Publications
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://192.9.200.215:4000/handle/123456789/196
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Who Benefits-The Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes in Central Asia(INTRAC, 2004-11) Buxton, CharlesThe theme of the conference "Who Benefits?: The Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes in Central Asia' was chosen to reflect and promote a key component of INTRAC's Central Asia Programme (ICAP): monitoring and evaluation (M&E). In early 2003, ICAP had already begun in earnest its work to train local NGOs. across the region in M&E skills, with a particular emphasis on qualitative approaches to measurement, and we had piloted our own programme-wide participatory evaluation methodology. This project had led to the creation of three country-based working groups in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan who were beginning to define their own training needs as well as to work out how they should beet assess ICAP's work.Item EVALUATION CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT- The Development of Monitoring and Evaluation Capacities to Improve Government Performance in Uganda(Operations Evaluation Department, 2003-10) Hauge, Arild O.There is a growing awareness that Uganda's progress with poverty reduction does not match the rate of increase in budget resources for the social sectors; there are indications of poor effectiveness and value-for-money in public service delivery. These concerns are focusing attention on the priority for a better understanding of development effectiveness-what works, what does not, in which contexts, and why. Uganda's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems have the potential to provide this much-needed understanding. A large volume of information is currently produced by different M&E systems and practices that have been established in Uganda emanating from domestic and external concerns with accountability, governance, public sector reform, and financial management. But the disparate information flows can create confusion about goals and complicate policy analysis. Parallel systems lead to duplication and waste in data collection, and the M&E workload diverts attention away from productive service delivery. The M&E systems also sometimes reward managers for good paperwork rather than contribution to poverty eradication. Although arguably documenting compliance with nominal accountability rules, Uganda's M&E systems need to increase the emphasis on the results that follow from public action. M&E data are often of poor quality, with missing, inaccurate, or outdated information. The distinction between observed reality and what is hoped-for is blurred. In this environment, donors when each brings a different set of rules and requirements have been part of the M&E problem rather than part of its solution. The Uganda experience helps to dispel the notion that increased M&E, in and of its own, will lead to improved results orientation. What Uganda needs is not more, but better, M&E.