The Most Significant Change ProLearn Project in India Inka Píbilová Impact Evaluation Conference in Wageningen, 25 March 2012

A „tsunami relief“ project  2004 first tsunami relief in Andra Pradesh India funded by individual donors of ADRA Czech Republic  2007 needs assessment with Education Office among 20 schools  2008 – 2009 infrastructure development in 8 schools to increase and retain the number of children –Classrooms construction –Teacher training –Learning aids –Community sensitisation –Children participation

Evaluation Objectives Show evidence of the project impact on access to education, increased education quality and child-friendly learning environment, thus achieving learning outcomes and higher literacy. Show evidence of attitudinal changes of community, school staff, children and government representatives in education. Assess sustainability of the “Pro Learn” project after ADRA withdrew support. Draw lessons learnt and recommendations for improvements in future projects with respect to planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Evaluation Methodology - Factors 1.Logical matrix did not correspond to reality 2.Audit of the construction done, client interested in impacts and sustainability. 3.Donor did not have experience with evaluations and did not have a specific method in mind. 4.Lack of funding to conduct the evaluation. 5.Lack of baseline data. 6.Field mission restricted to 3 weeks

Terms of Reference – Objectives, scope, stakeholders, questions, budget, schedule, outputs, use. Desk study Interviews The Most Significant Change Community conversations Observations Preliminary findings & conclusions Final debriefing of project team and community volunteers Communication with the Project Partners Draft evaluation report Final evaluation report Inception phase 1 month Field research 1 months Reporting phase 2 months Initial briefing and inception Evaluator Selection Evaluation Methodology

How was the technique applied MSC Training of community volunteers Collection of the MSC stories by volunteers Selection of the MSC with community volunteers and project team MSC drawings by children

How we selected the „MSC story“

What were the findings

Communication of findings Field mission closed after evaluation finished - key communication had to be done at the end of the evaluation. The local community was to a big extent illiterate - community volunteers were expected to debrief the respective communities. Headquarters in India unavailable for debriefing – done by Skype, donor organisation debriefed back in Europe. Donor organisation decided to delay the communication and finally did not published the evaluation report. Though a short debriefing was held with District Education Office, despite the original plan findings were not officially communicated to school management, teachers and students. Stories had already been used in local media.

Utilization of findings Utilisation was affected by dismissal of the whole project team at the end of evaluation and lack of capacities of the heasquarters in Delhi. The government school staff did not own much the project (teachers´ absenteeism was a local issue) - principals did not attend the final debriefing and did not receive the report. Evaluation report did not reach the authorities, though the interviews revealed a good awareness on the project. Evaluation report was used only internally in ADRA CR, especially general lessons learnt.

Any questions? Inka Píbilová