Why participatory community monitoring and evaluation?
Participatory community monitoring and evaluation are extremely important for learning about the achievement/deviation from original concerns and problems faced by local development projects/programmes being implemented, so that corrective measures can be taken in time.
Evaluation is often carried out by donor agencies or policy makers and helps in assessing whether the project has brought benefits to those for whom it was intended. An evaluator is expected to examine:
Monitoring ensures that i) inputs are ready in time; ii) works plans are followed closely; iii) adjustments can be made and corrective action taken as and when necessary; iv) people who need to know are kept informed; v) constraints and bottlenecks are found; and vi) resources are used efficiently.
Aim of participatory monitoring and evaluation (pme)
Participatory monitoring involves local beneficiaries in measuring, recording, collecting, processing and communicating information to assist local development project extension workers and local group members in decision-making.
Participatory evaluation assists in adjusting and redefining objectives, reorganizing institutional arrangements or re-allocating resources as necessary. Monitoring and evaluation system (MES) allows continuous surveillance in order to assess the local development projects impact on intended beneficiaries.
Involving local people in project evaluation is one of the learning objectives of participatory management. Apart from projects impact on the life of the people, it is also worthwhile to evaluate: i) attitudinal changes in the local community about their role and sense of responsibility; ii) if people have gained confidence in their ability to undertake new activities; and iii) lessons about peoples capacity, extent of participation and community responsibilities.
It provides an opportunity to the project implementation committee to assess deficiencies in the project design - if objectives and work plan were realistic, if local funding was adequate and whether project actually owned by the people. Answers to these questions indicate future precautions and modifications in the method and approach. This in itself is an achievement in capacity building at the local level.
Role of community extension workers
Box 11.1 PME should be: 1. Demonstrative, not instructive in writing |
Steps in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME)
Step I |
Understanding goal/objectives of local development project/programme. |
|
|
Step II |
Identifying activities to achieve objectives. |
|
|
Step III |
Identifying measurements to assess results or show extent of progress achieved. |
|
|
Step IV |
Developing measurement indicators. |
|
|
Step V |
Identifying methods and techniques of collecting information. |
|
|
Step VI |
Selecting formats/visual tools for presenting information |
Step I Goal: sustainable increase in productivity of sub-watershed within local community
Objectives
Step II
Activities
Step III
Assessment measures
Step IV
Developing measurement indicators
Step V
Identifying methods of collecting information
At community level
Tools
Remember to collect data in
Step VI
Selecting formats/visual tools for presenting information
Table 11.1 Measurement Indicators
Indicators of organizational strength |
Indicators of group participation |
Indicators for gender issues (women in development) |
Indicators for environmental issues |
Number of villagers who know or who have heard about organization or groups |
Number of groups or rural organizations |
Funds allocated for women in development activities |
Degree of rehabilitation of degraded areas |
Frequency of attendance of participants in the meeting |
Socio-economic composition of groups |
Womens share in benefit |
Community forests protected, managed and utilized |
Number of meetings held each month |
Number of person/days of labour contributed |
Womens participation in decision making |
Forest area increased |
- |
Material and money contributed by group |
Women trained in various activities |
Bio-diversity increased and protected |
- |
Joint funds collected from local sources and used for maintenance work |
Change in time spent by women in domestic and farm activities |
Landslide, soil erosion and floods decreased |
- |
Participation of farmers |
Change in womens income, expenditure and savings |
Water-source increased and protected |
- |
Capacity to maintain local facilities |
Position of women in different states |
Decrease in incidence of environment-related diseases/disasters |
Source: Conservation extension manual for mid-level technician/s, Local Development Training Academy, Kathmandu, Nepal.