1. Why use Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME)?
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) is not so different from conventional Monitory and Evaluation (M&E) because both approaches aim to measure and assess performance in order to decide on future action. But oftentimes those who make M&E decisions do not have the opportunity to observe or understand the needs of the primary stakeholders, sometimes called beneficiaries, of programs or policies they are deciding upon. With very good intentions they are basing their decisions on partial information and/or incorrect assumptions.
In contrast, PME aims to go beyond simply assessing and deciding by also seeking to create an enabling environment for all relevant stakeholder groups – not just policy makers, donors, and intermediary managers but also those directly involved and affected by the intervention – to learn how to define and interpret changes for themselves, thus gaining control over their present and future realities.
Two key purposes of M&E are accountability and learning. But oftentimes balancing accountability and learning presents challenges, e.g. the tension between rigid accountability frameworks required by donors and the flexibility needed for learning and adaptation. PME provides a balanced approach that can comply with accountability requirements while also promoting learning and continued improvement.
Unlike conventional M&E approaches that are often driven by the needs of outsiders PME aims to cater to the information needs and concerns of a much wider range of actors thereby contributing to the success of the intervention's desired change.
2. What is Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME)?
PME is a process through which key stakeholders at various levels of an initiative:
engage in monitoring and/or evaluating a particular project, program or policy;
share control over the content, the process and the results of the PME activity; and,
engage in identifying and/or taking corrective actions.
Almost invariably PME requires setting up collaborative institutional arrangements among groups of stakeholder groups. Depending on the initiative this may include stakeholder groups in public, private and civil sectors. In most instances these are horizontal as well as vertical partnerships that promote social and public transparency and accountability. Thus PME mechanisms have the potential to strengthen good governance both at national, provincial, regional, and local levels
The normative core of PME rests on a set of basic principles of good practice:
primary stakeholders acting as active participants, not just sources of information;
developing the capacity of local people to analyze and reflect;
promoting joint learning of key stakeholders;
catalyzing corrective actions for improved service delivery.
3. Benefits of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME)
A PME approach based on the above mentioned principles is intended to enhance the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the M&E component of the initiative. Although PME is to be an integral part of this component, the above-mentioned set of principles has to serve as criteria to differentiate PME practice from conventional M&E approaches.
Consequently, training and promotion of PME approaches have to build on a sound understanding and experience related to conventional monitoring and evaluation. As this cannot be taken for granted, PME training should serve the twofold purpose of:
explicitly conveying basic formal M&E concepts; and,
overtly stating principles and experiences of both PME and M&E approaches.
The importance of capacity building in PME activities can hardly be underestimated. Some of this capacity building might relate to technical or methodological knowledge. However, most of it will probably be conveyed through methods of adult education, experiential learning and learning-by-doing approaches. Therefore the facilitators or process support teams play a crucial role.
The role of the facilitators ideally includes the tackling of power issues arising in the participatory monitoring process, e.g. ensuring that particularly vulnerable or marginalized groups are included on equal footing in the process, or the inverse - preventing elite capture of the process. In this respect, it is useful to establish a quota system to balance the gender composition of monitoring committees and ensure the inclusion of a variety of perspectives due to gender and socio-economic differentials.
PME works best when it is connected to a M&E management information system (MIS). It is a valuable tool for promptly assessing whether the impact of development efforts is beneficial or not as it promotes information flows among different levels of stakeholders, and it can act as an early warning system to detect unintended effects leading to timely calibration and corrective action by those directly involved.
The added value of PME includes, among others, the following:
Provides more relevant, reliable, and complete information
Strengthens commitment to implement corrective action
Joint learning improves performance of service delivery institutions/organizations and outcomes
Increases accountability and transparency
Increases ownership, autonomy, and self-organization.
One can estimate that, compared to a general rule of thumb that 3-5% of the overall budget of a development initiative is being spent for M&E activities, proportionally PME might be a more costly endeavor. This is partly due to the triple purpose of PME investments, which:
are meant to complement and enhance the overall monitoring and evaluation function;
are destined to strengthen the level of self-organization, autonomy and management skills of key stakeholder groups previously excluded, such as primary stakeholders and civil society organizations; and,
are aimed at reducing the costly time gap between implementation errors and corrective actions.
Therefore, one could argue that due to the broader extent of PME’s impacts, its budget can hardly be measured by the same standards as a technical conventional M&E component. On the one hand it might prove to be more costly, yet on the other hand it might compensate by early detection of implementation mishaps thus saving time and money.
4. Indicators
Stakeholder groups at the three levels of an initiative (macro, meso, and micro) collaborate in the design and implementation of the PME system. These stakeholder groups:
choose which of the initiative’s goals will be measured,
define what indicator data is practicable to collect (stakeholders at macro, meso, and micro levels choose different indicators to monitor the same goal);
agree upon de periodicity of data collection, analysis, and dissemination;
determine whether quantitative or qualitative information is needed and who will collect, analyze and disseminate what data;
agree upon the Management Information System (MIS) network for PME to be shared by all; and,
reach consensus among stakeholders about the validity of indicators and their willingness to be measured by them.
In most approaches, PME measures both quantitative and qualitative indicators, but its main focus is usually on qualitative indicators. Indicators and their progress are to be periodically reviewed via the MIS network for PME as well as at semi-annual PME workshops. These activities should involve the unit coordinating PME efforts as well as all three levels of key stakeholders.
Violeta Manoukian
If you would like to find out whether PME could serve your needs, please do not hesitate to call me for a free 30 minute free consultation.
Check out some of my other projects.