Transcript Document
Trends in Monitoring and Evaluation in South Africa: Developments in the NGO sector David Harrison 19 September 2013 One way of viewing the NGO sector in South Africa Large programmes ‘Programmatic’ ‘Transformational’ Small communitybased organisations Advocacy Innovation Social/ Behavioural change Typically, what is the form of monitoring & evaluation? Large programmes ‘Programmatic’ ‘Transformational’ Small communitybased organisations Advocacy Innovation Social/ Behavioural change Output-based in compliance with donor templates Typically, what is the form of monitoring & evaluation? Large programmes ‘Programmatic’ ‘Transformational’ Small communitybased organisations Advocacy Social/ Behavioural change Innovation Output-based in compliance with donor templates ‘Progress reports’ to provincial DSD Typically, what is the focus of monitoring & evaluation? ‘Programmatic’ ‘Transformational’ Large programmes Output-based in compliance with donor templates Small communitybased organisations Reports to provincial DSD Advocacy Social/ Behavioural change Innovation Outcome- or event-linked The added-value that NGOs can bring to M&E in SA today ‘Programmatic’ ‘Transformational’ Large programmes Output-based in compliance with donor templates Small communitybased organisations Reports to provincial DSD Advocacy Social/ Behavioural change Innovation Outcome- or event-linked The real contribution of NGOS to M&E Example 1: Tackling high risk tolerance in society ‘Social determinants’ ‘Structural determinants’ Constrained choices Structural inequality Lack of real and imminent possibility in life Inadequate sense of: - Purpose - Belonging - Identity - Agency Low knowledge and perception of risk Low social solidarity High risk tolerance High risk behaviour Drawing on the work of Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky, Paul Slovic, Elke Webber, George Lowenstein and Drazen Prelec Purpose-driven identity Skilled public innovators Connected to opportunity Question: Is pro-social behaviour malleable to intervention? Specifically, can (non-market) social interventions effect changes in economic fundamentals? Method IDENTITY RISK PREFERENCES ALTRUISM/GENEROSITY Behavioural economic ‘games’ • Matched controls in 2012 & 2013 • Randomised selection planned 2014 TIME PREFERENCES CIVIC PARTICIPATION ATTITUDES Before-after questionnaires, with above controls CONNECTEDNESS Network & social capital analysis Source: Keswell M, Burns J (2012). Impact evaluation of Activate! School of Economics, UCT Source: Keswell M, Burns J (2012). Impact evaluation of Activate! School of Economics, UCT Example 2: Building a culture of reading in society ‘Individual determinants’ ‘Structural determinants’ Low educational levels Structural inequality Perceived high ‘opportunity cost’ of reading Low motivation – Not fun Not affirming Poor access to and availability of books Low perception of self as a reader Low literacy Lack of appreciation of value of reading Increase access to reading Increase demand Leverage mobile technology Spur viral growth Encourage writing Question: Can we increase the practice of reading, especially among young people with less access to books? SELF-REPORTED QUESTIONNAIRE (n = 3519 respondents) Attitudes to reading Reading habits Types of reading material Visiting libraries CONTROL Mxit statistics: • Unique users • Demographics • What’s downloaded • Time spent reading Source: Hardie M (2013). ‘Quick programme report’ – preliminary findings Teenagers with poorer access to books have improved reading frequency most Changes in reading frequency in past year, by number of books in the home 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% More than 50 books 10-50 books less than 10 books Number of books in the home (self-reported) Source: Hardie M (2013). ‘Quick programme report’ – preliminary findings The value of M&E in the NGO sector • Not just for accountability, but to help generate change • Especially focused on hard ‘soft’ aspects of social transformation – the interface between the structure and social fabric of our society.