the most significant change prolearn project in india inka píbilová impact evaluation conference...
TRANSCRIPT
The Most Significant ChangeProLearn Project in India
Inka PíbilováImpact Evaluation Conference in Wageningen, 25 March 2012
A „tsunami relief“ project 2004 first tsunami relief in Andra Pradesh India funded by
individual donors of ADRA Czech Republic 2007 needs assessment with Education Office among 20
schools 2008 – 2009 infrastructure development in 8 schools to
increase and retain the number of children– Classrooms construction– Teacher training– Learning aids– Community sensitisation– Children participation
Evaluation Objectives• Show evidence of the project impact on access to
education, increased education quality and child-friendly learning environment, thus achieving learning outcomes and higher literacy.
• Show evidence of attitudinal changes of community, school staff, children and government representatives in education.
• Assess sustainability of the “Pro Learn” project after ADRA withdrew support.
• Draw lessons learnt and recommendations for improvements in future projects with respect to planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Evaluation Methodology - Factors
1. Logical matrix did not correspond to reality2. Audit of the construction done, client interested in
impacts and sustainability. 3. Donor did not have experience with evaluations
and did not have a specific method in mind. 4. Lack of funding to conduct the evaluation. 5. Lack of baseline data. 6. Field mission restricted to 3 weeks
Term
s of
Ref
eren
ce –
Obj
ectiv
es,
scop
e, s
take
hold
ers,
que
stio
ns,
budg
et, s
ched
ule,
out
puts
, use
. Desk study Interviews
The Most Significant Change
Community conversations
Observations
Pre
limin
ary
findi
ngs
& c
oncl
usio
ns Finaldebriefing of project team and community volunteers
Communication with the Project Partners
Draft evaluation report F
inal
eva
luat
ion
repo
rt
Inception phase
1 month
Field research1 months
Reporting phase
2 months
Initi
al b
riefin
g an
d in
cept
ion
Evaluator Selection
Evaluation Methodology
The Most Significant Change
http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf
The Most Significant Change
http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf
The Most Significant Change
http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf
How was the technique applied
MSC Training of community volunteers
Collection of the MSC stories by volunteers
Selection of the MSC with
community volunteers and project team
MSC drawings by children
How we selected the „MSC story“
What were the findings
What were the findings
Communication of findings• Field mission closed after evaluation finished - key
communication had to be done at the end of the evaluation. • The local community was to a big extent illiterate - community
volunteers were expected to debrief the respective communities.
• Headquarters in India unavailable for debriefing – done by Skype, donor organisation debriefed back in Europe.
• Donor organisation decided to delay the communication and finally did not published the evaluation report.
• Though a short debriefing was held with District Education Office, despite the original plan findings were not officially communicated to school management, teachers and students.
• Stories had already been used in local media.
Utilization of findings• Utilisation was affected by dismissal of the whole project
team at the end of evaluation and lack of capacities of the heasquarters in Delhi.
• The government school staff did not own much the project (teachers´ absenteeism was a local issue) - principals did not attend the final debriefing and did not receive the report.
• Evaluation report did not reach the authorities, though the interviews revealed a good awareness on the project.
• Evaluation report was used only internally in ADRA CR, especially general lessons learnt.
