Assessing Impact and Sustainability
Last
week I wrote about the need for ‘breathing space’ in development programming -
time for ‘beneficiaries’ to take the new skills, systems, policies and various
tools imparted and go at it alone to see what happens. Because we can’t master
something - or fit it to our own contexts - unless we are given a chance to do
it on our own for a reasonable period of time (no, a month doesn't count… I’m
thinking a whole planning and budgeting cycle).
The
more that I have reflected on this over the past week, the more keen I am on
this idea being a required practice in development. What makes this idea so
much different than the others we have discussed? It boils down to a very
practical reason: as an M&E practitioner, there is nothing more frustrating
than doing an evaluation - based on OECD DAC criteria - and BS’ing your way
through the parts on impact and sustainability. Because evaluations usually
take place in the last months of a project - or within three months of project
completion if you’re lucky - so you can infer what may happen but you can’t
know.
Everyone
talks about best practice in M&E and in every single evaluation that
I have been part of reports come back on impact and sustainability that suggest
a ‘likelihood’ or ‘probability’ about what could happen, but recommend that an
impact study be undertaken at a later day (one to three years down the road) to
really assess change and impact, etc, etc. But of course, this doesn’t fit with
the current operational process of project and programme implementation so we
all just nod our heads and say ‘indeed.’
But
what if we started instituting ‘breathing space’ and after a reasonable amount
of time, say 12 to 18 months, we did the impact study and the results of that
study were the basis for the ‘next phase.’ Wouldn’t the next phase be so much
more practical? There’s your value for money - being able to reinforce
areas/skills that continue to prove to be weak, backing off in areas where
‘beneficiaries’ are excelling, and learning about how skills and tools
and everything else has been adapted or contextualized and actually works -
learning about innovation and actual local ownership. Then, instead of just
bulldozing through Phase 2 using ideas and approaches which are extensions of
Phase 1, technical support could be better adapted and contextualized, too.
Obviously
I am dreaming. But just imagine if.
Wow,
we’d all need to upgrade our skills to assess actual impact and
sustainability, that's for sure😉
Comments
Post a Comment