Mexico

Project: Civil society advocating for quality education & healthcare in Mexico
Evaluation Date: February 2012
Report: [report link]
Lesson Learned:

The project did have an impact for some participants and participating CSOs. But the lack of adequate data on project results makes it difficult to identify or to assess the extent of results. The baseline survey had many gaps and was also not repeated at the end of the project, making it impossible to measure change. Indicators needed to be more focused on achievement of the intended outcomes of increased civic awareness and collective voice for equitable services and any policy changes resulting from the increased demand.

Theme: Tools for knowledge
Mexico   , ,
Project: Civil society advocating for quality education & healthcare in Mexico
Evaluation Date: February 2012
Report: [report link]
Lesson Learned:

The project did not take advantage of the internet or social media to develop a common platform for the project to connect the state networks and draw in supporters from other locations and sectors on project issues and action. Although many of the beneficiaries may not have had access to the internet, most of the participating CSOs did, as did local officials, and leveraging information technology would have been a programmatic and cost-effective way to deepen participation.

Theme: Tools for knowledge
Mexico  
Project: Civil society advocating for quality education & healthcare in Mexico
Evaluation Date: February 2012
Report: [report link]
Lesson Learned:

The electoral process was blamed by the grantee for delays and difficulties in implementation. It apparently politicized the CSOs affiliated with the network in Guerrero and disrupted project coherence during large periods of time. In Hidalgo and Chiapas, project implementation did not appear to be affected by the political processes. Participants referred to the need to “start over” when new officials came into office because they felt that each party had different agendas and would not necessarily continue the work started under a previous administration.

Theme: Tools for knowledge
Mexico   , ,
Project: Civil society advocating for quality education & healthcare in Mexico
Evaluation Date: February 2012
Report: [report link]
Lesson Learned:

The project intended to work at several levels. Locally, it targeted the states of Chiapas, Guerrero, and Hidalgo. At the state level it intended to work through advocacy and informational campaigns undertaken by multi-sector actors, and at the national level through consciousness-raising and advocacy efforts. The national level advocacy and networking with regional and global partners did not occur. The project’s objectives were ambitious and project staff felt working at the national level required more time, attention and resources than they had available.

Theme: Tools for knowledge
Mexico   , ,
Project: Civil society advocating for quality education & healthcare in Mexico
Evaluation Date: February 2012
Report: [report link]
Lesson Learned:

The project’s decentralized nature allowed the three CSO partners to adapt the project to their own local context during implementation. In some aspects, this increased the relevance for the participating CSOs as well their participants. Formalize relationships between subgrantees and their implementers with a written agreement that clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities of each, the project purpose, timelines, targets and performance indicator and reporting requirements even if this is only to be done verbally.

Theme: Tools for knowledge
Mexico   , ,