Resources

This report discusses appropriate mechanisms for community involvement in different social, economic, and political contexts and identifies the corresponding requirements for training health personnel and strengthening communities. Participatory methods are suggested for training health workers. It is suggested that monitoring and evaluation involves a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques.

This manual on self-evaluation is aimed at helping those involved in running rural community development projects to learn how to do more effective and appropriate evaluations independently. The case study of a rural development project is used to illustrate why self evaluation can be useful, with a list of key reasons given. Using the same case study, the following chapter examines who stands to benefit as a result of this evaluation taking place. Examples of beneficiaries are listed as being; project staff, community members, members of the general public, amongst others. Logically, the next question asked is who should be responsible for carrying out the evaluation and a list of potential partners who may be involved is provided. The fourth chapter examines the different levels at which evaluation can take place i.e. at the preparation, implementation, sustainibility levels etc. Following from this, is a look at when to evaluate in relation to the different levels. The issue of what to evaluate was decided by considering the indicators that would be utilised to measure the different sectors of the project i.e. health, education etc. This process helps to demonstrate how difficult it is to measure intangible criteria that involve a description of 'human qualities' i.e. enthusiasm. A variety of PRA type techniques are suggested for the different sectors and this concludes with a discussion of how to communicate the findings. The paper as a whole concludes with a summary of the above mentioned questions, recommended resource materials on evaluation and an appendix that illustrates some of the issues raised in the document.

Discusses the methods of collecting information during a field-study carried out in Brazil, in the health district of Pau da Lima. It was intended to provide a learning experience for students as well as to explore the local potential for Primary Environmental Care (PEC) and to produce a number of recommendations to local bodies. Possible actors, conditions, means and resources to promote PEC within the Pau da Lima district were investigated. PEC integrates three components: empowering communities, protecting the environment, and meeting needs. The first step was a preliminary identification of present and future potential actors in PEC in the Pau da Lima district. A Rapid Appraisal (RA) was conducted in three squatter communities within the district, focusing on felt problems; interests and priorities in PEC; forms and conditions of community organisation; and instances and conditions of community-based action. Methods used include: review of secondary data, informal disucssions with informants, direct observations, laboratory analysis of water samples collected during the observation walks, life history interviews, focus groups and ranking exercises, semi-structured interviews. While the study found the RA methods useful, it suggested that they may not be sufficient to identify community-based solutions to specific problems. The techniques in "Making Microplans" (Goethert and Hamdi 1988) provide an example of how this action-oriented phase could proceed.

This article gives an overview of housing and environmental problems in the metropolitan area of Mexico City. It describes the history of attempts to encourage participation in two particular cases, and discusses the basic elements of the methodology used to conduct these processes.

PIDA (Participatory and Integrated Development Approach) has been used in four pilot projects in Kilifi district, Kenya. PRA is an integral part of the PIDA approach : an initiating phase is followed by a PRA phase, then a follow-up phase. This volume discusses in detail the institutionalisation of the PIDA approach within Kilifi district structures. The process of running PRA training, developing community action plans and implementing follow-up is described, with the emphasis on the latter which 'has so far been totally neglected in the PRA literature'. The report is written from a planning and organisational angle, concentrating more on the process of producing plans and reports than on training methodologies.

This article addresses criticisms that PRA raises too many expectations, and that communities should not simply be used as guinea-pigs for testing methods. It argues that these criticisms are only valid when planning is inadequate and there is a lack of transparency in groups working with communities. Further, it argues that raising expectations is actually an objective of the PRA process.