Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

PAPER NAME AUTHOR

21MMSMEKLAAUG034 %28Version 2%2 Agatha Kadondi

9.docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

13854 Words 82915 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

61 Pages 134.6KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Mar 21, 2022 5:00 PM GMT+3 Mar 21, 2022 5:06 PM GMT+3

23% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
14% Internet database 3% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
18% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material

Summary
 90
EXAMINING THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION PRACTICES IN HUMANITARIAN

LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMMES. A CASE OF BIDIBID REFUGEE SETTLEMENT IN

YUMBE DISTRICT.

By:

Kadondi Agatha

Reg.

21/MMSME/KLA/AUG/034

Supervisor:

Dr. David Ssekamatte

26
A proposal submitted to the school of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the award of a Master’s Degree in Management Studies (M&E) of Uganda Management

Institute.

July 2022

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

50
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 2

List of tables and figures .............................................................................................................. 5

List of abbreviations, .................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 8

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 8
12
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................................ 9

M&E in humanitarian settings........................................................................................... 10

37
1.1.1 Historical background ...................................................................................................... 11

1.1.2 Theoretical background .................................................................................................... 13

1.1.2.1 Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model ...................................................... 14

1.1.2.2 Stake’s responsive evaluation model...................................................................... 14

1.1.3 Contextual Background .................................................................................................... 15

1.1.3 Conceptual Background ................................................................................................... 16

51
1.1.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Practices .................................................................... 16
8
1.2 Problem Statement. ............................................................................................................. 17

1.3 The General Objective of the study..................................................................................... 18

1.3.1 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................... 19

1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 19

1.5 Justification of the study ..................................................................................................... 19

1.7 Significance of the study ..................................................................................................... 20

2
 1.8 Scope of the study ............................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 21

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 21

2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 21

2.2 Theoretical review ............................................................................................................... 21

10
2.2.1 Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model ......................................................... 21
10
2.2.1.1 Assumptions of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model. .......................... 22
10
2.2.1.2 Benefits of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model. .................................. 22
10
2.2.1.3 Challenges of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model. ............................. 22
10
2.2.1.4 Limitation of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model............................... 23

2.2.2 Stake’s responsive evaluation model......................................................................... 23

2.2.3 Contributions to the study ................................................................................................ 25

2.3 Conceptual review ............................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................ 25

45
2.4 Thematic Review................................................................................................................. 27

2.4.1: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices used in humanitarian livelihood

programmes. ........................................................................................................................ 28
32
2.4.2: Challenges faced in conducting M&E in the humanitarian livelihood programmes.

............................................................................................................................................... 33
2
2.5 Summary of the literature review. ....................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 36

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 36

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 36

3
 3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 36

3.3 The study population ........................................................................................................... 37

3.4 Sample size determination .................................................................................................. 37

3.5 Sampling techniques and procedure .................................................................................... 38

3.6 Data collection methods. ..................................................................................................... 38

3.6.1 Focus group discussion............................................................................................... 39

3.6.2 Documents review. ...................................................................................................... 39

3.6.3 Key Informant interviews. ......................................................................................... 40

3.7 Data collection instruments .......................................................................................... 40

3.7.1 Focus group discussion interview guide ................................................................... 40

2
3.7.2 Key informant interview guide .................................................................................. 41

3.7.3 Document review checklist ........................................................................................ 41

3.8 Validity and reliability ........................................................................................................ 41

49
3.8.1 Validity and reliability for qualitative research ...................................................... 42

3.8.2 Reliability for qualitative research. .......................................................................... 42

3.9 Procedure of Data Collection........................................................................................ 42

3.10 Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 43

3.11 Ethical Clearance......................................................................................................... 44

References. ................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix 1: Key informant guide............................................................................................. 52

Appendix 1: On Desk review guide. ......................................................................................... 58

Appendix 1: Focus Group Discussion. ...................................................................................... 59

4
36
List of tables and figures

Table 1: Number of humanitarian livelihoods organizations working in Bidibidi and sample.

5
List of abbreviations,
118
CRS Catholic Relief Services

CSO civil society organizations

EHA Emergency Humanitarian Action

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GOU Government of Uganda

4
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IFCR International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

INTRAC International NGO Training and Research Centre

121
IRCRC International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

KII Key Informant Interviews

63
MOFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

135
NIMES National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy
44
NGO Non-Government Organizations

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

OPM Office of the Prime Minister

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PoC people of concern

SWPs Sector Wide Approaches

44
SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

UN United Nations

UMI Uganda Management Institute

6
29
UNHCR United Nations High Commision for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

7
 5
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

In emergency situations, livelihoods projects strive to sustain and rebuild affected

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

ecosystem. However, humanitarian assistance frequently emphasizes some aspects of the

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 when implementing
38
monitoring and evaluation processes has significant financial, time, and human resource

implications, they are very important for project success and should not be overlooked at the outset.

(Khan, 2013). According to Ramalingam et al., (2014), Within the humanitarian system, there are
41
numerous project initiatives and methodologies for monitoring and reporting
41
performance.These, on the other hand, have been formed for a variety of objectives and focuses,

and they address various areas of performance. Several things happen at the same time, and some

of them overlap. Majority of activities do not include frequent data collecting and analysis.
8
 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
31
aims to examine and document monitoring and evaluation (M&E) procedures in humanitarian

livelihood programs in the Bidibidi refugee settlement, as well as to identify the major obstacles
25
that M&E encounters. The study will look into the practices of monitoring and evaluation in

humanitarian livelihoods programs. In Yumbe District, Bidibidi refugee settlement.

12
This chapter discusses the study background, problem statement, the purpose of the study, study

objectives, research questions, significance, rationale, and the scope.

81
1.1 Background to the study

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

always been difficult in humanitarian situations. Humanitarian activity in complex catastrophes

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

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.

9
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

which supports professionals in deciding whether humanitarian intervention is appropriate or

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

environments such as humanitarian crises (Polastro, 2014).

M&E in humanitarian settings

Monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian action is distinct from other types of monitoring and
1
evaluation because of several aspects. Emergency Charitable Action works at the complex and

dynamic interface of human and natural systems, including a wide range of man-made and natural
1
disasters with significant overlap (Opitz-Stapleton et al., 2019). The humanitarian situation is

frequently a highly politicized atmosphere, with a diverse cast of characters vacillating from

funding agencies and implementation organizations to government agencies and the afflicted

populations 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 Chaplowe et al., (2021) showed that, on a five-point scale, the most common obstacles in
1
their humanitarian assessment practice were scarce utilization of evaluation findings to improve

programs (93 percent) and (90 percent ) for decision making Furthermore, 88 percent of survey

10
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
1
staff's low M&E capacity. M&E was employed as a requirements rather than for decision-making

and program improvement, according to some respondents (73 percent). This necessitates more

investigation to determine the root causes and possible improvements to humanitarian evaluation

and assessment processes.

1.1.1 Historical background

According to Rysaback-Smith, (2015), Humanitarian evaluation is a 25-year-old practice, but

72
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

improved Emergency Humanitarian Action practice, obstacles in evaluating humanitarian action

continue to exist. They include challenges in incorporating participatory methodologies, data

1
quality problems, limited coordination among stakeholders in humanitarian response and

evaluation, and, in many situations, the limited utilization and adoption of evaluation results 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 showed a number of
1
performance, quality, and coordination concerns in the humanitarian response to the disaster, as

well as the crucial role of monitoring and evaluation in achieving more accountable humanitarian
97
action (Eriksson et al., 1996), as mentioned by (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

11
emergency 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
1
toward more accountable humanitarian action by highlighting a variety of performance, quality,

and coordination challenges in the humanitarian response to the disaster. Monitoring and

evaluation procedures and methodologies have evolved over time and have had a significant
1
impact on emergency humanitarian assistance (Puri et al., 2014; Sundberg et al., 2019).

The rising number and severity of humanitarian crises are among the key drivers of demand for
1
emergency humanitarian aid (EHA). one thirds of the world's countries are now dealing with one

or more internal crises that necessitate humanitarian aid ((EU), 2021). 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
1
in humanitarian intervention (Dahler-Larsen, 2012). Stakeholders, whether donors or affected

populations, want to know that their money is being put to good use, that it is making a difference,

and that ethical standards like Do No Harm are being followed.

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
37
fundamental areas of M&E such as value for money, performance assessment, and notions like
127
"results-based performance." Following the introduction of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan

(PEAP), national and international civil society organizations (CSOs) advocated for 'impact

12
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
62
Ugandan societies (Wokadala, 2016). The Government of Uganda (GOU) has acknowledged that

monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is vital to implementing a results-oriented approach to poverty

56
eradication (Mackay & Hauge, 2014). The Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Unit established in

the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development to manage data gathering on
35
progress in combatting poverty (MOFPED). The unit also is in charge of developing the national

Poverty Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy in a coordinated manner. Uganda now possesses a

comprehensive set of demographic and household poverty data that can be used to track national

progress toward the Millennium Development Goals and other development indicators (Mackay
31
& Hauge, 2014). Office of the Prime Minister's National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation
96
Strategy (NIMES) is an agenda for ensuring that all government programs are monitored and
31
assessed in a logical and synchronized manner (Wokadala, 2016). In Uganda, a major difficulty
35
for M&E is connecting what the Uganda intends to achieve—its national development

objectives—with what it actually accomplishes, i.e. operational environment of government

activities and delivery of service (Mackay & Hauge, 2014).

2
1.1.2 Theoretical background

This study will be underpinned by a programme logic model and two monitoring and evaluation
10
models, these will include Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model and Stake’s responsive

13
evaluation model. The three models will be adopted by the study because they are directly linked

to programme monitoring and evaluation practices.

7
1.1.2.1 Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model

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

implementation team to inform ongoing activities (corrective measures) or to inform future

projects. Patton argues that decision-makers have often ignored evaluation findings; he suggests
57
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

can be applied to any type of work in any field.

1.1.2.2 Stake’s responsive evaluation model

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

concentration of evaluation on the intended outcomes relating to the programme activities as

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

14
 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

upon, drawing on a journalistic approach to the evaluation. While relying on qualitative

methodologies in a naturalistic evaluation, precise methods for collecting, analyzing, and

interpreting data are optional. For this study the model will be used to explore the intended
134
outcomes of the livelihoods programme activities in Bidibidi as well as monitoring and evaluation

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. It also
11
allows the evaluator to quickly grasp the program and establish which matter and concerns are
20
most significant to a variety of stakeholders, which is critical to the study.

1.1.3 Contextual Background

5
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 &
29
Dearden, 2019). BidiBidi refugee settlement was opened in August 2016 as a result of increased

conflict, scarcity of food, and financial instability caused by hyperinflation in South Sudan

(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.,

15
 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
18
22 percent of refugee communities sell part of their crop. Agriculture was the most frequent source

of income for both refugees and hosting community households (38 percent and 84 percent,

respectively). Agriculture, on the other hand, is marked by low output and productivity, highly
140
climate change sensitive, and significant post-harvest losses in refugee-hosting communities. Non-
18
farm livelihoods face significant challenges due to a lack of business support services, micro-

credit, and vocational skills training opportunities. Approximately 2 percent of households from

refugee communities have been able to find renumerated employment. Self-employment is

18
practiced by 13% of refugees aged 15 and over. 20 percent of the household’s member has at least

one member engaged in informal trade and services. However, the majority of employment

openings pay 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).

1.1.3 Conceptual Background

86
1.1.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Practices

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

16
 throughout the execution of a new project due to a structured procedure of project control. M&E
52
practices are powerful instruments that can help a business attain higher levels of performance.

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

is a significant contributor to project implementation achievement. Collecting Data and

2
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,
13
data analysis is the process of scientifically applying statistical and or logical methods to describe

and illustrate, summarize, and evaluate data. ((NRC), 2014). Livelihoods; For purposes of the
59
study, livelihoods are defined as the skills, assets, and activities that enable people to make money

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;

28 40
During and after man-made crises and disasters caused by natural hazards, humanitarian assistance

is meant to save lives, lessen suffering, and defend human dignity, avoid and increase preparedness

for when such situation occurs (Miller et al., 2017).

1.2 Problem Statement.

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).

However, information on the performance and sustainability of the projects/programs has

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

17
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
145 120
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

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.

5
1.3 The General Objective of the study

18
 To examine the Monitoring and Evaluation practices in Humanitarian livelihoods programmes in

Bidibidi Refugee Settlement.

47
1.3.1 Specific Objectives

The study will be guided by the following specific objectives

5
i. To explore and document the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices in humanitarian

livelihood programmes in Bidibidi refugee settlement.

30
ii. To identify the key challenges faced in conducting M&E on the humanitarian livelihood

programmes in the Bidibidi refugee settlement.

42
1.4 Research Questions

i. What monitoring and evaluation practices are used in humanitarian livelihoods

programmes and why?

30
ii. What are the key challenges faced in conducting these M&E practices in humanitarian

livelihoods programmes and in what ways can they be improved?

1.5 Justification of the study

A lot of investments were made through non-governmental organizations to help respond to the
55
emergency in the Bidibidi refugee camp. Similarly, a lot of investments have been made in the

development of M&E systems by these NGO's and yet these systems still present performance

gaps in 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
4
study has been conducted to explore and document the M&E practices in humanitarian livelihoods

programmes in Bidibidi refugee settlement. Hence this will provide more knowledge on the

19
 subject, and this can be used by other researchers as points of reference. It is considering the above

that the study will be undertaken

69
1.7 Significance of the study

The study 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
106
livelihoods programming. At the same time, the study will provide a reference for other researchers
80
and contribute to an existing body of knowledge in appropriate humanitarian M&E practices. The

study finding will enable the practitioners of 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.

73
1.8 Scope of the study

The study will focus on Bidibidi refugees found in Yumbe District, northwestern Uganda. South
58
Sudan is found in the north, to the east is Moyo District, to the south east is Adjumani District, to

the south is Arua District, south west is Maracha and Maracha District. The district has a refugee

population of 242,819 people (UNHCR, 2021). And, because there are approximately 30 non-

government institutions implementing livelihoods projects targeting both the refugee and host

community. Furthermore, Bidibidi undergoes both emergency and recovery stages.

66
20
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

This chapter presents studies conducted by various researchers concerning the study variables. The
61
study objectives and research questions will be focused on respectively when reviewing and
2
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

humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi Refugee Settlement Yumbe District.

77
2.2 Theoretical review

This study will be underpinned by two monitoring and evaluation models, these will include
10
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 to programme monitoring

and evaluation practices.

7
2.2.1 Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model

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

implementation team to inform ongoing activities (corrective measures) or to inform future

projects. Patton argues that decision-makers have often ignored evaluation findings; he suggests

21
 57
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.
115
Establishing effective collaboration between the evaluation team and the consumers of the

evaluation findings is therefore important (Napier & Simister, 2017).

99
2.2.1.1 Assumptions of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model.

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

more likely to be utilized (Napier & Simister, 2017)

2.2.1.2 Benefits of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model.

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.

As a result, a UFE is nearly always the best option.

2.2.1.3 Challenges of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model.

9
According to Napier & Simister, (2017), a UFE may require more flexibility and time than other

approaches to properly engage with different users at different phases. New users of the evaluation,

for example, or new evaluation questions, may develop during the course of the evaluation. As a
9
result, more funds or resources that were not expected at the outset may be required. Similarly, the
9
key users of a utilization-focused evaluation model must be prepared and able to interact with the
9
assessors. Based on the evaluation results, key users must be willing to learn and have decisions
11
made in regards to the evaluation results. Above all, a substantial amount of time should be

dedicated to the evaluation.

22
 2.2.1.4 Limitation of Patton’s utilization-focused evaluation model.

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)

2.2.2 Stake’s responsive evaluation model

According to Spiegel et al., (1999), as early as 1975, Stake developed the responsive evaluation
98
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
128
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
65 65
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

upon, drawing on a journalistic approach to the evaluation (Spiegel et al., 1999).

2.2.2.1 Assumptions of the Stake’s responsive evaluation model

While relying on qualitative methodologies in a naturalistic evaluation, precise methods for

collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data are optional.

23
2.2.2.2 Strengths of the Stake’s responsive evaluation model.

Responsive evaluation's advantages include its flexibility, adaptability, and ability to provide
7
cultural explanation and diversity acknowledgement. It may be especially effective in evaluating
11
programs where all stakeholders agree on the inherent worth of the program rather than the
11
program's instrumental value (Youker, 2007). It allows the evaluator to quickly grasp the

program's scope and assess which issues and concerns are most significant to a range of

stakeholders.
116
2.2.2.3 Challenges of the Stake’s responsive evaluation model.

Finding from the evaluation that was conducted by the University of Nebraska showed that
19
Positive participant remarks may persuade other participants to think positively about the

conference, whilst negative comments may lead participants to think adversely about the data

collecting event. Furthermore, frequent interactive feedback may become overwhelming in some
19
situations. Interpretation becomes increasingly difficult as the distinctions between what is being

evaluated and the evaluation itself grow blurred, and the instruments may become redundant

(Spiegel et al., 1999).

7
2.2.2.4 Limitation of Stake’s responsive evaluation model.

The difficulty of making comparisons to standards is one of the limitations of responsive

7
evaluation; it only serves the immediate audience and may not meet distant or future needs.

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 kept, or when preconceived hypotheses need to be tested, responsive
19
evaluation is ineffective (Youker, 2007). A considerable time commitment to the evaluation

24
process and the necessity for extremely skilled or capable evaluators are two limitations of the
82
responsive evaluation technique (Hurteau & Nadeau, 1985; Klintberg, 1976; Stake, 1983) as cited

by (Spiegel et al., 1999).

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
113
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
5
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
108
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
143
developing and implementing adequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and approaches

difficult.

2.3 Conceptual review

75
2.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation

According to Egesah & Ngeywo, (2017) Monitoring and evaluation are always perceived as one
3
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

well as information provided by a monitoring system.

25
 2.3.1.1 Role of Monitoring

22
Monitoring is the routine collection and analysis of information to track progress against set plans

and check compliance to established standards. (International Federation of Red Cross and Red
3
Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2011). Monitoring is a management tool that gives continual feedback

on the project's progress by identifying potential successes and constraints that can help with
3
timely decisions. Monitoring evaluates the physical and financial progress of project or program

activities against defined timelines and success indicators; it evaluates processes that account for

activity progress or output production success. It also measures the first responses and reactions to

project activities, as well as their immediate short-term impacts, to assess the impact. (Egesah &

Ngeywo, 2017).

2.3.2.1 Role of Evaluation

"A systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, program, or policy,
4
its design, implementation, and results" is defined as "an evaluation (International Federation of

Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2011).

3
Evaluation is a method for systematically and objectively determining the relevance, effectiveness,

efficiency, sustainability, and impact of activities in the context of a project's or program's

91
performance, with a focus on the examination of progress toward the stated goals. Evaluation aids
3
in establishing the degree to which the objectives have been met; determining and diagnosing

problems connected with program planning and implementation; and creating data to be used for

learning, leading to better-designed programs, enhanced management and a more accurate valution

of their impact; aids in the reformulation of project/program purpopses, policies, and strategies
4
(International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2011).

Livelihoods

26
21
A livelihood is a made of skills, assets (both material and social), and activities needed to make a

living. Livelihoods are is sustainable once they can survive with convalesce from stress and

shocks, as well as preserve or improve its capabilities and assets in the present and future, without

jeopardizing the natural resource base. As quoted by (Chambers & Conway, 1991) (Smit, 2016).
59
As for this study, livelihoods are defined as the skills, assets, and activities that enable people to

earn money 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 Assistance
28 40
During and after man-made crises and disasters caused by natural hazards, humanitarian assistance

is meant to save lives, lessen suffering, and defend human dignity, avoid and increase preparedness
1
for when such situation occurs. The core humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality,
1
neutrality, and independence should guide humanitarian assistance. The International Red Cross
78
and Red Crescent Movement's (RCRC) founding ideals are repeated in UN General Assembly

resolutions and codified in several humanitarian standards and guidelines. When the term

"humanitarian assistance" is used in this report in the context of financial data, it refers to the

financial resources available for humanitarian action (Miller et al., 2017).

45
2.4 Thematic Review.

27
2.4.1: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices used in humanitarian livelihood

programmes.
107
2.4.1.1 Monitoring and evaluation practices

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

of performance. A paper by (Ile, 2019) on strengthening the public sector's ability for policy
100
monitoring and evaluation To some extent, M&E in the public sector appears to be done for the
111
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

will be adopted for the study respectively.

101
2.4.1.1.1 Resource allocation for monitoring and evaluation (M&E Budgeting)

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.

28
Consider the time and resources required for post-grant outcome monitoring. Budgets that are
33
cross-cutting are advised ((NRC), 2014). According to the International Federation of Red Cross
4
and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), (2011) It's ideal to start planning the M&E budget early in the
136
project/program design phase so that enough money is set aside and accessible for M&E

operations. The M&E budget can be divided into three categories: Human capital. Staffing costs,

such as full-time employees, consultants, various key trainings, and other related costs, are all
4
included in the budget. data entry for the baseline survey, translation Investing costs. Facility costs,

office equipment and supplies, any travel and lodging, computer hardware and software, printing,

publishing, and distributing M&E documents should all be factored into your budget.
68
2.4.1.1.2 Data collection and analysis.

Data collection is the process of gathering, measuring, and analyzing accurate intuitions for
13
research using standard validated techniques, on the other hand, data analysis is the process of

scientifically applying statistical and or logical methods to describe and illustrate, summarize, and

evaluate 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
36
review, physical observations, surveys, interviews (including key informant and exit interviews),

focus group discussions, testing or direct measures, and mapping are common data collection

approaches (community maps, GPS mapping, etc.) ((NRC), 2014). Relief organizations will need

29
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 scenarios. As a result, evaluation

techniques for livelihoods programming must be descriptive, 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 enrich findings. Data gathering can

be done digitally to save money and enhance the frequency of data collecting (Koonstra & Maas,

2019)

27
2.4.1.1.3 Dissemination of results and Utilization of M&E results.

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

humanitarian aid. Evaluation is frequently used as a 'tick-box' exercise to ensure compliance of an

30
 agency and a donor, rather than for improving outcomes for the targeted population. (Chaplowe et

al., 2021).

2.4.1.2 Humanitarian Livelihood Programmes.

110
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has traditionally created and

executed livelihoods programs and initiatives, generally in partnership with international

humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGO's). "Supply-side" tactics (programs aimed at

increasing refugees' employability or facilitating entrepreneurship) and "demand-side" strategies

(programs aimed at reducing refugees' unemployment) are the two types of livelihood programs

(initiatives to create work opportunities or connect refugees with employers). Skills-building

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

& Fratzke, 2016).

Jacobsen & Fratzke, (2016) Moreover, it was suggested that refugee programming is hampered by

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

administer refugee livelihoods programs. A review by (Young et al., 2017) On livelihoods

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

31
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

sustainable resource management because sustainable livelihoods cannot be reconstructed without

a resource foundation (Young et al., 2017). According to an evaluation conducted by ((UNHCR),

6
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,
6
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

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
6
report recommended that UNHCR be included in discussions about the humanitarian-development

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

32
 defend livelihoods. The focus of the recovery phase is on livelihoods rehabilitation, with the goal

of establishing and promoting livelihoods strategies. The cycle of an emergency livelihoods

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,
95
Monitoring, and Evaluation, Response design and implementation, Risk analysis, monitoring and

evaluation Reporting, Exit and Feedback, and Lessons Learned (Catholic Relief Services (CRS),

2018).
32
2.4.2: Challenges faced in conducting M&E in the humanitarian livelihood programmes.

2.4.2.1 M&E Challenges in humanitarian programmes.

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

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. All
6
evaluations and assessments were considered useful, where available; though the quality and

availability of these monitoring activities is constrained by partner capacity, resources, and the

one-year timing ((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

lack of preparation. As a result, institution-specific readiness evaluations must be done as 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

33
 1
incorporating participatory methodologies, data quality issues, a lack of coordination among

stakeholders in humanitarian response and evaluation, and, in many situations, the limited

utilization and adoption of evaluation results and learning (Chaplowe et al., 2021). Methodology
1
and quality of evaluation The complexity of the humanitarian evaluand, which is emergent,
1
dynamic, and unpredictable, poses significant challenges to evaluation methods (ALNAP, 2016).

Intervention designs frequently become obsolete, and baseline data may be unavailable or
1
inadequate, making evaluation difficult. In comparison to evaluating the higher-level outcomes
144
and impacts that outputs are supposed to enable, M&E (monitoring and evaluation) systems are

more easily able to quantify physical deliverables (counts) (Guerrero et al., 2013). Participation is
1
restricted; Restricted access to local populations and limited engagement of humanitarian workers

due to high staff turnover or unavailability due to workload or hardship leave are two major

problems for participative EHA (ALNAP, 2016). Humanitarian response and evaluation are not

coordinated. Humanitarian organizations often pursue data collection and evaluation separately in
1
EHA, resulting in duplication and even competition, worsening assessment fatigue among affected

communities (Bennet & Foley, 2016; UNOCHA, 2016). Evaluators' safety and well-being. The

quality and 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),
1
Insufficient use of evaluation findings to improve programs (93 percent) and for decision making

were the most common obstacles highlighted in applying M&E methods in the humanitarian
1
setting (90 percent ). Furthermore, 88 percent of survey respondents said that assessing outcome

or impact is an issue that they face on a regular or irregular basis. Similarly, 88 percent of

participants said that temporal constraints/urgency of the emergency situation is a common

34
 1
problem in their humanitarian appraisal practice. Many survey respondents (85 percent) also faced
1
issues as a result of field staff's low M&E capacity. M&E was employed to meet institutional

requirements rather than for decision-making and program improvement, according to some

respondents (73 percent).

2
2.5 Summary of the literature review.

In summary, the available literature explored shows the different monitoring and evaluation
132
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

performance improvement (Ile, 2019).

74
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
130
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.

35
 60
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methodology for the study. The chapter is organized as follows;
104 53
research design to be used in the study, study population that will be targeted, Sample size

determination, Sampling techniques and procedure to be used, methods of data collection,

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.

87
3.2 Research Design

Since the study will be purely qualitative, a phenological study design will be used.
94
Phenomenological research examines human or institutional experiences based on the descriptions
16
offered by the participants. These are referred to as "lived experiences." The purpose of

phenomenological research is to characterize the meaning that each subject derives 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.
36
84
3.3 The study population
89
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,
25
project managers, and M&E staff of humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi. This is
54
because they are the ones answerable for the major aspects of the projects, including the M&E
25
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

past three years.

85
3.4 Sample size determination

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

beneficiaries. The groups will have both refugees and nationals.

37
 119
Table 1: Sample size.

Key informant interviews Focus group discussions

2 staff from 6 NGOs will be interviewed making 12 beneficiaries from five zones will

a total of 12 KII’s to be completed participate in FGD’s making a total of 60

participants. Of the 12, 8 will be refugees

and 4 nationals

Overall, 72 individuals will be interviewed respectively.

2
3.5 Sampling techniques and procedure

The study is qualitative and non-probability sampling techniques will be employed. A combination
42
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.

Overall, 72 individuals will be interviewed respectively.

83
3.6 Data collection methods.

38
 Key informant interviews, focus group discussions and on-desk reviews will be used in the

research. The interviews will both be structured and unstructured.

70
3.6.1 Focus group discussion.

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
137
beneficiaries and a minimum of eight both male and female. One focus group will be conducted
34
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
67
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

discussion (Moser & Korstjens, 2018).

48
3.6.2 Documents review.

Document review is a way of gathering data by rereading existing papers. The documents may be

internal program documents or external to the organization (CDC, 2018). Documents review will
142
be undertaken on key existing documents such as monitoring and evaluation framework of the

sampled organization and livelihoods programme logical framework. Document review will be
64
done to gather background information and to find out if the implementation of the program reflect

program plans, additionally, data obtained from the participants will have to be triangulated with

what is on paper.

39
15
3.6.3 Key Informant interviews.

Key informant interviews are detailed interviews with stakeholders who are aware of programme

interventions or happenings in the community. The objective of these interviews is to gather

firsthand information about the programme or community. Participants provide key information
131
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.
33
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
5
that target groups with diverse backgrounds and opinions on monitoring and evaluation practices

in humanitarian livelihoods programmes.

2
3.7 Data collection instruments

The data collection instruments to be used in the study shall include a focus group discussion

interview guide, a key informant interview guide, and a documentary review checklist. The
109
questions shall be open-ended to provide a detailed understanding of the M&E practices used and
4
the challenges faced. The questions shall be structured in line with the research objectives and

research questions under study.

141
3.7.1 Focus group discussion interview guide

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
5
people already know and think about the monitoring and evaluation practices in the humanitarian

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,

40
 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

Ariwa, Odravu, Swinga, Yoyo, and zone one.

61
3.7.2 Key informant interview guide

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
54
generate suggestions and recommendations on the monitoring and evaluation practices in

humanitarian livelihoods programmes. The guide will contain questions geared towards

investigating to help solve the persistent monitoring and evaluation problem faced by the

livelihood’s programmes in humanitarian settings to set practical recommendations. 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

misunderstanding of issues will be obtained.

124
3.7.3 Document review checklist

The document review checklist will contain open questions to help conduct a meaningful review
114
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.

2
3.8 Validity and reliability

41
3.8.1 Validity and reliability for qualitative research
15
According to Jupp, (2006), validity refers to the degree to which research findings give an accurate
2
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
102
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

questions are clear and interpreted the same way.

3.8.2 Reliability for qualitative research.

20
The reliability of an instrument concerns the degree to which a particular instrument can
17
consistently yield a similar result over several repeated trials (Orodho, 2012). To enhance

reliability the researcher will develop data collection instruments based on study objectives,

research questions, and problem statements. The measurement tools will be developed on facts

and understanding of the process that is involved in coming up with a questionnaire.

3.9 Procedure of Data Collection.

The researcher will conduct interviews both physically and online (telephone and zoom) with the
125 34
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

obtaining consent from participants to record all responses provided respectively. Interview

42
 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.
34
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
146
participant on the M&E practices in humanitarian livelihoods programmes.
105
3.10 Data Analysis
92
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

will be undertaken to complete the analysis of data.

Step one will be becoming familiar with the data. All transcripts from interviews conducted will
93
be read and re-read. At this stage, notes on early impressions will be made. In phase two, the
43
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
117 46
of the themes. All themes identified at step three will be reviewed and modified. The researcher

will read the data associated with each theme and consider whether the data really supports it. Then

43
 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

used to present and discuss the findings respectively.

4
3.11 Ethical Clearance
76
The study will be conducted in an extremely ethical manner. Research ethical principles of respect
39
for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice Will be put into consideration when

developing and administering data collection tools and techniques, to avoid any form of ethical
52
violation. A research clearance permit from UMI and a letter of authorization from OPM will be
23
acquired in advance to be used for data collection. This will clarify the aim of the research and the

nature of the study thus improving cooperation from the respondents during data collection. At the
24
beginning of data collection, the researcher will explain in written form the purpose of the study
71
to the respondents and give a guarantee that the information they will provide, will be treated as

confidential. No information will be gathered before receiving informed consent from all the
103
participants that agree to participate in the research. Only after the researcher has acquired approval

from all the staff members and beneficiaries associated with the study will the data collection start.

The research assistants to be recruited will be trained thoroughly on research ethics to be followed

when conducting the research.

References.

(EU), E. C. (2021). INFORM severity index, all crises. Brussels. www.alnap.org/help-

library/inform-severity-index- february-2021-–-all-crises

(IRC)., I. R. C. (2016). IRC cash and livelihoods support programme in Lebanon.

44
(NRC), N. R. C. (2014). M+E Guidelines and Minimum Standards.

(UNHCR)l, U. N. H. C. for R. (2018). Evaluation of UNHCR ’ s Livelihoods Strategies and

Approaches (Global Report) (Issue December).

AFEK, C., EITAM, & FERF, A. (2014). Monitoring, evaluation and learning in humanitarian

organizations (1st Editio).

ALNAP. (2016). Evaluation of humanitarian action guide. ALNAP Guide. London.

www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-guide

Bako, Z., Barakagira, A., & Nabukonde, A. (2021). Towards attaining the recommended

Humanitarian Sphere Standards of sanitation in Bidibidi refugee camp found in Yumbe

District, Uganda. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 6(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-021-00105-8

Bennet, C., & Foley, M. (2016). Time to let go: Remaking humanitarian action for the modern

era. London. www.alnap.org/help-library/time-to-let-go-remaking-humanitarian-action-for-

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:

Document Review (Issue 18).

Chaplowe, S., Castleman, A. M., & Cho, M. (2021). Evolving Evaluation Practice Past , present

and future challenges.

Dahler-Larsen. (2012). Rwandan Genocide accountability framework.

Dalrymple, C. (2020). ) The state of humanitarian professions. Vénissieux: Bioforce.

https://www.alnap.org/help-library/the-state-of-humanitarian-professions-2020

45
Donalek, J. G., & Sandie Nursing. (2004). An introduction to qualitative research methods.

Urologic Nursing, 24(4), 354, 356.

Eberwein, W., & Reinalda, B. (2015). A brief history of humanitarian actors and principles’, in

Sezgin, Z. and Dijkzeul, D. (eds), The New Humanitarians in International Practice:

Emerging Actors and Contested Principles. Milton: Routledge. www.alnap.org/help-

library/a-brief-history-of-humanitarian-actors-and-principles

Egesah, O., & Ngeywo, J. (2017). Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Sustainability

of Constituency Development Fund ( CDF ) Projects in Kenya. May.

https://doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v7.n1.p6

Field, C., Punay, M. V., & Walz, A. (2015). Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation in INGOs

in Humanitarian , Relief and Development.

Gamel-McCormick, C. A. (2011). a Critical Look At the Creation and UTILIZATION PROCESS

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

Gugiu, P. C., & Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2007). Semi-structured interview protocol for

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

Evaluations Practices During Humanitarian Emergencies Prepared for : Prepared by :

46
 May.

IFRC. (2021). Food security and livelihoods. https://www.ifrc.org/food-security-and-livelihoods

Ile, I. (2019). Editorial : Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Practices in Developing Countries.

Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 3.

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 /

Programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Guide. 132.

http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/monitoring/IFRC-ME-Guide-8-

2011.pdf%5Cnwww.alnap.org/resource/8542

INTRAC. (2014). Context and sustainability : Monitoring Contribution to Change : An

approach to evaluating the role of intervention in the. 58.

Jacobsen, K., & Fratzke, S. (2016). Builing Livelihood Opportunites for Refugee Populations :

Lesson learned from past practice.

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

Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods.

Khalil, M. B., Jacobs, B. C., Kylie, M., & Kuruppu, N. (2020). Female contribution to grassroots

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

of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 43–52.

47
Koonstra, A., & Maas, S. (2019). Challenges and solutions in monitoring & evaluating

international development cooperation. PwC Netherlands. PricewaterhouseCoopers B.V.

(KvK 34180289), 12.

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

Planning Monitoring and Evaluation - Sustainability of Agricultural Projects Funded by

Non-governmental Organizations Nexus . An Empirical Study in Bungoma County , Kenya

University of Nairobi. 11(9), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbss.v11n9p5

Longley, C., & Maxwell, D. (2013). LIVELIHOODS , CHRONIC CONFLICT AND

HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE : A REVIEW OF CURRENT APPROACHES. 89, 1–6.

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

Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. * (Issue 3). http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-

j/article/view/335

Miller, A., Spencer, A., Lukwago, A., Toni, A., & Kageni, A. (2017). Global Humaniitrian

Assistance. A development intiative. Devinit.Org.

http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/data-guides/defining-humanitarian-aid

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Practical guidance to qualitative research: Sampling, data

collection and analysis. (Vol. 1, Issue 24, pp. 9–18).

Mugo, P., & Oleche, M. (2015). Monitoring and evaluation of development projects and

economic growth in Kenya. International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and

Social Sciences., 2(6), 52–63.

48
Mwangi, J. . (2014). Factors affecting the Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation of

Constituency Development Fund Projects in Kenya. A case Study of Laikipia West

Constituency. Journal of Economic and Finance., 6(1), 74–87.

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

Zone 07 (UG07) Yumbe District, Uganda. 07(February), 1–17.

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

strategies in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 15(3), 696–726.

https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1171

Opitz-Stapleton, S., Nadin, R., Kellett, J., Calderone, M., Quevedo, A., Peters, K., & Mayhew, L.

(2019). Risk-informed development: From crisis to resilience. London.

https://doi.org/(www.alnap.org/help-library/risk-informed-developmentfrom- crisis-to-

resilience).

Orodho, J. (2012). Elements of Education and Social Science Research Methods.

Polastro, R. (2014). Evaluating Humanitarian Action in Real Time: Recent Practices, Challenges,

and Innovations. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 1(29), 118.

Profile, I. (2019). Yumbe district.

Puri, J., Aladysheva, A., Iversen, V., Ghorpade, Y., & Brűck, T. (2014). What methods may be

used in impact evaluations of humanitarian assistance?. New Delhi: 3ie.

(www.alnap.org/help-library/what-methods-may-be-used-inimpact-%0Aevaluations-of-

49
 humanitarian-assistance).

Ramalingam, B., Mitchell, J., Borton, J., & Smart, K. (2014). Counting what counts:

Performance and effectiveness in the humanitarian sector. ALNAP Review of Humanitarian

Action, 90. http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/8rhach1.pdf

Rodriguez, K. L., Schwartz, J. L., Lahman, M. K. E., & Geist, M. R. (2011). Culturally

Responsive Focus Groups: Reframing the Research Experience to Focus on Participants.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 400–417.

https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000407

Rothm, M. J. S. (2014). Logic Models.

Rysaback-Smith, H. (2015). History and principles of humanitarian action’. Turkish Journal of

Emergency Medicine. 1(15), 5–7. www.alnap.org/help-library/history-and-principles-of-

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.

Regional Environmental Change, 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0761-x

Spiegel, A. N., Bruning, R. H., & Giddings, L. (1999). Using responsive evaluation to evaluate a

professional conference. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 57–67.

https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409902000105

Sundberg, A., Dillon, N., & Gili, M. (2019). Evaluating humanitarian action. Melbourne: Better

Evaluation. www.alnap.org/helplibrary/%0Aevaluating-humanitarian-action-0

Taylor-Powell, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide.

University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension.

Tenny, S., Brannan, G. D., Brannan, J. M., & Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2020). Qualitative Study. In:

50
 StatPearls. 29262162.

Trochim, W. M., Marcus, S. E., Masse, Moser, R. P., & Weld, P. C. (2008). he Evaluation of

Large Research Initiatives: A Participatory Integrative Mixed-Methods Approach.

American Journal of Evaluation 29(1), 8-28. Doi:, 29(1), 8–28.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007309280

Turner. (2016). Monitoring and Evalution Practices.

UMI. (2018). Revised Guidelines for proposal and dissertation writing for Uganda Management

Institute. 46. https://umi.ac.ug/

UNHCR. (2019). Country Refugee Response Mid-Year Report.

UNHCR. (2021). Uganda Refugee Statistics October 2021 Bidi Bidi. October, 1.

https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/72292

UNICEF. (2012). Annual Report.

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

sustainability development goals. New York. www.alnap.org/ help-library/leaving-no-one-

behind-humanitarian-effectiveness-in-the-age-of-sustainable-development

W.K.Kelloggfoundation. (2004). Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring

Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action. Kellog Foundation.

http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-

model-development-guide.

Wokadala, J. (2016). Gender Responsiveness Diagnostic Report of National Monitoring and

Evaluation Systems in Uganda (Issue April). file:///C:/Users/Personal/Desktop/Resaarch

Materials 2/Gender-Responsiveness-of-NES-Uganda.pdf

51
Youker, B. W. (2007). Ideas to Consider Ethnography and Evaluation: Their Relationship and

Three Anthropological Models of Evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3),

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
139
of four livelihoods workshops in the Darfur.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Key informant guide.

Key informant guide (To be administered to Humanitarian livelihoods partner staff)

Location: ___________________________________________________________________

Date: _____________________________________________________________________
52
 Name of organization: ________________________________________________________

Participants Name and Title: ___________________________________________________

Introduction
15 2
Thank you for accepting to participate in this discussion today. I am a student of UMI pursuing a

master’s in management studies. My name is Kadondi Agatha, today we are going to discuss about

monitoring and evaluation practices in humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi refugee

12
settlement. You have been purposely selected to participate in this interview because you are

implementing livelihoods projects or programmes in the settlement and because you have been
51
supporting these projects for the more than two years. The information you provide will be used
24
strictly for this master’s research paper. 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. May I please proceed with the

discussion; Yes [ ] No[ ]

5
Objective One: Exploring and documenting the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices

in humanitarian livelihood programmes in Bidibidi refugee settlement.

1. To begin with, what humanitarian livelihoods interventions have you been implementing

in Bidibidi refugee settlement? Probing or follow-up question;

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

implementation of these projects?

53
 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

emergency (June 2016) to date. Probing or follow up questions;

a) When and why was the unit established?

b) What policy formalized the unit?

c) What was the rationale for forming the unit?

d) What was the original structure of the unit?

e) What were the function and how have these evolved over time?

3. What is your view on the level of knowledge and skills within the organization to meet

data collection needs? Probing questions:

a) What additional data collection knowledge or skills are needed, And why?
14
b) How often are the M&E-related skills and competencies of the M&E staff assessed?

c) What additional knowledge or skills (if any) specific to M&E are needed and why?

d) How would you rate the ME capacity of staff supporting livelihoods programmes? Probe

for reason for the rating.

e) What is your view regarding the level of knowledge and practical skills to support

evaluation of organization’s livelihoods programme activities?

4. What is your view regarding organization’s capacity to undertake M&E functions for

successful livelihoods programming? Probing questions:

a) Organizational (capacity for leadership, and management systems).

b) Human resources (current staffing numbers and different skills mix, i.e., knowledge,

attitude, competency needed to deliver M&E).

54
 c) Routine monitoring (ability to undertake routine monitoring in line with organization’s

mandate).

d) Evaluation and research

e) Data management and audit

f) Information technology, including M&E data systems

g) Capacity for data supervision i. Data demand and information use

h) Decision-making process (policies, programs, routine procedures, committees and

committee structures).

5. How does the organization keep up-to-date with developments in M&E? Probing

questions:
14
a) Is there a database or register of who is receiving M&E training to avoid duplication and

ensure complementarity?

b) Is there a database of trainers, listservs, and other technical service providers capable of

building M&E capacity?

55
c) Do you have suggestions for improving the coordination of M&E training in the

organization, if yes, what are these suggestions?

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?

6. What do you consider to be the key mandate of the M&E unit?

7. What is your vision for M&E for this organization? Probing questions:

a) In your opinion, how do staff value or rate M&E?

b) What role do leaders play in achieving the M&E vision for the organization?

8. What mechanisms exist to support the M&E mandate? Probing questions:

55
 a) What policy (if any) supports the M&E functions?

b) Is there an M&E technical working group in place? What its composition? And how has it

helped the M&E unit perform M&E activities.

c) How does the M&E unit support the other program functional areas?

d) How can participation and collaboration with other departments be improved?

126
Resource allocation for monitoring and evaluation (M&E Budgeting)
129
9. In your opinion, how well is the M&E plan linked to the M&E strategy? Probing

questions:
122
a) What factors influence the implementation of the current M&E work plan?
138
b) What challenges affect the implementation of the current M&E work plan?

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

Data collection and analysis.

10. In your opinion, how do surveys or surveillance activities contribute to measuring

indicators in the M&E plan? Probing questions:

a) Who determines the agenda for research and surveys for the organization?

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?

(Examples of non-technical challenges: financial, attitude, environment)

56
27
Dissemination of results and Utilization of M&E results.
27
11. In your opinion, how is dissemination of results and utilization of M&E results done?

Reasons for opinion provided. Probing questions.

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

of livelihoods interventions? Please give examples.

c) Please give examples of data that the organization uses or has used for either planning or

to monitor goals as set out in the M&E plan?

123
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

dissemination and using data?

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?
32
Objective two: Challenges faced in conducting M&E in the humanitarian livelihood

programmes.
30
12. As we wrap up, what are the key challenges faced in conducting the M&E practices

discussed in the previous sections and in what ways can they be improved?

THE END.

Thank you so much for your time and participation.

57
Appendix 1: On Desk review guide.

Tool: Desk review guidance

1. What documents are available within your organization, that determine the status of M&E

activities in the humanitarian livelihood programmes or projects being implemented in

Bididbidi refugee settlement? For each document available probe for status, quality,

technical autonomy and financial autonomy.

58
 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

challenges could be faced in the accessing and utilizing the documents?

THE END
2
Thank you so much for your time and participation.

147
Appendix 1: Focus Group Discussion.

Focus Group Discussion Guide (To be administered to Humanitarian livelihoods beneficiaries in

Bidibidi refugee settlement)

Location: ___________________________________________________________________

Date: _____________________________________________________________________

Name of organization: ________________________________________________________

59
 Participants Name and Title: ___________________________________________________

Introduction
15 2
Thank you for accepting to participate in this discussion today. I am a student of UMI pursuing a

master’s in management studies. My name is Kadondi Agatha, today we are going to discuss about

monitoring and evaluation practices in humanitarian livelihoods programmes in Bidibidi refugee

12
settlement. You have been purposely selected to participate in this interview because you have

been benefiting from livelihoods projects or programmes in the settlement for more than two years.
79 24
The information you provide will be used strictly for this master’s research paper. 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. May I please proceed with the discussion; Yes [ ] No[ ]

1. To begin with, what livelihoods interventions have you been benefiting from for the past two

or more years?
133
2. Have you had of project monitoring and evaluation? if yes what do know about project

monitoring and evaluation?

88
3. In what ways have livelihoods organizations involved you in project monitoring and

evaluation?
5
4. In your opinion, do you think project monitoring and evaluation contributes to project success.

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.

60
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

programmes in the settlement?

8. What are the most recommended monitoring and evaluation practices that you would advise

livelihoods organizations to adopt? Or how can monitoring be improved in the humanitarian

livelihoods in the settlement.

THE END.
112
Thank you so much for your time and participation.

61
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

23% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
14% Internet database 3% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
18% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

alnap.org
1 2%
Internet

umispace.umi.ac.ug
2 1%
Internet

Mount Kenya University on 2022-01-12

3 1%
Submitted works

etd.aau.edu.et
4 <1%
Internet

Mount Kenya University on 2018-04-23

5 <1%
Submitted works

unhcr.org
6 <1%
Internet

seval.ch
7 <1%
Internet

Kenyatta University on 2018-10-17

8 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Dubai Medical University on 2021-10-20

9 <1%
Submitted works

Carl Candoli, Daniel L. Stufflebeam. "Chapter 26 The Context of Educati...

10 <1%
Crossref

University of West Florida on 2021-04-10

11 <1%
Submitted works

researchspace.ukzn.ac.za
12 <1%
Internet

Fiji National University on 2020-09-16

13 <1%
Submitted works

unaids.org
14 <1%
Internet

erepository.uonbi.ac.ke
15 <1%
Internet

University of South Africa on 2022-02-06

16 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2021-06-18

17 <1%
Submitted works

data2.unhcr.org
18 <1%
Internet

A Spiegel. "Using responsive evaluation to evaluate a professional con...

19 <1%
Crossref

Mount Kenya University on 2019-09-05

20 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

University of Johannsburg on 2021-11-08

21 <1%
Submitted works

termpaperwarehouse.com
22 <1%
Internet

Kenyatta University on 2021-12-30

23 <1%
Submitted works

University of Venda on 2017-07-31

24 <1%
Submitted works

University of Alabama on 2022-01-13

25 <1%
Submitted works

coursehero.com
26 <1%
Internet

Kenyatta University on 2021-11-05

27 <1%
Submitted works

eecentre.org
28 <1%
Internet

reliefweb.int
29 <1%
Internet

KDI School of Public Policy and Management on 2021-10-22

30 <1%
Submitted works

University of Witwatersrand on 2012-08-24

31 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2018-05-28

32 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Mount Kenya University on 2020-04-23

33 <1%
Submitted works

Universität Hohenheim on 2019-12-11

34 <1%
Submitted works

info.worldbank.org
35 <1%
Internet

docplayer.net
36 <1%
Internet

Uganda Management Institute on 2018-02-03

37 <1%
Submitted works

University of Wales Institute, Cardiff on 2021-09-15

38 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2020-06-29

39 <1%
Submitted works

Logistics Learning Alliance on 2021-07-07

40 <1%
Submitted works

Loughborough University on 2009-12-03

41 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2018-10-04

42 <1%
Submitted works

University of KwaZulu-Natal on 2018-10-30

43 <1%
Submitted works

knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org
44 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Mount Kenya University on 2021-04-01

45 <1%
Submitted works

University of Witwatersrand on 2019-09-25

46 <1%
Submitted works

ir-library.ku.ac.ke
47 <1%
Internet

cdc.gov
48 <1%
Internet

College of Technology London on 2011-11-17

49 <1%
Submitted works

ombudsman.gov.rw
50 <1%
Internet

Kenyatta University on 2021-03-12

51 <1%
Submitted works

Kisii University on 2019-08-22

52 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2018-04-16

53 <1%
Submitted works

University Der Es Salaam on 2019-07-15

54 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2013-06-02

55 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2013-09-01

56 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

baixardoc.com
57 <1%
Internet

jhumanitarianaction.springeropen.com
58 <1%
Internet

University of Johannsburg on 2021-10-10

59 <1%
Submitted works

repository.out.ac.tz
60 <1%
Internet

Taibah University on 2021-03-17

61 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2015-05-25

62 <1%
Submitted works

aflia.org
63 <1%
Internet

Midlands State University on 2015-11-19

64 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2021-07-26

65 <1%
Submitted works

ir.jkuat.ac.ke
66 <1%
Internet

nsuworks.nova.edu
67 <1%
Internet

sciencepubco.com
68 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

ujcontent.uj.ac.za
69 <1%
Internet

Abu Dhabi University on 2009-09-27

70 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2018-12-03

71 <1%
Submitted works

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine on 2017-06-15

72 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2017-05-10

73 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2019-10-12

74 <1%
Submitted works

Westcliff University on 2019-12-14

75 <1%
Submitted works

hsag.co.za
76 <1%
Internet

Africa Nazarene University on 2014-04-28

77 <1%
Submitted works

Centre International de Formation Europeenne - CIFE on 2018-06-18

78 <1%
Submitted works

Eiffel Corporation on 2020-09-28

79 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2022-02-14

80 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Mount Kenya University on 2021-08-01

81 <1%
Submitted works

University of Stellenbosch, South Africa on 2021-05-27

82 <1%
Submitted works

dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080
83 <1%
Internet

su-plus.strathmore.edu
84 <1%
Internet

iosrjournals.org
85 <1%
Internet

KCA University on 2021-08-07

86 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2017-11-01

87 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2022-03-17

88 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2018-07-20

89 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2021-09-09

90 <1%
Submitted works

Regenesys Business School on 2021-11-27

91 <1%
Submitted works

Sunway Education Group on 2021-03-04

92 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

University of Edinburgh on 2013-09-24

93 <1%
Submitted works

University of Huddersfield on 2022-01-12

94 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2014-02-15

95 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2014-05-24

96 <1%
Submitted works

University of South Africa on 2021-11-05

97 <1%
Submitted works

Carnwell, Ros, Buchanan, Julian. "Effective Practice in Health, Social C...

98 <1%
Publication

Grambling State University on 2009-12-14

99 <1%
Submitted works

International Institute for Educational Planning on 2009-06-12

100 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2018-08-08

101 <1%
Submitted works

Kisii University on 2020-08-02

102 <1%
Submitted works

Massey University on 2012-05-02

103 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2017-06-21

104 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Mount Kenya University on 2017-10-12

105 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2020-02-11

106 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2020-10-07

107 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2021-04-13

108 <1%
Submitted works

RDI Distance Learning on 2012-10-17

109 <1%
Submitted works

The University of Manchester on 2014-08-26

110 <1%
Submitted works

The University of Wolverhampton on 2022-01-19

111 <1%
Submitted works

University Der Es Salaam on 2021-05-08

112 <1%
Submitted works

University of Nairobi on 2018-08-03

113 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2013-12-13

114 <1%
Submitted works

University of Stellenbosch, South Africa on 2010-03-08

115 <1%
Submitted works

University of Sunderland on 2015-03-03

116 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

University of the West Indies on 2018-04-23

117 <1%
Submitted works

bettercarenetwork.org
118 <1%
Internet

careevaluations.org
119 <1%
Internet

erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080
120 <1%
Internet

hdl.handle.net
121 <1%
Internet

ir.kabarak.ac.ke
122 <1%
Internet

repository.kemu.ac.ke:8080
123 <1%
Internet

utamu.ac.ug
124 <1%
Internet

ku.ac.ke
125 <1%
Internet

lsx.org.uk
126 <1%
Internet

netpublikationer.dk
127 <1%
Internet

preval.org
128 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Eiffel Corporation on 2019-10-01

129 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2019-04-08

130 <1%
Submitted works

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on 2009-09-11

131 <1%
Submitted works

Midlands State University on 2017-09-06

132 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2019-06-30

133 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2021-06-02

134 <1%
Submitted works

University of Birmingham on 2006-02-24

135 <1%
Submitted works

University of Pretoria on 2014-11-25

136 <1%
Submitted works

University of Stirling on 2020-11-23

137 <1%
Submitted works

University of Witwatersrand on 2012-08-24

138 <1%
Submitted works

preventionweb.net
139 <1%
Internet

Daffodil International University on 2020-12-23

140 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26567:111651908

Eiffel Corporation on 2020-01-09

141 <1%
Submitted works

Kabarak University on 2019-11-13

142 <1%
Submitted works

Kenyatta University on 2020-07-16

143 <1%
Submitted works

Mancosa on 2018-10-04
144 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2018-05-24

145 <1%
Submitted works

Mount Kenya University on 2020-02-03

146 <1%
Submitted works

University of East London on 2019-01-25

147 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview