Approaches
Monitoring and evaluation in cross-cutting private sector development
The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) has attempted to create a common approach to monitoring and evaluation among aid agencies through the DCED Standards for Results Management. These aim to provide a framework, tools, and incentives to systematically assess programmes working in complex market systems. A specific toolkit for M&E in conflict-affected environments has also been developed, which emphasises the need to consider how PSD approaches impact on all aspects of peacebuilding. There are a number of case studies which demonstrate how the DCED Standard has been used in practice (Kessler 2013; DCED 2011; Lefebvre 2013).
Elements of the DCED Standard
- Articulating the results chain or programmic logic
- Defining indicators of changed based on the logic
- Measuring changes in indicators, applying good practice
- Estimating attributable changes
- Capturing wider changes in the system or market
- Tracking associated programme costs
- Reporting results in a responsible way
- Managing the system for results measurement
DCED toolkit for M&E in conflict-affected environments
This toolkit provides practical guidance for PSD practitioners in how to develop and evaluate PSD programming in conflict-affect environments (CAEs). It provides four main areas of guidance: an overview of what PSD can achieve in conflict-affected environments; an insight into what is meant by conflict-affected environments; a range of tools for professionals to apply in CAEs; and a monitoring and evaluation framework for PSD in CAEs. The toolkit emphasises that both outputs and outcomes of PSD approaches should be monitored for their possible impact on all aspects of peacebuilding, rather than just focusing on economic development.
See: Curtis et al. (2012).
USAID has utilised a causal model approach that identifies the casual (or logical) links between programme activities and expected outputs, outcomes and impacts (Woller 2007). The causal chain helps to identify performance indicators at each link in the chain, and forces managers to think about hypothesised explicit or implicit relationships in programme design (Woller 2007).
Theory of change approaches have also been used to evaluate market-driven programmes. They can help to establish whether the linkages between interventions and impacts are plausible, identify any unintended effects, and account for other contributory factors (Ruffer and Wach 2013). Experts recommend that theories of change should be revisited frequently and vetted by stakeholders external to the project (Ruffer and Wach 2013).
Monitoring and evaluation PSD approaches to reach the poorest and excluded
Private sector development approaches will not necessarily benefit all groups equally. Evaluations therefore need to utilise tools and approaches that capture the experiences of different groups so that a complete picture of the impact of the intervention can be produced (IFC 2008b).
There is limited evidence on how M&E approaches can measure changes in private sector activity in ways that reach the poorest and most excluded. Some organisations have produced specific guidelines for assessing the impacts of programmes on particular groups. However, in the main, many approaches to M&E in PSD fail to reach the poorest groups, are gender blind, or make little mention of gender dynamics.
Some specific approaches to identifying the impacts of PSD on excluded groups include:
- The Global Partnership for Youth Employment has produced a practical guide for monitoring the success of youth livelihood interventions (Hempel and Fiala 2012). It emphasises the need to identify appropriate evaluative methodologies, and details case studies of impact evaluation (Hempel and Fiala 2012).
- A handbook on M&E for business environment reform provides some guidance on how to make evaluative process as inclusive as possible (IFC 2008b). This includes considering how businesses operate in different sectors; how business owners have different gender, ethnicity, age, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds; and how the informal sector can be excluded but impacted by interventions (IFC 2008b).
- Measuring women’s unpaid or informal work has been a historically neglected area. Some experts recommend using time-use surveys to measure unpaid care work (Esquivel 2013).
- Curtis, L., Davies, P., Gündüz, C., Ockenden, A., Pedrick, T., Vaux, T., & Van der Zwan, J. (2012). Private sector development in conflict-affected environments: Key resources for practitioners. Cambridge: DCED. See document online
- DCED. (2011). Case study in using the DCED standard: Tractor leasing in Nigeria with PrOpCom. Cambridge: DCED. See document online
- Esquivel, V. (2013). Measuring unpaid care work with public policies in mind (Expert group meeting structural and policy constraints in achieving the MDGs for women and girls, Expert Paper 3). New York: UN Women. See document online
- Hempel, K., & Fiala, N. (2012). Measuring success of youth livelihood interventions. Practical guide to monitoring and evaluation. Washington: World Bank. See document online
- IFC. (2008b). Monitoring and evaluation for business environment reform: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank. See document online
- Kessler, A. (2013). Measuring results in challenge funds: Practical guidelines for implementing the DCED Standard. Cambridge, DCED. See document online
- Lefebvre, M. (2013). High value agricultural project case study – An example of DCED standard and RIMS integration. IFAD. See document online
- Ruffer, T., & Wach, E. (2013). Review of M4P evaluation methods and approaches. London: ITAD. See document online
- Woller, G. (2007). Developing a causal model for private sector development programs (Impact assessment primer series No. 4). Washington, DC: USAID. See document online
