458 lines
44 KiB
JSON
458 lines
44 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 0,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "Summary",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 1,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has been one of the weakest areas of disarmament, demo\u00ad bilization and reintegration (DDR) programme management in the past, partly due to a lack of proper planning, a standardized M&E framework, and human and financial resources specifically dedicated to M&E. Past experiences have highlighted the need for more effective M&E in order to develop an effective, efficient and sustainable DDR programme that will achieve the objectives of improving stability and security.M&E is an essential management tool and provides a chance to track progress, improve activities, objectively verify the outcomes and impact of a programme, and learn lessons that can be fed into future programmes and policies. This module outlines standards for improving inter\u00adagency cooperation in designing and conducting effective M&E. It further shows how M&E can be planned and implemented effectively through a creation of a DDR\u00ad specific M&E work plan, which consists of a plan for data collection, data analysis and reporting. It also provides some generic M&E indicators within a results\u00admanagement frame\u00ad work, which can be modified and adapted to each programme and project.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 1,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "1. Module scope and objectives",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 1,
|
|
"Paragraph": "These guidelines cover the basic M&E procedures for integrated DDR programmes. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish standards for managing the implementation of integrated DDR projects and to provide guidance on how to perform M&E in a way that will make project management more effective, lead to follow\u00adup and make reporting more consistent.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 2,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "2. Terms, definitions and abbreviations",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 1,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Annex A contains a list of terms, definitions and abbreviations used in this standard. A com\u00ad plete glossary of all the terms, definitions and abbreviations used in the series of integrated DDR standards (IDDRS) is given in IDDRS 1.20.In the IDDRS series, the words \u2018shall\u2019, \u2018should\u2019 and \u2018may\u2019 are used to indicate the intended degree of compliance with the standards laid down. This use is consistent with the language used in the International Organization for Standardization standards and guidelines: \\n \u201ca) \u2018shall\u2019 is used to indicate requirements, methods or specifications that are to be applied in order to conform to the standard. \\n b) \u2018should\u2019 is used to indicate the preferred requirements, methods or specifications. \\n c) \u2018may\u2019 is used to indicate a possible method or course of action.\u201d",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 3,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "3. Introduction",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 2,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Traditionally, M&E in DDR programmes has focused on assessing inputs and implemen\u00ad tation processes. Today, the focus is on assessing how various factors contribute to or detract from the achievement of the proposed outcomes and programme objectives, and measur\u00ad ing the effectiveness of outputs, partnerships, policy advice and dialogue, advocacy, and brokering/coordination. The main objectives of results\u00adoriented M&E are to: \\n increase organizational and development learning; \\n ensure informed decision\u00admaking; \\n support genuine accountability and ensure quality control; \\n contribute to the further development of best practice and policy; \\n build country capacities, especially in M&E.In order to enable programme managers to improve strategies, programmes and other activities, M&E aims to generate information in several key areas to allow the measure\u00ad ment of: \\n programme performance, which indicates whether programme implementation is pro\u00ad ceeding in accordance with the programme plan and budget; \\n programme effectiveness, which answers such questions as whether and to what extent the programme has achieved its objectives, and on what external conditions it depends; \\n programme efficiency, which determines whether programme outputs and outcomes were produced in the most economical way, i.e., by maximizing outputs and/or mini\u00ad mizing inputs.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 4,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "4. Guiding principles",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 2,
|
|
"Paragraph": "When developing an M&E strategy as part of the overall process of programme development, several important principles are relevant for DDR: \\n Planners shall ensure that baseline data (data that describes the problem or situation before the intervention and which can be used to later provide a point of comparison) and relevant performance indicators are built into the programme development process itself. Baseline data are best collected within the framework of the comprehensive assess\u00ad ments that are carried out before the programme is developed, while performance indicators are defined in relation to both baseline data and the outputs, activities and outcomes that are expected; \\n The development of an M&E strategy and framework for a DDR programme is essen\u00ad tial in order to develop a systematic approach for collecting, processing, and using data and results; \\n M&E should use information and data from the regular information collection mech\u00ad anisms and reports, as well as periodic measurement of key indicators; \\n Monitoring and data collection should be an integral component of the information management system for the DDR process, and as such should be made widely available to key DDR staff and stakeholders for consultation; \\n M&E plans specifying the frequency and type of reviews and evaluations should be a part of the overall DDR work planning process; \\n A distinction should be made between the evaluation of UN support for national DDR (i.e., the UN DDR programme itself) and the overall national DDR effort, given the focus on measuring the overall effectiveness and impact of UN inputs on DDR, as opposed to the overall effectiveness and impact of DDR at the national level; \\n All integrated DDR sections should make provision for the necessary staff, equipment and other requirements to ensure that M&E is adequately dealt with and carried out, independently of other DDR activities, using resources that are specifically allocated to this purpose.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 5,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 3,
|
|
"Paragraph": "M&E is far more than periodic assessments of performance. Particularly with complex processes like DDR, with its diversity of activities and multitude of partners, M&E plays an important role in ensuring constant qual\u00adity control of activities and processes, and it also provides a mechanism for periodic evaluations of performance in order to adapt strategies and deal with the problems and bottlenecks that inevitably arise. Because of the political importance of DDR, and its po\u00ad tential impacts (both positive and negative) on both security and prospects for develop\u00ad ment, impact assessments are essential to ensuring that DDR contributes to the overall goal of improving stability and security in a particular country.The definition of a comprehensive strat\u00ad egy and framework for DDR is a vital part of the overall programme implementation process. Although strategies will differ a great deal in different contexts, key guiding questions that should be asked when designing an effec\u00ad tive framework for M&E include: \\n What objectives should an M&E strategy and framework measure? \\n What elements should go into a work plan for reporting, monitoring and evaluating performance and results? \\n What key indicators are important in such a framework? \\n What information management systems are necessary to ensure timely capture of appro\u00ad priate data and information? \\n How can the results of M&E be integrated into programme implementation and used to control quality and adapt processes?The following section discusses these and other key elements involved in the develop\u00ad ment of an M&E work plan and strategy.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 6,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.1. M&E and results-based management",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 3,
|
|
"Paragraph": "M&E is an essential part of the results\u00adbased approach to implementing and managing programmes. It allows for the measurement of progress made towards achieving outcomes and outputs, and assesses the overall impact of programme on security and stability. In the context of DDR, M&E is particularly important, because it helps keep track of a complex range of outcomes and outputs in different components of the DDR mission, and assesses how each contributes towards achieving the goal of improved stability and security. M&E also gives a longitudinal assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the strat\u00ad egies, mechanisms and processes carried out in DDR.For the purposes of integrated DDR, M&E can be divided into two levels related to the results\u00adbased framework: \\n measurement of the performance of DDR programmes in achieving outcomes and outputs throughout its various components generated by a set of activities: disarma\u00ad ment (e.g., number of weapons collected and destroyed); demobilization (number of ex\u00adcombatants screened, processed and assisted); and reintegration (number of ex\u00ad combatants reintegrated and communities assisted); \\n measurement of the outcomes of DDR programmes in contributing towards an overall goal. This can include reductions in levels of violence in society, increased stability and security, and consolidation of peace processes. It is difficult, however, to determine the impact of DDR on broader society without isolating it from other processes and initiatives (e.g., peace\u00adbuilding, security sector reform [SSR]) that also have an impact.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 7,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.2. Integrating M&E in programme development and implementation",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 5,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Provisions for M&E, and in particular the key elements of a strategy and framework, should be integrated into the programme development and implementation process from the beginning. This should occur in the following ways: \\n Performance indicators relevant for M&E should be identified, together with the devel\u00ad opment of a baseline study and indicators framework for the comprehensive assessment, as well as the results framework for the DDR programme itself (see IDDRS 3.20 on DDR Programme Design for advice on the development of a results framework); \\n Requirements for establishing and implementing an M&E system should be taken into consideration during the identification of programme requirements, including dedicated staff, material and information management systems; \\n Key aspects of the M&E system and activities should be developed and harmonized with the overall programme implementation cycle and included in the corresponding work plans; \\n Programme implementation methods should be designed to permit the analysis and incorporation of M&E results into planning and coordination of activities in order to provide programmes with the capacity to modify the implementation approach based on M&E results and lessons learned.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 8,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.3. The M&E work plan",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 5,
|
|
"Paragraph": "An M&E work plan can be integrated into general or specific programme implementation work plans, or can be designed separately. In general, implementing and supervising the implementation of such a work plan is the basic responsibility of the M&E officer respon\u00ad sible for this process.Key elements of an M&E work plan include the following, which are usually arranged in the form of a matrix:",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 9,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.3. The M&E work plan",
|
|
"Heading3": "5.3.1. M&E tracking systems",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 5,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Given the potentially large number of reports and documents generated by M&E activities, the development and maintenance of a report\u00adtracking system is essential in order to pro\u00ad vide a \u2018history\u2019 of M&E results and make them accessible to managers. This provides the DDR programme with institutional memory that can be drawn from to monitor progress and ensure that emerging best practices and problems are identified.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 10,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.4. Development of M&E indicators",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 6,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Indicators are variables (i.e., factors that can change, e.g., number of weapons collected) that should be measured to reveal progress (or lack thereof) towards the achievement of objectives, outcomes or outputs, and should provide information on what has been achieved in either quantitative or qualitative terms, or changes over time. In order for indicators to be meaningful, measurement must be made against a baseline, or baseline data, both of which are collected either in the context of the pre\u00adprogramme comprehensive assessment or during programme implementation. In general, most indicators should be developed together with the definition of programme activities, outputs, outcomes, objectives and goals. In general, indicators can be classified as follows: \\n Performance indicator: A particular characteristic or dimension used to measure intended changes defined by a programme results framework. Performance indicators are used to observe progress and to measure actual outputs and outcomes compared to those that were expected. They indicate \u2018how, \u2018whether\u2019 or \u2018to what extent\u2019 a unit is pro\u00ad gressing towards its objectives, rather than \u2018why\u2019 or \u2018why not\u2019 such progress is being made. Performance indicators are usually expressed in quantifiable terms, and should be objective and measurable (e.g., numeric values, percentages, scores and indices); \\n Impact indicator: A variable or set of variables used to measure the overall and long\u00ad term impact of an intervention, i.e., overall changes in the environment that DDR aims to influence. Impact indicators often use a composite set (or group) of indicators, each of which provides information on the size, sustainability and consequences of a change brought about by a DDR intervention. Such indicators can include both quan\u00ad titative variables (e.g., change in homicide levels or incidence of violence) or qualitative variables (e.g., behavioural change among reintegrated ex\u00adcombatants, social cohesion, etc.). Impact indicators depend on comprehensive and reliable baseline data, and should be as specific in possible in order to isolate the impact of DDR on complex social and economic dynamics from other factors and processes; \\n Proxy indicators: Cost, complexity and/or the timeliness of data collection may prevent a result from being measured directly. In this case, proxy indicators \u2014 which are variables that substitute for others that are difficult to measure directly \u2014 may reveal performance trends and make managers aware of potential problems or areas of success. This is often the case for outcomes in behavioural change, social cohesion and other results that are difficult to measure.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 11,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "5. Developing an M&E strategy and framework for DDR",
|
|
"Heading2": "5.4. Development of M&E indicators",
|
|
"Heading3": "5.4.1. Balanced scorecards",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 6,
|
|
"Paragraph": "The balanced scorecard is a useful tool for capturing key indicators for M&E activities. It lists the main indicators used to measure progress in the implementation of different pro\u00ad gramme components, as well as overall effectiveness. Annex B provides an example of a balanced scorecard used in the Afghanistan DDR programme.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 12,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "6. Monitoring",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 7,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Monitoring is the systematic oversight of the implementation of an activity, and establishes the extent to which input deliveries, work schedules, other required actions and targeted outputs are proceeding according to the actual plan, so that timely action can be taken to correct deficiencies. The application of monitoring mechanisms and tools, the reporting of outcomes, and subsequent adjustments in the implementation process are an integral part of the programme cycle and a key management tool.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 13,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "6. Monitoring",
|
|
"Heading2": "6.1. Monitoring mechanisms and tools",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 7,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Three types of monitoring mechanisms and tools can be identified, which should be planned as part of the overall M&E work plan: \\n reporting/analysis, which entails obtaining and analysing documentation from the project that provides information on progress; \\n validation, which involves checking or verifying whether or not the reported progress is accurate; \\n participation, which involves obtaining feedback from partners and participants on pro\u00ad gress and proposed actions.The table below lists the different types of monitoring mechanisms and tools according to these categories, while Annex C provides illustrations of monitoring tools used for DDR in Afghanistan.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 14,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "6. Monitoring",
|
|
"Heading2": "6.2. Monitoring indicators",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 7,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Although the definition of monitoring indicators will differ a great deal according to both the context in which DDR is implemented and the DDR strategy and components, certain generic (general or typical) indicators should be identified that can guide DDR managers to establish monitoring mechanisms and systems. These indicators should aim to measure performance in terms of outcomes and outputs, effectiveness in achieving programme objec\u00ad tives, and the efficiency of the performance by which outcomes and outputs are achieved (i.e., in relation to inputs). (See IDDRS 5.10 on Women, Gender and DDR, Annex D, sec. 4 for gender\u00adrelated and female\u00adspecific monitoring and evaluation indicators.) These indica\u00ad tors can be divided to address the main components of DDR, as follows:",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 15,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "6. Monitoring",
|
|
"Heading2": "6.3. Use of monitoring results",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 9,
|
|
"Paragraph": "In general, the results of monitoring activities and tools should be used in three different ways to improve overall programme effectiveness and increase the achievement of objec\u00ad tives and goals: P\\n rogramme management: Monitoring outputs and outcomes for specific components or activities can provide important information about whether programme implementa\u00ad tion is proceeding in accordance with the programme plan and budget. If results indicate that implementation is \u2018off course\u2019, these results provide DDR management with infor\u00ad mation on what corrective action needs to be taken in order to bring implementation back into conformity with the overall programme implementation strategy and work plan. These results are therefore an important management tool; \\n Revision of programme strategy: Monitoring results can also provide information on the relevance or effectiveness of an existing strategy or course of action to produce specific outcomes or achieve key objectives. In certain cases, such results can demonstrate that a given course of action is not producing the intended outcomes and can provide DDR managers with an opportunity to reformulate or revise specific implementation strategies and approaches, and make the corresponding changes to the programme work plan. Examples include types of reintegration assistance that are not viable or appro\u00ad priate to the local context, and that can be corrected before many other ex\u00adcombatants enter similar schemes; \\n Use of resources: Monitoring results can provide important indications about the effi\u00ad ciency with which resources are used to implement activities and achieve outcomes. Given the large scale and number of activities and sub\u00adprojects involved in DDR, overall cost\u00adeffectiveness is an essential element in ensuring that DDR programmes achieve their overall objectives. In this regard, accurate and timely monitoring can enable programme managers to develop more cost\u00adeffective or efficient uses and distri\u00ad bution of resources.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 16,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 9,
|
|
"Paragraph": "As described earlier, evaluations are a method of systematically and objectively assessing the relevance, efficiency, sustainability, effectiveness and impact of ongoing and completed programmes and projects. Evaluation is carried out selectively to answer questions that will guide decision makers and/or programme managers. It is a valuable strategic manage\u00ad ment tool enabling DDR managers and policy makers to assess the overall role and impact of DDR in a post\u00adconflict setting, make strategic decisions, generate important lessons for future programmes and contribute to the refinement of international policy.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 17,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "7.1. Establishing evaluation scope",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 9,
|
|
"Paragraph": "The scope or extent of an evaluation, which determines the range and type of indicators or factors that will be measured and analysed, should be directly linked to the objectives and purpose of the evaluation process, and how its results, conclusions and proposals will be used. In general, the scope of an evaluation varies between evaluations that focus primarily on \u2018impacts\u2019 and those that focus on broader \u2018outcomes\u2019: \\n Outcome evaluations: These focus on examining how a set of related projects, programmes and strategies brought about an anticipated outcome. DDR programmes, for instance, contribute to the consolidation of peace and security, but they are not the sole pro\u00ad gramme or factor that explains progress in achieving (or not achieving) this outcome, owing to the role of other programmes (SSR, police training, peace\u00adbuilding activities, etc.). Outcome evaluations define the specific contribution made by DDR to achieving this goal, or explain how DDR programmes interrelated with other processes to achieve the outcome. In this regard, outcome evaluations are primarily designed for broad comparative or strategic policy purposes. Example of an objective: \u201cto contribute to the consolidation of peace, national security, reconciliation and development through the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex\u00adcombatants into civil society\u201d; \\n Impact evaluations: These focus on the overall, longer\u00adterm impact, whether intended or unintended, of a programme. Impact evaluations can focus on the direct impacts of a DDR programme \u2014 e.g., its ability to successfully demobilize entire armies and decrease the potential for a return to conflict \u2014 and its indirect impact in helping to increase economic productivity at the local level, or in attracting ex\u00adcombatants from neighbouring countries where other conflicts are occurring. An example of an objective of a DDR programme is: \u201cto facilitate the development and environment in which ex\u00ad combatants are able to be disarmed, demobilized and reintegrated into their communities of choice and have access to social and economic reintegration opportunities\u201d.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 18,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "7.2. Timing and objectives of evaluations",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 10,
|
|
"Paragraph": "In general, evaluations should be carried out at key points in the programme implementation cycle in order to achieve related yet distinct objectives. Four main categories or types of evaluations can be identified: \\n Formative internal evaluations are primarily conducted in the early phase of programme implementation in order to assess early hypotheses and working assumptions, analyse outcomes from pilot interventions and activities, or verify the viability or relevance of a strategy or set of intended outputs. Such evaluations are valuable mechanisms that allow implementation strategies to be corrected early on in the programme implemen\u00ad tation process by identifying potential problems. This type of evaluation is particularly important for DDR processes, given their complex strategic arrangements and the many different sub\u00adprocesses involved. Most formative internal evaluations can be carried out internally by the M&E officer or unit within a DDR section; \\n Mid-term evaluations are similar to formative internal evaluations, but are usually more comprehensive and strategic in their scope and focus, as opposed to the more diag\u00ad nostic function of the formative type. Mid\u00adterm evaluations are usually intended to provide an assessment of the performance and outcomes of a DDR process for stake\u00ad holders, partners and donors, and to enable policy makers to assess the overall role of DDR in the broader post\u00adconflict context. Mid\u00adterm evaluations can also include early assessments of the overall contribution of a DDR process to achieving broader post\u00ad conflict goals; \\n Terminal evaluations are usually carried out at the end of the programme cycle, and are designed to evaluate the overall outcomes and effectiveness of a DDR strategy and programme, the degree to which their main aims were achieved, and their overall effec\u00ad tiveness in contributing to broader goals. Terminal evaluations usually also try to answer a number of key questions regarding the overall strategic approach and focus of the programme, mainly its relevance, efficiency, sustainability and effectiveness; \\n Ex-post evaluations are usually carried out some time (usually several years) after the end of a DDR programme in order to evaluate the long\u00adterm effectiveness of the programme, mainly the sustainability of its activities and positive outcomes (e.g., the extent to which ex\u00adcombatants remain productively engaged in alternatives to violence or mili\u00ad tary activity) or its direct and indirect impacts on security conditions, prospects for peace\u00adbuilding, and consequences for economic productivity and development. Ex\u00adpost evaluations of DDR programmes can also form part of larger impact evaluations to assess the overall effectiveness of a post\u00adconflict recovery strategy. Both terminal and ex\u00adpost evaluations are valuable mechanisms for identifying key lessons learned and best practice for further policy development and the design of future DDR programmes.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 19,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "7.3. Selection of results and indicators for evaluation",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 11,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Given the broad scope of DDR programmes, and the differences in strategies, objectives and context, it is difficult to identify specific or generic (i.e., general) results or indicators for evaluating DDR programmes. A more meaningful approach is to identify the various types of impacts or issues to be analysed, and to construct composite (i.e., a group of) indi\u00ad cators as part of an overall methodological approach to evaluating the programme. The following factors usually form the basis from which an evaluation\u2019s focus is defined: \\n Relevance describes the extent to which the objectives of a programme or project remain valid and pertinent (relevant) as originally planned, or as modified owing to changing circumstances within the immediate context and external environment of that pro\u00ad gramme or project. Relevance can also include the suitability of a particular strategy or approach for dealing with a specific problem or issue. A DDR\u00adspecific evaluation could focus on the relevance of cantonment\u00adbased demobilization strategies, for instance, in comparison with other approaches (e.g., decentralized registration of combatants) that perhaps could have more effectively achieved the same objectives; \\n Sustainability involves the success of a strategy in continuing to achieve its initial objec\u00ad tives even after the end of a programme, i.e., whether it has a long\u00adlasting effect. In a DDR programme, this is most important in determining the long\u00adterm viability and effectiveness of reintegration assistance and the extent to which it ensures that ex\u00ad combatants remain in civilian life and do not return to military or violence\u00adbased livelihoods. Indicators in such a methodology include the viability of alternative eco\u00ad nomic livelihoods, behavioural change among ex\u00adcombatants, and so forth; \\n Impact includes the immediate and long\u00adterm consequences of an intervention on the place in which it is implemented, and on the lives of those who are assisted or who benefit from the programme. Evaluating the impact of DDR includes focusing on the immediate social and economic effects of the return of ex\u00adcombatants and their inte\u00ad gration into social and economic life, and the attitudes of communities and the specific direct or indirect effects of these on the lives of individuals; \\n Effectiveness measures the extent to which a programme has been successful in achieving its key objectives. The measurement of effectiveness can be quite specific (e.g., the success of a DDR programme in demobilizing and reintegrating the majority of ex\u00ad combatants) or can be defined in broad or strategic terms (e.g., the extent to which a DDR programme has lowered political tensions, reduced levels of insecurity or improved the well\u00adbeing of host communities); \\n Efficiency refers to how well a given DDR programme and strategy transformed inputs into results and outputs. This is a different way of focusing on the impact of a pro\u00ad gramme, because it places more emphasis on how economically resources were used to achieve specific outcomes. In certain cases, a DDR programme might have been successful in demobilizing and reintegrating a significant number of ex\u00adcombatants, and improving the welfare of host communities, but used up a disproportionately large share of resources that could have been better used to assist other groups that were not covered by the programme. In such a case, a lack of programme efficiency limited the potential scope of its impact.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 20,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "7.4. Use of evaluation results",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 12,
|
|
"Paragraph": "In general, the results and conclusions of evaluations should be used in several important and strategic ways: \\n A key function of evaluations is to enable practitioners and programme managers to identify, capture and disseminate lessons learned from programme implementation. This can have an immediate operational benefit, as these lessons can be \u2018fed back\u2019 to the programme implementation process, but it can also contribute to the body of lessons learned on DDR at regional and global levels; \\n Evaluations can also provide important mechanisms for identifying and institutional\u00ad izing best practice by identifying effective models, strategies and techniques that can be applied in other contexts; innovative approaches to dealing with outstanding problems; or linking DDR to other processes such as local peace\u00adbuilding, access to justice, and so forth; \\n Evaluation results also enable practitioners and managers to refine and further develop their programme strategy. This is particularly useful when programmes are designed to be implemented in phases, which allows for the assessment and identification of problems and best practice at the end of each phase, which can then be fed into later phases; \\n Evaluations also contribute to discussions between policy makers and practitioners on the further development of international and regional policies on DDR, by providing them with information and analyses that influence the way key policy issues can be dealt with and decisions reached. Evaluations can provide invaluable support to the elaboration of future policy frameworks for DDR.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 21,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "7. Evaluations",
|
|
"Heading2": "7.5. Planning evaluations",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 12,
|
|
"Paragraph": "The complexity of DDR and the specific skills needed for in\u00addepth and comprehensive evaluations usually means that this activity should be carried out by specialized, contracted external actors or partners. Because an external team will be brought in, it is essential to draw up precise terms of reference for the carrying out of the evaluation, and to be clear about how the overall objective and coverage of issues will be defined/expressed. An evaluation terms of reference document includes the following sections: \\n Introduction: Contains a brief description of the rationale and focus of the evaluation (outcome, programme, project, series of interventions by several partners, etc.); \\n Objectives: Describes the purpose of the evaluation, e.g., \u201cto analyse strategic program\u00ad matic and policy dimensions\u201d; \\n Scope: Defines which issues, subjects and areas the evaluation will cover, and the period of the programme\u2019s life it will examine; \\n Expected results: Defines what results the evaluation is expected to produce (e.g., findings, recommendations, lessons learned, rating on performance, an \u2018action item\u2019 list, etc.); \\n Methodology or approach: Defines how data is collected and analysed for the evaluation; \\n Evaluation team: Defines the composition of the staff involved and their areas of expertise; \\n Management arrangements: Defines how the evaluation will be managed and organized, and how interactions with the DDR programme management will be structured.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 22,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "Annex A: Terms, definitions and abbreviations",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 14,
|
|
"Paragraph": "Terms and definitions \\n Evaluation is a management tool. It is a time\u00adbound activity that systematically and objectively assesses the relevance, performance and success of ongoing and completed programmes and projects. Evaluation is carried out selectively, asking and answering specific questions to guide decision makers and/or programme managers. Evaluation determines the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of a programme or project. \\n Monitoring is a management tool. It is the systematic oversight of the implementation of an activity that establishes whether input deliveries, work schedules, other required actions and targeted outputs have proceeded according to plan, so that timely action can be taken to correct deficiencies.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"ID": 23,
|
|
"Color": "#00A554",
|
|
"Level": 3,
|
|
"LevelName": "Structures and Processes",
|
|
"Title": "Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"Heading1": "Endnotes",
|
|
"Heading2": "",
|
|
"Heading3": "",
|
|
"Heading4": "",
|
|
"Module": "3.50 Monitoring and Evaluation of DDR Programmes",
|
|
"PageNum": 18,
|
|
"Paragraph": "\\n 1 The term \u2018ex\u00adcombatants\u2019 in each indicator include supporters and those associated with armed forces and groups. Indicators for reintegration also include dependants. \\n 2 Total number of corps: 11. \\n 3 No. of XCs who started the reintegration package (excluding those who are in temporary wage labour and those who chose not to participate). \\n 4 Number of XCs who started but did not finish the reintegration package. \\n 5 Includes deputy commanders and chief of staff of corps and divisions.",
|
|
"Can": 0,
|
|
"Shall": 0,
|
|
"Should": 0,
|
|
"May": 0,
|
|
"Must": 0
|
|
}
|
|
] |