1 / 7

CDF Funds RBA Evaluation

CDF Funds RBA Evaluation. Group 3. Project Description. Project name: Raha Health Dispensary Project location: Megori District, Suba West Project description: Construction of a dispensary

rance
Télécharger la présentation

CDF Funds RBA Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CDF Funds RBA Evaluation Group 3

  2. Project Description • Project name: Raha Health Dispensary • Project location: Megori District, Suba West • Project description: Construction of a dispensary • Promotion of right to health: Improve accessibility by increasing access to services, bringing services closer to the population

  3. Participatory Approach • Impetus for the project was not brought by the community, was started by the MP • Community denied right to participation in the decision making process, right to ownership • Intention of the project was to address the right to health – this was not realized, because the facility has not yet been completed

  4. Sustainability • Issues of sustainability were not address in planning phase, and so construction and implementation has not been completed • Politically driven • Lacks ownership • Construction has stalled • Inappropriately designed based on correct health facility designs (MOH, MOW)

  5. Transparency and Accountability • Planning committee: • Members did not come from the community • CDF Committee guidelines were not followed • Not answerable to community (claim holders) • No voice to check on budgeting, progress, etc • Tendering mechanisms was flawed, details not transparent to community

  6. Gender Dimensions • No awareness in the community of gender parity in planning and implementation of the construction project • No women-specific health care issues addressed in planning • No provision for maternity services

  7. Duty Bearers and Claim Holders • Duty Bearers • Local administrators • CDC • MP • DMOH • Opinion leaders (elders, chiefs) • CSOs • Claim Holders • Community members

More Related