Activity Reporting
Annex F - Activity completion report
Activity completion reports (ACRs) are required from the implementing partner whenever an Activity or a funding phase (i.e. contract or grant) is complete. The requirement for an ACR must be recorded in the original contract or grant.
Other donor agencies (e.g. ADB and AusAID) have firmly defined formats and content requirements for ACRs (or equivalent) that are usually adequate for NZAID’s requirements. When one of these reports is available, no separate ACR is required from the implementer.
Like all reports, the ACR should be based on evidence in the form of relevant data and appropriate analysis.
When are one-year-at-a-time Activities ‘complete’?
- Some Activities are funded for only one year at a time. In such cases, the reporting required at the end of each year should be a pragmatic combination of the content of the Activity Completion Report (suggested below) and the Annual Progress Report (Annex E). A full Activity Completion Report should be prepared after three years. NZAID managers of such Activities should aim (where policy allows this) towards a longer commitment that allows a multi-year design and management of progress towards higher level objectives and outcomes.
The depth and detail of the ACR will depend on the size and risk of the Activity. An ACR covers broadly the same material whether the Activity is finishing completely, or just moving to a new funding phase. Suggested content is as follows:
Table of contents
Executive summary
This should be a maximum of six pages (when the body of the report has more detail) and be comprehensible as a stand-alone document.
The summary should include
- a narrative report of activities undertaken and completed
- a summary (ideally in tabular form) of results against the original objectives of the Activity
- a summary of risks that emerged and how (if) they were dealt with
It should also include a table providing a brief comment on each of the five DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability). See below for explanation of these criteria. The comment on “effectiveness” should be consistent with the summary of results against the original objectives, referred to above.
Reference should be made to the final Acquittal Report providing a full reconciliation of expenditure against budget for the full period of funding, detailing the amount of any unspent funds remaining.
For low to medium risk Activities with total expenses of less than $500,000, an ACR of two or three pages with the above content, plus the final Acquittal Report, is usually sufficient although the implementer may wish to provide slightly more detail. For high risk or larger Activities, more detail must be provided in the body of the ACR, as follows:
Basic information
- Table showing Activity title, starting date, duration, value, key stakeholders, purpose and key outputs etc
- Map showing Activity location/s
- Who was involved/consulted in preparing the report and the process followed
Background, context and achievements
This should provide a brief narrative of the Activity’s identification, design and implementation and the changing institutional, social and physical environment in which it was working.
Relevance
Whether and to what extent the activity has addressed the needs and priorities of the target groups and is aligned with the partner’s policies and priorities.
Effectiveness
Whether and to what extent the programme and/or activity has achieved the desired outcomes. This should include a report of actual performance against the latest agreed objectives and targets (e.g. logical framework matrix if there is one), usually in tabular format.
Efficiency
Narrowly defined, “efficiency” means the extent to which the programme could have been implemented at less cost without reducing the quality and quantity of the activities and benefits. More broadly, the assessment of efficiency can include consideration of whether the intervention provided value for money. The amount of money spent on the Activity can be compared qualitatively with the broad outcomes, impacts or changes brought about by the work.
Value for money might be examined in two ways:
- The Activity’s own cost structures should be analysed to identify cost effectiveness issues, including whether savings could have been made (without disproportionately compromising outcomes) through different methods or management, procurement, prioritisation, design, etc.
- If possible, comparisons of value for money should be drawn with experience or norms in other activities (in the same country/region or internationally), where similar outcomes or impacts have been aimed for and/or achieved.
The “Efficiency” section may be the place to report on management issues such as procurement, staffing and human resources, and asset management.
Impact
The report should, to the degree possible, include assessment of the likely impact (positive and negative, planned and unplanned) of the Activity. This is the section to include what evidence is available on changes in the economic, social and political situation and status of beneficiaries. Consideration of possible unplanned impacts should take into account the mainstreamed and cross-cutting issues.
Activities working directly with communities should be encouraged to consider innovative ways of understanding and communicating the impact of the project on community; this might include video, sound recordings or even drama.
Generally, the implementer will not know enough to make firm statements about the impact of their Activity. An ACR is not expected to perform the function of a rigorous impact evaluation. However, every effort should be made, drawing on the data available and the monitoring and evaluation framework, to draw what conclusions are possible.
Sustainability
The report should include the assessment of the likely sustainability of any benefits of the Activity based on an analysis of relevant institutional (e.g. ongoing resourcing, asset maintenance, political and community support), environmental and other contextual factors. Mainstreamed and cross-cutting issues such as gender, human rights and the environment can be of particular importance in making this assessment. The analysis in this section is crucial for informing any recommendations (below). Reference should be made to the Activity’s exit strategy.
Risk management
The report should include reflection on how risks were managed, the effectiveness of identification, mitigation and adaptation measures, etc. See the Risk Assessment Guideline (in development).
Monitoring and evaluation issues
As M&E is a common failing in aid management the report should include reflection on the quality of the M&E framework and its implementation, and the degree to which it aided Activity management and eventual assessment of effectiveness, efficiency, impact, etc.
Lessons
Lessons should clearly set out to whom they are directed e.g. implementing individuals, organisations, partner governments, NGOs, NZAID, technical specialists, or general development practitioners.
Overall judgement and critical issues
The overall judgement should reflect the performance of the Activity against the five DAC evaluation criteria. Any recommendations or suggestions for future actions should clearly set out to whom they are directed e.g. partner governments, NGOs, or NZAID.
Annexes
- Asset register showing where, how and why Activity assets have been disposed of
- Final acquittal report, if the Activity is grant-based
- Final financial statements, comparing to original budget, with variance explained
- Process and stakeholders involved in preparation of the ACR
- Summary / chart of governance structures of the Activity (e.g. steering committee)
- Exit strategy
- Other relevant information.