We have learnt over a period of time that:
OVC response activities when conducted without the participation of OVC in the planning and execution stages will be counter productive
The engagement of all relevant stakeholders at local and state level is key to successful implementation of VC programs in the state by CSOs When non-resident community leaders are engaged during mobilization and implementation of VC service provision, there would be existing program gaps between proposed focal beneficiaries and actual engaged beneficiaries
To many intermediaries in OVC projects will lead to increased expenses draining the limited available funds from donors. Over heads will far outweigh service provision cost
Sustainable OVC project implementation is achievable when partners are well informed of project progress through prompt data and program reports as well as adequate field backs (dissemination of general findings) from donors to CSO partners
Timely release of funds to implementing partners will enable prompt service delivery and timely reporting to stakeholders
Establishment and engagement of state and local monitoring mechanism during service provision will ensure adequate and qualitative service provision to OVC in a sustainable manner.
The Non-inclusion of CSOs during program proposal development is always a gap situation to project implementation
An outrageous target with little time and no fund allocation gives room for compromised service provision to OVC and their households.

Recent Comments

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    Receive prompt notifications on latest publications by entering your email address

    Join 113 other subscribers

    About Us

    %d bloggers like this: