Evaluation of effectiveness of integrated rural development projects in Africa

·

^/

)

AFRICAN ASSOCIATION

FOR

PUBLIC AD mISTRATION AND MIlNAGEMENT

AAPAM/11-11

Sixteenth Inter-~rioanPublic Administration and Management Seminar on

''fi'.ANAGING RURAL DEVEUlFNENT"

Banjul,the Gambia, 28 Novembe r-3 Dec ember 1911

EVli.WATION O~ EFFECTIVENESS OF JNTEGRf.TED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS m •FRICA

by

Dr J.K. QU IRmO-LANHOUNMEY

· '

...

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I - Definition I I Conditions

I I I Objectives

rv

Structures and "Structuration"

1 - Self-evaluation 2 - Pre-conditions V Procedures and Met h od s

1 Several Approaches 2 - Problems

3 - Available Informations 4 - Observations

5 - Surveys 6 Experiments 7 Needs

•

•

I - ,De f i n i t i on

.(-1C);r" (l' ."

?ne of the ~easonswhY,'Afrlcan soc~eties find it

difficul~ to achieve a clear and satisfactory deftnition of economic and social deve'Lopmerrt is due to the constant

change surrounding this concept. Herein it would be obviously

,

unwise to establish rigid definitions. The Growth and" change of African society is a 'v er y dynamic thing. Any adequate long- run definition of economic and, social development in"Africa must be a dynamic one.' This is not to. excuse the person. concerned with.research,: eval.uati on ,~r"pl anning in ~rica for being othe:t',..than abaoLu't e'Ly clear about _.t h e definitions he _,

. '.'

adopts -f' or' -hi.s .imm~ d:i,. ~tJ~ -pun poae and the ~,?~sistency in tpeir

application. Such definitions may, of course, hav~ ~ig~~.and rigid boundaries or they may be framed within some flexibility and

tolerance in their boundaries.

Various economic and ,so c i ~,tch~ar~c.t e~i,rt i 9'~'j'wi l-l ~:f_{. ......}""jien ;

':

provide more useful 'b oundari e s not only for pur'pcae s of: de,fini-

• • t . . . . _ . ' . •

tion but more importantly for ~urposes of integrated rural

"

development programme p'Lanrring ,' The most Lmpor-tarrt 'fjoiilt to • ~

makej Ln r-espect to

definitio ~.I;is th~t

Afri"can admind st ratior-s , :0J . ;,) pbannez-s and evaluators',must strive for 'clear def:tnitions of ^e,c

their t errmno Logy -and for,'a maxiriIum clarity of comnnmications ^';'!i with each other. Evalu a t i on will often in itself reveal the

~xtent to which lack of clarity ~n co~icat~on ~as dam~ed

the effectiveness of_. integr~t d.rural develop_{- -...}m~nt_{. .'}programmes in Africa. HoweYe~,.the eValuat9r who is careless about his

. . ' . !," . ..... . .

own definitiqn of terms and his'own clarity

of

communication may further

.9:~nfU~e 'th~ situ8:tiO~. Th .e~e', ':-is

^a

' p~ticul~

^"

'- ". , . .. . ' . '

responsibility upon .t h os e engaged in planning and evaluation

.. .

. '

in Africa to ensure that this does not happen.

I I - 'Con di t i on s

::. i

It is of fundamental importance to recognize that evalua-- tion must essentially be concerned wi t h pos s i bl e change ⁱⁿ

- 2 -

an existing integrated rural development programme in Africa.

One of the obvious preconditions for-evaluation to occur is a state of uncertainty about a particular integrated rural

development programme and a felt need to reduce the uncertainty. The consequences which arise. may include si_~ificant

change in the integrated rural,development_{-- • -} p~ogramme and henc_{__,_"'1.} e in its pattern of staffing. No ,ch ange ill the. programme put

. ~. ,

in cr easech't:onfi den c e in ch os e involved or complete

.

^. abandonang. . ^"' of the programme in favour of an alternative. Thus it is easy to see why genuine evaluation-has all too rarely been undertaken•

•~,..'-r .'

Professor Alan Klein has commented : "Many workers find all kinds of _re~~ons and rationalizations for avoiding a thorough, honest ex~nation-and tabulation of their scores of effective- ness?

~d

failures".11

J'.: .

.

^'

'. ^{' .}

III Objtctives

1. To examine the goals of an integrated rural-development pr ogr amme within the context of the Programme envi~onment

2. To mea sur e the extent to which the integrate~'rural

:. ','. ,"..-. -cr

development programme is successful in achieving these goals .

'~. ' . _.~',t.

3. To measure upon the-integrated by its results•._

the extent to which expenditures of resource s

. - .~:':J'

rural development pr ogramme is justified __

:. ~.):;

-- '

4. To test possible alternative met h od s of achieving ..

the integrated rural development pr ogramme's goals.

5. ~o_ develop a system of providing a cont tnuang:check"

upon the effectiveness of an integrated rural development

programme in order to facilitate its review and _~hange as part

. •• "I

of the continuing process' ''of 'pr ogramme 'op er-at i.one ,

• ..?'., , :.•' •

Klein Alan, R!3a chi ng Te enagC'f's Through --.;ff e ct i v e Program- ming New York City Youth Board •••• 1956

" ;:~..

"_.

-,

StructUres and "Structurations"

..

TV- 1.

.~ _.

Self-evaluation _...

.

^,

^-

\'.

',U' -·,Organi zat i on s , whatever",.j;heir character and purposes of the people, con c c~ncd, and peopla,working wi thin an organization can be identified with the goals of the organization, with it~

clientele or with specific aspects of its pr ogramme .

At the same time, people concern ed with evaluat ion hav e

'" . ~

their own personal 'interest ·l'in th eir evaluational activitfes.

The

evaluator doubtless mus t ~ave ^{some commitment ,t o object'i vi t y ,} to a critical and searching analysis of pr ogramme , and very likely a commitment to a particular kirid of th eo r tical or con cept ual

background.

_- • .

_.

Wi l dans ky had commented: "The ideal organization wou l d be

, . ^.- .. ".

.

self-evaluating. , It would cont inuously monitor its own activ-

o " •

ities so as to determine_. whether it was mee t ing its goal s or

' . ' -. "

even whether these goals should continue to pr eva i l. \Ih en analysis suggested' that a change in goa l s or'programmes to . achaeverthem was .desirable, thes e propo s als woul d 'be taken seriously by top decision-makers. They would institute the necessary changes, th ey would have'no ves te d interest in

continuing the current activities~ In st ead they would steadily pursue new alternatives to better' ser ve th e latest desired

out co mes.

,,

The ideal memb er of the self~~valuating organization is

. I . •

best conceived as a per s on committed to certain models of problem solving. He bel i eve s in clari f y i n g goal~ rel at ing. them to different_{. I} .me_," ch ani s ms of_{• .I . . . .}achievemen~_• creating models

(sometimes quantitativ~) of the rei ati on sh i ps betw e en inputs and out pu tsB;?'1eeking th e bes t avail abl e_{. : ' .}

c ombin~t :i.'on.

_. ^{Hi s 'conc ern}

is not that the orga.nizatioI,l.:s~O~ld su rvive or th a t any spe ci fi c objective be en t hroned or that any particular cl ientel s be

served"

Y .

Th e central commi tment of evaluat ive man '

.. .

.

.

k7

^WILDAN SKY !AnON : Evaluation as an Organizational Pr oblem Centre for ' Environmental Studie s - London - Universi ty - "'or king paper 13 - 19 72 .

· ^.

- 4 -

is to solving pr obl ems in th e right way. .~'l.:valuation should not only lead to th e discovery of better policy pr ogr amme s to accomplish the existing obj ectives, but to alteration of th e objectives themselves ••••• The objectives as wel l as the means for attairiing ·them may be deemed inappropriate. The result of having evaluative studies that are carried on duri ng the life cycle of a programme i s that I·ev al u at or s and programme par-aonne.L must l ev el uneasily as we shall se e si de by side. The result of pe r i odi c evaluation of the established pr ogramme is that whil e one group pf men is m~ing statements about the wor t h of the act i v- i t ies, t he other group i s devoting its l i f e t o the programme. The first element of evaluation therefore whi ch often pr oc ee d s si multaneous-

ly with programme operations, must be a search for obj~ctives

aga i n st which to evaluate the pr ogr amme. Programme personne l cannot be expected to kindly take the remarks that they do not know what they are doing (and if they did know they would

presumably be able to specify pr e ci s el y their current object ive s ) .

It is easy to see that pe ople are na t ur al l y unwilling t o ac c ept ~ evaluation whi ch demons^t r-atee or...suggests failure on their part. ^An evaluation wh i ch is not..adequately realit i cal l y- based may wel l be worse th an no evaluation at all, because it can be used as a tool to perpetuat ~ ineff ective integrated rural development pr ogramrre s or to destroy t h e sound ones. One solution t o this prob lem i s t o place evaluation in the hands of persons or of an organization whi ch is compl et ely ext erna l to the integrated rural development pr ogramme bein g eva l u a ted .

Adv ant a ge s:

1. A specialized organi zat i on or an individual expert can bring, to bear upon th e pr obl em of eValuat i on , resource s and knowledge whi ch are not available to the agency

whose integrated rural development pr ogramme is being evaluated.

An external evaluator can introduce a l ev el of ob j ect ivity unlikely to be pos s e s s ed by per s onnel en gaged in the

in t egrat ed rural devel opment pr ogramme being evaluated.

.. ..

3.

- ,5 -.,

Th e extern al evaluator will be 'much.'more able t.o

"br i ng, t o bear .u p on his .ev a'Lua't Lonya comparat i ve

.exper-f'en ce"of simi l ar integrated rural deve l opment '.' pr ogramme s in ot h er or ganizati on s or' oth er ,co~tries.

Disadvantages:

.^' 1.

2.

Those.working wi thin th e int egrat ed rural dev elopment pr-ogr-amme

~d " ~loselY

^{involved with it wil l}

f i~d

^{i t}

easy to resist changes in the i r pr ogramme - they will be able to claim, often accurat el y , that the ext ernal evaluator did not full y under s t and all fa ctors' involved.

Ev en though this is somet i me s a rat ionali zat i on ; i t is nevertheless an ef fe ct i ve one •

The reality is that the exte rna l evaluator'wi l l "r ar el y be able to fully gr a sp all factors involved in the integrated rural development programme and may very easily overlook important el.emerrts ,' ^{i ..·.} 3. The external evaluator wi,ll p'o_s~~.E!s ,hi s own per s on a l ..

commitments t o various viewp oi nt s le adin g hi m to mak e

. .

certain basic assumptions and judgemeiit s"u'pon'wh i ch he then bases hi s 'ev aluat i on . This wi l l rare l y be made adequately exp l ici t and th e eval uat i on wi l l therefo r e of ten be consld ered in isolation from its ba sic

assumption.

On the other hand , an organizat i on may endeav our to structure itself so as to prov ide for continuing int ern a l evaluat i on without referen c e t o external assistance .

2. Precon diti ons

a - Those respon si bl e for the policy and administ r at i on

of integrated rural deve l opment pr-ogz-amr.e s mus t be fully convinced of the needs for ev a l u a t i on , must agree on th e purp ose 'of eValu a-

. ' . 1'~ . . " ;...

t~on, must agree upon the us e s and possible con sequenc es of evalua- tion, and ,t h ey must be fully involved in maJeini~'th'e" 'de ci si on that evaluation will be a part of th eir int egrat ed rural develo pment programme.

- 6 - -

.

^'

..

b - Organizational arrangements mus~ be .made to ensure, objectivity together w~th appropriate resources and knowledge, this will normally mean the involvement of external persons in the 'ev al u at i on 'pr oc es s.

c - Vfuere external personnel are involved in the ~v~lu~tion ,

de sign , dat a col lec tion and dat a analysis should be shared'oetwe en external 'and',internal per-aonr.e L so th~t any artific i al distinc tion bet ween evaiuator and ~valuated is dimini shed •

.

,.

d..- In evaluating any service pr-ogramme, the rec'i pi ent s of the service should

'b~

involved in

th ~' eValuativ~

^{prd.cess as}

far as possible.

c

the

e - Those who are involved in an evaluation·pr oc e s s should

sh~e, wi,th:each other ');heir basic aesumpti on e and values under- ly i ng their .thinking so,that the influence of ~hese upon percep-

'._ . • • '. I

tions pf data and upon action recommendations, arising out of

~ . ' . ,.

data will be known.

.' ' . . ^"

v

^{',d': , '..} Procedures 'and Uethods

1. Several Approaches:

The evaluator must have a broad knowledge of the various approaches and tools available to

.

^{. ,} hi m and be able to make an intelligent selection from his respective_{. , I} methods to meet the_, needs of ^any specific situation. He must undertake a .cr os s- sel ecti ona l examination of the integrated rural development programme..,.

2. Problems

must arrive at a sat~sfactory

exactly wha t he has pr opos ed to

research.

The evaluator definition of investigate. '

b. H~ ?eeds to hav e a fUl~y for~lated hypothesis which can lead to their proceeding to test by.

a.

..

.

"

.

^'

.

^.'

- 7 - Surveys: .,\

" .

It may often_. b~" necessary to make a s~vey which involves

\ ~".~ ..,

ask"ng _{questio~~:~d/9r} having _{print ed},q~e st i onnaire s completed

by indlYid~ql ~,part i cipat ing ,or who h~ve pa r t i cipa t ed in tne

.' -." ^, .. . . .'

integrated rural development pr ogr amme o

-,': -

The basic questions are:

Wh a t information is to be sought ~

~~ '.'

.

^'

By whom should it be sought ~

In what way 'sh ou l d the information,be obtained 6

-' 'Fr om whom can the information' bes-t'he obtained 6'

r.:

60 Experiments:

"'''t: ,. . .

There are well respected tradi~i on s .Ln scientific. :,exper i ment

0. ' ••• • •

which should be given attention just as much in mat t er s of

. . •~ r • • ; .~:: . . ~ ' .

organization as they are in the physical scientists' laboratory.

Vie attempt her e to summarize them:

Crit eria of J':;x per i :rpen t :'

ao Any experiment of integrated rUral development should have a conceprual. rat'Io which relates it to an existing"or

proposed new theoretical background of,integrated rural develop- ment. Good practice of integrated rural development is de,penden t on good theory of integrated rural development and the two should be integrally relate~o

b , It should be possible to set down.clearly the hypothesis which the experiment of integrated rural deve l opmen t is designed to test.

Co The experimenter should make a thorough study of all previous research an.d t heory r elating to his pr op o ~ e d experiment of integrated rural development and should establish that what he is doing is a genuine experiment of inte grated rurai' develop- men t in terms of testing a comp'Le'te new hypothesis or replicating in a new situation an experiment of integrated rural development already tested out in another contexto

«,

- 8 -

d.. From this study of previous r search and theory

of integrated rural development, the experimente~nwust' develop an awareness of constraints which usually arise, /must. introduce them into bis iexp er-i.morrt of integrat:ed rural d eve.l.opmerrt in order to avoid.±he danger of distortion of.experimental results • .

e'. Similarly the experimenter must ensure that~the methods used an appropriation to the hypothesis 'of. int.egrated':rui'al!develop- ment being tested. ^{"t.... ._. . ".}

f. The results of the experiment of integrated rural- development must be recorded in such.a ~ay that ,t h e success or

•I 1 .'J _. •• • , --

failure of the experiment can be measured. It is essential that the record also includes precise details for the methods used.

g • The appropriat controls must be buil1;'.:ini o the • experimental design of integrated rUral development' so that the experimenter can isolate.tih e effects of the!" experiment fr.om events Which occur as

a

result of other influences. On examining a number of recent reports on experimental integrated rural development projects we find that ~y o~ these are simply deceptive and impress~onistic. Very few of

them

^have' endeavoured to provide som~ insights into the .ba:s i s fron; which th~"de scr-Lp't i.on was written by asking each of those .c onc ern~d in the experiment.

I .' •: I • .~, • •

7. Needs • • I ,'

.J : A particular standard for provision of services might be laid down by experts and then one can mea s ur e ·t he -ext errt to ^{v. ,} .••~~ich__ . . . . . • any particular community or region measures up to thiseO, to

standard.

."

The next statment which might be made is concerned wi th what rural people.say they want. _,': There is also the evidence which'might be gained.from.:

human behaviour• . '" ~.;.. ^a-I ~~'f ~ . .t :

Finally, one can inak e comparative '':~\~~ment s ·';a.bOU1;

rural needs. ^.i,

'. ,

, '

.

^"

~....., .-^_.,.

\ l ..

J.

I

9

'" ...

-

^{.. .)}

here are· many _~,9.:n?,~P~.~ .

O:f

,p.~.~i~e;. i~c,l~9-~!.Y$...~h e necessity f evaluationo We will just mention some of them:

._,. . . ...,.. . .,..... ,-- . ....

" ,

r ,•

.; -t.

.,c

.. ',I

,0,.

~ _.-:~-.- '7:" :•..- " .

..' . ,1. • ' .,

:~

... .......-._....,

. r ,'

The Straight-line ,.ode l ^{--10- "} .

Expl or ati on for'

an"

integrated rural development policy

, ,

Definition of the integrated rural development

plannihg task

-: ^{_~ ,:. ~:}

.^:~,

,

^..

^,

\

I.., '". ^,"

1'- ~.

evelopmen formulation

,

,

,

\ I

Int egr at ed rural develo pment progranuning

ee s arlses in the rural areas

\

..

\1

Decision to set up an integrated rural development programme

I 1

,.'

Definltl0n ^of go a~ s and obJe ct l v es of integrat~d rural development

\ ,'

\ ,

>

ssessment and mobi l izat i on

of ressources for integrated rural development Ls t a bl i shment and operatlon

of integrated rur al development progranune

..'

. ^'.

.~,

~

,1

"

I'

"

t,'

Opportunity cost and soci a l cost · of the int egr a t ed ...

I' I,•

II

"

J

.... .

'.' \

..

!'.^' ., I.

....

-J.l-

,_...

..

I

• I

: , .... . ,,1 • •:,'- ••--I'

.t.. : I .J w

.:.J ._

.. ^:j?f~irig inst'fgat-ors- - ..- _ -.--.- -- -.-^-~.-.-. _ ..

:. .•.:': ••-~ . " . ~: .. . ' " ", .-..;. : • I •

pr-obLems - ne eds - concerns' - 4- _ in the rural area s

Values and preferenc e scre en Inv e s ti ga t i on on what is and

w~~t ~~ll be in t~e i~tegrated

'. ~al development : olic

..'..

I---~--r

Value, fact ual , resources , interest

gr~~p and p~litt?~~ ~cre ens

'\

' \

\ \

\ \

_.# "$I::"

" ---""':"':'"l'T'T'"--t

. \

:..--

- - _ .-4

...

^-_._--~--..,..,...,....---,---

- .-- .. -- ...._ -.--~.....--...-~=,...-.-:-~=,.,...",=~""...==_=L

The ·Feedback.D....Mode 1

\

- ; - "l

f

I

t

I

---,1 I

' : .. ' . :.. I I

"..' :-O:.J:

II

Choi ce of typee, and 1 evels I---=--:----o~f~-.;-h-e--t

:I

: intervent i on

o t

.th~ iJ:?tegrated ',

' i

: ~ral development programme ~I

~-~-~-r >' . II

( : . ' , . . 'I

p' r < . _\.~ . '. ,.,. '

II

, '0 t.' ) rural dev e l opmen t ^I

\ . " .. : programme ^l11

~'"'~ \. y l.... ~

"-

I - -:-- -.-~

-:-.-:7

I ~

I

t

I

t

L -

fl

l'

I

llDef i n i tion of the integrated rural ⁰

I ,

development system and its functions

..

^'

i

Other integrated rural dev el opment

J,

policy ch oi c es

\ '

,

... \

I .. ' - -

"

.

_\ ^\

J'!b\ I ,

·

• I^{I ,'}

·,

· .

•• .- ;:-

,:

I )10'\ ;

( KHAN'S MODEL )

- 12-

!.

~.

I

( ...,

~-_..- ....^..-",..

- -

...

, .

-!

-

.'

- . I

~ Integrat ed ru~a~ ~evelqp.- ~ Ccrrbi.nud.ng ment pr ogramm e establish- . evaluation of men t and"cont i nuing ' '.. ..,.- the in tegrated

op erati on , rural de v e l op-

... . . .. _. - I ment programme

-

.^..

.

. ^,."

-:-._~ 1-

~-

. .

^~

.

^{l' ~-'}

-- - - .- ^{[00 .- - -_._. . .- .}

1-°- -_.. -- ._- -._-- '.. -' .. -_ . ^{-~ -_}.... .: ...-.__ ..:

: "/ ' -

De~initio~ ;

^of

g;~lS

^{an'd ' ;}

• I objectives of. the.integr- ~

/ _ , ~ ~~;~ctr.ai ~ !·~dev~ ~ o~~e~~·~~~ I

/ /- L _ - conS i~ : ra~~:~~-:~;: -~ ; ~;"~- -: ^I

. / / - ative str a t egl e s lli~

. .

4;-

- I

/ / : _.~ inte grat ed rura l develo'p- .,:

~ .---: _ . ment pr-o'grammifig ^!,

, - - '-' -- - ' , - 1 : ;" - - ^{. -1 I "}

.-.: .. - . , I ,

:.__...~ __._" .Sel e.c t i on of..optimum . . . :

..-. . ".-::;:" =: ' . -.-:~ ^...str.ate;gyc.for..;t~e^..integr~~-~^.,',

.:. !

i'" ....;:.',:"::f:'"~7.-:-.:"

, • .• ' . .l. ed rural ·d ev el opmen t .. . .. .. "" "I ^{,I.. - -. I}

.' \ . . :;;.:'."''::'.'" 'pr ogramme . , '. :: ':/ :".1"':':" t; ^I

.. .... : ^{. \. ~} ' .. . _ _ . : ^{~'.: [} . .. ,...: . . ',' ' - I ... · . ^{: '. ~} : :. . ^~' . .... ^~: . . ^{: ~... .. .} . ." . ^{:··!I ·:} t·~~:··~·.·" ,:" .: . .

•_ _ • I f '

.... . - 0° ' ''0;

-_. _.. .._00 .... __ ._ ., .. . "

Resources location and . .. ._ ... _ .._.. _. ' .

\

.,;Jdevelopment for the ( .

- . - . - ' . ! .

. implementation of the ^{I, •}

\

. ..1;''.. ~~ . inttegrat ed rural dev elop-.;__. - .... . - :".: - {"'

,, :- ,;':, , - \ _c

m:n programm: _ ,_ ,__ __ . ^I

I I I

,., ... .. ,..' ... ,

Need arises \·St u dy and definition in the rural\-I_---,..--· "-.,....~~),·6f" need inft h e 'rurar·"

areas areas

iL..._.

I

Gen er al Research input

. I

. ,

^,

- f·

^.

. ..

^{~:I. · .}

. r . . •",

. .

. ,-. . .. .

. ..

i_ . ^{•... ••_ _ • •• o. •_ _ •}

~.^{:.• •• . .,.r\} ~i3-

. .... f,'·. :

!-- . !-

^{J~--:;.:7"::::)7}

< >:

-~i-~-·~._~~:.:-:-"~~2- ~")_~'... -,

~ ..-, ;-- .' Ij . ·· . ';'

i .:.

^{j. ,,' •\.}

!---_._-_.-_ ...- -- --'-'- - - ...

'-,I

I

...

-

...•I

The Evaluation system of the feedback approach to integrated

..-~~~.l:-"de~~16pni~~~" pl~irtg~':i~-" :dtif:eretrti;~f' we'-;a~opt -t'h e-·p r a c t ical .^-'-1

! " ',: -.. ",: . :' . - ._^{0.. '. .' , •}

;...mod~l...pro.posed by .1JIil t on .Keynee.i..-!.

. t.

0, ,

.,'.;

:~ "I ;, I

-,~ .:

:~

•

, - - .-..-r

. _ .

^:.:...-.-_.. ^; . _{I.' •}

~^:

:.:, ^"

j : .1

,,'---'-- --·i..··_.... -'"

.

---'

:( .J

,:~?C) _

r,

. .•^-"~^, .1.

l- ....._~_ _ .:._._.__ . 4'

: :

~ . ..:.,r~".

1-· ----· ..····..-1'.

.,

~. I

:"~ it:..i' ,

.__.__.•...l

_ . _ . _ -_ . _ -

^...

..:'•.::.c= n:~. .

.. ; .~'_','~.::::'f-

.... - ._.- :.-_ ..!--

, ;

i :"_ .^{I "} (~. t

'.- '" -"'- '- ' -_./

:I,

"

'.

. r-·· ··-.~·..·

, ^{••.••..f}

.

;.~._-_._ - .-- _'.-

..

.... __._.

'J.: ...'-~ . ~(,J. ;:r .-~~^.• ~ J:J-: l:,,:~ ~,: '. ' ."'1:1~'::'_' ^': '~);..t .:.··~::'i;..rrf i. ~·

..

~

.. .1 ~ \

··.·; 3···· "'1·1 \" ' .:,':. L:? r:~..'2..{8 "

......., _".. ^{." "} _-

- -

^..--:

-14-

.

^,

.

. ...rr .:; l..l.

. '.~..

rural development

-, t

Plan 1

I

I _

~

__

I

-41

Recoz-dr..-1.. ^{0. :}output standards

criteria-performance ^I 2 - Constraints -(,

inputs - costs - time II

11

Irrt egrat^ed rural, degelop.mentr

q~~ified objectives' _

, '

.

- -::fl .

Int egrat ed

I!

goals

. I i

• • •: 0"

,- ^{- -}

.'...

-: . - . . -.

Cost Benefit studies

Integrated rural development Evaluation methods

Integrated'rural development programme feasibility study

I

Cost effectiveness [

Ev a l ua t i on Integrated rural development

programmes users studies

] Consumer panels

1

Opinion polls

I

\ I

'il

Mon i t or actual outputs and inputs of each integrated rural develop- ment plan in use

Modification of the integrated rural development plans or major stages of process

...

-15-

.

1-···

(please see next page)

- - I

'I

-.

. ..

···---··1

.. .^-_.

,

I . _ ._. __ •

•• _ 1 • ' ." ..

, ,.',

. L ,1. :...,:."

... ..._ .. ..1

..•. '- ~.-- -::'-- rzr:

T

• ,. 1

!

. .' - . II

_ _•_ _1.

.._--- -_, ._- _~;~.:-

-:.c ;- . - - ..- . . . _ \

-,

.

^{., . . . .;. ' \ . .'0 •}

'.~( .~ .. ' .

: r·

._ ."I

-16-

.

'.

.:

the

.^"

.

t

\

\

\

\ / \

',,1'

I I

I I

, I

; I , I

I,

I~I

I'

- - _.,

and

/

/ / / /

- . 1

Preci se definition of tlie'- obj ectives of integrated. rural . development-poli cy

t· II

I I I

,I ; /

'

I

I

I;^{'I I}1

# '

-<:'lj~.

· 1,

III 'II

:11

,

:, Rural data

f "/- - - ~ collection

I analysis

~ I I

I E',-: -- -i

,

The integrated rural development plan formulation

(

.

"

he integrated rural development programmes evaluation

,

-

I

" .

I

-

I

The integrated rural development

pl~ implementation

..

^-.

Statement of

goals and philosophy of igtegrated.rural devei6pment policy

I

' - -

I

I

I I

I

' j.

-r-~--:-~---':;;~--'::-----o.),..

I

/

I

I

. _.. ^. ...

-17-

. .

r~:;~-; ~--:-:~.-;.':.: ; {~

'-,

• -:~^{, - _. . - __•••} ~ ^{._ ._ _ 0 _ _} I

.ft er ten years o~.var ous experiences in mos t of the African countries, it _{seem~, tr.~ ~~ ye~.-ev~~-on·isy·st~m} could be the folloVfing: : -.--- - .. ... .'--'- ..- .._- -.- ._- '. .

--'- - '._j

(please se e next page)

.

!

i · . /:

1--_ ..._--...- _.

- -. -;:-:;

1- ' - --.--- - - ..-- _..•

I I

~ :..

--^{.- -'}

.

^{. ! : .- --I - -----__.._---}

.. :" [.;...::- '.J.

,- --- -^..

_ ----

^.-..

-- -

^{!" . :}

J.

.1--- _._ _. ... - .... _ -- -. .,

---_..- ^" -- - - --- - --

I.. ....~

i

!.... ,

• ...1

I I-·-::-;:-.:-rc;-.:-;;.'" 1 so_-j.~:

I ..~-..~__....~ ~.:'-:_,__ -:_-:-:;._

I

_:

:

!._- - ----

·--:-;---- 1

:.' C I

j

..., I . . ' : . _ t

.. ... ~

...- _.._._!

1- ---: -....-

j ..

1_ _.•• • • •• ,,, .••• __ ._ ..._••_ _••

•0

•• _,

.

^..,

^..

-19- References:

- Carter, Novia and Vfuarf ₁ Brian - Ev al u a t i ng Social Development Programmes. Canadian Council on Social Development ~ 1973

Hayes Samuel S~ - Eva l u a t i n g Development Pr o j e ct s - UNESCO - Paris - 1966

- Tripoli, Tony - Fellin₁ Phillip and Eyestein Irwin - Social Programmes Eva l u a t i on : Guideline~ for Health, Education and \:"ie l f a r e Administrators^{0 -} F.E. Peacock Publishers, ITASCA, Illinois - 1971

Wil dans ky - Aaron, - Eva l u a t i on as an Organizational 'Probl em Centre for En v i r onmen t a l St u d i e s - London -

University Wor k i n g Paper 13, 1972.

McCall1 George J. and Simonds J .L. - Issues in Participa- tion Observation - Addison - We s l ey Publ i sh i n g Company - 1969

Smith - Joan Mafarlane - Interviewing in Mark et and Soc i a l Res e ar ch - Routledge and Kegan Pau l - London - 1972

I\'Ios er G.A. and Kalton 6 - Su r v ey LIet h od s in Social

Investigation Heinemann Edu c at i on a l Books - London₁ 1971 - Parten₁ Mi l dr ed B - Surveys Polls and Samples - Harpers

and Row₁ New York - 1950

- Klein₁ Al an - Reaching Teenagers through ~ff e c t iv e

Programming, New York City Youth Board - 1956

MYrda11 Gunnar - Objectivity in Soc i a l Research - London - Buckworth - 1970

Khan, "Al f r ed J . - Theory of Practice of Social Planning - Russel Sage Foundation - New York - 1969

- Planning for Hi l t on KeYnnes - Mi l t on Keynes s De v el op- ment Corporation Vav en d on - 1970

- Bra d sh aw J. - The concept of Soc i a l Nee d s - New Society,

19 (496) 30th l'ilar ch 1972

- Hamilton-Smith E. - Issues in th e Idea su r emen t of Community Ne e d s. Australian Journal of Socia l Issu e - 1974

- Scholfield LI. - Social Res ear ch - LIei n ema m Edu ca t i on al Books - London - 1929