The Security Sector Development and Defence Transformation Programme (SSDDTP) has been implemented by Adam Smith International (ASI) over 4 years to 31 December 2012.
The Programme's Goal is sustainable peace in Sudan (subsequentaly amended to Sudan and South Sudan following South Sudan's independence). The Purpose is the development of an effective security decision making architecture in South Sudan, complemented by the treansformation of the SPLA, underpinned by a sustainably policy, institutional and legal framework enshrining the principles of civil control, accountability and transparency.
The Programme Completion Review will assess the achievement of the outputs and the achievements of the outcome. This will include an assessment of results, value for money and an in-depth look at lessons learned.
Mandating organisation / agency / department / ministry
Target organisation type(s)
Mandate outputs / products
The team will:
1. Complete the PCR template;
2. Evaluate and report on the achievement of Targets (December 2012) in the Logical Framework, drawing on a range of stakeholder perspectives and the recent 2012 Annual Review;
3. Capture lesson learned, best practice and gap analysis during programme implementation with specific focus on transitional activities between SSDDTP and SSDDTP Phase Two;
4. Assess the policy and strategic aspects of the Programme in terms os its contribution to the GRSS' transformation process and the National Security Policy (draft);
5. Determine insitutional and organisational strengths and weaknesses of key beneficiaries;
6. Assess GRSS ownership, commitment and ability to sustain progress at the end of the Programme;
7. Assess the effectiveness of the management and implementation arrangements of ASI, including strategic and policy leadership of the Team Leader; quality of experts involved, quality of engagement with beneficiaries; effective transfer of knowledge and expertise and the extent to which GRSS capacity and ownership has been built up during this process;
8. Assess the effectiveness of the management and support provided by DFID during programme implementation and the quality of engagment and relationship with ASI and key beneficiaries; and
9. Consider progress against cost and timescales; evidence and evaluation, risk and value for money.
Outcome objectives of mandate
The PCR dovetails with the transition arrangements to SSDDTP Phase Two. The outcome and recommendations will be used to further inform the design and approach to DFID's future involvement in security sector transformation to 2015. SSDDTP has been subject to regular monitoring and evaluation since 2009. Most recently, a comprehensive annual review was conducted in 2012. Therefore, in addition to completing the PCT template, the exercise will focus on capturing key lessons learned from key stakeholders involved in this process. This approach allows more efficient and cost-effective use of the time available to concentrate on the areas of SSDDTP, which are particularly relevant to the follow-on Phase.
Specific Lessons Identified
- What do you believe are the reasons behind choosing ISSAT to support?
- The SU tried to locate experts in their own Security and Justice roster but couldn’t find adequate skills in the timelines required so they called upon ISSAT to support.
- What do you believe was ISSAT’s main added value in this mandate/mission?
- Flexibility in mission planning, speed in deployment, knowledge of context and local contacts or networks (Teohna)
- Did this mission replace or reinforce? (Please elaborate under methodology.)
- Did this mission have ToRs?
- Was the ISSAT template used?
- What was ISSAT’s contribution in designing the ToR?
- What was the mandator’s contribution to ToRs design?
- Did this mission have a Mandate Request Form (MRF)?
- Was the MRF filled in online?
- Was that easy? Somewhat difficult? Difficult? Very complicated?
- What was ISSAT’s contribution in designing the MRF?
- What was the mandator’s contribution in designing the MRF? Too High Just right Low Unknown
- Did you use the ISSAT mission checklist?
- The MRF was drafted at the last minute
- Visa before departure was needed to go into South Sudan for first time (unfamiliar situation)
- ISSAT mission checklist was not yet produced at the time of the mission implementation
- Timing of this review was problematic since this was one of several reviews back to back. There was a clear sense of review fatigue. The final review could have been easily blended in with the annual review.
- The positive ISSAT-DfID relationship facilitated an effective collaboration for the MRF to be completed at the last minute
- ISSAT advisor assigned to mandate was fortunately a UK citizen so the SU knew what to do to obtain visa.
- SU provided significant support on the visa front and helped ISSAT Advisor get their visa. Which is another demonstration of positive working relations with mandatory and the impact of that on mission planning.
- Stephanie Blair filled in the MRF online and that was a very easy process.
- Team had to pay a lot of attention to how the questions were asked and by who as a result of the sensitivities related to the timing and the review fatigue.
- Familiarity between team members and the interviewees was extremely useful to smooth out the negativity. However to maintain a necessary balance for the interviews, the team chose to ensure that ne team member would know the interview and the other wouldn’t.
- Encourage positive relationship building between ISSAT and DfID. Moving forward, ISSAT is to expect more and more short-notice mandates from DfID so good relations would be the key to ensure flexibility and effectiveness in collaboration between two parties.
- DfID to share its monthly Sit Rep with ISSAT as means to ensure awareness of SU’s medium term engagements.
- Did this mission have an explicit methodology?
- Where linkages between security, justice and governance looked into?
- PCRs are a heavy bureaucratic process
- A wide Security and Justice Reform strategy for UK in South Sudan does not exist
- The PCR is an explicit process for DfID. This process was articulated to the team by DfID and was fairly straight forward.
- Who were you main PoCs for the mandator in the field?
- Where they adequately informed of the mission purpose and objectives?
- Where international stakeholders adequately informed of the mission purpose and objectives?
- Communicating information to the national stakeholders about the PCR happened through the mission and not before. During interviews, mission team articulated mission objectives.
- When team was being set up SU was aware of the importance of having a UK core staff member (since the mandate needed to have a proper SU hat because of the nature of the programme which has a strong SU tie), military background and knowledge of the programme and the context
- The value of a SU core staff member was his knowledge of SU. Perceptions on the ground can be very different if you have a core staff member. In particular vis a vis the implementing company (ASI); but also with respect to national stakeholders. Team felt that they were taken more “seriously” with core staff member on board.
- The value of having Mathiew on the team was high because of the fact that he was a military person who has already served in South Sudan.
- ISSAT Advisor was the lead on the ground but not during the report-writing process. SU owned entirely that process.
- ASI is the implementing partner for this program. Their role is a positive one dues to many factors:
- Most of ASI members had already worked for HMG and maintained strong knowledge of the processes
- The provided continuity on the field in the absence of HMG presence
- The represented an a-political face to HMG which allowed them to push their agenda further to wider horizons
- Because of their expertise (all ex-senior civil servants), the team believes that the British embassy will never be able to match their added value in the field.
- HMG was very much focused on Afghanistan so ASI was a necessary partner to support HMG in its work in South Sudan