r - part - usaid

3-0. THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEH (MES)
The originnl Project Paper (1979) called for the collection
and analysis of socfolugical and ecanozifc data needed far site
selection and impact evaluations. The Inception Repo2t (1981)
expanded t3is concept and identified specific topics to be
investigated. These included the development of monitoring and
evaluation procedures and the caflection of ds5a an water
utilization patterns and traditional water management practices.
Preliminary field studies were carried out by LBII staff and the
results reported in Roark (19821, the Exploratory Report (LBII
1983) and Schwarz (19831,
Schwarz (1983) outlined a program for monitoring and
evaluation linked to construction and community participation
activities. It included baseline socioecanornic and water point
surveys and the identification of t~pics and key questions for
later stages. Because no WDA staff was available to conduct
these surveys, four members of the BMDP monitoring unit were
trainel by the LBII anthropologist, Immediately following their
trainirq, however, the BRADP personnel began work wich the
Wyomicg University Socioeconomic Study team. In spite of an
informal agreement between LBIX and the Wyoming team to have
BRAUP staff canducc co~nunity meetings and baseline surveys, the
expected cooperation never materialized. The BRADP staff worked
full time with the Wyoming project and repeated attempts by LBII
and ZSAfD to obtain access ta baseline data collected by the
Wyo~fng Socioeconamic Team have been unsuccessful. In 1984
Roark, Sartana and Farrah (1984) scheduled a series of
monitoring field trips but this too was not implemented due to
the lack of available staff.
The major problems with the preliminary studies and MES
programs comgleted by the consultants (Roark 1982, LBIX 1983 and
Schwarz 1983) were identified by the investigators themselves
and repeated in the USAID Evaluation (1984). They were:
(I) The volume of information collectnd was not sufficient;
(2) The validity and reliability qf tie data was not up to
scientific standards 5ecaure it =xas based primarily on
co~munity self-assessments; and
(3) The time and manpower needed to develop and implement a
program to monitor effects and evaluate impacts was not
sufficient to do an adequate job.
The CGDP Prcject Paper Supplement (1984) and -the 1955-86
Extension Work Plan (LBIJ 1984) addressed these issues in the
proposed sociological evaluation program to be assigned to the
~ 3 " Planni3g Unit. It called for the design and implementation