Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: Sightsavers Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA)
Date started: 01 April 2013 Date review undertaken: 31 October
2014
Instructions to help complete this template:
Before commencing the annual review you should have to hand:






the Business Case or earlier project documentation.
the Logframe
the detailed guidance (How to Note)- Reviewing and Scoring Projects
the most recent annual review (where appropriate) and other related monitoring reports
key data from ARIES, including the risk rating
the separate project scoring calculation sheet (pending access to ARIES)
You should assess and rate the individual outputs using the following rating scale and
description. ARIES and the separate project scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall
output score taking account of the weightings and individual outputs scores:
Description
Outputs substantially exceeded expectation
Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Outputs met expectation
Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
Scale
A++
A+
A
B
C
Introduction and Context
What support is the UK providing?
The UK, through the Department for International Development (DFID), is investing in a 3 year
Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) with Sightsavers between 2011 and 2014 and an
extension has been agreed for 2014-2016. An investment of £3,738,678 for each year has
been agreed. This type of strategic investment can leverage much greater impact than
1
traditional project funding by playing a key role in shaping how Sightsavers uses its non-DFID
resources.
What are the expected results?
The results that this investment is expected to deliver are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide 60,843,400 health treatments and surgeries;
Train 149,330 health workers and eye specialists;
£2,250,000 allocated to 21 innovative pilot projects to improve eye health and benefit
visually impaired and disabled people, with lesson learning shared externally;
Help strengthen health systems in 10 countries where Sightsavers works;
8 countries will increase public spending on eye health;
5,438,000 people screened for eye conditions;
1,335,013 surgeries and treatments provided;
1,147 teachers trained in special education needs;
2,690 disabled pupils enrolling in mainstream education systems;
5,212 rehabilitation workers trained;
Advocacy for national policies in 17 countries;
150 initiatives to mainstream disability inclusion in NGOs and local government offices;
Mainstreaming disability within, for example, local government and other CSOs;
Increase of 1.45% of organisational income spent on organisational effectiveness
evidence building, transparency, M&E, value for money initiatives.
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
Civil society plays a vital role in supporting citizens to improve their lives. Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) are central to delivering services, enabling citizens to be more active in
their own development and ensuring that policies benefit ordinary people – especially the
poorest.
To achieve DFID’s priorities, as set out in its Business Plan (Structural Reform Plan), a multisectoral and multi-faceted approach to delivery is required, one in which CSOs, along with
governments and the private sector, play a pivotal role in helping poor people to improve their
lives.
The PPA is one of DFID’s main support mechanisms to CSOs. In line with a commitment by
the Secretary of State to support another round of PPAs over the 2011-14 period and following
a robust selection process and implementation of a Resource Allocation Model, partners were
identified for a 3 year PPA which began in April 2011. This is the last review for that reporting
period. However, it should be noted that an additional two years extension has been agreed
by the SoS for 2014-2016. Results from 2011-2014 will be progressed further under the
extension period.
2
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
Output 1: Innovative large scale health initiatives implemented to provide at least 83 million
treatments in target countries
Output 1 score and performance description:
A - Output met expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have, in general, made good progress against this output. They have achieved or
overachieved against three indicators, and underachieved against one. Sightsavers
underachieved against indicator 1.1 due to the timing of negotiations surrounding one of their
significant trachoma elimination grants, and some large scale projects not starting as expected.
Sightsaver’s ability to increase the number of drugs administered for NTDs in indicator 1.2
reflects the success of their new fast track initiatives as well as increased organisational
capacity for NTD control and elimination, as a result of strategic funding. They have exceeded
both of their training indicators; due to the training of village volunteers which is key to
Sightsavers approach to delivering elimination programmes for river blindness and trachoma,
new initiatives in South Sudan and increased training in East Africa.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Indicator Statement
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
1.1 Number of trachoma surgeries (cumulative)
98,300
1.2 Number of treatments provided under Mass 93,545,000
Drug Administration (MDA) for NTDs (cumulative)
1.3 Number of primary health care workers trained 202,500
in eye health and community NTD workers trained
in NTD MDA distribution
1.4 Number of specialist eye health cadres trained 1,480
Actual
Achievement
72,712
95,802,341
218,271
1,659
Recommendations:
Where Sightsavers have underachieved against indicators they must give a better explanation
of why, what they have learnt and what they will do to address it in the future. For example, in
1.1 why did the project not start on time, and what will they do to ensure that this does not
happen in future?
Impact Weighting (%): 30%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
3
Output 2: Innovative approaches piloted to improve eye health and benefit visually impaired
and disabled people in target countries
Output 2 score and performance description:
A - Output met expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have met both target 2.1 and 2.2 and increased the number of innovative initiative
that they support. Sightsavers have developed a number of partnerships, for example with
Unilever, in order to increase the number of innovative approaches they can fund. They have
shared learning from these projects within the organisation and conducted an evaluation of the
projects which has found that the Innovation fund has the potential to deliver positive results for
Sightsavers and its partners.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
2.1 Value of funding allocated to innovative £2,250,000
approaches by mixed internal / external
programme panel
Indicator
2.2 Lesson learning shared
innovation pilots
externally from
Actual
Achievement
£2,347,154
Learning from
pilots shared
externally
19 initiatives
shared learning
externally
21 Sightsavers
and external
innovation pilot
projects being
implemented
21 Sightsavers
and external
innovation projects
being implemented
Recommendations:
As discussed with Sightsavers, they should reconsider what the value of indicator 2.1 is as it
gives no information about the quality of funding allocated.
Impact Weighting (%): 15%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: High
Revised since last Annual Review? No
4
Output 3: Contribution to health systems strengthening in countries where Sightsavers works
through delivery of eye health as an integral part of the national health strategy
Output 3 score and performance description:
A - Output met expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have achieved or overachieved against four indicators and underachieved against
one in output 3. They explain that their underachievement for indicator 3.1 is due to technical
support for human resources for eye health being embedded within the International Agency for
the Prevention of Blindness (IAPD). This has led to programmes focusing on a more holistic
health-systems approach and has, in turn, led to a reduction in the number of specific activities
on the human resources for eye health at a country level. Against their other indicators they
have been successful, despite increasing some of them mid-year to ensure that they were
sufficiently stretching. An increased number of people screened at Primary Healthcare level has
led to increased awareness of eye health issues, and strengthening of a partnership in South
Asia led to an increase in the number of cataract surgeries which explains their
overachievement against indicator 3.4.
Sightsavers have also made progress in data collection which is ensuring that they fully capture
the progress made against this output.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Indicator
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
3.1 No of Sightsavers country offices in sub- 10
Saharan African countries actively working to
address the eye health workforce crisis.
3.2 No of Sightsavers countries showing increase 8
in public spend on eye health or availability of eye
health services
3.3 No screened for eye conditions
8,000,000
3.4 No of surgeries conducted for non-NTD 225,878
conditions
3.5 No of other non-NTD treatments provided
1,481,013
Actual
Achievement
4
8
10,177,862
242,168
1,950,083
Recommendations
Sightsavers should consider the wording of indicator 3.1 as it is not clear what is meant by
‘actively working.’
Impact Weighting (%): 25%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
5
Output 4: Disabled and visually impaired girls and boys educated alongside their peers within
wider government education systems in programmes supported by Sightsavers
Output 4 score and performance description:
A+ - Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have overachieved against both of their indicators for output 4. They have had
particular success in Zambia, Mali, North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, where programmes
have included strategies such as developing the capacity of teacher training institutions to
provide high quality training, which has pushed their overall achievement up. The
overachievement against indicator 4.2 is largely due to the realignment of an initiative in
Zambia and a new project in Mali. This indicator was achieved despite the fact that numbers in
some countries have fallen due to the process of portfolio alignment.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
4.1 No of teachers trained to provide education for 2,125
children with visual impairment
4,386
Indicator
(Gender unknown
4.2 No of disabled pupils enrolled in the education
20
system in programmes Sightsavers supports
Boys 4,743
Girls 3,614)
Actual
Achievement
3,124
4,827
(Gender unknown
595
Boys 4,369
Girls 4,098)
Recommendations:
Sightsavers should ensure that they fully explain why and how they overachieved their
milestones.
Impact Weighting (%): 10%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 5: Strengthened, representative and effective Disabled People’s Organisations and
Blind People’s Organisations supported by Sightsavers
Output 5 score and performance description:
6
B - Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have made mixed progress against this output, achieving or overachieving two
indicators and underachieving against one. They overachieved against indicator 5.1, largely
due to increasing the number of volunteers supported in community-based rehabilitation short
courses by over 400. Sightsavers achieved their target for indicator 5.2, progress against this
indicator can be attributed to more effective advocacy as a result of improved global advocacy
staff and the provision of more guidance on effective advocacy. They have underachieved
against indicator 5.3 which they attribute to their Strategic Alignment Process which led to the
closing of 14 projects. While we recognise that the Strategic Alignment process led to the
closing of projects it is not clear from Sightsavers explanation how this led to them achieving 95
rather than their milestone of 150. Sightsavers are currently reviewing their logframe to ensure
that indicators are appropriate given the Strategic Alignment Process.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Indicator Statement
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
5.1 No of rehabilitation workers trained
5,592
5.2 No of Sightsavers countries where advocacy 17
by BPOs/DPOs and/or disability movement results
in national government policies in line with the
UNCRPD
5.3 No of initiatives supported through Sightsavers 150
which have resulted in mainstreaming disability
within e.g. local government institutions, nondisability civil society organisations (CSOs), and
not-for-profit and for-profit partner institutions
Actual
Achievement
6,131
17
95
Recommendations:
Where Sightsavers have underachieved against their indicators they should ensure that they
give full explanations of why, what they learnt and what they will do to ensure that it does not
happen in the future.
Impact Weighting (%): 15%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 6: Enhanced organisational management and information systems within Sightsavers,
to deliver cost effective, quality results and outcomes to beneficiaries.
Output 6 score and performance description:
7
A - Output met expectation
Progress against expected results:
Sightsavers have achieved or overachieved against two indicators and slightly underachieved
against one. They have successfully developed their transparency and accountability initiatives,
improved their procurement procedures and it is positive to see that they have reached 100% of
programmes being approved through the agreed process. Sightsavers completed a full year of
IATI compliance and their level of disclosure compared well against their peers in the IATI
Annual Report 2013. Sightsavers underachieved against indicator 6.4, however although they
did not meet the milestone there was an increase in the number of country office staff working
at the required level from 54% mid 2013 to 83% at the end of 2013. This is due to the
introduction of a competency assessment framework which allows directors to focus improving
specific competency gaps through e-learning, self-study, coaching and mentoring. This
indicator was removed by Sightsavers in December 2013 as part of the PPA logframe review
process for the extension period.
PROGRESS AGAINST INDICATORS
Indicator Statement
Milestone/target
for 2013/2014
6.1 % of organisational income spent on evidence 5.30%
building
6.2 Transparency and accountability initiatives to Positive
donors, public and beneficiaries
assessment of
Sightsavers by
IATI using CSO
assessment toolkit
Actual
Achievement
5.47%
Full SIM Card
Dashboard
showing latest
performance
against indicator
targets published
every six months
Second year INGO
accountability
report submitted to
Secretariat for
review and
published on
website with
comments
6.3 Value for money initiatives
8
75% of
procurement going
through Proactis
IATI Data
published quarterly
for the whole
period and
comparable to
other peer
agencies
72% of
procurement going
through Proactis
100% new and
100% of new
renewed
programmes
approved through
agreed process
6.4 % of in-country salary costs invested in training 13%
country level teams
programmes
approved through
agreed process
9.77%
Recommendations:
Sightsavers should ensure that, now they have reached 100% for one section of an indicator,
they ensure that their indicator is sufficiently stretching in following years.
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?
Yes
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description:
A – Outputs met expectation
1.3 Direct feedback from beneficiaries
Sightsavers gathers extensive feedback from beneficiaries, and uses findings to improve
programmes as well as to improve sector learning. Sightsavers divides its beneficiary
feedback work into feedback from proximate beneficiaries, immediate beneficiaries and
ultimate beneficiaries.
Proximate beneficiaries
Sightsavers have incorporated beneficiary feedback into their Global Trachoma Mapping
Project (GTMP). Sightsavers used the same web-based system that they had used to process
budgets and claims to collect beneficiary feedback. They found that beneficiaries were
pleased to receive eye examinations. Beneficiaries also used the system to advocate for
better access to services and clean water. We are pleased that beneficiary feedback has
provided a foundation for community advocacy, targeting of surgical support, mobilising
additional funding for service provision and informed design of trachoma elimination
programmes.
Sightsavers also gathered feedback from training programmes; they found that primary health
9
care workers would have liked more opportunity to examine real patients during the training.
Sightsavers plan on sharing these results with Tanzania’s National Eye Health Group and will
work with the International Centre for Eye Health who is undertaking similar research.
Sightsavers have developed a Quality Standards initiative which sets out and assesses
minimum effective practice for Sightsavers supported programmes. The dashboard selfassessment approach with peer review from other country offices provides a useful aggregate
rating of minimum effective practice to inform action planning. It would be useful to know
whether service users also participate in aspects of these assessments, for example on
patient safety.
Intermediate beneficiaries
One of Sightsavers key policy engagements for post-2015 is their Voices of the Marginalised
project, a participatory research project which brings the voices of people with disabilities,
people with mental health issues and older people into the post-2015 debate by training them
to conduct research in their own communities. The results of this research were taken to the
UN General Assembly in 2013 and Sightsavers are currently producing a full report. We look
forwards to hearing how this work is used and extended.
Ultimate beneficiaries
Sightsavers have supported research to investigate treatment-seeking behaviour for ocular
morbidity, including barriers and drivers to eye-care in Cameroon. We are pleased to see that
that research will be published in a peer-review journals, and would be interested in hearing
how the feedback collected for this research has led to improved programme design.
1.4 Summary of overall progress
Sightsavers have made good progress this year against the majority of their outcomes and
outputs, underachieving moderately against one of their outputs. They have demonstrated
success in a broad range of areas. It was good to see a clear discussion about how
Sightsavers have been successful at engaging with policy process at an international and
national level, and that they have also reached large numbers of people with treatments.
Sightsavers Strategic Portfolio Alignment has meant that they have underachieved some
indicators, despite this we would welcome this approach and appreciate the careful reflection
of the difficulties and benefits surrounding this process that Sightsavers have made in their
report. However, where this Strategic Portfolio Alignment has caused Sightsavers to
underachieve against indicators they needed to give a much clearer explanation of why, what
they have learnt and what they will do to ensure it does not happen in the future.
1.5 Key challenges
Sightsavers key challenges have been:
1. Strategic Portfolio Alignment – Sightsavers have undergone a process of Strategic
Portfolio Alignment which has led to them exiting a number of projects. When exiting
projects they have had to ensure that they minimise impact on partners and
beneficiaries. In some cases this has caused them to underachieve against specific
indicators. Sightsavers are revising their logframe to reflect the outcomes of the
portfolio alignment.
2. Conflict situations – Sightsavers works in a number of conflict situations which presents
10
a number of challenges. For example, staff in South Sudan are working remotely from
Uganda until they are able to return. Challenging conditions in Bangladesh reduced
their ability to monitor and develop programmes.
3. Supply Chain – Drugs donated for trachoma control were found on sale in Nigeria – this
led to shipments being put on hold. After a period of review plans to track drug
movement were found to be sufficient and shipments could recommence. In future
Sightsavers should give more explanation of how this affected their work and how they
addressed it as it is not clear.
1.6 Annual Outcome Assessment
Sightsavers have made good progress against all of their outcomes, achieving or
overachieving against all of their outcome milestones. Their success against their outcomes
demonstrates success in a wide range of areas, including providing treatments, supporting
school inclusion and influencing policy at a national and international level. They have
successfully reached over 91 million people through health interventions and it is positive to
hear about Sightsavers influence over UNCRPD reporting. Sightsavers state that they are in
the process of more effectively measuring their policy impact and we would be interested to
see this in future.
2. Costs and timescale
Is the project on-track against financial forecasts:
Yes, annual funding through the PPA is disbursed in four equal amounts on a quarterly basis.
The full annual allocation was disbursed as expected.
Key cost drivers:
Sightsavers identifies their key cost drivers as:
•
Expenditure on fundraising – In 2013 sightsavers conducted a review of cost and structure
which concluded that it would be possible to generate the same income for less
expenditure. They have subsequently merged two fundraising departments and refocused
their activities of those delivering better returns. As a result in 2013 they were able to reach
their fundraising target for 10% less than their aim, including restructuring costs.
•
Staff salaries – Sightsavers have made significant changes to staff structures in the past
year which has had an impact on the amount of money spent on staff and enabled them to
link programme and financial management more effectively.
•
Programme structure – In 2013 Sightsavers undertook a full strategic alignment review of
their programmes to ensure that their programmes support their strategy and they also
assessed their infrastructure to deliver. As a result they will exit a number of countries,
including Sri Lanka and Gambia, reducing management costs. Larger and more focused
programmes will reduce the administration cost to the organisation. In some cases
Sightsavers strategic alignment will mean that they focus on where the need is great and
work in higher cost environments, such as South Sudan, when outputs will be lower and
11
inputs more expensive.
•
Procurement costs – In 2013 Sightsavers purchased 73% of equipment and consumables
for programmes through a centralised procurement system increasing savings by block
buying where possible.
•
Exchange rate fluctuations - Sightsavers buy forward US Dollars contracts to protect
themselves against movements of currencies against sterling. Since 2009 they have seen
an overall gain of £577k. This also ensures stability for programmes and avoid funding
disruptions that can undermine programme delivery.
•
Programme Unit Costs – Sightsavers have focused on budgeting on unit costs for these
activities to ensure all partners are consistent with activity costs and to challenge outlying
costs with countries or between partners as part of large NTD programmes which started in
2013. They have now started expanding this approach to the planning for some eye health
work in Asia focussing on cataract surgery provision.
Sightsavers have demonstrated a good understanding of costs and have some good
examples of activities to reduce and mitigate these. In future Sightsavers should clearly
distinguishing cost categories and what drives these costs, as well as highlighting the relevant
importance of different costs. For example, salary savings are highlighted but the absolute or
relative amount spent on pay is not.
Is the project on-track against original timescale:
The project is on track.
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
Sightsavers identify that throughout the PPA period they have been able to develop an
increasing body of evidence which is enabling them to make better use of data and evidence
in their work. Sightsavers identify one of their key priorities as strengthening the links between
research, programmes and advocacy. They have worked towards this by; using research
findings as formative evidence to support design of our programmes, using research data for
the purpose of baseline and post-intervention evaluations and using research evidence in the
advocacy activities delivered directly by Sightsavers and through other organisations. For
example, their study of health seeking behaviour in Cameroon highlighted challenges related
to quality of care, which impact on low demand for eye care services in the study region. As a
result they redesigned their eye health programme in South West Cameroon with a focus on
quality assurance and systematic measurements of post-operative surgical outcomes.
Sightsavers is applying learning from the GTMP into the design of trachoma elimination
programmes. This will ensure that trachoma programmes will remain embedded within the
health system even after the trachoma backlog is cleared.
Sightsaver’s review of projects, which was started in 2013 and will continue in 2014, will
ensure that projects are aligned with their strategy and are effective in delivering the change
we want to deliver. Sightsavers identified 80 projects for exit by the end of March 2014 with
exit plans. They are now creating plans for projects which are continuing or being scaled up to
12
their alignment with the organisation’s strategic priorities. By focussing and streamlining their
portfolio, Sightsavers expect to secure value for money through a better focus on results with
a greater alignment between priorities and our resources.
Changes in the Sightsavers structure brought together research, evaluation and programme
development functions which has strengthened links between generating new evidence and
programmatic learning. However, there are gaps between new evidence and dissemination,
country-level learning and advocacy which Sightsavers will aim to address by reviewing the
role descriptions of key programme and technical staff, and assessing the need for staff with
specialist skills in 2014. This new structure presents an opportunity for Sightsavers to focus
on mainstreaming and prioritising evaluation more across the whole organisation.
While much of their research is available, not all of Sightsavers evaluation studies are
available online, Sightsavers should ensure that these are made publically available in order to
facilitate learning and for the purposes of transparency.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
The PPAs as a whole are served by an umbrella evaluation strategy, the first of its kind for
DFID, which also encompasses the Global Poverty Action Fund. This strategy examines
progress at fund and at individual, organisational level. Following the announcement of the
extension to the PPA fund in 2013, the evaluation strategy was reviewed and, in addition to
the individual progress reviews (IPRs) and meta evaluation that took place in 2012, a further
two evaluations are planned for 2014/2015 and 2016/17. The evaluation is managed by an
externally contracted evaluation manager.
The 2014/15 evaluation has started and focuses on the assessment of the fund-level effects of
PPA grants. This fund-level evaluation will use 12 organisations, including Sightsavers, to
illustrate the effects of the PPA fund and evidence from all 41 organisations to evaluate
progress and outcomes. The aim is to provide timely, fund level evaluation information for the
design of any future strategic funding modalities in 2014/15 ahead of fund completion in 2016.
The evaluation in 2016/17 will focus on the impact of PPA funding for organisations.
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating:
Low
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
Overall Sightsaver’s output risk rating is low. A number of outputs represent a low level of risk,
either because the external context is favourable to Sightsavers work or because Sightsavers
is clear about the direction they are taking and the work that needs to be done. The output
with the highest level of risk relates to innovation, and the inherent risks that are present when
piloting new and untested ideas. Some outputs have a medium level of risk associated with
them due to the rebalancing of the portfolio.
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended
Sightsavers underwent pre-grant due diligence checks carried out by KPMG. The pre-grant
due diligence assessed capacity to manage the proposed level of DFID support in the
13
following areas:

Governance

Financial Capacity

Operational Capacity

Value for Money

Results
Satisfactory completion of the due diligence process was required before any money was
disbursed. This helps to reduce the risk of diverted funding while establishing an environment
of accountability and transparency. Organisations also had baseline up-dated due diligence
assessments carried out in March 2014 to ensure that processes and strategies were current
and complementary to DFIDs due diligence framework and modules. Sightsavers is adhering
to the outcome of the March 2014 due diligence assessment as part of their PPA extension
MOU.
4.4 Climate and Environment Risk
No issues were raised for the attention and action of Sightsavers as a result of the 2011
Environmental Screening process.
Sightsaver’s Climate and Environment Strategy is due to be reviewed in 2014. DFID would like
to know how Sightsavers are monitoring their strategy, and what their thoughts are on any
limitations they face and how they can do more in this area.
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
Sightsavers do not list VfM measures, which is a limitation of their value for money section in
their report. They state that this is because they see programmatic VfM as being synonymous
with excellent organisational and programme management and delivery. They use the
Bond/Nef VfM-PCM framework to drive VfM measures across organisational processes and
the programme cycle management process.
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
Sightsavers considers economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity in VfM. This year
Sightsavers have developed a better programmatic Management Information System (MIS).
They also conducted a fundamental review of their structure and operating model, after
significant organisational changes which reduced the number of departments by one. These
changes were made to improve their ability to deliver better quality programmes at lower cost.
In terms of commercial improvement, in the UK Sightsavers ensure that service contracts are
put in place using mechanisms such as competitive tendering, minimum standards of service
and staggered payments tied to deliverables whenever appropriate. Within their overseas
programme they ensure that procurement activity is carried out in line with their financial
framework, and procurement policy and guidelines that ensure appropriate tenders and cost
comparison. Sightsavers have a global standard list and centralised procurement system
which enables partners to access their global procurement network. Their assessment of
partners includes the use of a Financial Assessment Tool to identify weaknesses in cost
management and structure support to help them strengthen these capacities.
14
While these changes are all positive, Sightsaver’s reflection on value for money shows limited
strategic thinking beyond programme management systems. Sightsaver’s have submitted a
VfM offer for the extension period which contains some very welcome activities which we look
forward to seeing in future reports.
5.3 Role of project partners
Sightsavers works extensively with a wide range of partner, including governments, civil
society and the private sector, to achieve a wide range of objectives.
Civil society:
Sightsavers partnership work with Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) and Blind
People’s Organisations (BPOs) had led to their increased ability to hold their governments to
account. For example, Sightsaver’s partnership with the Caribbean Council for the Blind (CCB)
enabled them to raise their profile as a credible partner in eye health and therefore influence
the government to commit to the long term provision of eye care services.
Government:
Sightsavers works with governments to support service delivery and human resource
development that demonstrate the eye health interventions can be delivered within existing
structures. In Zambia Sightsavers works in partnership with the Ministry of Health, regional
and district hospitals to ensure good take up of services by the community.
Private sector:
Sightsavers also works in partnership with the private sector; for example, they have worked
with Unilever to revise their global handwashing programme to include facial hygiene. They
have also partnered with Luxottica and their corporate foundation OneSight to pilot an
approach to refractive error service delivery through Vision Centres which Luxottica is now
scaling up independently.
5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money:
Yes
5.5 If not, what action will you take?
n/a
6. Conditionality
6.1 Update on specific conditions
n/a
15
7. Conclusions and actions
Sightsavers have made good progress this year against both their outcomes and their outputs.
They have effectively led coalitions towards the elimination of NTDs. The GTMP has delivered
over half of the mapping ever conducted, and Sightsavers have supported their highest ever
level of treatments. Sightsavers have also been active in the post 2015 debate, they have
supported a number of disabled people’s organisations to engage with the high-level panel
process and played a leading role in the Beyond 2015 campaign. It is clear in their report that
they have developed effective partnerships and are conducting research projects which are
leading to learning in their own programs and in the wider sector. One of Sightsavers key
challenges this year, their Strategic Portfolio alignment, is also one of their own successes as
they have been able to ensure that all of their programmes are aligned with their overall
thematic strategies and their theory of change. It will be interesting to see how the process
affects their work in the next year.
In future reports Sightsavers need to explain more clearly how they have achieved their
milestones as verifying their progress and scoring outputs has been difficult this year, due to
the lack of information provided. They also need to more clearly explain why, what they have
learnt and how they will address it when they haven’t met milestones. More information is also
required in other areas; for example the section on challenges, VfM and risk ratings.
Sightsavers is required to submit a final extension logframe by 31 October 2014 incorporating
any feedback given on it in the annual report feedback letter and subsequent discussions.
They must ensure that learning and results from this PPA period are reflected in their
milestones and targets for 2014/2016. Organisations have also been asked to set out the
substantive and measureable steps they will be taking to enhance work on transparency and
value for money.
8. Review Process
Sightsavers submitted a self-assessment annual report of their progress and performance
against the PPA log frame during this third year of PPA funding. DFID reviewed this annual
report and provided feedback to Sightsavers on both strengths and weaknesses reminding
organisations of the need to improve year-on-year on VfM, results and transparency. The
feedback incorporated comments from a range of officials in relevant country and policy
teams.
16