Monitoring and evaluation
Gender & conflict sensitivity
Page contents
Many evaluations have failed to capture the differential impacts of interventions on men and women, or to adequately adapt to local realities such as conflict, violence or instability in their methodologies and overall approach.
Gender Analysis
Development interventions can have differential impacts on men and women: Men and women have different needs and constraints, different opportunities to participate in program design and implementation, and benefit differently from outcomes and impacts. A gender analysis framework should therefore be a component of all evaluation designs. It is also important to have a gender balanced evaluation team.
World Bank, 2002, ‘Chapter 10: Integrating Gender into the PRS Monitoring and Evaluation, ’ in PRSP Sourcebook, World Bank, Washington
There is growing evidence that gender-sensitive development strategies contribute significantly to economic growth and equity objectives by ensuring that all groups of the poor share in programme benefits. Yet differences between men's and women's needs are often not fully recognised in poverty analysis and participatory planning, and are frequently ignored in the selection and design of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). A full understanding of the gender dimensions of poverty can significantly change the definition of priority policy and programme interventions supported by the PRS. This chapter from the World Bank PRSP Sourcebook provides practical guidance on identifying and implementing country-level policies and programmes that will benefit both men and women, and maximise potential benefits for poor families.
Access full text: available online
Donor agencies have had limited success in introducing gender sensitive approaches to M&E. This is particularly evident in the use of household surveys which either only interview the household head (usually male in most but not all situations) or which interview women in contexts where they are not able to speak freely.
Evaluations should address critical gender issues such as time poverty, participation in household decision-making and women’s multiple roles (e.g. production, social reproduction and community management).
Bridge, 2001, ‘Gender and Monitoring: A Review of Practical Experiences’, Report prepared for the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation
How can monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes be made gender-sensitive? What measures have organisations taken to assess their effectiveness in mainstreaming gender? This report by BRIDGE for the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) provides a tool for integrating a gender approach into M&E mechanisms. It draws on a number of case studies and different experiences of organisations implementing M&E mechanisms and provides a number of recommendations for implementing gender-sensitive mechanisms.
Access full text: available online
M&E in Conflict and Fragile States
M&E faces unique challenges in situations of extreme uncertainty, particularily in terms of information gathering. These include:
- Lack of security (both for researchers and the people who talk to them)
- Distrust of outsiders and reluctance to talk, or fear of reprisals for talking
- Shame in acknowledging sexual violence
- Rapidly fluctuating populations (due to migration) and no adequate documentation on the population
- Government’s unwillingness to recognise the level of violence or the failure of programmes which might in turn affect aid flows.
Elkins, C., 2006, ‘Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) for Development in Peace-Precarious Situations’, RTI International, London
How can monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information systems improve programme impact and assist peaceful development in situations prone to violent conflict? This paper from RTI International outlines M&E?s status as a unique discipline and describes M&E strategies and tactics implemented in real-world, peace-precarious situations. Even under the stresses of violence and conflict, M&E approaches can help build knowledge of how to push forward peace and development.
Access full text: available online
In fragile environments, choosing appropriate tools to monitor and evaluate programmes is a key concern.
Social Impact, 2006, ‘Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning for Fragile States and Peacebuilding Programs, Practical Tools for Improving Program Perfomance and Results’, Prepared for USAID
How can organisations implement fragile states peacebuilding (FSP) programmes with realistic development outcomes that can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances? This guide from Social Impact aims to increase the effectiveness of FSP programmes through more systematic approaches to Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L). Stronger ME&L enables agencies and communities to understand what is effective, how to consolidate best practice and how to increase accountability to stakeholders.
Access full text: available online
In DFID Nepal, monitoring and evaluation involves closely monitoring local context, and giving consideration to the impact of programming on the conflict and on social inclusion.
Department for International Development, 2005, ‘Nepal Country Assistance Plan: Monitoring in a Fragile State’, Department for International Development, London
The DFID Nepal Country Assistance Plan (CAP), published in February 2004, aims to reduce poverty and social exclusion and help establish the basis for lasting peace. To this end, CAP commits DFID Nepal to developing improved, locally accountable and transparent systems for monitoring progress. This DFID paper describes the main elements of the CAP Monitoring Framework (CAPMF), setting out how DFID Nepal (DFIDN) proposes to monitor the operating environment for development activities and measure progress towards outputs.
Access full text: available online
New additions
