Background FACT’s funding and support for ongoing projects is generated from multiple sources. Its M&E framework thus represents integration and accommodation of the different programming situations obtaining in the target communities. The programme situations range from simple issues calling for mere replicability to complicated situations demanding adaptation. At the same time, the more complex situations demand more than just adaptation but more of collaboration and flexibility to address unique, changing and emerging needs and opportunities of target population. FACT’s M&E framework has revolved to represent and respond to the interests of FACT while at the same time responding to concerns and interests of its funding partners. Accordingly, the current M&E framework reflects the influence of sources of funds while at the same time recognising the individual histories of the different programmes implemented by FACT. The M&E system collects project defined information while it takes cognisance of the need to align such actions and measures with broader results and purpose of the programme, the organisation and that of funders.
|
|||||||
Basis for FACT’s M&E (Underlying theory) The basis for FACT’s M&E is guided by the logic or causality model of programming. The model emphasises logic, causality and clear interrelations between programme resources, activities, outputs and outcomes. At the same time, the logic model identifies underlying assumptions of various interventions thus making monitoring and evaluation capable to measure occurrence and influence of each element of the project. Emphasis of the M&E system is, as illustrated in the diagram below, on allowing and promoting Analysis, Reporting and Provision of data for programme development. It goes beyond mere monitoring to decision making and programme development.
|
|||||||
Describing Change Given the understanding that programming situations vary from simple, complex to complicated, FACT’s M&E accordingly recognises that its actions can result in any one of the following:
While FACT always strives to promote transformational change, it fully recognises that sometimes it is beyond its boundaries to control other variables necessary for such a situation to be obtained. In the same vein, FACT’s M&E framework recognises the fact that current programming is embedded and influenced by several other factors obtaining in the target population of which the organisation may not have absolute control over, consequently, change resulting from FACT programmes interventions is thus understood as accelerating existing change or slowing existing decline. |
|||||||
Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation FACT‘s approach to M&E is follows a three stage process of clarificatory baseline evaluations , needs assessment (ex-ante evaluations), process monitoring and evaluation (formative) and end of project evaluation (post-ante) or summative
|
|||||||
Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation FACT has a substantive M&E and Research portfolio manned by qualified and experienced staff. The staff has gone through different trainings and capacity building initiatives. FACT has successfully institutionalised M&E and as such, M&E has become part of the organisation’s everyday work. M&E is thus an internally driven M&E done on frequent systematic basis within the organisation. M&E is used to inform and improve practice, inform planning and to guarantee accountability. While collection of data for monitoring is a routine process, the reporting is monthly. Focus will be on confirming logic between the recorded result and the accompanying intervention in relation to the documented situation.
|
|||||||
Data Collection FACT’s M&E relies on both primary and secondary data. Data collection is both qualitative and quantitative. Given the complexity of the intervention environment, FACT understands the fact that programming and accompanying results are is affected and shaped by additional factors external to the set activities. Consequently, FACT uses combined methods of data collection to capture such dynamics. In this case qualitative data dominates as a means of capturing non quantitative dynamics generated by interventions. Dominant approaches include the use of the Most Significant Change (MSC) approach, field study, observations, case studies, surveys, face to face interviews and group interviews
| |||||||
Data Collection and Analysis Programme data collected from the field is checked for reliability, validity, utility, sensitivity. Focus is on eliminating observer bias, guaranteeing authenticity and truthfulness. Analysis is done through use of computer software for SPSS and qualitative thematic analysis. |
|||||||