Home : Reports and Publications : Audit & Evaluation : Evaluation of the WCBSN – Sept 2004
4.0 Conclusions
This section outlines the key conclusions of the evaluation with respect to relevance, WCBSN relationships, success, performance monitoring and cost effectiveness. The next section (5.0) presents the recommendations.
Relevance and Potential Duplication
The majority of WD key informants indicated that the WCBSN has potential value with respect to reducing duplication, sharing information and providing opportunities for partnership. Most stakeholder key informants and focus group participants were sufficiently unaware of the concept of WCBSN to comment on its relevance. Some community representatives indicated that the network had was a mechanism for sharing information particularly with respect to training and best practices.
The majority of WD key informants and some stakeholders agreed that there was some overlap between members of the network with respect to business planning, training and loan services. However, while two-thirds of WD key informants agreed that there was some duplication, they also said that this overlap is not problematic and ensures a better reach to clients. Just under half of survey respondents agreed that CFDCs, WEIs, CBSCs and FEDOs worked cooperatively to minimize any duplication between them.
Relationships With Other Network Members and WD
Many WD key informants cite some recent improvements in relations among network members in terms of increased cooperation and lessening of tensions. Some WD and stakeholder key informants indicate that WCBSN cannot be characterized as a network as there are few formal linkages across the organizations. The relationship, according to WD and stakeholder key informants, can vary by network organization, locality and region. The relationships and linkages among like member organizations are cited to be stronger and more cohesive (e.g. CF network) as compared to the WCBSN.
While many stakeholder key informants and focus group participants had little awareness of the WCBSN concept, the majority of survey respondents reported regular exchanges with other network partners. Sixty-nine (69) per cent of survey respondents agreed that the network members regularly exchanged information. Sixty-one (61) per cent of survey respondents stated that the network members regularly referred clients to each other.
Other key findings include:
- Some community representatives expressed the need for increased awareness as to role of network members particularly FEDOs and WEI organizations (i.e. mandate, products, services, locality).
- WEIs have a good relationship with CBSCs and FEDOs and some CFDCs. There are some examples of partnerships with WEI and CFDCs in rural areas.
- The strength of the relationships between network members and FEDOs varied somewhat, depending on various factors such as location, region and organizational management style.
- Challenges to strengthening the WCBSN include the need to maintain local responsiveness, the need for network members to operate within a number of networks, geographic distances and lack of awareness with respect to WCBSN.
- The majority of key informants and survey respondents agree that there is an ongoing need for the Pan West CF Association.
- Many WD and community representatives note that the partnering arrangement between WD and the network members is appropriate. Some concerns were expressed with respect to the lack of clarity with respect to WD's role, the need for consistent WD support for the WCBSN and the need for enhanced communication from WD.
- A major source of dissatisfaction for survey respondents relates to financial support with only 21 per cent agreeing that WD funding met the basic operational needs of their organizations.
Success
There were mixed opinions as to the network's success. A number of key informants indicated that the network, particularly the meetings, had some impacts, mostly with respect to improved information exchange. Some key informants state that the Pan
West All Partners Meetings have helped to lessen tension among the groups, thereby setting the stage for strengthened relationships. WD and stakeholder key informants also cited a number of collaboration examples.
Performance Monitoring
Many WD and community representatives felt that the reporting process needs to be streamlined. The need to collect more follow-up and results-based information was frequently cited. Many WD and community representatives, however, recognized the challenges in collecting follow-up information.
Other concerns cited by key informants include:
- Community representatives expressed concerns that the reporting process "did not accurately capture their work." Sixty-four (64) per cent of survey respondents agree that the quarterly reports reflect the achievements of their organizations.
- Concerns were also raised with respect to consistency of reports. Community representatives indicate that there needs to be clearer guidelines as to what types of information to include in the reports.
Cost Effectiveness
WD key informants agree that community-based organizations such as CFDCs are cost effective given their use of volunteers and because they are uniquely placed to respond to local needs. Many key informants also noted that the FEDOs and WEI organizations provide better reach.