 |
Table of Contents |
 |
|
|
Handbook on Resettlement: A Guide to Good Practice :
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
9.5. Participation of APs and NGOs in Monitoring, Review and Evaluation
Involvement of people affected and hosts in the M&E process may solve many day-to-day problems arising in the implementation of resettlement operations. APs, local CBOs, and/or NGOs should be involved. Participatory evaluation helps improve program performance by involving key players in evaluation design and implementation. Participatory Rapid Appraisal techniques foster the involvement of APs and other key stakeholders in resettlement monitoring and implementation.
Comparison of Evaluation Methods
| More controlled, positivist approach |
More subjective, participatory approach |
| Pros |
Pros |
- Quick; easy to quantify
- Straight-forward methodology
- Likely to be directly relevant to the manner in which the project was designed
- Seen to be more accountable
- Easier to deal with and does not raise complex issues related to control of the activity
|
- Views and perspectives of all stakeholders inform the result
- Provides an opportunity for other realities to impinge (i.e. matters beyond the Project Framework)
- Should lead to a closer mutual understanding and sense of shared purpose (the human foundation)
|
| Cons |
Cons |
- Arrogant and insensitive
- Results likely to reflect the values of the evaluator
- Flawed assumptions about independent observation and capacity to capture reality
- Ignores human reality - change, political dynamics
- Assumes simplistic cause and effect
|
- May not fit the project format or framework
- Can substitute for a rigorous examination of the achievements of the activity against its objectives
- Few evaluators really know how to use participatory techniques
- Can raise expectations that won't/can't be met
|
Adapted from Evaluation Planning Checklist in Bridging the Gap: A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Development Projects by Bernard Broughton and Jonathan Hampshire, Australian Council for Overseas Aid, 1997.
|
Steps in Conducting Participatory Evaluation
- Decide on the degree and nature of participation.
- Prepare the evaluation scope of the work.
- Conduct the team planning meetings through mini-workshops.
- Conduct the evaluation.
- Analyze the data and build consensus on results.
- Prepare further mitigative plans, if required.
________________
Source: Conducting a Participatory Evaluation, USAID, Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996.
|
|
Participatory Rapid Appraisal
- Key informant interviews: select local leaders, village workers or persons with special knowledge or experience about resettlement activities and implementation.
- Focus group discussion: specific topics (e.g., land compensation payments, services at resettlement sites, income restoration, gender issues) discussed in open-ended group sessions.
- Community public meetings: open public meetings at resettlement sites to elicit information about performance of various resettlement activities.
- Structured direct observations: field observations on status of resettlement implementation, plus individual or group interviews for cross-checking purposes.
- Informal surveys/interviews: informal surveys of APs, hosts, village workers, resettlement staff, and implementing agency personnel using non-sampled methods.
- In-depth case studies of APs and host populations from various social classes to assess impact of resettlement.
________________
Source: India: Handbook for Resettlement and Rehabilitation, The World Bank, 1994.
|
 Back
9.4 External Monitoring and Evaluation | Next
9.6 Monitoring and Evaluation in the Project Cycle: Key Action Points |
Publications 
Top of page