Sustainable Development
in rural areas of Africa  

I support you in preparing and implementing projects and programs

 

 

 

"Evaluation is a very strict control from outside".

"It is enough to check the physical result".

"An invasion of inspectors"

"10 minutes in a village is enough to see everything"

"Go and see how the work is done"

"If you want to see everything, you need time and patience, in order to reveal the agenda behind the agenda"

"Evaluation is not only to see the physical results, but the way to do the work"

 

Which is the best approach, which are the best instruments, so that evaluation serves to reach the project or programme goals?.

Today, evaluation can not be seen as an independent element. It is a built-in element of a process. Evaluation has to contribute to improving the process. It bases on participatory problem-identification and problem-solving.

 

Monitoring facts, impact monitoring or process-monitoring?

Many people look only for the hard facts: what can I really see on the ground? But what is also extremely important is

• the way to reach this point,
• the organisational set-up behind the work,
• where and how did the people get the information?
• who did the job ?
• is the approach repeatable?
• which impact do we have with this activity in the long run?

Internal or external evaluation?

During a programme or project live-cycle a maximum of internal evaluations should be foreseen. "Internal" does not mean that only people from one place ore one side participate. Visitors from other places, also acting in the programme, should participate in order to exchange ideas to the maximum.

If really new ideas, or a neutral person, are necessary, an external evaluation is recommendable. Of course, this external evaluation should be a good mixture of exchange and verification.

The optimal solution is that the external evaluator guides the internal team through an evaluation.

When to evaluate?

Very often, it is done at the end of a period or a project-phase. But the handicape is that it is too late to correct mistakes for the current phase. That is why it is better to have smaller evaluations from time to time to allow people to exchange ideas and to make corrections. That means in reality it is a mixture of exchange/training and evaluation.

 

Practical work:

The evaluater (or team):

He (she) needs a high social competence, that means he (she) must be able to communicate with all people concerned in a way that everybody feels comfortable. The evaluator must know the living conditions, social structure and economic situation of the people involved. A multidisciplinary team is self-evident. Technical and social-oriented team members are necessary.

The team should never close its eyes if it discovers a misuse of funds. Activities can fail, but the team has to see the difference between misuse and failure.

Preparation:

People get boared if the evaluater(s) ask(s) irrelevant or very basic questions (what is the name of the place, how many people live here, etc.?), it also shows that the evaluater does not take the work seriously.

Detailed preparation is necessary, also in order to gain time for important things. The client must be well-informed before the evaluation starts and must participate in the programme-preparation for the evaluation.The role of everybody must be defined beforehand. The indicators (hopefully) fixed during the planning process have to be aired and discussed again in order get an equal understanding.

Climate setting and asking questions during the evaluation:

Show interest in the people and their place, do not start to consult your files, this must be done before!

Go slowly! Explain your mission and let the people talk about their experience concerning the subject. This is a very important moment! Maybe people have found themselves a new solution to the problem, maybe they have encountered problems not possible to forsee at the beginning, etc. Start slowly to ask questions. Give people time to think about your question. Your way of thinking and asking questions might be different than their way.

Do not stick to one part of the whole programme, have the whole programme in mind!!

Instruments: photo-evaluation, questionaire

People forget quickly. So it is good to compare, use photos and objects, visit different places, etc.. Visualization of planning and results during meetings helps people to understand. Visualization can be done on the ground, with blackboards, flip-charts or the metaplan system.

Check-lists help people to structure the work. This check- list should not be used as a "bible". Evaluators have to be open to knew things and ideas. A lot of elements and attitudes of Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA) are used again.

The SWOT- method is a good approach to discuss the results of an action. The group looks for its

Strengths - Opportunities -Weaknesses - Threats.

Transparency, summary and feed back:

The evaluator has to make sure that the evaluation ist transparent to all participants. He/she sould never hide results and write them only in the report. People will be astonished:"we never talked about this" and then lose confidence.

Results must be discussed during the mission in order to improve the project or programme.The evaluator has to give a summary of the results at the end of the mission.The feedback should not only be given at a high level but also directly to the people concerned.

 

"We are all heres sir: extension agent for seed, soil-tester, fertilizer supplier, plant breeder - only him over there I don't know".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to where the people are - evaluation in Tuareg- tent in Mali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical steps leading to a perfect evaluation: clear definition of goals, milestones and indicators during the planification together with the client internal evaluations (e.g. twice during an agricultural period) together with neighbouring villages selection of evaluation team and preparation of team preparation of evaluation together with client (where to go, what to see, periode, review of indicators, preparation of check-lists) visit of sites, explanation of objectives to the people concerned , possibly a village meeting Visit of realizations, people involved explain what they did, why, how, with whom they did the work. Do they see scope for improvement? Do other people see scope for improvement? Results will be presented and discussed in public. Did we reach our goal ? Is it possible to improve our results?

 

 

Degree of farmer participation in extension evaluation Level 5: Farmers conduct their own evaluation of extension indepently of extension and report their findings to the policy- makers. Level 4: Farmers carry out evaluation of extension in cooperation with extension managers and make decisions regarding changes in providing extension services. Level 3: Farmers receive evaluation results and other information from extension staff and are asked to give reactions and recommendations for improving extension processes and resources. Level 2: Farmers receive information, evaluation summaries, and feedback on extension performance from extension staff, but are not asked to react. Level 1: Farmers provide data and evidence of their achievements along with their reactions to extension without being involved in planning evaluation efforts. Adapted from Arnstein (1969)