Theory of Change: does governmnet need one in it’s approach to programme and project development?

“Stop asking us the why, what now, and so what questions. Because we are not used to answering questions; we’re used to just implementing what we’re told”. This was a reaction by one of the participants of the MfI workshop that was facilitated for the officials of the Department of Social Development in the Northern Cape province South Africa.

The training was specifically organised for this group and these are Development Practitioners, whose responsibility is to oversee and supervise implementation of developmental projects in local communities of the Northern Cape. At the start of the workshop they felt that the subject and the MfI concept was fun and easy to grasp, and it is something that can easily be adapted to their current way of doing things, and this was before the Theory of Change and M&E were introduced to them. The feeling was however different after the introduction of the Theory of Change and M&E, as they felt that these concpts were completely shaking their ”comfort zone” (project implementation mode, and monitoring project implementation rather than measuring the impact of the project on communities).

What was fascinating with this workshop was the fact that the participants felt that the workshop had absolutely changed their mindset around how they have always viewed development, and even though they found M&E a challange, what was interesting was the fact that they understood that they found it challanging not because it is a diffuclt process, but because it’s a process that they had never seen as part of project implementation. They also struggled to understand how Theory of Change informs the monitoring and evaluation approach and process, and because their theory of change as a department has always focused on project implementation, it was nerve-wrecking for them to understand how then does one monitor and evaluate the impact of the project on communities, when the theory of change was never about making impact on communities.

The projects that are designed by the department of Social Development, that are supposedly aimed at reducing poverty, are mostly based on the national masterplan, and this means that all provinces implement the same type of projects across the country irrespective of the local conditions and capacities. The also is not a clear Theory of Change, which specific outcomes, and objectives, and in the process what then happens is that officials then adopt a project implementation mode as this is how their performance is maesured. their performance is not measured based on whether the project has had any impact in incraesing people’livelihoods, but rather on whether the project is up and running, irrespective of its relevance or non thereof.

One positive criticism about Mfi though is that there is need to further simplify M&E, as it currently still has very strong elements of scientific research process, and yes maybe we cannot avoid this completely. What we then need to do is design different M&E modules for different audiences. This recommendation is made at the back of the workshop with government officials, where they expressed that because of MfI they understand the value and role of M&E, however they do feel that it is too “technical” for them, and this scares them off.

One of the participants when asked what he understood by M&E, said “M&E is a process where one collects information about what they do, to assess whether they are still on the right tract.  It is therefore important that before you do anything you understand what you want to achieve, because how do you know that you have achieved, or not, if you didn’t understand what you wanted to achieve in the first place? Once you know what you want to achieve, and have outlined how you are going to achieve it, it’s easy to put in place a process to measure your progress. The information you collect needs to help you make decisions on your progress, whether you are on the right tract, side tracked, or have to change course, and what is most important is that it should help you answer the why, what now, and so what questions that we cannot answer now because we don’t know what impact the projects are supposed to make“. 

 

 

 

Monitoring impacts of an Environmental Impacts Assessment training Project.

 

As I stepped to the front of the room, I had this inner voice that kept repeating my mentor’s words “…10 people trained…so what?” And these were my first words to the team of 14 people around me comprising of donors, partners and 6 beneficiaries of the Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) capacity building project. This Project seeks to promote EIA professionalism by providing a “learning by doing” environment for young indigenous African EIA professionals. The Project has three key strategic activities: i) EIA refresher training; ii) Placement with an organization undertaking an EIA on a major; and iii) Networking at national, regional and International forums.  This year, 2008, the Project is running its 4^th batch of training. However, since its start, there has not been an impacts monitoring system. So I was given three hours to kick-start the discussion on establishing a monitoring system from the Project’s impacts. And we starting with what it was that we wanted to monitor.

 

After some discussion and agreement that we were to focus on impacts (afterall it was clear from document on the number of outputs – no of people trained, how many and which trainings), we debated on who was to change and how the change was to be observed in terms of attitude and behaviour. It was amazing how easy an-impacts monitoring discussion gets when all stakeholders are involved in identification of change expected from intervention! The beneficiaries narrated how they wanted to change, and how it was to be measured.  The team also felt that with the success of the Project, they expected the donor to change e.g. to increase or expand its funding on such an initiative. Someone mentioned that the local communities who are stakeholders in EIA processes would change. After lengthy debate, the team agreed that that cannot be linked to the Project.

 

In a nutshell, the discussion for identifying impact indicators drove itself.  The representation of all stakeholders involved in the Project helped a great deal. The approach of discussing expected change in terms of attitude and behaviour as a result of Project interventions made the discussion clear and easy!.

Incentives, Paradigms & Posho!

  We were on Day 5 of discussing and designing a participatory M&E system…with lots of positive feedback on this “new way of doing things”. Many individuals had come up to us, or said in plenary how excited they were to be involved in designing a system where the information would help the farmer, the researcher, the extension officer in making their own decisions. 

In the managing for impact approach; we recognize that it’s important to identify up-front what incentives need to be put in place to motivate people to get actively involved in M&E. 

So - we asked individuals to put on cards what incentives they thought would be important for them. Once they’d done so - we turned over blank flip charts with titles of different types of incentives; and asked everyone to walk around and place their cards where they thought they best fitted:

• Financial
• Material (new equipment etc)
• Clear link to decision making
• Recognition (e.g. being invited to give a presentation, or a pat on the back..)
• Clear roles & responsibilities for M&E
• Opportunities for training/skill-building
• Others

I suppose you will not be too surprised to hear that the flip charts titled “financial” and “material” incentives were filled to the brim! 

Together, we reflected on this and the discussion gradually led us to development in general and the way we view it….

Now, it’s all very well for us to stand there looking down on people asking for more per diems/DSA…or a top-up on their salaries or any other form of “posho”! 

But…when I think about it a little - it makes a lot of sense. We’ve all read the endless criticism about development - and how it’s not making much of a difference. So - perhaps…over time - it’s gradually arrived at a point where the benefits of development aid projects are limited simply to “posho”.. make a quick buck while you can before the project ends! And honestly - when you think about the farmers listening to programme staff who’ve just driven up in their snazy 4-wheel drives or the “experts” flown in from abroad staying in posh(o) hotels….. you can see the message being given off right? Development project = posho! 

So, until we find ways to restore faith and belief in aid projects - that …with a little hard work & integrity…they can make a positive difference to people’s lives ..they can put a dent in this endless cycle of “poverty”…

Until we can find ways to restore faith & belief in M&E systems …that the information collected will really be used to help people make better decisions about their own lives - and influence the decisions of others…. I’m afraid “posho” will continue to be the stronger motivator!!