh Urban Forum. UPPR can demonstrate successes from
the including partnerships and linkages with other service delivery agencies. It can also pilot
possible models for improving security of tenure for the urban poor. It is also important to
constantly reinforce the importance of policies and programmes to address the urban poor –
whose numbers are unlikely to decline (Bangladesh’s population is likely to be 50% urban by
2045).
Achieving effective project management for a large and complex programme is
challenged by the scale of operation, the number of cities/towns in which the programme
22
operates, the number and variety of interventions, and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining
qualified staff in a demanding work environment. More effective project management will rely
on:
• Efficient and appropriate organisational structure and human resources, including
prompt implementation of the recommendations of the Strategic Management Review
and Organisational Development Plan;
• Improved monitoring and learning systems including data management and reporting,
including external user satisfaction/verification of outputs, which should be undertaken
as soon as possible: and a poverty impact assessment;
• Systems for external oversight of programme financial management. These are needed
to retain trust and confidence in the programme and to promote financial discipline.
Project financing: Decisions are required on the future funding of UPPR, first and foremost
how to compensate for exchange rate loss. With changes in exchange rate between the
Bangladesh Taka, the UK Pound and the US Dollar, at the time of writing this report, the net
overall UK contribution has now reduced by US$ 11.3 million. This may change (positively or
negatively) as a result of further currency movements. If UPPR continues to scale up project
expenditures following the trend of the last three years, additional funding may be required.
Otherwise there will be a requirement to rationalise expenditures by: phasing out of
CDCs/towns; focusing on allocations for activities that directly contribute to stated project
outputs; and/or reduce allocations for community grants. Some of these choices will impact on
project benefits for the target group. Another option is to engage with GoB to include additional
funding from the state budget, e.g. state budget allocations to complement external funding for
community grants, or to attract other donors.
1.6 Annual Outcome Assessment: Livelihoods and living conditions of 3 million poor
and extreme poor people living in urban areas, especially women and children,
sustainably improved
On-Track. Outcome likely to be achieved
Whilst there is no data yet on the specific Outcome indicators there is emerging evidence from
Outputs:



The population mobilised or benefitting from Community Development Committee
(CDC) activities already totals 2.86 million and this figure together with those mobilised
into Primary Groups (PGs) (2.1 million) represents good progress.
The project is proving to be an efficiently targeted delivery model for infrastructure
improvements and livelihood benefits. Whilst infrastructure delivery against specific
pres-set targets is below logframe targets, overall the achievement of infrastructure
prioritised in Community Action Plans is on track, and livelihood and education grant
beneficiaries are above target. CDCs were observed to be targeting poor and extremely
poor people for Settlement Improvement Fund and Socio-economic Fund (SIF and
SEF) benefits, based on the participatory identification of the poor (PIP) methodology
which measures only relative poverty in each slum using community assessments.
In addition, the programme is generating or levering significant additional resources
which are not captured in current reporting e.g. £2.3 million in savings, £0.5 million in
O&M accounts, £12.6 million in wage and income generation, and £1.5 million in
services accessed from other providers.
Issues
The Outcome target of 3 million poor and extremely poor people is taken to be the population
of the areas covered by the CDCs – currently 2.86 million people. However there is uncertainty
concerning the measurement of poverty in the slums covered by the CDCs. Using the PIP
23
analysis that 20% of the CDC areas are non-poor, current progress towards the end of project
target of 3.017 million poor and extremely poor people stands at 2.29 million. This is
somewhat behind the logframe target of 2.586 million by December 2011. However, the PIP
analysis measures only relative poverty and could be misleading when measured against
national poverty lines. This highlights the need for a more accurate measure of poverty. The
proposed Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) will help to provide such a baseline.
Sustained benefits will rely on a clear phase-out strategy from communities and towns which
have benefitted from long-term support, identifying sustainability criteria and continuing but
reducing UPPR support, and more effective project management.
Recommendations:
The UPPR should:






Undertake a poverty impact assessment to review at household level the impact of
infrastructure and livelihood benefits. Are households in areas covered by CDCs
experiencing an improvement both in living conditions and livelihoods?
Roll out the work on the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index to provide a more accurate
measure of poverty incidence and impact.
Review SIF and SEF activities to identify those which are most effective and providing
best value for money. These should form the focus of funds expenditure for the
remainder of the programme.
Prepare a strategic plan to identify conditions for exit from CDCs/towns based on
criteria of sustainability, and design a model for expansion into new towns defining a
more focused programme based on lessons learnt so far.
Review project financing in the context of decisions concerning phase-out and
expansion.
Reduce Outcome indicators if possible and provide baseline and mid-term data as soon
as possible.
2. Costs and timescale
2.1 Is the project on-track against financial forecasts: Y/N
No.
Overall the UPPR programme has some major financial constraints which need to be
reviewed carefully. The four main issues are:
1. Exchange rate fluctuation: While the main project components were priced in Taka
(grants, national project staff, locally procured inputs and operational costs) and USD
(international staff), the main source of external finance is from DFID with a contribution
of 60 million GBP. The exchange rate of GBP to USD and Taka declined significantly
from the time of budget formulation until September 2009, although since then has
remained relatively stable. DFID has disbursed a total of 28.3 GBP in 10 instalments to
UNDP since December 2007.The amount has been converted into USD at the date of
each disbursement. With a decline in USD/GBP exchange rate the USD value of
DFID’s contribution has been reduced by 12.9 million USD (28%) compared with the
initially approved budget. Since the project is budgeted and accounted for in USD while
more than 90% of the costs are in Taka, the project has made an exchange rate gain of
1.6 million USD. The net impact of these exchange rate fluctuations have been a net
24
reduction of project funding by 11.3 million USD.
2. Costs of certain budget lines exceeding planned budgets - Costs have exceeded
budget forecasts in certain areas of the programme budget – specifically for
international and local staff as well as equipment and training.
Additional budgets recommended by the Strategic Management Review and
resulting Organisational Development Plan. The Strategic Management Review
undertaken as a result of the 2011 review has proposed additional staffing to
strengthen project management.
3. Expansion to the 7 towns still not covered – while not yet exiting from towns
supported by UPPR and a predecessor project. As highlighted above, the
programme implementation rate continues to accelerate. The Government of
Bangladesh is keen for the programme to expand further, as planned, into 7 additional
towns. However, as also planned, UPPR has not exited from any ‘old’ towns covered
by both UPPR and a predecessor project (Local Partnerships for Urban Poverty
Alleviation Programme, LPUPAP).
Even if exchange rates remain stable for the next 3 years, the reduced project funds (caused
by the exchange rate net loss) and the increased staffing costs will mean that the budget
allocations for staff and training will need to be reduced and/or compensated by reductions in
SIF and SEF community grants. The latter would require a reduction in the proportion of the
project budget which is devoted to grants from the previously committed level of 65%.
Recommendation: Decisions are required on the future funding of UPPR, first and foremost
on how to compensate for exchange rate loss, and secondly whether to proceed with further
scaling up project expenditures and phasing out of CDCs/towns. There are several measures
to consider among others;
1.
Rationalization of expenditures to focus on activities which are most cost-effective in
directly contributing to stated project outputs.
2.
Scale down allocation for grants (reduce the nominal 65% share for grants originally
included in the UPPR design).
3.
Source funding for grants from the GoB state budget.
4.
Source additional funding from development partners like DFID.
Clearly these measures need to be informed by planned reviews and other assessments
suggested here e.g. to assess the effectiveness of different SEF grants. Measures 2, 3 and 4
may also depend on the success of partnership and policy influence. Fundamentally however
they need to be considered in the light of the programme’s exit strategy including decisions
concerning phasing out of CDCs/towns and scaling up into new towns. This is considered at
2.3 below.
2.2 Key cost drivers
The main cost drivers in UPPR are community contracts financed from community grants
(64% of overall budget), and international and locally recruited staff costs (20% of overall
budget). From the inception of the project the target allocation for grants was set at 65% of the
total project budget. Hence the project has been budgeted each year with due consideration
for amounts that can be allocated to finance staff, training, equipment and other operational
expenditures if to achieve the target of 65% of project costs allocated to grants. The review of
overall programme finances needs to look for ways in which fixed costs (e.g. staff salaries,
25
etc) can be contained to ensure grants for communities are not compromised.
2.3 Is the project on-track against original timescale: Y/N
The agreed timescale is now 1 March 2008 to 31 August 2014- a duration of 6.5 years.
Yes. The project is on track to reach the expected Results (improving the living conditions and
livelihoods of 3 million people living in slums and informal settlements) within the agreed
duration of 6.5 years (1 March 2008 - 31 August 2014).
The project is not on track with regard to the phase-out from the 11 towns which were covered
within the predecessor project (LPUPAP). This phase-out was due to take place in 2010 and
to be combined with expansion into 7 new towns so that a total of 30 towns were covered
under UPPR. Neither phase-out nor expansion has occurred. The programme has been
debating whether the Outcome target of 3 million people should be met within the existing 23
towns or whether to expand to the remaining 7 towns.
Furthermore, the programme is not on track with regard to financial forecasts (see 2.1 above),
and rationalisation of the budget is required.
Recommendations: UPPR needs a clear exit strategy. This should include:
-
A clear vision of the long-term sustainability of the programme and the short-to-medium
targets for hand-over and capacity-building.
-
A costed programme for phasing-out from the 11 towns. This requires renewed focus
on CDC maturity and detailed, town-by-town planning for a reduction of UPPR financial
and technical support balanced by an increasing role for CDC Clusters and
Federations.
The proposed expansion to 7 new towns should only be planned for when the costed phaseout programme is completed and available resources are known. The nature of the
programme in expanded towns should be more focused, informed by the reviews
recommended above of the SIF and SEF grants so that the most cost-effective ‘menu’ of
activities is offered to communities.
Expansion will depend on implementation of the Organisational Development Plan to ensure
that management structures and resources are in place. Time is likely to be a critical additional
constraint.
Funding partners (DFID, UNDP and GoB) should begin the process now to consider the
design of a possible new phase of the programme.
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
The project has undertaken numerous assessment surveys and studies (e.g. homeless
mapping and baseline, CDC self-assessment of business grants and apprenticeships, CDC
maturity index, day care needs survey and study of the urban food production component), but
these have not been programmed according to a planned overall monitoring and evaluation
system.
The level of disaggregation of data by sex, age or other variables varies by dataset. Project
administrative data, for example recipients of SEF, can be disaggregated by sex, locality and
poverty status, and other variables (such as educational status). In general, any householdbased sample data (for example the MPI baseline) cannot be further disaggregated (e.g. to
26
give data for just female household members). This is either because is it not possible (i.e.
household sample data is rarely gender disaggregated) or that UPPR does not capture
gender-disaggregated data at household level (i.e. different impacts on men, women, girls and
boys). Data is not robust enough at below the project level. UPPR have committed to
providing the gender-disaggregated data by town, through larger sample sizes and using town
level stratification.
There is no new evidence to challenge the Project’s theory of change. While the original
project documentation does not explicitly identify a theory of change, the logical framework
provides the output to outcome rationale. The de facto approach is rooted in community
empowerment and social mobilization to achieve better livelihoods and living conditions for
poor communities. This is done directly (via SEF and SIF funds) and indirectly (through
creating demand side pressures and social capital).
The following three initiatives are used for overall programme targeting, monitoring and
evaluation:
1. Settlement and Vacant Land Mapping (SLM):
 There is now new evidence from SLM maps on which to base the project’s targeting.
The original target populations were based on 42% of the 2001 urban population
assumed to be in poverty. But urban populations have grown significantly since
then and most of the newcomers are settling in poor settlements or slums. The
maps show that existing settlements have expanded and identify more settlements
dispersed throughout cities and towns.
 The SLM data has made clear the differences in living conditions between areas,
with some towns and settlement with significantly higher levels of poverty and
deprivation than others. This has implications for the allocation of resources
between localities, and potentially the balance between SEF and SIF resources.
 Additionally, the SLM exercise has provided a wealth of other data which might be
used to improve the targeting and delivery approach. This should be followed up in
later reviews.
2. Participatory Identification of the Poor (PIP) – This is an exercise carried out by
CDCs to identify the poverty status of their members – as either extreme poor, poor or
non-poor. This is important as it determines eligibility for SEF schemes (small grants,
school stipends etc) and somewhat shapes the Community Action Planning for
infrastructure provision. Careful monitoring is needed to review the graduation of
households towards non-poor, and remedial actions required if graduation is not
recorded. However, the current negative incentives for ‘graduation’ out of extreme
poverty need to be addressed. Households rapidly learn that being identified as
extreme poor leads to a higher level of programme support, so are not incentivised to
report success.
3. Poverty Baselines - have been collected, giving the Multiple Poverty Index (MPI) for 7
of the initial towns (Outcome indicator 1). However, the remaining four indicators at
outcome level have yet to be collected (no baselines have been completed, nor
progress followed up). UPPR plans to do this through the use of recall-based surveys.
Whilst this is less than ideal, it should be rolled-out as rapidly as possible, given the
project is already at an advanced stage. It could be argued that there are too many
indicators at this level and these might be rationalized.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
The UPPR commissioned an independent review of its M&E systems and instruments in
27
February 2012. This made a series of recommendations including: the collection of any
outstanding data; the undertaking of recall surveys for outcome reporting; and the
development of a series of short term outcome surveys. The Review Team endorses the
conclusions of this review and urges UPPR and UNDP to progress with its recommendations.
It is especially important that progress is made on short term outcome surveys - on small
business start-up grants, education grants and apprenticeships; and on infrastructure
investments in toilets, tube wells, drains and footpaths.
No independent evaluations are planned in the near future, although a beneficiary survey is
planned. There is no in-built external verification of project deliverables and outcomes (this is
only internal). This Review therefore recommends that a planned pilot user
satisfaction/verification of outputs should be undertaken as soon as possible. In addition, we
recommend that an independent poverty impact assessment should be commissioned by
DFID, to inform future programming. A UNDP Office of Audit and Investigation (OAI) audit will
take place in Autumn 2012.
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating: Medium
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
Each of the Outputs were originally given a risk rating of medium giving the overall output risk
rating of medium.
Within Output 1, there is a risk that CDCs will not be able to sustain themselves after UPPR
has phased out. Phase-out requires assessment of CDC capacity (using the existing CDC
maturity index), and development of a plan for gradual reduction of support. The greater risk is
associated with expansion to address the growing population in informal settlements as well
as potential entry into new towns. There is insufficient time and budget in the remainder of the
current programme to ensure that all CDCs have sufficient capacity and cohesion to continue
without UPPR support.
The main risk to the programme identified at this review concerns Output 5 - the financial and
management resources of the programme and the capacity to continue at the current rate of
expenditure. Exchange rate fluctuations have caused a net reduction of project funding by
17% - equivalent to US$11 million. The same exchange rate conditions mean that costs for
international and local staff as well as equipment and training are exceeding budget forecasts.
An expansion to new towns without a phase-out from other CDCs/towns will require an
associated increase in personnel. In this case, without additional funds to address the funding
gap, the allocation for grants will need to be scaled down from its 2011 level. If the same level
of grants is maintained for the remaining three years it will require a reduction in staff within
the total budget allocated for the project, which would most likely reduce programme quality.
The management capacity is stretched to deliver the programme at the current rate. The
recommendations of the Strategic Management Review and the OD plan are required to
introduce improved management capacity. This will require time to establish, and in itself
increases pressure on the stretched budget.
The risk rating for Output 5 remains the same but risk mitigation depends on a clear strategy
for phase out and expansion and improved management capacity.
The risk rating of other outputs remains the same.
28
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended
The project is guided by UNDP rules and regulations for financial management. UNDP
provides general oversight of project budget execution and UPPR is managed using the
UNDP accounting system. It follows standard UNDP procedures for financial management
with adequate internal controls and procedures for monitoring use of funds at the project
management levels.
The project has four main cost components:
1.
Grants disbursed to communities through bank accounts with the town
administration;
2.
Salaries/fees for international and national recruited project personnel and
consultants;
3.
Procurement of project equipment; and
4.
Payments for other project operational expenditures including lump sum payments
to compensate for UNDP General Management Services.
The bulk of project funds are spent at town/community levels in the form of community grants
transferred from UNDP and UNHABITAT (63%). The UNDP/UPPR project management
executes spending for project personnel including community mobilisers, and other project
costs (31%). LGED received approximately 6% of project funds for financing of their inputs.
At the project management level UNDP supervises project execution and all expenditures and
transfers are entered into the UNDP accounting system.
The project makes transfers to UNHABITAT which in turn transfers money for infrastructure
grants (the SIF). Both SIF and SEF funds are transferred to separate bank accounts under the
town administration/city corporation. The process is supervised by project town teams led by
a “Town manager” and under the oversight of the UPPR project management and
UNDP/UNHABITAT.
At the town administrative level, decisions on utilization of funding is made by a Project
Implementation Committee and Town Steering Committee. Cash transfers are made by the
town administration/city corporation with additional internal controls executed by UPPR town
teams with supervision from UPPR project management.
At community level, fund management is supervised by town teams employed by the project
as well as through internal oversight within the CDCs. The CDC Clusters provide additional
oversight as per UPPR guidelines; however, evidence of their effectiveness has yet to be
determined.
The national project director and his team in LGED also receive transfers for execution of their
portion of the budget. The LGED accounts are subject to audit by the Foreign Aid Project Audit
Directorate (FAPAD) within the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG) of
Bangladesh.
There are at present 2212 CDCs targeted by the program of which 1619 CDCs were
established during 2007 – 2011. Most of them of them have received SIF and SEF grants in
support of their community action plans.
In total the above constitute a complex fund management arrangement with several “cost
centres” managing project funds. More than 60% of the funds are disbursed as community
grants with cost for personnel/consultants as the other main cost component. From a fiduciary
perspective the main risk areas are associated with CDC and “town team” cash management
as well as cash management within the Town administration.
29
The Strategic Management Review (SMR) found that additional checks and controls are
required to ensure that project funds are used according to their intended purpose, that
records are maintained including adequate registration of assets and monitoring of their use.
Accordingly, the SMR has recommended that a new Mutual Accountability Unit (MAU) should
be established and should design and implement systematic community audits and
inspections on a sampling basis, as well as implement ad hoc management inspections.
Terms of reference for MAU and staff have been drafted.
While internal control and oversight are ensured with UNDP, internal procedures for financial
management including annual audit and inspections by the OAI, the project accounts have yet
to be selected as a sample for this audit. The project has not been subject to an external audit
since its inception. However, the OAI of UNDP is planning to contract an independent external
audit firm to implement an audit of the project during September – November covering all
years from 2007-2011.
There have been some allegations of misappropriation of funds and claims that assets
procured through the project have not been used for the intended purpose. UPPR
management investigate all allegations, and only a handful of these allegations could be
substantiated. In these cases, appropriate corrective actions were taken, contracts terminated
and funds recovered. However, the project lacked a clear strategy on how to report and follow
up suspected cases of fraud and corruption. This is an issue that has been addressed as part
of the Organisational Development plan – which has proposed a Mutual Accountability Unit
(MAU). This recommendation must be followed up as a high priority.
Recommendation: As an added assurance to the annual project audit, an external
expenditure tracking study of a sample of towns and CDCs should be implemented. These
studies track the use of funds, and help to determine the extent to which grants reach the
intended beneficiaries and are used for the intended purpose. The studies check the assets
generated from community grants (for example – was the toilet constructed as planned), and
assess if the community oversight mechanisms are effective. It will also serve as feedback to
the project management on opportunities to strengthen management and supervision of grant
utilisation.
4.4 Climate and Environment Risk
There is no evidence that UPPR activities are having a negative impact on the environment
and climate. Overall people living in slums and informal settlements are particularly vulnerable
to extreme climate events and degraded environmental conditions. They often live close to
water bodies, or in low-lying or flood-prone areas. People often depend on unsafe water
supplies, and they lack access to toilets – all of which contributes to an unhealthy living
environment. The project is actually supporting climate change adaptation and improved
environmental conditions in vulnerable communities. Provision of infrastructure through the
SIF component (improved water supply, drainage, plinth height raising, etc.) helps reduce
exposure to environmental hazards, and increases people’s resilience to climatic and health
shocks (e.g. increased diarrhoea during floods). Activities to strengthen local livelihoods
through the SEF component (block grants, urban food production, etc.) support slums dwellers
livelihoods and also help their overall resilience to shocks. Anecdotal evidence from field visits
to locations facing extreme weather events (Chittagong) indicates that communities are
concerned about the need to adapt to extreme weather events and climate change (e.g.
strengthen sea walls). UPPR focuses primarily on adaptation activities at the community level
– leaving Government agencies to address larger infrastructure measures such as flood
defences. UPPR has also piloted climate change mitigation measures including climate
friendly cooking stoves, which are now being used by over 40,000 slum households, and use
of interlocking compressed soil blocks instead of burnt bricks for infrastructure such as toilets.
30
The UPPR slum settlement mapping exercise could also be used by local decision makers
and development agencies to inform planning for strengthening climate and environment
resilience of poor communities. The potential of these maps as a tool for climate risk
assessment and identifying communities that are at most risk should be promoted more
strongly by UPPR with concerned stakeholders.
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
UPPR had not previously undertaken a value for money assessment although this annual
review has undertaken some assessment work.
Economy:
Inputs are procured at competitive prices using UNDP contracting and
procurement procedures in accordance with UNDP Rules and Regulations.
Community-contracting follows Government Public Procurement Guidelines and applies Local
Government Engineering Division (LGED) standards for investments. Community teams as
well as UPPR management supervise the procurement process by CDCs to ensure they
achieve the best quality/cost ratio among bidders.
Designs of community infrastructure investments and components are reviewed periodically to
achieve improved quality over time. For example, interlocking compressed soil blocks are
being piloted as a replacement for burnt bricks in latrine construction and community centres.
Beneficiaries are contributing 10% of their own savings to an Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) fund for newly constructed infrastructure. This creates an incentive for ensuring that
investments are maintained.
Efficiency: UPPR has improved efficiency through:
• the deployment of local community organisers to work in offices in wards;
• the engagement of local community-facilitators to leverage the work of community
organisers;
• use of more cluster and federation contracts that cover multiple CDCs to reduce
transaction costs;
• community oversight and monitoring by clusters of CDCs;
• development of a web-based procurement system to improve processing time and
monitoring of CDC contracts;
• a survey, mapping and assessment of all poor settlements in all towns are used as a
tool to ensure pro-poor settlement targeting;
• Community participatory identification of poor (PIP) households to enable pro-poor
targeting to households and individuals;
• Pro-poor annual budgeting to ensure that budget allocated reflects the number of poor
and extreme poor households in the CDC. There are also mechanisms to ensure there
is a fair allocation of budgets across CDCs, which includes an overall maximum budget
for each CDC during the project life. ;
• A results monitoring system included disaggregated data by gender, ethnicity, caste
and disability.
In total the above has contributed to more efficient planning and allocation of resources to
CDCs, improved processing of CDC proposals for SIF/SEF funding and stronger CDC
31
monitoring and oversight.
Effectiveness: The infrastructure and socio-economic support financed by the CDC grants
are determined by the CDCs themselves (i.e. a demand driven approach). The CDCs plan and
prioritise how they want to use the grants through a community participatory planning process.
They work with the community to develop a Community Action Plan. The composition of
infrastructure/services actually financed by the CDC grants therefore varies between CDCs as
well as over time for the individual CDC as their priorities change.
Key visible results of CDC grants include infrastructure like toilets, pathways etc, employment
and income generation opportunities and access to social services such as education grants
for children who are out of school. The main result of the project however is empowerment of
the people living in slums and informal settlements, through the formation the different groups.
Membership of Primary Groups and Community Development Committees significantly
strengthens people’s collective bargaining power – they work together to decide on
investments for their community, form self-sustaining savings/credit groups and help the
poorest members of their community. The project is based on experience that shows that a
combination of infrastructure, grant support and community organisation will generate
sustained benefits for the target group improving their income and well-being. Data on CDC
performance shows that some CDCs are sustaining their activities e.g. through savings &
credit groups. They also mobilise additional resources for infrastructure and services without
external funding. It is therefore expected that UPPR assistance in empowering the target
groups through training, counselling and organising them into CDCs can sustain benefits over
time even after UPPR grants are discontinued.
Cost-effectiveness
Data for CDC grants from 2008-2011 across all types of investments/services shows that the
unit cost has been reduced by approximately 20% from 2008 to 2009 and since then remained
constant. The costs include all costs for programme management, supervision and counselling
by town teams. While the average unit costs have been reduced over time for most of
investment/services, the cost for management and supervision has slightly increased.
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
UPPR procurement follows UNDP procurement guidelines and procurements through
communities follow LGED standards, with oversight by UNDP and UN HABITAT to ensure a
quality end product.
To increase value for money and accountability at community level, UPPR is piloting:
 social audit – i.e. surveys to gather the perceptions of local people on municipal service
delivery and their views on the UPPR programme;
 procurement committees to ensure transparency and accountability;
 public display of community contract information; and
 enhanced capacity for competitive bidding to procure materials for physical works.
Following a recommendation by the strategic management review, UPPR will strengthen
internal controls at town/community levels by introduction of a Mutual Accountability Unit. This
Unit will strengthen oversight on use of programme resources. Furthermore, an audit by the
UN’s central auditor will be conducted in 2012 which will promote fiscal discipline and
accountability.
In addition DFID has engaged with UNDP in closer cooperation to further improve on
32
procedures related to procurement, with due consideration for the trade-off between controls
and efficiency in processing.
5.3 Role of project partners
The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) is a key partner in implementation of UPPR. A key
measure of overall VfM will be the extent to which the programme promoted greater
Government support for the poor and extreme poor living in slums and informal settlements.
The majority of these areas are not currently covered by key Government services, and social
safety nets largely exclude the urban poor. GoB has recently shown an increased interest in
urban poverty reduction as evidenced by forming the Bangladesh Urban Forum (by the
Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (MLGRDC) and the
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development), the Urban Declaration, and finalisation of the
Draft Urban Sector Policy. The Sixth Five Year Plan also highlights the need for a
Comprehensive Social Protection Policy to address the needs of the urban poor.
The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), the executing agency of UPPR
(under MLGRDC), has strengthened its staffing in the UPPR HQ, has seconded officers to the
UPPR town teams and deploys its officers regularly for field monitoring. Local Government
partners take an active role in ensuring delivery of the packages of support and in recovering
funds if misappropriated. They also support economy and efficiency within UPPR by providing
technical support to community infrastructure projects. Evidence from field visits indicates
infrastructure provided through UPPR is constructed to a high standard, and are well
maintained by communities. This is also supported by a community-mobilised fund for
Operation and Maintenance.
UNDP has oversight of programme implementation and finances – including means of driving
VfM as discussed above. It regularly reviews project performance through monitoring visits,
and supports the development of the project’s internal control framework. UNDP also
investigates allegations of fraud/misappropriation of funds and assets. UPPR management
team and UNHABITAT provide quality assurance by appraising contracts submitted for
funding.
UPPR can demonstrate successful models for urban slum improvement and with the support
of DFID and UNDP is in a good position to continue to exert influence on Government and
municipalities for greater policy commitment and financial commitment to urban poverty
reduction.
5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money : Y/N
Yes. Taking into account the VfM assessment above, the project still represents Value for
Money. It will be important going forward that a clear financial plan is developed to ensure key
recommendations in the Management Review can be funded, while sustaining delivery as
planned. It will be important to contain the cost of management and supervision at current
levels relative to number of new PGs and CDCs supported. There are also opportunities to
rationalise project activities, as there is a huge diversity of activities being supported at
community level which stretches programme managers and may not significantly strengthen
impact.
5.5 If not, what action will you take?
Not applicable
33
6. Conditionality
6.1 Update on specific conditions
Not applicable
7. Conclusions and actions
The UPPR programme represents an effective model for the delivery of improved living
conditions and livelihoods for the urban poor and extreme poor, delivering at considerable
scale. The programme has continued to maintain a high level of delivery against targets set.
Over the year an additional 361,000 people, mainly women, have been brought into Primary
Groups (PGs); Settlement Improvement Fund expenditure of £4.65 million has resulted in the
provision of much-needed basic infrastructure and Socio-Economic Fund expenditure of
£3.03 million has benefitted extremely poor people with grants to develop small businesses,
give school age children the opportunity to enrol or stay in school, and train young people
with the skills to access jobs. At the national policy level, the UPPR has supported the
Bangladesh Urban Forum promoting pro-poor urban policy and practice.
At the mid-point of the programme key issues moving forward are:
1. Defining conditions for exit from communities and towns including:
a. engagement, ownership and adoption by local Government to provide technical
support to Community Development Committees and for a gradual transfer of
responsibility and resource allocation;
b. strengthened community organisation through clusters and Federations and
increased accountability to primary group members;
2. Sustainability of community infrastructure by integrating slum infrastructure and
service delivery with municipal services, and effective use of CDC O&M accounts.
3. Defining conditions for expansion to new towns in terms of time, resources and
management capacity for social mobilisation, infrastructure delivery and a core set of
livelihood interventions.
Reviewing project financing to address exchange rate losses and other issues that have
led to financial constraints to project delivery.
Summary of main recommendations:
1. Revise some log-frame indicators - A number of changes are suggested in this
document to logframe indicators at Output level mainly to assess efficiency of inputs
and to better reflect intended outputs. Milestones and targets need to be more closely
defined particularly for Output 2. Outcome indicators need baseline and mid-point data
as a matter of urgency.
2. Sustainability of Community Groups - UPPR should renew its efforts to encourage
the strength and sustainability of community organisations particularly by the formation
of Federations, facilitating exchange activities within and between towns, and by
promoting improved governance of CDCs including accountability to PG members.
3. Build on successful pilots - The successes of the pilot governance improvements
(e.g. social audit, contract display boards, competitive bidding and Community
Resource Centres) should be shared with other towns, and the improvements to
community banking management should be scaled up as soon as possible.
34
4. Support communities to negotiate with landlords - UPPR should promote and
monitor agreements to ensure that slum landlords do not increase rents for 3-5 years
on account of infrastructure provided under the project.
5. Develop a more strategic approach to tenure security - UPPR should work more
closely with local Governments and local landowners to develop a more strategic
approach to obtaining security of tenure for slum dwellers based on the Settlement
Maps. This could include a process of slum categorisation and slum-by-slum
examination of tenure options. The aim should be to obtain agreements that slum
communities will not be evicted at least for one generation (15-30 years) thereby
allowing inter-generational benefits to accrue through the project.
6. Strengthen market analysis and business support - Improved analysis of local
market conditions should be undertaken to identify appropriate new businesses and
employment opportunities for Socio-economic Fund (SEF) support. Small enterprise
grant recipients need continuing business development support.
7. Streamline activities under the Socio-economic Fund - Review SEF activities to
identify those which are most effective and providing best value for money. These
should form the focus of SEF expenditure for the remainder of the programme.
8. DFID and UNDP to work together on policy - DFID and UNDP should jointly
examine coordinated policy interventions to support national policy changes, notably
adoption of the Draft Urban Strategy.
9. Seek ways to increase proportion of women staff - The project management needs
to explore ways to increase the proportion of women staff, including at senior
management level. This may include a review of terms and conditions and training
opportunities.
10. Undertake Poverty Impact Assessment - Undertake an external poverty impact
assessment to review at household level the impact of infrastructure and livelihood
benefits. Are households in areas covered by CDCs experiencing an improvement
both in living conditions and livelihoods? Is progress being made at the outcome level
as expected?
11. Address issues related to funding - Decisions are required on the future funding of
UPPR, first and foremost how to compensate for exchange rate loss. If it is decided to
proceed with further scaling up of project expenditures following the trend of the last
three years, then additional funding will also be required on top of the exchange rate
loss. Otherwise there will be a requirement to rationalize expenditures by phasing out
of CDCs/towns, focusing on allocations for activities that directly contribute to stated
project outputs and/or reduce allocations for community grants which in turn will impact
on project benefits for the target group. Another option is to engage with GoB to
include additional funding from the state budget, e.g. state budget allocations to
complement external funding for community grants.
12. Develop Exit Strategy - UPPR needs a clear exit strategy from towns and
communities. This should comprise:
- a clear vision of the long-term sustainability of the programme and the short-tomedium targets for hand-over and capacity-building;
- a costed programme for phasing-out from the 11 towns. This requires renewed
focus on CDC maturity and detailed, town-by-town planning for a reduction of
UPPR financial and technical support balanced by an increasing role for CDC
Clusters and Federations.
13. Avoid committing to 7 additional towns before exit strategy and financial issues
are resolved - Proposed expansion to 7 new towns should only be planned for when:
35

the costed phase-out programme is developed;

financial constraints have been addressed, and available resources within the
current programme are known;

expansion will depend on implementation of the Organisational Development
Plan to ensure that management structures and resources are in place.

time available is sufficient to make a meaningful contribution to new
communities within the existing programme lifetime.
14. The programme in new towns should focus and build on lessons learnt. The
nature of the programme in expanded towns should be more focused, informed by the
reviews recommended above of the SIF and SEF grants so that the most cost-effective
‘menu’ of activities is offered to communities. The opportunity to strengthen Government
contributions should also be seized.
15. Planning for Future Urban Programme - Funding partners (DFID, UNDP and GoB)
should begin the process now to consider the design of a possible new phase of the
programme.
8. Review Process
An independent team of four consultants was contracted by DFID and UNDP and this team
was joined by DFID India’s Urban Adviser and UNDP Bangladesh’s economist. This Annual
Review was also combined with a Mid-Term Review. The review took place in Bangladesh
from 25th April to 3rd May 2012.
The Review Team visited slum communities in Dhaka and in 3 separate groups visited 3 other
towns: Chittagong, Tangail and Tongi. Key stakeholders interviewed included:






CDC leaders and programme beneficiaries in slum communities;
UPPR partners including CARE Bangladesh and Concern;
Local Government stakeholders including Mayors, Ward Councillors and officers
Government of Bangladesh representatives including Secretary, Ministry of Local
Government, Rural Development & Cooperatives; the Chief Engineer, Programme
Director and staff of LGED;
DFID and UNDP staff;
UPPR team.
The main source of information for the review was UPPR documentation and reports, and
information from key stakeholders including participants. Feedback was collected on overall
progress and benefits to the slum dwellers and is integrated throughout this review report.
The UPPR team did an initial self-assessment of progress during the year, which was
reviewed by the Annual Review Team and quality assured by DFID staff.
The final review report was produced by DFID Bangladesh staff, drawing together all these
inputs and evidence, and taking account of wider factors including progress against last year’s
Annual Review recommendations.
36