Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning A brief Introduction Time to reflect and discuss some key concepts M&E FUNDAMENTALS
What is this presentation about? • 1 M, E, M&E • 2 PM&E • 3 PM&EL
Information for Who, for What? • Important to ask such questions to understand what is going on.
Discuss Discuss the elements of this matrix in your groups. Think about current reality. Roles in M&E Use of Information – how? Donors Policy-Makers Planners Managers Field-Workers “Beneficiaries”
Monitoring Evaluation
Convergence Consider the meaning of terms like; “Impact Monitoring” and “Formative (ongoing) Evaluation”
1. Understanding the situation/ identification Where are 8. Impact lessons Assessment 2. Design Summative Evaluation Learned & applied? 7. Terminal 3. Appraisal and Approval Evaluation 5. Mid-Term Live Evaluation Project 6. Reviews
THE RESULTS CHAIN
The results chain Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact Implementation Results
Inputs The resources used in an intervention: People Money, materials, infrastructure, equipment Intangibles - know-how, ideas, reputation
Activities/processes What the intervention does to turn inputs into outputs Activities/ Inputs Outputs processes
Outputs The products and services delivered by the intervention to its direct targeted people or institutions The “edge of your intervention”
Outcomes Shorter-term changes - to which the intervention has contributed to a substantial extent. The ‘use’ of outputs by primary stakeholders.
Outcomes Often at two or three levels Long-term Outcome Intermediate outcome Immediate/short-term outcome
Impact Longer-term, wider, more profound changes to which the intervention has contributed to some extent. In a ‘Development Project/programme’, the impact must contribute significantly to long-term improvement in the lives of disadvantaged people. Often equated with Ultimate Outcome, Goal, Development Outcome
Construct a results chain for this training programme, writing each individual result on a separate strip of paper Impact ? Intermediate outcome ? Short-term outcome ? Outputs ? Activities ? Inputs People, materials, infrastructure, intellectual property, reputation, money
A results chain for a training programme
A brief history of PM&E • WHOSE REALITY COUNTS? 30 years of participatory research traditions, including participatory action research (PAR), participatory learning and action (including Participatory Rural Appraisal or PRA), and farming systems research (FSR) or farming participatory research (FPR) • WHO COUNTS REALITY? By the 1980s, concepts of participatory monitoring and evaluation had already entered the policy making domain of larger donor agencies and development organisations, (FAO, USAID, DANIDA, DFID, SIDA, NORAD,World Bank). • Communities and community-based organisations have long been monitoring and evaluating their work (without labelling it as such), developing their own procedures for recording and analysing information, and using that information for making decisions. Adapted from Estrella and Gaventa 2003
Why of PM&E? Behaviour The engagement of all Attitude stakeholders • Ownership, effectiveness and sustainability Methods Sharing • Saving the planet from people • Saving the planet for people • Saving the planet with people
Participatory Methodologies: Principles and values Ownership and control Respecting local knowledge and wisdom; individuals have control over data collection, analysis and use. Inclusion and representation Making sure that the most vulnerable groups and marginalised are Empowerment included in knowledge Creating a space where individuals are able to generation articulate and reflect on their own perspectives around livelihoods and development Robert Chambers
� Conventional� M&E� Participatory� M&E� External experts � Community members, project staff, facilitator � Who� What� Predetermined indicators of success People identify their own indicators of success, principally cost and production which may principally cost and production outputs include production outputs � outputs � Focus on ’s cientific objectivit y’; How� Self-evaluation; simple methods adapted to local distancing evaluators from other culture; open, immediate sharing of results participants; complex procedures; through local involvement in evaluation processes delayed, limited access to results � � Methods� Survey, questionnaire, semi- Range of methods such as Participatory Learning structured interviewing, focus group and Action, Appreciative Inquiry, and testimonials discussions When� Usually upon completion of More frequent, small-scale evaluations � project/programme; sometimes also mid-term � Why� Donor Accountability, usually To empower local people to initiate, control and summative, take corrective action to determine if funding continues Capacity building, increasing ownership over � results, and multi-stakeholder accountability � � Coupal 2001 and Narayan 2002
Source: Civicus: Turning PrinciplEs Into Action
Balance Accuracy vs Legitimacy Photo
What all this means in practice? • Accepting that circumstances and factors surrounding complex social interventions and projects, such as the BBNPP, tend to be dynamic and emergent, require a major focus on learning . We understand PMEL as the reflection-action Learning processes happening during and after any social intervention aimed to maximize contribution to transformative changes including implementing organisations’ changes.
• From a learning perspective to MEL, participation of different stakeholders is not just considered a “good practice” but constitutes a core, pragmatic principle to inform processes of organisational learning and decision-making . Since knowledge is to be created by actors on the ground, programmes need to be informed by stakeholders’ interpretation and participation in makings sense of their experiences.
• Very expert based and extractive evaluative processes and can hinder long term and locally led transformative processes (Whitty, 2013; Eyben, 2013; Shutt, 2009). On the other hand, the excessive emphasis on upward accountability (or accountability to donors) makes programmes focus on attribution to change rather than contribution to change. Thus, this emphasis provides simplistic and idealistic pictures of the reality that programmes aim to influence.
What was our level of listening?
• • • • • Issues raised A B C D E F G H I Count Rank A A A A D A A A H A 6 2= B C B E B G H B B 3 5 C C C E C G H C 4 4 D E F G H D D 2 6 E E E H E E 6 2= F F G H I 1 7= G H G G 5 3 H H H 8 1 I I 1 7=
Issue Wins Rank Issues (Score) Scoring 1 st Health sector not addressed by the project 8 2 nd Pressure to include candidates of UP. 7 3 rd Limited selection targets create tension among 6 excluded poor* 4 th = Sudden directives from PMU with inadequate 4 preparation time 4 th = Villager ’ s unfair criticism of CDOs to visiting 4 management 4 th = Split allocation of assets limits investment 4 5 th Elderly beneficiaries are difficult to engage 2 Religious opposition to working with women 1 6 th 7 th Personal health risks working in the Chars 0
• In one group, address the following question; – “ What are the main challenges of M&E in practice”? • Allow anyone to voice an issue – Record agreed captions for each issue on flipchart – Letter … A, B, C … etc sequentially • When discussion cools and main points are made, call a halt. • Use the grid to compare issues systematically, and vote on the most important in each pair. • Record ‘wins’ on the grid.
TIMELINE AS A TOOL
Most Significant Change
Most Significant Change An empowering method for participatory monitoring and evaluation A learning and change oriented approach that allows us to know about our contribution to change Based mainly on qualitative and emergent (not pre-determined) change indicators
The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is participatory because many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analysing the data. It is a form of monitoring because it occurs throughout the program cycle and provides information to help people manage the program. It contributes to evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the performance of the program as a whole.
Recommend
More recommend
