Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Process To Support Governance and Empowerment at The Local Level

Participatory monitoring and
evaluation:
a process to support governance and
empowerment at the local level
A guidance paper
Thea Hilhorst
Irene Guijt
June 2006
PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION: A PROCESS TO SUPPORT
GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
A guidance paper
558 129, June 2006
World Bank: TF055592
Thea Hilhorst
KIT (Royal Tropical Institute), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail : t.hilhorst@kit.nl
Irene Guijt
Learning by Design, Randwijk, The Netherlands. E-mail: iguijt@learningbydesign.org
USING PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION TO STRENGTHEN LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. III
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1
2 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING & EVALUATION AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR WB

PROJECTS....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 DEFINING PM&E AND ITS CORE PRINCIPLES .................................................................. 3
2.2 LEARNING AND PM&E .................................................................................................. 8
2.3 USING PM&E TO DEAL WITH UNCERTAIN AND DYNAMIC CONTEXTS ............................ 10
3 UNDERSTANDING LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF PM&E........................ 12
3.1 IMPLICATIONS OF DECENTRALIZATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNANCE ................................. 12
3.2 FOUR QUALITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE .................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Efficiency and effectiveness.................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Exercise of power and accountability .................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Equity and inclusion............................................................................................... 14
3.2.4 Quality of stakeholder interactions ........................................................................ 15
4 POTENTIAL BENEFITS ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE OF IMPLEMENTING AND
INSTITUTIONALISING PM&E................................................................................................... 16
4.1 PM&E TO ENHANCE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS ................................................. 16
4.2 PM&E TO IMPROVE THE EXERCISE OF POWER .............................................................. 18
4.3 PM&E TO ENHANCE EQUITY OF OUTCOMES ................................................................. 20
4.4 PM&E TO ENHANCE STAKEHOLDER INTERACTIONS ..................................................... 22
4.5 KEY ACTORS IN RELATION TO LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND PM&E ................................. 23
4.5.1 Citizens and their organizations............................................................................. 23
4.5.2 Local government ................................................................................................... 25
4.5.3 Service providers.................................................................................................... 28
5 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR INCORPORATING PM&E INTO PROJECTS AND
PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................. 30
5.1 PM&E WITH PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................ 31
5.1.1 Prerequisites for engaging in a PM&E process at the community level ............... 31
5.1.2 Available experience with PM&E at community level ........................................... 32
5.2 PM&E IN A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER SETTING ................................................................. 33
5.2.1 Prerequisites for engaging in a PM&E process in multi-stakeholder processes... 33
5.2.2 Available experience with PM&E in multi-stakeholder fora ................................. 33
5.2.3 Linking PM&E, management information systems and conventional M&E ......... 33
5.3 INTEGRATING PM&E IN OVERALL PROJECT OR PROGRAM DESIGN ................................ 35
5.3.1 Building interest and commitment for engaging in PM&E.................................... 36
5.3.2 Linking PM&E into project design and budget...................................................... 36
5/Dev/06.091/TH
July 2006, 558 129
i
5.4 DEVISING THE PM&E APPROACH ................................................................................ 38

5.4.1 Ensuring Equity and inclusion ............................................................................... 41
5.5 IMPLEMENTING THE PM&E PROCESS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ......................................... 43
5.6 TRACKING AND REFINING THE PM&E PROCESS ........................................................... 45
5.7 PROMOTING SCALING UP AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION ................................................. 46
6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 48
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING........................................................................... 50
BOXES
BOX 1. THE PURPOSES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION......................................................... 4
BOX 2. THE HISTORY OF PM&E IN A NUTSHELL ............................................................................... 6
BOX 3. CONCEPTUALISING LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ..................................... 9
BOX 4. ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .................. 11
BOX 5. MONITORING PERFORMANCE: COMMUNITY SCORE CARD ........................................... 17
BOX 6. USING SOCIAL CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN MALAWI ..................... 19
BOX 7. PARTICIPATORY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE MANAGEMENT IN CDD PROJECTS ............. 20
BOX 8. CITIZEN CONSULTING AND MONITORING GROUPS (CMGS) IN ALBANIA .................. 23
BOX 9. COMMUNITY-BASED MONITORING (CBMES) FOR ADVOCACY IN UGANDA ............. 24
BOX 10. CSO USING CONVENTIONAL M&E TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY ......................... 25
BOX 11. SELF-ASSESSMENT BY AN URBAN MUNICIPALITY IN NIGER........................................ 26
BOX 12. PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING AT MUNICIPALITY LEVEL IN BRASIL.......................... 27
BOX 13. JOINT MONITORING PUBLIC HEALTH AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL........... 29
BOX 14. BUILDING MECHANISMS FOR STRENGTHENING DOWNWARD

ACCOUNTABILITY IN MALAWI.............................................................................................. 31
BOX 15. LINKING PM&E TO CONVENTIONAL M&E .......................................................................... 35
BOX 16. THE IMPLICATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE FOR PM&E DESIGN................. 38
BOX 17. GENDER RESPONSIVE BUDGETING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL............................................ 43
BOX 18. MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION FLOWS.......... 44
BOX 19. PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING WITHOUT A LEGAL BACKING ........................................ 47
ii
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Aditi Sen, CDD anchor at the WB, for providing timely support and
information. We are grateful to Jean Delion, Dan Murphy, Aditi Sen, Haddy Jatou Sey
and Mark Woodward for thoughtful comments received on earlier drafts. Colleagues from
KIT, notably Gerard Baltissen and Wim van Campen provided important feedback and
information.
iii
ACRONYMS
CBO Community-based organizations

CDD Community Driven Development
CRC Citizen Report Card
CSC Community Score Card
CSO Civil Society Organization
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MIS Management Information System
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PB Participatory Budgeting
PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
iv
1 Introduction
Strengthening meaningful participation and empowerment of citizens and improving the

quality of governance at the local level are essential for effective poverty reduction. This
guidance paper explores how a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) process
can enhance participation, empowerment and governance in World Bank-supported
projects and programs, which enhances the performance, efficiency and sustainability of
interventions.
.
PM&E is about strengthening primary stakeholders’ involvement as active participants in
interventions by them taking the lead in tracking and analysing progress towards jointly
agreed results and deciding on corrective action. This approach contributes to demand-led
planning and decision-making and improved accountability, when effective
communication and feedback loops are in place with programs and agencies.
The ‘local level’ in this paper refers to primary beneficiaries in two contexts. One is the
lowest sub-national governance level where elected local government and ‘frontline’
service providers engage with citizens and their organizations. These formal, territorial
units may refer to a region, a district, a rural or an urban municipality, implying great
variation in area, population density, economic development, available capacities and
infrastructure - all of which have implications for the potential and practice of PM&E.
The second context that these guidelines address is communities that lack an
administrative or legal status but are nonetheless the focus of much human activity and
development work. This may include villages, hamlets, urban neighbourhoods, nomadic
camps and other types of human settlements. Some World Bank financed projects, such as
those promoting Community Driven Development (CDD) 1 , target this level for supporting
investments in basic infrastructure, economic development and capacity building of
community-based organizations.
This guidance paper starts with an introduction to PM&E in Chapter 2 and outlines a
framework for assessing governance at the local level and the role of decentralization in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 explores the potential benefits of PM&E for local governance, for
key actors (local government, service providers and civil society organizations), and for
multi-stakeholder processes. The fifth chapter sets out operational guidelines for
1
CDD is often embodied in the next generation of social fund programs. A key difference is that
decision-making about resource allocation is made by local communities and not social fund staff.
1
introducing and embedding PM&E into World Bank activities and is illustrated with
examples from practice.
2
2 Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation and its Relevance for WB Projects
This chapter starts by defining PM&E and its core principles. It then discusses the range
of purposes that PM&E can fulfil in practice, also noting a series of common pitfalls. The
chapter proceeds by highlighting the recent shift in M&E practice from a largely
accountability-oriented mechanism to focusing on its contribution to learning for
improved actions. A specific consideration rounds off this chapter: that of tracking change
in contexts of uncertainty.
2.1 Defining PM&E and its core principles

Participation is defined as the process through which stakeholders are involved in and
influence decision-making, resource allocation, implementation and control of
development initiatives 2 . Empowerment is about building the capacity, self-reliance and
confidence of citizens 3 , program staff and other partners to guide, manage and implement
development initiatives effectively. For participation to be meaningful, primary
stakeholders have to be in a position to set goals, track progress, learn from change, and
propose corrective action. However, while primary stakeholders are increasingly involved
in some aspect of planning, their presence within the monitoring and evaluation of actions
is very often lacking or inadequate.
Monitoring and evaluation is about assessing actual change against stated objectives, and
making a judgement whether development efforts and investments were worthwhile or
‘cost-effective’ 4 . Therefore, M&E systems are generally constructed to provide
information for reporting on achievements in order to fulfil accountability responsibilities.
This has led to M&E being largely associated with a controlling and accountability
function. Increasingly, however, there is recognition that M&E systems may also
contribute to strategic management and learning lessons; and to feeding experiences into
policy processes.
Social accountability is defined by the World Bank as an approach that relies on civic
engagement in public affairs. PM&E differs from social accountability as it is applied to
interventions within the realm of control of primary stakeholders. Therefore they are in a
position to act upon findings. The PM&E process may also help to clarify rights and
2
Waglé and Shah, 2003
3
Citizenship involves the claiming of rights, which is not possible for all people, such as refugees. Not
all residents are citizens in an active sense, although they might be legally considered as such, because
they are unfamiliar with their rights and therefore do not pursue them.
4
IFAD, 2002
3
responsibilities and, where needed, formulate demands towards other actors and articulate
these in the appropriate fora for dialogue and decision-making. PM&E becomes linked to
social accountability.
Box 1. The purposes of monitoring and evaluation

- Supporting operational management - providing the basic management information
needed to direct, coordinate and control the resources required to achieve any given
objective;
- Supporting strategic management – providing the information for and facilitating the
processes required to set and adjust goals, objectives and strategies towards improving
quality and performance;
- Knowledge generation and sharing – generating new insights that contribute to the
established knowledge base in a given field. This includes documenting lessons learned
for sharing and feeding into policy reforms that can further enhance performance;
- Empowerment – building the capacity, self reliance and confidence of beneficiaries,

implementing staff and partners to guide, manage and implement development initiatives
effectively;
- Accountability, including impact evaluation: demonstrating to donors, beneficiaries and

implementing partners that expenditure, actions and results are as agreed or are as can
reasonably be expected in a given situation.
Source: Woodhill, 2006
The special focus of this guidance paper is Participatory M&E. PM&E is defined here as a
process where primary stakeholders – those who are affected by the intervention being
examined – are active participants, take the lead in tracking and making sense of progress
towards achievement of self-selected or jointly agreed results at the local level, and
drawing actionable conclusions. The effectiveness (and sustainability) of such a process
requires that it be embedded in a strong commitment towards corrective action by
communities, project management and other stakeholders in a position to act.
This definition goes beyond involving primary stakeholders in a process of ‘conventional’

M&E, such as consulting them on indicators and asking them to provide information or
feed-back on the results (see Box 2). Here the emphasis of PM&E is on deepening
participation, a process that is intrinsically linked to learning and empowerment 5 , as well
5
Guijt and Gaventa, 1998
4
as linking monitoring to action. The PM&E process is build around agreeing on expected
results and milestones, defining how to track progress, collecting required data,
undertaking joint analysis and decide on actions. Capacity building, collaborative learning
and empowerment result from working together in this cycle of analysis and action.
As a PM&E process involves different stakeholders, this invariably requires engaging

with varying interests that are played out through existing power relationships, thus
making the process deeply political. Inevitably, PM&E will require negotiation to reach
agreement about who will participate, what will be monitored or evaluated, how and when
data will be collected and analysed, what the information means, and how findings will be
shared, and what action will be taken. The resulting insights can be used to improve the
performance of interventions, and also to prepare better when negotiating with other
actors.
Opening up project management, service providers or local government staff to comments

from ‘beneficiaries’, ‘users’ or ‘citizens’ can be perceived as threatening and may lead to
some resistance. Therefore, for a PM&E process to deliver, a culture that rewards
innovation and openness about failure is required and may need to be formed. It is also
important that norms, procedures and incentives are in place that support transparency,
accountability, and learning. And as interventions take place over several years, flexibility
is essential, since the number, role, and skills of stakeholders, and contextual conditions
change over time.
PM&E and empowerment are too easily assumed to go hand-in-hand. An empowering

PM&E process must be consciously constructed with that purpose in mind. This implies
that the process takes place on their terms and focuses around their requirements and
demands. Primary stakeholders take the lead in designing the focus and methodology and
it is their skills that are developed. Finally, to gain access to relevant information and
understanding of how governance works, as well as to track and make sense of change,
contribute to empowerment of primary stakeholders.
5
Box 2. The history of PM&E in a nutshell

The value and need for basing development on the views and priorities of ‘the local
population’ has become widely acknowledged over the last decades, leading to a practice of
working with and by communities.
Initially pioneered by action research-oriented initiatives and organizations, the use of
participatory approaches and methods has become increasingly mainstreamed. The use of
tools such as social mapping, Venn diagrams, wealth ranking, and transects have become
normal practice in much development work, including in World Bank-supported CDD
programs. Ministries have started to include participatory methodologies in guidelines
provided to local governments for developing municipal development plans, such as in Benin
and Mali.
Participatory diagnosis, priority setting, and planning have become an accepted ethic and are
practiced in hundreds of Northern and Southern development initiatives. However,
‘participation’ should also address implementation, monitoring and evaluation. There is a
rapidly growing interest in ensuring wider participation, and since the mid 1990s, the term
‘participatory M&E’ (PM&E) has received increasing attention 6 .
Other trends that underscore the interest in PM&E are:

o Frustration with the inadequacy of prevailing M&E systems to capture local knowledge,
needs, aspirations and views;
o Recognition within development initiatives of the importance of continuous adaptation
and innovation to ensure the relevance of the work. In turn, this requires capacity to reflect
on own experiences and learn from them;
o Pressure for a more diverse approach towards accountability: in addition to upward
reporting, also downward accountability towards communities and internal towards staff
and peer organizations.
PM&E is being asked to fulfil a wide range of purposes for different stakeholders - some
for citizens, some for service providers, some for government agencies and some for
projects, programs or partnerships. Alongside the range of purposes that are possible to
6
Action for Social Advancement, 2005; Estrella et al., 2000; IIED, 1998; Shah et al., 1993; Woodhill
and Robins, 1998; Toledano et al., 2002. The World Bank published its first technical paper on PM&E
in 1993 (Narayan, 1993).
6
pursue with more participatory forms of M&E is its growth as a generic term 7 and about
which there is no common understanding. This makes it imperative to be clear about what
is being pursued with PM&E. Is the focus of PM&E mostly on monitoring (tracking and
feedback)? Is it on evaluation (valuing and performance review)? Or is it more on
‘strengthening and deepening participation’ (shared learning, joint decision-making,
mutual respect, co-ownership, democratisation and empowerment) 8 ?
Initially, for example, the emphasis lay with making prevailing (conventional) M&E
systems more participatory (putting the ‘P’ in M&E). This has generated initiatives that
focused on involving primary stakeholders in determining objectives and indicators,
developing locally feasible data collection methods and seeking ways in which analysis
could be community-based. Much of this experimentation occurred at village level.
Examples include the tracking of progress by farmers of their agroforestry activities,
community groups assessing the impact of anti-poverty programs in the USA, or self-
monitoring of leadership capacity-building 9 .
Recent years have seen a diversifying of contexts in which the ideas of PM&E have been
applied and, therefore, of methodological innovation. Examples are an explicit integration
of M&E into participatory processes and locally managed interventions (putting M&E in
the ‘P’); and using PM&E to strengthen adaptive management and organizational learning
(see next sections).
It is important not to assume that different purposes can automatically be achieved within
a single approach or process. Each purpose has different requirements in terms of
capacities, information systems, resources and minimal conditions for success. Expecting
several or even all purposes to be equally well fulfilled within a short time frame may
prove overly optimistic and lead to disillusion (see Chapter 5 on ‘Operational
Guidelines’).
7
Other terms used to describe PM&E practice are: Participatory monitoring; Participatory evaluation;
Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation; Participatory impact monitoring; Process
monitoring; Self-monitoring/self evaluation; Auto-evaluation; Stakeholder based evaluation/assessment;
Empowerment evaluation; Community monitoring; community-based monitoring and evaluation;
community driven M&E (in World Bank documents); Citizen monitoring; Participatory planning,
monitoring and evaluation; Transformative participatory evaluation
8
Estrella et al., 2000
9
Estrella et al., 2000; Gaventa et al., 1998; Guijt and Gaventa, 1998, Action Aid, 2005; Yanggen et al.,
2004
7
For PM&E to be effective, choices have to be made regarding initial and longer-term
objectives in order to build a feasible and inspiring process that can evolve towards
fulfilling multiple purposes. Thus, the following four aspects have to be clarified 10 :
 Required time frame – Should efforts be invested in establishing longer term monitoring
mechanisms or is a shorter tracking initiative sufficient?
 Related type of decision-making. Who or what does the information need to influence, and
therefore into what decision-making space should the information be fed? What different
priorities, processes and calendar of activities govern these spaces that need to be
understood if information is to inform decisions?
 Degree of participation of stakeholders. Who is essential to have involved and why
(ownership of analysis, their perspectives, resulting decisions, etc)? What would their role
ideally be? What support do they need for their participation to be meaningful and not
window dressing?
 Depth of analysis and degree of rigour. To achieve the purpose with those identified as key
stakeholders, what degree of rigour and depth of analysis should be aimed for? To
‘empower’ citizens to monitor local service providers may require less scientifically
rigorous data than seeking clarity about precise water quality management strategies.
Finally, recognising the general limitations of an indicator-focused approach is important.

Deciding what to monitor is often associated with indicator identification. However,
indicators are often inadequate at explaining causes behind observed changes and only
able to deal with anticipated phenomena of change. Identifying performance questions,
before detailing indicators, helps to focus information-gathering on what will truly
advance understanding and improve results. To avoid a short shelf-life of information
collected, the choice should be for sustained monitoring of the same set to get trend
indications. From that derive more precise information needs, which can be matched with
feasible methods 11 .
2.2 Learning and PM&E

A learning-focused M&E system builds on what people already know and do, using and
developing their existing abilities and skills to monitor their progress. It is a cyclical
process in which communities and CSOs reflect continuously on the effects of their
actions and where the process is leading them. It is this learning process that creates
conducive conditions for change and action.
Combined pressures to improve the quality and adequacy of performance, while working
more efficiently and effectively, are encouraging also agencies and projects to ask the
10
Guijt (ed.), 2006
11
Guijt (ed.), 2006; IFAD, 2002 see Annex D for many ideas
8
question of how they can learn better to improve their work – not just account for it. The
core questions shift from what has happened to why has there been success or failure and
so what are the practical and strategic implications 12 (see Box 3). One example of
learning-focused M&E is provided by a guide that was developed specifically for CDD
projects 13 .
Learning-focused M&E and PM&E become synonymous, when the aim is to make
interventions more demand responsive, inclusive, empowerment-oriented and sustainable
by bringing voices of broader stakeholder groups systematically into discussions on
strategies and performance.
Box 3. Conceptualising levels of organizational learning

A commonly used framework to conceptualise levels of organizational learning in response to
monitoring is situated around ‘loops’ of learning.
Routine monitoring, which is functional, operational and maintenance-oriented, leads to

‘Single-loop learning’. This concept refers to a ‘single’ feedback loop that connects the
identified outcomes of an action to modifications required in organizational strategies, so as to
improve performance within the norms set by this organization, but these standards
themselves remain unchanged. ‘Double-loop learning’ occurs when the identified problems
and opportunities are addressed in ways that involve changing an organization’s underlying
structure: values, objectives, policies. ‘Triple-loop learning’ goes even further and involves
the redesign of learning processes and systems within an organization to improve
performance. This follows an analysis of formal and informal systems of learning within the
organization (or partnership) and how these influence overall performance.
Learning Governing Action Strategies Consequences

Systems Values/Norms for performance
1= single loop learning; 2= double loop learning; 3= triple loop learning
Source: Action for Social Advancement, 2005
12
Woodhill, 2006
13
Action for Social Advancement, 2005
9
2.3 Using PM&E to deal with uncertain and dynamic contexts

There is growing appreciation of the need to incorporate the influence of uncertain and
dynamic contexts on performance 14 . A program, project or partnership may be breaking
new ground about which there is not entire clarity or consensus or it works on a known
idea but applied under different conditions. Dynamic contexts and limited predictability
are also important features of the management of a watershed or collectively used natural
resources, such as forests, fisheries and grazing areas. Here, management strategies need
to be context specific and informed by local data and mutual experience given the
complexity of the ecological processes involved (see also Box 4). Or, programs may
evolve in situations of conflict, characterised by great uncertainty and at least partial
failure of the state.
For programs, projects and partnerships working under these uncertain and dynamic
circumstances, this constitutes continual adaptation – incorporating new stakeholders and
adjusting the roles of existing partners, modifying processes, refocusing priorities,
strategies and practices, and so forth. Conscious attention is needed to signs that herald the
need for such adjustments and that help indicate what shape changes must take. This
awareness has stimulated greater appreciation for an adaptive management approach in
which information generated through monitoring is used for refining implementation
strategies and even goals, as circumstances require. Monitoring and implementation are
intertwined and mutually reinforcing
A PM&E process contributes to the construction of information feedback systems that

strengthen learning and build organizations that value critical reflection, and learn from
success and failure alike 15 .
14
Woodhill, 2006 forthcoming
15
IFAD, 2002;Woodhill, 2006; see also Crawford et al., 2004 on embedding PM&E in an Education
Sector Support Program
10
Box 4. Adaptive collaborative management of natural resources

Within forest management, the idea of ‘adaptive collaborative management’ using PM&E is
gaining credence 16 . Building trust among stakeholders, improving dialogue and learning, and
strengthening partnerships can greatly enhance the success of such co-management processes.
The collaborative nature implies that it becomes a social and political process, including
negotiation around what information is to be collected and how to assess the findings.
PM&E can focus on the prevalence of certain resources, harvesting methodologies, quality of
social interactions between users, etc. Monitoring efforts may be comprehensive,
encompassing all issues within a forest area or very specific, such as beekeeping or a specific
(over-exploited) grass type. In some cases, all groups involved choose to develop a single
common framework for observing the effectiveness of their plans and the unexpected
outcomes. In other situations, each sub-group identifies its own monitoring priorities.
Case studies on experiences with PM&E in collaborative forest management report various
benefits:
- Improved understanding of the resource, the institutional environment, and of visions and
management options of the various stakeholders involved;
- Increased capacity and willingness to question previously accepted technical and institutional
norms;
- More informed decision-making;
- Shifting perception of monitoring as a form of policing towards monitoring as mutually
beneficial for management;
- Improved quality of partnership interactions and communication;
- Increased equity regarding voice and flow of benefits;
- Improved conflict management;
- Enhanced sustainability by using less harmful forest resource management practices.
Source: Guijt, 2006
16
Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997;Gunderson and Holling, 1995; Hinchcliffe et al., 1999; Jiggins and
Röling, 2000; Lee, 1999; McDougall et al., 2006; Roe and Eeten, 1999
11
3 Understanding Local Governance in the Context of PM&E
This chapter starts with an analysis of the decentralization process and implications for
local governance. It then moves on to identifying four characteristics that determine the
quality of governance. These serve as a framework for integrating PM&E into local
governance initiatives. The chapter ends with a section on stakeholders that play a role in
PM&E: citizens and their organizations; local government and service providers.
3.1 Implications of decentralization for local governance

Decentralisation refers to the transfer of a sphere of decision-making from the central state
apparatus to a sub-national unit. This may involve authority (devolution), responsibilities
and functions (deconcentration) or financial resources (fiscal decentralisation). Overall,
decentralisation is a complex, medium-to-long term political process that needs
considerable legal and constitutional reforms, cuts across sector ministries and involves
many stakeholders. Challenges include the design of robust systems for channelling
money to sub-national levels and strengthening the capacities of local government to
govern and uphold accountability mechanisms 17 . Conditions for local governments to act
effectively may suffer from inadequate devolution of authority and resources, or too
limited autonomy.
Increasingly, the World Bank and other development institutions are supporting
decentralization initiatives that give greater powers to sub-national governments. This is
partly rooted in a critique of central planning and a belief in the advantages of local
competition and information exchange for improving service delivery. Other reasons are
related to the potential of decentralisations to strengthen democratisation and enhance the
transparency of public sector performance 18 .
Decentralization is expected to lead to an increase of power and resources at a level that is

closer, better understood and more easily influenced by local people. It inserts a new layer
of policy makers, who are located closer to citizens and to ‘frontline’ service providers.
This situation could strengthen the quality of governance on the assumption that proximity
breeds commitment, facilitates accountability and allow for efficiency and
competitiveness gains for service delivery.
Whether decentralised public policy becomes more meaningful for poor and marginalized
people depends on a number of issues. These include features of local power structures
17
White and Smoke, 2005; Manor, 1999
18
Campos and Hellman, 2005
12
(style of local leadership, legacy of authoritarian rule, the working of political parties,
openness and accountability of local political processes); the presence of articulate and
effective citizen organizations and private sector; and good information flows. In highly
stratified societies, it is possible that without accompanying measures devolution provokes
even more exclusion or elite capture. Equity is also undermined in situations where
discriminatory perceptions on participation and engagement are no longer kept in check
by statutory rights. 19
Decentralisation changes the context of participation and local governance, and therefore
also influences PM&E processes. It may open new avenues for institutionalising PM&E
and sustaining community level interventions, by strengthening functional relations
between local government and communities. Local government may become an anchor
for the institutionalisation of improved governance practices 20 . Therefore, assisting local
governments to strengthen local governance and to welcome citizen participation warrants
consideration.
3.2 Four qualities of local governance

Governance is about the process and institutions by which authority and control are
exercised. It can be assessed in terms of four qualities 21 :
1. Efficiency and effectiveness with which institutions, rules and systems operate;
2. Equity of outcomes;
3. Exercise of power, including accountability mechanisms;
4. Quality of stakeholder interactions.
The focus and structure of the PM&E process will depend on which aspects of local
governance are considered particularly pertinent to address in the project or program.
Below follows a short description of the four features of what constitutes ‘quality’ in
governance, and the types of questions that could be examined in more detail.
3.2.1 Efficiency and effectiveness

The soundness of the policy and decision-making process influences the efficiency and
effectiveness of organizations or programs. Questions that could be addressed in a
development initiative that aims to enhance this aspect of local governance could include:
19
Alatas et al., 2003;Beal, 2005;Bonfiglioli, 2003;Devas and Grant, 2003;Oluwu, 2003; White and
Smoke, 2005;Wong and Guggenheim, 2005;World Bank, 2004
20
Reviews on CDD programs also indicate that integrating with local government is important for long-
term sustainability and the ability to scale up (McLean et al., 2005; OED, 2004; McDonald Stewart and
Muça, 2003
21
Asian Development Bank, 1999; DFID, 2001;European Commission, 2001; Kaufmann et al., 1999
13
To what extent is policymaking demand-led and responsive to citizens’ needs and

expectations? What is the quality of data used and analysis and how has this informed
appraisal and decision-making? What is the effectiveness of feedback systems such as for
timely detection of problems? Is there sufficient coherence between the various activities?
Another aspect that is critical for performance is the quality of management, staff
motivation and efficiency of resource use. The capacity for internal learning is an
important factor for improving performance, as well as other qualities of governance (see
also section 2.3).
3.2.2 Exercise of power and accountability

The predictability of action by organizations and projects, and thus whether agreed
policies, systems and procedures are applied, respected and enforced is a feature of the
exercise of power. Related issues are whether engagements and commitments are
honoured and whether interactions between staff and ‘beneficiaries’ are respectful. This
includes the possibility for applying checks and oversights in order to prevent abuse, as
well as keeping the actions of project staff and authorities in line with established rules.
It also assumes that certain groups or interests do not unduly influence decision-making
and the allocation of resources. These issues affect the legitimacy of an organization or
body and whether it is perceived as trustworthy and credible.
Other essential features of the exercise of power are accountability, transparency and
openness. Strengthening accountability mechanisms is increasingly perceived as an
important strategy towards improving local governance and addressing inadequate
performance and service delivery from public and private actors or programs and projects.
Particularly, interest in interventions that increase transparency and exact accountability
from public sector actors and elected representatives is growing as ‘holding delegated
authority accountable is integral to the idea of government subject to popular control’ 22 .
3.2.3 Equity and inclusion

Social inclusion refers to the ability of all people, without discrimination, to fulfil their
rights and potentials to participate in society. Equity of outcomes refers to whether the
specific interests and requirements of marginal and vulnerable groups are expressed and
taken into account during policy development, implementation, and monitoring. It also
requires that better-off social groups are prevented from capturing government services
and that biases present in organizations and projects against working for marginal groups
are identified and addressed. This characteristic also includes a look at the capacity of
22
Goetz and Jenkins, 2005 p.2
14
those working in these structures to understand and see biases and exclusionary
mechanisms, as well as their willingness to address these.
3.2.4 Quality of stakeholder interactions

Clearly, improved service provision and local development require the input and
collaboration of a multitude of actors. Usually there are multiple stakeholders involved in
local development, which may include project staff, customary authorities, formal and
informal community-based organizations and groups, NGOs, local government agencies,
private and public service providers, politicians, entrepreneurs, etc. The relation between
office or duty bearers and right holders may shape these stakeholder interactions; the
challenge is to arrive at a dialogue on expectations, roles and responsibilities.
Smooth partnerships are essential for efficiency, to avoid duplication and prevent gaps.
However, this is easier said than done. In a multi-stakeholder setting, being clear on
responsibilities and quality standards, sharing information, undertaking joint analysis, and
honouring agreements is often a challenge. These new configurations also raise questions
with respect to horizontal coordination, connecting effectively with other (vertical) levels,
and accountability.
Network governance is about enhancing functional and transparent relationships between

stakeholders working on similar issues in an informal or formal partnership context, such
as coordination meetings, platforms, public-private dialogues, cadre de concertation etc.
The 2004 World Development Report on pro-poor service delivery recognised this issue
and introduced the ‘accountability framework’ that analyses the linkages between (poor)
citizens, service providers and policy makers and how these can be used for improving
performance 23 .
23
Campos and Hellman, 2005; World Bank, 2004; Goetz and Jenkins, 2005
15
4 Potential Benefits on Local Governance of Implementing and

Institutionalising PM&E
In this chapter, the potential contribution of PM&E to support local governance is

analysed for each of the different qualities that were introduced in the previous chapter:
performance, exercise of power, equity and stakeholder interactions. Most PM&E
processes can be constructed to enhance more than one quality of local governance. This
chapter also highlights the role of key stakeholders, where relevant.
4.1 PM&E to enhance efficiency and effectiveness

PM&E processes can contribute to results-based management by improving policy
making, facilitating adaptive management, enhancing efficiency of resource use and
promoting staff motivation (see Table 1). PM&E may also redress constraints in project
implementation, such as filling the information void with clarity about the expectations of
marginalized and poor people.
Table 1. Performance - Efficiency and effectiveness

Purpose of PM&E Expected Benefits
1.Generating location  Better understanding about local realities and therefore, more
specific insights and realistic and appropriate plans and policies
information  Shared analysis of suggestions for improvements
 Improved strategic planning at different levels
2.Improve soundness of  Programs are more demand-led, which enhances effectiveness
policy making and sustainability of interventions
 Timely adjustments to plans, schedules and/or budgets,
3.Facilitate adaptive and following local feedback on bottlenecks as well as
flexible management unanticipated negative impacts that need correcting;
 Identification of possibilities for improving the effectiveness
4.Increase efficiency of and efficiency of activities;
resource use
 Reduced waste of resources and time
 Reduced possibility for corruption or diversion of funds to
5. Promote stakeholder
non-intended activities
motivation
 More motivated stakeholders at the local level,
6. Promote staff  More staff motivation, initiatives and creativity
motivation (local  Shifting perception from monitoring as ‘policing’ to
government, service monitoring as mutually beneficial
providers and other  Better working environment as learning from mistakes eases
agencies) performance fears
Projects and service providers that are using PM&E for assessing the efficiency and
effectiveness of service delivery, require a relatively simple process of seeking feedback
on service delivery from users. This is based on jointly agreed criteria of what constitutes
16
‘a good service’ and a shared analysis about areas for further improvement. Many
examples exist of using PM&E to improve performance, ranging from a focus on
community-based M&E methodologies to more sophisticated forms of data collection.
One methodology that is often used is the community scorecard (see Box 5). Community
score cards are generally considered as a tool for advancing social accountability. When
the findings have a very immediate practical value for primary stakeholders and who are
also in a position to act upon findings, than community score cards are relevant also for
contributing to a PM&E process.
A PM&E process may facilitate local resource mobilisation. By becoming better informed
on resources and expenditures, it will be clearer to citizens what is actually available and
what is lacking. This may increase their preparedness to contribute from own resources-
money, time, support etc.- to an intervention that is regarded as worthwhile. PM&E
processes have also stimulated more active engagement of future users in thinking through
a proposed investment. They contributed with insights and suggestions on how to make
improvements, such as on quality and efficiency. Moreover, the costs of small-scale
infrastructure investments may be considerably less when managed locally than when
delivered by public agencies, even with the latter being in a position to obtain economies
of scale through central procurement. Besides, transferring micro-project management to
communities relieves the implementing organization from being obliged to administer and
oversee a large number of small projects 24 .
Box 5. Monitoring performance: Community Score Card

The Community Score Card (CSC) is used as a tool for monitoring the performance and
efficiency of organizations such as service providers or community level committees as
perceived by users. The main objective is to improve performance, and governance more in
general, by promoting dialogue and exchange between service providers/committees and users
at so-called interface meetings.
Service providers and users are involved in designing the scorecards. Images are often used to
capture local views. Generally, external facilitators lead the process and calculate the results,
which are then discussed in public.
Scorecards may be combined with collecting data on pre-fixed performance assessment
indicators. Care should be taken that the goal of community empowerment (a large number of
focus group discussions) is not overridden by tracking performance as such (emphasising data
collection and subsequent analysis).
Sources: Singh and Shah, 2003; Dedu and Kajubi, 2005; Salmen et al. 2006
24
Wong and Guggenheim, 2005; McDonald Stewart and Muça, 2003
17
4.2 PM&E to improve the exercise of power

Some characteristics of the exercise of power are openness, transparency, responsiveness,
predictability and accountability (see 3.2.2) Gathering and sharing information and
dialogue are key features of PM&E processes, which contribute to openness and
transparency. PM&E processes also contribute to demand-led priority setting, thus
enhancing the responsiveness of the organizations involved. Addressing how power is
exercised means that citizens can hold projects, service providers and local governments
to account over their policies and activities. It extends the potential of PM&E into issues
that can seriously challenge the status quo in situations where power abuses occur. Table 3
lists some expected benefits for using PM&E to improve the exercise of power.
Table 3. Exercise of power

1.Improve responsiveness  Enhanced legitimacy of programs and organizations
 Reduced risk of clientelism and patronage around resource
2. Promote openness and use
transparency  Improved transparency and accountability enhances
willingness of citizens to contribute resources (including
paying of taxes)
2.Strengthen mechanisms for  Local empowerment
checks and balances
PM&E can contribute to the supply side and the demand side of accountability. Improving
the supply side of accountability means focusing attention on the correct application of
administrative rules and procedures, respect for auditing requirements, and whether
performance is according to the standards (see Box 7). A PM&E process that focuses
more on the demand side seeks to build citizens and communities influence on decision-
making and implementation in an informed, direct and constructive manner (see for
example Box 6 and 13).
A focus on increasing responsiveness and accountability of office bearers via a PM&E

process is in line with the growing emphasis on rights-based approaches to development 25 .
However, emphasizing partnerships may be a more productive way to move forward.
Mutual trust, as well as staff motivation and commitment, may grow when ‘claim or right
holders’ and office bearers enter into dialogue, start sharing information and working
together (see also Box 6). 26
25
Chambers et al., 2003; Malena et al., 2004
26
Crawford et al., 2004; Picard and Goulden, 2005
18
Box 6. Using social contracts for school improvement in Malawi

The Education Sector Support Program in Malawi seeks to promote community involvement
for school improvement. Pupils, parents, teachers, local authorities and other officials all have
a claim and a duty in terms of ensuring that the education system can be improved and run
more equitably, effectively and efficiently. An essential feature is that a more sharing and
trusting relationship develops between ‘claim-holders’ and ‘office-bearers’. The may result in
more people becoming involved in identifying activities that can make school improvement
possible, and in sharing responsibilities for this to happen.
The methodology used in Malawi is to get these stakeholders to agree on a ‘social contract’ on
school improvement that results from a participatory situation analysis and planning exercise.
The social contract outlines a set of agreed conditions and responsibilities, and documents
everyone’s roles in making school improvement happen (in drawings and writing). By going
through a process of developing social contracts, the program seeks to increase stakeholder
comprehension (at community and other levels) of their own and other’s responsibilities. The
contract should also make the school improvement process more transparent and accountable.
PM&E approaches and methods are embedded in the process and used to elaborate goals and
changes that stakeholders want to see take place and to design ways for monitoring and
assessing whether school improvement is on track. The ‘significant change’ evaluation tool
has proved to be very popular in these PM&E processes.
The ‘social contract’ has contributed to changes in relationships between teachers, parents and
officials. These are more harmonious, and there is more mutual respect and commitment.
Source: (Crawford et al., 2004)
Many examples of PM&E processes that deal with accountability and transparency, focus
on budget allocation, procurement and expenditure management (see Box 7). The guiding
questions are whether the (scarce) resources are used prudently, targeted to the right
sectors and the intended groups, and if resources flow there in the stipulated amounts.
Satisfactory community or CSO involvement in overseeing budgets may also reduce
rumours on corruption, which undermine trust in projects and local government. The
effectiveness of such a process increases when authorities and other stakeholders
acknowledge communities’ rights to question how decisions are taken and implemented,
as well as to track performance and propose suggestions for improvement.
One result of undertaking participatory monitoring of revenues and expenditures is that

community members and CSOs gain understanding about formal policies, systems and
procedures that they can use for other strategic local development initiatives. It is
empowering to understand official procedures and be able to read budgets and from that,
dare to challenge authorities or project staff when anomalies appear. Some CDD and
Social Action Fund programs are engaged in groundbreaking work around participatory
expenditure management activities and performance assessments at the community level
19
(see Box 7). These experiences can contribute significantly to the strengthening of local
governance, once the ad-hoc committees set up around micro projects use their acquired
knowledge and skills to monitor other forms of (public) expenditure. These projects
contribute to building a culture of accountability from the bottom up when they
systematically build capacities around expenditure management and link these to feedback
and communication strategies to share findings.
Box 7. Participatory public expenditure management in CDD projects

At the community level, several Community-Driven Development (CDD) programs have
systematically introduced participatory public expenditure management of micro-projects,
mostly dealing with infrastructures. Community representatives are tracking the
implementation of thousands of micro-projects in a number of countries. Ad-hoc committees
are set up and in charge of overseeing implementation. Mechanisms used include information
disclosure and transparency on project budget, financing, contracting and procurement;
anonymous grievance procedures; and community monitoring of contracts and
implementation. This information is discussed publicly in villages and displayed. Village
committees established to oversee the project are required to report back regularly to the
community and to project staff. Local media and NGOs are also invited to these meetings to
act as watchdogs over the proper use of development funds. Local capacity and voice of
poorer communities are built by means of a gradual broadening of civic participation in
policymaking and resource allocation. As a result, these groups will be in a better position to
influence local government planning and decision-making.
Source: Wong and Guggenheim, 2005
4.3 PM&E to enhance equity of outcomes

Ensuring equity of outcomes requires commitment of all stakeholder groups to question
the existing distribution of services. It involves an assessment into the responsiveness of
projects, service providers, and/or local government as perceived by groups of (potential)
users who tend to be marginalized or socially excluded. A PM&E process can enhance the
equity of outcomes by continuously reviewing who is participating and benefiting in a
project or program and who is not. This requires asking questions that may sit uneasily
with projects, agencies, communities and local organizations, which have never
contemplated the need for equity of services or a more intentionally focus on relatively
marginal groups and people. For example, which social groups – due to geographic
isolation, social-cultural discrimination or economic deprivation – are currently not
receiving certain services and support to which they have a right? This type of questioning
can lead to a range of benefits as outlined in Table 2.
20
Table 2. Equity of outcomes

1. Acknowledge and clarify  Increased equity in who is heard and participate
diversity of expectations;  More equitable distribution of benefits from service
delivery, in particular to marginalized, vulnerable and
2. Identify and address barriers the poor
to participation and decision-  Address biases
making  Improve position of marginalized groups
3. Build voice of marginalized

groups
The principle of majoritarianism, for example, may preclude support for the demands of
the poorest groups 27 . Community level planning processes may overlook the needs of
marginalized groups. Issues such as addressing violence against women, assistance to
widows or female headed households, or responding to the health needs of a specific
groups, often do not survive a participatory but competitive community level planning
process.
In addition, multi-stakeholder process may be subject to elite capture or illegitimate

participation. Moreover, project and program staff may be (unwittingly) biased in their
dealings with communities. In situations where barriers to participation are so embedded
in perceptions of participation and engagement that they have become ‘invisible’ to local
actors, outside facilitation of PM&E can play a critical role to overcome the biases that are
likely to emerge in community-led processes.
Secondly, by going through a PM&E process communities and other stakeholders become
more aware of how equitably the benefits from and burdens for services and goods are
shared within the community and where key problems and gaps lie. PM&E can help to
assess whether there are in-built biases that lead implementation mechanisms to
automatically bypass certain social groups.
Other obstacles to more equitable outcomes may result from a limited capacity or
willingness (due to social codes of conduct) of marginalized groups to organize
themselves in ways that enable active engagement with (more) formal systems. They may
be less well informed, with information reaching them only through other people, such as
community leaders or relatives, and they may have also less time to spare to participate.
27
Hickey and Bracking, 2005
21
These features affect a PM&E process. These groups often have also less experience in
dealing with projects, engaging in processes of discussion and negotiation, or may lack the
confidence to speak up (if allowed at all to be present). Special activities towards capacity
building and organizational strengthening of marginalized groups may have to be included
in project design (see Chapter 5).
4.4 PM&E to enhance stakeholder interactions

Usually there are multiple stakeholders involved in local development. Well-structured
PM&E systems may help communities and CSOs to develop partnerships with projects,
office bearers and other stakeholders. PM&E can also promote dialogue among
stakeholders who are either not in (much) direct contact or have (had) adversarial
relations.
Collaboration through PM&E can strengthen a partnership as it invokes clarity about

strategy and perspective and builds trust through the information sharing that it
encompasses. It further contributes to improving the knowledge base and creating joint
analysis that also gives meaning to the partnership. As experience and understanding of
abilities and obligations are built, expectations of what each party can deliver can be
clarified and become more realistic. This may, in turn, open possibilities for drawing on
more resources to assist with implementation and thus increase the ability to respond to
these at the local level (see Table 4 and Box 6).
Table 4. Purposes and Benefits of PM&E for enhancing stakeholder interactions

1.Building horizontal  Improving quality of social and organizational interactions
relationships (i.e. building social capital), and communication and
(inter)group skills
2.Strengthening dialogue  Improved mutual understanding of problems,
and collaboration opportunities and options for change
 More willingness to question previously accepted norms
3.Shared analysis and and constraints
agreement on options for  Better understanding among stakeholders of institutional
change environment and resource availability, leading to more
realistic propositions
 Prevent and reduce conflict between stakeholders
The ultimate effectiveness of these interactions depends on whether findings are fed into
the decision-making process. This requires establishing and strengthening the formal and
informal ‘spaces’ for dialogue and exchange, for fostering coordination and encouraging
the implementation of agreements for corrective action. To function, participants should
22
demonstrate willingness to share insights, listen, negotiate and seek consensus about
conclusions.
To keep their legitimacy and hence effectiveness, these partnerships need to address also
their internal accountability systems and maintain feed-back relations with their
constituency. Finally, it is important that these fora contribute to the strengthening of
prevailing structures of democracy, as ultimately, these remain the spaces where political
choices will have to be made.
Box 8. Citizen Consulting and Monitoring Groups (CMGs) in Albania
The Albania Development Fund (ADF) has set up a pilot involving Consulting and
Monitoring Groups (CMGs) at the village and local government levels. The emphasis is on
promoting dialogue and partnership and not control. The long-term goal is to build robust
PM&E mechanisms into local government development planning procedures. These groups
advise on sub-project identification, implementation and monitoring. They receive support
from a PM&E group, established to develop and propose indicators, data collection techniques
(e.g., community score cards) and feedback mechanisms to the CMGs. Inclusion of more
marginal groups, such as women, youth, senior citizens, and ethnic group members, is
promoted by using targeted focus groups, adapted feed-back channels (using festivals instead
of meetings), and making certain that the composition of CMGs is representative. Replication
is expected through the demonstration effect and learning by doing.
ADF expects that this range of PM&E related activities will improve the overall performance
of the program. Activities will reflect real needs, and enhance ownership of project
interventions. Moreover, early warning of problems allows for timely intervention and
adjustments. ADF also anticipates gaining a deeper understanding and learning lessons that
are important for future program design. It is further hoped that a more credible partnership
between local governments and citizens will emerge.
Source : ECANET, 2005; Cooley et al., 2004.
4.5 Key actors in relation to local governance and PM&E
4.5.1 Citizens and their organizations

The quality of democratisation processes and the attitude of government towards civic
engagement influence the possibilities for (formal and informal) CSOs to participate and
engage in appraisal and decision-making on local development. This attitude of
government towards citizen participation tends to vary between central and local levels,
23
and across sectors 28 . Intermediary CSOs and NGOs can play a role in expanding the space
for meaningful citizen participation, as well as building the capacity of CSOs to
participate effectively.
Citizens organizations can use M&E to track performance of service providers and
resource use (budget, procurement procedures, quality control etc.). A form of citizen
engagement that is receiving more momentum at the local level is that of a citizens’ audit,
a form of social accountability. The aim is to reduce diversion of public funds for private
gains or patronage, by monitoring actual implementation of policy and spending and
generating extra pressure towards prudent and appropriate use of public resources (see
box 9).
Box 9. Community-based monitoring (CBMES) for advocacy in Uganda
In Uganda there are three levels of local government: community, sub-county and District.
The Uganda Debt Network (UDN) is supporting community-based monitoring (CBMES) by
providing training to grassroots people in poverty and public expenditure monitoring,
grassroots advocacy and lobbying. A CBMES starts with a local community that tracks the
performance of government agencies by obtaining information about their outputs over a
certain period of time and comparing this with the publicly declared outputs of those agencies.
For example, they try to assess how much of the funding budgeted for schools and clinics
actually reached the sub-county, which is used to prepare sub-county reports. The reports are
then brought together into a District-level report with support from UDN and then used in
District level dialogues with heads of departments and local politicians. Video-recordings of
these local dialogues are also made and then used for advocacy purposes at the national level,
as showing what people are saying is far more convincing than written reports. Some local
monitoring committees are now actively involved in Uganda’s anti-corruption campaign and
invited to national events.
Source: www.undn.or.ug
Also data collected by using generally accepted, standardized procedures can be

empowering, when the information is used to seek improved performance from, for
example, service providers or local government (see Box 10).
28
Manor et al., 1999; Reuben, 2003
24
Box 10. CSO using conventional M&E to improve service delivery
Civil society organizations in Bangalore, India, have used the citizen report card process
(CRC) to put pressure on public service providers to improve performance and responsiveness
through civil society advocacy and extensive media coverage. A CRC starts from the notion
that users know best the quality and reliability of service providers, as well as direct and
indirect costs for accessing that service. The methodology is inspired by consumer opinion
polls used by the private sector. Data collection is standardized for a series of pre-fixed
indicators (which did involve citizen consultation). Rigorous procedures are used in order to
avoid that the validity of the data presented is questioned, but this requires sufficient resources
and capacity to collect and analyse data. The resulting citizen report card is presented and
discussed in public, such as in fora established by local governments. In Bangalore, the CRC
was successful, as it has contributed to improving the quality of services, promoted a better
client-orientation by service providers and improved horizontal relationships between service
providers and civil society organizations. In addition, participating organizations became more
aware of issues that influence the performance of service providers and some now also seek to
track budget allocations and expenditures.
Source : Ravindra, 2004; Waglé et al., 2004
4.5.2 Local government

The public sector has the mandate for national legislation and policy design, budget
allocation, setting norms and standards and ensuring compliance. In a growing number of
countries elected local governments now exist. These can play an important role in
promoting partnerships and collaboration at the local level, such as by showing direction
and promoting equity (preventing that certain areas and communities are ‘forgotten’). For
this to happen, elected councillors and local government staff need to appreciate
stakeholder consultation, welcome citizen participation, and accept to be part of non-
hierarchical, collaborative relationships. The capacity to build and maintain such type of
collaborative partnerships is important for governance outcomes.
The route towards effective local government that is responsive to all citizens and is
accountable for its actions is both promising and challenging. Promoting participation by
citizens and their organizations has been shown to be critical, as is a respect for and
adherence to accountability as an obligation of office bearers. To enhance legitimacy and
performance, local governments can use a PM&E process as a self-assessment tool (see
next Box 11). Some CSOs and NGOs also use PM&E for self-assessment. For example,
25
Action Aid’s work on self-assessment of its finance and human resource development
functions is an innovative organizational application 29 .
Box 11. Self-assessment by an urban municipality in Niger

Commune V in urban Niamey, Niger, installed its first elected mayor and council in 2004.
Continual work with women’s organization and political parties by local NGOs (with support
of SNV- Netherlands development organization) resulted in the election of 3 female
councillors among 23 councillors in total, which is a great achievement in the Niger context.
The council decided to undertake an annual PM&E that is called ‘auto-évaluation’ (again with
support from SNV). Together with about 20 representatives of groupings within commune V
they discuss the state of the commune and what was proposed in their local government
development plan. Next, a few priorities are selected for the coming year, what the target will
be, how to track progress and what is required from councillors and all other local actors to
achieve these goals. For 2005, 4 priorities were selected: new investments in basic
infrastructure (schools, health centres) to underserved parts of the territory of the commune;
construction of a new livestock market; improvement of tax collection rates; and better access
to identity cards for children (which was preventing them from enrolling in schools). The
council is very pleased with the ‘self-assessment’ process as it helped to clarify roles and
responsibilities among councillors, better focus activities, and improve accountability, which
in turn generated more local engagement and access to support from NGOs.
Source: Field visit Niamey, February 2006.
In principle, citizens influence policy directions and resource allocation by electing their
preferred representatives. However, elections are ‘at best, blunt instruments of
accountability’ 30 . There is much dissatisfaction with the record of elected representatives
in local development planning; with channelling citizens concerns into decision-making
processes; and representing the interests of less powerful groups. Such disappointments
may result in a low credibility of elected representatives, which undermines the legitimacy
of local governments and trust in democratisation processes in general.
Engaging citizen in public affairs beyond elections has become a worldwide concern. It is
spurring the search for mechanisms that allow for direct citizen participation in local
government priority setting, implementation and monitoring. New initiatives are emerging
in a number of countries, in which PM&E process play an important role. Many of these
29
Action Aid, 2005
30
Mehta 2001 in Goetz and Jenkins, 2005 p. 18; Ackerman, 2005
26
initiatives emerge in urban environments 31 . One of the most widely publicised examples is
participatory budgeting process in Porto Alègre, Brazil (see 12). This example is
interesting as it also illustrates how several qualities of local governance are addressed in
one integrated participatory planning and M&E process.
Box 12. Participatory budgeting at municipality level in Brasil
The participatory budget processes (PB) (Orçamento participativo) is an example of using

PM&E to strengthen and broaden partnerships and create spaces for mutual learning 32 . The PB
process has produced actual welfare effects by improving the effectiveness of public
investments, emphasizing a pro-poor orientation and reducing possibilities for ‘pork-barrel
politics’ and other form of clientelistic policymaking.
Participatory budgeting started in 1989. Conditions that favoured its emergence were an
ineffective municipal government, new, incoming political leaders willing to experiment with
decentralisation, and the presence of strong and active civil society organizations. PB goes
beyond micro-projects as it influences a substantial part of the resources available to the
municipality and affects long-term investment choices. It produces results within one year,
which was crucial for the PB process to take off and still motivate citizens’ interest and
commitment to engage. Every year, over tens of thousands of people participate of whom most
belong to the poorer strata of society and have no history of active involvement in public
affairs 33 . The participation of women and young people is strong and has increased over time.
The process is organized around the municipal budget cycle and involves a multi-tiered
system of consultation around local, regional and thematic meetings. Since the start,
procedures, ways of working, and state-civil society stakeholder relations have all evolved
profoundly in order to build trust and improve the efficiency and transparency of this form of
deliberative democracy. The aim is to make the process as democratic and transparent as
possible, but also capable of coming to a decision. During the PB consultation, citizens
negotiate directly with local government representatives (both political and technical) on the
allocation of public resources for investments. Government representatives listen to citizen
demands, explain government priorities and defend government actions. The resulting
proposals guide the municipal government in actual decision-making for investments in
31
Gaventa, 2002; Gaventa and Valderrama, 1999; Goetz and Jenkins, 2005; IIED, 2004; Pieterse, 2000;
Waglé and Shah, 2003
32
See for example Baiocchi, 2005; Cabannes, 2004;Gret and Sintomer, 2005; Koonings,
2004;Schneider and Goldfrank, 2002;Waglé and Shah, 2003
33
This amounts to between 1.5 and 6% of the adult population depending on whether micro-level
meetings are included (Gret and Sintomer, 2005).
27
infrastructure works and basic social services. Neighbourhood delegates monitor the
implementation of the budget during the fiscal year.
‘Porto Alègre’ is regarded as an important real-life example of institutional innovation and

democratisation, producing actual improvements for poorer groups. The experience has been
replicated in over 190 Brazilian municipalities, in a number of other Latin American countries
(Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile, Argentina) and some cities in Europe, but is not popular
(yet) in Asia (Arroyo, 2004). In West-Africa ‘Porto Alègre’ is inspiring local level
experimentation with engaging citizens in monitoring the budget cycle process.
Source: Baiocchi, 2005;Cabannes, 2004;Gret and Sintomer, 2005; Waglé and Shah, 2003
4.5.3 Service providers

Service providers have become more aware of the importance to involve communities and
users when planning infrastructure and assessing service delivery. One approach is to
promote the emergence of ‘user committees’ that are given responsibility for raising local
support, mobilising resources for operational costs and maintenance, and facilitating
relations with communities and end-users 34 . However, these CSOs tend not to be invited
to play an active role in monitoring the performance, efficiency or equity of service
providers.
In the health sector, the promotion of user committees took off following the so-called
Bamako initiative of 1987 on primary health care. Within the education sector, it has
become common practice to establish parent/pupil committees. Projects on water supply
normally work through community associations that take responsibility for maintenance.
These community associations may have a formal status, which allows them to handle
resources and implement projects. Service providers may be legally obliged to invite these
CSOs to fora where sector specific priority setting, decision-making and implementation
of programs in their communities is discussed. Where local government is in place, these
may become part of specialised commission or committees (e.g., on public health, waste
management, education, market management).
The effectiveness of these sector specific CSOs is chequered, however. Problems result
from an unclear mandate, limited representativeness, and insufficient access to
information and capacity, but also inadequate awareness of local people’s expectations
and needs. Often, accountability to end-users is receiving too limited attention and some
34
Manor argues, however, that Donors’ support for these user committees is undermining efforts to
strengthen local government performance and accountability (Manor 2006).
28
of these committees tend to operate as an extension of ‘front-line’ service providers.

Nevertheless, these associations exist and may be a useful starting point for strengthening
the interaction between communities and service providers (see Box 13). Engagement in a
PM&E processes may result in more functional CSOs that are better equipped to deal with
service providers and more able to voice demands. Service providers may become more
aware of local expectations and more committed to improve performance.
Box 13. Joint monitoring public health at the local government level
In Mali, community health associations (Associations de Santé Communautaire) were
established during the 1990s. They are on the management board of local clinics and many run
successful cost-recovery systems for medicines. Some of these associations are becoming key
actors in partnerships evolving around public health at the local government level (in rural
areas). They are becoming a bridge between the Ministry of Health and the local Council.
Activities that brought the partnership to life were sharing of information on health policy and
planning procedures, as well as the mandate of local government for public health. They have
also undertaken joint analyses of progress indicators on priority issues for the Councils. Data
collected by the existing health system monitoring system are used (with support of a
facilitator). Benchmarks are indicated using a traffic light system. Progress of the selected
indicators is visualised and then jointly assessed. When problems are detected, a discussion on
possible causes and ways forward takes place. Even illiterate councillors and members of
associations found it easy to read graphs, for example, on attendance rates for pre-natal care of
pregnant women, and noticed that these were dropping. When discussing possible causes, the
initial suggestion was to sensitise women. More in-depth discussions revealed that men often
discourage women from visiting the clinic for check-ups, and that they too have to be reached.
Source: Hilhorst et al., 2005; Field visit January 2006.
29
5 Operational Guidance for Incorporating PM&E into Projects and Programs
The previous chapter showed that governance at the local level can be strengthened by
integrating a PM&E process in the program design. Undertaking a PM&E process can be an
important source of learning and capacity building, contributing to empowerment.
The process provides communities and primary stakeholders with methodologies and tools
for agreeing on priorities, tracking progress, analysing data and developing a joint
understanding. This analysis leads to the identification of opportunities and bottlenecks, and
may be used to improve performance for activities within their realm of control.
Community level PM&E focusing on public expenditure management, for example, can
become an important source for building capacities that will have wider governance
implications. Engagement in PM&E processes builds skills, capacity and confidence within
the community on issues such as how to elaborate a budget, how to monitor a plan or
expenditures, and how to deal with procurement and contractors. This experience may
foster the emergence of a local mentality that backs regular scrutiny of financial
management, within CBO, farmer organizations, local government, service providers, etc.,
thus enhancing transparency and efficiency.
The PM&E process may also help to clarify rights and responsibilities and, where needed,
formulate demands towards implementation agencies, local governments or service
providers. For PM&E to have an impact beyond the community, it has to be integrated into
ongoing project and program activities. The combination of generating local insights and
linking these to the appropriate fora for decision-making will improve the performance of
local interventions. Functional feed-back and communication loops will make programs and
projects more demand-led and enhance their ability to adjust to unexpected developments or
changing circumstances.
At a more aggregated level where diverse stakeholders interact to decide on local development,
PM&E processes can provide content and purpose to these exchanges and negotiations. PM&E
in a multi-stakeholder setting creates space for different actors to meet and interact -
diverging and converging as they express their needs, priorities, aspirations and respective
expectations. Working together through a PM&E learning cycle can enhance mutual
understanding, creating the basis for dialogue and constructive working relationships.
PM&E contributes also to openness, transparency and accountability between citizens and
committees, implementing agency, service providers, etc. While dealing with diversity and
divergence presents specific challenges for PM&E, it also holds interesting potential for
30
transformative relations in local governance. It is here that the frontier lies for furthering the
practice of PM&E.
This chapter provides suggestions for integrating PM&E into programs and projects that work
with large numbers of communities and micro-projects. For communities and organizations of
primary stakeholders, working through a PM&E process should not demand significant extra
resources or time.
5.1 PM&E with primary stakeholders
5.1.1 Prerequisites for engaging in a PM&E process at the community level

Inviting primary stakeholders to engage in a PM&E process only makes sense when it is
focused on activities that are largely within the realm of action of these actors: in other
words, when the primary stakeholders conclude that changes are needed, they can
implement most of them themselves, even if some constraints identified have to be
addressed at other levels. The implementing agency, however, should be prepared to
discuss findings that concern them and act upon these when appropriate. There is nothing
more demotivating for stakeholders than to see their findings and propositions ignored - this
will quickly lead to waning interest and high drop-out rates. PM&E should therefore be
used selectively.
If communities or primary stakeholders have little influence on the intervention that will be
implemented in their midst, starting a PM&E process with them is not a good idea. Under
these circumstances, other strategies may be more effective for strengthening local
governance, such as building information and communication flows, and creating space for
dialogue (see box 14, even although in this case communities do have some control over
micro-projects). Also, other ‘social accountability’ types of activities may be required to
work towards more local control over interventions.
Box 14. Building mechanisms for strengthening downward accountability in Malawi

The Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) was established in 1995 and real community
participation was a major consideration in its design. Communities identify, finance and
manage subprojects, which are geared towards the socio-economic and infrastructure
needs of the area. Another objectif is the empowering of communities to exact
transparency and accountability. The MASAF experience demonstrates how social
accountability can be build at the community level, even where mechanisms for enforcing
downward accountability are lacking.
Some of the major lessons that emerge from this project are:
31
- The use of targeted Information, Education and Communication (IEC) to inform

users/beneficiaries about their entitlements has acted as a powerful mechanism for
promoting accountability and transparency. The IEC initiatives clarified the roles that
stakeholders were expected to play, and their responsibilities with respect to the
project objectives. Putting information in the public domain also challenges the
monopoly of the elites and experts, and empowers communities.
- The creation of structures and processes at the community level that act as rallying
points for common needs enable communities to articulate their needs. These also help
in aggregating and amplifying their voice in demanding accountability from both
governments and service providers.
- As part of the community contracting process, funds are disbursed directly into
community project accounts. The implementation of the project on behalf of the
community is delegated to a Project Management Committee (PMC) composed of
elected community members. Such mechanisms that enable communities to manage
public resources and assume greater responsibility over the creation and maintenance
of the assets allow for transparency and broader participation of citizens.
Source: Sey et al., forthcoming
5.1.2 Available experience with PM&E at community level

Programs and projects that meet the basic conditions for engaging in PM&E with primary
stakeholders can base their work plans on the experiences with PM&E gained elsewhere 35 .
At the community level, there is a considerable body of experience related to the large-scale
application of tools such as ‘community score cards’ and ‘participatory budget expenditure
management’ (see Boxes 5 and 7). Community scorecards are used to trigger dialogue
between citizens and local committees and service providers. For example, in a HIV/AIDS
program in Cameroon, the process has led to changes in the composition of local
committees and more vigilance over performance and demands for transparency.
Participatory budget expenditure management is a powerful methodology when the
community has real influence over the use of micro-project budgets and has the authority to
oversee the quality of work done by builders, service providers etc. 36
The principles behind these methods and tools are generally straightforward, but resources
for adapting them to suit the particular circumstances of a specific program need to be
integrated into planned activities. PM&E processes taking place at community level need to
link up with such multi-stakeholder fora, because some findings can only be addressed at a
more aggregated level. And although experiences with sustaining quality over the long-
35
See for example Toledano et al., 2002
36
Samen et al, 2006; Wong, 2005
32
term, and establishing effective and continuous information feed-back loops and dialogue
with other fora, including the implementing agencies, are emerging, this is an area that still
needs work.
5.2 PM&E in a multi-stakeholder setting
5.2.1 Prerequisites for engaging in a PM&E process in multi-stakeholder processes

A second level where PM&E can contribute to strengthening local governance is in multi-
stakeholder processes. Many CDD programs work towards establishing ‘citizen
development, consulting and monitoring teams’ at municipal, ward or district level which
bring together civil society organizations, service providers, public agencies and the private
sector. Moreover, in most countries at these levels, coordination committees exist in which
sector ministries, local government, the administration and sometimes CSOs meet to
coordinate development interventions. Again, before deciding on setting up a PM&E process
in a multi-stakeholder setting and inviting CSOs to participate, an analysis needs to be made of
the willingness and ability of all key stakeholders to participate and to respond to outcomes.
In addition, an inquiry into the scope for adjustments and adaptation within existing
regulations is needed. Administrative and legal regulations may be so rigid that projects,
local government or service providers are essentially paralysed in terms of innovation and
actors cannot make meaningful changes without a long and complex process of bureaucratic
manoeuvring. This substantially raises the cost of incorporating the lessons learned and
acting upon the recommendations from the learning process.
5.2.2 Available experience with PM&E in multi-stakeholder fora

The use of PM&E in multi-stakeholder fora has so far taken place largely in NGO settings
or in specific projects, such as the social contract established for improving education in
Malawi (see Box 6). The Albanian development fund (see Box 8) has been working for
several years with a multi-stakeholder planning process at the local government level in five
pilot areas. Other CDD programs have just begun supporting the creation of multi-
stakeholder oversight committees at sub–national level, which are engaged in monitoring
performance and expenditures. Using PM&E to strengthen multi-stakeholder processes is
an area that still needs work.
5.2.3 Linking PM&E, management information systems and conventional M&E

Monitoring and evaluation systems are important elements in a project design. PM&E, as
discussed in this paper, is not a substitute for management information systems and
conventional M&E, nor for procedures for impact evaluation. These are all mutually
reinforcing parts of a coherent M&E system used by the program, implementing agencies
33
and primary stakeholders (see Box 15). It is critical to be clear in project design about the
purpose(s) that PM&E is supposed to fulfil, alongside conventional M&E processes and
management information systems.
PM&E serves, in the first place, the internal needs of primary stakeholders. In contrast to
conventional M&E, a PM&E system prioritizes downward and/or horizontal
accountability towards users/ citizens, communities and other primary stakeholders. This
is the reason why its focus may vary across micro-projects or communities. A considerable
part of the detailed information and insights generated though a PM&E process at the
community level will probably not enter a program’s M&E system. Most of these findings
concern the actions of primary beneficiaries and their organizations, and they have to decide
on corrective action when required. Since these actions are likely to improve the results of
interventions at the local level, the PM&E process is therefore of great importance for the
program as a whole, but less so for the M&E system itself.
Management Information Systems (MIS) assist management in monitoring and controlling

project organization, resources, activities and outputs, and in identifying stumbling blocks
in time 37 . Some findings (constraints, opportunities etc.) of community level PM&E can only
be dealt with by other actors, such as by the implementing agency, and therefore need to feed
into a program’s MIS. PM&E findings also help project management and staff to obtain a
clearer picture of what is happening, how the project or service is being perceived, and to
identify constraints, problems or unexpected results in a timely fashion. This means that
adequate and regular feedback and communication systems between PM&E and project
management need to be part of the project design.
The information needs of each stakeholder to carry out its responsibilities within the
agreed program of activities should guide the design of these information systems. The
‘need to know’ rather than ‘nice to know’ principle is paramount, avoiding duplication of
data collections or the circulation of large amounts of data that are hardly used but take
considerable time to record.
Key information brokers are community facilitators who should be asked to report
essential PM&E findings in writing or at meetings. Where possible, communities should
also be asked to produce reports for which a format may be proposed. Occasions to
discuss findings of PM&E processes include regular project meetings, review meetings,
supervision visits and mid-term reviews. Within projects and programs, feed-back from
PM&E should be a fixed item on the agenda of these scheduled meetings.
37
IFAD, 2002
34
In conventional M&E, standardized criteria tend to be used. These are often formulated
externally, but criteria identified in consultation with stakeholders can be added.
Standardization facilitates benchmarking and comparison across projects, programs and
organizations. Procedures for collecting information may be stipulated in the project
design, in particular for financial auditing. The contribution of PM&E to conventional
M&E depends on whether the collection of data on pre-fixed performance assessment
indicators is included and recorded in a systematic and appropriate way. Information
generated through conventional M&E tends to be used mostly for upward and internal
accountability.
Box 15. Linking PM&E to conventional M&E

In a CDD program in Angola, citizen empowerment is a central goal. PM&E is a key activity
and contributes to the strengthening of accountability chains and information flows. The
PM&E system builds on existing competences on participatory approaches and is set up
explicitly in synergy with conventional M&E.
In a World Bank-supported natural resource management program in Niger, the focus of the
PM&E program was on building capacity in communities for recording data in a systematic
way and depict results on wall posters. This way of tracking progress improved the quality of
community discussions, made it possible to present data to other organizations and use these
in conventional M&E.
In contrast, an education sector support program in Malawi decided to abandon the technical
vocabulary of M&E. Progress was discussed in terms that made sense to all stakeholders, such
as ‘what works well and what went wrong’ and using the ‘significant change’ methodology to
track progress. The intention was to achieve better program results and not to generate data
that can be used in a conventional M&E system.
Source : Crawford et al., 2004; Mohamed, 2005 ;
5.3 Integrating PM&E in overall project or program design

This section advises interested parties on what issues should be part of project design to
ensure that the potentially positive effects of a PM&E process are realized 38 .
38
This chapter builds on the guidebook for ‘integrating learning in the monitoring and evaluation of
CDD projects of the World Bank’ (Action for Social Advancement, 2005)
35
5.3.1 Building interest and commitment for engaging in PM&E

Policy makers have to be persuaded of the value of engaging in a PM&E process before
they will support its integration in a program. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate to
policy makers the value and feasibility of PM&E for the program under consideration, and
that learning through experience - including from errors - is indispensable. Methods that
can be used include showing and sharing practical examples of PM&E from within and
outside the country. Policy makers also need to be informed about which conditions need
to be met and which resources should be made available in order to engage in such a
process.
So-called ‘champions’ tend to play an important role in building interest. When a

respected, senior manager or opinion leader has publicly stated a commitment to
participatory M&E and to organizational learning, this sends a positive signal about the
merits of the approach.
5.3.2 Linking PM&E into project design and budget

Ideally, PM&E should be presented as an explicit part of the overall mission and
strategies. The project design should further set out the purpose and scope of the PM&E
process, and establish the basis for effective participation by stakeholders. The manner in
which this can be done varies according to the context. The terms of reference developed
for linking PM&E to project design need to indicate the key conditions, resources and
responsibilities required for the process. The actual fleshing out of the PM&E approach
takes place at a later stage in close consultation with primary stakeholders.
However, in cases where PM&E has not been mainstreamed into the project design, it
ends up being retrofitted into a preceding design. It is still critical to ensure that the
PM&E process is perceived as integral to implementation and to success, with findings
feeding into decision-making. PM&E components therefore need to be connected with
other project components, systems and procedures.
During project design, it should be considered whether to include a pilot experimentation

phase, which precedes the main implementation phase of the project. The pilot is used to
field test the PM&E framework, insert modifications and fine-tune as required, while
gradually expanding the scope of the activities. This pilot may also generate information
that can be used to maintain interest in the process within the implementing agency and
among primary stakeholders.
36
The budget 39 for the PM&E process should include resources for the following activities:
developing the PM&E approach; capacity building; costs for implementation; community
and discussion fora facilitation; information and feed-back mechanisms; internal learning;
documenting experience; and provisions for scaling up and institutionalization (see section
5.8). Most resources for the PM&E process are required in the start-up phase when the
approach has to be designed and tested, and facilitators have to be trained and coached.
External consultants may be needed to support the design and training of trainers.
A clear plan of action for capacity-building support on PM&E should be part of project
design, strengthening the ability of marginal groups to participate, and helping to establish
an environment and attitude open to dialogue, reflection and learning within and among
organizations. The implementing agency’s experience of working with communities and
using participatory approaches and organizational learning will affect the requirements for
external assistance and capacity building (see Box 16).
Capacity building and training may be needed on issues related to the PM&E process,
such as the identification of core information needs; the formulation of relevant and
feasible indicators; the concept of benchmarking; data collection methods; analysis
processes; and how to use findings for reflection and identification of actions.
Strengthening facilitation and communication skills for community level processes and
multi-stakeholder fora is also required. More basic support to the organizational
strengthening of participating civil society organizations, particularly for those of more
vulnerable groups, may have to be included.
Capacity building activities may have to be included in the project design to support the
emergence of a more favourable environment for participation and for learning within the
organization. This is particularly important in contexts that are less open to dissent and a
frank exchange of ideas.
But over time, the PM&E process has to become self-sustaining at the local level. Local
people have to be trained in facilitation and even advocacy skills, in order to be able to
convince appropriate fora that certain constraints are beyond their powers to change. This
evolution should be part of the capacity building plan.
Understanding the social context and the organizational culture of implementing

agencies and other partner organizations helps in shaping the PM&E approach and the
39
Experience with integrating PM&E in CDD or other World Bank programs is still too recent to give
clear guidelines on budget requirements
37
capacity building plan (see Box 16). Social and institutional self-assessments are useful in
this regard, but specially commissioned studies may be required too. Issues that can be
addressed are: the political context within which PM&E will be operating; local
experience with participation and civic engagement; exclusionary mechanisms; the
prevailing attitude of office bearers towards openness and transparency; the presence of
fora and spaces to discuss findings; current practice with information exchange, feed-back
and dialogue; experience with participatory approaches, learning and critical reflection.
The results of these assessments and studies should be reviewed with respect to the
implications for project design. Not everything can be known in advance, but this should
not stop a program from getting started. It does underline, however, the importance of an
adaptive and flexible management style.
Box 16. The implications of organizational culture for PM&E design

Generally speaking, project implementing agencies can be characterized as follows:
- Large, monolithic government departments that have limited experience of working with
communities, and have neither the inclination nor the skills to implement learning-based
concepts and techniques;
- Organizations that have some interest in community interaction, but need considerable
handholding support to operationalize learning-based M&E concepts and derive maximum
utility from them;
- Organizations that have a culture of working with communities and are familiar with
participatory approaches.
In all three situations, guidance is needed for setting up a PM&E process. Moreover, in the
first two situations considerable capacity building and handholding support may be required
on participatory approaches and how to work with primary stakeholders on an equal footing.
Source: Action for Social Advancement, 2005
5.4 Devising the PM&E approach

Actual work on developing the PM&E process starts when the project has been approved
and starts up. Even when PM&E is at the heart of project design, implementation can be
problematic. The implementing agency may not realize the importance of getting the
PM&E processes started from the beginning, particularly if it is already very busy
getting the entire project off the ground.
PM&E usually represents a methodological and social innovation for the implementing
agency. The implementing agency may not have sufficiently experienced people to
38
develop the approach and the input of experienced consultants may be required. The social
and institutional self-assessments and other commissioned studies, mentioned in section
5.2, may contain information on social and political relations that are useful for
developing the PM&E approach.
However, working only with consultants may undermine local ownership and
commitment. Ideally, a ‘PM&E management unit’ is set up to lead the development of
the PM&E process approach in consultation with key stakeholders. This unit includes staff
from the implementing agency, consultants and resource persons from experienced CSOs,
for example. The members of this unit should understand the principles of PM&E and
how it is built into the overall project design. They may assist the implementing agency to
keep the PME&E process within the scope of project aims, strategy and available
resources. It is advisable that a program staff member be responsible for overseeing the
PM&E program; organize training, coaching and quality control; keep an eye on feed-
back loops and information flows; and lead the documenting of experience.
Another important starting condition is the availability of skilled and dedicated

facilitators at the community level and in multi-stakeholder processes. Facilitating the
PM&E process with primary stakeholders should be part of the work program of those
staff members working with communities. These staff members should be provided with
clear guidance and methodologies, support from coaches, follow-up training and exchange
events. A training program for community facilitators therefore must precede the start of
the PM&E at the community level. Understanding PM&E principles and ways of working,
building commitment to the process and ensuring equity are important elements of such
trainings. Coaching of community facilitators should be oriented towards maintaining the
quality of the process, such as ensuring that primary stakeholders remain in the driver’s
seat, and that the process delivers results. These issues facilitate the expansion as well as
the deepening of the process.
Facilitation of PM&E in multi-stakeholder process is of a different nature than that

required at the community level. Facilitators of PM&E in a setting of multi-stakeholder
dialogue need to be politically astute, skilled and dedicated, and demonstrate perseverance
and enthusiasm. They should be attuned to implicit or explicit assumptions being made
about the functioning of multi-stakeholder processes. These might include assumptions
about the willingness of all parties to sit around the table, the capacity of citizens to speak
up and be listened to, the capacity for analysis of the participants’ systems and sanctions
for ensuring that abuses/errors are corrected, etc., and what is therefore required in terms
of, for example, capacity building and facilitation.
39
Steps for which methodologies need to be fleshed out during the development of the
PM&E approach are (see also Figure1). :
 Building commitment and engagement at the community level;
 Deciding on who participates and how this will evolve;
 PM&E process
o Jointly establishing goals and expectations;
o Tracking progress and information collection,
o Joint analysis, sharing results and identifying action points
 Communication and feed-back systems to community; to program, other
stakeholders and fora
Figure 1. Schema of sequence of steps in a PM&E processes (Guijt and Gaventa, 1998)
We would like to highlight the issue of data analysis, as this is often not integrated well
into PM&E design. For information to be significant and useful, it needs analysis and
mutual sense making. This feeds into a joint process of observation, reflection, planning,
action, and feedback that follow each other cyclically and are interdependent. In many
early experiences, the ‘participatory’ aspect was limited to involving local people or CSOs
in indicator identification and data collection. Little attention was paid to the importance
of investing in effective reflection processes. However, as much attention is needed in
40
developing accessible mechanisms that support sharing, analysis and decision-making, as

is needed in designing the data collection process.
Another pitfall that emerged from early experiences with participatory monitoring is the
risk of a process that is disconnected from fora of decision-making and therefore unable
to contribute to improvement and change 40 . Convincingly and credibly presenting the
findings of PM&E in an appropriate format at different levels within the project and at
other fora so as to contribute to improved performance, is another important but
challenging step. It ensures that findings, which address issues beyond the realm of
control of communities, are linked to a program’s MIS and feed into the relevant decision
making fora.
At this stage, clarity is needed about existing platforms and multi-stakeholder fora where
coordination and decision-making takes place, about their functionality and constraints,
etc. Equally important is the identification of existing mechanisms for sharing
information, communication and feedback, and for dialogue and mutual learning within
communities and organizations. It is worthwhile to invest effort into identifying when data
will come together, what types of events these will be, who will be present and what
methods will be needed to make sense of the data and come to concluding insights that
can serve to guide decisions.
The project design will have set out the pace and approach for spreading the PM&E
process to other communities. The route of getting started by a next round of communities
may be facilitated when a demonstration effect is generated by the results produced by the
first (pilot) communities. Promoting information sharing and exchange visits between
experienced and new communities may also be of help. Other activities that can be
undertaken to promote the spread of the PM&E process are the organization of special
dissemination events, publicity, and the sharing of results within networks, and with other
organizations and sectors.
5.4.1 Ensuring Equity and inclusion

Meaningful inclusion of marginal and vulnerable groups is an important quality of
governance and remains a challenge, requiring explicit and continuous attention in design
and implementation.
Both the overall project design and the set-up for the PM&E approach should explicitly
aim to fully involve marginal and vulnerable groups in priority setting and ensure that
40
Guijt (ed.), 2006
41
these are being served in decision-making. Ensuring equity in designing and implementing
PM&E process implies that some questions need to be asked continuously. Who is
participating? Who joined later and who left? How effective are feedback mechanisms
between participants and their ‘constituencies’? What is the influence of various groups on
the decisions that have been made?
Bias at the level of the implementing agency and other stakeholders, among facilitators
and within communities will reduce the participation of more vulnerable and marginal
groups. Such biases and other exclusionary mechanisms need to be identified and put on
the agenda, so that actions will be taken to promote equity of outcomes. Community
facilitators play an important role in ensuring that the PM&E process remains inclusive.
Focussed capacity building may be needed to make community facilitators aware of
differences in power and influence, existing biases to participation and why these matter,
and provide them with methodologies for addressing these issues. Ensuring that outcomes
will be equitable may require special ‘affirmative action’ for marginalized groups to
amplify their voice (separate focus groups, quotas in decision making structures, budget
allocations). Moreover, capacity building may be required to strengthen these groups’
ability to organize and participate effectively.
If principles of equitable service delivery are openly agreed to, this makes it easier to put
equity on the agenda of forums at the local level. A useful approach may be to compare
equity situations within and across communities and municipalities, as part of a strategy
for standardizing the quality of service delivery and governance. Gender responsive
budgeting is another example (see Box 17 below).
Where analysis reveals structural and poorly perceived biases at the community or
organizational level that affect the equity of service provision, the input of third parties
may be required to help to put any identified problems on the agenda, broker discussions
with community members, and support the implementing agency in taking institutional-
level actions to promote equity of program outcomes.
42
Box 17. Gender responsive budgeting at the local level

‘Gender responsive budgeting’ is a set of analytical tools to be used by local governments for
making a gender analysis of the mobilization and use of public resources, and identifying
priorities for the development plan. The purpose is not a separate budget for women but to
convince local government that gender equality and women’s rights should be as central in the
development plan as other core objectives. A barangay is the smallest unit within a
municipality. The barangay of Sorsogon decided to focus its gender-responsive budget effort
on the health-related Millennium Development Goals. The barangay of Hilongos centred its
gender approach on the agriculture sector, looking at ways to engage more women in jobs in
local agriculture so that they are not forced to move to urban areas to serve as domestic
workers.
A major obstacle to gender-responsive budgeting is the absence of disaggregated information,

a reason why many local governments are adopting the Community-Based Monitoring System
(CBMS). In January 2006, CBMS was implemented in 17 provinces, 11 cities, 228
municipalities, and 5566 barangays in the Philippines. It is generating valuable gender-
relevant information and providing considerable help in local government planning and
budgeting, as well as in monitoring achievements.
Source: http://www.pids.gov.ph; NIPFP et al., 2004
5.5 Implementing the PM&E process at the local level

The first step at the local level is to build (or confirm) local commitment to PM&E.
Building this interest and engagement is a pre-condition for a PM&E process to deliver,
and hinges on a clear presentation and discussion of what PM&E constitutes, requires and
can deliver. Like policy makers, primary stakeholders need to be convinced of the value of
PM&E for their activities before they commit to investing time and effort.
In addition, they should be provided with a good, realistic introduction and clear
information on the overall project (components, conditions, and terms). Access to
complete project information provides people with a sound basis to voice their concerns
and needs, which can be incorporated into project activities Moreover, wide public
dissemination helps to place control in the hands of communities and mitigates risks of
manipulation by other actors 41 . Once the program has begun, it remains important to
ensure that communities stay informed, receive feed-back on progress at other levels, and
that engagements are respected and empty promises avoided (see Box 18).
41
Action for Social Advancement, 2005
43
An appropriate choice of start-up activities is important for generating confidence and

commitment, after which expansion is possible as competencies grow. Burdening a
starting PM&E process with too many purposes, each of which requires specific
capacities, systems, resources and conditions for success, can ask too much of those
involved. Starting with a limited set of jointly agreed expectations (in relation to the
program) and building on success is strongly encouraged.
Allocating adequate time is absolutely central to the success of PM&E. A potential risk
comes from the desire for quick results from the implementing agency or other actors. The
more pressure that a ministry - or donor - puts on a project for rapid achievement of
intended objectives, the less inclined staff will be to stop, reflect, and shift direction and
modify plans 42 . As PM&E is a negotiated process within communities and between
stakeholders who will usually be new to methodological issues and will need to take on
new roles and modes of interaction, sufficient time should be allocated to develop, adapt
and implement an agreed process. The information and consultation part of the process,
for example, should be given sufficient time, to allow for building interest in what the
project is all about and the PM&E process itself, and confidence in the intentions of the
implementing agency. The intention is to work towards a relation of confidence and trust
between project, facilitators and communities.
Box 18. Maintaining continuous information and communication flows
Lapses in information and communication between a project and primary stakeholders may
undermine the relations, decreasing a community’s initial interest and willingness in
participation. Investing in local infrastructure is often a key activity in CDD and sector support
programs. There is a risk that the construction activities and the community participation side
of such a program move along separate paths. This may lead to a lack of understanding, clarity
and transparency in relation to the actual construction that will take place at the local level.
Steps taken in an education support program in Malawi to overcome these problems included
setting up a system of joint coordination and communication to keep all stakeholders abreast
of developments; jointly developing a written agreement that details communication
mechanisms between all stakeholders, including the contractors; inserting requirements for
communication in contracts; and developing a documentation and picture presentation of the
construction process and the various stages for communities and ensuring that all stakeholders
be fully aware of what is included and what not.
Source: Crawford et al., 2004
42
Guijt et al., 2005
44
The impact of PM&E within a community increases when it becomes a continuous

process, with progress being tracked and compared over a prolonged period of time, while
the growing capacity and experience with PM&E is used to expand into other domains. A
wide sharing and discussion of ways of working and findings within and outside the
community is to be encouraged.
To conclude, openness and transparency over project activities, budgets, procurement, and
expenditures will not suit everybody as muddy waters provide opportunities for some. It is
also possible that empowerment of marginalized groups may be perceived as threatening
by other groups. The PM&E management unit and facilitators should be aware -and
prepared- for the fact that a successful PM&E process might generate opposition and
resistance along the road.
5.6 Tracking and refining the PM&E process

Implementing PM&E will inevitably take place with advances and problems. A PM&E
process needs to include activities for regularly assessing the quality of the process, equity
and results, as well as problems and possible pitfalls.
Those engaged in the PM&E process should apply the key principles to their own practice
in collaboration with all actors involved. Jointly, they have to set criteria for success for
the PM&E process, determine how to take stock of progress, and when to meet to analyse
and discuss findings. Setting up a well-defined approach to tracking and documenting
progress is particularly important in those situations in which PM&E is still considered an
experimental approach or key stakeholders seek more evidence of its value.
This analysis will generate a shared agreement on the successes and downsides of the
PM&E process (or stakeholder-specific insights where agreement is not possible). It will
further generate clear lessons for key stakeholder groups about what they can do
differently and better and may also produce greater clarity for the implementing agency
and others about minimal conditions for success, requirements, costs and other key
features of a good PM&E process.
These monitoring exercises may also produce materials that can be used for informing
senior management and policy makers (see 5.1). Documenting experience and drawing
lessons on the PM&E process is important also for guiding replication, up-scaling and
institutionalization.
45
5.7 Promoting scaling up and institutionalization

The PM&E process can become self-sustaining when communities are in a position to use
the methodologies without much external support and feel in control of the process.
Therefore, they need to become independent of external ‘community facilitators’,
although they still may want to call upon such persons for advice. This requires attention
by community facilitators for building experience and competencies with PM&E
processes within communities, which are then promoted to grow and spread
autonomously.
For communities to be in contact with other groups or to be part of networks that go

through similar processes will be important to exchange experience and for innovation as
well. Communities also need to strengthen their capabilities to articulate their findings and
propositions for improvements towards external actors and in external fora. Sustainability
further requires that local authorities themselves acknowledge and value these processes
and be prepared to take the outcomes into account, without coaching by the implementing
agency or legal obligations.
Reflection on institutionalization needs to be an explicit part of a PM&E strategy.

Institutionalization is facilitated by the existence of an enabling environment of laws and
procedures. Laws can oblige local government or service providers to engage with citizens
on certain issues and in specified ways – although there is an immense gap between legal
rights and often sobering practical realities of exercising these rights. In Cambodia, for
example, CDD experience has informed the formulation of decentralization regulations.
The new guidelines now encourage local government to open budget discussion to the
public and to facilitate direct citizen involvement in the design and supervision of
community development projects 43 .
However, grounding PM&E in a legal framework is not always important. An

organizational culture that favours critical reflection and social learning is as important for
sustaining the PM&E process. For example the participatory budgeting in Brazil has no
legal backing. The process managers invested in developing and institutionalizing the
approach, systems and procedures while continuously working on the legitimacy of the
process and wide and diverse participation (see Box 19).
PM&E processes will be more effective when supported and complemented by other
government actions and support programs. In-country alignment between initiatives and
programs in support of local government, sector support programs and community driven
43
Wong and Guggenheim, 2005
46
development initiatives can provide an important added value. More information

exchange, coherence and alignment, coupled with less duplication and contradiction,
would greatly enhance the effectiveness of PM&E programs towards improving local
governance 44 .
Box 19. Participatory budgeting without a legal backing

The Participatory Budgeting (PB) process in Porto Alègre, Brazil, is well institutionalized in
terms of rules and procedures. These deal with issues, such as representation, coordination,
mobilization and decision-making. The PB, however, has no legal backing. There is no law
that forces the executive to accept the investment priorities and proposed budget allocations as
voted by the PB participants. This extra-legal format was partly inevitable given the
constitutional restrictions on the formal institutions of budgeting, but also allowed the PB
process to adjust to changing fiscal, political, and economic circumstances. Moreover, it was
argued that politicians would not go against decisions that are backed by a large number of
potential voters. Another political party, that was much less involved in the PB process won
the 2004 municipal elections. Whether this affects the PB process is a test for the dependency
of the process on active political support.
Elsewhere, political changes have disrupted the continuity of participatory processes. In

Eastern Europe, for example, cases were reported of newly elected local councils refusing to
implement projects jointly identified and agreed upon by the population under the previous
mayor.
Source: Baiocchi, 2005;Gret and Sintomer, 2005;Schneider and Goldfrank, 2002; ECANET,
2005;McDonald Stewart and Muça, 2003
44
Helling et al., 2005; KIT and World Bank, 2006
47
6 Conclusions
This guidance paper demonstrated how a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)
process can enhance local governance and participation in World Bank-supported projects
and programs. PM&E as discussed in this guidance paper serves above all the internal
needs of communities and other primary stakeholders, contributing to their empowerment.
PM&E is not constructed as an instrument for ‘control’ but focuses on improving the
quality and direction of joint development initiatives and local governance.
At a more aggregated level, where multi-stakeholders interact to decide on local development,

PM&E processes may provide content and purpose to these exchanges and negotiations, and
contribute to strengthening mutual relations by jointly going through a PM&E process of
agreeing on what is progress and how to track performance, sharing analysis and deciding on
corrective action that may be required.
PM&E contributes to adaptive management approaches and better overall results when
effective communication and feedback loops are in place with management information
systems of programs and agencies. In so doing, PM&E becomes an effective mechanism
for embedding participatory, demand-led development, building a practice of dialogue and
accountability between communities and agencies, and instilling an attitude that values
learning from experience. Transparency and accountability of programs is improved
through the systematic sharing of information and clarity about the basis of decisions.
Moreover, these third parties may gain access to views, findings and data for operational
and strategic planning that cannot be obtained through MIS or conventional M&E.
A word of caution is needed at this point. Interest in PM&E has spawned a wide range of
expectations about what it can deliver. It is important not to assume that PM&E can
deliver results when basic conditions are not met, such as the ability of primary
stakeholders to act upon findings. Expecting all purposes to be equally well fulfilled
within a short time frame may well lead to disappointments and an abandoning of the
entire PM&E effort. Moreover, for a PM&E process to deliver in programs, an
organizational culture that rewards innovation, openness and transparency (even about
failure) is required. Therefore, engaging in PM&E processes should be done selectively.
PM&E processes are integrated in regular program activities. The process becomes self-
sustaining when communities are in a position to use the approach and act upon findings
without external support and are capable of articulating their proposals for improvements
in external fora. Sustainability requires further that local authorities and service providers
acknowledge and value these processes. PM&E processes will be more effective when
48
complemented by other support programs. In-country alignment between initiatives in

support of local government, sector support programs and community driven development
initiatives greatly enhance the effectiveness of PM&E programs towards improving local
governance.
49
7 Bibliography and Further Reading

Ackerman,JM. 2005. Social accountability in the public sector- a conceptual discussion.
Washington, PREM Network, CESI, The World Bank. Social development papers,
participation and civic engagement no. 82.
Action Aid. 2005. Reflections on ALPS processes in India. Action Aid.
Action for Social Advancement. 2005. Integrating learning in the monitoring and
evaluation of CDD projects in the World Bank: a guidebook (draft). Washington D.C.,
World Bank.
Alatas,V, L Pritchett, A Wetterberg. 2003. Voice Lessons: Evidence on Organizations,
government mandated groups and governance from Indonesia's local level institutions
study. World Bank.
Arroyo,D. 2004. Summary paper on the stocktaking of social accountability initiatives in
Asia and the Pacific. World bank, Washington, D.C., Community Empowerment and
Social Inclusion (CESO) learning program.
Asian Development Bank. 1999. Governance in Asia: From Crisis to Opportunity.
Manilla.
Baiocchi,G, 2005, Militants and citizens - the politics of participatory democracy in Porto
Alegre, Stanford, Stanford university press.
Beal,J. 2005. Decentralizing government and centralizing gender in Southern Africa:
lessons from the South African Experience. Occasional paper 8. UNRISD.
Bonfiglioli,A, 2003, Empowering the poor, Local government for poverty reduction,
UNCDF, New York.
Cabannes,Y. 2004. Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory
democracy. Environment & Urbanization 16[1], 27-46. London, IIED.
Campos,JE, J S Hellman, 2005, Governance Gone Local: Does decentralization improve
accountability, in World Bank (ed), East Asia Decentralizes: Making Local Government
Work: Wasington D.C., p. 237-252.
Chambers,R, R Singh, A Shankland. 2003. The rise of rights, Rights-based approaches to
international development. Institute of Development Studies with the Development
Research Centre on Citizenship, participation and accountability. IDS Policy briefing.
Cooley,S, K Mark, E V Z Vokopola, L Mitrojorgji. 2004. Local development plan and
participatory monitoring and evaluation: Structure and methodology. Urban Institute,
Urban Research Institute for Albania Development Fund - Community works project II.
Crawford,S, CR2 Social Development, PRAss Core Team, PRAss District team. 2004.
Participatory Rights assessment (PRAss) and Rights-Based Development (RBD) in the
Education Sector Support Program (ESSP), Malawi- Lessons learned so far; a guide to
RBD in practice.
Dedu,G, G Kajubi. 2005. The community score card process in Gambia. SD note no. 100.
Washington D.C., World Bank. Social development notes- participation & civic
engagement.
Devas,N, U Grant. 2003. Local government decision-making - citizen participation and
local accountability: some evidence from Kenya and Uganda. Public Administration and
Development Volume 23, Issue 4, 307-316.
50
DFID. 2001. Making government work for poor people, building state capability. London.
Strategies for achieving the international development targets.
ECANET. 2005. Participatory monitoring and evaluation focused on local development
planning and subproject identification- proceedings of a workshop. Vlore, Albania,
ECANET- Network of Social investment funds from the Europe and Central Asia region.
Estrella,M, J with Blauert, D Campilan, J Gaventa, J Gonsalves, I Guijt, D Johnson, R
Ricafort, 2000, Learning from Change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring
and evaluation, London, Intermediate Technology Publishers and International
Development Research Centre.
European Commission. 2001. White Paper on European Governance. Brussels.
Gaventa,J. 2002. Towards Participatory Local Governance: Six propositions for
discussion. Sussex, Institute for Development Studies.
Gaventa,J, V Creed, J Morrisey, 1998, Scaling Up: Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation of a Federal Empowerment Program, in E Whitmore (ed), Understanding and
Practising Participatory Evaluation: San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publishers.
Gaventa,J, C Valderrama. 1999. Participation, Citizenship and Local Governance.
Brighton, Institute of Development Studies. Background note prepared for workshop on
Strengthening participation in Local Governance, June 21-24.
Ghimire,KB, M P Pimbert, 1997, Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of
Issues and Concepts, in KB Ghimire and MP Pimbert (eds), Social Change and
Conservation: London, Earthscan Publications.
Goetz,AM, R Jenkins, 2005, Reinventing accountability - making democracy work for
human development, Hampshire and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gret,M, Y Sintomer, 2005, Porto Alegre- l'espoir d'une autre démocratie, Paris, Editions la
découverte.
Guijt (ed.),I, 2006, Triggering adaptation in Adaptive Collaborative Management -
Learning through collaborative monitoring, CIFOR-in press.
Guijt,I, J Berdegue, G Escobar, E Ramirez, J Keitaanranta. 2005. Institutionalizing
Learning in Rural Poverty Alleviation Initiatives. Santiago, Chile, RIMISP.
Guijt,I, J Gaventa. 1998. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change.
Brighton, IDS. IDS Policy Briefing 12.
Guijt,I, J Woodhill. 2004. Lessons Learned' as the Experiential Knowledge Base in
Development Organizations: Critical Reflections. Paper presented at the European
Evaluation Society Sixth International Conference, Berlin 2004 Theme: Putting
Knowledge Management to Work.
Gunderson,LH, C S Holling, 1995, Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems
and Institutions, New York, Columbia University Press.
Helling,L, R Serrano, D Warren. 2005. Linking community empowerment, decentralized
governance, and public service provision through a local development framework. World
Bank.
Hickey,S, S Bracking. 2005. Exploring the politics of chronic poverty: from
representation to a politics of justice. World development 33[6], 851-865.
51
Hilhorst,T, D Bagayoko, D Dao, E Lodenstein, J Toonen. 2005. Dynamiser la santé

communale- construire des partenariats efficaces dans l'espace communale pour améliorer
la qualité des services de santé. SNV Mali; KIT, Amsterdam.
Hinchcliffe, F.J., J Thompson, 1999, Fertile Ground: The Impact of Participatory
Watershed Development, London, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd..
IFAD. 2002. Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Practical Guide for M&E.
IIED. 1998. Special Issue on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA) notes 31.
IIED. 2004. Reshaping local democracy through participatory governance. London, IIED.
Environment and urbanization brief, no. 9.
Jiggins,J, N Röling. 2000. Adaptive Management: Potential and Limitations for
Ecological Governance. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and
Ecology 1.
Kaufmann,D, A Kraay, P Zoido-Labaton. 1999. Governance Matters. Washington, D.C,
World Bank. World Bank Policy Research paper #2196.
KIT and World Bank. 2006. Community Driven Development- A national stocktaking and
review toolkit. KIT and World Bank CDD program Africa region.
Koonings,K. 2004. Strengthening citizenship in Brazil's democracy: local participatory
governance in Porto Alegre. Bulletin of Latin American studies 23[1], 79-99.
Lee,KN. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 31, 3-13.
Malena,C, R Forster, J Singh. 2004. Social Accountability: An introduction to the Concept
and Emerging Practice. 76. Washington D.C., World Bank. Social Development Papers -
participation and civic engagement.
Manor,J, 1999, The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization, Washington D.C.,
World Bank.
Manor,J, M Robinson, G White. 1999. Civil society and governance- a concept paper.
Brighton, Institute for development Studies- University of Sussex.
Manor,J, 2005, User committees: a potentially damaging second wave of decentralization?, in
JC Ribot and AM Larson (eds), Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens:
London, New York, Routledge, p. 192-213.
McDonald Stewart,H, M Muça, 2003, Participatory poverty and development monitoring,
a methodology for Albania, Tirana, UNDP Albania.
McDougall,C, C Khadka, S Dangol, 2006, Monitoring as a Means of Increasing Leverage
for Access to Opportunities: A Story from Bamdibhir Community Forest User Group,
Nepal, in I Guijt (ed.) (ed), Triggering adaptation in Adaptive Collaborative Management
- Learning through collaborative monitoring: CIFOR- In press.
McLean,K, R Serrano, L Helling, J Orac. 2005. Exploring partnerships between
communities and local governments in Community Driven Development: A framework.
Washington,D.C., Community driven development team, social development department,
Environmentally and socially sustainable development network, The World Bank.
Mohamed,A. 2005. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation in CDD projects: case stduy
on Niger's resource management project (1996-2002). draft report, World Bank.
Narayan,D. 1993. Participatory evaluation: Tools for managing change in water and
sanitation. Washington, World Bank. World Bank technical paper no. 207.
52
NIPFP - National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, UNIFEM, with European
Commission, IDRC. 2004. Local level gender responsive budgeting- international export
group meeting report. New Delhi.
OED - Operations Evaluation Department. 2004. The effectiveness of World Bank support
for Community -Based and -Driven Development. Washington D.C, World Bank.
Oluwu,D. 2003. Local institutional and political structures and processes: recent
experience in Africa. Public Administration and Development Volume 23, Issue 1, 31-52.
Picard,M, J Goulden. 2005. Principles into practice: learning from innovative rights-
based programs. Care International.
Pieterse,E, 2000, Participatory urban governance - practical approaches, regional trends
and UMP experiences, Nairobi, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat).
Ravindra,A. 2004. An assessment of the impact of Bangalore citizen report cards on the
performance of public agencies. no. 12. Washington, D.C., Operation Evaluation
department, World Bank. Evaluation Capacity Development (ECD) working paper series.
Reuben,W. 2003. The role of civic engagement and social accountability in the
governance equation. No. 75. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Social development notes.
Reuben,W, B Arévalo. 2005. Participation, social accountability and transparency
mechanisms in development policy loans in Latin America 2000-2003. no. 74.
Washington, D.C., World Bank. En breve.
Roe, E, M v Eeten. 1999. Threshold-based Resource Management: the Framework, Case
Study and Application, and Their Implications. Berkeley, University of California,
Rockefeller Foundation.
Salmen, L, M Bela, A-J Naude, J Delion. 2006. Report cards as a tool for empowering
communities in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Cameroon: a work in progress. Social
development notes 102. World Bank, Washington
Schneider,A, B Goldfrank. 2002. Budgets and ballots in Brazil : participatory budgeting
from the city to the state. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, University of
Sussex.
Sey, Haddy Jatou, Sen, Aditi and Diachok, Myrtle (forthcoming). Social Accountability in
Community Driven Development. Summary analysis and case studies (draft version
04/18/2006
Shah,P, G Hardway, R Ambastha. 1993. Gujarat, India: Participatory Monitoring. How
Farmers, Extension Volunteers, and NGO Staff Work Together in Village-level Soil and
Water Conservation Program. Rural Extension Bulletin 1[April], 34-37.
Singh,J, P Shah. 2003. Community score card process- a short note on the general
methodology for implementation. Social development department, World Bank.
Toldano,J, W Sajous, A B Mayor, W Tarou, M Bakuzakundi, H Neighbor, B Ryan, M A Sani.
Sleeping on our mats; an introductory guide to community-based monitoring and evaluation.
2002. Washington, Community-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Team, Africa region, The
World bank.
Waglé,S, P Shah. 2003. Participation in public expenditure systems. note no. 69.
Washington, D.C., World Bank. Social development notes.
Waglé,S, J Singh, P Shah. 2004. Citizen report card surveys- a note on the concept and
methodology. Note no. 91. Washington D.C., World Bank. Social development notes-
participation & civic engagement.
53
White,R, P Smoke, 2005, East Asia decentralizes, in World Bank (ed), East Asia
Decentralizes: Making Local Government Work: Washington D.C., p. 1-23.
Wong,S, S Guggenheim, 2005, Community Driven Development: Decentralization's
Accountability Challenge, in World Bank (ed), East Asia Decentralizes: Making Local
Government Work: Washington D.C., p. 253-263.
Woodhill,J, 2006, M&E as learning: Rethinking the dominant paradigm, in World
Association Of Soil And Water Conservation (ed), Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil
Conservation and Watershed Development.
Woodhill,J, L Robins. 1998. Participatory Evaluation for Landcare and Catchment
Groups: A Guide for Facilitators. Australia, Greening Australia.
World Bank, 2004, World Development Report 2004: making services work for poor
people, Wasington D.C, World Bank.
Yanggen,D, D C Cole, C Crissman, S Sherwood. 2004. Pesticide Use in Commercial
Potato Production: Reflections on Research and Intervention Efforts towards Greater
Ecosystems Health in Northern Ecuador. EcoHealth 1, 72-83.
54

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Process To Support Governance and Empowerment at The Local Level

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Process To Support Governance and Empowerment at The Local Level

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Process To Support Governance and Empowerment at The Local Level

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory monitoring and

558 129, June 2006

World Bank: TF055592

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. III

2 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING & EVALUATION AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR WB

5.4 DEVISING THE PM&E APPROACH ................................................................................ 38

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING........................................................................... 50

BOX 1. THE PURPOSES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION......................................................... 4

BOX 2. THE HISTORY OF PM&E IN A NUTSHELL ............................................................................... 6

BOX 3. CONCEPTUALISING LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ..................................... 9

BOX 4. ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .................. 11

BOX 5. MONITORING PERFORMANCE: COMMUNITY SCORE CARD ........................................... 17

BOX 6. USING SOCIAL CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN MALAWI ..................... 19

BOX 7. PARTICIPATORY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE MANAGEMENT IN CDD PROJECTS ............. 20

BOX 8. CITIZEN CONSULTING AND MONITORING GROUPS (CMGS) IN ALBANIA .................. 23

BOX 9. COMMUNITY-BASED MONITORING (CBMES) FOR ADVOCACY IN UGANDA ............. 24

BOX 11. SELF-ASSESSMENT BY AN URBAN MUNICIPALITY IN NIGER........................................ 26

BOX 12. PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING AT MUNICIPALITY LEVEL IN BRASIL.......................... 27

BOX 14. BUILDING MECHANISMS FOR STRENGTHENING DOWNWARD

BOX 15. LINKING PM&E TO CONVENTIONAL M&E .......................................................................... 35

BOX 16. THE IMPLICATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE FOR PM&E DESIGN................. 38

BOX 17. GENDER RESPONSIVE BUDGETING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL............................................ 43

BOX 18. MAINTAINING CONTINUOUS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION FLOWS.......... 44

BOX 19. PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING WITHOUT A LEGAL BACKING ........................................ 47

CBO Community-based organizations

Strengthening meaningful participation and empowerment of citizens and improving the

2 Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation and its Relevance for WB Projects

2.1 Defining PM&E and its core principles

Box 1. The purposes of monitoring and evaluation

- Empowerment – building the capacity, self reliance and confidence of beneficiaries,

- Accountability, including impact evaluation: demonstrating to donors, beneficiaries and

Source: Woodhill, 2006

This definition goes beyond involving primary stakeholders in a process of ‘conventional’

As a PM&E process involves different stakeholders, this invariably requires engaging

Opening up project management, service providers or local government staff to comments

PM&E and empowerment are too easily assumed to go hand-in-hand. An empowering

Box 2. The history of PM&E in a nutshell

Other trends that underscore the interest in PM&E are:

Finally, recognising the general limitations of an indicator-focused approach is important.

2.2 Learning and PM&E

Box 3. Conceptualising levels of organizational learning

Routine monitoring, which is functional, operational and maintenance-oriented, leads to

Learning Governing Action Strategies Consequences

1= single loop learning; 2= double loop learning; 3= triple loop learning

Source: Action for Social Advancement, 2005

2.3 Using PM&E to deal with uncertain and dynamic contexts

A PM&E process contributes to the construction of information feedback systems that

Box 4. Adaptive collaborative management of natural resources

Source: Guijt, 2006

3 Understanding Local Governance in the Context of PM&E

3.1 Implications of decentralization for local governance

Decentralization is expected to lead to an increase of power and resources at a level that is

3.2 Four qualities of local governance

3.2.1 Efficiency and effectiveness

To what extent is policymaking demand-led and responsive to citizens’ needs and

3.2.2 Exercise of power and accountability

3.2.3 Equity and inclusion

3.2.4 Quality of stakeholder interactions