Monitoring & Evaluation in NIE
description
Transcript of Monitoring & Evaluation in NIE
Apr 21, 2023 1
Monitoring & Evaluation in NIE Module 20
Apr 21, 2023 2
Learning objectives
• Be familiar with the basic concepts and main characteristics of monitoring and evaluation
• Understand the differences between various kinds of evaluations
• Explain the different kinds of indicators• Describe the very basics of a ‘log frame’• Optional: Be familiar with the monitoring and
evaluation of CMAM interventions
Apr 21, 2023 3
Apr 21, 2023 4
The project cycle
ASSESSMENT
PROGRAMME DESIGN
EVALUATION
Monitoring
IMPLEMENTATION
Disaster
Monitoring &Evaluation
*
M&E
A WASP NEST………?
outputseffectiveness
performance
impact
outcomes
assessment
target
accountability
Qualitative indicators
DO NO HARM
INPUTS
timeliness
Logframes
Quantitative indicators
connectedness
efficiency
coverage
appropriateness
*
DefinitionMonitoring‘The systematic and continuous assessment of theprogress of a piece of work over time….’
‘To continuously measure progress against programmeobjectives and check on relevance of the programme’
It involves collecting and analysing data/information
It is NOT only about PROCESS
*
Purpose of monitoring• to document progress and results of project
• to provide the necessary information to Management for timely decision taking and corrective action (if necessary)
• to promote accountability* to all stakeholders of a project (to beneficiaries, donors, etc)
*
Information collected for monitoring
must be:• Useful and relevant• Accurate• Regular• Acted upon• Shared• Timely
*
Monitoring is an implicit part of an evaluation.
It is often done badly:– Routine data collection not done routinely!– Data collection done poorly– Information not processed/used in a timely manner– Focus only on process indicators and neglecting (lack
of) preliminary impact
*
Can you give examples of Monitoring in your current work?
For example - From a CMAM programme?- From a Micronutrient programme?- From a General Food Distribution?- From a Health programme?- From a Livelihoods programme?
*
Monitoring
• Monitoring compares intentions with results• It guides project revisions, verifies targeting criteria
and whether assistance is reaching the people intended.
• It checks the relevance of the project to the needs.• It integrates and responds to community feedback • It enhances transparency and accountability
Difference between
Monitoring of
• Process/activities
• Impact/results
*
The project cycle
ASSESSMENT
PROGRAMME DESIGN
EVALUATION
Monitoring
IMPLEMENTATION
Disaster
*
Why would you do an evaluation of a programme?
*
Definitions
Evaluation The aim is to determine relevance and fulfilment ofobjectives, as well as efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability of a project.
It involves the objective assessment of anongoing or completed project/programme, itsdesign, implementation and results.
*
There has been an increased focus on evaluation of humanitarian action as part of efforts to improve quality and standards
*
Evaluation
It aims to
– Improve policy and practice– Enhance accountability
*
Evaluations are done when / because:
– Monitoring highlights unexpected results– More information is needed for decision making– Implementation problems or unmet needs are identified– Issues of sustainability, cost effectiveness or relevance
arise– Recommendations for actions to improve performance
are needed– Lessons learning are necessary for future activities
Apr 21, 2023 20
Evaluations• Evaluation involves the same skills as assessment
and analysis• Evaluation should be done impartially and ideally
by external staff• Evaluation can also occur during (e.g. mid-term)
and after implementation of the project
*
One of the most important sources
of information for evaluations is
data used for monitoring
The OECD-DAC criteriaOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
• The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria are currently at the heart of the evaluation of humanitarian action.
• The DAC criteria are designed to improve evaluation of humanitarian action.
*
• Relevance/Appropriateness: Doing the right thing in the right way at the right time.
• Connectedness (and coordination): Was there any replication or gaps left in programming due to a lack of coordination?
• Coherence: Did the intervention make sense in the context of the emergency and the mandate of the implementing agency? Are their detrimental effects of the intervention on long run?
• Coverage: Who has been reached by the intervention, and where: linked to effectiveness?
• Efficiency: Were the results delivered in the least costly manner possible?
• Effectiveness: To what extent has the intervention achieved its objectives?
• Impact: Doing the right thing, changing the situation more profoundly and in the longer-term.
*
Evaluation looks at
• Relevance/Appropriateness: Doing the right thing in the right way at the right time.
• Connectedness (and coordination): Was there any replication or gaps left in programming due to a lack of coordination?
• Coherence: Did the intervention make sense in the context of the emergency and the mandate of the implementing agency? Are their detrimental effects of the intervention on long run?
• Coverage: Who has been reached by the intervention, and where: linked to effectiveness?
• Efficiency: The extent to which results have been delivered in the least costly manner possible.
• Effectiveness: The extent to which an intervention has achieved its objectives –• Impact: Doing the right thing, changing the situation more profoundly and in
the longer-term.
*
Evaluation looks at
Example on General Food Distribution
• Relevance/Appropriateness: Doing the right thing in the right way at the right time. Was food aid the right thing to do, not cash?
• Connectedness: Are their detrimental effects of the intervention on long run?Did food aid lower food prices? Did local farmers suffer from that?
• Coverage: Who has been reached by the intervention, and where: linked to effectiveness? Were those that needed food aid indeed reached?
• Efficiency: Were the results delivered in the least costly manner possible? Was it right to import the food or should it have been purchased locally? Could the results have been achieved with less (financial) resources? Food aid was provided, would cash have been more cost-effective?
• Effectiveness: To what extent has the intervention achieved its objectives?Did food aid avoid undernutrition? (assuming it was an objective)
• Impact: Doing the right thing, changing the situation more profoundly and in the longer-term. Did the food aid avoid people becoming displaced? Did the people become dependent on food aid?
• Impact: - Very much related to the general goal of the
project- Measures both positive and negative long-term
effects, as well as intended and unintended effects. GFD: did it lower general food prices with long-term economic consequences for certain groups ? Were people that received food aid attacked because of the ration? (therefore more death…?)
- Need for baseline information!!!! (to measure results against….)
To evaluate projects well is a real skill!
And you often need a team…
*
M&E in emergencies?
Any project without Monitoring and/or Evaluation
is a BAD project
*
Help!
*
The “M” and the “E”…Monitoring Evaluation
Primary use of the data
Project management
AccountabilityPlanning (future projects)
Frequency of data collection
Ongoing Periodic
Type of data collected
Info on process and effects
Info on effects
Who collects the data
Project staff External evaluators
Evaluations in Humanitarian Context
• Single-agency evaluation (during/after project)
• There is an increasing move towards:– Inter-agency evaluations: the objective is to
evaluate responses as a whole and the links between interventions
– Real-time evaluations: carried out 8 to 12 weeks after the onset of an emergency and are processed within one month of data collection
Real-time evaluations (1)• WHY?
Arose from concern that evaluations came too late to affect the operations they were assessing
• Various groups of organizations aim to undertake real-time evaluations
• Same purpose as any other evaluation• Common characteristics:
– Takes place during the course of implementation– In a short time frame
*
Real-time evaluations (2)• It is an improvement-oriented review; it can be regarded
more as an internal function than an external process.• It helps to bring about changes in the programme, rather
than just reflecting on its quality after the event. • A real-time “evaluator” is a “facilitator”, working with staff
to find creative solutions to any difficulties they encounter. • It helps to get closer to the people affected by crisis, and
this enables to improve accountability to ‘beneficiaries’.
*
Apr 21, 2023 35
Monitoring & Evaluation systems• Main components of M&E systems:
– M&E work plan for data collection and analysis, covering baseline, on-going M&E
– Logical framework, including indicators and means/source of verification
– Reporting flows and formats– Feedback and review plan– Capacity building design– Implementation schedule– Human resources and budget
Examples of data collection methods for M&E
Quantitative Methods Qualitative methods
Administering structured oral or written interviews with closed questions
Semi structured interviews e.g. key informant
Population based surveys Focus group discussion
Reviewing medical and financial records Observing
Completing forms and tally sheets Case studies
Direct measurement (anthropometry, biochemical analysis, clinical signs)
Mapping, ranking, scoring
Lot quality assessment Problem sorting, ranking
Focus on INDICATORS
Indicators
• An indicator is a measure that is used to show change in a situation, or the progress in/results of an activity, project, or programme.
• Indicators:– enable us to be “watchdogs”;– are essential instruments for monitoring and
evaluation.– are objectively verifiable measurements
What are the Qualities of a Good Indicator?
• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-bound
And there is also the SMART initiative….Standardised Monitoring and Assessment in Relief and Transition Initiative - interagency initiative to improve the M&E of humanitarian assistance
The Sphere Project provides the most accepted indicators for nutrition and food security interventions in emergencies: see Module 21.
Types of indicatorsIndicators exist in many different forms:
Direct
Global / standardised
Locally developed
Indirect / proxy
QualitativeQuantitativ
e
Direct indicators correspond precisely to results at any performance level.
Indirect or "proxy" indicators demonstrate the change or results if direct measures are not feasible.
Indicators are usually quantitative measures, expressed as percentage or share, as a rate, etc.
Indicators may also be qualitative observations.
Standardised global indicators are comparable in all settings.
Other indicators tend to be context specific and must be developed locally.
Outcome
Impact
Output
Input
Outcome
Impact
Output
Input Related to Activities/Resources
Related to Objectives (or Purposes)
Related to Goal
Related to Outputs
Outcome
Impact
Output
Input Related to Activities/Resources
Related to Objectives (or Purposes)
Related to Goal
Related to Outputs
Nutritional education to mothers on complementary food
X number of mothers know about good complementary food and how to prepare that
% of young children getting appropriate complementary food
Malnutrition rates amongst young children reduced
*
What is a Log Frame?
The logical framework or logframe is an analytical toolused to plan, monitor, and evaluate projects.
Victim of a log frame?
? ? ?
?
INPUTS
Log Frames
IMPACT
OUTCOME
Impact
Outcome OutcomeOutcome
OutputOutput Output Output Output OutputImpact
Outcome
Output
Output
Output
INPUTS
• The means of verification of progress towards achieving the indicators highlights the sources from where data is collected. The process of identifying the means of verification at this stage is useful as discussions on where to find information or how to collect it often lead to reformulation of the indicator.
• Assumptions are external factors or conditions that have the potential to influence the success of a programme. They may be factors outside the control of the programme. The achievement of a programme’s aims depends on whether or not assumptions hold true or anticipated risks do not materialise.
Apr 21, 2023 48
Other terms that can be found in a logframe:
logical framework for M&EProject description Indicators Source / mean of
verificationAssumptions / risks
Goal
Objectives / outcomes
Deliverable outputs
Activities
If the OBJECTIVES are produced, then this should contribute to the overall GOAL
If adequate ACTIVITIES are conducted, then OUTPUT/RESULTS can be produced
If OUTPUTS/RESULTS are produced, then the OBJECTIVES are accomplished
If adequate RESOURCES/INPUTS are provided; then activities can be conducted
Activities versus Results
Completed activities are not results.• e.g. a hospital was built, does not mean that injured
and sick people can be treated in the hospital, maybe the hospital has no water and the beds have not been delivered.
Results are the actual benefits or effects ofcompleted activities:• e.g. Injured and sick people have access to a fully
functional health facility.
*
Log frames
Example
Another Example…
*
Key messages• The monitoring of nutrition interventions in emergencies is an
integral part of saving lives and maintaining nutrition status of the affected population.
• Successful monitoring systems allow for improvements in interventions in ‘real time’.
• Evaluations are important tools for learning, assessing interventions, comparing the costs of the interventions and their impact. Essential evaluation parameters are: effectiveness; efficiency; relevance/appropriateness; impact and coverage
• Involving communities in M&E places the affected population at the heart of the response, providing the opportunity for their views and perceptions to be incorporated into programme decisions and increases accountability towards them.
• A common mistake of designing M&E systems is creating a framework which is overly complex. Always make an M&E system practical and doable.
• The logical framework or logframe is an analytical tool used to plan, monitor, and evaluate projects.
Apr 21, 2023 56
Monitoring for CMAM interventions
• Types of monitoring, e.g.– Individual case monitoring, – Programme / activities monitoring
Apr 21, 2023 57
Individual monitoring for CMAM• It is the basic follow up of cases in SFP / OTP /
SC services:– Anthropometric / clinical assessment
• Tools for individual case follow up include:
– Medical / nutrition and action protocols– Individual follow up card– Referral forms– …
Apr 21, 2023 58
Objectives of monitoring CMAM activities
• Assess service performance / outcomes• Identify further needs
– Support decision-taking for quality improvement (staffing, training, resources, site location,…)
• Contribute to the analysis of the general situation– Assessing the nutrition trends in the area
Methods and tools for monitoring CMAM interventions
• Monthly / weekly reporting:• Reporting needs to be done per site (service unit)
and compiled per area (district…) up to the national level
• Routine supervision
• External evaluations• Coverage surveys are one of the most important
tools for evaluation of CMAM interventions
Apr 21, 2023 59
Routine data collection for monitoring CMAM interventions
• Routine data is collected for specified time-periods:– Nb. of new admissions , – Nb. of discharges (total and by category: cured, died,
defaulted, non-recovered – Nb. of cases in treatment (nb. of beneficiaries
registered at the end of the reporting time-period)
Data on admissions should be disaggregated by gender
Apr 21, 2023 60
Category Criteria (Children 6 – 59 months)
New admissions for children 6 – 59 months (or > 60 months but <130 cm height)
MUAC <11.5 cmorW/H < -3 Z scores (WHO) or <70% of median (NCHS)or Bilateral pitting oedema grade + or ++ and child is alert, has appetite, and is clinically well
Other new admissions Carer refuses inpatient care despite advice
Returned Defaulter Child has previously defaulted and has returned to OTP(the child must meet admission criteria to be re-admitted).
Readmissions/Relapses A child is treated in OTP until discharge after meeting discharge criteria but relapses hence need for readmission
Transfer from inpatient care (SC)
From in-patient care after stabilisation treatment
Transfer from OTP Patients moved in from another OTP site
Apr 21, 2023 61
Category Criteria (Children 6 – 59 months) Cured
MUAC > 12.5cm and WFH > -2Z scores and no oedema for two consecutive visits AndChild is clinically well
Defaulted
Absent for 3 consecutive visits
Died
Died during time registered in OTP
Non-Cured
Has not reached discharge criteria within four months of treatment Link the child to other programmes e.g. SFP. IYCF, GMP, targeted food distributions
Transferred to SC
Condition has deteriorated and requires inpatient care
Transfer to other OTP
Child has been transferred to another OTP site
Apr 21, 2023 62
Monitoring of CMAM interventions: key indicators for SAM (Sphere)
• The proportion of discharges from therapeutic care should be:– Recovered > 75 %– Deaths < 10 %– Defaulter < 15 %
They are primarily applicable to the 6–59 month age group, although others may be part of the programme.
• Distance: > 90 % of the target population is within less than one day’s return walk (including time for treatment) of the service / site.
• Coverage is > 50 % in rural areas, > 70 % in urban areas and >90 % in camp situations
Apr 21, 2023 63
Monitoring of CMAM interventions: key indicators for MAM (Sphere)
• The proportion of discharges from targeted SFP should be:– Recovered > 75 % – Deaths < 3 % – Defaulter < 15 %
They are primarily applicable to the 6–59 month age group,although others may be part of the programme.
• Distance: > 90 % of the target population is within less than one day’s return walk (including time for treatment) of the programme site for dry ration SFP and no more than one hour’s walk for on-site wet SFP
• Coverage is > 50 % in rural areas, > 70 % in urban areas and > 90 % in a camp situation
Apr 21, 2023 64
Additional data for monitoring CMAM interventions
Derived from routine monitoring and other sources:• Average length of stay • Average weight gain• Relapse rate • Distribution of admissions per
type, per age, per origin…• Causes of death• Reasons for defaulting• Investigation of non-recovery
cases
Sources of data:• Registration books• Individual follow up charts• Interviews and Focus group
discussions• Observation, home-visits • …
Apr 21, 2023 65
Apr 21, 2023 66
M&E for CMAM interventions: Supervision
Supportive supervision visits to sites are designed to ensure / improve the quality of care offered by:
• Identifying weaknesses in the performance of activities, taking immediate action and applying shared corrective solutions
• Strengthening the technical capacity of health workers and motivating staff through encouragement of good practices
Supervisors and managers ensure that the performance of activities and organization of the services meet quality standards.
Apr 21, 2023 67
Evaluation of SAM management interventions
• Effectiveness: programme performance with a strong focus on coverage
• Appropriateness: e.g. distribution and time of opening of treatment sites
• Connectedness: relates to the links with health system and shows levels of possible integration
• Cost-effectiveness has also been measured with various methods and showing high differences between contexts and different approaches
Apr 21, 2023 68
M&E of CMAM interventions: population level assessments
• Community level assessment can be done through:– Repeated anthropometric surveys– Programme coverage
Evaluation of coverage for CMAM• Coverage is one of the most important
elements behind the success of the CMAM approach. – It is measured through studies using two main
approaches:• The centric systematic area sampling (CSAS)• The Semi-Quantitative Evaluation of Access and
Coverage (SQUEAC)• Coverage should reach at least 90% of severe cases in
camps situation, 70% in urban setting, 50% in rural setting (SPHERE standards)
Apr 21, 2023 69
Apr 21, 2023 70
Evaluation of management of MAM interventions
• Same criteria as for all other interventions (relevance, efficiency, etc.)
• SFP evaluations are rarely shared, but evidence showed that defaulting and non-response are very common
• Needs for evaluating use of Ready-to-Use-Supplementary Food products in terms of efficiency: gain of weight, effect of defaulting, effect on easiness for beneficiaries, etc.