|
Using Community Indicators for Assessing Progress and Learning From Community Development
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jemimah Njuki,
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture,
j.njuki@cgiar.org
|
| Susan Kaaria,
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture,
s.kaaria@cgiar.org
|
| Tennyson Magombo,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
t.magombo@cgiar.org
|
| Abstract:
The Community Driven Monitoring and Evaluation is an approach which focuses on the development of a system managed and supported by local communities, for their own purposes. Community members with facilitation identify their objectives and initiate activities to achieve them. They develop indicators for measuring progress towards achievement of the objectives, collect, analyze and use data to assess progress and make decisions. The indicators are basically local and are based on the experiences, perceptions and knowledge of the local people. This paper describes a process with six farming communities in Malawi to develop indicators for in a project called the Enabling Rural Innovation. The community indicators were then aggregated and used to analyze at a meta-level the changes across the six communities using a likert scale and case studies. The process helps communities assess and learn from their progress and enables facilitator to learn more about the community priorities.
|
|
Understanding the Power of Homelessness Prevention: A Look at the Experiences of Those at Risk
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Mandira Kala,
University of Massachusetts, Boston,
mandira.kala@umb.edu
|
| Jennifer Raymond,
University of Massachusetts, Boston,
jennifer.raymond@umb.edu
|
| Abstract:
Evaluation research is traditionally done by trained researchers, as opposed to the research subjects. However, in researching the impact of homeless prevention services through the evaluation of the Homeless Prevention Initiative (HPI), the Center for Social Policy (CSP) opted to fully engage the perspectives of constituents who had experienced homelessness. Through the HPI, $3 million were invested in homelessness prevention funds to nineteen non-profit organizations throughout Massachusetts. In collaboration with an advocacy agency, Homes for Families (HFF), the CSP engaged constituents in the evaluation of homelessness prevention services as constituents are in a unique position to provide a deeper understanding of the causes and prevention of homelessness. The paper highlights some of the important benefits and challenges of this collaboration including the way the different perspectives enriched the analysis; the potential of collaboration and focus groups in empowering constituents; and future opportunities for constituent involvement in policy research and evaluation.
|
|
Assessing the Role of Community-driven Evaluation Approaches in Strengthening Community Learning, Social Capital, and Internal Accountability: A Synthesis of Lessons From Kenya and Colombia
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Susan Kaaria,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
s.kaaria@cgiar.org
|
| Jemimah Njuki,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
j.njuki@cgiar.org
|
| Noel Sangole,
International Center for Tropical Agriculture,
2622268@uwc.ac.za
|
| Kenga Kadenge Lewa,
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute,
lewakk@yahoo.com
|
| Luis Alfredo Hernandez,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
l.hernandez@cgiar.org
|
| Elias Claros,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,
e.claros.cgiar.org
|
| Abstract:
This paper presents results of a study conducted to assess the benefits of community-driven participatory monitoring and evaluation systems to farmer research group in Kenya and Colombia. The study addressed several questions: Does the CD-PM&E enhance group functioning processes, participation and empowerment? Does it enable communities to have more control over external interventions and community initiatives? Does it improve the execution of community projects? Results comparing groups with and without CD-PM&E found that: (1) There was more consistent participation in group meetings and activities for groups with CD-PM&E compared to those without. (2) Groups with CD-PM&E demonstrated higher levels of trust and joint decision-making. (3) Groups with CD-PM&E were more aware of their group objectives and were more involved in implementing and managing their group projects. (4) Results on improvements on financial accountability and transparency showed no significant improvement on the management of group funds for both groups.
|
| | |