M&E Sourcebook: Case Studies - Examples

CARE International:

Risk Management for Local Sustainable Development. Project evaluation, September 2003.

See full length evaluation report or the chronological summary.

1. Type of project/programme evaluated: an NGO project with a mix of non-structural activities including training, capacity building and institutional development.

   The project focuses on reducing disaster risk through preparedness and, to a lesser extent, on mitigation. There is also an initial attempt at mainstreaming DRR into CARE programming.

   The project had two clear objectives:

   • Objective 1: Key organisations involved in local emergency response & risk reduction have improved capabilities and adopted an integrated risk management approach.
   • Objective 2: Risk management concepts and practices are incorporated into local development plans, projects and programmes.

2. Evaluation method(s) applied:

   Two years into the three-year project CARE International commissioned an independent evaluation to gauge project accomplishments, strengths and weaknesses and to guide future efforts in the field of risk management in Central America. According to CARE, the purpose of M&E was: "to identify "probable impact", lessons learned best practices, intervention models and its replication potential, at both a regional (Latin America) level and within other CARE programs around the world".

   An interesting methodological mix was applied, with different quantitative techniques used to analyse different aspects of the project. However, a strong emphasis was placed on participatory methods: "It is stressed that the evaluation should be conducted in a participatory manner wherever possible, not only in the design of its methodology but also in implementation and, most particularly, in its analysis". This participatory methodology was designed to gauge the amount and nature of knowledge beneficiaries gained through participation in the project and the degree to which they were able to share that knowledge with other members of target communities.

   The evaluation was particularly strong on stakeholder participation: "The evaluators attempted to submit all the tools to be used in this evaluation to CARE-CAMI's Regional Coordinator and Country Managers for comment and approval. However, key staff, including the Regional Coordinator, were not available to participate in the design phase of the evaluation in person or by any other means of communication. One Country Manager and a project consultant did respond and contribute to the design process. A pilot evaluation workshop with project beneficiaries was held in Tegucigalpa with participation of a CARE-CAMI technician, and the workshop methodology was subsequently refined."

   The indicators used to measure results were output indicators, focusing on immediate results or "deliverables". Three objectives were identified in the project proposal to be assessed against a number of indicators.

   The evaluators conducted semi-structured individual interviews with selected beneficiaries, donors, CARE and CARE-CAMI staff and other donor stakeholders to assess institutional development; a participatory workshop produced qualitative data on the project’s impact; and quantitative data produced by project documentation was used to measure outputs against predetermined indicators.