What are the challenges in designing projects with
successful monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems? How do you ensure data
collection for M&E is reliable? What is a “theory of change,” and how can
it shape M&E over the course of a development project’s lifetime?
These are a few of the major questions
raised during the workshop on “M&E Systems for Organizational
Effectiveness: Why Organizations Should Care and Strategies for Engagement,” held
by TCI-TARINA in partnership with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)
on February 24th, 2017 in New Delhi. The workshop was attended by senior
and mid-level managers from various non-profit, non-governmental, and
Theory of change
The lead facilitator Dr.
Mark Constas, Professor of Applied Economics at Cornell University
and international M&E expert, began the workshop by introducing a concept
known as the “Theory of Change” (ToC) and its importance in the development of
an M&E system. A ToC delineates what outcomes or results the project aims
to achieve and the main pathways by which it will achieve them.
Co-facilitator, Dr. Prabhu
Pingali, who is the Director of TCI and also a Professor of Applied Economics
at Cornell University, shared his experiences developing a ToC for various
projects and emphasized the need to design it with the utmost focus and
detailing. He indicated that this is particularly critical given that the ToC
forms the foundation of the project and becomes the reference point for
understanding the successes and/or failures of the project.
In the case of TCI’s TARINA
project, which was established under a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, a Results Framework (pictured below) was devised as the ToC for
achieving the project’s overarching goal of creating a more nutrition-sensitive
food system in India. Both Prof. Constas and Prof. Pingali recommended setting clear
objectives and desired results that meet those objectives, as has been done for
TARINA’s Results Framework.
During the discussion, an NGO
Director from the audience asked whether the ToC can change over the course of
the project. Prof. Constas and Prof. Pingali stated that the ToC might shift,
but it is for the organization to decide when they allow it to happen. The ToC
should always accurately reflect the cause that the organization is working
Data, data, data
Capturing reliable data was
highlighted as a key input for efficient monitoring. One of the participants
commented that data collection is “considered the easiest task” when it is in
fact difficult and requires careful and thorough thinking. For example, the
National Sample Survey (NSS) has been collecting data on dietary diversity by
asking respondents to recall what they have consumed in the past 30 days. However,
it is now generally accepted that 24-hour or even 3-day recalls are much better
for collecting reliable data. Similarly, many surveys in India ask respondents
for their age, instead of asking for their birthdate. If there are any errors with
respect to the age of children, for instance, it will have a great impact on
the survey results as well as the response to difficulties in early childhood
development and maternal nutrition. The last and perhaps the most important
point was that baseline, midline, and end-line surveys have to include the same
sample group and the same indicators to be an effective comparison for assessing
the impact of the project and the degree to which results and objectives have
been realized. However, this is often very challenging to do.
Defining a set of
“minimum metrics” is very important to data collection. Prof. Constas indicated
that large household surveys can be very taxing and an extreme burden on participant
households. Prof. Constas stressed that “low burden, high frequency” data
collection that captures seasonality and volatility over the course of the year
Prof. Prabhu Pingali speaking to workshop participants.
One participant inquired about best
practices for handling fatigue on the part of the respondents. Prof. Constas
responded that “sample replacement” is a very good solution. There are many
ways to do it; for example, you can construct panel data, synthetic panel data,
or simulated panels. The most recommended solution is to follow a replacement
protocol where you either remove certain respondents entirely from the data
collection and go to new households, or you give a vacation time period to each
respondent so that they do not get repeat visits too frequently. You could also
have groups of respondents that alternate years of participation in multi-year surveys.
The facilitators encouraged all workshop
participants to think critically about the design of their evaluation surveys.
In particular, they emphasized that Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are not
the gold standard for all evaluation, and that an RCT should only be used in
scenarios where it is relevant and useful. RCTs are limited because they may be
able to show an effect, but not be able to explain “what produced the effect.”
Other useful tools include regression continuity studies and other
Ethics and reporting
In addition to M&E, the
discussion delved into questions about the ethics of data collection as
well as the types of tools for evaluation. Some NGO participants mentioned that
they do not receive the credit they seek in publications that involve data from
their own projects and also do not receive recognition as reliable evaluators.
Both problems have two very useful solutions. In the case of publications, NGOs
can sign an agreement with all research partners to ensure that recognition is
given to the contributors, and a co-authorship agreement can be signed. In the
case of receiving credit as reliable evaluators, it was mentioned that Internal
Review Board (IRB) certifications and participation in national evaluator
associations can help to ensure credibility and enhance the role of the NGO in
research. The facilitators shared the resource on the course “Responsible Conduct of Research” offered by the
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI).
Monitoring and evaluation: A casualty
Despite M&E being critical to
informing a project, and therefore a key determinant in its success, budgetary
allocation to M&E is in many cases very low. Usually, M&E is the first
casualty budget restructuring.
Prof. Pingali also shared that
M&E practitioners should understand both the project and the context of its
implementation. He commented that M&E should be treated like an audit, with
internal and external evaluators. In other words, organizations should have
their project(s) assessed by evaluators from within the organization and from
outside the organization.
Donors and stakeholders – Wake up!
A key point that was put forth by
the participants was that the onus of embedding M&E into development projects
lies with the donors. They asserted that it is the donors that have to develop a
robust M&E structure within the project and ensure that funds are allocated
toward M&E. Participants also asserted that there is a larger stakeholder
ecosystem that needs to buy into the ToC of the organization as well.
Group photo of workshop participants and facilitators.
As the event came to
a close, it became clear that there was strong demand among participants for subsequent
workshops on various topics discussed, particularly on the latest technical know-how
and innovations in evaluation. The project will be looking into these possibilities
to potentially offer future workshops as a resource for organizations
interested in advancing data-based solutions for development effectiveness.
By Siddharth Chaturvedi
Siddharth Chaturvedi (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a Senior Program Officer for TCI-TARINA, based in New Delhi, India.