QUALITATIVE INFORMATION APPRAISAL
Using People’s Perceptions in Large Development Projects
A. J. James
Environmental & Natural Resource Economist (ajjames@vsnl.net)
Leonie Postma
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (postma@irc.nl)
Corine Otte
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (otte@irc.nl)
Abstract
Development projects are realising increasingly that people’s participation and empowerment as well as
people’s perceptions of project outputs and processes like sensitivity to gender and poverty issues, transparency,
accountability, and effectiveness of capacity building are vital to project sustainability and effective adaptive
management. While PRA techniques involve and empower people while capturing their perceptions of project
impacts, aggregating and using such information effectively in large-scale development projects poses a real
problem. Translating qualitative information generated through participatory activities into numbers is one way
that project management and project communities can get an overview of comparative project performance over
time and space. Besides this, participatory approaches can enable the community to undertake their own
appraisal, and monitoring and action `planning, giving them more control over their lives. The Qualitative
Information Appraisal (QIA) is a methodology developed to capture qualitative information rapidly and
cheaply, and to target effective corrective and progressive action at both community and project level. The QIA
consists of a Quantified Participatory Assessment (QPA) that translates community level information generated
using standard PRA tools into numbers, Stakeholder Meetings (SHM) with communities, field level staff and
senior project management to discuss the reasons behind the QPA findings, and an Action Planning Report
(APR) with suggestions to overcome problems identified. It can be tailored to address different issues and can
be used for one-off assessments (project design studies or for mid-term or end-term evaluation studies) or for
continuous monitoring and adaptive management. While several QPA evaluations have been carried out in
India, the full QIA has been used in one instance and more applications are being piloted.
1.
INTRODUCTION
It is generally accepted today that giving stakeholders greater ownership and control over projectdecisions and activities enhances the sustainability of project outcomes and assets. However, in most
projects, ad hoc and inadequate information flows between field functionaries and decision-makers at
the project management level and community level lead to late and ineffective corrective action. One
way to redress this situation is for project managers to systematically elicit stakeholder perceptions
effectively to use these in project planning and management, especially in projects committed to
participatory processes for implementation.
While participatory community-level assessments using PRA tools can generate a fairly true picture
of ground reality, these can be expensive and time consuming, but more importantly, project
managers do not often have the time to read detailed PRA reports. One method of aggregating
information collected using PRA methods is to translate such qualitative information into numbers
and use these in spreadsheets, graphs and computer databases, to depict field reality,.
1
Several methods have been developed in the recent past to address this issue of generating numbers
from participatory activities.1 The Methodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA) 2 was developed
in the late 1990s to assess the sustainability of 88 water supply and sanitation projects in 15 countries
and used participatory tools to bring out information and then translated this into numbers using a
scoring system.3 The MPA continues to be used as a ‘comparative evaluation tool in large domestic
water projects and programs’.4
The Quantified Participatory Assessment (QPA) was developed from the MPA and used in India in a
variety of development projects since 1999 (James, 2003a).5 Apart from the expansion from the water
and sanitation sector to other sectors, notably watershed development, poverty alleviation, rural
livelihoods and water resources, the QPA added several other features to the MPA, including peer
review of scores, documentation of reasons for scores, use of an MS ACCESS database to store and
analyse information, several rounds of stakeholder meetings and a detailed action planning report.
The QPA was also the basis of the modification of the MPA in Nepal to the NEWAH Participatory
Assessment (NPA) by the Gender and Poverty (GAP) Unit of the national NGO, Nepal Water and
Health (NEWAH), in Kathmandu, Nepal.6 The NPA adapted the MPA to suit the geographical, socioeconomic and ethnic reality of Nepal, modified the scoring systems to include benchmarks in a
flexible 0 – 100 scale, developed additional tools to elicit information on health, hygiene and
sanitation issues, and collected additional qualitative information using case studies (James et al.,
2003a, 2003b, 2003c).
Qualitative Information Appraisal (QIA) is a generic methodology, developed from the experiences
with the MPA, QPA and NPA, which goes beyond the constraints of the term ‘Assessment’. The QIA
is designed for use in both one-time assessments for baseline, mid-term and overall project impact
assessments, as well as for continuous monitoring as part of a project’s regular monitoring and
evaluation system.
2.
2.1
QUALITATIVE INFORMATION APPRAISAL: AN OVERVIEW
Qualitative Information
Qualitative information generally refers to people’s perceptions of processes and outcomes and can
range from their impressions of the effectiveness of capacity building, the extent to which they have
been able to participate in project activities, and project benefits and costs, to their perceptions of
project impacts such as changes in irrigated area, income from agriculture and reduction in soil
erosion. While some of this information can also be captured using standard technical and socioeconomic surveys, some purely qualitative issues such as the sensitivity of the project to gender
issues, the concerns of the poor, transparency of operations, and facilitation by project staff are better
captured using PRA methods, focus group and key informant discussions. The use of PRA methods
1
See, for instance, Chambers (2003).
The MPA was developed by Christine van Wijk (van Wijk, 2003) for a Participatory Learning and Action
(PLA) project that was a multi-disciplinary and multi-country assessment exercise looking at the factors
underlying the sustainability of water supply and sanitation projects (Dayal et al., 1999, Gross et al., 2001).
3
The scoring system is detailed in James (2000 and 2001) and in Dayal et al. (1999).
4
Wijk, 2001, p. 2. The revised MPA is described in Mukherjee and van Wijk (2003) while experiences with
using the MPA are in van Wijk and Postma (2003), Postma at al., (2003), van Wijk et al., (2002), Paudyal et al.
(2002).
5
This work was done by AJ James who did the statistical analysis of the MPA data for the initial PLA study
coordinated by Rekha Dayal of the Water and Sanitation Program. See also, James (2002, 2003b, 2003c,
2003d), James and Kaushik (2002), James et al., (2002), James and Snehalata (2002a and 2002b).
6
For an account of the pilot MPA and the problems experienced in the field see Paudyal et al. (2002). See James
et al., (2003a and 2003b) for a description of the creation of the NPA, and James et al., (2003c) for the details of
one applications in Nepal.
2
2
can be empowering and a valuable learning experience for both the community and the field staff. In
contrast to conventional survey methods, PRA methods can provide a platform for debate and
questioning within village communities on project related issues, and can trigger change within
communities. Capturing qualitative information generated using such empowering methods is vital to
the health of all development projects. The question really is how this is to do this effectively, from
the point of view of both the project management and the communities.
2.2
An Overview of the Qualitative Information Appraisal
The Qualitative Information Appraisal (QIA) is a self-contained three-step methodology to capture
people’s perceptions of processes and outcomes, using participatory methods, and to translate this
qualitative information into numbers using different methods, especially ordinal scoring.
Instead of presenting aggregated scores, as done by the MPA, the QIA presents scores on each
indicator in terms of frequency diagrams and other graphs collating raw scores based on frequency
diagrams for several indicators (see James 2003 for more details). Such an aggregate overview of
project performance and process, based on scores and the reasons for these scores, is facilitated by the
use of a customised computer database created using MS ACCESS.7
Identifying effective corrective and progressive actions, however, also requires collecting information
on issues underlying project performance and discussing ways to overcome field-level constraints to
implementation. Stakeholder meetings (SHM) and an action planning report (APR) are designed not
only to identify such corrective actions, but to do so in time to plan course correction within project
management cycles.
The QIA has three components:

Quantified Participatory Assessment (QPA), which uses participatory methods to generate
people’s perceptions and techniques such as indexes of change, cardinal measurement and ordinal
scoring methods to convert this qualitative information into scores and reasons for scores.

Stakeholder meetings (SHM), which use the findings from the QPA to probe, along with key
stakeholder groups, into the factors underlying the performance reflected in the scores, and to
suggest corrective and progressive action for both, project management and project communities.

Action planning report (APR) that presents the findings of the QPA and the suggestions from
stakeholder meetings in a manner most suitable for action planning by project management and
project communities.
Each of these is detailed further below.
3.
Quantified Participatory Assessment
The QPA is a flexible participatory methodology that assesses people’s perceptions rapidly on a range
of qualitative issues using standard PRA tools (such as transect walks, social mapping, wealth
ranking, pocket voting and focus group discussions) and then converts this information into numbers,
using a variety of standardised scoring methods in order to generate comparable results across a large
sample of stakeholders. The QPA uses participatory methods not merely to include perceptions of
primary and other stakeholders in the project, but also to facilitate discussion and probing into related
aspects so as to get an accurate picture of ground reality. Also, such methods give the community a
platform to put forward their views and suggestions, and to seek clarification on project processes and
7
Storing the data on a customised computerised database for continuous monitoring is part of the larger
Qualitative Information System (QIS), which is described more fully in James, Postma and Otte (2003).
3
to voice their concerns about project performance. Such methods of gathering information ensures
that the community own the information but also assures these stakeholders that their views matter in
project management. Besides this, the QPA is oriented towards highlighting issues in project
implementation at the community level, for action planning at several levels, starting with the
community level and using the principle of exhausting local options before moving higher up in the
hierarchy. This again is possible only if all stakeholders are included in the process.
The conversion of qualitative information into numbers is done with scoring systems. A variety of
methods are available, including indexes of change, cardinal measurement and ordinal scoring.8 An
example of descriptive ordinal scoring is given in Box 1.
Box 1: Example of descriptive ordinal scoring
One aspect of the findings of a QPA carried out in all 54 habitations of Kalyandurg mandal in Anantapur
district, Andhra Pradesh, India on community-level water supply problems is presented below to illustrate the
methodology and the presentation of results. The data was gathered from focus group discussions with
community men and women.
Findings: The panchayat9 is sympathetic to problems concerning water supply (and sanitation). However, in 20
habitations, panchayataction is ineffective (below benchmark), and in 8 results come after a long
time(benchmark). In 5 habitations quick action (better than benchmark)does not provide lasting relief.
Table 1: People’s Perception of Panchayat Responses to Water Related Problems in 54 habitations,
Kalyandurg Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, India, October 2001
Nature of option
Poor
Better than poor
Benchmark
Better than benchmark
Ideal
QPA Ordinal Scoring Options
Descriptive of option
Listens but no action is taken
Listens act but no follow up and hence no result
Listens and acts, but results come after a long time
Listens acts quick results but not effective
Listens, acts, and get quick and effective results
QPA Ordinal
Scores
0
25
50
75
100
Number of
Habitations
9
11
8
5
21
Number of Habitations
Figure 1: Panchayat Response to Water Related Problems, Kalyandurg Mandal, October 2001
21
9
11
8
5
0
25
50
75
100
QPA Ordinal Scores for Different Options (detailed in the accompanying Table)
Discussion: The two main reasons for the results of scoring, i.e., the poor response by the panchayat, are the
following:
8
All the methods used in QPAs done so far are described more fully in James (2003), while James (2001) has
details of ordinal scoring systems and James et al. (2002) details methods other than descriptive ordinal scoring.
9
A Panchayat is a village-level body, headed by a Sarpanch (village Head), responsible for local government in
India. Usually a Panchayat usually comprises 2 or more ‘habitations’, though the size of such villages varies
across Indian states.
4


Apathetic leaders: The sarpanch of the revenue village lives in one of its constituent habitations, and does
not pay as much attention to complaints from the other habitations.
Funds constraint: Even if the sarpanch is interested in taking action, funds are in short supply
Reasons for scores
Negative (Scores below 50)
“Since sarpanch is residing in Chapiri, he has not taken any interest and no response in spite of people's
request.” (Chapirithanda habitation, Chapiri revenue village). “No response from panchayat as Sarpanch was
from other village” (Mallapuram habitation, Palavoy revenue village).“Panchayat listens but no action taken
because of no funds to panchayat.” (Varli habitation, Varli revenue village).
Positive (Scores above 50)
“When motor underwent repairs for 7 times, on all occasions, the Panchyat took immediate and effective
action.” (Duradakunta habitation, Durdakunta revenue village). “Panchayat listens to problem and acts quickly
in case of hand pump repair at all times” (Palavoy habitation, Palavoy revenue village)
Source: Adapted from James (2002), p. 42
There are 4 steps to a typical QPA, comprising Planning of the Assessment, holding a Training
Workshop, carrying out the assessment and post-assessment data analysis (see Table 2).
Table 2: The 4-steps of a typical Quantified Participatory Assessment (QPA)
STEPS
I. Planning the
Assessment
II. Training
Workshop
III. Assessment
ACTIVITIES
Defining assessment purpose and scope
Deciding sample size
Deciding assessment teams
Planning training and assessment logistics
Deciding assessment issues and indicators
Developing QPA formats (scoring options)
Mock interviews
Two pre-tests followed by revision
Finalising QPA formats
Planning assessment logistics
Creating the computer database
Field work
Peer group scoring
Data entry and data checking
IV. Post
Assessment
Data analysis
RESPONSIBILITY
QPA Facilitators and
Project Management
TIME
1-2 days
QPA Facilitators, local QPA
Assessment Teams and Data
Entry Operators
Around 14
days
Local assessment teams
(4-6 per village)
Local assessment teams
(of all villages)
Local assessment teams/
Data Entry Operators
QPA Facilitators
@ 2 days per
village
Around 10
days
The QPA has the following operational principles.
1. Rapid assessment, designed to identify and highlight issues for further attention (it does not aim
to unearth the finer details of these issues; that is the responsibility of the (participatory) project).
The rapidity of the assessment depends on the time, staff and financial resources available to the
project and the scope of the assessment, and therefore can vary from 1-2 day per community
(though it can be longer if necessary).
2. Focused entirely on finding the ‘truth’ behind the issue and uses local assessment teams10 and
participatory tools primarily for this purpose, although the discussion of assessment issues can
10
To minimise possible biases, however, field staff from the same (NGO, donor or government) project but
working in other project areas are used in the assessment to incorporate their experience and familiarity with
5
itself be empowering (see Box 1). The quality of the information being gathered is checked at
different stages of the QPA, including triangulation of information from different sources within
the community, peer-group reviews of scores, and random checking, but the basic strategy is to
devolve responsibility for the accuracy of fieldwork to the QPA assessment teams.
3. Empowering project communities and project staff through (1) awareness that processes like
transparency, accountability and participation are legitimate and desirable and (2) focus group
discussions with project communities of descriptive ordinal scoring options that range from the
worst to the benchmark to the ideal - and hence give gives them insights into what is not
desirable, what is acceptable best practice (benchmark) and what is possible (ideal).
4. Using local resources: Apart from using local assessment teams, who are involved in the
formulation of the QPA formats, mock interviews, two rounds of pre-testing and the actual
assessment, the creating computerised data entry sheets and data entry are also done locally.
5. Benchmarking: All ordinal scoring options are benchmarked at the mid-value of 50 (though
other values are possible), to facilitate the interpretation of ordinal scores. ‘Low’ scores (i.e.,
below benchmark) require follow-up enquiry and project action, while ‘high scores’ (benchmark
and above) suggest exemplary cases.
6. Peer review of scores: Wherever possible, local assessment teams peer review each other’s
scores.11 Each assessment team tries to get as much information as possible (on the ‘real situation
on the ground’) scores the various options and the reasons for their scores, and defends both in a
meeting of all assessment teams.
7. Sharing information with the communities: While collected information is shared and verified
with the community at the end of each community assessment, pictorial depiction of the
information (including the social map) is given back to the community at the end of the QPA.
QPA findings (both scores and the results from the stakeholder meetings) are also presented to the
assessment teams and project management before finalisation.
QPA findings are presented to project management using a variety of methods including frequency
diagrams of raw scores for individual indicators and for sets of indicators (Figure 2), and GIS layouts
(Figure 3), while information can be presented to communities using ‘web’ diagrams (Figure 4).12 In
addition to the village representatives present at the stakeholder meetings, a separate event is
sometimes useful to take the findings back to the community separately, after the stakeholder
meeting, to ensure that they are understood and depicted clearly within the community.
Although aggregation of raw scores (as, for instance, in the MPA) is possible, users have found it
more useful to view frequency diagrams of raw scores, illustrated by sample reasons (Box 1). For
those interested in more detail, the computer database has information on each community (and, in
some cases, each water point and each community group in the village).
implementation issues and the sensitivities of the local communities. Involving field staff is a second-best
option, given that it is difficult to involve community representatives in the formulation of the QPA assessment
formats, although this option is also possible to broaden the ownership of the assessment itself.
11
In some sensitive cases, such as pocket voting for hygiene behaviour, it is better to have direct scoring by
community men and women.
12
These are detailed in James (2003a).
6
Figure 2: Domestic Hygiene Practices in Sample Households, Hirminiya, Banke District, Nepal, Feb 2003
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Is the household
clean?
Are child faeces
thrown in the
courtyard?
Is there a garbage
pit?
Is there a kitchen
garden?
Is there a kitchen
garden?
Is there a garbage
pit?
Are child faeces
thrown in the
courtyard?
Is the household
clean?
0%
0%
5%
0%
% saying NO
87%
98%
87%
35%
% saying YES
13%
2%
8%
65%
Not Applicable
Source: NEWAH (2003), p. 47.
Figure 3: Village-wise participation of the poor in community decision-making,
Dhone mandal, Andhra Pradesh, India, March 2001
Source: From Ramamohan Rao et al., (2003), p. 67.
7
Figure 4: Pictorial representation of QPA community scores
Women’s participation
in household decisions
100
Women’s participation
in SHG meetings
Members’ participation
in SHG meetings
50
Women’s
participation in
communitymeetings
100
50
50
100
Participation
by the poor in
community
meetings
50
Stage of
development of
the SHG
Participation
by the poor in
SHG meetings
100
Awareness of
project objectives
Legend: The Blue line denotes the scores from a prior assessment (e.g., baseline survey) while the Red line
represents scores from a later assessment (e.g., a mid-term review).
Source: James (2003), p. 17.
4.
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Using QPA findings to plan corrective actions, however, requires going beyond the QPA scores and
the reasons behind them. While ‘low’ scores indicate problems in implementation, factors responsible
for the problem need to be identified and overcome, and this is done best with multi-stakeholder
meetings. A multi-stakeholder meeting is not a new concept, but several practical modifications can
make them more effective. Basically, a series of separate stakeholder meetings (SHMs) are necessary
to assess field realities clearly while the last SHM brings all stakeholders together to propose solutions
to the issues raised. Not only does this approach emphasise that the SHM is not a blame-sharing
exercise, but also that project staff listen to and involve community members in taking decisions and
planning corrective action.
Box 2: The structure of the Rajasthan District
Poverty Initiatives Project
Stakeholder meetings are discussed below,
based on the experience in the World Bank
supported Rajasthan District Poverty Initiatives
Project (DPIP) (James and Kaushik, 2002) (see
Box 2)
In the Rajasthan DPIP? a government-staffed state
project management unit oversees governmentstaffed district project management units responsible
for field-level implementation in selected blocks in
each of 7 project districts. In each district, a District
Project Coordinator from a selected NGO, supported
by office staff and field workers (Block
Coordinators and Community Facilitators), assists
the District Project Manager, who is a government
official deputed to the project.
Separate Stakeholder Meetings
In addition to meetings between the assessment
teams and the village communities during the
QPA in 4 villages in each of 2 pilot districts, six
8
short stakeholder meetings, ranging from 1 to 2 hours each, were organised separately for
stakeholders at the district level. These included separate SHM included:






Community Facilitators
Block Coordinators
The District Project Coordinator
The office staff of the District Project Coordinator
The District Project Manager, and
The staff of the District Project Management Unit
Separate meetings were necessary because junior staff found it difficult to speak freely in the presence
of superiors and because government and NGO organisations are sometimes incompatible field
partners.
District and State-level Multi-stakeholder Meetings
Apart from all those who attended the separate stakeholder meetings, local bank officials and
community men and women attended the multiple stakeholder meetings. Findings from the individual
stakeholder meetings were compiled by facilitators trying to reconcile various viewpoints and identify
the real reasons behind each issue. These compiled issues were presented by the facilitators at the
district multiple stakeholders meeting, for various stakeholders to identify possible solutions.
Since this was the first time that villagers, field level staff and district project officials were sitting
across a table to discuss implementation issues there were several pending issues and individual
agendas that stakeholders brought to the table. However, the facilitators at these multiple stakeholder
meetings focused on finding detailed solutions to specific issues rather than on assigning blame.
While some issues could be resolved at the district level, and led directly to feedback action, others
required sanction from state level project officials, before the appropriate feedback action could be
initiated. Such issues were tabled and discussed at the state level multi-stakeholder meeting (see
Figure 5).13
Figure 5: Stakeholder meetings with feedback action loops
LEVEL
ACTIVITIES
Individual
SHMs
State
Individual
SHMs
District
Community
QPA
Multiple
SHM
Feedback Action
Multiple
SHM
Feedback Action
Feedback Action
Feedback Action
Feedback Action
Time
13
An example of the issues discussed and decisions taken at a district-level multi-stakeholder group is in
Annexure 1.
9
5.
ACTION PLANNING REPORT
The findings of the QPA and the stakeholder meetings (SHM) need to be compiled in a report to the
project management for follow-up action. In cases of poor performance, such action can be to seek
further information and to initiate corrective action, while good performance can be studied further to
extract valuable implementation lessons for the project and its capacity building programme. While
the timing of the Action Planning Report (APR) is usually pre-determined for one-time applications
such as pre-project appraisals, mid-term reviews or impact assessments, it needs to be set for
continuous monitoring and evaluation (M&E) applications in projects.
For continuous monitoring applications of the QIA, the APR should be available to feed into the
annual action planning cycle of project communities and project management. In projects with an
annual work cycle from April to March, forward planning is usually in January – February. Thus, for
instance, a QIA for a sample of 60 project communities completed by say end December will permit
results to be available by end January. The QIA can be used at different points of a project-cycle (see
Figure 6),14 although it can also be used annually for continuous monitoring as described in the
Qualitative Information System (QIS).
Figure 6: Phasing of QIA over a project management cycle
4
Other
Technical
Economic
Financial
Institutional
1
2
3
4
Baseline
survey
Social
APR
1
2
3
4
Mid-term Review
3
Action Plan for Year 2
2
Project Document
1
SHM
QPA
Pre-project design phase
6.
Implementation Year 1
Implementation Year 2
LOOKING FORWARD
In conclusion, the QIA has the potential to capture qualitative information, including people’s
perception of technical issues - rapidly, and cheaply, as well as empower communities and project
staff and give them all a voice in project management. It is flexible and can be modified to capture
different monitoring, evaluation and assessment issues. It uses PRA methods to involve community
men and women and provides an institutional platform for their views, suggestions and issues to be
discussed by different stakeholders, including senior project management. It can depict information
from a large number of project community using simple but clear visual formats, without the
distortion of aggregation.
The key factor perhaps is that the QIA enables everyone (including the poorest) to be included in the
assessment of outputs and processes, as well as in taking decisions and planning for corrective action.
The QIA thus offers those responsible for project and resource management not only to listen to the
voices of all those involved, but also to enter into a purposeful dialogue for effective project
management – which can go a long way towards increased sustainability.
14
Only 3 years of a typical 4-year project are given here for paucity of space.
10
Further, if the QIA is repeated systematically over time, it can be a powerful monitoring tool not only
to provide perceptions of community men and women on project implementation at different
timescales (e.g., quarterly, half-yearly, annual) for effective correction, it can also provide a
continuous view of project progress, in contrast to disjointed baseline, mid-term and end line surveys.
In addition, such qualitative information be combined with technical, financial and physical
information, e.g., GIS and MIS for better adaptive management. Setting up such a continuous
monitoring and evaluation system, capable of storing large amounts of data using computer databases
for analysis, where information is used effectively for adaptive management has been defined as a
Qualitative Information System (QIS) (see James, Postma and Otte, 2003).
REFERENCES
Chambers, Robert (2003) ‘Participation and numbers’ in PLA Notes, 47, August.
Dayal, Rekha, Christine van Wijk, and Nilanjana Mukherjee (1999) Methodology for Participatory
Assessments: with Communities, Institutions and Policy Makers, Water and Sanitation Program
(Washington), and International Resource Centre for Water and Sanitation (Delft, the Netherlands):
New Delhi.
Deshingkar, Priya and James. A. J. (2001) ‘PRA: Some Concerns from the Field’ in IFAD, ANGOC and
IIRR, Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A resource book on participation, International Fund
for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ANGOC) and International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR).
Gross, Bruce, Wijk, C. van, and Mukherjee, Nilanjana (2001) Linking Sustainability with Demand, Gender
and Poverty: A study in Community-Managed Water Supply Projects in 15 Countries. World Bank
Water and Sanitation Program and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, New Delhi.
James, A. J. (2000). ‘MPA: A New Methodology for Participatory Assessment’ Waterlines, October 2000.
James, A. J. (2001). ‘Enhancing the “Assessment” in Participatory Assessments’, in IFAD, ANGOC and IIRR,
Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A resource book on participation, International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD), Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
(ANGOC) and International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR).
James, A. J. (2002). ‘Quantified Participatory Assessments for the Water Resources Audit of the Andhra
Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project: Kalyandurg Mandal in Anantapur District’, report submitted to
DFID India.
James, A. J. (2003a). ‘Quantified Participatory Assessment: Capturing Qualitative Information in Large-Scale
Development Projects’. Unpublished.
James, A. J. (2003b). ‘Quantified Participatory Assessment of the Impacts of the Western India Rain fed
Farming Project’, IFFDC project area, report submitted to Atkins, UK.
James, A. J. (2003c). ‘Quantified Participatory Assessment of the Impacts of the Western India Rain fed
Farming Project’, GVT project area, report submitted to Atkins, UK.
James, A. J. (2003d). ‘PIMEDD Self-Assessment System For Public Health Functions in Urban Local Bodies
In India: Report of a Pilot Assessment in Tamil Nadu, submitted to the World Bank, New Delhi.
James, A. J. and Rakesh Kaushik. (2000). System for Integrated Monitoring Assessment and Learning
(SIMAL) for the Rajasthan District Poverty Initiatives Project (DPIP), report submitted to the World
Bank, New Delhi.
James, A. J. and Rakesh Kaushik. (2002). Piloting Quantified Participatory Assessments in the Rajasthan
District Poverty Initiatives Project (DPIP), report submitted to the World Bank, New Delhi.
James, A. J., and M. Snehalata. (2002a). ‘Quantified Participatory Assessments for the Water Resources Audit
of the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project: Dhone Mandal in Kurnool District’, report submitted
to DFID India.
James, A. J., and M. Snehalata. (2002b). ‘Women, Water And Livelihoods: Engagement With Policy In
Andhra Pradesh’, in Women's Empowerment Policy & natural resources - What progress? , Report of
Conference organised by the Planning Commission, Government of India, and Overseas Development
Group, University of East Anglia, UK, and funded by the Department for International Development,
Government of the United Kingdom, New Delhi, 31 May 2001.
James, A. J., Michelle Moffatt and Raju Khadka. (2003a). ‘Evolving the NEWAH Participatory Assessment
(NPA)’, A Case Study Prepared for the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft,
Netherlands
11
James, A. J., Raju Khadka, Dipendra Shahi and Jennifer Appave. (2003c). ‘Evaluating the impact of
NEWAH's gender and poverty approach using the NEWAH Participatory Assessment: A Report of the
Assessment of 15 Communities in 5 Development Regions, submitted to Nepal Water for Health
(NEWAH), Kathmandu, Nepal.
James, A. J., Raju Khadka, Michelle Moffatt and Corine Otte. (2003).“From MPA to NPA in Rural Nepal”,
unpublished, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, Netherlands.
James, A. J., Vineet Pangtey, Pratibha Singh, and Keith Virgo. (2002). “Bringing People’s Perceptions to
Project Management Desktops: A Quantified Participatory Assessment of the Doon Valley Project”,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal.
James, A. J., Leonie Postma and Corine Otte (2003) “A Qualitative Information System for Large-Scale
Development Projects”, unpublished, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, ,
Netherlands.
Moffatt, Michelle, Laxmi Paudyal and A. J. James. (2002). ‘Linking demand, gender and poverty for
sustainability’, Paper presented at the 28th WEDC Conference on Sustainable Environmental Sanitation
& Water Services, Kolkata, India.
Moffatt, Michelle and Umesh Pandey. (2003). forthcoming
Moffatt, Michelle and Raju Khadka. (2002). ‘A Gender and Poverty Approach in Practice’, Paper presented
at the 28th WEDC Conference on Sustainable Environmental Sanitation & Water Services, Kolkata,
India.
Mukherjee, Nilanjana and Christine van Wijk (2003) Sustainability Planning and Monitoring in community
water supply and sanitation, A Guide on the Methodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA) for
Community-Driven Development Programs, Water and Sanitation Program, Washington and IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, Netherlands.
NEWAH (2002), ‘NEWAH Participatory Assessments: A Brief Note’, unpublished. December.
NEWAH (2003), ‘Consolidated Report of the Socio-Economic Survey for the Project Preparation Technical
Assistance of the Community Based Water Supply and Sanitation Project’, submitted to ARD Pvt.
Ltd., Nepal Water for Health, Kathmandu, April.
Postma, Leonie, Christine van Wijk and Corine Otte (2003), ‘Participatory quantification in the water and
sanitation sector’, in PLA Notes, 47, August.
Ramamohan Rao, M.S., C.H. Batchelor, A. J. James, R. Nagaraja, J. Seeley and J. A. Butterworth (eds.)
(2003), Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme Water Resources Audit: Phase I Report,
Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme and Department for International Development,
Government of the UK.
Van Wijk, Christine (2001) The Best of Two Worlds? Methodology for participatory assessment of community
water services, Technical Paper Series No. 38, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft.
Van Wijk, Christine and Leonie Postma (2003) ‘MPA: A new methodology for participatory monitoring’,
Waterlines.
Van Wijk, Christine, Kumala Sari and the Pradipta Paramitha Team, Nina Shatifan, Ruth Walujan,
Ishani Mukherjee, Richard Hopkins (2002) Flores revisited: Sustainability, hygiene and use of
community-managed water supply and sanitation and the relationships with project approaches and
rules, Water and Sanitation Program – South East Asia, Jakarta and IRC International Water and
Sanitation Centre, Delft, Netherlands.
WS Atkins (2000) Impact on Social Equity and Household Livelihoods Study, Technical Assistance Report, K.
Rai and C. Kunwar, Watershed Management Directorate, Dehradun, Uttaranchal, India.
WS Atkins (2000) Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact Study, Technical Assistance Report, A.J. James,
Watershed Management Directorate, Dehradun, Uttaranchal, India.
12
ANNEXURE 1: Sample of Issues from a Multi-Stakeholder Meeting of the Rajasthan District Poverty Initiatives Project, India Rajasthan
Abbreviations used: CF: Community Facilitator; DPC: District Project Coordinator; DPM: District Project Manager; DPMU: District Project Monitoring Unit; SPM: State
Project Manager; SPMU: State Project Monitoring Unit; PAD: Project Appraisal Document; PIP: Project Implementation Plan; SHM: Stake Holder Meeting
ISSUES
CONCERNING
ISSUE
Salary not paid for 6 months+
Community
Facilitators
Travel Allowance (TA) not paid for 6
months+
Materials needed for CFs to work,
including chair/table, durrie, torch, etc.
Training provided was general (field
experience has taught them more), but
they need (re-)training and more
information on new areas (e.g., account
keeping, sub-project preparation, book
keeping, cash flow analysis, etc.)
Recruiting and retaining women CFs is
a problem
District Project
Need exposure visits and training for
the CIGs prior to sub-project proposal
formulation, not after.
SPECIFIC CAUSE OF
THE PROBLEM
NGO contract specifies
quarterly payment –
which implies that even
normal payments will
take around 5 months
Again, NGO contract
specifies quarterly
settlement
LEVEL AT WHICH
ACTION IS NECESSARY
SPMU – NGO needs to renegotiate its contract to
ensure that payments are
quarterly
DECISION
TAKEN AT SHM
NGO to look into
contracting
SPMU – NGO
NGO to look into
contracting
NGO has contracted to
provide Rs. 15,000 per
CF, out of which these
items can be provided –
but not done so yet.
Training institution did
not provide all the
information necessary to
facilitate CF’s working
in the field.
NGO
NGO to look into
using this amount
SPMU/NGO – to direct
training organisation to
provide additional training,
specific to DPIP and to
CF’s practical needs on the
field.
SPMU – NGO – to make a
special provision in the
contract
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
SPMU – in terms of a
change in the guidelines
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
No conveyance provided
to enable women to
work effectively
Project Guidelines do
not provide for prior
action and expenditure
13
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
OTHER INFORMATION
SPMU clarified that a
decision has already been
taken to make payments
monthly
DPM (Churu) mentioned that
a system of 75% advance
payment could be worked
out – as is done in govt.
corporations
ISSUES
CONCERNING
Coordinator
NGO
ISSUE
Costs budgeted for CIG formation (Rs.
1000 per village – irrespective of the
number of CIGs formed) is a
disincentive against forming more than
1 CIG per village
Working with 1 year planning horizon
Provision of experts
Lack of awareness of ‘process and
learning’ nature of project
District Project
Management Unit
Clarity on roles and responsibilities
Inadequate staffing
Billing system is unnecessarily
complicated
SPECIFIC CAUSE OF
THE PROBLEM
SPMU-NGO contract
has this as a budgetary
condition.
LEVEL AT WHICH
ACTION IS NECESSARY
SPMU/NGO
DECISION
TAKEN AT SHM
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
OTHER INFORMATION
SPMU Guidelines
suggest that CFs must
complete sub-projects in
1 year & move to next
village
NGO contract provides
too little remuneration
and too small a time
span to get good experts
Project documents
specifying this (e.g.,
(PAD)) not circulated
initially to district level
staff (only in Sep 2001)
SPMU has not shared
enough information on
this aspect
Need assistants to each
District Manager
Designed without taking
into account better
existing govt. systems
SPMU
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
The PAD does not mention 1
year, but the phasing table in
the PIP suggests this
SPMU – NGO to reexamine contract
Collector’s offer
to provide experts
needs to be raised
with the SPMU
Issue to be
discussed with
SPMU
Sub-sectoral orientation
would be useful.
14
SPMU – orientation training
necessary for project staff
SPMU
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
SPMU
Issues to be raised
with SPMU
Issue to be raised
with SPMU
SPMU