Spreadsheet: e33db9ca-6d79-4007-a21e-e403a0e26225
Sheet: LFA_Overall Performance_6

[NAME] On-going Progress Review and Disbursement Recommendation
PROGRESS UPDATE PERIOD
Grant number:
Progress Update - Reporting Period: |  | Cycle: |  | Number:
Progress Update - Period Covered: |  | Beginning Date: |  | End Date:
Progress Update - Number:
Section 6:  LFA EVALUATION AND COMMENTS ON OVERALL PERFORMANCE
A.  Overall Evaluation and Rating of Grant Performance (including a summary of how financial performance is linked to programmatic achievements)
!  The evaluation should be undertaken by taking into account programmatic achievements, financial performance and program issues in various functional areas (M&E, Finance, Procurement, and Program Management, including management of sub-recipients).  See Guidelines for more detailed guidance on the completion of this section. !  For RCC grants, this section should cover the period from the RCC start date through the end date of the current Progress Update period.                                                                                                                                          ! For guidance on the methodology for rating overall performance, refer to [NAME] of Guidelines.
Indicator rating | B1 |  | Any major management issues resulting in downgrade? | No |  | Overall [NAME] | B1
Overall, the PR has demonstrated improved performance (4 out of 7 indicators achieved >100% to maximum limit of 120%  and 2 out 7 indicators achieved >80% with the remaining indicator achieving 18% in the implementation of the grant during the period of review. A quantitative average for all the 7 indicators resulted in an average of 71.51%, which falls under the "B1" rating. In terms of financial absorption, PR had absorbed 83% of the budgeted funds as at the end of December 2010. The high rate of financial absorption as compared to the programmatic rate was mainly due to: - Payments during the period for HBC kits which were not received from the VPP for distribution.This had a negative impact on program implementation and the related performance indicator. - Secondly, the PR achieved 18% under number of PLHIV provided with HBC and psychosocial support during the period. The under achievement was due to the fact that the setting of the target was based on a higher baseline as a result of wrong definition of the indicator at the time of the proposal development.  In spite of the good performance, going forward, the PR must intensify efforts to:  Improve the quality of services, training/sensitization programmes being provided  Continously Improve the content and quality of training and sensitization reports Improve M&E training to facilitate standardization of data collection and reporting tools Continue to strengthen partnerships with SRs/SGs (feedback has been positive during this period of review)
[NAME] comments on PR planned changes in the program, if any
Not applicable. No planned changes in the program
[NAME] on External Factors Beyond Control of the Principal Recipients that have impacted or may impact program
Delays in procurement of HBC kits had an impact on program implementation, but this was beyond the control of the PR, as the procurement was done through VPP.