There were also problems in establishing a “control” group by comparing areas with HSI to those
without it, due to “ethical issues about repeatedly surveying a zone but not working in it,” (Becker et
al., 2011, p. 153). As such, the M&E team turned primarily to expert knowledge and focus groups in
order to assess local stakeholder perceptions of progress. This proved useful, especially with key
groups such as women, youth at risk, and gang members. Since the bulk of data was perception-based
and could not be aggregated into a number, these various types of data were used to triangulate trends.
In the end, Logos Technologies completed a trend analysis of conflict drivers and institutional
performance, methodologies, and sectors over three phases of assessment. In the first two phases, the
data showed improvement, but towards the end it took a downward turn – which may have been
influenced by environmental factors such as the earthquake. It was difficult to know at what point
“stability” was reached. A representative of Logos Technologies affirms that, “Looking back over the
data, we were more successful at pushing down the drivers of conflict than we were at pushing up the
strength of the institutions” (Becker et al., 2011, p. 155). Yet the collection of data still proved useful.
Due in part to the depth of data for the HSI program from this evaluation, the program was later
funded to work in another section of the city.
Recommendation.
1. Incorporate M&E from the very beginning of an intervention. Do not wait several months before
conducting initial baseline surveys. Utilize the MPICE (or another metrics framework) as a starting
point for conversations within the various agencies involved in a project, in order to get everyone on
the same page for goals. Make sure to include local partners and advisors in this process.
“Most importantly, a good monitoring and evaluation plan, in highlighting the theory of change
in core assumptions in the stabilization program, can serve to concentrate the focus of many
different organizations, clarify the strategy, set objectives, and guide tactics. This is valuable
even before the evaluation results are in” (Becker et al., 2011, p. 158).
2. Tailor indicators and data collection methods to the local environment. Include locals through the
use of participatory methods as much as possible.
3. Designate adequate funds/resources of a project/program budget to M&E (4-6% of project budget
is recommended). This investment will pay off in time; reliable data showing good results from the
project increases the likelihood of future funding to continue the project.
Implications.
If M&E is not incorporated from the beginning of projects, it will be more difficult to measure
progress accurately. The contracting and deployment of the M&E team for HSI took a long time and
did not happen at the beginning, which affected the M&E results. If data collection methods are
tailored to the local environment, including locals through participatory methodologies, then data
collected will be more nuanced and useful, and local people will have more of a say and a stake in the
process. With more of a voice, locals will feel their dignity honored, which may positively impact the
relationship of locals to the program.
Table of Contents | Quick Look | Contact PKSOI
23