IFCD | Results of the last cycle

Kibera Slums Artistic Outreach

Project ID: 2017-201
Name of applicant:
United Cultural Empowerment And Social Community Organization (UCESCO)
Country of applicant:
Kenya
Type of applicant:
NGO
Amount requested:
38.161,00
Beneficiary country(ies):
Kenya
Status:
Non Recommended
Total Score: 16.5

IFCD Submissions details

Preselection | National Commissions Review

IFCD Preselection form - - 05/12/2017 - 11:48

1. Name and contact details of officer from the National Commission for UNESCO
Title: 
Ms
Family name: 
Njoka
Given name: 
Evangeline
Position: 
Secretary General/ Chief Executive Officer
Address: 
P. O. Box 72107
Postcode: 
00200
Town: 
Nairobi
2. Justification of pre-selection
What are the main reasons for having pre-selected this project proposal, as compared to other proposals received by the National Commission for UNESCO?: 
•The time frame is within the stipulated implementation period •The project meets the basic requirements. It has the project description, project framework and complimentary document attached. •The budget is within the given ceiling •The project is within the IFCD objectives and outcomes
3. The applicant institution/organization
What elements demonstrate that the applicant institution/organization is a significant stakeholder in the culture sector (locally / nationally / internationally)?: 
•The applicant is a civil society organization keen to promote cultural expressions at community level. •They applicant is focused on practical interventions to promote cultural expressions at community level
4. Relevance of the pre-selected project proposal
4.1. What are the main current needs and priorities in your country in terms of cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
• Promotion and protection of talent and creativity among the youth •Promotion of performance and creativity at community level •Participation, enjoyment of, and access to cultural life
4.2. How do the objectives of this pre-selected project proposal meet the current needs and priorities of the country in terms of cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
•The project proposed is in line with current cultural policy priorities in regard to promotion of creative arts •the organization is keen to promote awareness on the historic art form of poetry which is in line with the national cultural policy
4.3. To what extent do you expect this pre-selected project proposal to have an impact on the country’s cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
•The project will enhance creation of artistic works and cultural expressions at community level •The project will enhance awareness on the value of arts and cultural expressions at community level •Project may create new opportunities for youth through the creative sector
5. Feasibility of the pre-selected project proposal
5.1. What elements demonstrate the applicant’s organizational capacity and competence to manage the project and implement the work plan?: 
•The applicant is a registered NGO and has the necessary legal documents •The applicant has also indicated that they have technical management staff to manage the project plan and to include volunteers in execution of the project.
5.2. What types of procedures have been foreseen by the applicant institution/organization to ensure financial accountability?: 
•The applicant has indicated that they have capacity and manpower to ensure financial accountability •The applicant has a part-time bookkeeper and a financial assistant
6. Other information
Please indicate other contextual information that the IFCD Panel of Experts should take into consideration when evaluating the pre-selected project proposal.: 
•The panel noted that though the applicant meets most of the basic criteria the information provided in the project description 2.7 is inaccurate especially paragraph 1 and 2 on the state of Kibera. The description does not reflect the actual scene of Kibera slums. Kibera is a complex and dynamic community that is changing and the government of Kenya has initiated several projects to address the complex slum challenges. •Despite the above, the panel recommends the application for consideration.
7. The pre-selection process at the national level

Christine M. Maingi

Full name: 
Christine M. Maingi
Organization: 
Kenya National Commission for UNESCO
Position: 
Acting Deputy Secretary General Corporate Affairs

John Moogi Omare

Full name: 
John Moogi Omare
Organization: 
Kenya National Commission for UNESCO
Position: 
Director Culture Programme

Emily M. Njeru

Full name: 
Emily M. Njeru
Organization: 
Kenya National Commission for UNESCO
Position: 
Deputy Director Arts, Culture Programme

Julius Manzi

Full name: 
Julius Manzi
Organization: 
Ministry of Culture
Position: 
Principal Cultural Officer

John Nthenya

Full name: 
John Nthenya
Organization: 
Permanent Presidential Music Commission
Position: 
Chief film officer

Jane Lusabe

Full name: 
Jane Lusabe
Organization: 
Department of Film Services
Position: 
Assistant Director Film services

Prof Odoch Pido

Full name: 
Prof Odoch Pido
Organization: 
Technical University of Kenya Public
Position: 
Director of School, Creative Arts and Technology

Dr. S Njoki Ngumi

Full name: 
Dr. S Njoki Ngumi
Organization: 
HEVA Fund/The NEST
Type of organization/Institution: 
Position: 
Director
Date: 
2017
Full Name of the representative of the National Commission as Signature: 
Dr. Evangeline Njoka - Secretary General / Chief Executive Officer

IFCD Submissions details

Eligibility | Technical Assessment

IFCD Eligibility form - n_ametller - 08/04/2017 - 14:14

Eligibility Status: 
Eligible
Technical Examination
Submitted by the deadline: 
Yes
Application Form submitted either in English or French: 
Yes
Maximum amount requested is US$ 100,000 or below: 
Yes
Project implementation period is between 12 and 24 months: 
Yes
All sections of the Form are completed: 
Yes
Signature of applicant: 
Yes
The applicant does not have an ongoing IFCD funded project: 
Yes
Falls within the areas of intervention of IFCD: 
Yes
IF PARTY OR NGO
Party to the 2005 Convention from developing countries: 
Yes
National Commission Review Form: 
Yes
Signature of National Commission: 
Yes
Official document/ statutes (with English or French translation if necessary): 
Yes

IFCD Submissions details

Experts Evaluations

EVALUATION GRID
8 points The project proposal addresses perfectly all relevant aspect of the criterion under consideration. The answer provides all the information needed and there are no concerns or areas of weakness
6-7 points The proposal addressed the criterion well, although some improvements could be made. The answer gives clear information on all or nearly all of the evidence needed.
5-4 points The project proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are still some weaknesses. The answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is lacking or the information is unclear.
3-2 points The project proposal does not entirely address the criterion or cannot be judged properly due to missing or incomplete information. The answer does not necessarily address the question asked, or gives very little relevant information.
1 point The project proposal barely addresses the criterion. There is a clear lack of relevant information that makes it extremely difficult to judge whether the question asked is addressed.
0 points The project proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to the lack of pertinent information. The answer does not address the question asked, or does not provide relevant information.

Sub-Total Expert 1 : 9

IFCD Expert Evaluation form - H_GEORGE - 08/18/2017 - 02:05

Brief summary of the project: 
The project ‘Kibera Slums Artistic Outreach’ is submitted by the United Cultural Empowerement And Social Community Organization (UCESCO). The project is designed in reponse to a lack of after-school enrichment programs especially in the arts. This project will target marginalised youth of the largest slum in Africa, the Kibera in the city of Nairobi. The project will infuse the literary and visual artistic heritage of the Kenyan black experience by executing programs that appeal to the existing interest in Kenyan culture, art, and neighbourhood identification. The applicant requested IFCD funding of US $38,161 from an overall budget of US $80,878 however taking into account the errors in including negative costs, the total budget is US$119,017 requiring US$76,300 IFCD funds The project period is approximately fourteen - eighteen months commencing March 2018. The project contributes to outcome 3 and results areas 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The project addresses appropriate capacity building at the local level by a community organisation with young community people. It provides access to participation in training, creation and presentation of the arts by marginalized young people in the impoverished Kibera community.
1. RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROJECT TO THE OBJECTIVES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTION OF THE IFCD
1.1 Please describe how the project objectives and proposed impact/long-term benefits are aligned with at least one of the IFCD’s outcomes and associated expected results.: 
The project contributes to Outcome 3 and results areas 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The project addresses appropriate capacity building at the local level by a community organisation with a community. It provides access to participation in training, creation and presentation of the arts by marginalized young people in the impoverished Kibera community.
1.2 How do the objectives of this project proposal meet the current needs and priorities of the country/ region in terms of cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
The project is in line with the current national cultural priorities to promote creative arts. The project will enhance creation of artistic works and cultural expressions at the community level especially young people from excluded communities.
1.3 To what extent are the project’s objectives specific and measurable?: 
Both the objectives and deliverables are expressed in broad, general terms rather than as specific outputs. The indicators and means of verification are relevant and somewhat measurable as they include number of participants, percentage of marginalized youth and feedback questions. Without further specification it is unclear what the measures of success are.
1.4 To what extent does the project contribute to the promotion of gender equality, the empowerment of youth, South-South and North-South-South cooperation and/or the participation of various groups in the areas of intervention of the IFCD?: 
The project is directly targeted at youth 13 - 30 who are marginalized and from previously excluded communities of the Kibera slums in Nairobi. The project repeatedly states inclusion of boys and girls however no specific targets are nominated for gender equality.
Score: 
5
2. FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS THE RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS MODALITIES OF EXECUTION
2.1 What elements demonstrate the applicant’s organizational capacity (main activities of the institution/organization) and competence (skills and background of staff) to implement the work plan and manage the budget?: 
United Cultural Empowerment And Social Community Organization (UCESCO), is a civil society organisation, established in November 2014 as an NGO. The applicant is focused on community capacity building projects to provide inclusion and opportunity in cultural expression, education and participation in artistic activities with the aim of uplifting the economic and social wellbeing of the community. The organisation appears to have a broad mandate and is involved in youth advocacy, health, culture, employment and community development. The applicant states that it is going through a growth phase. There is little information about the current organizational capacity. Three project members are nominated. Two staff members, the project director, the Founder/Executive Director of UCESCO, a certified public accountant and a project assistant. The other team member listed is a project coordinator to be contracted for the project. The project roles of identified team members relate all relate to project management. It is unclear who will be delivering the activities of the project such as training. The project mentions volunteers but it is not clear in what capacity they are involved.
2.2 To what extent do the activities address relevant issues? Please explain how the methodology is appropriate to achieving the objectives?: 
There is limited information about the three activities to be able to determine a clear and logical methodology. Especially lacking in information are the fundamental workshops (reading and writing) for five months and then a statement about a showcase in the related beneficiaries section. It is unclear how this leads to the objective of stronger relationships in a neighbourhood. There is insufficient information to determine how 12 months of reusable arts workshops and monthly street performances for 15 selected boys and girls to be trained leads to the associated objectives of community leadership and organizational capacity and what related activities take place.
2.3 To what extent is the time frame realistic and coherent with the activities?: 
The project is conducted over fourteen – eighteen months based on three different responses to timeframes in the application. The project indicates activities that occur both consecutively and concurrently. The main activity occurs over 12 months and is only for 15 selected boys and girls aged between 13 - 30yrs. The shorter programs held weekly over two months are for 700 boys and girls aged between 13 - 30yrs and 560 boys and girls involved in the 5 month project. There is a lack of full detail about the activities to determine coherence.
2.4 Have the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project been clearly identified? To what extent are the outputs/deliverables and main activities relevant to the target beneficiaries and address their needs?: 
The direct beneficiaries are quantified and identified as boys and girls aged between 13 – 30 years from within Kibera slums community. The indirect beneficiaries are specifically identified as volunteers from Kenyatta Unversity and Kenya Institute of Social Work and Development Studies. In addition indirect beneficiaries are identified to be the Kibera community and two-fifths of the Nairobi population, as well as the local police, health and education authorities and local governments. The project provides activities meet the need in providing after-school enrichment programs of young people who would otherwise have no access. However there is too little information about the activities to determine how they meet the deliverables.
Score: 
3
3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
3.1 Does the budget provide for adequate resources (salaries, fees, equipment, travel, communication, etc.) necessary for success of the project? If the budget has been overestimated or underestimated, please explain how.: 
The applicant states total budget = US$80.878 with US$38,161 IFCD funds requested. The budget totals are incorrectly calculated due to negative budget items appearing in the IFCD column. The total budget is US$119,017 with US$76,300 IFCD requested funds. The IFCD funding requested is primarily to cover equipment and salaries / stipends. The largest budget item is US$55,500 for salaries and fees. The applicant states “US$37,500 for stipends will be given as incentives to encourage completion of a prescribed program. Services provided under this grant will be supported by the current staff at UCESCO”. The team shows two staff members of UCESCO. A University Lecturer from Daystar University is identified in the budget as a contractor for US$11,450 with funds yet to become available by the applicant. US$6,250 is allocated from the applicant’s own funds yet to become available for UCESCO project members and volunteers who will be utilized in the planning and execution of the project. No personnel are identified in the team to execute training activities of the project. The second highest budget item is equipment and supplies at US$37,650. This includes US$13,020 for pens, notepads, glue, folders, and other stationery items and US$24,630 to purchase equipment - video camera, projector, laptop, speakers, project screen, mega phone, microphone, nikon digital camera and lenses. Generally the budget lacks detail and has a range of calculation errors. The budget is significantly reliant on the applicant’s own cash funds yet to become available to fund critical elements of the project, such as a contractor and project members to execute the activities. There is an imbalance in the budget allocations for the essential delivery of the project activities. This includes key elements of the budget to be funded by IFCD that appear unsubstantiated for US$37,500 of stipends as incentives to encourage completion of a prescribed program and the substantially overestimated US$37,650 for equipment and stationery. The project which has activities occurring over fourteen months has a very expensive budget considering the majority of the project is for fifteen direct beneficiaries.
3.2 What proportion of the budget is allocated to project activities versus overhead costs? Does the budget seem adequate and overhead costs estimated in compliance with the limit to a maximum of 30% of the total project budget?: 
$6250 in self-funding is listed for postage and office supplies as an overhead in the budget however this is shown as a negative number.
3.3 Does the project proposal indicate any additional financial contributions to the project, such as co-funding and/or self- funding?: 
Additional financial contributions total US$42,717, all self-funded by the applicant. US$34,447 cash is yet to become available including, critically US$11,450 for a contractor and US$6,250 for staff and volunteers for execution of activities. Costs that are secured are US$2,250 confirmed in cash for collecting data and US$1,250 confirmed in-kind for evaluation. US$2,800 in-kind is available for space in the County of Nairobi.
3.4 What actions have been foreseen to ensure financial accountability (e.g. Involvement of a financial officer)?: 
One of the team members, the Founder and Executive Director of UCESCO is a certified public accountant with a project role to provide direction, management and oversite of the entire project, develop programs & fiscal policies and funding strategies. The applicant states that fiscally it is in a growth phase and needs to strengthen operational infrastructure, attracting funding to hire a full-time fiscal management team including graduating a part-time bookkeeper with relevant qualifications and experience to full-time. While not included in the team for the project, the applicant proposes for financial management a financial assistant who will be in charge of the field of accounting and taxation to meet budget criteria. UCESCO commits to abiding by the principles of sound and transparent financial management throughout the project cycle, with information on the financial management and accounts made available to IFCD when required upon completion of the project, The concluding report shall include a narrative assessment and a detailed financial report with all pertinent documentation.
Score : 
3
4. IMPACT AND EXPECTED RESULTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE
4.1 Are the project’s expected outputs and/or deliverables concrete, measurable and realistic? To what extent are they likely to achieve the objectives of the project?: 
The outputs are difficult to understand. They are broad outputs that are challenging to measure. There appears to be an assumption that the broad outputs will be achieved by the fact that young people participate. There is a lack of clear methodology and cohesive relationship between the objectives, outputs and activities. The output indicators also include additional activities, such as social activities that are not included in the activities plan or budget.
4.2 To what extent are the main activities and the budget relevant and appropriate to achieving the intended outputs and/or deliverables?: 
There is a lack of information about activities to support the total budget allocation or to make a linkage to the relevance of expenditure items. There is not information provided to explain how two months of poetry workshops, five months of reading and writing workshops and twelve monthly reusable arts workshops for fifteen young people require a US$119,017 budget or expenditure related to data collection, stipends, press conference, translation and interpreters, design and printing publications and significant digital equipment as essential to the success of the project.
4.3 To what extent is it expected that this project will have an impact/long-term benefits on the country/region’s cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
The project is a catalyst for community and self-empowerment through artistic participation at the local level. Young people who would otherwise be excluded have greater potential to participate and contribute to the emergence of a dynamic cultural sector related to urban art in Kenya.
4.4 To what extent does the project demonstrate potential for structural change (for example: changes in the policy environment; far-reaching changes in public and professional organizational structures; and changes in the way government and regulatory authorities do business)?: 
This is a project for community by community that builds capacity to engage youth in arts activities. The project demonstrates potential for structural change in that it engages local civil society to implement a cultural development program at the grassroots level. The project is also designed specifically to increase inclusiveness and access to creation and production of cultural goods and services by a previously excluded community, the Kibera community.
Score: 
3
5. SUSTAINABILITY
5.1 To what extent are contractors and partners involved in the implementation of the project’s activities? Has the role of each contractor and/or partner been clearly described?: 
There is a different response between the team identified in the project framework and the project description section. The project team lists one contractor in the role of project coordinator together with two staff. The project team have roles that relate to management and coordination of activities. The project description includes personnel (not identified in the project team) in roles for project activity that are additional activities to the project framework. For example, a case manager / coach (same person nominated as the financial assistant) has a role facilitating entrepreneurship training, referrals to vocational training and case management. A music trainer with 20 years’ experience is proposed to co-facilitate fundamental workshops (reading and writing), poetic power training and reusable arts workshops among other tasks. There are a broad range of relevant partners identified in the project description section collaborating in terms of performance events, volunteers, space, mobilization and documentation. Most of these partners are not identified in the project framework of activities. None of the partners are identified in the budget as financial or in-kind partners.
5.2 How does the project relate to and/or complement the work that is already being carried out in the country/region in terms of cultural policies and/or industries?: 
The project intends to partner with existing organizations, institutions, and individuals to enable access to public spaces so that young people from the usually excluded community of Kibera can participate in artistic activities and training. The project seeks to build fellowship and unity through artistic expression.
5.3 What measures/steps are proposed to ensure that the project’s impact/long-term benefits can be achieved?: 
Measures to ensure long term impact include the cooperation of stakeholders and the building of relationships and trust between participants, stakeholders and the community.
5.4 What measures/steps are proposed to follow up with the beneficiaries of the project after its completion?: 
There are not specific measures proposed to follow up with beneficiaries after project completion. There are legacies that result from the project that indicate follow up with stakeholders and to a lesser degree beneficiaries. These include the creation of a wide network of young people, artists and educators as well as representatives from National / local institutions and civil society organizations to facilitate the prospective information sharing and create the potential for lasting partnerships in joint projects and initiatives in Kenya. As well as the accumulated knowledge developed throughout the project and the model of pooled resources can facilitate the future organization of similar initiatives in the local Kenyan context.
Score: 
4
Overall evaluation: 
The project ‘Kibera Slums Artistic Outreach’ is submitted by the United Cultural Empowerement And Social Community Organization (UCESCO) a local civil society NGO in Nairobi, Kenya. The project is designed in reponse to a lack of after-school enrichment programs especially in the arts. This project will target marginalised youth of the largest slum in Africa, the Kibera in the city of Nairobi. The project will infuse the literary and visual artistic heritage of the Kenyan black experience by executing programs that appeal to the existing interest in Kenyan culture, art, and neighbourhood identification. The project is aligned to IFCD goal and outcome 3 and all the related results areas. The project demonstrates potential for structural change as the project is a catalyst for community and self-empowerment through artistic participation at the local level. Young people who would otherwise be excluded will have greater potential to participate and contribute to the emergence of a dynamic cultural sector related to urban art in Kenya. The project period is approximately fourteen months commencing March 2018 and involves 700 young people aged 13-30 in a weekly poetic power actiivity for two months, then 560 boys and girls in fundamental workshops (reading and writing) for five months. The main activity that occurs concurrently to other activities is for only 15 boys and girls to participate in Reusable Arts workshops - 2 weeks per month and a street performance - once per month. The project has a very expensive budget considering the majority of the project is for 15 direct beneficiaries. The total project budget is US$119,017 requiring US$76,300 IFCD funds. The applicant requested IFCD funding of US $38,161 from an overall budget of US $80,878 however there are errors in the budget calculation. The key strength of the project is that this is a local proposal responding to local needs and issues, engaging otherwise excluded young people from marginalized communities in training, creation and presentation of urban art in public spaces and within their neighbourhood. However there is a lack of information about activities to support the total budget allocation or to make a linkage to the relevance of expenditure items. Generally the budget lacks detail and has a range of calculation errors. There is an imbalance in the budget allocations for the essential delivery of the project activities. This includes key elements of the budget to be funded by IFCD that appear unsubstantiated for US$37,500 of stipends stated as “incentives to encourage completion of a prescribed program” and the substantially overestimated US$37,650 for equipment and stationery. The budget is also significantly reliant on the applicant’s own cash funds yet to become available to fund critical elements of the project, such as a contractor and project members to execute the activities. This presents a risk to actualization of the project. This project is well suited to the IFCD fund however the proposal requires more detail and increased correlation of activities, outputs, team resources and budget allocations to secure higher scores and contend with strong applications. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply with an improved submission in future IFCD rounds. At this time the project is not recommended for IFCD funding.

Sub-Total Expert 2 : 7.5

IFCD Expert Evaluation form - O_BELGACEM - 08/21/2017 - 07:07

Brief summary of the project: 
The proposed project titled « Kibera Slums Artistic Outreach » aims to expand access and participation to cultural and artistic expression to the Kebira slum community in Kenya. The project will be implemented by a local NGO “United Cultural Empowerement And Social Community Organization (UCESCO)”. The project is a programme that offers the disadvantaged Kibera Slum community access and participation to art and culture through series of expression and artistic workshops, Poetic performances, and weekly open community forums to artistic expression. The project duration is of 13 months, it will start on the 2/3/2018 and will end on the 2/6/2019. Note there is error in the calculation of budget due to the fact that the applicant used (-) negative figures in the excel sheet. The total budget of the proposed project should be read 119,417 instead of 80,878 USD as stated by the applicant in the project presentation and the IFCD contribution is 76,700 USD instead of 38,161 USD.
1. RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROJECT TO THE OBJECTIVES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTION OF THE IFCD
1.1 Please describe how the project objectives and proposed impact/long-term benefits are aligned with at least one of the IFCD’s outcomes and associated expected results.: 
The project in its global attention may be aligned with the IFCD outcome 3 and specifically to ER 3.3. However, the information provided by the application about the project design, activities and budget do not provide with sufficient information to confirm such statement. However, the project objectives as formulated in their majority do not related to the IFCD purposes: OBJ1: To stimulate and support initiatives designed and implemented by grassroots community groups that address Culture Diversity Issues. OBJ 2: To encourage new and stronger relationships between neighbors in the community, among grassroots groups, and between grassroots groups and more established organization OBJ 3: Opportunities to develop community leadership, organization capacity and build community capacity.
1.2 How do the objectives of this project proposal meet the current needs and priorities of the country/ region in terms of cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
The applicant did not provide with specific information related and/or links to the national cultural policy or industries rather provided a statement on overall disadvantaged slam community and access to culture as well as use of creativity and creative industries to create income opportunity and unity. However, it is largely known that fight poor community suffer from lack to access to culture and cultural goods as well as lack of awareness on the opportunity (social and economic) that the creative sector may offer.
1.3 To what extent are the project’s objectives specific and measurable?: 
Globally the projects’ objectives are properly formulated except for the objective 3. The evaluator could not clear understand what the applicant meant by: “Opportunities to develop community leadership, organization capacity and build community capacity.”
1.4 To what extent does the project contribute to the promotion of gender equality, the empowerment of youth, South-South and North-South-South cooperation and/or the participation of various groups in the areas of intervention of the IFCD?: 
The proposed project does not foresee specific measures towards gender equality promotion neither north-south-south cooperation.
Score: 
3
2. FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS THE RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS MODALITIES OF EXECUTION
2.1 What elements demonstrate the applicant’s organizational capacity (main activities of the institution/organization) and competence (skills and background of staff) to implement the work plan and manage the budget?: 
The application declares that main organization objective are related to “Engage in activities that enhance cultural diversity appreciation and preaching peace; Support Local Community Based Organization to promote Cultural diversity; Promote mentorship programmes in performing arts and extending the outreach of artistic activities to the firlds of education With the aim of uplifting their economic and social wellbeing and that of the community” However, it seems that the organization focus is rather about poverty alleviation than a focus on arts and cultural diversity.
2.2 To what extent do the activities address relevant issues? Please explain how the methodology is appropriate to achieving the objectives?: 
The applicant did not provide with information on the activities neither the methodology nor the targeting. Beside mention to slum community and the youth there is no explanation about what exactly are the activity and what is the approach to be used to engage the community, neither what will be the selection criteria and how would be done? All activities description were limited to just a title. The whole project activity description is done through three sentences all in all as follows: • Activity under result one: Poetic Power - Every Wednesday • Activity under result two: Fundamental workshops (Reading and Writing) • Activity under result three: Reusable Arts workshops - 2 weeks per month and street performance - once per month The budget analysis did not help as most of the costs were provided in lump sums. The evaluator could not objectively assess the quality of the proposed project.
2.3 To what extent is the time frame realistic and coherent with the activities?: 
Lack of detailed information about the activities and the methodology the evaluator could not objectively evaluate the timeframe design adequacy.
2.4 Have the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project been clearly identified? To what extent are the outputs/deliverables and main activities relevant to the target beneficiaries and address their needs?: 
The project direct target beneficiaries are broadly defined. The only specific criterion mentioned by the applicant is the age criterion (boys and girls between 13 to 30 years). Due to the lack of such critical data the evaluator could not properly perform the analysis.
Score: 
3
3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
3.1 Does the budget provide for adequate resources (salaries, fees, equipment, travel, communication, etc.) necessary for success of the project? If the budget has been overestimated or underestimated, please explain how.: 
The proposed budget is unreadable. Several discrepancies are to mention that may question the financial management capacity of the applicant: Most of the costs are presented in lump sums and are not linked with activities numbering. Data entry in the excel document is incorrect. The use of (-) figures did confuse the automatic calculation of the document. The project budget should be read as follows: Total budget : 119,417 , IFCD contribution: 76,700 self funded: 42,717 Almost 40% of the total budget is allocated to purchase of equipments (37,650 USD) and other 40% to HR costs (37,800 USD) both 100% allocated to the IFCD contribution. The evaluator could not properly assess the quality of the budget and its relevance to the proposed activities.
3.2 What proportion of the budget is allocated to project activities versus overhead costs? Does the budget seem adequate and overhead costs estimated in compliance with the limit to a maximum of 30% of the total project budget?: 
No overhead costs are included in the budget.
3.3 Does the project proposal indicate any additional financial contributions to the project, such as co-funding and/or self- funding?: 
Total of 42,717 USD will be co-financed by the applicant.
3.4 What actions have been foreseen to ensure financial accountability (e.g. Involvement of a financial officer)?: 
The applicant has indicated that it has a part-time bookkeeper and a financial assistant. However, it was impossible to the evaluation to identify in the budget the costs specifically allocated to these positions.
Score : 
3
4. IMPACT AND EXPECTED RESULTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE
4.1 Are the project’s expected outputs and/or deliverables concrete, measurable and realistic? To what extent are they likely to achieve the objectives of the project?: 
The formulation of the outputs is globally generic. In some cases it is incomprehensible. “80% utilization of the power of Arts as a means of community unification. As artists , the project infuse the literary and visual artistic heritage of the Kenyan experience by executing programs that appeal to the existing interest in Kenyan Culture, art and neighbourhood identification. Also a platform for residents to learn and share through artistic expression within the community.” OR “Positive environment that is conducive to expression and Community connections, allow members to express themselves and connect with others with similar interest and various backgrounds and encourage members to share and organize around artistic expression that promotes unity and fellowship.”
4.2 To what extent are the main activities and the budget relevant and appropriate to achieving the intended outputs and/or deliverables?: 
The applicant failed to demonstrate a solid logic of intervention as no relevant information were provided to assess activities vs objective vs deliverables.
4.3 To what extent is it expected that this project will have an impact/long-term benefits on the country/region’s cultural policies and/or cultural industries?: 
As described the proposed project does not demonstrate potential for a long term impact.
4.4 To what extent does the project demonstrate potential for structural change (for example: changes in the policy environment; far-reaching changes in public and professional organizational structures; and changes in the way government and regulatory authorities do business)?: 
The project does not demonstrate potential for structural change, as no clear information have been provided about activities and methodology.
Score: 
3
5. SUSTAINABILITY
5.1 To what extent are contractors and partners involved in the implementation of the project’s activities? Has the role of each contractor and/or partner been clearly described?: 
The roles and contributions of partners are not properly explained in the application. The applicant confuses contractor and/or services provider and staff with project partners.
5.2 How does the project relate to and/or complement the work that is already being carried out in the country/region in terms of cultural policies and/or industries?: 
The applicant did not provide with concrete information specific to the context. The applicant did provide with a general presentation of the overall situation in the slum referring to the schools, basic services situation rather than specific to the IFCD priorities.
5.3 What measures/steps are proposed to ensure that the project’s impact/long-term benefits can be achieved?: 
No concrete actions are proposed by the applicant. Under section 4.2 of the application form the applicant did simply enumerate the potential outcomes.
5.4 What measures/steps are proposed to follow up with the beneficiaries of the project after its completion?: 
The applicant does not foresees specific actions.
Score: 
3
Overall evaluation: 
I do not recommend the financing of the proposed project. Critical information related to methodology and activities are lacking. Budget is incomprehensible. The overall logic of the intervention and the methodology are not properly explained.

IFCD Submissions details

Recommandation review

IFCD Recommendation form - j_casas - 08/10/2017 - 15:03

Recommendation Status: 
Non recommended
Recommended Funding: 
0.00
Evaluation summary: 
This project presented by a community organization has the merit of being a project for the community by the community. Its aim of providing cultural opportunities for youth in one of Africa’s largest slums contributes to cultural inclusiveness. Unfortunately, the applicant provided very scant detail on the methodology, leaving the evaluators to doubt how the coherence of the summarily described activities and how they are to achieve the target objectives. There is also too little information presented on the organization’s capacity and a lack of clarity in how the project team is presented; for instance, it is not clear who is to deliver some of the training activities that are a key project activity. The budget contains numerous errors leading to a significant miscalculation of the funds required for the project and from the Fund respectively. The budget is also not presented in such a way as to make clear links between financial resources and activities, and the amounts of some lines are thus hard for the evaluators to understand (e.g. “incentives” and “equipment and stationary”), especially given the scarce detail in description of the activities. The budget is also significantly reliant on the applicant’s own cash funds yet to become available to fund critical elements of the project, such as a contractor and project members to execute the activities. This presents a risk to actualization of the project. For these reasons this project is not recommended for funding. However, the applicant is encouraged to present an improved application with greater detail in a future IFCD round.