Browse by Theme: Monitoring & Evaluation
Participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, Reflection and Learning for Community-based Adaptation: A revised manual for local practitionersJuly 2014
This manual provides guidance on how to develop a participatory approach to monitoring, evaluating and learning from community-based adaptation to climate change.Read more...
How do you effectively monitor and evaluate the unintended conflict consequences of a large development programme, e.g. health services, in a fragile state? This new publication by CARE International UK and CDA gives practical guidance on how to do this. It includes a discussion of the methodological questions that arise when embarking on a process to monitor and evaluate conflict sensitivity, as well as a range of practical and field-tested tools, for use with a variety of different sized interventions e.g. country operational plans, sectors, programmes or projects.Read more...
In publishing this review of our work in Asia over a five-year period, CARE seeks to provide greater accountability to those with whom we work and to those who entrust CARE with resources, as well as contribute to global discussion on assessing the impact of development efforts.
We aim to improve our knowledge and evidence base to make our future programming, partnerships and advocacy more effective, and to identify where we should improve our internal systems.Read more...
Framework for considering the impact of aid on conflict and a conflict assessment, local capacities for peace projectJuly 2012
On going assessment of the factors, issues, and other dynamics is essential to developing objective strategy and making wise choices in conflict situations.
Broad participation in an analysis and assessment process by all the parties will help build a shared perspective on the problem and the steps necessary to move forward.
Indeed, joint analysis is often a key step in bringing parties to the table. The following guide offers a series of questions to help identify useful information.
The commentary is specifically focused on the data from the analysis that will impact the building of a forum and the getting-to-the-table stage of disputes.
One of the long-standing challenges to successful peacebuilding has been the difficulty of measuring results and generating evidence that can help identify what types of interventions work best. This guide builds on work undertaken by CARE International and International Alert in three countries to pilot theory based evaluation tools to help evaluate the impact of the peacebuilding projects. 19 projects and 38 theories of change were tested, with the resulting tools, tips and processes captured here.Read more...
"Focusing on theories of change can improve the effectiveness of peacebuilding interventions.
A review of 19 peacebuilding projects in three conflict-affected countries found that the process of articulating and reviewing theories of change adds rigour and transparency, clarifies project logic, highlights assumptions that need to be tested, and helps identify appropriate participants and partners.
However, the approach has limitations, including the difficulty of gathering theory validating evidence."
Admissible Evidence in the Court of Development Evaluation? The Impact of CARE’s SHOUHARDO Project on Child Stunting in BangladeshOctober 2011
Along with the rise of the development effectiveness movement of the last few decades, experimental impact evaluation methods – randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental techniques – have emerged as a dominant force. While the increased use of these methods has contributed to improved understanding of what works and whether specific projects have been successful, their ‘gold standard’ status threatens to exclude a large body of evidence from the development effectiveness dialogue. In this paper we conduct an evaluation of the impact on child stunting of CARE’s SHOUHARDO project in Bangladesh, the first large-scale project to use the rights-based, livelihoods approach to address malnutrition. In line with calls for a more balanced view of what constitutes rigor and scientific evidence, and for the use of more diversified and holistic methods in impact evaluations, we employ a mixed-methods approach. The results from multiple data sources and methods, including both non-experimental and quasi-experimental, are triangulated to arrive at the conclusions.Read more...