220 likes | 411 Views
Evaluation and Monitoring Methodologies. Strengthening the Legislature – Challenges and Techniques K. Scott Hubli, NDI. Overview. General Comments on Monitoring and Evaluation Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs
E N D
Evaluation and Monitoring Methodologies Strengthening the Legislature – Challenges and Techniques K. Scott Hubli, NDI
Overview • General Comments on Monitoring andEvaluation • Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Practical Tips and Considerations
General Comments onMonitoring and Evaluation • Evaluation (and Baseline Assessments) --Use to develop program design; use for major course corrections --More costly and less frequent than monitoring (every two to three years) --Typically done at the beginning and the end of a program, but often also done after a major change in the political landscape (e.g., regime change, ethnic conflict settlement, etc.) --Used for accountability to partners, donors, stakeholders, not for ongoing project management
General Comments onMonitoring and Evaluation • Performance Monitoring --Ongoing monitoring; used to manage performance of implementation --Track changes (but less analysis) -- Informed by baseline assessment and, if well designed, it can reduce future evaluation costs -- May indicate a need for a evaluation or updated baseline -- Focus on low cost, regular data collection (workshop evaluations, information available from parliament, regular focus groups, etc.)
General Comments onMonitoring and Evaluation • Always distinguish among: --Inputs (e.g., consultants, computers, etc.) --Outputs (e.g., 40 people trained in a workshop onoversight techniques) --Outcomes (e.g., increased knowledge of oversight investigation techniques) --Objectives (e.g., increased oversight hearings) --Goals (e.g., increased government accountability)
How are legislative strengthening programs different from other programs with respect to monitoring and evaluation?
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Legislatures are highly complex institutions --They involve multiple actors seeking to achieve multiple goals simultaneously --Where possible, disaggregate data (by gender, party, region, etc.) --Identify clear goals and targeted groups; watch for unintended consequences
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Long-term goals, short-term programs -- Resist the tendency to monitor outputs rather than progress in achieving desired outcomes, objectives and goals -- Find ways to measure small changes in large goals; or outcomes that can be affected with the project time frame
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Programs focus on process, not outputs --Example: number of laws passed--Emphasize qualitative over quantitative information --Use detailed process descriptions in establishing baselines --Use monitoring and evaluation to help strengthen this process and to teach results-based management, where possible (“Monitoring and evaluation should be managed as joint exercises with development partners.”)
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Monitoring and evaluation is often highly political --Involving partners can sometimes further politicize evaluation and monitoring; use caution and judgment --Can be hard to get necessary information --Politics may cause people to be less than fully honest --Results can be used as a political weapon
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Legislatures have natural cycles --Elections, post-election learning curves, legislative floor periods, recesses, budget processes, etc. --Example: constituency relations --Expect uneven development in performance monitoring, but try to attribute fluctuations in data --Time evaluations carefully – look for “normal” periods
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Many intervening variables --Economic conditions, geopolitical developments, ethnic conflict, death of a key politician, etc. --No substitute for nuanced political analysis --Measure outcomes, objectives, goals – not just outcomes; this can help identify these intervening variables
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Perceptions matter --Importance of qualitative over quantitative indicators --Use of focus groups, opinion polls, etc. --Even anecdotal evidence is useful if it captures a political mood or issue
Special Considerations in Monitoring and Evaluating Legislative Strengthening Programs • Difficulty of comparative benchmarking --Only one national legislature; cross-countrycomparisons are of limited utility --Comparisons across time more important; use ofthorough baselines --Implications on setting goals and targets – use ofreasonable/consensus expectations
What are some practical strategies for dealing with these unique aspects of monitoring and evaluating legislative strengtheningprograms?
Practical Tips & Considerations • General Issues --Be pragmatic in designing an evaluation or monitoring plan; tie evaluation and monitoring to the purpose or objectives. Avoid evaluation for evaluation’s sake. Consider: --resource availability for evaluation --novelty of the program --confidence in program design or implementation --needs of funder --Budget sufficient resources – (Costs for legislative strengthening evaluation may exceed those for other program types – soft assistance, new field, etc.)
Practical Tips & Considerations • Issues in Doing a Baseline --Limit scope to allow for detailed coverage of program areas --Protect against biases of person(s) doing the baseline by: --Using teams --Using clear, detailed terms of reference --Incorporating documentary evidence --Seeking consistency in future assessments
Practical Tips & Considerations • Issues in Doing a Baseline (cont.) --Pick timing carefully; describe any special circumstances--Prepare carefully for baseline assessment team --Cover the range of stakeholders --Get out of the capital --Consider focus groups or creative methods for documenting perceptions and processes (e.g., a sample of 10 legislators to track periodically every 3 years)--Pay attention to protocol; build good will.
Practical Tips & Considerations • Using outside evaluators --Outside evaluators can not only provide objectivity but also insulation from the political consequences of an evaluation --Combine multiple backgrounds (academic or legislative strengthening specialists and MPs or staff from similar systems) --Recognize value of “time in the trenches” --Designate a lead person with responsibility for producing the document --Get a sufficient time commitment
Practical Tips & Considerations • Issues in Performance Monitoring --Draw on baseline and prior evaluations --Design performance monitoring plan up front; adjust it as project evolves: --Imposes discipline; keeps program on track --Provides clarity of expectations to partners --Keep it current, modify as needed --Make these changes explicit
Practical Tips & Considerations • Issues in Performance Monitoring (cont.) --Tie to likely performance issues --Draw on low-cost existing information sources; may be more quantitative, with less analysis --May focus on outcome level, rather than objective or goal level --Consider quarterly or semi-annual monitoring --Expect, but explain, fluctuations --When you can’t explain repeated fluctuations, consider updating a baseline to try to identify issues --Often done, in part, by those implementing program
Final Thoughts • Be creative: legislative strengthening is anart, not a science • Be willing to accept criticism; fight structural bias for “spinning” results • Share lessons learned, both internally and externally