How to align your Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework to a broader programme

The validation of the BRACED theory of change – how and why a change happens in a particular context – and the development of resilience require flexibility and multiple sources of information. To that end, CARE, one of the BRACED Implementing Partners (IPs), has adopted a set of tools to respond to behavioural changes that may occur when building resilience.

Given the ambitious indicators set as goals in BRACED, there is a strong need for robust monitoring systems, to share evidence on resilience changes between projects.

Through the PRESENCES project – a CARE-led initiative aimed at increasing resilience and capacity in people, systems, institutions and policies to adapt to climate crises in Niger’s Tillabéry region – we learned the importance of dealing with evolving contexts that can affect the amount, depth and frequency of evidence.  

Communities’ vulnerability to climate change shocks, like droughts or irregular rain patterns, affect livelihoods and infrastructure – and understanding how that vulnerability evolves is key from a data quality perspective for both PRESENCES and BRACED. For this reason, we designed an adaptive IT system to generate evidence that can inform resilience at multiple levels.

The quality of the data you collect depends on its source, hence the importance of supervision and tools to help data collectors in their work. A digital survey platform (SurveyToGo) helped shape questions in a simple way.

We believe that sharing this type of monitoring information at the BRACED programme level could build a substantial body of evidence shaped by various contexts. One way for IPs to do this would be to progressively move the information they gather to digital platforms.

MAKING GOOD USE OF DATA

CARE recognised the importance of contextual and behavioural elements (such as seasonal conditions or cultural and social norms) behind the cycle of evidence generated from the project – from collection to analysis of data – to predict their significance.

Our approach to making the best use of this data is structured as follows:

1) The selection of the optimal amount of information that can inform changes in the way activities are delivered to reach a maximum impact.

   a) For each project, what is the set of resilience information linked with BRACED objectives that is tracked over time and used to adapt to the context? For example, how are various inputs enabling a behavioural/social change among the target population?

   b) How is the data distributed across different locations and how does it represent target groups in the project?

2) Standards to ensure consistency and adaptability of the data collection process

   a) How did the re-design and adaptation of data collection tools respond to feedback from IPs, targeted communities, as well as local and national authorities?

   b) What kind of support can the project give data collectors in gauging behavioural changes and evolving contexts?

3) Digital platforms (survey and data storage platforms) to share evidence – such as SurveyToGo, OpenDataKit, Device Magic, among others.

   a) How is monitoring data generated, cleaned, codified and stocked for analysis?

   b) What is the strategy to make the best use of information from collection to communication of key findings (in terms of visualisation, synthesis and comparison, for example.)?

This approach particularly applies in evolving contexts that require close monitoring. Long-term adaptation to climate change, such as recurrent droughts, implies a shift in the kind of livelihood that can guarantee survival.

The in-depth changes that are required would suggest a need for close monitoring from all IPs to track, for instance, how target communities are using probability-based climate information to diversify their livelihood.

Finally, a way to align project and programme-level evidence would be for IPs to progressively digitise and share their monitoring information that most pertains to BRACED objectives. As such, monitoring systems should reflect the reality of regions where they operate, and be flexible.

Our experience at CARE indicates that project-programme alignment is possible when information on changes in resilience is tracked in a consistent and context-driven manner across projects. Targets and assumptions should rely on real-time monitoring of these changes.

We therefore believe that IPs can and should generate this kind of information to allow the Knowledge Manager to gain a better appreciation of local contexts and update its findings accordingly.

This blog is part of a BRACED series on lessons in Monitoring and Measuring Resilience from Implementing Partners. Look out for the next blog on June 15 and click here to view related content.