Evaluation of The Gambia WFP Country Strategic Plan 2018–2020

Evaluation and Lessons Learned
Originally published
View original



Evaluation features

  1. The evaluation of the transitional interim country strategic plan (T-ICSP) and the country strategic plan (CSP) for the Gambia was conducted between May 2020 and April 2021. It covered WFP’s strategy, interventions and systems for the period between January 2018 and September 2020. It served the dual purpose of accountability and learning by assessing results achieved against plans while creating opportunities for learning at the national, regional and corporate levels. The results of the evaluation informed the preparation of the revision for the extension of the CSP and the design of a new CSP for the Gambia.

  2. The evaluation took a utilization-focused and consultative approach when defining the lines of inquiry around the four standard evaluation questions used for WFP country strategic plan evaluations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation was conducted using a hybrid approach: two international team members engaged with stakeholders remotely and three national team members met stakeholders in person in the Gambia. The main evaluation mission in the Gambia took place over three weeks, between mid-September and early October 2020. Findings on nutrition were mostly drawn from the decentralized evaluation on nutrition that was conducted just before the CSP evaluation. Gender was taken into account throughout all phases of the evaluation process. The evaluation findings and recommendations were discussed with internal and external stakeholders during two online workshops in March 2021.

  3. Limitations of the evaluation were largely linked to COVID-19 related restrictions. Also, complete and validated performance data for 2020 was published in March 2021, several months after data collection and when report drafting was already at an advanced stage; this limited opportunities for triangulation and analysis of 2020 data. Finally, some stakeholders were unavailable during the data collection stage.
    However, the evaluation team considers that the data available and sites visited were sufficient to allow for evidence-based analysis.