Resources

This article summarises the perceptions of staff of a rural development NGO in southern India, on the impacts of PRA on their project planning, implementation , management and evaluation.

This volume aims to explore the role of participatory eveluation, with a focus on water and sanitation programmes. It draws on 15 years of experience in participatory development and tries to move beyond participatory planning to participatory monitoring and evaluation. Saustainability is discussed, in terms of equipment, human resources and institutional capacity. The concept of participatory evaluation is considered, and the potential for the use of participatory methods outlined, along with its characteristics, strenghts and pitfalls. Indicators, methods of monitoring and replicability should be considered for each project, including the 'what' exactly should be measured, and by 'whom'. Detailed examples in the water and sanitation context are given. It is important to be able to assess change over time, and participatory methods offer a way forward.

Describes a short exercise designed to explore the potential uses of RRA/PRA for Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee [BRAC]. Divided into two major sections, the first is a general introduction to some of the most commonly used RRA/PRA techniques, while the second presents the findings of an attempt to use RRA methods to evaluate the performance of a BRAC-supported village deep tube-well group. Section one is based around a summary chart of the range of techniques "currently [in 1991] employed by RRA/PRA practitioners". Notes on each of these techniques expand on this chart and provide some useful advice and information on the application and procedure characterising each technique. The case study, described in section 2, was carried out by a team of 6 BRAC staff (none of whom had previously performed RRA) and facilitated by Mick Howes from the IDS. Two and a half days were spent on preliminary orientation and a further two and a half days in the field. Although a complete evaluation study of the performance of the village deep tube well group was not carried out during this period, a "number of potentially significant insights were generated" and the potential for RRA/PRA in operational and research work (including evaluation) within BRAC was emphasised.

This draft paper provides a useful discussion of some of the main analytical and theoretical themes surrounding the concept of participation in connection with evaluation of development activities [N.B it does not look specifically at methods]. Comparing the 'mode of evaluation' characterising 'conventional development projects' with that of the emerging set of 'participatory evaluation' approaches, the author builds a workable framework through which he can ask the key questions concerning "why, when, and how" participation in project evaluation should occur. In answering these questions, emphasis is put on the development of an approach in which both internal (or participatory) and external methods of evaluation are seen to be complementary. Importantly, however, such a framework can only truly work if long term, local level, participation is seen occur through the entire project cycle; only then argues the author, can 'participatory evaluation methods' realize their full potential.

The editorial introduces the articles in this very useful Rural Extension Bulletin, and puts forward the view that there is "increasing evidence that systematic monitoring and evaluation may offer very real benefits to project management". The key to the emergence of an effective and practical methodology for 'extension M & E' lies in the creation of an coherent "management information system" which is not only focused on issues of long term planning, but also on the "decision making process of project evaluation. [Other articles from this journal reviewed in this bibliography include; Roche (1993). Mali: Auto evaluation - an NGO experience with community based evaluation; Shah et. al. (1993). Gujerat, India: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation]

The metaphor of the "mirror", constitutes the central theme for this guide to self evaluation [SE] prepared by the evaluation service of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation [SDC]. The "mirror of SE" refers to "a multitude of tools and methods which provide a critical and constructive analysis of our own activities and their consequences". Unlike external evaluation, a SE is always designed to "illuminate" one's own area of responsibility to help find possible improvements. 18 practical examples of SE are introduced in chapter 2, which are divided into three main groups; Externally initiated SE; SE involving partners; and Autonomous SE - which occurs entirely independently of outside influence (the key case study given in the latter group is the SE deployed in the Federation of Senegalese NGOs in Senegal, 1989). In chapters 3 and 4 respectively, an "analysis" and "valuation" of these case studies is carried out, with 8 "fundamental questions" providing the framework for discussion [questions include; "what is being evaluated?", "How is success being measured?", "who are the participants?", "how can SE be implemented?"] In chapter 5 the analytical concept of the "wheel with 8 spokes" is introduced as a specific approach through which SE can be conceptualised and put into practice. Although no mention of PRA is made, this guide does provide some relevant and stimulating discussion which is based around the large number of case studies. Certainly, the 56 arguments - or "excuses" - listed on p.32, which "are used to evade an SE" are equally likely to be employed with reference to the use of PRA methods for M&E. (61 pp)

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.