Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

INTRODUCTION

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a process that helps improve performance and achieve results. Its goal is to improve current and future management of outputs, outcomes and impact. It is mainly used to assess the performance of projects, institutions and programs set up by governments, international organizations and NGOs. It establishes links between the past, present and future actions (World bank, 2007).

Monitoring is a continuous assessment that aims at providing all stakeholders with early detailed information on the progress or delay of the ongoing assessed activities. It is an oversight of the activity's implementation stage. Its purpose is to determine if the outputs, deliveries and schedules planned have been reached so that action can be taken to correct the deficiencies as quickly as possible (World bank, 2007).

An evaluation is a systematic and objective examination concerning the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact of activities in the light of specified objectives. The idea in evaluating projects is to isolate errors not to repeat them and to underline and promote the successful mechanisms for current and future projects (World bank, 2007).

Monitoring and evaluation involves twelves components in planning for result based monitoring and evaluation of any project as follows;

Organizational structures with M&E functions; Define for each organization its specific authority and responsibility with respect to M&E and the processes for shared decision making among organizations. Establish a national M&E technical working group. Define its scope of work, membership criteria and procedures for meeting, making and communicating its decisions. Develop and implement a national strategy for human capacity development to support data collection, management, analysis and use. Assess and track the overall performance of the M&E system on a regular basis (UNAIDS, 2008).

Human capacity for M&E; Define a national strategy for human capacity development for M&E that projects human resources needs and focuses on pre-service and in-service training, professional development and professional standards. Coordinate M&E training, technical assistance, and training and technical assistance providers (UNAIDS, 2008).

Partnerships to plan, coordinate, and manage the M&E system; Compile an inventory of organizations involved in M&E. Establish a mechanism for coordination and communication among organizations involved in M&E, Set-up management mechanisms that will allow the national M&E technical working group to effectively support the stakeholders (UNAIDS, 2008).

National, multisector M&E plan; Institutionalize coordinated M&E planning procedures for key M&E stakeholders, including periodic M&E assessments and performance monitoring linked to the National AIDS Strategic Plan. Dedicate staff time and resources to align the national M&E plan to the monitoring and evaluation of the country’s broader development plans. Organize a training program to rollout the implementation of the national M&E plan (UNAIDS, 2008).

Annual, costed, national M&E work plan; Establish and maintain a planning unit to lead and oversee the Joint Annual Program Review. Coordinate a workshop of stakeholders to develop the work plan, cost activities and assign responsibility for implementation of each activity. Establish and maintain a unit with responsibility for managing and coordinating financial (UNAIDS, 2008).

Advocacy, communication and culture for M&E; Develop an advocacy and communication strategy for disease specific M&E that outlines activities and provides resources to encourage national investment in the M&E system and evidence-based decision-making. Develop advocacy materials addressing the utility of M&E and specific actions points. Establish and maintain a communications infrastructure for M&E-related information, including a dedicated communications team or unit with responsibility for the timely production and distribution of useful M&E information targeted at key audiences (UNAIDS, 2008).

Routine program monitoring; Develop, distribute and maintain standardized tools and clear operational guidance for data collection, analysis and reporting. Provide training on the tools and guidance for all appropriate individuals/organizations. Produce a clear plan for timely collection of high-quality data as part of the Health Information System Assess existing information technology systems; fill gaps in skills and equipment (e.g., hardware and software). Implement regular assessments of the quality of program monitoring data, including data from the Health Information System using an existing standard tool (UNAIDS, 2008).

Surveys and surveillance; Conduct regular strategic planning for defining evidence-informed data needs and the role of surveys and surveillance in addressing these needs. Develop and implement a strategy for the management of data collection efforts focused on surveys and surveillance and for data sharing, which respects security and confidentiality concerns. Conduct health facility surveys (e.g. Site based facility surveys, Service Availability Mapping Surveys); Vital Registration; population based surveys (e.g. MICS, DHS and DHS+, AIS, BSS, PLACE, SAVVY) (UNAIDS, 2008).

National and sub-national databases; Establish procedures through which data can be obtained and managed in alignment with government policies, data flows, and the design of the national disease-specific databases. Establish a technical working group including representatives from the various sectors in charge of collecting and compiling disease specific data to guide and harmonize databases and to assure quality of data (UNAIDS, 2008).

Supportive supervision and data auditing; Establish national standards and procedures for data quality assurance in accordance with international standards. Agree on data quality standards with relevant sectors and organizations, including consensus on standardized protocols and tools for data audits and assessments. Support a data auditing unit for oversight of auditing and audit reports. Organize regular meetings between external data auditors and internal staff responsible for data quality.

Evaluation and research; Organize a national workshop with relevant individuals and organizations to agree on priority questions for evaluation and research as part of a national agenda-setting process. Establish procedures for implementation of the national evaluation and research agenda Establish ethical procedures for evaluation and research and implement a mechanism for ensuring adherence. Maintain a regularly updated national inventory of evaluation and research studies. Establish a mechanism for sharing evaluation and research findings, including the synthesis and interpretation of programmatic implications of the findings. Organize an annual national conference to discuss the implications of evaluation and research findings (UNAIDS, 2008).

Data dissemination and use; Develop and implement guidelines on data confidentiality and data release with explicit decision-making processes and authorities. Develop a decision calendar to identify key points in the year when critical decisions are made and data are needed. Develop and implement a communication strategy and plan for M&E products tailored to different audiences. Conduct an analysis of barriers to data use using existing tools (UNAIDS, 2008).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, monitoring evaluation faces with many challenges such as multiplicity of actors, each with their own monitoring sub-system, that are not integrated into the national M&E system. Weak capacity to collect good quality data due to non-standardized definitions for data; duplication of data from multiple registers; and lack of or inappropriate use of tools. National routine program monitoring and linkages between facility-based and community based services remains weak. Difficulty in conducting surveys particularly in capturing hidden, stigmatized and mobile populations. Limited skills to extract and aggregate indicator data, and non-submission of consolidated indicators. Limited disaggregation of data by age, sex, and key populations. Difficulty in estimating population sizes to inform program planning and implementation. Limited documentation of best practices and evidence of how national M&E systems and data are influencing decision-making at the country level and A dearth of evaluation information and operations research to address questions of efficacy/effectiveness, efficiency, and assess client satisfaction and the main bottlenecks to the scaling-up and impact of HIV interventions.

REFERENES

UNAIDS (2008). Organizing Framework for a Functional National HIV Monitoring and

                        Evaluation System. Geneva: UNAIDS.

World Bank (2007). Guidelines on Costing National HIV M&E Work Plans. Washington DC:

                       World Bank

Binnendijk, Annette. 2000. “Results Based Management in the Development Cooperation             Agencies: A Review of Experience.”