A friend of mine recently commented on Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) processes, which made me ponder as to why they are found baffling by the average person, no matter how many years of experience and education that person may have.
I discovered that many proposal evaluators get confused when reading the proposed M&E section and will acknowledge without compunction that they just could not quite follow what the organization writing the M&E plan was actually proposing. I have also witnessed intelligent individuals turn glassy eyed at hearing about the M&E work plan’s development, that includes outputs vs. outcomes, inputs vs. indicators, activities vs. results, and the concept of an “iterative adaptation”.
Below I share some of the M&E resources that I found helpful in trying to understand what different donors had in mind when referring to the elusive “monitoring for results” in capacity building projects. However, I have yet to find answers to my concerns about conflicts of interest and other problems in M&E and program implementation:
- Who are the evaluators?
- Evaluating the competition: There is an inherent conflict of interest when the evaluators are hired to do M&E work on an implementing entity and they themselves are competitors in the contracting/grant implementation world. This situation places the implementer in a very vulnerable position, as the competitor/evaluator is in the enviable position of learning proprietary information.
- Evaluating a former employer:
- When a disgruntled or aggrieved former employee is hired to evaluate the former employer’s work by the donor, who is aware of the complaints and grievances of this former employee, the integrity and the objectivity of the evaluation are in peril.
- When a former employee is knowingly hired by the donor to evaluate that former employee’s own work, there is an inherent conflict of interest that taints the evaluation from its very beginning. How unbiased can that former employee be?
- How does one ensure true transparency in the M&E process?
- Learning from failure:
- Will the program implementer that the M&E shows is failing in certain aspects of the project not worry about the potential risk of losing the project to a competitor?
- Donors face budgetary pressures to work on successful programs. But M&E points out to what does not work, what needs improvement. If the M&E plan is done internally, by the implementer itself, there are conflicts between those program experts who want to apply the learned lessons of the M&E -even if it means revising the program, readjusting it, or removing parts of the program that don’t work, and those administrators who mostly pay attention to the bottom line and do not want to see the program shrink at all. One could argue the same conflicts exist between donor and contractor. See the tension?
- Learning from failure:
How can you guarantee complete accuracy of the data being entered into a database?
- Self-assessment via an implementer’s internal M&E process relies on the honesty, good faith, and accuracy of the employees providing the data and those entering the data. However, when the donor is under immense pressure to produce results, the temptation to churn information that may not be verifiable is real.
- The same issues above apply to third parties hired by the donor to gather the implementers’ data and produce charts and graphs that make beautiful infographics for future publications. However, who monitors these third parties, who may be using flawed algorithms or erroneous excel sheet mathematical equations?
So, is M&E really that difficult to understand? I have my own theory on why Rule of Law/Justice Sector projects are so hard to assess, but this is for another day. Here is a list of methodologies and other resources for you to decide:
- USAID’s Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD)
- the Maturity Model (MM)
- the Staged Capacity Building Model (SCBM)
- a Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)
- Managing for Results Framework of the State Department
- the Governance Practitioner’s Notebook published by the OECD
- UNDP’s Measuring Capacity
- UNDP’s User’s Guide on How to Measure Rule of Law, Justice and Security Programmes
- The UN’s Rule of Law Indicators