Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YUMBE DISTRICT.
By:
Kadondi Agatha
Reg.
21/MMSME/KLA/AUG/034
Supervisor:
Dr. David Ssekamatte Approved for defence 14/03/2022
A proposal submitted to the school of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Institute.
May 2022
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 9
2
1.5 Justification of the study ..................................................................................................... 20
programmes. ........................................................................................................................ 28
............................................................................................................................................... 33
3
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 37
References. ................................................................................................................................... 46
4
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 54
5
List of tables and figures
Table 3: Budget.
6
List of abbreviations,
UN United Nations
7
UMI Uganda Management Institute
8
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
populations' while driving economic recovery. ((CRS), 2018). When a livelihood can withstand
and recover from a shock with the same or increased capacities as before the shock, while keeping
the natural resource base, it is considered sustainable. To ensure a long-term recovery for affected
households, humanitarian initiatives should attempt to restore all components of the livelihood’s
livelihood framework over others due to competing priorities and limited resources. As a result,
the remaining gaps obstruct long-term livelihood rehabilitation ((CRS), 2018). Evaluators face a
difficult task while conducting monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in complicated humanitarian
catastrophes. limited security and access, as well as limited M&E processes throughout the
program life cycle, are significant impediments to doing M&E. While doing M&E in humanitarian
crises is difficult, it is not impossible, and it should be incorporated in all humanitarian action
initiatives' planning and implementation phases. (Hansch et al., 2015). Even if these processes
have resources implications, they are very important and should be incorporated right from the
start. According to Ramalingam et al., (2014), Within the humanitarian system, there are numerous
project enterprises and techniques for performance monitoring and reporting These, on the other
hand, were established with a variety of aims and emphases in mind, and they cover a wide range
of performance
9
categories. Several things happen at the same time, and some of them overlap. Majority of activit
Those who do tend to be fragmented in their approach. Furthermore, despite the large number of
datagathering systems and the wide range of programs seeking to solve performance concerns, th
e vast majority of these initiatives do not use the data available to improve performance. There is
frequently no link between data collection and its subsequent usage or use for orderly reflection
and learning. While the humanitarian system already includes many of the components needed for
a comprehensive model of performance, there are some important areas where there is little or no
information or where inclusion and analysis methodologies are inadequate. On this note, the paper
aims to examine and document M&E methods in humanitarian livelihood projects in the Bidibidi
refugee settlement, as well as the key challenges to M&E. The research will examine into the
monitoring and evaluation procedures used in humanitarian livelihoods projects. Bidibidi refugee
This section of the proposal includes the background, problem statement, objectives, research
Monitoring and evaluation, which is described as "a systematic collection of data throughout a
program's life cycle to see the program's accomplishments and how they were achieved," has
has always been distinguished by its spontaneous nature, since the beginning of humanitarian
assistance throughout the first world wars to the various conflicts that continue to pose problems
to the aid system today. Because of the urgency of the situation, help distribution sometimes takes
10
precedence over data collecting and practice consistency (Hansch et al., 2015). Historically, due
to challenges such as limited resources and the increasing number of disasters and armed conflicts,
M&E has been undervalued, which has hampered program accountability and effectiveness.
However, as the international community strives to learn from previous mistakes and strengthen
accountability for aid received through improved M&E processes, this has been steadily changing
in recent years. The catastrophic situation in Rwanda during and after the genocide exposed the
humanitarian system's flaws and served as a catalyst for a growing consensus that M&E was
required for humanitarian action (Hansch et al., 2015). AFEK et al., (2014) argued that evidence-
based humanitarian action requires ongoing collection and analysis of adequate information
not, and in what capacity and mode it should be delivered. The task of collecting valid and
reliable information from a multitude of sources and of transforming this information into
utilizable evidence is thus undeniably challenging, particularly in always changing and fragile
Monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian action is distinct from other types of monitoring and
evaluation because of several aspects. Emergency Charitable Action works are Human and natural
systems interact in a complex and dynamic way, including a wide range of man-made and natural
disasters with significant overlap (Opitz-Stapleton et al., 2019). Humanitarian aid situation is
frequently a highly politicized atmosphere, featuring a cast of characters oscillating from funding
organizations and implementation groups to government agencies and the affected populace
themselves. Despite the fact that different actors have varying stakes, interests, resources, and
capacities, they are all inextricably linked (Eberwein & Reinalda, 2015). A survey done by
11
Chaplowe et al., (2021) showed that, on a five-point scale, The most prevalent roadblocks in their
humanitarian assessment practice were, not using the results from evaluations to enhance programs
(93 percent) and for making decisions (90 percent). Furthermore, 88 percent of survey participants
said that quantifying outcome is a challenging and occurs frequently or constantly in humanitarian
evaluation. 85% of the survey respondents also faced difficulties as a result field staff's low M&E
capacity. Instead of being used for decision-making and program improvement, M&E was used as
a necessity, according to some respondents (73 percent). This necessitates more investigation to
determine the root causes and possible improvements to humanitarian evaluation and assessment
processes.
humanitarian aid has a considerably lengthier history dating back to 1863, when the International
Committee of the Red Cross was founded, and the passage of the First Geneva Convention the
following year. Over time, the humanitarian sector has become more organized in terms of
evaluating humanitarian action. Despite the fact that professional standards, norms, and ethics have
continue to exist. They include difficulties incorporating participatory techniques, data quality
issues, inadequate coordination among humanitarian response and evaluation partners, and, in
many cases, little use and implementation of evaluation outcomes and learning (Chaplowe et al.,
2021). The genocide of over one million people in Rwanda in 1994 is recognized as a watershed
moment in the growth of emergency humanitarian assistance, with the country's institutions on the
verge of collapse and its populace traumatized. It revealed a number of issues with the
12
humanitarian response to the tragedy in terms of performance, quality, and coordination, as well
as the crucial role of monitoring and evaluation in achieving more accountable humanitarian action
(Eriksson et al., 1996), as mentioned by (Chaplowe et al., 2021). The genocide of over one million
humanitarian assistance, with the country's institutions on the verge of collapse and its inhabitants
traumatized. It emphasized the crucial role of monitoring and evaluation in working toward more
accountable humanitarian action by highlighting in the humanitarian response to the crisis, a range
of performance, quality, and coordination challenges. Monitoring and evaluation procedures and
methodologies have evolved over time and have had a significant impact on emergency
The rising number and severity of humanitarian crises are among the key drivers of demand for
emergency humanitarian aid (EHA). According to Chaplowe et al., (2021) The 1994 Rwanda
Genocide, Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the Iraq Crisis in 2003, and the South Sudan Crisis in 2013
are only a few of the significant humanitarian catastrophes of the last 30 years, (Prolonged) Somali
Crisis in 2011, 2020–2021 Pandemic of COVID-19, for example. Humanitarian Programs' rise to
prominence has been fueled by a growing desire for accountability in humanitarian intervention
(Dahler-Larsen, 2012). Stakeholders, whether they are contributors or members of the impacted
community, want to know that their money is being well spent, that it is making a difference, and
According to Wokadala,(2016) Uganda's national M&E system has its origins in Uganda's public
sector management at the post-colonial times systems of government, which happened to shape
the public inspectorate function with public bureaus at various institutional levels through the
1980s. In the 1990s, public sector reforms began to take hold, with a greater emphasis on Value
13
for money, performance evaluation, and concepts like "results-based performance" are all
important aspects of M&E. After the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) was announced,
national and international civil society organizations (CSOs) advocated for 'impact assessments'
of PEAP programs. Since 2000, there has been a gradual shift toward incorporating M&E values
into government performance reviews. M&E became a key feature of Sector Wide Approaches
(SWAps) programs, with more baseline surveys, mid-term reviews, and end-of-program
evaluations being commissioned to reflect the socioeconomic and cultural realities of Ugandan
societies (Wokadala, 2016)). The institution is responsible for coordinating the design of the
Monitoring and Evaluation national poverty Strategy. Uganda now has a complete set of
demographic and household poverty data that can be used to assess progress of development
This study will be underpinned by a programme logic model and two monitoring and evaluation
models, these will include Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model and Stake’s responsive
evaluation model. The three models will be adopted by the study because they are directly linked
A management-oriented evaluation model was developed by Patton in 1978. This was referred to
as the utilization-focused evaluation model. As has been strongly articulated in earlier sections,
Monitoring and Evaluation serve many purposes, particularly for decision making by the project
14
projects. Patton argues that decision-makers have often ignored evaluation findings; he suggests
that as early as possible, in the project planning, key stakeholders such as relevant decision-makers
and the audience of evaluation reports who utilize evaluation findings must be identified.
Establishing effective collaboration between the evaluator's group and the consumers of the
evaluation findings is therefore important (Napier & Simister, 2017). For this study the model will
be used to inform the researcher about the level of utilization of the findings from evaluations
conducted by different organizations. This model is appropriate for this study because according
to Napier & Simister, (2017) UFEs can be used with any other type of evaluation, and the ideas
According to Spiegel et al., (1999), as early as 1975, Stake developed the responsive evaluation
model, also denoted as the naturalistic or anthropological model. The approach emphasized the
compared to Scriven’s model which sought to place much emphasis on the unintended outcomes
of projects. This model argues that the needs of clients are paramount to every project and hence
satisfying them should be the main preoccupation of Monitoring and Evaluation. Gathering project
data is key in the M&E process; this notwithstanding, instead of depending on scientific
methodologies of experimental psychology, human observations and judgments are heavily relied
interpreting data are optional. For this study the model will be used to explore the intended
outcomes of the livelihoods programme activities in Bidibidi as well as monitoring and evaluation
15
practices. This is because the model is instrumental in providing cultural explanations and
recognition of diversity. This model is appropriate because, according to Youker, (2007), It's
versatile, flexible, and effective in explaining cultural differences and recognizing diversity.
The study will examine the Monitoring and Evaluation practices in Humanitarian livelihoods
programmes in Bidibidi Refugee Settlement Yumbe District. Yumbe District was created in
November 2000 from Arua District (Profile, 2019). Bidibidi refugee settlement hosts 242,821
refugees (UNHCR, 2021). Alongside UNHCR over 30 organizations are working in the
livelihoods sector within Bidibidi. Organizations adhere a slack "30% soft law" When working in
Bidibidi, where the host community receives 30% of the aid that comes into Bidibidi, (George &
Dearden, 2019). BidiBidi refugee settlement was opened in August 2016 South Sudan has seen
increasing war, food scarcity, and financial instability as a result of hyperinflation (Narangui &
Bush, 2017). Of the thirteen sub-counties in Yumbe District five make up Bidibidi, these include;
Romogi, Apo, Odravu, Ariwa, and Kululu (UNHCR 2016) as cited by (Bako et al., 2021). Findings
from a study conducted by UNHCR, (2019) According to the findings, agricultural production is
practiced by 97 percent and 95 percent of host and refugee communities respectively and 95
percent of refugees in northern Uganda, but only 45 percent of hosting communities and 22% of
refugee communities sell a portion of their harvest. The most common source of income was
agriculture for both refugees and hosting community households (38 percent and 84 percent,
respectively). Approximately 2 percent of households from refugee communities have been able
over. At least one member of the household is involved in informal commerce and services, which
16
accounts for 20% of the family's members. The bulk of job postings, however, pay very little
(UNHCR, 2019). A monitoring and evaluation framework for livelihoods has several indicators
established by UNHCR that different humanitarian actors contribute to, these include; copying
index score, food consumption per capita, composite productive asset index among others
(UNHCR, 2019).
Monitoring and evaluation practices involve various activities of design and planning, capacity
building and information dissemination, budgeting, organizing, monitoring, and supervise project
activities, as well as the participation of all parties, so as to achieve the project's goals within a
specified time frame (Turner, 2016). According to Adeyemi (2013), all NGOs value the idea of
project implementation since it is the ideal technique for achieving trustworthy project results
throughout the execution of a new project due to a structured procedure of project control. M&E
practices are powerful instruments that can help a business attain higher performance levels.
Monitoring and evaluation budgeting is the practice of allocating a specific cost to a monitoring
and evaluation activity or activities (Sedrakian, 2016). According to Mwangi, (2014) M&E budget
analyzing are two different processes. Data collection is the process of gathering, measuring, and
analyzing accurate intuitions for research using standard validated techniques, on the other hand,
Data analysis is the scientific process of describing and illustrating, summarizing, and evaluating
data using statistical and/or logical approaches ((NRC), 2014). Livelihoods; For purposes of the
study, a person's livelihood is described as the skills, assets, and activities that allow them to earn
17
a living and provide for their families (IFRC, 2021). Programme; According to this study, a
programme is “a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and
control not available from managing them individually” (ILX, 2019). Humanitarian
programming; Humanitarian aid is intended to save lives, relieve suffering, and protect human
dignity during and after man-made crises and natural catastrophes, as well as to prevent and
Humanitarian NGOs have been known to apply M&E practices in their programs/projects to
demonstrate results, accountability, and more importantly provide lessons (KPMG, 2014).
remained scanty. Persistent risks and challenges have continued to be faced by humanitarian
livelihoods programmes which could be tackled by sharing information on what is working or not
to enhance strategies development by state and non-state actors (Mugo & Oleche, 2015). Field et
al., (2015) furthermore argue that M&E practices in humanitarian contexts are not standardized
hence the difficulties in measuring results across the same sectors. Bidibidi refugee settlement
hosts 242,821 refugees (UNHCR, 2021). Alongside UNHCR over 30 organizations are working
in the livelihoods sector within Bidibidi. When working in Bidibidi, organizations adopt a flexible
"30 percent soft law," according to which the host community receives 30 percent of the aid
(George & Dearden, 2019). NGOs, both humanitarian and development, have made considerable
investments to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their monitoring and evaluation
operations in order to improve the performance of their initiatives. Despite these attempts by
NGOs, the overall picture of project performance in developed and developing nations remains
18
restricted; information is scarce or dispersed, and efforts to collate it are poor (UNICEF, 2012). A
study by Jacobsen & Fratzke, (2016) on livelihoods opportunities in humanitarian settings showed
that measuring likelihoods programmes was difficult. This was attributed to the broadly defined
nature of goals such as “durable solutions, self-sufficiency among others making it hard to
measure. This clearly shows a gap in the M&E linkages and practices in emergency livelihoods
programmes. Another study by Khalil et al.,( 2020) revealed that Many post-disaster recovery
initiatives have suffered from a lack of monitoring and evaluation of livelihood recovery
programming outcomes. Previous studies have proved that despite the existing M&E practices in
humanitarian agencies, access to key reliable information remains a challenge. Also, the studies
conducted did not focus on Bidibidi posing a data gap, therefore the study intends to bridge that
gap by exploring and documenting the M&E practices used by humanitarian livelihoods
programmes in Bidibidi and identify the key challenges in using them and mitigation measures.
i. To explore and document the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices in humanitarian
ii. To identify the key challenges faced in conducting M&E on the humanitarian livelihood
19
i. What monitoring and evaluation practices are used in humanitarian livelihoods
ii. What are the key challenges faced in conducting these M&E practices in humanitarian
A lot of investments were made through non-governmental organizations to help respond to the
emergency in the Bidibidi refugee camp. Similarly, many NGO's have made significant
expenditures in the creation of M&E systems, but these systems still have performance gaps in
terms of tracking results. If the phenomenon is not studied through research, then there is a high
possibility of NGOs failing to identify success and in turn reward failures. It also seems like no
research was carried out in order to explore and document the M&E practices in humanitarian
livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi refugee settlement. Hence this will provide more knowledge
on the subject, and this can be used by other researchers as points of reference. It is considering
It will focus on examining M&E practices in humanitarian Livelihoods programmes. The findings
will be of great relevancy to the different institutions both governmental and non-government
implementing projects in enhancing efficiency and effectiveness through the adoption of M&E
practices that are most appropriate in the humanitarian livelihoods sector. The existing gaps in
M&E practices will also be highlighted to help M&E practitioners in humanitarian livelihoods
programming. At the same time, it will serve as a resource for other researchers and supplement
on the existing knowledge of humanitarian M&E. The findingings will enable the practitioners of
20
M&E to understand how humanitarian M&E practices can be strengthened. Previous studies
conducted did not focus on Bidibidi posing a data gap, therefore the study intends to bridge that
gap by exploring and documenting the M&E practices used by humanitarian livelihoods
programmes in Bidibidi and identifying the key challenges in using them and mitigation measures.
Bidibidi refugees in Yumbe District, northern Uganda, will be the focus of the research. South
Sudan is located in the north, with Moyo District to the east, Adjumani District to the south east,
Arua District to the south, and Maracha and Maracha District to the south west. A total of 242,819
refugees live in the area (UNHCR, 2021). And, because there are approximately 30 non-
government institutions implementing livelihoods projects targeting both the refugee and host
21
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents studies conducted by various researchers concerning the study variables. The
study objectives and research questions will be focused on respectively when reviewing and
presenting. This section contains the theoretical review, conceptual review, thematic review, and
summary of the literature. Relevant literature will be obtained from various journal articles
published concerning the research books and published reports from different organizations and
authorities will be utilized respectively. The study will examine the monitoring practices in
Two monitoring and evaluation approaches will be employed in this study: Patton's utilization-
focused evaluation model and Stake's responsive evaluation model. The two models will be
adopted by the study because they are directly linked to programme monitoring and evaluation
practices.
A management-oriented evaluation model was developed by Patton in 1978. This was referred to
as the utilization-focused evaluation model. As has been strongly articulated in earlier sections,
Monitoring and Evaluation serve many purposes, particularly for decision making by the project
projects. Patton argues that decision-makers have often ignored evaluation findings; he suggests
22
that as early as possible, in the project planning, key stakeholders such as relevant decision-makers
and the audience of evaluation reports who utilize evaluation findings must be identified.
Establishing effective collaboration between the evaluation team and the consumers of the
UFEs (utilization-focused evaluations) are founded on the idea that an evaluation should be rated
on its usefulness. UFEs should be prepared and implemented in such a way that the findings are
A UFE is a flexible evaluation method that can be used in a variety of situations. UFEs can be used
with any other type of evaluation, and the ideas can be applied to any type of work in any field.
According to Napier & Simister, (2017), To fully connect with diverse users at different stages, a
UFE requires more flexibility and time than other techniques. During the course of the assessment,
new users of the evaluation, for example, or new evaluation questions, may emerge. As a result,
more cash or resources may be necessary that were not anticipated at the beginning. A utilization-
focused evaluation model's primary users must also be prepared and equipped to communicate
with the assessors. Key users must be willing to learn from the assessment results and decisions
must be made based on the evaluation outcomes. All in all, the examination should take up a
23
A UFE may not be appropriate in several cases. For example, there may be times when no one is
interested in implementing evaluation findings or when no one has the time or resources to do so.
This could be the situation if an evaluation is only being done because a project or program hits
some arbitrary budgetary barrier, or if one was planned from the beginning but most stakeholders
have subsequently lost interest. A UFE would not be acceptable in these situations since the key
intended users would be unable to identify and engage (Napier & Simister, 2017)
According to Spiegel et al., (1999), as early as 1975, Stake developed the responsive evaluation
model, also referred to as the naturalistic or anthropological model. This approach emphasized the
concentration of evaluation on the intended outcomes relating to the programme activities. Rather,
it emphasizes on capturing the program stakeholders' views and emotions, which, according to
Stake, is how people naturally evaluate things. Stake recommends breaking out a program's
evaluation into four parts: environment, workspace, output, and support (Youker, 2007). This
model argues that the needs of clients are paramount to every project and hence satisfying them
should be the main preoccupation of Monitoring and Evaluation. Gathering project data is key in
the Monitoring and Evaluation process; this notwithstanding, instead of depending on scientific
methodologies of experimental psychology, human observations and judgments are heavily relied
24
2.2.2.2 Strengths of the Stake’s responsive evaluation model.
Responsive evaluation's advantages include its flexibility, adaptability, and ability to provide
program's inherent worth rather than its instrumental value, it may be very valuable in assessing it
Positive participant statements may impact other participants’ thinking in a positive way, while
negative comments may cause participants to think negatively about the data gathering event,
according to the findings of the University of Nebraska study. Furthermore, in some cases, regular
interactive input might become overpowering. Interpretation become harder to make, since the
One of the disadvantages is that it’s hard drawing comparisons to standards; since only the local
stakeholders are served and may not fulfill other demands in the future. Traditional evaluations, or
preordination evaluations as Stake calls them, may be less objective, accurate, and generalizable
than responsive evaluations. When it comes to determining whether or not commitments were
(Youker, 2007). Two disadvantages of the responsive assessment approach are the need for
exceptionally experienced or capable assessors and a significant time obligation to the whole
process of evaluation (Hurteau & Nadeau, 1985; Klintberg, 1976; Stake, 1983) as cited by (Spiegel
et al., 1999).
25
2.2.3 Contributions to the study
The models will be useful to the study since they will help to provide a clear framework upon
which the research will be conducted. Following the models will clearly show the monitoring and
evaluation practices being used in the different organizations. Following the models will map out
the different activities’ humanitarian organizations conduct and how these relate to the outcomes
of the programme as well as processes taken to track the outcomes. The level of utilization and
effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation practices used. The models will enable the
researcher to document key leanings and monitoring and evaluation practices that led
organizations to question the impact and how to make a difference. According to INTRAC,
(2014), The size and scope of a humanitarian disaster, as well as the response to it, can make
developing and implementing adequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and approaches
difficult.
According to Egesah & Ngeywo, (2017) Monitoring and evaluation are always perceived as one
though they are different. Monitoring is the process of gathering data and analyzing it to examine
the impacts of a project, with the goal of evaluating if the planned objectives have been fulfilled.
The evaluation analyzes the patterns in the impact of the project and effect of using the data as
Monitoring is the process of gathering and analyzing data on a regular basis in order to assess
progress against goals and ensure that specified standards are being followed (International
26
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2011). Monitoring is a management
technique that provides ongoing feedback on both project's progress both financial and physical
by detecting possible successes and restrictions, which may aid in making timely choices. The
mechanisms that account for activity progress are assessed, also by measuring the first responses
and reactions to project activities, perceptions are obtained and any changes within a short time
"A systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, program, or policy,
its design, implementation, and results" is defined as "an evaluation (International Federation of
In the context of performance of a project, evaluation is a process for methodically and empirically
assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of activities, with an
emphasis on the study of progress toward stated goals (International Federation of Red Cross and
Livelihoods
A livelihood is comprised of the skills, assets (both material and social), and activities required to
support oneself. Livelihoods are sustainable when they can recover from stress and shocks while
also preserving or improving current and future capacities and assets without harming the natural
resource base. According to (Chambers & Conway, 1991) (Smit, 2016). As for this study,
livelihoods are defined as the skills, assets, and activities that enable people to earn money and
Programme
27
According to this study, a programme is “a group of related projects managed in a coordinated
way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually” (ILX, 2019)
Humanitarian Assistance
Humanitarian aid aims to save lives, alleviate suffering, and safeguard human dignity during and
after man-made and natural disasters, as well as to avoid and increase preparedness for such events.
The core humanitarian qualities of humanism, impartiality, neutrality, and independence should
lead humanitarian help. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement's (RCRC) core
ideals are mirrored in United Nations General Assembly resolutions and codified in a number of
humanitarian standards and recommendations. When the term "humanitarian assistance" is used
in this report in the context of financial data, it refers to the financial resources available for
programmes.
The activities of design and planning, capacity building and information dissemination, budgeting,
organizing, monitoring, and control that are involved in a project, as well as the involving all
parties to achieve the purpose of the project in a set time frame, are all monitoring and evaluation
practices (Turner, 2016). According to Adeyemi (2013) as cited by Kyalo et al., (2020) All NGOs
embrace the idea of project implementation because it is the best way to achieve trustworthy
project results throughout the execution of a new project due to a structured project control
approach. M&E practices are powerful instruments that can help a organization attain higher levels
28
of performance. A paper by (Ile, 2019) on strengthening the public sector's ability for policy
monitoring and evaluation To some extent, M&E in the public sector appears to be done for the
sake of compliance rather than the goal of improving performance. The findings show that M&E
readiness is mixed. Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) is crucial because it guarantees that all
stakeholders in the delivery of essential services to communities follow the rules. While the
existing M&E process is mostly regulated through statutory structures, non-statutory structures
based on self-organizing models might provide helpful venues for assessing municipal service
provision for long-term sustainability (Ile, 2019). The monitoring and evaluation practices below
The process of allocation a given cost to a Monitoring and evaluation activity or activity is referred
to as M&E budgeting (Sedrakian, 2016). M&E funding should include a clearly designed plan
strategies and approaches on how funding will be used through the project implemetation.
Consider the time and resources required for post-grant outcome monitoring. Budgets that are
cross-cutting are advised ((NRC), 2014). According to the International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), (2011) Early in the project/program design process, start
arranging the M&E budget so that enough money is put aside and available for M&E activities.
The budget for M&E may be broken down into three categories: Human capital is a term that refers
to the value of Full-time workers, consultants, numerous critical trainings, and other relevant
charges are all included in the budget for staffing. data entry and translation for the baseline survey
29
2.4.1.1.2 Data collection and analysis.
Data collecting is the act of obtaining, measuring, and analyzing correct intuitions for study using
standard proven processes; data analysis, on the other hand, is the scientific use of statistical and
other logical tools to explain and display, summarize, and assess data ((NRC), 2014). M&E should
offer reliable evidence that demonstrates that quality programs are being delivered. Alternatively,
the information gathered should be sufficient to make significant decisions. This necessitates the
gathering of reliable and timely data in order to conduct meaningful analysis ((NRC), 2014). In
this way, monitoring and evaluation not only tracks a project's progress, but it's also an important
part of analyzing strategy, managing project execution, and establishing a solid evidence base for
action. In humanitarian M&E, there are several ethical issues to consider. This includes worries
about data security and quality. On-desk/Document review, physical observations, surveys, and
mapping are common data collection approaches (community maps, GPS mapping, etc.) ((NRC),
2014). Relief organizations will need a deeper awareness of both needs and the larger social,
political, and economic context if they are to program for livelihoods (as opposed to lifesaving).
To gain such an understanding, you'll need time and the right analytical tools and data collection
procedures. Such tools must be capable of not only describing livelihood strategies and the larger
context in which they exist, but also of explaining how different aspects of a situation relate to one
another and to the past, as well as attempting to predict what might happen in the future for various
explanatory, and predictive (Longley & Maxwell, 2013). There are a number of difficulties with
data collection and analysis. To begin with, they face a scarcity of resources and usable data,
particularly for clients in remote areas. Furthermore, M&E insights are currently underutilized.
Using digital tools to investigate new methods of data collection can supplement existing data and
30
enrich findings. Data gathering can be done digitally to save money and enhance the frequency of
A study by (Koonstra & Maas, 2019) One of the most commonly mentioned issues for M&E
experts is poor acceptance of M&E results, according to a study on digital innovation challenges.
88 percent of respondents say they have this issue, with nearly one-third saying that implementing
M&E is a major challenge. In order to support learning and continual improvement, it is necessary
to monitor insights. The researcher did not, however, address the underlying causes of limited
uptake in this study. The fundamental causes will be determined in this study. The use of
evaluations is a top goal, yet meaningful assessment follow-up remains a major problem for
agency and a donor, rather than for improving outcomes for the targeted population. (Chaplowe et
al., 2021).
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has traditionally created and
(programs aimed at reducing refugees' unemployment) are the two types of livelihood programs
programs are one example of supply-side initiatives (such as vocational, language, and job skills
training) access to technology and training initiatives that pay refugees for their labour (Jacobsen
a number of flaws, including the fact that programs are introduced without first mapping the local
political and economic scene, and hence are not planned with a context-specific barrier in mind.
Second, measures to improve people's lives are not evaluated. Currently, monitoring efforts are
centered on how effectively programs accomplish targets rather than their impact on refugees'
lives. Finally, there is a scarcity of skilled and knowledgeable professionals to design and
programming in humanitarian settings in the Darfur region, it was discovered that at the moment,
livelihoods programming focuses primarily on supporting people's livelihood strategies and assets,
with little understanding or consideration of how it influences or is influenced by the key Program
Implementation Plans for each group. For example, seed and tool distribution without regard for
land access. And, among other things, vocational training and the provision of relevant inputs with
an insufficient market analysis of the skills or products in question. Furthermore, livelihoods are
unlikely to be sustainable in times of crisis, but support should be offered to livelihoods to promote
2018) From 2014 through 2018, collect strategic and timely evidence on the success of refugee
livelihoods programming. The findings revealed that livelihood programs are found to favorably
enhance household well-being and safety outcomes across data sources, such as food security,
children's education, safety, reduced sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and
empowerment. This study also discovered that people of concern (PoC) are subjected to high levels
of shocks and stressors, which stifle their ability to create a livelihood and progress toward self-
sufficiency. Economic shudder and protection tremors are the most typical forms of stressors that
32
PoC face. ((UNHCR), 2018). Furthermore, two-thirds (67%) of e-survey respondents believed
their livelihood program would not be sustainable (if UNHCR funding ended). On that basis, the
nexus and refugee situations because UNHCR is conversant with refugees ((UNHCR), 2018).
Research conducted by IRC., (2016) in Uganda, Several livelihoods organizations have been
shown to purposefully pick people with no prior experience, despite the fact that they may not be
ready to enter the labor market. Furthermore, many livelihood activities were oriented specifically
at women, resulting to complaints from male refugees about a lack of opportunities (Jacobsen &
Fratzke, 2016).
Different programming solutions are required at different stages of a crisis or its aftermath (early
acute, post-crisis, development). During the early stages of a crisis, the priority is to save lives and
defend livelihoods. The focus of the recovery phase is on livelihoods rehabilitation, with the goal
initiative remains the same, notwithstanding additional concerns for varied circumstances.
Preparedness is one among them, Planning for the worst-case scenario Actors from the community
and region Coordination Context analysis, needs assessment, and zoning for livelihoods Baseline,
Monitoring, and Evaluation, Response design and implementation, Risk analysis, monitoring and
evaluation Reporting, Exit and Feedback, and Lessons Learned (Catholic Relief Services (CRS),
2018).
According to the evaluation conducted by UNHCR, (2018) limited performance as well as impact
measurement system hinder the ability to show impact. Focus data showed key gaps with the
33
quality of data and inconsistencies in data collection. Technical guidance is needed in many
operations when conducting rigorous assessments at different levels of the program cycle. Where
accessible, all evaluations and assessments were deemed valuable; nevertheless, the quality and
availability of these monitoring efforts are limited by partner capability, resources, and the one-
year timeline ((UNHCR), 2018). On the other hand, the lack of capability to support the system
and the possibility for workers to react negatively to bad information created by M&E indicate a
foundation for identifying areas where M&E prerequisites are absent. This should then guide
remedial activities aimed at improving the M&E system's effectiveness (Ile, 2019). Despite the
fact that professional norms, frameworks, and ethics have improved assessments in humanitarian
action, typical obstacles in evaluating humanitarian activity still exist. These include challenges in
response and evaluation parties, as well as, in many cases, insufficient use and acceptance of
assessment outcomes and learning (Chaplowe et al., 2021). Methodology and evaluating quality
The humanitarian evaluand's complexity, which is growing, dynamic, and unexpected, poses
significant challenges to evaluation methods (ALNAP, 2016). Intervention designs are typically
outmoded, and baseline data may be missing or insufficient, making assessment problematic.
M&E (monitoring and evaluation) systems are more easily able to quantify physical deliveries
than they are to evaluate the higher-level outcomes and consequences that outputs are designed to
enable (counts) (Guerrero et al., 2013). Humanitarian response and evaluation are not coordinated.
Humanitarian organizations often pursue data collection and evaluation separately in EHA,
Duplication and even competition arise, causing evaluation fatigue in the afflicted populations
(Bennet & Foley, 2016; UNOCHA, 2016). Evaluators' safety and well-being. The quality and
34
safety of the humanitarian workforce is receiving more attention, which includes the development
of their assessment ability to ensure ethical and trustworthy data collection, analysis, and
application (Dalrymple, 2020). According to the review conducted by Chaplowe et al., (2021),
Insufficient utilization of evaluation findings to enhance programs and make decisions (93 percent)
were the most common obstacles highlighted in applying M&E methods in the humanitarian
setting (90 percent ). Furthermore, 88 percent reported that assessing outcome is an issue that they
face on a regular or irregular basis. 85 percent reported problems as a result of field staff's limited
M&E capabilities. According to several respondents, M&E was used to satisfy decision making
institutional requirements rather than for decision-making and program enhancement (73 percent).
In summary, the available literature explored shows the different monitoring and evaluation
practices in humanitarian livelihoods programmes as well as challenges faced, it has been noted
that the practice of M&E seems to be for purposes of compliance rather than the ideal of
The major gaps identified from the previous studies are that the studies did not focus on the
different monitoring and evaluation practices at the different stages of humanitarian responses but
rather monitoring and evaluation practices. Given the fact humanitarian responses have different
stages, each stage requires a different approach the study intends to explore and document the
monitoring and evaluation practices used by different actors at the different stages of the
humanitarian response. Furthermore, according to George & Dearden, (2019), the Bidibidi refugee
settlement is at the recovery stage though still receiving some few refugees to mainly reunite with
their families, this makes the target location for the study appropriate since it has transitioned from
peak emergency to recover stage. Also, the studies conducted did not focus on Bidibidi posing a
35
data gap, therefore the study intends to bridge that gap by exploring and documenting the M&E
practices used by humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi and identify the key challenges
36
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The chapter describes the research methodology for the study. The chapter is organized as follows;
research design to be used in the study, study population that will be targeted, Sample size
instruments of data collection, validity and reliability of the data, the procedure of data collection,
method of analyzing data and ethical clearance procedures to be followed respectively. This
chapter of the research informs the processes to be followed when obtaining data from respondents.
Since the study will be purely qualitative, a phenological study design will be used.
offered by the participants. These are referred to as "lived experiences." The purpose of
phenomenological research is to characterize the meaning that each subject deriven from their
experiences. This form of research is utilized to investigate subjects about which little is known
(Donalek & Sandie Nursing, 2004). This design applies to the study because the studies conducted
did not focus on Bidibidi posing a data gap meaning there is little knowledge documented,
therefore the study intends to bridge that gap by exploring and documenting the M&E practices
used by humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi and identify the key challenges in using
them and mitigation measures this kind of information can only be obtained through use of a
phenological design.
37
3.3 The study population
The study population refers to the elements from which samples will be drawn (UMI, 2018). The
study targets monitoring and evaluation staff of the humanitarian livelihoods organization as well
the programme team and the beneficiaries of the livelihoods programme across the five zones of
Bidibidi. The researcher will consider the respondents of the study to be project/program staff,
project managers, and M&E staff of humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi. This is
because they are the ones answerable for the major aspects of the projects, including the M&E
practices, which consequently puts them in a better position to provide the information required
by this study. The sampled staff will have worked in the organization for at least two years on the
livelihood programmes in the Bidibidi refugee settlement. And the beneficiaries should have
benefited for at least two years and should be residents of the Bidibidi refugee settlement for the
The sample size will be determined purposively. Six (6) non-governmental organizations that have
been implementing livelihoods programmes in bidibidi refugee settlement for the past five (5)
years will be selected. From each of these organizations, 2 staff will be interviewed and from the
five zones of Bidibidi one focus group discussion will be conducted with livelihoods programmes
38
Table 1: Sample size.
2 staff from 6 NGOs will be interviewed making 12 beneficiaries from five zones will
and 4 nationals
The study is qualitative and non-probability sampling techniques will be employed. A combination
of purposive and snow bowling sampling will be used in the identification of key informants and
participants of the focus group discussion. Purposive sampling will be used because only informed
participants will be required to participate and snowballing will apply since referrals will be made
to make up the focus groups for discussions. (Moser & Korstjens, 2018)
The sampling procedure will be as follows, for each selected organization, 2 staff and 12
beneficiaries per zone will be interviewed using key informant guides and focus group discussion.
These will be purposively selected. The group discussion will be conducted with livelihoods
programme beneficiaries that have benefited from livelihoods intervention within the settlement
in at least the past two years. For each humanitarian organization focusing on livelihoods
programming, 2 staff will be interviewed using key informant interview guides. A total of 12 staff
will be interviewed and 60 livelihoods programme beneficiaries across the five zones of Bidibidi.
39
3.6 Data collection methods.
Key informant interviews, focus group discussions and on-desk reviews will be used in the
Krueger and Casey (2000) define, focus group research as "a means of gathering data from more
than one subject at a time, in a safe atmosphere, regarding a specific area of interrogation"
(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010). Focus group discussions will be conducted with purposively selected
livelihoods programme beneficiaries to participate. Each group will have a maximum of twelve
beneficiaries and a minimum of eight both male and female. One focus group will be conducted
in each zone across the five, a total of 5 focus group discussions will be conducted in the settlement.
Rodriguez et al., (2011) says, Focus group talks are a powerful qualitative research tool that
facilitates the capture of rich and authentic data, especially when tailored to be culturally
appropriate. Furthermore, according to Onwuegbuzie et al., (2010), at a minimal cost, data can be
collected faster data can be collected faster. Finally social data can easily be collected focus groups
are a means to collect social data from a social environment can be gathered through focus group
Document review is a method of acquiring data that involves reviewing previously published
articles. The documents might be internal program materials or documents from outside the
company (CDC, 2018). Documents review will be undertaken on key existing documents such as
monitoring and evaluation framework of the sampled organization and livelihoods programme
logical framework. A document review will be conducted to obtain background information and
40
determine if the program's execution is in accordance with the program's goals, additionally, data
obtained from the participants will have to be triangulated with what is on paper.
Key informant interviews are detailed interviews with stakeholders who are aware of programme
firsthand information about the programme or community. Participants provide key information
into the problem under study and provide recommendation respectively (Tenny et al., 2020). Key
informant interviews will be conducted with selected livelihoods programme staff from the
sampled organizations. The staff should have worked for at least two years on the programme.
This method will be used because the study seeks to obtain information about the monitoring and
evaluation practices as well as the pressing issues or challenges and to obtain information from
that target groups with diverse backgrounds and opinions on monitoring and evaluation practices
A focus group discussion interview guide, a key informant interview guide, and a documentary
review checklist are among the data gathering instruments to be utilized in the project. The
questions will be open-ended to provide for a thorough knowledge of the M&E procedures
employed and the issues that have been encountered. The questions will be organized in
According to UNICEF et al., (2020) focus group discussions help obtain information on
perceptions, suggestions, and rumors within the community about the subject under study. what
people already know and think about the monitoring and evaluation practices in the humanitarian
41
livelihoods programmes. The focus group discussion guide will contain open-ended questions that
will used to arouse an informal discussion with participants to obtained their insights, opinions,
doughts, queries, and information needs aligned to monitoring and evaluation practices in
livelihoods humanitarian programmes. Focus group discussions will include a minimum of eight
and a maximum of twelve livelihoods programmes beneficiaries. These will be drawn from a pool
of sampled livelihoods organizations beneficiaries that have benefited for the past two years. One
group discussion will be conducted using an FGD guide from each zone across the five zones of
KII guides will be used because according to (Moser & Korstjens, 2018) Key informants present
detailed information on the subject under study. The guide will be used because the study seeks to
humanitarian livelihoods programmes. The guide will contain questions geared towards
investigating to help solve the persistent monitoring and evaluation problem faced by the
interviews will also help to determine not only what monitoring and evaluation practices
programme staff carry out but why they do, staff reasons for their behavior, understandings or
The document review checklist will contain open questions to help conduct a meaningful review
of the livelihoods programme logical framework and monitoring and evaluation framework,
review meetings will be conducted with the key staff per organization sampled. In a situation where
the staff is unavailable, the checklist will be shared on mail for completion.
42
3.8 Validity and reliability
According to Jupp, (2006), validity refers to the degree to which research findings give an accurate
explanation of what happened and why. The questionnaire will be constructed in line with the
research objectives and questions. Data will be collected from 72 reliable sources who have the
necessary knowledge and experience in monitoring and evaluation practices in the humanitarian
livelihoods programmes. Furthermore, consultation shall be made with research firms to comment
on the instruments, any unclear and ambiguous questions will be reworded and rechecked before
they are administered to respondents. Pretesting of the tools shall be made to ensure that all
The degree to which a certain instrument can consistently provide a comparable result across
multiple trials is referred to as its dependability (Orodho, 2012). The researcher will construct data
collecting tools based on the study objectives, research questions, and problem statement to
improve dependability. The measuring tools will be based on facts and a thorough grasp of the
The researcher will conduct interviews both physically and online (telephone and zoom) with the
key respondents. A team of 8 research assistants will be recruited and trained to complete the focus
group discussions since they will be conducted in the different local languages spoken in the
refugee camp whereas key informants will be conducted by the researcher in person. In each of
the zone, the team of eight researchers will be paired to conduct the group discussions concurrently
for five days across the five zones in the Bidibidi refugee settlement. A recorder will be used upon
43
obtaining consent from participants to record all responses provided respectively. Interview
schedules will be shared with the respective staff in sampled organizations. Before conducting
field, interviews authorization will be obtained from OPM and UNHCR who are directly
responsible for the refugees that happen to be the potential respondents in the study. All key
informants not readily available will be followed up and interview schedules revised respectively.
All focus group discussions will be conducted in the local languages respectively. Recorders,
interview guides, and note-taking guides will be used respectively to document the views of the
Analysis will be done using thematic analysis. This is a process of finding patterns within the data
qualitative collected according Braun & Clarke (2006) as cited by (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). A
theme on the other hand is an outline of significant and interesting data about a study objective or
question according to Braun & Clarke (2006) as cited by (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). Five steps
Step one will be becoming familiar with the data. All transcripts from interviews conducted will
be read and re-read. At this stage, notes on early impressions will be made. In phase two, the
researcher will start to organize data in a meaningful and systematic way. According to Maguire
& Delahunt, (2017) Coding reduces lots of data into small chunks of meaning. The research
questions under study will be used to inform the perspective. The third step will be searching for
themes in the data. Different codes will be organized or clearly fitted together to form broader
themes saying something specific about the research questions. The themes will be predominately
descriptive in relation to the research question. Step four in analyzing the data will be reviewing
of the themes. All themes identified at step three will be reviewed and modified. The researcher
44
will read the data associated with each theme and consider whether the data really supports it. Then
all themes will be contextualized to the entire dataset. The last step will be refining each of the
themes to recognize essence of each theme. The information obtained from the analysis will be
The research will be carried out in a highly ethical manner. To prevent any ethical violations, the
research ethical principles of respect for humans, beneficence, non-maleficence, and fairness shall
be taken into account when establishing and implementing data gathering instruments and
methodologies. To gather data, a research clearance permission from UMI and a letter of
authorization from OPM will be obtained in advance. This will make the purpose of the study and
the nature of the investigation moreclear, resulting in better participation from respondents
throughout data collecting. The researcher will explain the goal of the study to the respondents in
writing at the start of data collection and assure them that the information they contribute will be
kept private. No data will be collected until all individuals who choose to participate in the study
have given their informed consent. Only after the researcher has acquired approval from all the
staff members and beneficiaries associated with the study will the data collection start. The
45
References.
library/inform-severity-index- february-2021-–-all-crises
AFEK, C., EITAM, & FERF, A. (2014). Monitoring, evaluation and learning in humanitarian
www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-guide
Bako, Z., Barakagira, A., & Nabukonde, A. (2021). Towards attaining the recommended
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-021-00105-8
Bennet, C., & Foley, M. (2016). Time to let go: Remaking humanitarian action for the modern
the-modern-era
Catholic Relief Services (CRS). (2018). Livelihoods Programming in Emergency Response and
Recovery Contexts.
CDC. (2018). Evaluation Briefs No. 18 January 2009 Data Collection Methods for Evaluation:
Chaplowe, S., Castleman, A. M., & Cho, M. (2021). Evolving Evaluation Practice Past , present
46
and future challenges.
https://www.alnap.org/help-library/the-state-of-humanitarian-professions-2020
Donalek, J. G., & Sandie Nursing. (2004). An introduction to qualitative research methods.
Eberwein, W., & Reinalda, B. (2015). A brief history of humanitarian actors and principles’, in
library/a-brief-history-of-humanitarian-actors-and-principles
Egesah, O., & Ngeywo, J. (2017). Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v7.n1.p6
Field, C., Punay, M. V., & Walz, A. (2015). Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation in INGOs
OF LOGIC MODELS.
George, A., & Dearden, T. (2019). Bidibidi Refugee Settlement : (Issue September).
Guerrero, S., Woodhead, S., & Hounjet, M. (2013). On the right track: A brief review of
monitoring and evaluation in the humanitarian sector. London: Action Against Hunger.
www.alnap.org/help-library/on-the-right-track-a-brief-review-of-monitoring-and-
evaluation-in-the-humanitarian
47
constructing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning. (Vol. 30, Issue 4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.004 Hampton,
Hansch, S., Jansury, L., Moore, J., Peña, J., & Price, A. (2015). Findings in Monitoring and
May.
Ile, I. (2019). Editorial : Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Practices in Developing Countries.
ILX. (2019). Projects Vs Programmes The difference between a project and a programme.
https://www.prince2.com/zar/blog/project-vs-programme
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2011). Project /
http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/monitoring/IFRC-ME-Guide-8-
2011.pdf%5Cnwww.alnap.org/resource/8542
Jacobsen, K., & Fratzke, S. (2016). Builing Livelihood Opportunites for Refugee Populations :
Julian, D. A., Jones, A., & Deyo, D. (1993). Open systems evaluation and the logic model:
Program planning and evaluation tools. Evaluation and Program Planning. (Vol. 18, Issue
4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(95)00034-8
Khalil, M. B., Jacobs, B. C., Kylie, M., & Kuruppu, N. (2020). Female contribution to grassroots
48
innovation for climate change adaptation in Bangladesh. Climate and Development, 7(12),
664–676.
Khan, D. B. (2013). Measuring Project Success in the Construction Industry. Electronic Journal
Koonstra, A., & Maas, S. (2019). Challenges and solutions in monitoring & evaluating
KPMG. (2014). Monitoring and Evaluation in the Development Sector (KPMG International
report).
Kyalo, E., Candidate, M., Ndunge, D. K., & Box, P. O. (2020). Unpacking Partnerships for
Mackay, K., & Hauge, A. O. (2014). Capacity Enhancement briefs Lessons from Uganda.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step
j/article/view/335
Miller, A., Spencer, A., Lukwago, A., Toni, A., & Kageni, A. (2017). Global Humaniitrian
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/data-guides/defining-humanitarian-aid
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Practical guidance to qualitative research: Sampling, data
49
collection and analysis. (Vol. 1, Issue 24, pp. 9–18).
Mugo, P., & Oleche, M. (2015). Monitoring and evaluation of development projects and
Napier, A., & Simister, N. (2017). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Retrieved from Better
Evaluation.
http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/utilization_focused_evaluation, A
Narangui, H., & Bush, J. (2017). Livelihood Profile Yumbe Host Community Uganda Livelihood
http://foodeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Practitioners-Guide-to-HEA.pdf
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2010). Innovative data collection
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1171
Opitz-Stapleton, S., Nadin, R., Kellett, J., Calderone, M., Quevedo, A., Peters, K., & Mayhew, L.
https://doi.org/(www.alnap.org/help-library/risk-informed-developmentfrom- crisis-to-
resilience).
Polastro, R. (2014). Evaluating Humanitarian Action in Real Time: Recent Practices, Challenges,
50
Profile, I. (2019). Yumbe district.
Puri, J., Aladysheva, A., Iversen, V., Ghorpade, Y., & Brűck, T. (2014). What methods may be
(www.alnap.org/help-library/what-methods-may-be-used-inimpact-%0Aevaluations-of-
humanitarian-assistance).
Ramalingam, B., Mitchell, J., Borton, J., & Smart, K. (2014). Counting what counts:
Rodriguez, K. L., Schwartz, J. L., Lahman, M. K. E., & Geist, M. R. (2011). Culturally
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000407
humanitarian-action
Sedrakian, S. (2016). Financing Monitoring & Evaluation a Self-Study Toolkit (Issue July).
Smit, L. C. B. (2016). Climate change , food security , and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa.
Spiegel, A. N., Bruning, R. H., & Giddings, L. (1999). Using responsive evaluation to evaluate a
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409902000105
Sundberg, A., Dillon, N., & Gili, M. (2019). Evaluating humanitarian action. Melbourne: Better
51
Evaluation. www.alnap.org/helplibrary/%0Aevaluating-humanitarian-action-0
Taylor-Powell, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide.
Tenny, S., Brannan, G. D., Brannan, J. M., & Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2020). Qualitative Study. In:
StatPearls. 29262162.
Trochim, W. M., Marcus, S. E., Masse, Moser, R. P., & Weld, P. C. (2008). he Evaluation of
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007309280
UMI. (2018). Revised Guidelines for proposal and dissertation writing for Uganda Management
UNHCR. (2021). Uganda Refugee Statistics October 2021 Bidi Bidi. October, 1.
https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/72292
UNICEF, IFRC, & WHO. (2020). Focus group discussion guide for communities. Unicef, 1–9.
UNOCHA. (2016). Leaving no one behind: Humanitarian effectiveness in the age of the
behind-humanitarian-effectiveness-in-the-age-of-sustainable-development
W.K.Kelloggfoundation. (2004). Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring
http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-
52
model-development-guide.
Materials 2/Gender-Responsiveness-of-NES-Uganda.pdf
Youker, B. W. (2007). Ideas to Consider Ethnography and Evaluation: Their Relationship and
113–142. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ethnography-and-evaluation%3A-Their-
relationship-and-Youker/708a839021931fc2f20b2f958e4539518cb840ea
Young, H., Osman, A. el K., Smit, M. B., Bromwich, B., Ballou, S., & Moore, K. (2017).
Sharpening the Strategic Focus of Livelihoods Programming in the Darfur Region A report
53
Appendices
Location: ___________________________________________________________________
Date: _____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of today's conversation. I'm a master's in management studies
student at UMI. My name is Kadondi Agatha, and today we'll talk about monitoring and evaluation
in humanitarian livelihoods programs in the Bidibidi refugee settlement. Because you are
conducting livelihoods initiatives or programs in the settlement and have been supporting them for
more than two years, you have been purposefully selected to participate in this interview. This
master's research paper will only rely on the information you give. Kindy note that your
participation is voluntary, and you do not have to take part if you do not want to. If you feel upset
at any point of the interview, feel free to let me know and I will stop. You do not have to answer
a particular question if you do not want to, kindly feel free to discuss freely. I will be recording
our discussion which will be later transcribed but your identity will not be disclosed to anyone.
Objective One: Exploring and documenting the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices
54
1. To begin with, what humanitarian livelihoods interventions have you been implementing
a) For how long have you been working in the refugee settlement in humanitarian
livelihoods programming?
b) What monitoring and evalaution practices have you been conducting during
c) What structures within the settlement and organization are involved in monitoring the
interventions?
2. Briefly describe the history of the monitoring and evaluation unit from the time of the
e) What were the function and how have these evolved over time?
3. What is your opinion of the organization's degree of expertise and abilities in terms of
a) What additional data collection knowledge or skills are needed, And why?
b) What additional knowledge or skills (if any) specific to M&E are needed and why?
c) How would you rate the ME capacity of staff supporting livelihoods programmes? Probe
d) What is your view regarding the level of knowledge and practical skills to support
55
4. What is your view regarding organization’s capacity to undertake M&E functions for
b) Human resources (current staffing numbers and different skills mix, i.e., knowledge,
mandate).
committee structures).
5. How does the organization keep up-to-date with developments in M&E? Probing
questions:
a) a) Is there a database or registry of who is receiving M&E training so that duplication may
b) b) Is there a database of trainers, listservs, and other technical service providers who can
c) c) Do you have any ideas for enhancing the organization's M&E training coordination, and
56
d) Do members participate in subnational, national, and international forums, or workshops
for M&E, if yes what dissemination platforms are employed and if no, why?
7. What is your vision for M&E for this organization? Probing questions:
b) What role do leaders play in achieving the M&E vision for the organization?
b) Is there an M&E technical working group in place? What its composition? And how has it
c) How does the M&E unit support the other program functional areas?
9. How well does the M&E plan make even with the M&E strategy, in your opinion? Probing
questions:
b) What obstacles are preventing the existing M&E work plan from being implemented?
c) Provide examples of instances in which unplanned activities (not in annual work plan) kept
you from being able to implement major areas of the work plan in the past year
10. In your opinion, how do surveys or surveillance activities contribute to gauging pointers
a) Who determines the agenda for research and surveys for the organization?
57
b) What factors influence which agenda for research, surveys is prioritized?
c) How is sex-aggregated and gender-sensitive data used in policy or program decisions for
the organization?
d) What additional information would you need to in order to make policy or program
decisions?
e) What are the non-technical challenges you experience in sharing survey and research data?
11. In your opinion, how is are M&E results put to use and how are they diffused? Reasons
a) How are findings from data quality audits disseminated? In your opinion, are the
recommended standards for dissemination adhered to? Reasons for opinion provided?
b) How has the last data quality assessment feedback been used to improve service delivery
c) Please give examples of data that the organization uses or has used for either planning or
d) How do you actively encourage and support the use of information in decision making
What specific challenges have you experienced among your staff when it comes to
e) What concerns do you have regarding the quality of information being used in making
program-related decisions?
f) What risks (if any) are associated with sharing information? What are they?
58
Objective two: Challenges faced in conducting M&E in the humanitarian livelihood
programmes.
12. As we wrap up, what key challenges are faced in conducting the M&E practices discussed
THE END.
59
Appendix 1.2: On Desk review guide.
1. What documents are available within your organization, that determine the status of M&E
Bididbidi refugee settlement? For each document available probe for status, quality,
2. What documents are available within your organization that provide information on the
history or past humanitarian M&E events and structure of humanitarian M&E practices?
For each document available probe for status, quality, and technical autonomy?
3. What documents are available relating to M&E capacity, gaps in M&E capacity and
performance expectations?
4. In your opinion, are these documents utilized by the key staff and stakeholders, if no, what
can be done to ensure that they utilized as ought to be. Further probing questions: What
THE END
60
Appendix 1.2: Focus Group Discussion.
Location: ___________________________________________________________________
Date: _____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of today's conversation. I'm a master's in management studies
student at UMI. My name is Kadondi Agatha, and today we'll talk about monitoring and evaluation
in humanitarian livelihoods programs in the Bidibidi refugee settlement. Because you are
conducting livelihoods initiatives or programs in the settlement and have been supporting them for
more than two years, you have been purposefully selected to participate in this interview. This
master's research paper will only rely on the information you give. Kindy note that your
participation is voluntary, and you do not have to take part if you do not want to. If you feel upset
at any point of the interview, feel free to let me know and I will stop. You do not have to answer
a particular question if you do not want to, kindly feel free to discuss freely. I will be recording
our discussion which will be later transcribed but your identity will not be disclosed to anyone.
1. To begin with, what livelihoods interventions have you been benefiting from for the past two
or more years?
2. Have you had of project monitoring and evaluation? if yes what do know about project
61
3. How have you been involved in project monitoring and assessment by livelihoods
organizations?
4. Do you believe project monitoring and assessment helps to project success, in your opinion?
Have there been any changes noted in terms of realising project impact.
5. Comparing from when you had just started benefiting from the livelihoods project and now
what changes have you noted in regards to project monitoring and evaluation.
6. Are there platforms within the settlement that enable you to freely share feedback about the
interventions being provided to you by the livelihoods NGO working within the settlement.
7. What challenges have you noted in terms of monitoring and evaluating the livelihoods
8. What are the most recommended monitoring and evaluation practices that you would advise
THE END.
62
Appendix 2: Work Plan
Table 2: Workplan
1 Inception meeting with OPM and UNHCR livelihoods focal person. 1 Day 16th May 2022
2 research within the community through issuing of introduction letters. 1 Day 17th May 2022
Conducting key informant interviews and on-desk reviews with the 23rd May to 3rd June
7 Compiling different data collected in preparation for analysis. 2 Days 4th to 5th June 2022
10 Submission and review of the draft report 7 Days 17th to 23rd June 2022
63
Appendix 3: Budget.
Table 3: Budget
Total 7,730,000
64
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
62 Pages 135.0KB
Mar 22, 2022 9:50 AM GMT+3 Mar 22, 2022 9:53 AM GMT+3
Summary
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.
umispace.umi.ac.ug
1 1%
Internet
alnap.org
2 <1%
Internet
etd.aau.edu.et
7 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
coursehero.com
13 <1%
Internet
ir-library.ku.ac.ke
14 <1%
Internet
erepository.uonbi.ac.ke
18 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
su-plus.strathmore.edu
23 <1%
Internet
redr.org.uk
24 <1%
Internet
uir.unisa.ac.za
28 <1%
Internet
unitedchambers.wordpress.com
29 <1%
Internet
ombudsman.gov.rw
30 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
baixardoc.com
37 <1%
Internet
seval.ch
38 <1%
Internet
repository.out.ac.tz
42 <1%
Internet
cdc.gov
43 <1%
Internet
budget.go.ug
44 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org
45 <1%
Internet
chss.uonbi.ac.ke
47 <1%
Internet
mafiadoc.com
48 <1%
Internet
nsuworks.nova.edu
49 <1%
Internet
dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080
55 <1%
Internet
openagenda.com
56 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
iosrjournals.org
57 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
catholicintelligenceblog.files.wordpress.com
70 <1%
Internet
dspace.alquds.edu
71 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
bettercarenetwork.org
91 <1%
Internet
careevaluations.org
92 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
docplayer.net
93 <1%
Internet
erc.undp.org
94 <1%
Internet
erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080
95 <1%
Internet
jhumanitarianaction.springeropen.com
96 <1%
Internet
povertyandenvironment.vn
97 <1%
Internet
repository.kemu.ac.ke:8080
98 <1%
Internet
repository.nwu.ac.za
99 <1%
Internet
fao.org
100 <1%
Internet
iajournals.org
101 <1%
Internet
preval.org
102 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111701860
preventionweb.net
109 <1%
Internet
Mancosa on 2018-10-04
111 <1%
Submitted works
Sources overview