ROM review of PAJUDEL-Participação Juvenil para o Desenvolvimento Local de Angola

Objective:
The specific objective of the ROM system implemented as of 2015 is to provide an external opinion on project implementation in order to support project management by EU Delegations (EUDs). ROM reviews verify the status of a project through analysis of project documentation and meaningful
consultation with all parties involved, including beneficiaries. ROM reviews identify progress in the provision of inputs, activities undertaken and results achieved (outputs, outcomes). It also assesses the project in terms of the criteria relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability

Method:
The ROM review field mission took place remotely from 08/16/2021 to 08/26/2021. The expert organized briefings and debriefings with the GO and the PI. During the mission, she interviewed by video conference eleven people working for the PI, 27 people who represent the different target
groups, seven selected final beneficiaries, and four other stakeholders.

Key Findings:
The intervention maintains its relevance as a response to the needs of the target group and final beneficiaries, and its coherence with the policies and strategies of the Government of Angola and the European Union (EU). It is within the reach of the implementing organizations, namely a Norwegian and a local NGO, in terms of their experience and capacity, strengthened by decades of experience from similar interventions. Products of the intervention are well adapted to the absorptive capacity of the target group. The intervention enjoys a high degree of ownership and commitment from all
stakeholders. The intervention seeks opportunities for collaboration with other organizations. EU's added value in the area of civil society consists mainly of political weight in dialogue with the government and the size
of its support program for the sector.

The intervention logic is well designed and presented in its logical framework (LF). The horizontal logic of the LF is of good quality in general, although it shows some weaknesses in the formulation of the indicators. The approaches and methodologies used in the intervention draw on ADRA's previous
experiences and are satisfactory. The intervention has a good system of monitoring of activities, expenditures and results, but does not include an instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of trainings.

While the internal efficiency of implementation of the intervention has been good, the overall efficiency has been negatively impacted by external factors (the Covid-19 pandemic and others) that have caused delays and under-spending of the budget (29%) relative to the time elapsed. The implementation team is well organized, with experienced and competent human resources presenting a good management of the activities and accomplishment of the products. It has adapted satisfactorily to the challenges, having recovered part of the lost time, but there is a risk of not achieving the results by the end of the intervention.

The products of the intervention, however, are of good quality. There is significant progress in Output 1 (policy dialogue), whereas in Output 2 (monitoring) no monitoring action is recorded. Output 3 (support for youth initiatives) is still in the preparation phase. Among the policies targeted by youth advocacy, neither the National Youth Policy (NYP) nor the National
Development Plan (NDP 2018-22) are referenced. This is a glaring omission given that the NJP is the only policy targeted specifically at youth, and is framed within the objectives of the NDP. The prospects for institutional and financial sustainability of the benefits of the intervention are reasonable, judging by the results already obtained and the commitment of young people.

Sustainability depends on the sustainability of the youth organizations of the target group in terms of their human/ financial capacity and the participation of their members.

The intervention satisfactorily addresses the cross-cutting issues of gender, human rights and environmental protection, but not the issue of climate change. There has been no concrete action in practice and only one of the micro-project proposals includes this issue.

The performance of the intervention on the issue of communication and visibility is not satisfactory.

The actions taken have been mainly passive (use of the logo, although not consistently) and at local level, associated with specific events. There are few products, little use of the ADRA website, and no use of social media.

Specific Recommendations:
1) There are major delays in the implementation of the intervention and delivery of the Outputs caused by external factors including the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result of these delays and the underexecution
of the budget, there is a risk that the intervention may not be completed in time. ADRA is recommended to carry out a realistic and detailed reprogramming of all pending activities and a corresponding revision
of the budget to redistribute the unspent balances between lines. Consider the possibility of increasing the number of micro-projects.

2) The intervention duly focuses on the relevant general policies at the municipal level, but does not include the use of policies specifically
in favor of youth as arguments to support their demands and claims. It is recommended to distribute via ADRA copies of the JNP and relevant sections of the NDP, and the inclusion of these policies in debates and consultations is recommended.

3) The intervention's logframe is of good quality, but has some flaws, particularly in the indicators. Also, it is not updated annually. It is recommended that ADRA conduct a general review of the LF.

4) The approach used in the trainings is the traditional one characterized by a formal hierarchy and a tendency to transfer unidirectional transfer of information and there are no reinforcement trainings on each topic. Also, the effectiveness is not evaluated more objectively after each training session.
ADRA should consider conducting reinforcement trainings, with pre- and post-assessment tests of knowledge on each theme and the use of the methodology used by Mozaico ("Education for Transformation").

5) The communication and visibility component is not satisfactory. It is recommended that ADRA produce more material and use it on the
web page and Facebook, with monitoring of the number of users and a detailed annual report.

6) The intervention satisfactorily addresses all cross-cutting issues, except for climate change. ADRA should include this theme in all trainings and activities and prioritize micro-projects that include related actions.