DFID GPAF IMP 009 PCR Final Narrative Report 30-06-15

Global Poverty Action Fund
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT 2015

Please read the following instructions carefully
This Project Completion Report template includes DFID reporting requirements for 2015. It
is designed to provide a report on your project as a whole which:
enables you to communicate to DFID what GPAF funding has achieved through your
project
establishes a record of project achievement against its outcome and outputs
draws out conclusions and lessons learnt of value and wider application
contributes to learning on emerging results
informs a wider analysis of all GPAF projects
checks compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant.
The template is aligned to the 2015 Annual Report template where changes were made in
response to the Fund Managers experience from previous rounds, input from the GPAF
Evaluation Manager and DFID requirements and considerations. The templates also reflect
feedback from grant holders attending the Results and Learning seminars in January 2015.
Revisions have been made to strengthen the documents, whilst maintaining a high degree of
continuity with last years reports.
The key changes are:
strengthened guidance and clearer wording of some questions, for example on
logframes, risk and value for money
a new sections on methodological tools, to support GPAF evaluation
a revised and more open section on learning
some different questions on project accountability to stakeholders
a few new questions, for example on assumptions, collection of beneficiary data and
meeting the requirements of your grant arrangement
removal of a few questions, for example on beneficiaries
What is required?
Refer back to your 2014 Annual Report feedback letter which might well contain
pointers for completing the PCR.
Use the 2015 Project Completion Report template (this document) without altering its
structure
Cover the whole period of your project
Keep within page length limits
Ensure that you draw on and refer to the findings of your external evaluation
Submit the report and all accompanying documentation including separate annexes
as WORD /Excel documents, not as PDF files
Send all required documents by e-mail to gpaf@tripleline.com. Hard copies are not
required
Entitle your email GPAF [reference number] PCR and closure documents
The PCR report is due three months after your project end date (unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Fund Manager).
What to send use as checklist:
1.
Narrative Report (this document)
GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015
Check
box
2.
Pag
e
limit
Section and Title
Notes
Basic Information
Basic project data
Summary,
Progress &
Achievements
Value for Money
Sustainability
Progress towards ensuring sustainability
Project
Accountability to
Stakeholders
Project mechanisms to gather beneficiary

feedback and the challenges of responding
Learning
Requirements of
Grant Arrangement
Comments on
Independent Final
Evaluation
Annex
A
Outcome and
output scoring
12
Annex
B
Consolidated
beneficiary table
Annex
C
Portfolio Analysis
A narrative summary of project progress

and achievements including section 2.2
which, unlike the rest of the report,
specifically covers the final period of the
project
A summary of actions and achievements in
relation to value for money
Lessons from project implementation for

learning and dissemination
New section to ensure that the
requirements of the Grant Arrangement
have been met
Grant Holder comments on the findings
and recommendations of the project
Independent Final Evaluation
A record of progress against the
milestones and targets in your project
logframe. Includes an assessment of
progress against each indicator and the
evidence which supports the statements of
achievement. Includes table to record
methodological tools used.
An overall summary of the number of
individual project beneficiaries.
Some basic information about your project
to feed into an analysis of the whole
portfolio of GPAF projects
Project Documents (attachments)
Check
Document
box
Reporting Logframe
Notes
Most recently approved Logframe and Activity Log in
Excel format, with Achieved boxes completed for
each indicator, and each relevant milestone.
Please label this document: GPAF (ref. no.) PCR

Logframe (+ date prepared).
Please name the document GPAF [ref. no] final
Final (External) Evaluation evaluation report. For guidance please refer to
Report
Independent Final Evaluations overview for GPAF
grantees and FAQs recently circulated
New photograph(s) which illustrates or tells a story
Photograph(s)
of your project.
Check
Document
box
Supporting statement for

photograph(s)
3.
Notes
Attach as a separate file(s) (i.e. do not embed into
another document), preferably as a JPEG file.
In separate document please provide:
* captions or explanations of the photo(s);
* the photographers name, if possible;
* assurance that subjects have given their consent,
both for the photograph to be taken and for its
possible use in learning/publicity materials.
Financial Report (attachment - use the most recent Excel template circulated with this
report template)
Check
Document
box
Final Annual financial report
Financial summary
Notes
Worksheet 2 of excel template showing
expenditure in FY 2014/15
Worksheet
4 of excel template showing a
summary of expenditure over the life of your
project
It is very important to note that:

Project expenditure must be reported against the full detailed budget agreed by
Fund Manager and not the summary budget used for expenditure claims.
Any variances in excess of 10%, either positive or negative, (or transfers between
main budget sub-headings) must be explained.
You should show any variances both in terms of total amount in GBP () and
percentage of your budget.
4.
Closure documents
Check
box
Document
Notes
Final claim or statement of The appropriate template will be sent separately

expenditure
(as dependent on nature of claims)
Inventory of disposal of Please use template provided with PCR document
assets
pack
Please use template provided with PCR document
Asset transfer letter
pack
A hard copy of your Annual Audited Accounts for
the financial year in which your project ended
Annual Audited Accounts (if must be posted to the Fund Manager four months
available see note)
after the end of your financial year, unless an
alternative deadline has been agreed in writing by
the Fund Manager.
Information and References
Purpose of the GPAF
The Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) is a demand-led fund supporting projects which are
focused on:
poverty reduction and
pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
through tangible changes to poor peoples lives including through:

service delivery
empowerment and accountability
work on conflict, security and justice
Further Guidance documents that may help with the completion of this Project Completion
Report:
Gender and Diversity:
Gender guidelines prepared specifically for the GPAF: Gender and the Global Poverty
Action Fund
(Please note that these guidelines are due to be updated, after which the hyperlink
above will not work. The new guidelines, once uploaded, will be under project
documents accessible through this link.)
DFID Disability Framework 2014
Value For Money:
BOND VFM Guidelines
BOND Integrating VFM into the Programme Cycle Diagram
DFID VFM Guidelines
Quality of Evidence:
BOND Quality of Evidence Guidelines
DFID How-To-Note Assessing the Strength of Evidence
Any Questions?
If you have any questions about the completion of your reporting requirements, please
contact the Fund Manager at gpaf@tripleline.com or on 0208 788 4680.
Common questions with answers and further guidance are being circulated as Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) alongside this report, drawing on the issues raised by grant holders
at the Results and Learning seminars held at the end of January 2015.
GPAF PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

SECTION 1: BASIC INFORMATION
This information is needed to update the Fund Managers records
Sense International
1.1 Grant Holder Organisation
Name
101 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9LG
1.2 Grant Holder Organisation
Address
1. Sense International (India), Gujarat (national coverage)
1.3 Project partner(s)
List implementation partners.
2. Blind People's Association, Gujarat (RLC West)
Highlight any changes to
3. Digdarshika Institute of Rehabilitation & Research, Bhopal
partners.
(SLC Madhya Pradesh)
For multi-country projects,
4. Caritas, Goa (SLC Goa)
please indicate which partner
5. National Association for the Blind, Nasik (SLC Maharashtra)
is in which country
6. Holy Cross Service Society, Tamil Nadu (RLC South)
7. Kottayam Social Service Society, Kottayam (SLC Kerala)
8. Uma Manovikas Kendram, Kakinada (SLC Andhra Pradesh)
9. Mathru Education Trust for the Blind, Bangalore (replaced
National Association for the Blind, Bangalore (SLC Karnataka))
1.4 Project Title
Expanding Services for Deafblind People in India
1.5 GPAF Number
GPAF-IMP-009
1.6
1.7
Countries
1.8
Project Start & End Dates
1.9
Reporting Period
Location within countries
1.10 Total project budget

1.11 Total funding from DFID
1.12 Financial contributions from
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
India
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Tamil Nadu,
Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Puducherry
Start: 04/2012
End: 03/2015
From: 04/2014
To: 03/2015
684,191
478,934 (5,240 YR3 underspend as per financial report)
Total 205,257 (N.B. 2% underspend as per financial report)

other sources
98,905 (USD 159,582 Vitol Charitable Foundation)
Please state all other sources of
3,000 (The Tula Trust)
funding and amounts in relation
2,000 (The Cotton Trust)
to this project. Sources should be 1,000 (The Eleanor Rathbone Charitable Trust)
listed in brackets, e.g.:
500 (The Rhododendron Trust)
75,000 (ABC Foundation)
99,852 (Sense International/unrestricted funding)
Date report produced
15/06/2015
Name and position of person(s) Name: Uttam Kumar
who compiled this report
Position: Head Programmes (India)
Name: Philip Middleton
Position: Programme Funding Manager (UK)
Name: Elizabeth Ewen
Position: Sr. Programme Manager (UK)
Name, position & email
Name: Philip Middleton
address for the main contact
Position: Programme Funding Manager
person for correspondence
Email 1: philip.middleton@senseinternational.org.uk
relating to this project
Secondary contact person
Name: Elizabeth Ewen
(optional)
Position: Sr. Programme Manager
Email 1: Elizabeth.Ewen@senseinternational.org.uk
1.17 Acronyms
Please try not to use too many acronyms, and explain all that you do use e.g. CHW Community
Health Worker.
Acronym
CBR
EI
IGA
MI/PM
Explanation
Community Based Rehabilitation
Early Intervention
Income Generation Activity
Medical/Para-Medical
MSI
Multi-Sensory Impaired
OAE
Otoacoustic Emission (Hearing Screening Device)
OCI
Organisational Capacity Index
RLC
Regional Learning Centre
SLC
State Learning Centre
SSA
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
IERT
Integrated Educational Resource Teacher
NAB
National Association of the Blind
KSSS
Kottayam Social Service Society
HCSS
Holy Cross Service Society
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
SII
Sense International India
IEP
Individual Education Plan
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
CSO
Civil Society Organisation
ADIP
Scheme of Assistance to Disable Persons for purchase/ fitting of Aids/Appliances

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (offering to guarantee
100 days wage-employment a year to a rural household whose adult members
volunteer to do unskilled manual work)
MNREGA
BPL
Below Poverty Line
MI
Medical personnel
PM
Paramedical personnel
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
SECTION 2: SUMMARY, PROGRESS AND RESULTS (Up to 6 pages)

PROJECT SUMMARY (max 12 lines)
2.1
a. In your own words please describe your project, its context, who has benefitted from it and how
and what overall change has been achieved.
The challenges faced by deafblind people are complex. Those working with persons with deafblindness
need specific skills to be able to successfully deliver support. This project looks holistically at the
individual and ensures that we are respecting the diversity of needs of each and every person with
deafblindness. Across 8 states of India, the project has provided a spectrum of services. It has
pioneered sensory screening and Early Intervention services, for babies and young children aged 0-6
years old, ensuring that they are identified as early as possible to give them the best possible chances
for effective communication and access to information and rehabilitation. The foundation for education
support for 6-14 year olds, whether NGO centre-based, at home or in mainstream schools has been
built. We have trialled vocational training and seed funding to provide adults with deafblindness a means
of generating income and becoming active members of their family and community, leading to social
inclusion and respect. To ensure sustainability, activities have been coupled with advocacy initiatives to
help ensure that the rights of persons with deafblindness are recognised and respected by all.
b. Please provide a couple of direct quotations from beneficiaries that illustrate how the project
intervention has improved their lives.
The difference in Sneha after joining the programme is beyond our expectation, especially now that she
is able to communicate her needs. Sneha now can move to her room by herself and the way the Special
educator handled her behaviour problems are praiseworthy and we really appreciate KSSS team and are
thankful to Sense International (India) and Fr. Michael Vettickat, for providing us this service.
Parent of Sneha.
Ms. S Vijayatha IERT (Integrated Education Resource Teacher):
I am a teacher of hearing impairment; this programme will be very helpful to me. I recognize many
things; I understand how to identify Deafblind people and different methods to teach these children. And
also learned how to tackle the behaviour problems.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE LAST ANNUAL REPORT
2.2
a. What are the dates of this final reporting period?
01/04/2014-31/03/2015
b. Please outline progress during this final period and any significant challenges (max 10 lines)
During this financial year the project continued to provide quality services to deafblind people in India,
through its partners in the eight states of western and southern India. With the support of partners the
project reached an additional 150 children aged 0-6 years (early intervention); 207 children aged 6-14
years (education) and; 102 adults aged 14 and above (vocational training). The project continued to
strengthen the capacity of the two RLCs and six SLCs by training 351 professionals during the year.
One of the major challenges which the project faced was the termination of NAB Karnataka as the
project partner due to serious management and administration issue and identification of a potential
partner in Karnataka as a replacement to it. However, Mathru Educational Trust for Blind was identified
as the partner in Karnataka (SLC Karnataka) and the intervention by them started by 18th August 2014
following DFIDs approval of the change. During this lag the service delivery was stopped in Karnataka.
c. Have there been any significant changes in relation to the following?
Mark Y or N
i.
Project design
ii. Partner(s)
iii. Context
iv. Availability of match-funding (where relevant)
d. Provide a brief explanation of what changed and why:
Already mentioned in 2.2 b.
RELEVANCE TO CONTEXT
Please explain what you did to ensure that the project interventions continued to respond to the
priorities and needs of the target population and any change in context. To what extent did your
GPAF project remain relevant in the context where you are working?
The project enabled deafblind children to access education with the help of trained special educators,
built capacity of deafblind adults to undertake economic activities and sensitised health workers about
the needs of deafblind people including screening for the early identification of deafblind babies. Overall,
the project activities developed an inclusive environment for deafblind/multi-sensory impaired (MSI)
people and their families. Baseline assessments conducted during the first and third year, through an
Organisational Capacity Index and Livelihoods Survey, helped ensure that the project remained relevant
in responding to the needs of deafblind people and assessing progress against logframe indicators.
2.3
The GPAF project remained relevant to the three MDGs it is focused on - 1 (poverty and hunger), 2
(education) and 4 (child mortality/health). These are key challenges facing deafblind people and their
families, which the project tried to address. This is in a context where despite significant progress
towards the MDGs and poverty reduction, marginalised people remain largely excluded from this
progress in India. Deafblind people, due to their multiple disabilities, are a particularly vulnerable group
facing additional barriers to realising their rights to education, health and employment. With the help of
this project the people facing isolation where brought to the mainstream through intervention in early
identification, education and Income Generation.
EQUITY (GENDER & DIVERSITY)
2.4
Did the project contribute to equity i.e. equitable poverty reduction and the empowerment of
men, women, girl and boys and relevant marginalised groups to participate in decisions that affect
them at the local and national level and start to equalise their life chances? (Mark with an X in
the appropriate box)
Yes
X
No
To some extent:
a. Please explain your response in the space below, including reference to the gender and other
power relations encountered by the project, and any socio-economic analysis undertaken:
The project focuses on one of the most marginalised groups in any society deafblind people and their
families. The expansion of services for deafblind people has led to greater recognition and inclusion of
this marginalised group, empowering them to access services that respond to their individual needs.
b. What has the project done to ensure that it was designed, implemented and monitored in such
a way that gender needs and issues were addressed or mainstreamed, and that it delivered
and tracked improvements in the lives of women and girls? What analytical tools did you use,
if any, to do this? (Please refer to the guidance referenced on page 4)
Gender analysis throughout this project period has confirmed the understanding that we already had.
First, women and girls with disability continue to be triply disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, their
disability and their poverty. Secondly, men and boys have a higher reported prevalence of disability.
Thirdly, women continue to be the main carers and decision-makers with respect to family members with
disabilities. This analysis continues to inform all programmatic decision-making with the aim of making
interventions as relevant and likely to lead to positive outcomes as possible. Furthermore, advocacy
initiatives and network development interventions continue to ensure that these factors are taken into
account, with gender and disability again being mainstreamed throughout the process. Each programme
activity addresses the need to both optimise the involvement of men and reduce the burden on women,
the main carers. In recognition that participation could increase the burden of work on women, male
relatives, especially fathers, have been encouraged to take key responsibilities and participate in the
advocacy and network meetings. The fathers of deafblind children are sensitised and encouraged to
provide support to their childs upbringing and education. Mainstreaming of this gender power analysis
allows us to fully understand how to involve men, women, boys and girls in decision-making processes
and increase the independent voice people with deafblindness have in their own decisions. Overall, the
project considered gender at all stages of the project cycle, from identification through implementation,
evaluation and learning (with the independent evaluation report confirming there was no discrimination).
c. What steps did the grant holder and implementing partner(s) take to support the principles of
equity, diversity and inclusion through:
i) organisational policies and practice, including the staffing profile of the project?
ii) promoting inclusion skills and competencies within the organisation?
Please respond particularly with reference to gender and disability.
Sense International and Sense International (India) follow policies to promote equality irrespective of
gender, colour, cast, creed and disability. We have policies to safeguard rights of women in the
organisation, and provide equal opportunities to grow in the employment. These policies are incorporated
within the project partnership agreements.
Staff members are trained on gender issues and a committee is formed to look into issues related to
sexual harassment in the work place. Among the staff members within SI and partner organisations,
there is representation of women at all levels of seniority. SI, SII and partner organisations follow policies
related to protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, protection of women staff from sexual
harassment, and promote equality. SII encouraged its women staff to undergo training on women safety
issues organised by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 7th October 2014.
The project staff at each partner comprised both male and female staff. Based on their qualification and
competencies they had their prescribed roles in the project. Opportunities were provided to deafblind
adults like Mr. Prabakaran (HCSS, RLC South) and Mr. Zamir Dhale (SII), to use their skills and
knowledge in creating awareness about deafblindness in society. There is representation also of persons
with disabilities among staff members within SII and partner organisations. Trainings and Workshops
were organised by SII and the other partner organisation to build the capacity of the project staff. Out of
the nine implementing agencies, there were six female project coordinators and three male project
coordinators. Children identified under the project receive equal attention and their unique needs are
addressed as per their individual capacities. Staff members at partner locations are trained in appropriate
sign language to communicate with persons who are deafblind without the need for interpreters.
KEY RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS FROM THE OUTSET OF THE PROJECT
2.5
Please provide a heading and summary of the three most significant project results or
achievements over the whole project period (up to 10 lines each). This section provides you with
an opportunity to tell the story of the projects success and what you are most proud of. Please
be as specific as possible in describing the target groups; how many citizens benefited
(men/women; girls/boys); and how they have benefitted. Make it clear where the results and
achievements were made in coalition or partnership with other, non-project actors. Where
possible please with particular reference to the objectives of the GPAF.
1. Early Intervention screening and identification (Output 2):
4,300 new-born infants (2,362 Males: 1,938 females) were screened using the OAE technique, during
the reporting period in eight partner locations. 316 children (190 males: 126 females) were enrolled into
the EI programme to receive services. Identifying children at a very young age enhances the scope of
improvement and also ensures access to disability entitlements. EI contributes to MDG 4: Reducing
Infant Mortality. While there are hospital based identification programmes for children with deafness and
blindness, these programmes missed out on identifying children with deafblindness. The project, for the
first time in these eight states, focused on early identification of children with deafblindness. Coupled with
this the project also raised awareness on Rubella Vaccination, as this is one of the most prominent
causes of avoidable deafblindness. With the advocacy efforts of SII and other partners, the Rubella
Vaccination is now included in Universal Immunisation Programme of Government of India.
2. Inclusion of deafblind children in primary education through Indias Education for All
programme (Output 3):
Through the Education for All (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) programme, 12,113 children (6,759 Males: 5,354
Females) with deafblindness are benefitting and included into the inclusive education programme. This
contributes to MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education for All. The inclusion of children with
deafblindness was not easy, as there was much resistance from the school system to allow children with
dual sensory loss to attend class. Initially they were apprehensive about the learning of these children.
However, due to the advocacy efforts of partner organisations, the government allowed children with
deafblindness to attend the school along with other children. SII is working to adapt the regular school
curriculum to ensure that children with deafblindness receive education when they attend the school.
3. Support young adults with deafblindness to set-up Income Generation Activities (Output 4):
Following vocational training, we piloted providing seed money to adults with deafblindness and their
families to set-up income generation activities. The support proved to be very beneficial for adults and
their families to engage in meaningful productive activities. The support for activities like setting-up a
grocery shop, goat and buffalo rearing, establishing cafes and other ventures were provided. At the end
of the project, 78 adults with deafblindness (46 male: 32 female) were benefiting from IGA. These adults
were provided training on keeping accounts of the expenditure, and depositing profits into their individual
bank accounts. The needs for IGA were expressed by young adults in various meetings, where they
spoke about employment and business opportunities. The activity contributed towards MDG 1: Eradicate
Extreme Hunger and Poverty, including young adults with deafblindness and their families in the process.
a. Please list key factors that contributed positively to your overall achievements
Working with the existing infrastructure of local partners, both at the RLCs and SLCs with their
experience working with deafblind people and other disabled people, has contributed positively to
project progress and been a key factor in exceeding many project targets to date.
Advocacy through networks and media coverage helped us to reach the decision-makers and ensure
they heard the often unheard voices of people with deafblindness
Support from local hospitals in early intervention screening and referrals of at-risk children to the
deafblind programme, has been integral to the success of the Early Intervention initiative.
b. List key challenges or factors which impacted negatively on progress and how they were
addressed
1. We had expected during the project period that the New Disability Bill would be passed by the
Government of India. However, we are still waiting for this to happen and it is currently before
Parliament. This Bill would have made it easier leverage support and resources for deafblind people as it
includes deafblindness as a category of disability. Nevertheless, we have worked successfully with
government bodies to do just that. We are continuing to advocate and are optimistic the New Disability
Act will enter into force in the near future.
2. Issues in the performance of one of the partners, NAB Karnataka. The partnership was terminated due
to the management crisis and administrative issues. The partner change was discussed with the Fund
Manager and approved by DFID in August 2014. The progress in Karnataka came to a standstill for few
months until the new partner Mathru Educational Trust for Blind was identified. The children who
received services from NAB Karnataka were then enrolled by Mathru into their programme, overall
reaching more deafblind children.
UNINTENDED (POSITIVE) OUTCOMES
2.6
Were any unintended outcomes that have been observed as a result of your project
implementation during the project period? Please list and explain below.
SII staff were invited to several national and international events. The has helped to raise the profile of
the project and support to deafblind people. For example, SII represented India for the first time at the
10th Helen Keller International Conference organised by the World Federation of Deafblind in the
Philippines from 7th-11th November 2013. SII were invited to become a member of this federation and
contribute further for the development of persons with deafblindness in India, an additional positive
outcome from the experience of the project (at no cost to the project budget).
10
UNINTENDED (NEGATIVE) CONSEQUENCES

Did project implementation lead to any unintended negative effects during the project period?
Please list and explain below.
We are unaware of any unintended negative outcomes of the project at this stage.
2.7
2.8
PROJECT LOGFRAME
a. On the basis of your project implementation experience, do you consider there to be any key
aspects of your project which have not been sufficiently captured in your project logframe (such
as hard-to-measure qualitative results)? (mark box):
Yes
No
x
If yes, please use the space below to explain.
b. Did any of the assumptions underpinning your logframe or wider theory of change come under
challenge? Please explain what happened and, broadly, the impact.
The assumptions in the logframe held true. However, there were some staff changes at partner level
meaning that not all staff trained could be retained in the programme. Staff that left were replaced and
their knowledge about deafblindness will potentially benefit more of the target group in different locations.
RISK MANAGEMENT & MITIGATION
2.9
With reference to the projects risk management matrix, please use the table below to describe
the main risks you faced during the project period and how you dealt with them.
Which risks materialized in the
project period?
Describe briefly.
Was the risk

anticipated? Yes
/ No / To some
extent
1. Fluctuations in exchange rate
Yes
2. Difficulty in recruiting or retaining

competent staff by partner
programmes
3. Change of partner at SLC
Karnataka
To some extent
No
What action did you take to

address the risk?
Briefly explain.
We monitored the exchange
rate each quarter. Following
exchange rate gains we
prepared a re-allocated
budget and presented to
Triple Line for approval
(October 2013).
More frequent monitoring and
capacity building for other
field staff.
We identified a new partner
and also included the
children already availing
services in the programme
with this new partner.
Was this
action
sufficient?
Yes / No /
To some
extent
Yes
To some
extent
Yes
SECTION 3: VALUE FOR MONEY (Up to 2 pages)

See introductory section on page 4 for guidance and resources on Value for Money
Economy: Buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price. What policies and
3.1
practices have been followed by the project to ensure that funds were used to purchase inputs
economically? What did the project do to drive down costs whilst maintaining the necessary
standards of quality? Include references to the use of any relevant unit cost benchmarks. (DFID
considers inputs to include staff, consultants, raw materials and capital to produce outputs.)
11
As per our financial policy we followed a procedure of securing 3 quotes for larger purchases or
contractual services. We assessed these based on appropriate criteria before selecting, to ensure that
we received the best value of goods/ service for the money. For example, where possible we negotiated
costs during the purchase of capital items. In choosing the evaluator for the final project evaluation, we
shortlisted based on set criteria from the Terms of Reference.
Efficiency: Converting inputs to outputs through project activities. What steps have you
3.2
taken during the project to ensure resources (inputs) were used efficiently to maximise the
results achieved, such as numbers reached or depth of engagement? Include references to the
use of any relevant cost comparisons (benchmarks) at the output level (e.g. standard training
cost per trainee) and any efficiencies gained from working in collaboration with others.
When working on programmes that focus on the needs persons with deafblindness it is important to
consider that the unit costs will be significantly higher than the majority of the non-disabled population,
due to their complex needs. In terms of the depth of engagement, it is important to note that we are not
just working with the individual person with deafblindness, but the whole cohort of people surrounding
them, including parents, teachers and siblings. This ensures that we are recognising diversity by looking
at the individual as a unique individual and responding to their specific needs. The costs per direct
beneficiary (i.e. those in EI (316), education (525) or vocational training (224) (Total= 1,065)) with a total
expenditure 671,139 (DFID plus match funding) for all 3 years, is 210 per year or 17.50 per month.
The costs per direct and indirect beneficiary (i.e. those persons with deafblindness and their family
members gaining access to education, early intervention, livelihoods services and advocacy efforts 13,178 persons with deafblindness and 39,534 family members, Total- 52,712), is a cost per beneficiary
of 4.24 per year or 35 pence per month. The reach to direct and indirect beneficiaries across 8 states of
India has been an efficient approach, representing significant impact and excellent value for money.
Effectiveness: Project outputs achieving the desired outcome on poverty reduction.
3.3
To what extent do you consider the project to have achieved the anticipated changes for
beneficiaries and target groups? How well did the outputs of the project work towards the
achievement of the outcome?
The project outputs provide value for money as they effectively targeted the off-track MDGs and focus on
a difficult to reach target group, largely excluded from MDG progress. For example, (Output 2) EI
screening helps to identify hearing and vision impairments at an early age so that deafblind infants can
be referred for support, contributing to efforts to reduce child mortality (MDG 4). Education access has
been provided for deafblind children (Output 3), contributing to education for all (MDG 2). Vocational
training and IGA support for deafblind adults (Output 4) is helping to reduce poverty (MDG 1). In working
towards the project outcome, 13,178 deafblind people and their families (39,534 family members) are
accessing education, early intervention or livelihood services and 516 deafblind people are accessing
poverty or disability benefits.
Have there been or do you anticipate multiplier effects from this project? Multiplier effects
3.4
include leveraging additional funds, longer term or larger scale implementation or replication of
approaches and results. Where additional project funds were secured, how were they used to
enhance delivery? In the PCR, we are particularly interested in assessing the potential and
likelihood of scale up or replication.
In July 2012, shortly after starting the DFID GPAF supported project in April 2012, we initiated an EU
EIDHR support project. These projects have complemented each other as the EU EIDHR objectives
focused on building the capacity of the networks of deafblind adults, their parents and teachers, including
the development of an advocacy toolkit. The model of RLCs and SLCs established in this DFID
supported project covering Western and Southern India has demonstrated the effectiveness of the model
which subject to securing new funding SII and partners plan to implement in Northern and Eastern India
(including some of the poorest States in the country, as well as less accessible mountain terrains). The
project has provided us with a good understanding of early screening and income generation activities.
SII will build on this experience to replicate the models in other states of the country.
12
SECTION 4: SUSTAINABILITY (Up to 1 page)

What have you done to ensure that project outcomes - positive changes to peoples lives - will
be sustained beyond the lifetime of the GPAF grant?
The partnership model ensures sustainability of project results, as local organisations have gained
expertise working with deafblind people and they can continue to provide appropriate services beyond
the project. The advocacy efforts with the networks and training of SSA teachers of the Education for All
Programme has helped strengthen the relationship with government and the inclusion of deafblindness
as one of the disability categories in new Disability Bill 2014. This is a major success and once the Bill is
approved it will be of great benefit for all persons with deafblindness across India. All the three networks
are advocacy related and serve as a measure of sustainability. The investments made in Human
resource development through the various regional, state and national trainings also are a key factor to
sustainability. The training has built the confidence of adults with deafblindness and has provided them
the skills to initiate their IGA, paving the way of sustainable livelihood for them and their family. The
increased capacity of families of deafblind persons means that their sons and daughters will continue
receiving services. The increased capacity of teachers of deafblind persons ensures that expertise to
support these children is available locally. Supporting other NGOs to understand deafblindness and
mainstream people with deafblindness into their programmes means deafblind persons have been
included into existing programmes of the partners (SLCs and RLCs) resulting in expanded services.
If the project has introduced new or improved services that need to continue beyond the life of
4.2
the grant, what have you done to ensure the sustainability of the services?
Programme or institutional sustainability: Much of the training and support provided has focused on
developing capacity to sustain the new initiatives. The RLCs will continue as regional hubs of expertise in
deafblindness and the SLCs are developing state level hubs of expertise, widening the institutional
capacity of support for deafblind people.
Financial sustainability: This is encouraged through SIs policy to support and strengthen local
fundraising. SII has developed a local fundraising strategy for local partner organisations within its own
fundraising team. Links with federal and state government have been strengthened through advocacy
meetings at state and national level, with a view to the SLCs eventually accessing state funding.
Which elements of the project rely on continued funding?
4.3
4.1
1. Human Resource development through trainings: In order to continue improving the quality of
service delivery, training of human resources involved is a must. These include workshops,
mentoring support and hands-on training through experienced professionals in the field, where these
experts spends 3-4 days with special educators to provide tailor maid on the job training.
2. Livelihood opportunities: After providing vocational training to young adults with deafblindness, SII
provided seed money (not currently available from other sources) to set-up IGA.
3. Educational Services: Providing educational services to children and young adults with
deafblindness requires travel to their homes (in home and community based programmes) and to
centre (in centre based programmes). This involves expenditure towards travel. Also, teachers use
different educational and sensory materials as well as assistive devices to maximise the learning.
Have you secured future funding?
Work in
4.4
Yes
No
x
progress
(check appropriate box)
What do you consider to be the main risks to sustainability beyond the end of the project?
4.5
How likely are these to occur and what would be their impact?
It is understood that the partners alone will have limited reach and sustainability. Through the project
outcomes concerted efforts have been made for inclusion of children with deafblindness in the Inclusive
Education component of the mainstream education system (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)) which serves
this group of children through a three-tier support system as in home based, day-care centre-based and
school-based education. However, SII has no control over quality of services provision and to monitor
the development and progress of the child. SII is helping SSA to adapt the curriculum to maximise the
learning, and monitor and evaluate this in a most communicative environment.
13
SECTION 5: PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO STAKEHOLDERS (Up to 1 page).

DFID is particularly interested in project mechanisms to enable project beneficiaries to provide feedback
to project managers, and project responses to it. The purpose of beneficiary feedback is to maintain
accountability to the people who the project is designed to assist or empower, and to ensure the
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the intervention. The questions below aim to enhance
understanding of the use of beneficiary feedback mechanisms within the GPAF portfolio.
Method: What feedback do you seek from primary beneficiaries, how have you collected this
5.1
information and when?
The project collected feedback from beneficiaries in answering the following questions (as 4 examples):
a. What is the need of the beneficiaries/ beneficiary group?
b. What has been the impact of the intervention?
c. How can we make improvement in interventions?
d. Have we achieved our objectives?
The feedback from the primary beneficiary i.e. deafblind people is collected with the help of the teachers
or their parents who participate along with them in the training programmes, network and advocacy
meetings. The teachers or the parents do the interpretation for the deafblind person during the training
and the events. Similarly the feedback is collected. The feedback was taken during each M&E visit by
the SII staff. Also the feedback about the overall programme was collected from them during the midterm as well as the end term evaluation of the project.
The project had an in-built mechanism to collect feedback from other stakeholders like Project Managers,
Special Educators, Mentors, Head of the Partner Organisations. SII organised bi-annual review meetings
of both RLCs, annual review meetings of RLCs, SLCs, mentors, and head of the organisations. These
provided us an opportunity to understand the needs at the grassroots level and different perspectives to
service delivery. Families, teachers and adults with deafblindness had an opportunity to meet each other
during the regional and national network meetings, expressing their needs.
Challenge:
5.2
a. What challenges did your project face in collecting feedback from its primary beneficiaries?
It was difficult to collect feedback from the primary beneficiary due to the communication barriers faced
when communicating with persons with deafblindness, although this was mitigated by facilitating
communication through involving parents or teachers. There is not just one type of communication
technique but persons with deafblindness can use a multitude of communication techniques, including
sign language, tactile sign language, gestures, palm writing or large print. As many of the beneficiaries
are children, often a parent will support the interpretation of what the deafblind child wants to say and this
can involve bias. The gaps in communication pose challenges to gather the information from both
children and adults with deafblindness directly.
b. What challenges did your project face in acting upon beneficiary feedback?
In the project design phase, the feedback from the adults with deafblindness provided us with an idea to
incorporate the component on vocational training and support to setup IGA. Though, providing vocational
training was not a challenge, preparing young adults with deafblindness to engage into income
generation activities was a challenge. It would not have been possible, if families were not involved in the
process. Young adults with deafblindness are also being trained to develop their communication skills,
and technology has played vital role in that. In India, there are communication devices available which
can be connected to computer and mobile phone, which converts the text into Braille. However, because
these devices are imported in India, the price is very high and less accessible to poor families. Though
we wanted to respond to these needs of young deafblind adults, we could not support this directly.
Nevertheless, considering the challenges the numbers of adults trained and households generating
income following this are encouraging.
Change: If you made any significant change to project design and / or delivery as a result of
5.3
beneficiary feedback, please describe it here.
There was not any significant change in the project design due to beneficiary feedback.
14
SECTION 6: LEARNING (Up to 2 pages)

Please identify the top 5 lessons you have learnt from this project, including from things which have not
gone well and innovative approaches. Be specific and clear in describing the lesson and in explaining
how you applied learning to improve project delivery or wider organisational practice.
Provide each area of learning with a descriptive title and an explanation. By way of illustration, these
could include:
innovation how could models tested by the project be replicated or scaled up?
equity and gender did you learn about approaches to reducing inequalities, working to challenge
power dynamics; participation in decision-making?
capacity building have you learnt how to enable civil society to address poverty or negotiate or
claim their rights? What worked well?
monitoring and evaluation what have you learned about measuring results, successful tools and
methods, demonstrating achievement?
empowerment and accountability what enhances these processes? how have you overcome
resistance or indifference?
design did original assumptions about what would work to deliver outputs or outcomes need to be
changed? How did you know? What did you do?
organisational constraints did you encounter difficulties due to organisational culture, practice or
capacity which you had to address?
Learning
(Provide both a title and an explanation)
1.
2.
3.
Innovation: Early screening focussed on

deafblindness was started with the help of
local hospitals which helped in the early
identification of at-risk new-born children with
dual sensory loss and timely intervention to
minimise the impact of sensory loss. This was
implemented for the first time in the country.
Through the programme it has become
apparent that working with children with
deafblindness that are 0-6 years old, requires
a particular set of skills and many of the
educators experienced challenges in adapting
their skill set to best benefit these children.
Equity and Gender: In order to reduce the
burden on the mother parents as they are the
main care givers, the project promoted
participation of fathers in the network and
advocacy meetings.
Capacity Building: Capacity building of

persons with deafblindness, their families,
teachers,
professionals
and
partner
organisations is key to developing sustainable
service provisions.
How did this lead to changes or improvements

in the way you (i.e. grant holder or partner)
have worked?
Early Identification initiated at all the 8 partner
locations leading to sensory screening of 4,300
children and 316 enrolments into services for those
identified with sensory impairments. Training was
provided to the medical and para-medical staff on
early identification, and training and mentoring was
provided to educators. However, it was identified
that more in-depth training needs to be provided.
This would support the educators on working with
this very young age group in order to understand
how best to stimulate their senses. This more in
depth training programme will be developed and
incorporated into future work.
This not only reduced the burden on mothers but
the active participation of the male parents brought
a boost to the advocacy programme and a broader
understanding of policies and benefits related to
deafblindness.
To
achieve
this,
partner
organisations organised male only network
meetings and they were given information about
disability and rights. The role of fathers in the
development of the child was also discussed.
SII adopted different strategies to build the
capacity of all the stakeholders in the project. We
had onsite as well as offsite training programmes
for all target groups, which focused on subject
issues, resource mobilisation, networking among
CSOs, forming familys group, etc. This helped us
in decentralising the service provision and
decision-making process.
15
Monitoring
and
Evaluation:
A
comprehensive monitoring and Evaluation
system was developed by SII to monitor the
project progress and the quality of services at
various partner locations. This not only
included quarterly receipt of narrative and
financial reports from the partners but also on
field monitoring of activities twice a year by SII
project and Finance Staff. Other than that
there were Organisational Capacity Index
(OCI) developed by SII specific to this project
which was used as tool to check the quality of
services delivered by the partners as well as a
the capacity of the organisation.
Livelihood support Whilst vocational
training was provided to a large number of
adults with deafblindness, it was determined
that not all those trained are ready to set-up
their own IGA. Where seed money to set-up
IGA to adults with deafblindness was provided
it was essential that this was accompanied by
business management skills.
This lead to improvement in services, increase in

identification and coverage of targets. The tool also
helped in assessing project staff and partner
organisations understanding of different policies.
The tool was implemented by SII staff during
monitoring visit, and data was collected in
consultation with project staff and partners
management team.
Where seed money was provided this created an

example in the community that young adults with
deafblindness can go through training and provide
income for the family, thereby an opportunity to
sensitize the community to reduce inequalities.
The approach was a morale booster for these
adults, who were just sitting idle at home and were
not able to contribute to family. The small amount
5
was helpful in their inclusion, whereas they were
otherwise living an isolated life. The project staff
built capacity of these adults with deafblindness to
implement IGA monitored the implementation of
the activity to ensure the benefit to deafblind
adults. They were trained to keep the records of
expenditure and income and manage their bank
accounts as part of the vocational training.
Are there any other lessons (up to 3) which you have learned that you think may be particularly
useful for other partners, grant holders, the fund manager or for DFID? Please describe them and
explain their wider relevance below.
Building capacity of partner CSOs: SII built capacity of partners to implement project activities as per
the localised needs and expertise. This helped us in decentralisation of expertise and decision-making.
Open market opportunities training and inclusion: Whilst it was beyond the scope of this project, it
was identified that it would be beneficial to develop a more structured programme that provided more
training for adults with deafblindness on local community open market opportunities (rather than in a
sheltered workshop set-up). For these opportunities, it would be important to set-up a
business/community liaison programme, to ensure that once a person with deafblindness has been
included as an employee in a local business, further communication support is given to the employer and
employees to ensure that the person with deafblindness does not become isolated in the workplace.
Advocacy and Training: The investment in advocacy and training plays a very important role, and the
impact is long lasting. We worked with the SSA programme in states, and it gave us very impressive
results and ensured that we were working with the government schemes. Also, the training of medical
and para-medical professionals helped us in identification of children at an early age. Even though the
funding is not ongoing, partner organisations will continue receiving referrals from SSA and medical/paramedical staff. Some examples of wider media coverage involved our partner BPA are included below:
Network meeting: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=67529&boxid=4369&ed_date=2015-0630&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=3
Deafblind girl on physiotherapy course: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Deaf-blindphysio-student-a-model-for-her-teachers/articleshow/47855768.cms
IGA support: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=67478&boxid=3654&ed_date=2015-0629&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5
16
SECTION 7: REQUIREMENTS OF GRANT ARRANGEMENT (Up to 1 page)

7.1 Responses to Due Diligence Recommendations
Please use the space below to comment on any actions taken during this final period in response to any
Due Diligence recommendations not implemented by the time of the last report.
The due diligence recommendations were all required within the first three months of the project and in
some cases before the start of the project. Accordingly all were responded to at the time, with details
provided in the Year 1 report. No further due diligence responses were required beyond this.
7.2 Use of DFID logo
Clause 58 of your original Grant Arrangement commits you, unless agreed otherwise, to explicitly
acknowledge DFID's support through use of DFID's UK Aid logo in all communications with the public or
third parties about your project. Please outline the ways in which you have done this during the reporting
period.
DFIDs support has been acknowledged throughout the project duration on the SI and SI India websites.
Within the project, we printed posters on Child and Vulnerable Adult Protection Policy to be displayed by
partner organisations. In year two, a media campaign was run to increase awareness on deafblindness.
This campaign was inclusive of information being spread through print and electronic media. RLCs also
produced six types of information materials with the support of DFID, acknowledging the UKAid support.
Towards the end of the project, 2 short movies/documentaries, one by SII and one by SLC Kerala were
made on Inclusive Education and Employment respectively these will be available shortly.
17
SECTION 8: EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Up to 2 pages)

8.1
Please enter key conclusions / recommendations from the Independent Final Evaluation report
and the project management responses
Evaluation Conclusions/ Recommendations

1. Training
It is recommended that more intense training on
technical skills be given at regular intervals to
ensure that parents are able to increase their
knowledge.
Your response
Special educators also need to be trained in the

modules suggested below:
a. understanding emotional and social needs/
coping skills for parents
b. parenting skills
c. counselling skills and helping parents cope
d. defining deafblindness, its causes and
ramifications, technical skills of maintaining
progress records for IEPs
e. developing parent /professional partnerships
It is recommended that a variety of different models
be developed, for example conducting a continuum
of training sessions for a couple of hours every
evening, spread over a week, or weekend classes
etc.
2. The Role of Families
It is recommended that parent leaders be
developed from all strata of society represented.
Each partner should work towards having an
active parent group who will be given appropriate
training to equip them with the skills needed to
advocate for the rights of their children and act as
pressure groups for change
3. Role of Mentors and Senior Technical
Professionals within SI(I)
It is recommended that SI(I) strengthen its
mentorship programme, by organising refresher
training for the mentors themselves, to ensure their
knowledge is up to date and they all speak the
same language
SII is working on a module to provide

training on deafblindness to family
members. The module will be finalised by
November 2015.
Based on the recommendations from the
evaluator, a training in the month of August
2015 and February 2016 is planned to
address the gap areas.
SII is also conceptualising online course
on deafblindness to provide continuous
training to professionals associated with
disability rehabilitation.
SII has developed local family network at all

partner locations, and representation have
been given to all families without any
discrimination. Total 13 such networks have
been developed.
SII organises training programme for all its

mentors and senior professionals in the
field to help them update their knowledge
and skills. These training are organised on
annual basis.
SII has plan to recruit more persons in its
training team to respond to the needs of
partner organisations.
It is recommended that SI(I) strengthen its training

unit by developing and including within it a core
group of technical trainers, including special
educators trained in DB, physiotherapists and
counsellors. This will ensure that the standard of
training being provided by the technical team
remains of excellent standard
18
4. Role of RLC and SLC

It is recommended that SI(I) work out clear roles
and responsibilities for RLCs and SLCs and their
own role in this. A meeting could be held to
disperse the findings in this evaluation, and the
issue of roles and responsibilities addressed and
clarified.
5. Early Intervention Services
It is recommended that SI(I) ensure that early
intervention services are included in the services
being provided by its partners. The skills of
teachers to work with infants in early stimulation
needs to be developed on a priority basis.
It is recommended that SI(I) develops some
system of referral for deaf babies. Partners should
be encouraged to either link up with other services,
if they are available, or increase the scope of their
own early intervention centers to include these
children, by training their own staff.
6. Vocational training and income generation
It is recommended that vocational training and
income generation schemes include a component
on accounting, advertising and marketing to ensure
the programme is successful.
To address this, a review meeting will be

held in the month of August, 2015.
A training programme is planned in the

month of August to address the needs of
special educators.
SII will explore possibility to partner with
national organisations like Vaani to refer
deaf babies identified through screening
programme.
SII will work on developing guidelines for

vocational training programmes to address
the suggestion given by evaluator.
It is recommended that staff who are responsible

for these projects within partner organisations be
given additional training.
8.2 Please use the space below for any further comments on the Independent Final Evaluation (IFE)
report, or the IFE process.
The evaluation was conducted by Ms. Brinda Crishna, who has vast experience of developing and
monitoring programmes for persons with multiple disabilities and hearing impairment. The evaluation
process was participatory, and different stakeholders were consulted to get their feedback. The evaluator
also visited centre based programmes and home based programmes to evaluate the quality of service
deliver as well as to observe capacity of families to follow on the recommendations. The evaluator also
visited hospitals where early screening programmes are being implemented and observed the way new
born babies were handled. Some of the evaluators visits were accompanied by SI and SII staff members.
Overall, we found the evaluation process very useful and satisfactory. The evaluation has provided some
excellent recommendations that we will respond to in our ongoing work.
19
ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING GUIDANCE

Please read the instructions on this page carefully and complete all sections
Before working on this section, please complete the relevant indicator achieved
boxes on your Reporting Logframe (which should be based on the most recently
approved version of your logframe).
SCORING
ANNEX A asks you to score performance against your Outcome and Outputs making a
judgement based on the actual achievements compared to expected results as indicated in
the logframe targets. Use the five-point scoring system below to rate your achievement of
results.
Score
A++
A+
A
B
C
Description of Score
Output/outcome substantially exceeded expectation
Output/outcome moderately exceeded expectation
Output/outcome met expectation
Output/outcome moderately did not meet expectation
Output/outcome substantially did not meet expectation
REPORTING PERFORMANCE
Complete what has been achieved under each outcome and output indicator in your
logframe
Within this section of the document (Annex A), provide an overall score against the
outcome and each output.
Provide an explanation for each outcome and output score describing the progress,
or the barriers to progress, made against the outcome or output indicators in the
reporting year. Do not simply describe activities.
Back up statements of progress/achievements with references to evidence that can

be checked if necessary. Be as specific as possible, avoiding general references
like project monitoring records. Examples could include field training reports
and attendance records completed at the end of each wave of training, sample
survey of heads of household in two villages from each of the project locations,
February 2015, local district exam results, verified through teacher focus groups,
July 2014. Cross refer to section A7 to avoid repetition as necessary.
Comment on the strength of evidence provided. Consider for example: how well
samples represent the reference population; the extent to which the measure reflects
the specific contribution of this project; triangulation of data; absence of bias; and the
balance between qualitative and quantitative data. See BOND Quality of Evidence
Guidelines
Be sure to complete the final section (A.7) on methodological tools.
20
BENEFICIARY DATA
Annex A also asks you to disaggregate beneficiary data at the Outcome level. It is this
data, consolidated in Annex B, which DFID uses to assess the numbers of people
benefitting from GPAF projects.
DFID is also interested in finding out about the number of people engaged by the project
at Output level, and the nature of their engagement. The delivery of the outputs is
considered as the means of achieving the desired changes to the lives of the beneficiaries
identified at the outcome level. Although many of those engaged at output level will
experience positive changes (e.g. to skills, awareness or improved capacity), for the
purposes of this GPAF progress reporting, they are not defined as beneficiaries.
21
ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING

(Up to 12 pages).
OUTCOME
A.0.1 Outcome: write in full your project outcome statement in the box below
Deafblind people and family members benefit from expanded services and recognition in eight states of
the Western and Southern regions of India
A.0.2 Outcome Score: Please provide an overall outcome score (A++ to C)
A+
Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against all
outcome indicator targets in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.
The proposed target for the three years has been met and in most indicators the project has exceeded
expectations and substantially exceeded expectations in some indicators.
A.0.4 For each of the indicators:
a) write the outcome indicator in full, as included in the most recently approved logframe;
b) state the target and report against it; and
c) provide a narrative explanation of any over or under achievement.
Indicator 1: No. of deafblind people and family members gaining access to education, early
intervention, livelihood services and advocacy efforts in the target areas (disaggregated by gender).
Milestone: 10,000 Db people (M=5,300; F=4,700), 30,000 family members
Achieved: 13,178 deafblind people (M=7,414; F= 5,764), 39,534 family members.
A.0.3
Progress: During the three years of the project SII worked in the collaboration with the CSO partners in
eight states and provided services to 316 children aged 0-6 years, 525 children aged 6-14 and, 224
adult deafblind above 14 years of age. Hence, a total of 1,065 children and adults have benefitted
through direct services of the partners. Through the inclusive education programme (Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan (SSA)), we reached 12,113 children with deafblindness. Thus reaching out to 39,534 families
based on the average family size of 3 members in each family.
In order to provide quality services to deafblind children various training programmes were organised for
special educators and teachers, medical and para medical professional and project management staff.
925 teachers and professional were trained through various National and Regional Training on
deafblindness organised by SI (India) and the RLCs (South and West). These trainings were designed
based on the needs of teachers and professionals in order to address the challenges faced by them
while working with deafblind children. To increase the awareness on deafblindness and to reach out to
maximum deafblind children, 504 Medical and Para medical professionals were trained leading to an
increase in referrals from medical professionals and support with need assessments and certification.
In addition, various capacity building trainings were organised to support the project management staff
at partner locations to implement the project activities effectively and efficiently. A total of 225 partner
staff were trained on various aspects of reporting, project management, monitoring, fund raising etc.
This led to improvement in quality of service delivery. The networks of parents, teachers and adults
were also helping in improving their organisational capacity in order to support each other.
Progress for this indicator is measured using data on the number of children under Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan (SSA) continuing to receive education. As per the data released by the Govt. of India, there are
12,113 children with deafblindness are included in the inclusive education programme in these eight
states and one union territory. We are currently awaiting updated data.
Indicator 2: No. of deafblind people accessing poverty and disability benefit from state and national
government (Segregated by Gender)
Milestone: 1000
Achieved: 516 (from sample respondents) estimated 831 in total.
Progress: A livelihood survey was conducted in January 2015 by Sense International India in order to
determine the number of deafblind persons and their families accessing benefits from government
schemes, thereby identifying the current status. The questions were related to their income, rural/urban
22
status, work, home, disability certificates, enrolment under various government schemes and other
aspects to provide information on poverty and access to disability benefits. Whilst 1065 were requested
to complete the survey, we received the responses from families of 662 clients. From the 662 clients
60% were male and 40% were female. In the parents occupation, 37% were involved in daily labour
work, 42% in service (salary) and 21% parents have their own business or self-employed. The majority
of deafblind people (84%) live in a nuclear family and 50% come from urban areas where basic facility
like transportation and rehabilitation centres are available, while 50% are from rural areas. The Disability
certificate is a document to avail government benefits in India and 78% of respondents have a disability
certificate, 32% receive disability pensions (from Rs. 150 to Rs. 500) (approx. 1.50- 5.10) from the
government; 41% receive bus and train concessions; 8% receive government scholarship; 9% receive
benefits from ADIP scheme; 21% receive benefits under Niramaya Health Scheme; 8% get benefits
under Antodaya Anna Yojana; 10% of the households of the beneficiaries are registered under
MNREGA; 5% persons with disability are registered under MNREGA and 3% of beneficiaries benefitted
under other government schemes. 63% of deafblind people have Below Poverty Line (BPL) cards.
From 662 deafblind people (from families who responded), 516 (78%) deafblind people have a disability
certificate and are accessing benefits and 271 beneficiaries receive more than one government benefit.
The process for enrolling all the deafblind people into the various government schemes was undertaken
during the project and it still continues specifically for the children and adults identified during year 3,
quarter 3 and 4 that are yet to be issued disability certificate. It is important to note that there are
systematic issues related to issuing of disability certificate. In most areas it is government hospitals that
issues certificates on weekly basis, and there is a requirement for three doctors to be present to sign the
certificate. It often happens that one or other doctor do not turn-up on that particular day, resulting into
delay in certification. Once they have their disability certificate we expect all to be in receipt of
government benefits. If the percentage of people receiving benefits (78%) amongst those who
responded is representative of all those that we directly benefited from the programme (1065 people)
this would suggest that 831 are receiving benefits, which is closer to our milestone target of 1000.
A.0.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens benefitting from this outcome. Describe briefly who
they were and how they benefitted . Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.
How many of
Change/improve
the total given
Brief
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
ment
Total
are people with
description
Male
Female
Male
Female
(e.g. income
disabilities (if
(e.g. farmers)
increased)
known)?
Deafblind
Receiving direct
0
0
190
126
316
316
children (aged services
0-6)
Deafblind
Direct service at
0
0
317
208
525
525
children (aged partner
6-14)
organisations
Deafblind
Receiving
148
76
0
0
224
224
young adults
vocational & life
skill training
Teachers and
Improved
Data not
professionals
understanding of
420
505
0
0
925
available
trained
deafblindness &
teaching skills
MI and PM
Informed about
staff receiving
needs of
Data not
158
346
0
0
504
training in
deafblind,
available
screening.
screening and
referral services
Project
Increased
Data not
139
86
0
0
225
Management
capacity to report
available
Staff
on project
23
activities &
support
programme staff
Deafblind
Getting education
Children in
in mainstream
0
0
6759
5354
12113 12113
SSA
schools along
with non-disabled
children.
A.0.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its
strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on Annex A on how to complete the section
effectively.
SII receives progress reports from all eight partners on a quarterly basis, in addition to training reports
received from the partners. The format for the quarterly narrative report was developed by SII and
circulated among the partners. The reports received from the partners were very comprehensive and
covered both qualitative and quantitative aspects. The reports were supported by photographs,
quotations, stories of change and financial statement, which were further verified by visits to the
programme by programme management team. In addition to that as and when the need was felt
necessary changes were done in the narrative report format in order to receive more intensive and
detail information on the project progress. In addition to that during the field visits, SII technical staff
have face to face interaction with the stake holders /service users to collect feedback on quality of
service as well as any change they would like to propose to improve it. Mentoring visits were organised
for the State learning centres during the project period in which expert recommendations were provided
by the mentors for each child in the programme. The mentors submitted their reports giving an overall
picture of the project progress in terms of quality and quantity. To review the project progress and take
its feedback, Annual review meeting of SLCs and bi-annual review meeting with RLCs were organised
every year during the project period. In the beginning of the project, a baseline data was collected, and
the same was compared on annual basis. This data was collected by partner staff and by SII staff
directly. For training programmes, a pre and post-test questionnaire was conducted to measure the
impact of the training.
OUTPUT 1
A.1.1 Output 1 Write in full
Capacity of two RLCs strengthened and six SLCs established to deliver early intervention, education
and vocational training services for deafblind people.
A.1.2 Output 1 score (A++ to C)
A+
Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output
indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.
A variety of different training methods were used to ensure that partner staff meets the needs of
deafblind children and families. There has been a cumulative increase from the original target in the
total number of partner staff reached through training. The milestones of both indicators have exceeded
justifying the score with more number of partner staff receiving training in deafblindness than planned.
In addition, the number of parents who have received support also exceeds the original target.
A.1.4 For each of the indicators (add extra rows if required):
a) write the indicator in full, as included in the most recently approved logframe;
Indicator 1.1: No. of partner's staff (special educators, teachers, community based rehabilitation
workers, professionals) received basic introduction training on deafblindness from RLCs and SLCs.
Milestone: 810 (F=485; M=325)
Target Achieved: 925 (F=505; M=420).
Progress: The collaborative approach was adopted by SII to build the capacity of its partners during the
three years project period. 458 special educators and field workers were trained through Regional
A.1.3
24
Training on Deafblindness conducted by RLC South and RLC West. 237 special educators, CBR
workers and professional were training through National Training on Deafblindness by SII whereas
Regional Training on capacity building and National Training on Capacity Building trained around 225
project management staff. Mentoring support was provided by 5 mentors to the SLCs. The technical
support provided through the training programmes helped special educators and field workers to
improve the skills in identification of deafblind children, their assessment, and providing need based
services at various settings like home, centre and CBR. They also received advanced level training in
communication, addressing sensory issues, orientation and mobility and supporting children in inclusive
education programmes. These trainings not only helped in building the capacity of the special educators
but ensured the quality services based on individual needs of deafblind children and adults. There were
also awareness visits which were organised to ensure that partner organisations could learn from each
other. In the previous two years of the project the SLCs used to visit their respective RLCs but in the last
year of the project SLCs were exposed to other SLCs in order to explore the innovative methods,
techniques and approached adopted by the other SLC and learn from them. This provided a new
dimension with regard to the services rendered and methodologies adopted by each of the SLCs in
sustaining the programme. The partner staff were supported with further knowledge and skills related to
teaching techniques and communication skills for working with deafblind children.
Indicator 1.2: % change in organisational capacity of eight partners to deliver services to deafblind
people.
Milestone: 80% increase
Achievement: 90% increase
Progress: SII with support of SI UK has developed an Organisational Capacity Index. The index has a
variety of components including: Financial Accountability, M&E and Reporting, Staff performance and
commitment, Quality of services, and organisational structure. The review of the partners showed 90%
increase in organisational capacity. Along with the OCI this result was ensured through the M&E visits,
feedback from the various stakeholders, partners quarterly narrative and financial reports etc. The
problem with the Karnataka state partner (NAB) was resolved by replacing it with a new partner, Mathru
Educational Trust for Blind. In spite of the change in partner in Karnataka state, the programme was
able to ensure the continuation of services to all the beneficiaries from the previous partner.
Indicator 1.3: No. of family member care givers trained on supporting deafblind family member
Milestone : 1000
Target Achieved: 2834 families and caregivers trained
Progress: The target achieved exceeds what was planned. The RLCs and SLCs worked closely with
families of persons deafblindness to build their capacity since these people are vital in providing support
to their deafblind family member. The training were provided by the partner organisations through one to
one meeting, network meetings and focussed on communication methods, mobility techniques, sign
language, teaching basic life skills, and therapy. The impact is seen in all the programmes where many
of the parents are taking initiative in identifying children as well as providing hands on support. The
training has also resulted into family members supporting adults with deafblindness to undertake IGA
and become an active member of society. During the project period, an adult with deafblindness got
married, and the family needed support to understand the dynamics of new relationship and shared
responsibility. SII team along with local partner successfully supported family as per their needs.
A.1.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output. Describe briefly who they
were and how they were engaged. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.
How many of
the total given
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Brief
Nature of
Total
are people with
Male
Female
Male
Female
description
engagement
disabilities (if
known)?
Partner staff:
Regional training
special
on deafblindness
181
277
0
0
458
educators,
teachers, CBR
workers, NGO
25
professionals
Partner staff:
National Training
special
on deafblindness
educators,
99
138
0
0
237
teachers, CBR
workers, NGO
professionals
Partner staff:
Regional training
special
on capacity
educators,
building issues
81
47
0
0
128
teachers, CBR
workers, NGO
professionals
National training
Partner staff:
special
on capacity
educators,
building issues
58
39
0
0
97
teachers, CBR
workers, NGO
professionals
Partner staff:
National
Mentoring
special
educators,
Programme
1
4
0
0
5
teachers, CBR
workers, NGO
professionals
effectively.
Capacity building initiatives like workshops and trainings at State, Regional and National Level are
evaluated using pre/post-tests. The pre-post result analysis of the different training in the year shows a
marked increase from 31% to 75% in post-test results which clearly indicates evidence of learning and
increase in knowledge in the field of deafblindness. Mentors and SII staff conduct a needs assessment
through a simple checklist before visiting the partner organisations so that they can target their visits
and provide appropriate support. Also at each of the training events attendance sheets were completed
by partners organisations and submitted to SII in their reports.
Output 2
A.2.1 Output 2 Write in full:
Early intervention (EI) established to screen new born and infants in 8 hospitals and provide services for
250 deafblind children (0-6 years)
A+
The target for the number of health professionals who received training and conducted screening
exceeded the milestone for this year which is extremely positive. Also the number of children now
accessing services at partner organisations through early intervention is 316 which also exceeded the
milestone. This justifies the score as the main expectations were met.
Indicator 2.1: No. of health professionals (medical (Ml)/para-medical (PM)) conducting screening and
A.2.3
26
reporting data.
Milestone: MI 75; PM 125
Target Achieved: A total of 504 MI and PM (158 Male, 346 Female) have received training through this
project
Progress: During the project period a total of 18 state level training for deafblindness for medical and
paramedical professionals were conducted, six trainings every year by each SLCs with the support of
SII. These trainings covered 504 medical and para medical professionals in three years of the project.
The participants were trained on Deafblindness, Early identification, Screening and Functional
Assessment of deafblind children. These trainings not only helped in creating awareness on
deafblindness amongst the medical professionals but also received their support in identification of
deafblind children at an early age leading to timely intervention to minimise the impact of dual sensory
loss. These trainings were also helpful in gaining the support of these professionals helping parents in
provision of disability certificates and need assessment.
Indicator 2.2: No. of children screened in 0-6 year age group (disaggregated by gender).
Milestone: 250(M=156;F=94)
Target Achieved: 316 (M=190; F=126)
Progress: During the project, a total of 4300 children (M 2362 and F 1938) were screened in all the
eight partner locations in collaboration of the local hospitals and referred to early intervention centres.
The early intervention screening and identification started in SLC Madhya Pradesh, SLC Goa, SLC
Karnataka and SLC Andhra Pradesh in the third year of the project. In SLC Kerala, SLC Nashik, RLC
South and West, all the new born children were screened whereas in the remaining partner locations
only at risk children were screened. There was a delay in starting the EI screening in SLC Madhya
Pradesh due to technical issues, whereas Mathru Education Trust for the Blind (SLC Karnataka) being
the new partner replacing NAB Karnataka started the Early Intervention screening in collaboration of
Narayan Nethralaya, Bengaluru from November 2014. SLC Goa initiated the Early Intervention
screening from October 2014 in collaboration with state medical hospital. From these identification
programme, 316 (190 Male, 126 Female) children have been identified and included into the
programme. The number includes those referred through screening as well as through other referrals.
The services under EI included sensory stimulation, nutritional support and communication training.
There were issues related to follow up in certain cases as in India there is a tradition of expecting the
mother to go to their maternal house for delivery and after that they come back to their in-laws home. In
such cases it was difficult for the partner to track them and enrol. Moreover, working with very young
babies with sensory impairments needs certain skills for their effective development, and as such there
is a need for trainings that will emphasise on how to assess the needs of young children of (0-6 years)
, identifying priorities and goals and how to and teach particular skills.
How many of
the total given
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Brief
Nature of
Total
are people with
Male
Female
Male
Female
description
engagement
disabilities (if
known)?
MI and PM
State level
staff receiving
training on
158
346
0
0
504
training in
deafblindness
screening.
Children aged Receiving direct
0
0
190
126
316
0-6, included
services
in EI.
Children aged Referred by
0-6 identified
hospitals
0
0
0
0
538
as at risk
during
screening
27
Children aged Screening of

0-6 screened
children
0
0
2362
1938
4300
screening at EI
centres
effectively.
RLCs and SLCs partnered with local hospitals to screen new born babies to identify possible sensory
impairment by using the OAE tool. The hospital provided data of at-risk children to project staff, so that
they can contact families. Project staff further assessed the at-risk children to assess if support is
required. If so, these children are then enrolled into partners EI services. The process is documented,
and data is recorded at each of the project locations. Moreover, the partners also share the data related
to EI in the quarterly narrative reports which includes information on number of children screened
through OAE, number of children identified at risk from screening, number of children referred to EI
programme, number of children who require further assessment and number of children referred to
other NGOs. Hence, every quarter detailed information on early intervention was provided by partners
through narrative reports and was verified through the M&E visits and onsite visits by the SII team.
Output 3
A.3.1 Output 3
Deafblind children aged (6-14) receive quality education
A.3.2
Output 3 score (A++ to C)
A+
The targets for different activities under this objective have been achieved. The trainings on
deafblindness have been achieved four times more than the planned. The RLCs, SLCs and SII used
every opportunity to spread the information on deafblindness, so that more and more persons with
deafblindness can be reached. There are more numbers of children under inclusive education set-up
than planned. The awareness and training programme targeting SSA has shown its impact in the form
of numbers of children included in mainstream education plan. Direct reach by RLCs and SLCs are
slightly less than the planned, however, there are more number of children (0 -6 years) and young
adults (14 years and above) being supported under the programme.
Indicator 3.1: Number of partners' staff (special educators, teachers, community based rehabilitation
workers, professionals) and SSA teachers trained in advanced teaching techniques of deafblind children
by SI(I)
Milestone March 2015: 420 (male 170, female 250)
Target Achieved: 1646 (M=626; F= 1020)
Progress: At the end of the project period 1646 professionals, special educators, CBR workers and
SSA teachers were trained through various trainings organised on deafblindness by both RLCs and
SLCs. The trainings were organised on deafblindness, syndromes related to deafblindness,
assessments, IEP preparations, identification of children with deafblindness, understanding the needs of
the children with deafblindness, inclusive education etc. There was a concerted effort to increase the
number of teachers trained and this has borne excellent results, especially with the SSA. These
trainings helped in providing quality services to deafblind children aged 6-14 years and led to their
inclusion in the mainstream schools.
Indicator 3.2: Net enrolment of deafblind children in primary education (disaggregated by gender).
Milestone March 2015: 9625 (male 5100, female 5425)
Target Achieved: 12,638 (M= 7,076,F=5,562) (Direct 525 (M=317,F=208; Indirect 12,113 (M=6,759,
A.3.3
28
F=5,354)
Progress: SII along with the RLCs, SLCs and SSA provided need based training to a total of 525
(Male=317, Female=208) children aged 6-14 years old with the help of available resources. The RLCs
and SLCs provided minimum 6 hours of services every week to children enrolled with them in home
based, centre based and CBR provisions. These children underwent clinical and functional assessment
at our partner locations, were provided with aids and appliances based on their requirements and
nutritional support along with the capacity building training as per their IEP. Under SSA, the deafblind
children identified were enrolled in regular schools and provided services through special educators
appointed at district and block level. Master trainers at regional level in the country in collaboration of SII
imparted trainings at district and block level. But the number of SSA teachers trained in deafblindness
was still not sufficient to provide required services. Continuous lobbying was done by SII and its partner
organisations for enrolment of deafblind and multi-sensory impaired children in regular school. As a
result through SSA 12,113 (M=6759, F=5354) deafblind children 6-14 years of age were enrolled into
mainstream schools. Hence the total number of children which received primary education under 6-14
years age group 12,638 (M-7076, F-5562).
Indicator 3.3: Percentage of trained teachers demonstrating increased knowledge and skills on
teaching deafblind children.
Milestone March 2015: 90%
Target Achieved: 90% of participants showed increased knowledge and skills
Progress: The training by RLCs and SLCs for the NGO professionals, special educators, CGR workers
and SSA teachers on deafblindness were evaluated by a pre/post-test based on the content of the
training. The analysis of the feedback and pre/post-test showed that the majority of the participants
demonstrated a better understanding of deafblindness, and had acquired additional knowledge.
How many of
the total given
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Brief
Nature of
Total
are people with
Male
Female
Male
Female
description
engagement
disabilities (if
known)?
Deafblind
Direct service at
0
0
317
208
525
children aged - partner
14
organisations
Special
Attended
educators,
trainings and
NGO
events on
626
1020
0
0
1646
professionals,
deafblindness
CBR workers
& SSA
teachers
Deafblind
Reached through
0
0
6759
5354 12113
children aged
SSA
6-14
effectively.
The quarterly narrative reports received from the partners was the major source of data collection on the
project activities and an important tool to track the progress of the project. The comprehensive format of
the narrative report contained information related to the numbers of children identified under various age
groups, type of services received by them, assessment, number of teachers and professionals trained,
number of family members trained, number of children receiving aids and appliances etc. Also the
various trainings and events organised by SII were also documented in the form of reports containing
photographs and attendance sheet giving the list of participants. For children under SSA (Inclusive
Education), we depend on the data produced by the government.
29
Output 4
A.4.1 Output 4
125 deafblind young adults (14+ years) receive vocational training, with 40 generating income.
A.4.2
Output 4 score (A++ to C)
A+
The activities have exceeded milestone in all of the output indicators. The project gained more impetus
and visibility in this three years duration and as a result the enrolment of deafblind and MSI children in
the RLCs and SLC increased. As a result the project could reach out to more beneficiaries than
originally anticipated.
Indicator 4.1: Number of deafblind young adults receiving vocational training (disaggregated by
gender).
Milestone March 2015: 125(M=66;F=59)
Target achieved: 224 (M=148,F=76)
Progress: 4 vocational training centres were set up under the project with RLC south and West and
SLC Maharashtra and SLC Andhra Pradesh for providing vocational trainings to the young adults with
deafblindness above 14 years of age. In addition to that the other SLCs also initiated the vocational
training activities looking at the enrolment of adult deafblind into the programme. Hence, the vocational
training activities were started by all the eight partners, four without any financial support from the
project supporting a total of 224 (M=148, F=76) persons with deafblindness. The vocational trainings
were planned by the partner organisations based on the local needs and employability opportunities.
Also the skills were taught keeping in mind the practical challenges of each adult deafblind. Each
partner organisation adopted different approaches related to vocational training. However, the major
skill development by partners included trainings on paper bowl and paper plate making, imitation
/artificial jewellery making, tie and dye, envelopes making, Diya (oil lamp) making/painting, Diya (oil
lamp) packing, Rakhi (sacred thread) making and packing, book binding, incense stick making, phenyl
making, chalk making, lamp threads, grocery shopping, decoration, home care work, coir making,
candle making, cooking, baking, lamination, basket making and also canteen management (not all the
partner did all the trainings).The partners also tried to make the adult deafblind more independent active
members of the society in course of making them vocationally skilled.
Indicator 4.2: Number of deafblind young adult households generating income (disaggregated by
gender).
Milestone March 2015: 40
Target achieved: 78 (M=46;F=32)
Progress: During the project period 78 adult deafblind individuals started their own income generation
activity with the support of the partner organisation and their family members. SII supported 38 young
adult deafblind persons to set-up their own income generation activities by providing them financial
support in the form of seed money. The support provided was based on the recommendations sent by
the partner organisations. In the second year of the project 13 individuals were supported whereas in
the third year of the project 25 adult deafblind were supported. The IGA initiated by the adult deafblind
include cattle rearing, milk and fodder selling, grocery shop, automatic flour machine, petty shop, Chow
Mein food stall (Chinese food), coffee making vendor, goat farm, scientific massage centre, decorative
paper bag making and tie and dye shop, paper bowl and plate making, incense stick making etc. The
financial support provided ranged from Rs.13000-20,000 (GBP 135 208) depending upon the
business plan submitted by the partner organisation for each adult deafblind individual. A baseline
survey was done on the IGA initiated by the adult deafblind with the financial support in the second year
of the project. The analysis showed that the income generation activity helped in increasing the annual
A.4.3
30
family income. Income earned by the adult deafblind ranges from Rs. 500-4000 (GBP 5 42). Though
the amount is small but this has enhanced tremendous confidence amongst the deafblind adults and
their family members.
Indicator 4.3: Number of deafblind young adult households receive business/IGA advice.
Milestone March 2015: 125(M= 66; F=59)
Target achieved: 224 (M=148; F= 76)
Progress: 224 deafblind persons (148 male, 76 female) received counselling support on IGA and being
self- dependent. They were also provided with business advice along with the vocational trainings.
There were also instances in which the parents and the adult deafblind clients were given one to one
suggestions related to the business opportunities available in their local areas by the partners. Further
livelihood surveys were conducted in all the three years in order to study the situation of income plans of
the families of the deafblind children and adults. As mentioned above in the A 0.4 around 37% of the
beneficiaries parents are involved in labour work whereas 21% are self-employed and 50% of the
population who responded lives in rural areas. As far as the annual income is concerned for these
respondents 59% of the families have income less than Rs.75000 (GBP 781). In comparing the trend
from the surveys of last two years it shows that there has been some increase in the income of the
beneficiaries household due to the IGA initiated by the adult deafblind individuals. Business advice/
counselling has been very helpful for the 78 beneficiaries and their families in initiating the IGA.
How many of
the total given
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Brief
Nature of
Total
are people with
Male
Female
Male
Female
description
engagement
disabilities (if
known)?
Deafblind
Receiving
young adults
vocational & life
148
76
0
0
224
skill training from
8 partners.
Deafblind
Engaged with
46
32
0
0
78
young adults
IGA
strength Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.
Evidence included the quarterly reports provided by RLCs and SLCs which includes data on the number
of young adults receiving vocational training which is the source of information for data for the number
of young persons with deafblindness engaged in vocational training and also involved in IGA. In addition
to that the baseline format for IGA and the livelihood survey were also important tools to serve as
evidence for the output.
Output 5
A.5.1 Output Write in full
State level networks of deafblind people, their families & teachers established, representing 484,000
deafblind people in India in advocacy & policy influence
A+
This score demonstrates that in all of the indicators for this output, the planned milestones have
exceeded for the project. This includes additional local regional meetings, additional state level
meetings and a higher percentage increase in the membership of networks. All of these successes
demonstrate an increased ability than originally anticipated in the project targets to advocate for the
rights of deafblind people and exert influence over the policy and practice of the Government of India.
A.5.3
31
Indicator 5.1: Number of local, national and regional networks meetings.
Milestone March 2015: 3 national, 6 regional, 18 local
Target achieved: 3 national, 6 regional, 28 local
Progress: SII in association with the 2 RLCs and 6 SLCs continued to actively work with families and
teachers of deafblind people to develop their networks. 3 National, 6 Regional and 28 Local network
meetings were conducted during the project period. Local network meetings were organised to
strengthen the local parents groups by bringing them together and empower them as a group. Through
these meetings members were encouraged to self-advocate and influence the local authorities. The
following partners have their registered parents network; RLC West and South, SLC Maharashtra and
SLC Andhra Pradesh. SLC Goa and Kerala have informal parent groups which needs to be registered
and in SLC Karnataka regrouping of parents group is being taken place due to change of partner. These
meetings provided a common platform to all the members in the network to come together and discuss
their strategies in term of rights of deafblind people. They were provided information on the right based
approach for Deafblind Advocacy by SII and the partner organisations. In three years 1154 (Male=505,
Female= 649) parents, teachers and adult deafblind participated in the various network meetings
organised at national, regional and local level. It has been observed that parents have become very
active and their participation in the network meetings has increased. There has been a change in their
thought process and have started believing in the rights based approach. It was also seen that the
involvement of the parent groups and individuals increased in the state advocacy meetings and they
were confident in presenting their challenges, issues and demands to government officials. These
meetings played a significant role in empowering the networks.
Indicator 5.2: Number of meetings held to influence Government of India policies to incorporate
deafblindness.
Milestone March 2015: 6 central government level, 24 state level
Target achieved: 7 central,24 state level meetings
Progress: During the three years of the project period 7 central and 24 state level meetings on
Advocacy were conducted by SII and the other partner organisations. A total 909 participants (M: 685 &
F:224) comprising of parents, NGO staff members, representatives from Government of India, medical
professionals etc. participated in the state level meetings. The advocacy team at SII participated in the
various committees and meetings organised by the Government of India and one of the key areas of
advocacy during the first year of the project was the discussions about the Bill on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities. The Government introduced this Bill in Parliament and SII conducted a series of
meetings with Government representatives to ensure that deafblindness as a specific disability was
included in the Bill. The standing committee created for the Bill has also suggested the inclusion of
deafblindness in the Bill and we hope this will soon be approved by parliament. In addition, it was the
efforts of advocacy team of SII that Rubella Vaccination was included in the National Immunisation
Programme of India. Finally, as a result of the state advocacy meeting in Maharashtra in 2014 the State
Ministry of Health circulated a circular with the provision of multiple disabilities (to include
deaflblindness) in the disability certificate and the same was received by 60 children in NAB Nashik.
Indicator 5.3: Percentage change in membership of parents, teacher and deafblind persons networks.
Milestone March 2014: 60% increase
Target achieved: 45%
Abhi Prena (Teachers Network) 3 Years: 565 from 389 (45%); Annual: 565 from 504 (12%)
Prayass (Family Network) 3 Years: 920 from 636 (45%); Annual: 920 from 820 (12%)
Udaan (Adult Db Network) 3 Years: 130 from 88 (48%); Annual: 130 from 115 (13%)
Progress: There has been an increase in membership of the three networks, however, missing the total
target to increase the membership to 60%. The membership to the network is voluntary, and families,
teachers and adult with deafblindness has an option to participate in the networks activities without
formally joining the network. Hence, whilst it seems that we have missed the target; there are many
other families, teachers and adults with deafblindness acting as part of the network, but not formally
registered with the network. The network has shown the enhanced capacity to advocate for deafblind
32
rights and influence government policies. Local networks are also empowered and strengthened as
local advocacy groups. All network meetings are followed by state advocacy meetings, which ensure
participation of local network members thereby building their capacity to influence local authorities.
How many of
the total given
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Brief
Nature of
Total
are people with
Male
Female
Male
Female
description
engagement
disabilities (if
known)?
Additional new Members of
members of
teacher networks
25
36
61
network this
project year
Additional new Members of
members of
families networks
69
31
100
network this
project year
Additional new Members of adult
members of
deafblind network
12
3
15
network this
project year
Teachers,
Participants in
deafblind
network meetings
adults &
505
649
1154
parents
attending
meetings
Parents, NGO Participants in
staff, Govt. of
advocacy
685
224
909
India reps,
meetings
medical
professionals
effectively.
For each of the meetings held during this project year, meeting agendas, minutes and reports were
prepared which provided the progress of the list provided above. Also as mentioned earlier the partners
also provided information on the network and advocacy meetings in the quarterly narrative reports. In
addition where possible, SII staff have monitored and attended these meetings themselves to provide
support to partner staff to ensure that the documentation is accurate and information is recorded
properly.
33
A.7 Methodological Tools

The table below should be used to provide the details of the specific tools that you or your implementing
partner uses to measure project indicators, particularly any bespoke tools you have developed for
yourself but also details of any industry standard tools you have used. Please include sufficient
information to describe the methods and to enable the reader to understand how the data was derived.
There is an example of a response to this section of the report in the FAQ guidance. Add more rows if
needed.
Method
Purpose of Tool
Summary of methodology
Organisational Capacity To measure the organisational This tool was developed to measure
Index (OCI)
capacity in terms of the project capacity of partner organisations in
implementation and sustainability.
terms of their management system,
human resources available, quality
of service delivery, adherence of
policies specified under the project,
financial management and resource
mobilisation. The tool first collected
the base line information in year one,
and then was implemented in year 2
and 3 to collect information and
ascertain progress.
Questionnaire
To assess the quality of services The scoring questionnaire was
delivered
developed to monitor the quality of
service provision, like, frequency of
assessment,
IEP
development,
family training, etc.
Pre-Post tests
To assess the increase in knowledge Based on the agenda and concept
and skills through the trainings note of the training, pre-post-test
imparted
questionnaire was developed and
administered.
Livelihood Survey
Survey on the livelihood situation of The project specific survey was
the beneficiaries and their families to developed to collect information
track the intervention area and also to about government benefits being
check the progress.
accessed by children and adults with
deafblindness,
their
household
income, living standard etc. This
survey was conducted on annual
basis.
34
ANNEX B: CONSOLIDATED BENEFICIARY DATA
(Up to 2 pages)
You will need to use the beneficiary figures for the outcome level in Annex A to arrive at a consolidated
total number of people benefitting.
If the same beneficiaries are represented in more than one of the outcome indicators and have therefore
benefitted in more than one way, please ensure you do not double count them when calculating the
consolidated total. (See FAQs for further guidance.)
B.1
CONSOLIDATED BENEFICIARY TABLE

Gender Disaggregated Data
OVERALL
TOTAL
Adult Male
(18 years +)
Adult Female
(18 years +)
Child Male
(under 18
years)
Child Female
(under 18
years)
i) Consolidated total number of

project beneficiaries achieved in
this reporting year
2,615
790 ( new)
984( new)
507(new)
334(new)
ii) Consolidated total number of

project beneficiaries achieved by
the project as a whole
4,536
1,177
387 from
year 2
1,600
616 from
year 2
703
196 from
year 2
456
122 from
year 2
a. Please explain how you arrived at the figures given in row (ii) beneficiaries reached by the project
with reference to the figures reported in the outcome section of Annex A.0.5
The figures arrived are based on the quarterly reports sent by the 8 partners with respect to the activities
conducted in the year. The number of beneficiaries continuing to receive education, early intervention,
livelihood services and advocacy is taken as the overall indicator of the progress seen with the
cumulative increase in the number of beneficiaries. It is evident from the various case studies of
beneficiaries from the 2 RLCS and 6 SLCs, that family members and deafblind persons have become
economically independent and also supporting the families. The most important impact indicator of
reaching this figure has been the trainings to teachers and Health professionals which have helped in
identifying and reaching out to the needs of the target population
b. Provide a clear summary description of all your outcome level beneficiaries (e.g., people living with
HIV/AIDS; disabled children; soapstone workers; child labourers) and how each group benefitted.
The outcome level Indicator 1 beneficiaries are the No. of deafblind people and family members gaining
access to education, early intervention, livelihood services and advocacy efforts in the target areas
(disaggregated by gender). The consolidated reach of the programme is 13,178 (M=7414; F=5764)
deafblind people against the project target of 10,000. 39,534 family members received some kind of
support and got sensitised about the needs of their children and siblings with deafblindness.
The outcome level Indicator 2 beneficiaries are the No. of deafblind people accessing poverty and
disability benefits offered by state and national governments (disaggregated by gender). At the end of
Year 3, 516 deafblind people have access to poverty and disability benefits, and 271 have access to
more than one government benefits.
DIRECT BENEFICIARIES
Deafblind people: 224 young adults (M=148, F=76); 525 children between 6 14 years (M=317,
F=208) and 316 young children between 0 6 years (M=190, F=126) receiving vocational training,
education services and early intervention services from partner organisations. Total 1,065 (M=655,
F=410)
35
Teachers/ education professionals/ other professionals (project management staff) trained: 907
(M=401, F=506).
Health professionals trained (medical/para-medical) 504 (M=158, F=346).
Partner staff, special educators, CBR workers, NGO professionals - 139 (M=83, F=56)
INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES
Family members 3,195 (1065 x 3) considering 4 as an average family size, 3 other people in each
family have benefited indirectly from their deafblind family members receiving services.
Estimated deafblind population - 500,000 - over time, the project and particularly the awareness-raising
on deafblindness and influencing government policy (output 5) has the potential to positively impact the
estimated population of deafblind people in India.
c. Indicate or estimate the percentage or number of disabled beneficiaries reached in the box below.
100% of children and young adults are people with disability.
B.2
DATA COLLECTION AND DISAGGREGATION
a. What challenges and difficulties, if any, did the project encounter in collecting and reporting
i) exact beneficiary numbers
ii) disaggregated data (including particularly by disability)?
We had to depend on the partners for the number of beneficiary reached as it was not viable to visit all
beneficiaries. Errors made by partners in age wise segregation was also a difficult task as many times it
lead to double counting, however this was resolved through discussion with the partners.
b. Did you disaggregate your data collection any further to better understand your beneficiaries?
Examples might include extreme poor, widows, orphaned children, older men and women, ethnic
groups, socio-economic status).
Yes, the partner reporting forms included had disaggregate of data information not only for gender but
also in all aspects of activities like socio economic status, inclusion in mainstream schools, livelihood
opportunities, screening of children etc.
c. How did the collection and analysis of disaggregated data (including by gender and disability)
influence project design, approach, delivery or learning?
The collection and analysis of disaggregated data has allowed the project to monitor that it is meeting its
targets equitably. Although there was no gender based discrimination by the projects, the key learnings
from the data collections show that the male female ratio is in favour of male. This is seen consistently in
the areas of identification, as well as in trainings. In terms of identification further surveying needs to
made, to make sure female persons with deafblindness are not being overlooked or hidden away by
families. However, in India there is a M:F ratio of approximately 60:40 so we would expect to see this
reflected to some extent in our data.
36
ANNEX C: PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS (Up to 3 pages)

DFID captures and compare performance and results across the whole GPAF portfolio based on the
information provided in project reports. Please answer each of the following questions.
C1
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDGs)
Which of the Millennium Development Goals has
Please indicate
your project contributed to directly? Choose up
their order of
to 3
importance for the
project (1/2/3):
MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty
1
MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
2
MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower
Women
MDG 4: Reduce Child Mortality
3
MDG 5: Improve Maternal Health
MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other
Diseases
MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for
Development
How much does the project

contribute to the selected
MDGs? (sum of entries
should = 100%).
70%
20%
%
10%
%
%
%
%
C.2
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
What is the main methodological approach being used by the project to bring about the
changes envisaged? Please select up to three factors and prioritise them as 1, 2 and 3 (with 1
being of highest significance).
a. Rights awareness
e.g. making rights holders more aware of their rights so that they can
claim rights from duty bearers
b. Advocacy
2
e.g. advocating publicly for changes in policy and/or practice on specific
targeted issues
c. Modelling
e.g. demonstrating best practice / approaches / behaviours which can be
1
adopted or replicated by others to bring wider improvements in policy or
practice
d. Policy engagement
e.g. building relationships with decision-makers behind the scenes,
3
pragmatic collaboration on policy development to achieve incremental
improvements
e. Service provision in collaboration with government
e.g. working with government to enhance the services already provided
f.
Service provision in parallel to government

e.g. providing an alternative service
g. Monitoring of government policy

e.g. monitoring budget-making or enforcement of rights
If you are using other methodological approaches please note in the box below.
37
C.3
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
CAPACITY BUILDING
Whose capacity (in the main) has been built through the project? Select a maximum of 3.
(Mark with an X in the appropriate boxes)
X
End-beneficiaries (poor and vulnerable groups)
Local leaders / change agents
Local community-based organisations
X
Civil society organisations / networks
Local government
National government
X
Local implementing partner(s)
Trade unions
Private sector organisations
Other (Please name below)
C.4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
a. How would you describe the projects environmental impact? (Mark with an X as appropriate)
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Provide a brief justification for your choice of ranking: The nature of the project activities did not involve
any negative or positive environmental impact, thus we consider this to be neutral.
b. Describe actions the project took to reduce negative environmental impact (use bullet points)
Due to the nature of the project, and the partnership model where we are aiming to provide services and
develop expertise on a local level, there are no negative environmental impacts. However, where
possible we have tried to minimise our environmental impact by;
Use of train travel where possible rather than flights.
Training on a State level where possible to minimise lengthy travel to 1 national by large numbers
of people.
c. Describe any activities taken by the project to build climate change resilience (use bullet points)
None, as this was not applicable in this project.
38

DFID GPAF IMP 009 PCR Final Narrative Report 30-06-15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DFID GPAF IMP 009 PCR Final Narrative Report 30-06-15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Poverty Action Fund

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT 2015

Narrative Report (this document)

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

Section and Title

Basic project data

Value for Money

Progress towards ensuring sustainability

Project mechanisms to gather beneficiary

A narrative summary of project progress

Lessons from project implementation for

Project Documents (attachments)

Please label this document: GPAF (ref. no.) PCR

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

Supporting statement for

It is very important to note that:

Final claim or statement of The appropriate template will be sent separately

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

through tangible changes to poor peoples lives including through:

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

GPAF PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

Project Start & End Dates

Location within countries

1.10 Total project budget

Total 205,257 (N.B. 2% underspend as per financial report)

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

Otoacoustic Emission (Hearing Screening Device)

Organisational Capacity Index

Regional Learning Centre

State Learning Centre

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

Integrated Educational Resource Teacher

National Association of the Blind

Kottayam Social Service Society

Holy Cross Service Society

Millennium Development Goals

Sense International India

Individual Education Plan

Civil Society Organisation

Scheme of Assistance to Disable Persons for purchase/ fitting of Aids/Appliances

Below Poverty Line

Monitoring and Evaluation

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

SECTION 2: SUMMARY, PROGRESS AND RESULTS (Up to 6 pages)

Already mentioned in 2.2 b.

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

UNINTENDED (NEGATIVE) CONSEQUENCES

Was the risk

1. Fluctuations in exchange rate

2. Difficulty in recruiting or retaining

What action did you take to

SECTION 3: VALUE FOR MONEY (Up to 2 pages)

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

SECTION 4: SUSTAINABILITY (Up to 1 page)

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

SECTION 5: PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO STAKEHOLDERS (Up to 1 page).

GPAF Project Completion Report Template 2015

SECTION 6: LEARNING (Up to 2 pages)

Innovation: Early screening focussed on