Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation of Poverty Alleviation Program in Northern Uganda - Case Study Example

Abstract This paper is a research plan prepared for the Monitoring and Evaluation ASD 712 class. It entails a proposed plan for research project that involves monitoring and evaluation of the Social Mobilization of Women Affected by Conflict (SMOWAC), a donor funded program in Northern Uganda. The paper gives weight to the theoretical framework surrounding participatory research and evaluation. The paper borrows widely from existing research of community development and monitoring and evaluation. In this paper I have addressed all the major topics covered in this unit, but due to space constraints, the plan has given more weight to the paradigms in community development, perspectives of community development, Methodology in research for community development and ethics in community development and research. Contents Background and Significance ……………………………………………. Epistemology- Theoretical framework …………………………………. Methodology in research for community development …………………….. Evaluation research as methodology …………………………………………. Ethical considerations and challenges ……………………………………….. Research plan for monitoring and evaluation of poverty alleviation program in Northern Uganda 1.0 Background and Significance The Northern part of Uganda, which is relatively dry and is occupied mainly by pastoralist communities, has been experiencing tribal warfare for close to three decades. The area also hosts thousands of Sudanese refugees fleeing from the fighting in South Sudan and Darfur. Due to the harsh and erratic climatic patterns being blamed on global warming, the economy of the region has been worsening over time. According to a World Bank report, poverty in the region has been increasing as shown by an increment from 60% poverty level as of 1997 to 66% as of 2000. To counter this deterioration, a number of NGO’s and other international organizations have embarked on empowering the local people with entrepreneurial skills, food aid, education and training among many others. The Norwegian government has been most active in the region by funding CARE Uganda which is a branch of CARE International. The organization is involved in a number of humanitarian programs. However, this research project is aimed at monitoring and evaluating just one of the many projects, Social Mobilization of Women Affected by Conflict (SMOWAC). This five-year program is funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development (NORAD) through CARE Norway meant to run between 2005 and 2009. The program’s main goal is to improve household livelihood sanctuary and self-reliance of 50,000 internally displaced persons. The program targets women through participation in Income Generating Activities (IGAs), small business ventures and micro-credit funding and suitable agri-business initiatives. As the program comes to a close this year, this research project will broadly aim to evaluate the success of the program through a community participation approach. In a more specified manner, the research will directed by the following. Relevant 1. Assess the improvement in socio–economic empowerment of women (at individual, house hold, community and partner levels) directly attributable to the project and identifying the most effective interventions and also recommending any changes on any aspects of the interventions that could improve efficiency and effectiveness in attainment project objectives. 2. Inspect the pertinence of the project design and its execution approach visa vis the most relevant needs of the researched to determine existing gaps and misalignment upon which the research will base its recommendations upon. 3. Assess the compatibility of the project with other existing programs in the area (e.g. CARE Uganda’s Long Range Strategic Plan 2007-2012) and more with the alignment of the project’s goals with the mission and vision of CARE International. 4. Evaluate the project’s sustainability in financial, technical and organizational aspects. 2.0 Epistemology- Theoretical framework Social science research defers from scientific research in that it is more reliant on observation than statistics. Herda (1999) says “social science research into current policy issues cannot be a technical issue trying to uncover statistical generalizations or interventions mechanisms but primarily must be an interpretive science through which the researcher searches for meanings and engages in critical discourse characterized by ethical considerations with those who are part of the research project” (p. 31 ). The study of development, more so in foreign countries has proved to be difficult citing professional and ethical considerations (Unwin, 2006, p.105). The need for research into development in the context of poor nations is needed to better understand the preconditions that limit development where else for students is for academic purposes. Schwandt (2002, p. 28) believes that social evaluation on problems such as development and the cultural background of a people can provide technocratic solutions to social issues. Again, Schwandt says that social science studies serve as a basis for improvement. Nabben (2009) says that any research that entails monitoring and evaluation in community development issues covers unusual spread in theory, experience and practice. The author says this is because basic research seeks to advance theory and knowledge while applied research such as in community issues seeks to improve humanity. The definition of development as an important subject in social sciences has been evolving. This is in line with the technologic social and cultural advancements that provide the measurements for development (Rist, 1997). In ancient times, the development in most third world countries has been reversed or stagnant entirely. Rist says that development or progress should be a continuous process that seeks to improve the social and psychological aspects of all humans. However, the West has been advancing at the cost of the third world countries. The west has thus switched from using the term underdeveloped countries to developing countries which “is an illusory promise of material prosperity for all (Rist, p. 238)” as some empirical studies into sub-Saharan African countries have shown. Traditionally, development policy and practice has been carried out with inclusion of anthropological and historical research. In recent times however, there has been a theoretical shifts in anthropology that have shifted attention to development initiatives and interventionist practices and programs (Mikkelsen, 2005). Rist (1997) is opposed to the use of per capital income as the sole measure of development. He considers the West which has for along time measured development through the per capita income yardstick as “prisoners of development” (Rist, p. 245). Rist goes ahead and says that development is determined most not by what is in the head but by the practices that follow it. This has therefore given rise to close evaluation of development and development initiatives. In the same length, Schwandt (1997, p. 30) says that development through evaluation is a matter of enlightenment than instrumental change. Rist (1997) argues that development is a pretext for globalization to imply that it is only business oriented with no core purpose of helping the recipient of development assistance (Nabben, 2009). Therefore, the research may adopt this definition that in third world countries globalization has not taken root entirely. Deviating from the contemporary view of third world countries, Nabben (2009) introduces the concept of majority world which will be explained later in the paper. Poverty is largely to blame for under development as purchasing power, demand and supply which drive expansion of markets and hence globalization are relatively weak in the majority world as according to champions of markets, “only market forces can address our many social and economic problems” (Bollier, p. 44). Borrowing from the British political scenarios, Bollier (2002) writes that Commons, in opposing markets theory argue that “certain human values cannot be advanced or respected by markets; only new (or revamped) institutions and cultural traditions can preserve them” (p. 44). The ideology of markets seemed to have failed in England and Wales in the 19th century where alleged improvement in farming methods by the specialized farmers saw 2250 people owning 50% of land and 0.6% of the population owning 98.5% of the land. Could this be the situation in wealth distribution between the minority and the majority world? Wade (2009) indirectly answers this question by highlighting the situation in India in this paper “For Hire Indian Wombs.” He says millions survive on less than $2 a day and hence Western couples seeking surrogacy have found India to be a cheap destination. For the Indian women, this is a cheap route out of poverty and miserable living conditions and development for them while Mikkelsen (2005) views it as oppression of the poor namely patriarchy. From this perspective, we see that the majority people or nations are poor with the minor being very wealthy thereby approving Nobben’s (2009) nomenclature of minority and majority world. Research in community development has over time transformed from traditional to more modern methods. Rubin (1995) writes that traditional or otherwise historically methods of community development relied on evaluations mainly adopted by NGO’s involved in development. This method relies heavily on quantitative data hence a scientific research approach in a social context. Other characteristics of this mode of evaluation according to Rubin (1995) are: ignores non qualitative aspects of development, narrow scope of evaluation by managers only and that it tends to increase objectivity by involving outsider which may not be the case. This has created resistance to evaluation. In fact Rubin warns that “while evaluation is essentially a tool for development, it can be a highly-charged process politically, because of the relations of power and control that exist between funder and funded” (p.20). The effectiveness of these programs is however limited by a number of factors such as politics and the ever changing definition of development. Wandersman et al (2004, p. 140) identify evaluation as a core component of development as it actively seeks to develop institutions, people and programs. This is very essential given the fact that development has been delegated not only to local programs and institutions, but also to international ones which impose their westernized expectations on the developing world and more so on individual communities. The minority world’s view and interpretation of development is very different to that of the majority world which has better interpretation and organization into communities (Curtis, 1995). So, what constitutes development and a community? In most cases, development is researched as it happens to a particular community confined to a particular culture and social dynamics. Therefore, the study of development has been greatly influenced by anthropology though anthropologists have been keen to set up a boundary between the two (Villareal, 1992). Mosse (1998, p. 23) cites Ferguson (1994) and says that “many anthropologists remain critically disengaged from development practice, viewing legitimate action more in terms of public education or political advocacy for the self determination of the local populations with whom they are familiar.” In this context, society or a community is composed of different thinking individuals who have various ways of dealing with problematic situations therefore affecting the whole organization of a particular community. In order to achieve consistency, Villareal (1992) says that there are theories aimed as establishing some statistical and normative principles that can be expressed in a quantifiable form. However, there arises some complications in attempt of being objective and subjective is studying societies through individuals. While an individual or an actor represents a macro situation (community), he is a product of many micro situations attributable to the macro environment. This thus implies that macro situations cannot be assumed to be in control of micro situations (Villareal, 1992; Mikkelsen, 2005). Kusek and Rist (2004) assert that there is a better way of accessing and researching development other than the traditional method of implementation-based monitoring and evaluation. They say a newer method, result-based monitoring and evaluation, which has been in use in the minority world for some time, needs to be applied in the majority world. This method does not seek to assess organizational activities and outputs but actual outcomes. They view this as a new challenge in public sector management. Monitoring and evaluation should be carried out at different levels. Evaluation and monitoring are done throughout the lifecycle of an initiative at different levels for instance, program, project and policy levels where they play complementary roles (Kusek & Rist, 2004). According to Khan (1998) (in Crackel 2000, p 302) donor recipient countries “continue to regard evaluation as a donor-driven activity providing them wit few benefits” and therefore giving minimum cooperation in the evaluation process. 3.0 Methodology in research for community development This research project will follow a humanistic approach. It will adopt the qualitative design according to the grouping by Nabben (2009). This is because the nature of this research investigates the real life interpretation of the poverty eradication through the SWOWAC program in Northern Uganda. Adopting a positivist view in this research will create some friction in some way. This is because positivists tend to view qualitative research as a minor methodology for clearing the way for a more serious quantitative research (Mikkelsen, 2005). Nevertheless, Mikkelsen (2005) notes that a qualitative approach has its plus points as it is often involved with generating research hypotheses from the field on social processes, happening in context. It therefore takes into account experience, stories and descriptions provided by the researched to obtain a general idea. Simply put, a qualitative approach aims at obtaining a genuine understanding of the program without making any generalization as guided by a sample. In the event where evaluations are carried out by the community/beneficiaries, there is a tendency for emphasis to be laid on the most obvious and immediately relevant effects of the development initiative as compared to other methods of evaluation. Such an evaluation has a risk of exposing the evaluation bias and irrelevance away from the major intentioned objective. This again points to the need for multidirectional evaluation from all stakeholders (Dale, p. 79). In carrying out a qualitative research like in this case, Denzin (2005, p. 3) says that the researcher needs to collect a lot of empirical materials ranging from personal experience, introspection, historical observational, case study among others. This will help in creating a rich source of information in which to guide the study and to effectively link the existing theories with the objectives of the paper. Denzin (2005) advises that Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand….each practice make the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study” (p. 4) Dale (1998) concurs with Freedman (1998) in this discussion by stating that “In evaluation of community development schemes, the perspectives and approaches applied should comply with the rationalities on which the schemes are or were based” (p. 77). Dale cites Dixon and Sindall (1994) who categorize development schemes into three: community-led change (controlled by the beneficiaries/actors in full or in part); community program (controlled by external actors e.g. AMREF in partnership with the beneficiaries/locals); community intervention (controlled by external actors with minimal involvement of the locals/beneficiaries). Unfortunately, these boundaries are not very conspicuous in the real world. Dale writes that “there might be one or more local organization (formal or informal) utilizing various resources for one or more purposes, and distinctions between factors of change being internal or external to development schemes of theirs may be highly blurred.” (p.77) 4.0 Evaluation research as methodology Nabben (2009) says that the term community alone is very subjective. The author says that a group of people is conventionally considered a community due to geographic relation to individuals and the commonality in culture and way of life. However, due to changes in the western world, that has not spared researchers in this project, there have been changes in ways of knowing and identifying a community. As such, poverty eradication programs in Kenya are to be scrutinized further to understand whom they serve and whether what the program considers as a unit community exists as so in the eyes of the people benefiting from the program. This is important in that if the view of a community by the researcher is different from the world’s view and that of the community members, then the research cannot move on without proper definition. The first task would then be to borrow from anthropology to understand the people and the community before commencing the research. A program in Kenya to provide clean safe drinking water is a excellent example of how the anthropology of a people determines development and in this case eradication of poverty (Freedman, 1998, p. 25). The program aimed at integrating the culture of the coastal people into accessing clean and safe drinking water to avert the water related diseases that impacted on productivity of the people and resources spent in curing such resultant diseases and problems. The project sponsored by PROWESS, an NGO entailed drilling two shallow boreholes and installing hand pumps. However, the pumps were soon to be non operational and hence a recurrence of the same problem of diseases. In conjunction with AMREF, PROWESS devised programs that saw the local people evaluate the program themselves, they made a few recommendations which when applied brought the much needed hand pumps into use again. Freedman (1998, p. 25) thus says that for any development programs to take root and achieve their objectives the beneficiaries have to be involved as evaluators rather than the conventional evaluation methods that do not include the beneficiaries. Again, the inclusion of the beneficiaries as evaluators is important as they point out other problems that may not be visible to the outside evaluators and develop their own tailor-made solutions that are in line with their culture. Wandersman et al (2004) cite Rossi, Freedman and Lipsey (1999) who say that “traditional (or independent) evaluation is characterized by greater autonomy of the evaluator, the use of research methods and is most often used for the purposes of accountability” (p. 140). This research project will seek to encompass the widest coverage of the researched as possible. Data collection methods will include structured household interviews, Focus Group Discussions, key grassroots interviews, documents reviews and consultative workshops. Semi-structured interviews will be scheduled with senior personnel from the program both from the donor side and the recipient side. 5.0 Ethical considerations and challenges In carrying out a community based participatory research, the ensuing ethical issues are both straightforward and multifaceted. In social research, anonymity and confidentiality are both habitually granted to respondents and informants if need be but cannot be guaranteed due to the nature of the research and data obtained. For instance, in cases where evaluation and monitoring in a research this is most common where the researched are few. It becomes almost impossible for a researcher to analyze data without names. However, this difficulty in ensuring anonymity should be handled in another manner at the level of publication. Respondents’ names are changed or coded and it remains that the actual researcher retains the original names of the respondents. The whole idea of research may be faced with a number of hurdles in the ethical arena. The topic of research which involves the issues affecting the community is not endorsed by the community rather by an outsider. How then is the research agenda a community-driven issue? Mikkelsen (2005) says that the researcher should make attempts to familiarize himself with the community in drafting up a community agenda on which o base his research. Unfortunately, this presents a problem for “doing research from home.” In many cases, researchers have stuck to donor-driven research agendas thereby missing the whole point in community development efforts. As earlier stated in the paper, the researched view that monitoring and evaluation is donor funded activities with little impact on the researched. This may be a point of tension between the researched and the researcher often viewed as an outsider. This might be heightened by language and race barriers which may impact on the mode and structure of reward system for the researched. Increased need for accountability by donor governments and organizations has heightened suspicions between recipient communities and governments and the funders. Given that the majority world is historically riddled with corruption, it becomes a sensitive issue when accountability and program management are handled from the grassroots level where the community participates rather than from the top. As aforementioned, evaluation can be “highly-charged process politically” (Rubin, p. 20) hence due precaution must be taken. This therefore entails seeking legal authority prior to the commencement of the research. In another perspective, the Northern part of Uganda has been experiencing tribal conflict and hence participatory research with the inclusion of an outsider maybe a source of political and tribal tension in the region. As such, the researcher in this project must aim to make well known his intention from the very beginning. This goes hand in hand with familiarizing oneself with the community in order to develop a community-driven agenda in the research. References Bell, S. & Morse, S. (2003), The brave New Frontier of sustainability: where are we? Measuring sustainability: learning by doing, (London, Earthscan p. 2-28) Bollier, D. (2002). ‘When markets enclose the commons” Silent theft: the private plunder of our common wealth, (New York, Routlegde, pp 43-55) Cracknell, B. (2000). Evaluating development aid: issues, problems and solutions (London, SAGE, London, pp301-16 Curtis, D, (1995), Power to the people: rethinking community development assistance’, helping the people help themselves: from the word bank to an alternative philosophy of development, (Michigan, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp.100-20) Dale, R. (1998), Evaluating community development work” evaluation frameworks for development programmes and projects, (Thousand oaks, Sage publications, pp 76-84) Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) ‘Introduction: the discipline and the practice of qualitative research in Nk Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), The sage handbook of qualitative research, (Thousand Oaks, Sage publications, pp 76-84) King, J.A. & Stevahn, L. (2002), ‘Three frameworks for considering evaluator role, in KE Ryan & TA Schwandt (eds), Exploring evaluator role and identity, (Connecticut, Information Age publications, pp. 1-16) McGee, R. (2002), ‘The self in participatory poverty research’, in K. Brock & R. McGee (eds), Knowing poverty: critical reflections on participatory research and policy, (London, Earthscan Publications, pp.14-43) Schwandt, TA (2002). Better living through evaluation?’ Evaluation practice reconsidered, (New York, Peter Lang, pp. 27-37) Herda, E. A. (1999). From a positivist to an interpretive orientation in research: tecne, utopoiesis, phroneisis’, Research conversations and narrative: a critical hermeneutic orientation in participatory inquiry, (Westport, Connecticut, Preaeger, pp 31-42) Kusck, J.Z. & Rist, R.C. (2004). ‘Introduction: building a result-based monitoring and evaluation system’, Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: a handbook for development practitioners, (Washington DC., World Bank, pp 1-38) McTaggart, R. (1997) ‘Guiding principles in participatory action research’, In R. McTaggart (ed), Participatory action research: international contexts and consequences, (Albany, State University of New York Press, pp. 25-43) Mikkelsen, B. (2005) methods for development work and research: a new guide for practitioners, 2nd edn, (Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp 38-45) Mosse, D. (1998). ‘Process-oriented approaches to development practices and social research’, in Mosse, J. Farrington & A. Rew (eds), Development as process: concepts and methods for working with complexity, (London, Routlegde, pp.18-30) Nsabagasani X., Kabi, S. & Begumisa, A. (March 2008). Social mobilization of women affected by conflict (SMOWAC) in northern Uganda, project mid-term review, (Accessed online on 28th October 2009 from), www.norad.no/en/_binary?download=true&id=7068 Rist, G. (1997). Some thoughts on what is to be done. P. Camiller (trns), The history of development: from western origins to global faith, (Highlands New Jersey, Zed books pp 238-48) Rubin, F. (1995). “Traditional and alternative models of evaluation”, a basic guide to evaluation for development workers, (Oxford, Oxfam, pp. 19-24) Smith, L. T. (1999). Research through imperial eyes, Decolonizing methodologies; research and indigenous peoples, (London, Zed books, pp 42-57) Villareal, M. (1992), ‘The poverty of practice: power, gender and intervention from an actor- oriented perspective’, in N. long & A. Long (eds), Battlefields of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development, (London, Routledge, pp. 247-67). Wade (2009). For hire: Indian wombs’, The age 31 Jan, p 5 Wandersman A., et al (2004) ‘Empowerment evaluation: principles and action’ in LA. Jason et al (eds) Participatory community research: theories and methods in action. (Washington DC, American Psychological Association, pp. 139-56) Read More

The definition of development as an important subject in social sciences has been evolving. This is in line with the technologic social and cultural advancements that provide the measurements for development (Rist, 1997). In ancient times, the development in most third world countries has been reversed or stagnant entirely. Rist says that development or progress should be a continuous process that seeks to improve the social and psychological aspects of all humans. However, the West has been advancing at the cost of the third world countries.

The west has thus switched from using the term underdeveloped countries to developing countries which “is an illusory promise of material prosperity for all (Rist, p. 238)” as some empirical studies into sub-Saharan African countries have shown. Traditionally, development policy and practice has been carried out with inclusion of anthropological and historical research. In recent times however, there has been a theoretical shifts in anthropology that have shifted attention to development initiatives and interventionist practices and programs (Mikkelsen, 2005).

Rist (1997) is opposed to the use of per capital income as the sole measure of development. He considers the West which has for along time measured development through the per capita income yardstick as “prisoners of development” (Rist, p. 245). Rist goes ahead and says that development is determined most not by what is in the head but by the practices that follow it. This has therefore given rise to close evaluation of development and development initiatives. In the same length, Schwandt (1997, p. 30) says that development through evaluation is a matter of enlightenment than instrumental change.

Rist (1997) argues that development is a pretext for globalization to imply that it is only business oriented with no core purpose of helping the recipient of development assistance (Nabben, 2009). Therefore, the research may adopt this definition that in third world countries globalization has not taken root entirely. Deviating from the contemporary view of third world countries, Nabben (2009) introduces the concept of majority world which will be explained later in the paper. Poverty is largely to blame for under development as purchasing power, demand and supply which drive expansion of markets and hence globalization are relatively weak in the majority world as according to champions of markets, “only market forces can address our many social and economic problems” (Bollier, p. 44). Borrowing from the British political scenarios, Bollier (2002) writes that Commons, in opposing markets theory argue that “certain human values cannot be advanced or respected by markets; only new (or revamped) institutions and cultural traditions can preserve them” (p. 44). The ideology of markets seemed to have failed in England and Wales in the 19th century where alleged improvement in farming methods by the specialized farmers saw 2250 people owning 50% of land and 0.

6% of the population owning 98.5% of the land. Could this be the situation in wealth distribution between the minority and the majority world? Wade (2009) indirectly answers this question by highlighting the situation in India in this paper “For Hire Indian Wombs.” He says millions survive on less than $2 a day and hence Western couples seeking surrogacy have found India to be a cheap destination. For the Indian women, this is a cheap route out of poverty and miserable living conditions and development for them while Mikkelsen (2005) views it as oppression of the poor namely patriarchy.

From this perspective, we see that the majority people or nations are poor with the minor being very wealthy thereby approving Nobben’s (2009) nomenclature of minority and majority world. Research in community development has over time transformed from traditional to more modern methods. Rubin (1995) writes that traditional or otherwise historically methods of community development relied on evaluations mainly adopted by NGO’s involved in development.

Read More