Tag Archives: evaluation

EES podcasts and webinar series on emerging technologies

Guest post, Lauren Weiss, European Evaluation Society

As you may be aware, the European Evaluation Society’s biennial conference has been postponed to September 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the meantime, EES is continuing to work for you, and we are excited to announce the launch of two new initiatives.

First, our new podcast series, EvalEdge, is now available! It focuses on the role of evaluation in shaping how new and emerging technologies can be adapted in international development and in larger society. It explores the latest technological developments, from dig data and geospatial analysis, to blockchain and Internet of Things (IoTs).

Our first episode features MERL Tech’s co-founder Linda Raftree, who discusses innovative examples of using big data, the ethical considerations to be aware of, and much more! Check it out here!

Building on this momentum, EES is also launching a webinar series titled “Emerging Data Landscapes in M&E.” In partnership with Dev CAFÉ, MERL Tech, and the World Bank IEG, this series is devoted to discussing the use of innovative technologies in the world of evaluation.

The first event, “Geospatial, location and big data: Where have we been and where can we go? will take place on 28 July, 15:00 CEST (9:00 EST).

This interactive and free webinar will provide concrete examples of using geospatial and location data to improve our M&E practices. It will also discuss the barriers to using such technologies and brainstorm on ways to overcome them, by inviting feedback and questions from the online audience.

It will include speakers from the World Bank IEG, the European Commission’s DEVCO/ESS, and the Global Environment Facility. You can find more information on our website.

To register for this webinar click here.

We look forward to seeing you on 28 July for this exciting discussion!

For now, to learn more about EES’ upcoming activities, visit our website, or sign up for our monthly newsletter by emailing secretariat@europeanevaluation.org. You can also follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Use of Administrative Data for the COVID-19 Response

Administrative data is that which is collected as part of regular activities that occur during program implementation. It has not been tapped sufficiently for learning and research. As the COVID-19 pandemic advances, how might administrative data be used to help with the COVID response, and other national or global pandemics.

At the final event in the MERL Tech and CLEAR-Anglophone Africa series for  gLOCAL Evaluation Week, we were joined by Kwabena Boakye, Ministry of Monitoring and Evaluation, Ghana; Bosco Okumu, National Treasury and Planning, Kenya; Stephen Taylor, Department of Basic Education, South Africa; and Andrea Fletcher, Cooper-Smith.

The four panelists described the kinds of administrative or “routine” data they are using in their work. For example, in Kenya educational records, client information from financial institutions, hospital records of patients, and health outcomes are being used to plan and implement actions related to COVID-19 and to evaluate the impact of different COVID-related policies that governments have put in place or are considering. In Malawi, administrative data is combined with other sources such as Google mobility data to understand how migration might be affecting the virus’ spread. COVID-19 is putting a spotlight on weaknesses and gaps in existing administrative data systems.

Watch the video here:

Listen to just the audio from the event here:

Summary:

Benefits of administrative data include that:

  • Data is generated through normal operations and does not require an additional survey to create it
  • It can be more relevant than a survey because it covers a large swath of the entire population
  • It is an existing data source during COVID when it’s difficult to collect new data
  • It can be used to create dashboards for decision-makers at various levels

Challenges include:

  • Data sits in silos and the systems are not designed to be interoperable
  • Administrative data may leave out those who are not participating in a government program
  • Data sets are time-bound to the life of the program
  • Some administrative data systems are outdated and have poor quality data that is not useful for decision-making or analysis
  • There is a demand for beautiful dashboards and maps but there is insufficient attention to the underlying data processes that would be needed to produce this information so that it can be used
  • Real-time data is not possible when there is no Internet connectivity
  • There is insufficient attention to data privacy and protection, especially for sensitive data
  • Institutions may resist providing data if weakness are highlighted through the data or they think it will make them look bad

Recommendations for better use of administrative data in the public sector:

  • Understand the data needs of decision-makers and build capacity to understand and use data systems
  • Map the data that exists, assess its quality, and identify gaps
  • Design and enact policies and institutional arrangements, tools, and processes to make sure that data is organized and interoperable.
  • Automate processes with digital tools to make them more seamless.
  • Focus on enhancing underlying data collection processes to improve the quality of administrative data; this includes making it useful for those who provide the data so that it is not yet another administrative burden with no local value.
  • Assign accountability for data quality across the entire system.
  • Learn from the private sector, but remember that the public sector has different incentives and goals.
  • Rather than fund more research on administrative data, donors should put funds into training on data quality, data visualization, and other skills related to data use and data literacy at different levels of government.
  • Determine how to improve data quality and use of existing administrative data systems rather than building new ones.
  • Make administrative data useful to those who are inputting it to improve data quality.

Download the event reports:

See other gLOCAL Evaluation 2020 events from CLEAR-AA and MERL Tech:

Remote Monitoring in the Time of Coronavirus

On June 3,  MERL Tech and CLEAR-Anglophone Africa hosted the second of three virtual events for gLOCAL Evaluation Week. At this event, we heard from Ignacio Del Busto, IDInsight, Janna Rous, Humanitarian Data, and Ayanda Mtanyana, New Leaders, on the topic of remote monitoring.

Data is not always available, and it can be costly to produce. One challenge is generating data cheaply and quickly to meet the needs of decision-makers within the operational constraints that enumerators face. Another is ensuring that the process is high quality and also human-centered, so that we are not simply extracting data. This can be a challenge when there is low connectivity and reach, poor networks capacity and access, and low smartphone access. Enumerator training is also difficult when it must be done remotely, especially if enumerators are new to technology and more accustomed to doing paper-based surveys.

Watch the video below.

Listen to just the audio from the session here.

Some recommendations arising from the session included:

  • Learn and experiment as you try new things. For example, tracking when and why people are dropping off a survey and finding ways to improve the design and approach. This might be related to the time of the call or length of the survey.
  • It’s not only about phone surveys. There are other tools. For example, WhatsApp has been used successfully during COVID-19 for collecting health data.
  • Don’t just put your paper processes onto a digital device. Instead, consider how to take greater advantage of digital devices and tools to find better ways of monitoring. For example, could we incorporate sensors into the monitoring from the start? At the same time, be careful not to introduce technologies that are overly complex.
  • Think about exclusion and access. Who are we excluding when we move to remote monitoring? Children? Women? Elderly people? We might be introducing bias if we are going remote. We also cannot observe if vulnerable people are in a safe place to talk if we are doing remote monitoring. So, we might be exposing people to harm or they could be slipping through the cracks. Also, people self-select for phone surveys. Who is not answering the phone and thus left out of the survey?
  • Consider providing airtime but make sure this doesn’t create perverse incentives.
  • Ethics and doing no harm are key principles. If we are forced to deliver programs remotely, this involves experimentation. And we are experimenting with people’s lives during a health crisis. Consider including a complaints channel where people can report any issues.
  • Ensure data is providing value at the local level, and help teams see what the whole data process is and how their data feeds into it. That will help improve data quality and reduce the tendency to ‘tick the box’ for data collection or find workarounds.
  • Design systems for interoperability so that the data can overlap, and the data can be integrated with other data for better insights or can be automatically updated. Data standards need to be established so that different systems can capture data in the same way or the same format;
  • Create a well-designed change management program to bring people on board and support them. Role modeling by leaders can help to promote new behaviors.

Further questions to explore:

  • How can we design monitoring to be remote from the very start? What new gaps could we fill and what kinds of mixed methods could we use?
  • What two-way platforms are most useful and how can they be used effectively and ethically?
  • Can we create a simple overview of opportunities and threats of remote monitoring?
  • How can we collect qualitative data, e.g., focus groups and in-depth interviews?
  • How can we keep respondents safe? What are the repercussions of asking sensitive questions?
  • How can we create data continuity plans during the pandemic?


Download the event reports:

See other gLOCAL Evaluation 2020 events from CLEAR-AA and MERL Tech:

Using Data Responsibly During the COVID-19 Crisis

Over the past decade, monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL) practices have become increasingly digitalized. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused that the process of digitalization to happen with even greater speed and urgency, due to travel restrictions, quarantine, and social distancing orders from governments who are desperate to slow the spread of the virus and lessen its impact.

MERL Tech and CLEAR-Anglophone Africa are working together to develop a framework and guidance on responsible data management for MERL in the Anglophone African context. As part of this effort, we held three virtual events in early June during CLEAR’s gLOCAL Evaluation Week.

At our June 2 event, Korstiaan Wapenaar, Genesis Analytics, Jerusha Govender, Data Innovator, and Teki Akkueteh, Africa Digital Rights Hub, shared tips on how to be more responsible with data.

Data is a necessary and critical part of COVID-19 prevention and response efforts to understand where the virus might appear next, who is most at risk, and where resources should be directed for prevention and response. However we need to be sure that we are not putting people at risk of privacy violations or misuse of personal data and to ensure that we are managing that data responsibly so that we don’t unnecessarily create fear or panic.

Watch the video below:

Listen to the audio from the session here:

Session summary:

  • MERL Practitioners have clear responsibilities when sharing, presenting, consuming and interpreting data. Individuals and institutions may use data to gain prestige, and this can allow bias to creep in or to justify government decisions. Data quality is critical for informing decisions, and information gaps create the risk of misinformation and flawed understanding. We need to embrace uncertainty and the limitations of the science, provide context and definitions so that our sources are clear, and ensure transparency around the numbers and the assumptions that are underpin our work.
  • MERL Practitioners should provide contextual information and guidance on how to interpret the data so that people can make sense of it in the right way. We should avoid cherry picking data to prove a point, and we should be aware that data visualization carries power to sway opinions and decisions. It can also influence behavior change in individuals, so we need to take responsibility for that. We also need to find ways to visualize data for lay people and non-technical sectors.
  • Critical data is needed, yet it might be used in negative or harmful ways, for example, COVID-related stigmatization that can affect human dignity. We must not override ethical and legal principles in our rush to collect data. Transparency around data collection processes and use are also needed, as well as data minimization. Some might be taking advantage of the situation to amass large amounts of data for alternative purposes, which is unethical. Large amounts of data also bring increased risk of data breaches. When people are scared, such as in COVID times, they will be willing to hand over data. We need to ensure that we are providing oversight and keeping watch over government entities, health facilities, and third-party data processors to ensure data is protected and not misused.
  • MERL Practitioners are seeking more guidance and support on: aspects of consent and confidentiality; bias and interference in data collection by governments and community leaders; overcollection of data leading to fatigue; misuse of sensitive data such as location data; potential for re-identification of individuals; data integrity issues; lack of encryption; and some capacity issues.
  • Good practices and recommendations include ethical clearance of data and data assurance structures; rigorous methods to reduce bias; third party audits of data and data protection processes; localization and contextualization of data processes and interpretation; and “do no harm” framing.

Download reports:

Read about the other gLOCAL Evaluation 2020 events from CLEAR-AA and MERL Tech:

Research Opportunity: Harm and the M&E Cycle

We are looking for a researcher to undertake desk-based research into how harm has been defined and integrated into monitoring and evaluation cycles. Please see the Terms of Reference and submit your short proposal by July 5, 2020, or read more about this initiative below.

Monitoring and evaluation practitioners are in a privileged position where they have the opportunity to listen and hear the voices and stories of the people that aid and development agencies work with. These professionals often determine what gets counted and what counts. Yet, practical guidance for commissioners, managers, and evaluators on managing harm is limited. The above graphic shows just some of the areas where the monitoring and evaluation process could contribute to harm.

Our privileged position as M&E practitioners brings with it the responsibility to do no harm. We need to be aware of how we might create or exacerbate harm and also how we might overlook harm due to our positions of power.  Evaluators need to play a strong role in identifying areas where M&E can cause harm and develop mitigation strategies to prevent or reduce that potential harm. There has been patchy recognition about the variety of potential harms that can arise from both action and inaction of an evaluator and others involved in monitoring and evaluation processes. There is also a wider discussion to be had around evaluation as a whole and its inherent power dynamics that can lead to, enable, or obfuscate different types of harm and which play a role in determining what is considered to be harmful.

Over the past two years, a group of senior M&E practitioners* has been reflecting on harm in M&E. In the course of this work we’ve organized conversations and collective reflection workshops, think pieces, reports on priority areas and presentations at M&E conferences. The group now looks to build these actions into a practitioner-orientated publication. The research being commissioned aims to further map harms that arise within monitoring and evaluation practice.

As part of this publication, we are looking for a researcher to take a deeper look at how harm has been defined and if and how “do no harm” approaches have been integrated into M&E cycles.

Potential questions for this research include:

  1.  What definition, association, or conception (or definitions, associations, or conceptions) of harm emerge from M&E literature and practice?
  2. Who are the key social actors who interact in M&E cycles?
  3. What strategies for addressing, preventing or reducing these harms have emerged and how successful have these been?

Please see the full Terms of Reference and instructions for submitting your application if you are interested in conducting this research. The deadline for submissions is Sunday July 5th. 

*The group of M&E practitioners who are working together on this topic includes: Stephen Porter, Evaluation Strategy Advisor – Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank; Veronica Olazabal, Senior Adviser and Director, Measurement, Evaluation and Organizational Performance – The Rockefeller Foundation; Prof. Rodney Hopson, Department of Educational Psychology – University of Illinois; Linda Raftree, Convener of MERL Tech; Adj. Prof Dugan Fraser, Director of the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa – University of the Witwatersrand.

8 Ways to Adapt Your M&E During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Guest post from Janna Rous. Original published here.

So, all of a sudden you’re stuck at home because of the new coronavirus.  You’re looking at your M&E commitments and your program commitments.  Do you put them all on hold and postpone them until the coronavirus threat has passed and everything goes back to normal?  Or is there a way to still get things done”!?  This article reviews 8 ways you can adapt your M&E during the pandemic.

Here are a few ideas that you and your team might consider doing to make sure you can stay on track (and maybe even IMPROVE your MEAL practices) even if you might currently be in the middle of a lockdown, or if you think you might be going into a lockdown soon:

1. Phone Call Interviews instead of In-Person Interviews

Do you have any household assessments or baseline surveys or post-distribution monitoring that you had planned in the next 1 to 3 months? Is there a way that you can carry out these interviews by phone or WhatsApp calls?  This is the easiest and most direct way to carry on with your current M&E plan.  Instead of doing these interviews face-to-face, just get them on a call.  I’ve created a checklist to help you prepare for doing phone call interviews – click here to get the “Humanitarian’s Phone Call Interview Checklist”.  Here are a few things you need to think through to transition to a phone-call methodology:

  • You need phone numbers and names of people that need to be surveyed. Do you have these?  Or is there a community leader who might be able to help you get these?
  • You also need to expect that a LOT of people may not answer their phone. So instead of “sampling” people for a survey, you might want to just plan on calling almost everyone on that list.
  • Just like for a face-to-face interview, you need to know what you’re going to say. So you need to have a script ready for how you introduce yourself and ask for consent to do a phone questionnaire.  It’s best to have a structured interview questionnaire that you follow for every phone call, just like you would in a face-to-face assessment.
  • You also need to have a way to enter data as you ask the questions. This usually depends on what you’re most comfortable with – but I recommend preparing an ODK or KoboToolbox questionnaire, just like you would for an in-person survey, and filling it out as you do the interview over the phone.  I find it easiest to enter the data into KoboToolbox “Webform” instead of the mobile app, because I can type information faster into my laptop rather than thumb-type it into a mobile device.  But use what you have!
  • If you’re not comfortable in KoboToolbox, you could also prepare an Excel sheet for directly entering answers – but this will probably require a lot more data cleaning later on.
  • When you’re interviewing, it’s usually faster to type down the answers in the language you’re interviewing in. If you need your final data collection to be in English, go back and do the translation after you’ve hung up the phone.
  • If you want a record of the interview, ask if you can record the phone call. When the person says yes, then just record it so you can go back and double check an answer if you need to.
  • Very practically – if you’re doing lots of phone calls in a day, it is easier on your arm and your neck if you use a headset instead of holding your phone to your ear all day!

2. Collect Videos & Photos Directly from Households and Communities

When you’re doing any in-person MEAL activities, you’re always able to observe evidence. You can look around and SEE impact, you don’t just hear it through an interview or group discussion.  But when you’re doing M&E remotely, you can’t double-check to see what impact really looks like.  So I recommend:

  • Connect with as many beneficiaries and team members as possible through WhatsApp or another communication app and collect photos and videos of evidence directly from them.
  • Video – Maybe someone has a story of impact they can share with you through video. Or if you’re overseeing a Primary Health Care clinic, perhaps you can have a staff member walk you through the clinic with a video so you can do a remote assessment.
  • Pictures – Maybe you can ask everyone to send you a picture of (for example) their “hand washing station with soap and water” (if you’re monitoring a WASH program). Or perhaps you want evidence that the local water point is functioning.

3. Programme Final Evaluation

It’s a good practice to do a final evaluation review when you reach the end of a program.  If you have a program finishing in the next 1-3 months, and you want to do a final review to assess lessons learned overall, then you can also do this remotely!

  • Make a list of all the stakeholders that would be great to talk to: staff members, a few beneficiaries, government authorities (local and/or national), other NGOs, coordination groups, partner organizations, local community leaders.
  • Then go in search of either their phone numbers, their email addresses, their Skype accounts, or their WhatsApp numbers and get in touch.
  • It’s best if you can get on a video chat with as many of them as possible – because it’s much more personal and easy to communicate if you can see one another’s faces! But if you can just talk with audio – that’s okay too.
  • Prepare a semi-structured interview, a list of questions you want to talk through about the impact, what went well, what could have gone better. And if there’s anything interesting that comes up, don’t worry about coming up with some new questions on the spot or skipping questions that don’t make sense in the context.
  • You can also gather together any monitoring reports/analysis that was done on the project throughout its implementation period, plus pictures of the interventions.
  • Use all this information to create a final “lessons learned” evaluation document. This is a fantastic way to continually improve the way you do humanitarian programming.

4. Adapt Your Focus Group Discussion Plan

If everyone is at home because your country has imposed a lockdown, it will be very difficult to do a focus group discussion because….you can’t be in groups!  So, with your team decide if it might be better to switch your monitoring activity from collecting qualitative data in group discussions to actually just having one-on-one interviews on the phone with several people to collect the same information.

  • There are some dynamics that you will miss in one-to-one interviews, information that may only come out during group discussions. (Especially where you’re collecting sensitive or “taboo” data.) Identify what that type of information might be – and either skip those types of questions for now, or brainstorm how else you could collect the information through phone-calls.

5. Adapt Your Key Informant Interviews

If you normally carry out Key Informant Interviews, it would be a great idea to think what “extra” questions you need to ask this month in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

  • If you normally ask questions around your program sector areas, think about just collecting a few extra data points about feelings, needs, fears, and challenges that are a reality in light of Covid-19. Are people facing any additional pressures due to the epidemic? Or are there any new humanitarian needs right now? Are there any upcoming needs that people are anticipating?
  • It goes without saying that if your Key Informant Interviews are normally in person, you’ll want to carry these out by phone for the foreseeable future!

6. What To Do About Third Party Monitoring

Some programs and donors use Third Party Monitors to assess their program results independently.  If you normally hire third party monitors, and you’ve got some third party monitoring planned for the next 1-3 months, you need to get on the phone with this team and make a new plan. Here are a few things you might want to think through with your third party monitors:

  • Can the third party carry out their monitoring by phone, in the same ways I’ve outlined above?
  • But also think through – is it worth it to get a third party monitor to assess results remotely? Is it better to postpone their monitoring?  Or is it worth it to carry on regardless?
  • What is the budget implication? If cars won’t be used, is there any cost-savings?  Is there any additional budget they’ll need for air-time costs for their phones?
  • Make sure there is a plan to gather as much photo and video evidence as possible (see point 2 above!)
  • If they’re carrying out phone call interviews it would also be a good recommendation to record phone calls if possible and with consent, so you have the records if needed.

7. Manage Expectations – The Coronavirus Pandemic May Impact Your Program Results.

You probably didn’t predict that a global pandemic would occur in the middle of your project cycle and throw your entire plan off.  Go easy on yourself and your team!  It is most likely that the results you’d planned for might not end up being achieved this year.  Your donors know this (because they’re probably also on lockdown).  You can’t control the pandemic, but you can control your response.  So proactively manage your own expectations, your manager’s expectations and your donor’s expectations.

  • Get on a Skype or Zoom call with the project managers and review each indicator of your M&E plan. In light of the pandemic, what indicator targets will most likely change?
  • Look through the baseline numbers in your M&E plan – is it possible that the results at the END of your project might be worse than even your baseline numbers? For example, if you have a livelihoods project, it is possible that income and livelihoods will be drastically reduced by a country-wide lockdown.  Or are you running an education program?  If schools have been closed, then will a comparison to the baseline be possible?
  • Once you’ve done a review of your M&E plan, create a very simple revised plan that can be talked through with your program donor.

8. Talk To Your Donors About What You Can Do Remotely

When you’re on the phone with your donors, don’t only talk about revised program indicators.

  • Also talk about a revised timeframe – is there any flexibility on the program timeframe, or deadlines for interim reporting on indicators? What are their expectations?
  • Also talk about what you CAN do remotely. Discuss with them the plan you have for carrying on everything possible that can be done remotely.
  • And don’t forget to discuss financial implications of changes to timeframe.

 

What’s Happening with Tech and MERL?

by Linda Raftree, Independent Consultant and MERL Tech organizer

Back in 2014, the humanitarian and development sectors were in the heyday of excitement over innovation and Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D). The role of ICTs specifically for monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (aka “MERL Tech“) had not been systematized (as far as I know), and it was unclear whether there actually was “a field.” I had the privilege of writing a discussion paper with Michael Bamberger to explore how and why new technologies were being tested and used in the different steps of a traditional planning, monitoring and evaluation cycle. (See graphic 1 below, from our paper).

The approaches highlighted in 2014 focused on mobile phones, for example: text messages (SMS), mobile data gathering, use of mobiles for photos and recording, mapping with specific handheld global positioning systems (GPS) devices or GPS installed in mobile phones. Promising technologies included tablets, which were only beginning to be used for M&E; “the cloud,” which enabled easier updating of software and applications; remote sensing and satellite imagery, dashboards, and online software that helped evaluators do their work more easily. Social media was also really taking off in 2014. It was seen as a potential way to monitor discussions among program participants, gather feedback from program participants, and considered an underutilized tool for greater dissemination of evaluation results and learning. Real-time data and big data and feedback loops were emerging as ways that program monitoring could be improved, and quicker adaptation could happen.

In our paper, we outlined five main challenges for the use of ICTs for M&E: selectivity bias; technology- or tool-driven M&E processes; over-reliance on digital data and remotely collected data; low institutional capacity and resistance to change; and privacy and protection. We also suggested key areas to consider when integrating ICTs into M&E: quality M&E planning, design validity; value-add (or not) of ICTs; using the right combination of tools; adapting and testing new processes before roll-out; technology access and inclusion; motivation to use ICTs, privacy and protection; unintended consequences; local capacity; measuring what matters (not just what the tech allows you to measure); and effectively using and sharing M&E information and learning.

We concluded that:

  • The field of ICTs in M&E is emerging and activity is happening at multiple levels and with a wide range of tools and approaches and actors. 
  • The field needs more documentation on the utility and impact of ICTs for M&E. 
  • Pressure to show impact may open up space for testing new M&E approaches. 
  • A number of pitfalls need to be avoided when designing an evaluation plan that involves ICTs. 
  • Investment in the development, application and evaluation of new M&E methods could help evaluators and organizations adapt their approaches throughout the entire program cycle, making them more flexible and adjusted to the complex environments in which development initiatives and M&E take place.

Where are we now:  MERL Tech in 2019

Much has happened globally over the past five years in the wider field of technology, communications, infrastructure, and society, and these changes have influenced the MERL Tech space. Our 2014 focus on basic mobile phones, SMS, mobile surveys, mapping, and crowdsourcing might now appear quaint, considering that worldwide access to smartphones and the Internet has expanded beyond the expectations of many. We know that access is not evenly distributed, but the fact that more and more people are getting online cannot be disputed. Some MERL practitioners are using advanced artificial intelligence, machine learning, biometrics, and sentiment analysis in their work. And as smartphone and Internet use continue to grow, more data will be produced by people around the world. The way that MERL practitioners access and use data will likely continue to shift, and the composition of MERL teams and their required skillsets will also change.

The excitement over innovation and new technologies seen in 2014 could also be seen as naive, however, considering some of the negative consequences that have emerged, for example social media inspired violence (such as that in Myanmar), election and political interference through the Internet, misinformation and disinformation, and the race to the bottom through the online “gig economy.”

In this changing context, a team of MERL Tech practitioners (both enthusiasts and skeptics) embarked on a second round of research in order to try to provide an updated “State of the Field” for MERL Tech that looks at changes in the space between 2014 and 2019.

Based on MERL Tech conferences and wider conversations in the MERL Tech space, we identified three general waves of technology emergence in MERL:

  • First wave: Tech for Traditional MERL: Use of technology (including mobile phones, satellites, and increasingly sophisticated data bases) to do ‘what we’ve always done,’ with a focus on digital data collection and management. For these uses of “MERL Tech” there is a growing evidence base. 
  • Second wave:  Big Data. Exploration of big data and data science for MERL purposes. While plenty has been written about big data for other sectors, the literature on the use of big data and data science for MERL is somewhat limited, and it is more focused on potential than actual use. 
  • Third wave:  Emerging approaches. Technologies and approaches that generate new sources and forms of data; offer different modalities of data collection; provide ways to store and organize data, and provide new techniques for data processing and analysis. The potential of these has been explored, but there seems to be little evidence base to be found on their actual use for MERL. 

We’ll be doing a few sessions at the American Evaluation Association conference this week to share what we’ve been finding in our research. Please join us if you’ll be attending the conference!

Session Details:

Thursday, Nov 14, 2.45-3.30pm: Room CC101D

Friday, Nov 15, 3.30-4.15pm: Room CC101D

Saturday, Nov 16, 10.15-11am. Room CC200DE

Practicing Safe Monitoring and Evaluation in the 21st Century

By Stephen Porter. Adapted from the original post published here.

Monitoring and evaluation practice can do harm. It can harm:

  • the environment by prioritizing economic gain over species that have no voice
  • people who are invisible to us when we are in a position of power
  • by asking for information that can then be misused.

In the quest for understanding What Works, the focus is often too narrowly on program goals rather than the safety of people. A classic example in the environmental domain is the use of DDT: “promoted as a wonder-chemical, the simple solution to pest problems large and small. Today, nearly 40 years after DDT was banned in the U.S., we continue to live with its long-lasting effects.” The original evaluation of its effects had failed to identify harm and emphasized its benefits. Only when harm to the ecosystem became more apparent was evidence presented in Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. We should not have to wait for failure to be so apparent before evaluating for harm.

Join me, Veronica Olazabal, Rodney Hopson, Dugan Fraser and Linda Raftree, for a session on “Institutionalizing Doing no Harm in Monitoring and Evaluation” on Thursday, Nov 14, 2019, 8-9am, Room CC M100 H, at the American Evaluation Association Conference in Minneapolis.

Ethical standards have been developed for evaluators, which are discussed at conferences and included in professional training. Yet institutional monitoring and evaluation practices still struggle to fully get to grips with the reality of harm in the pressure to get results reported. If we want monitoring and evaluation to be safer for the 21st Century we need to shift from training and evaluator-to-evaluator discussions to changing institutional practices.

At a workshop convened by Oxfam and the Rockefeller Foundation in 2019, we sought to identify core issues that could cause harm and get to grips with areas where institutions need to change practices. The workshop brought together partners from UN agencies, philanthropies, research organizations and NGOs. This meeting sought to give substance to issues. It was noted by a participant that though the UNEG Norms and Standards and UNDP’s evaluation policy are designed to make evaluation safe, in practice there is little consideration given to capturing or understanding the unintended or perverse consequences of programs or policies. The workshop explored this and other issues and identified three areas of practice that could help to reframe institutional monitoring and evaluation in a practical manner.

1. Data rights, privacy and protection: 

In working on rights in the 21st Century, data and Information are some of the most important ‘levers’ pulled to harm and disadvantage people. Oxfam has had a Responsible Data in Program policy in place since 2015 goes some way towards recognizing this.But we know we need to more fully implement data privacy and protection measures in our work.

At Oxfam, work is continuing to build a rights-based approach which already includes aligned confederation-wide Data Protection Policies, implementation of responsible data management policy and practices and other tools aligned with the Responsible Data Policy and European Privacy law, including a responsible data training pack.

Planned and future work includes stronger governance, standardized baseline measures of privacy & information security, and communications/guidance/change management. This includes changes in evaluation protocols related to how we assess risk to the people we work with, who gets access to the data and ensure consent for how the data will be used.

This is a start, but consistent implementation is hard and if we know we aren’t competent at operating the controls within our reach, it becomes more difficult in how we call others out if they are causing harm when they misuse theirs.

2. Harm prevention lens for evaluation

The discussion highlighted that evaluation has not often sought to understand the harm of practices or interventions. When they do, however, the results can powerfully shed new light on an issue. A case that starkly illustrates potential under-reporting is that of the UN Military Operation in Liberia (UNMIL). UNMIL was put in place with the aim “to consolidate peace, address insecurity and catalyze the broader development of Liberia”. Traditionally we would evaluate this objective. Taking a harm lens we may evaluate the sexual exploitation and abuse related to the deployment. The reporting system highlights low levels of abuse, 14 from 2007 – 2008 and 6 in 2015. A study by Beber, Gilligan, Guardado and Karim, however, estimated through representative randomized survey that more than half of eighteen- to thirty-year-old women in greater Monrovia have engaged in transactional sex and that most of them (more than three-quarters, or about 58,000 women) have done so with UN personnel, typically in exchange for money.

Changing evaluation practice should not just focus on harm in the human systems, but also provide insight in the broader ecosystem. Institutionally there needs to be championship for identifying harm within and through monitoring and evaluation practice and changes in practice.

3. Strengthening safeguarding and evaluation skills

We need to resource teams appropriately so they have the capacity to be responsive to harm and reflective on the potential for harm. This is both about tools and procedures and conceptual frames.

Tools and procedures can include, for example:

  • Codes-of-conduct that create a safe environment for reporting issues
  • Transparent reporting lines to safeguarding/safe programming advisors
  • Training based on actual cases
  • Safe data protocols (see above)

All of these fall by the way-side, however, if the values and concepts that guide implementation are absent. Rodney Hopson at the workshop, drawing on environmental policy and concepts of ecology, presented a frame to increasing evaluators’ usefulness in complex ecologies where safeguarding issues are prevalent, that emphasizes:

  • Relationships – the need to identify and relate to key interests, interactions, variables and stakeholders amid dynamic and complex issues in an honest manner that is based on building trust.
  • Responsibilities – acting with propriety, doing what is proper, fair, right, just in evaluation against standards.
  • Relevance – being accurate and meaningful technically, culturally and contextually.

Safe monitoring and evaluation in the 21st Century does not just seek ‘What Works’ and will need to be relentless at looking at ‘How we can work differently?’. This includes us understanding connectivity in harm between human and environmental systems. The three areas noted here are a start of a conversation and a challenge to institutions to think more about what it means to be safe in monitoring and evaluation practice.

Planning to attend the American Evaluation Association Conference this week? Join us for the session “Institutionalizing Doing no Harm in Monitoring and Evaluation” on Thursday, Nov 14, 2019, from 8- 9:00 AM) in room CC M100 H.

Panelists will discuss ideas to better address harm in regards to: (i) harm identification and mitigation in evaluation practice; (ii) responsible data practice evaluation in complex ecologies, (iii) understanding harm in an international development context, and (iv) evaluation in complex ecologies.

The panel will be chaired by  Veronica M Olazabal, (Senior Advisor & Director, Measurement, Evaluation and Organizational Performance, The Rockefeller Foundation) , with speakers Stephen Porter (Evaluation Strategy Advisor, World Bank), Linda Raftree (Independent Consultant, Organizer of MERL Tech), Dugan Fraser (Prof & Director CLEAR-AA – University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg) and Rodney Hopson (Prof of Evaluation, Department of Ed Psych, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign). View the full program here: https://lnkd.in/g-CHMEj 

Creating and Measuring Impact in Digital Social and Behavior Change Communication 

By Jana Melpolder

People are accessing the Internet, smartphones, and social media like never before, and the social and behavior change communication community is exploring the use of digital tools and social media for influencing behavior. The MERL Tech session, “Engaging for responsible change in a connected world: Good practices for measuring SBCC impact” was put together by Linda Raftree, Khwezi Magwaza, and Yvonne MacPherson, and it set out to help dive into Digital Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC).

Linda is the MERL Tech Organizer, but she also works as an independent consultant. She has worked as an Advisor for Girl Effect on research and digital safeguarding in digital behavior change programs with adolescent girls. She also recently wrote a landscaping paper for iMedia on Digital SBCC. Linda opened the session by sharing lessons from the paper, complemented by learning drawn from research and practice at Girl Effect.

Linda shares good practices from a recent landscape report on digital SBCC.

Digital SBCC is expanding due to smartphone access. In the work with Girl Effect, it was clear that even when girls in lower income communities did not own smartphones they often borrowed them. Project leaders should consider several relevant theories on influencing human behavior, such as social cognitive theory, behavioral economics, and social norm theory. Additionally, an ethical issue in SBCC projects is whether there is transparency about the behavior change efforts an organization is carrying out, and whether people even want their behaviors to be challenged or changed.

When it comes to creating a SBCC project, Linda shared a few tips: 

  • Users are largely unaware of data risks when sharing personal information online
  • We need to understand peoples’ habits. Being in tune with local context is important, as is design for habits, preferences, and interests.
  • Avoid being fooled by vanity metrics. For example, even if something had a lot of clicks, how do you know an action was taken afterwards? 
  • Data can be sensitive to deal with. For some, just looking at information online, such as facts on contraception, can put them at risk. Be sure to be careful of this when developing content.

The session’s second presenter was Khwezi Magwaza who has worked as a writer and radio, digital, and television producer. She worked as a content editor for Praekelt.org and also served as the Content Lead at Girl Effect. Khwezi is currently providing advisory to an International Rescue Committee platform in Tanzania that aims to support improved gender integration in refugee settings. Lessons from Khwezi from working in digital SBCC included:

  • Sex education can be taboo, and community healthcare workers are often people’s first touch point. 
  • There is a difference between social behavior change and, more precisely, individual behavior change. 
  • People and organizations working in SBCC need to think outside the box and learn how to measure it in non-traditional ways. 
  • Just because something is free doesn’t mean people will like it. We need to aim for high quality, modern, engaging content when creating SBCC programs.
  • It’s also critical to hire the right staff. Khwezi suggested building up engineering capacity in house rather than relying entirely on external developers. Having a digital company hand something over to you that you’re stuck with is like inheriting a dinosaur. Organizations need to have a real working relationship with their tech supplier and to make sure the tech can grow and adapt as the program does.
Panelists discuss digital SBCC with participants.

The third panelist from the session was Yvonne MacPherson, the U.S. Director of BBC Media Action, which is the BBC’s international NGO that was made to use communication and media to further development. Yvonne noted that:

  • Donors often want an app, but it’s important to push back on solely digital platforms. 
  • Face-to-face contact and personal connections are vital in programs, and social media should not be the only form of communication within SBCC programs.
  • There is a need to look at social media outreach experiences from various sectors to learn, but that the contexts that INGOs and national NGOs are working in is different from the environments where most people with digital engagement skills have worked, so we need more research and it’s critical to understand local context and behaviors of the populations we want to engage.
  • Challenges are being seen with so-called “dark channels,” (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger) where many people are moving and where it becomes difficult to track behaviors. Ethical issues with dark channels have also emerged, as there are rich content options on them, but researchers have yet to figure out how to obtain consent to use these channels for research without interrupting the dynamic within channels.

I asked Yvonne if, in her experience and research, she thought Instagram or Facebook influencers (like celebrities) influenced young girls more than local community members could. She said there’s really no one answer for that one. There actually needs to be a detailed ethnographic research or study to understand the local context before making any decisions on design of an SBCC campaign. It’s critical to understand the target group — what ages they are, where do they come from, and other similar questions.

Resources for the Reader

To learn more about digital SBCC check out these resources, or get in touch with each of the speakers on Twitter:

Living Our Vision: Applying the Principles of Digital Development as an Evaluative Methodology

by: Sylvia Otieno, MPA candidate at George Washington University and Consultant at the World Bank’s IEG; and Allana Nelson, Senior Manager for the Digital Principles at DIAL

For nearly a decade, the Principles of Digital Development (Digital Principles)  have served to guide practitioners in developing and implementing digital tools in their programming. The plenary session at MERL Tech DC 2019 titled “Living Our Vision: Applying the Principles of Digital Development as an Evaluative Methodology” introduced attendees to four evaluation tools that have been developed to help organizations incorporate the Digital Principles into their design, planning, and assessments. 

Laura Walker MacDonald explaining the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. (Photo by Christopher Neu)

This panel – organized and moderated by Allana Nelson, Senior Manager for the Digital Principles stewardship at the Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL) – highlighted digital development frameworks and tools developed by SIMLab, USAID in collaboration with John Snow Inc., Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL) in collaboration with TechChange, and the Response Innovation Lab. These frameworks and toolkits were built on the good practice guidance provided by the Principles for Digital Development. They are intended to assist development practitioners to be more thoughtful about how they use technology and digital innovations in their programs and organizations. Furthermore, the toolkits assist organizations with building evidence to inform program development. 

Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Director for Insights and Impact at DIAL, presented the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (developed during her time at SIMLab), which assists practitioners in measuring the impact of their work and the contribution of inclusive technologies to their impact and outcomes. This Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was developed out of the need for more evidence of the successes and failures of technology for social change. “We have almost no evidence of how innovation is brought to scale. This work is trying to reflect publicly the practice of sharing learnings and evaluations. Technology and development isn’t as good as it could be because of this lack of evidence,” McDonald said. The Principles for Digital Development provide the Framework’s benchmarks. McDonald continues to refine this Framework based on feedback from community experts, and she welcomes input that can be shared through this document.

Christopher Neu, COO of TechChange, introduced the new, cross-sector Digital Principles Maturity Matrix Tool for Proposal Evaluation that his team developed on behalf of DIAL. The Maturity Matrix tool helps donors and implementers asses how the Digital Principles are planned to be used during the program proposal creation process. Donors may use the tool to evaluate proposal responses to their funding opportunities, and implementers may use the tool as they write their proposals. “This is a tool to give donors and implementers a way to talk about the Digital Principles in their work. This is the beginning of the process, not the end,” Neu said during the session. Users of the Maturity Matrix Tool score themselves on a rating between one and three against metrics that span each of the nine Digital Principles and across the four stages of the Digital Principles project lifecycle. A program is scored one when it loosely incorporates the identified activity or action into proposals and implementation. A score of two indicates that the program is clearly in line with best practices or that the proposal’s writers have at least thought considerably about them. Those who incorporate the Digital Principles on a deeper level and provide an action plan to increase engagement earn a score of three. It is important to note that not every project will require the same level of Digital Principles Maturity, and not every Digital Principle may be required to be used in a program. The scores are intended to provide donors and organizations evidence that they are making the best and most responsible investment in technology. 

Steve Ollis, Senior Digital Health Advisor at John Snow Inc., presented the Digital Health Investment Review Tool (DHIRT), which assists donors investing in Digital Health programs to make informed decisions about their funding. The tool asks donors to adhere to the Digital Principles and the Principles of Donor Alignment for Digital Health (Digital Investment Principles), which are also based on the Digital Principles. When implementing this tool, practitioners can assess implementer proposals across 12 criteria. After receiving a score between one to five (one being nascent and five being optimized), organizations can better assess how effectively they incorporate the Digital Principles and other best practices (including change management) into their project proposals. 

Max Vielle, Global Director of Response Innovation Lab, introduced the Innovation Evidence Toolkit, which helps technology innovators in the humanitarian sector build evidence to thoughtfully develop and assess their prototypes and pilots. “We wanted to build a range of tools for implementors to assess their ability to scale the project,” Vielle said of the toolkit. Additionally, the tool assists innovators in determining the scalability of their technologies. The Innovation Evidence Toolkit helps humanitarian innovators and social entrepreneurs think through how they use technology when developing, piloting, and scaling their projects. “We want to remove the barriers for non-humanitarian actors to act in humanitarian responses to get services to people who need them,” Vielle said. This accessible toolkit can be used by organizations with varying levels of capacity and is available offline for those working in low-connectivity environments. 

Participants discuss the use of different tools for evaluating the Principles. (Photo by Christopher Neu)

Evidence-based decision making is key to improving the use of technologies in the development industry. The coupling of the Principles of Digital Development and evaluation methodologies will assist development practitioners, donors, and innovators not only in building evidence, but also in effectively implementing programs that align with the Digital Principles.