Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAdescribed earlier. Each participant sorts the cardswith scale options on agency policy on sustainedservices, from the lowest to the highest order. Emptycards of a different color are provided to addanother option if needed. Sorting is done in smallgroups of different categories of participants, oreven individually if the number of participants isless than 15.Each person selects the card, which, in his/heropinion, best matches the project approach theiragency used at the time of establishing the servicesin the selected communities. Each person uses acolor-coded voting token or sticker to mark theselected card. The colors represent participantcategories, i.e., whether the person is technical,social or village level staff or community memberand whether male or female. The groups displaytheir cards and markings on the floor or a wall.The facilitator helps the group to draw conclusionsabout the similarity or divergence of views andscores by different participant categories. Majorvariations stimulate discussions on underlyingreasons, meanings of concepts, problems andrequired actions.The activity is repeated for the other indicators -i.e., policies regarding demand-responsiveservices, community ownership and managementand gender-sensitivity and gender balance.The groups examine the degree of consensus andagree on overall scores in the scoring tables withthe whole group. When consensus cannot bereached, it is important to explore reasons for thedivergence of scores, which may be too sensitiveto do in the plenary discussion. Facilitators shouldnote if there are agreements within certain subgroups.Smaller, more homogenous groups canbe formed to discuss people’s rationales for givenscores and the results gathered from all. Persistentlack of consensus should be recorded byfacilitators as such, identifying which groupsagreed with which scores and why.Assessing enabling organizational systemsThis variable (see footnote 28) requires assessorsto have experienced the relevant organizationalsystems themselves, and thus can only be assessedby agency personnel. Community representativesmay however be invited to comment on the resultsof the assessment, as described below. The aspectscovered include planning and monitoring systems,skill mixes of agencies, expertise in field teams,and use of team approaches.Several creative techniques have been used tomeasure the degree to which the organization isperceived to have gender- and poverty-sensitivesystems. One such technique was using ribbonsin different colors for each category. Participantsfolded the ribbons conforming to their opinion oflevel of support (fully open if the support is 100percent to folded four times if the support is only25 percent) and stuck the ribbons on to a board.It is interesting as well as revealing to see howcolleagues in the same organization or in otherstakeholder groups view the organizationalculture.Another alternative is to use pocket voting for eachscale. Empty envelopes are taped to individualcards carrying descriptions for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3or 4 for each scale. Each set of cards is placed ona board turned towards the wall. Participants gobehind the board and vote using color-codedtokens, one at a time. Since the topics covered inthis section may be sensitive, more honestassessments are made possible through voting inprivacy. Results are then tallied in front of the wholegroup, so everyone can see the voting pattern,88
PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPAdiscuss the rationale for it, and agree on theoverall scores.Community representatives are asked to report theirimpressions on staff capacity, management supportand incentives. A plenary discussion is held on thereporting and any emerging trends and issues.Assessing enabling organizational climateFor this activity, each participant is given a sheetwith descriptions of scores for the aspect beingassessed (capacity building provisions,management support, staff incentives forperformance). If translations of scoring tablesare used with participants, it is advisable tohave bilingual versions that make both Englishand translated sections available on the samepage.Each participant selects the situation that best fitsthe project being assessed and writes his/herreasons for selecting that score, on the sheet.Participants also record their gender andparticipant category on the sheet. The process isrepeated for the scales about management supportand staff incentives.After each round, the results are summarizedpublicly for each participant category, by tallyinginformation from the sheets collected by thefacilitator, who also lists out the reasons given forselection of each score. This reveals theperceptions of different levels and types of staffregarding organizational support for working ina gender-sensitive and poverty-targeted manner.An overall score is agreed on if a consensus canbe reached. If there are major score variationsamong participant categories, the variations arereported by categories instead of an overall score.Role of the facilitatorThe stakeholders’ meeting is, by virtue of the rangeof participants, a significant challenge for thefacilitator. All efforts must be made to ensure thatthe hierarchy of institutions is not reflected in theproceedings, i.e., the poorer or femaleparticipants are not relegated to the backgroundwhile the community elite and project staff takecenter stage. Special care must be taken to ensureequal participation by all. It is advisable to usethe services of professional facilitators adept inthe local language. A team of one facilitator andone or two co-facilitators/recorders is preferable.The facilitator and recorders are asked to be veryalert to capture special features of the groupdynamics between the different categories ofparticipants and make notes when views differconsistently. The facilitator is further asked to recordhis/her gut feelings on the credibility of the data:did all participants take the activities seriously andseem to answer truthfully? Were there anyinhibitions with certain individuals or groups?Scales are scored on the spot, and refreshmentsare made available during the activities.89
Page 1 and 2:
SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 3:
SustainabilityPlanning andMonitorin
Page 6 and 7:
PrefaceThe mission of the Water and
Page 8 and 9:
AcknowledgementsThe Participatory L
Page 10 and 11:
viii
Page 12 and 13:
4.9 Visualization and self-scoring
Page 14 and 15:
Figure 18 KDP 2 activity cycle with
Page 17 and 18:
THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINED WATER SU
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS AND MANAGER
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSkey va
Page 37 and 38:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsevera
Page 39 and 40:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS●●
Page 41 and 42:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSThe MP
Page 43 and 44:
THE MPA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESSsegreg
Page 45 and 46:
THE MPA IN ACTIONaction points in i
Page 47 and 48:
THE MPA IN ACTION●●●●●●
Page 49 and 50:
THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 15 Key element
Page 51 and 52:
THE MPA IN ACTIONsuccessful or unsu
Page 53 and 54: THE MPA IN ACTIONexternal facilitat
Page 55 and 56: THE MPA IN ACTIONBox 17 Indicative
Page 57 and 58: THE MPA IN ACTIONvisits and conduct
Page 59 and 60: THE MPA IN ACTIONScoring principles
Page 61 and 62: THE MPA IN ACTION4.10 Quality contr
Page 63 and 64: THE MPA IN ACTIONExperiences with t
Page 65 and 66: THE MPA IN ACTION5Organizing and In
Page 67 and 68: Box 22 Gender and poverty analysis
Page 69 and 70: ORGANIZING AND INTERPRETING THE DAT
Page 79 and 80: PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA
Page 103: PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN THE MPA
Page 109 and 110: Section 2MPAApplication Case Studie
Page 111 and 112: DO PROJECT RULES PROMOTE SUSTAINABI
Page 121 and 122: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEDANIDA began
Page 123 and 124: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE2. Key findi
Page 125 and 126: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEReality of e
Page 127 and 128: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICEAdding Accou
Page 129 and 130: ADDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GENDER EQ
Page 137 and 138: Table 2WSLIC 2: ADDING POVERTY ACCO
Page 141 and 142: Table 3 (continued) ADDING PERFORMA
Page 145 and 146: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMembers
Page 147 and 148: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 149 and 150: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDFigure 2
Page 151 and 152: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARD●●
Page 153 and 154: LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDMPA core
Page 155 and 156:
EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 157 and 158:
EFFECT OF THE MPA ON GENDER RELATIO
Page 159 and 160:
ACHIEVING SUSTAINED SANITATION FOR
Page 161 and 162:
HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
Page 163 and 164:
HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJ
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix AInstitutions that current
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix BProcess designed forPLA P
Page 169 and 170:
StepNo.7.ProcessAsk “Were users e
Page 171 and 172:
ReferencesBernard, Russel H. (1995)
Page 173:
Wijk, Christine van. (1998). ‘Gen
Page 176:
Water and Sanitation ProgramWater S
show all

Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?