Underlying Principles of Development Communication

---

Click here to download this as a Power Point presentation.

---

"Evaluation must serve the objectives of programming, not vice versa."

James Deane, 26 November 2001

Shift toward ownership, control by beneficiaries, dialogue, negotiation...

Denise Gray Felder, 26 November 2001

What is the program objective?

Traditional: outcome-oriented

• Individual behavior change (ABCs)
• Reduction in HIV incidence

Development communication: process-oriented

• Increased community ownership
• Increased dialogue, participation

Program managers and evaluators need to collaborate:

What is the program objective?

How will we operationally define (measure) success?

How rigorous must the evidence be?

Conceptual model ("crude")

Program inputs lead to:

• Participation, dialogue, ownership
• Desire to seek ways to improve situation
• Adoption of desired practices
• Reduction in HIV incidence

What is the program objective?

Traditional: outcome-oriented

• Individual behaviour change (ABCs)
• Reduction in HIV incidence

Development communication: process-oriented

• Increased community ownership
• Increased dialogue, participation

Critical assumption: community involvement --> behavior change

Do we take it at face value?

• If so, we measure process only

Do we need to demonstrate the link empirically?

In short, what type of evaluation is most suitable for the project?

Process:

• How was the program implemented? (ownership, gender equity, participation, etc.)
• Were beneficiaries satisfied?
• What could the process be improved?

Results (outcome):

• Did the desired change occur?

Impact:

• Is this change attributable to the program?

Demonstrating impact is not just "showing change"

Factors other than program may influence outcome

Measuring impact in rigorous sense:

• Experimental or quasi-experimental design
• Longitudinal multilevel multivariate analysis

Compatibility of statistical techniques with community-based orientation of program?

Dilemma of measuring impact

Most program managers and donors want conclusive results on program impact

Few want to invest the time and resources needed to definitely demonstrate cause-and-effect

Tradeoff between local ownership and evaluation rigor

Methodologies that satisy standards of scientific community reduce local participation and ownership

Methodologies that maximize community participation in design/conduct rarely yield scientifically defensible results re impact

Methodological challenges for evaluators

Greater community-based involvement:

• Results more meaningful to community
• Results more likely to be used for improvement
• Results less likely to be scientifically credible

Community mobilization (macro level):

• Need to demonstrate impact on behavior?
• If so, we need to develop, test, refine methods

Methodological challenges for evaluators

Changing social norms:

• Existing methodology lends itself to the issue
• Is it too "academic" to be useful?
• Need to experiment and refine the method

Shift in changing underlying causes (poverty, discrimination, status of women)

• Virtually impossible to disentangle program effects from secular trends (measure impact)

How to get the most from evaluation

Collaborate! (managers and evaluators)

Jointly identify most appropriate type of evaluation (process, results, impact, cost)

Combine quant/qualitative methods

Resolve local ownership vs. rigor

Choose research methods that best fit:

• Type of intervention and objectives
• Philosophy of organisations and donors

MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU ATENCION