Overview of GFRAS extension evaluation initiative - Dr P. Djamen
-
Upload
andrianjafy-rasoanindrainy -
Category
Science
-
view
21 -
download
1
Transcript of Overview of GFRAS extension evaluation initiative - Dr P. Djamen
1
Evaluation of RAS program initiative
Overview and recent developments
Patrice Djamen (>Rescar)
wth materials from Sanne et al, Kristin
Key points
• What is agricultural extension ? • Evaluating RAS systems and methods• The Evaluation imitative ? • Outcomes and prospects of the
Wageningen meeting
3
Defining Extension
GFRAS”All the activities that provide the information and services needed and demanded by farmers and other actors to assist them in developing their skills and practises so as to improve their livelihood and well-being”
Three Areas Technology and
information sharing Advice related to farm,
organisational and business management
Facilitation and brokerage in rural development and value chains
Technology and information
sharing
Advice / support to farm
management
Capacity development
Facilitation
Extension Paradigms
4
Evaluating RAS Systems • Evaluation = a structured process of
collecting, analysing, and making judgments on a given system or intervention (Gfras, 2012)
Importance of Evaluation Increasing interest and demand for more
efficient and performant RAS with increasing contribution to sustainable development
Accountability to donors and clientele Need for systematic evidence to support
advocacy and decision making / policy formulation
Learning to improve Extension systems/methods (internally and externally)
5
Guidance in ways to assess the value of extension with focus on the values that are meaningful to users of the services
Challenges • Viewing extension as part
of the innovation system• Attribution of impacts of
extension within complex systems
• Evaluating extension while keeping systemic issues in mind
• Evaluating extension in a volatile world, Etc.
Evaluating RAS Systems
Guide to Evaluating Rural ExtensionGfras, 2012
Key points to consider• What is the purpose ? • Who are the users of the
results? • Translation of the
complexity• What is the most
appropriate / best-fit methodology?Examples
Exp. Most Significant Change; cost-benefits analysis; Outcome Mapping; Appreciative Inquiry, RAAKS, Impact Evaluation
6
GFRAS Evaluation Initiative GFRAS Function 2: Supporting the
development and synthesis of evidence-based approaches and policies for improving the effectiveness of RAS
Actors : GFRAS; International Reference Group (IRG), regional networks RELASER, AFAAS, AESA, APIRAS; FAO, MEAS, IFPRI, Bioversity, Ministry of Agrarian Development Brazil, Unicamp (Brazil)
Governance : Country Reference Groups, GFRAS Regional Networks, International Reference Group, GFRAS Secretariat, GFRAS Steering Committee
7
Key outcomes of the Wageningen meeting 23rd – 24th April, 2015
Building Regional Capacity for Assessments & Evaluations of Extension Programmes
Build regional capacities to do evaluation and assessments at regional and country level
Aim : develop learning materials based on recent works, the GFRAS Guide to Evaluation of Rural Extension etc.
8
Topical Content of training on RAS Evaluation
Stakeholders mapping, Complexity of RAS in AIS
Planning and M&E, Documentation, Theory of change and impact
pathways Creating the demand, Accountability Knowledge management RAS evaluation methods, tools, and
techniques
> Doing evaluation, Using evaluation results, Knowing the indicators, roles in the assessment to ensure active involvement, objectives for extension evaluation, role of different AIS actors, MEL for accountability or learning etc.
Core competencies (cross-cutting)
Specific depending on Audience
9
Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting
The audience
Regional level Country level
•Thematic WG on assessment and evaluation•INGOs•Donors•Think tanks /researchers
• Senior staff of RAS providers • Individual organisations and
their M&E • RAS systems (CF, MoA etc.)• Projects & programs• Extension providers (e.g POs,
NGOs)• Consulting firms • Universities • Think tanks/researchers
10
• Identification of the core competencies for all audiences
• Typology of key stakeholders to be involved >> : Enablers, Managers, Doers, Trainers, Users of RAS
• Inventory of existing learning resources
• Inventory of existing learning resources
F2F for the introduction, Training modules with
case studies Mentoring + On the job
training Self-directed learning
materials Training of trainers Backstopping, e-
learning (after training) etc.
Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting
What kind of training mode?
A process to be linked to the GFRAS evaluation initiative, not just doing training but sharing experiences and
documenting outcomes
11
Recommendations & prospects• Increase the tools, metrics, and capitalisation of
experiences• Focus on evaluation as learning and on what is really
important and feasible• Need case studies of how RAS organisations learn• Involvement of the diversity of Users • Needs for tools and guidelines as part of capacity
strengthening• Strategy to mobilise people to do it
Definition of boundaries of and roles for GFRAS to carry out the work – what is the added value and comparative advantage?
12
Recommendations and prospects
- Phase 1 : Elaboration and validation of Outline of the synthesis of learning materials (Sanne C. Proposed as synthesiser)
- Phase 2 : - selection and editing /packaging of appropriate
existing resources according to the difference audiences
- Identify contributors to the difference competenciesTimeline
Suggestions: Report ready by end of May Outline by end of August Circulated outline and feedback by September (GFRAS
meeting) Detailed outline prepared (October) Potential contributors identified and tasks assigned
(November)
14
Guiding questions
• What do you see as important to evaluate?
• How are you currently evaluating RAS? • What kind of support do you need to do
that evaluation ? • Do you have some particular lessons
learnt/good practices to share about implementation of RAS evaluation and utilization of its outcomes ?