|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| >> This is USAID >> Intersectoral Partnerships >> ISP Handbooks |
Documenting ISP performance can be a challenging endeavor. Each ISP is unique, thus, there is no blueprint to follow. Due to the non-linear nature of inter-sectoral partnering, the progression of ISPs is continually subject to redefinition. This section discusses three challenges inherent in the process of measuring the effectiveness of ISPs and ways to overcome them. Projected Outcomes Good performance indicators start with a statement of desired or projected outcomes. This presents the first challenge in identifying indicators for ISPs. Inter-sectoral partnering produces numerous outcomes or "results." Since ISPs are both a process and an outcome, the partnership's formation itself is the first result. Achieving the development objective being addressed by the partnership is another result. Creation of new types of relationships and the development of a foundation for future collaboration are a third type of result. When choosing indicators for an ISP, one must distinguish between desired process results and outcome results. Short-term vs. Long-term Results A second issue is that some of the policy changes associated with USAID's recent reforms and reporting requirements have led to an inadvertent emphasis on short-term over long-term results. This poses a particular problem for ISPs which develop incrementally. At the same time, delays or a lack of clarity about interim results can increase the risk of disillusionment and/or defection by partners. Therefore, it is particularly important to keep things moving, to keep costs and benefits to partners in balance, and to demonstrate visible progress against intermediate benchmarks. Stovepiped Programming A third challenge within the USAID context is how to integrate inter-sectoral partnering into a framework characterized by programs organized around specific programmatic sectors, such as agriculture, economic infrastructure, education, and health. Although there have been some dramatic development successes produced by this approach (e.g., child survival and the Green Revolution), there has always been concern that such stovepiped programs may mean that opportunities to build synergies across sectors are lost. ISPs provide an important means to transcend the stovepipes and maximize impact through synergies. In this context, indicators for measuring the impact of ISPs should reflect the potential for cross-sectoral impact. Despite concerns to the contrary, it is possible to measure the impact of inter-sectoral partnering while simultaneously meeting USAID reporting requirements. Many missions are already doing so quite successfully. The USAID R4 database, for example, identifies numerous countries (such as Hungary, Lithuania, Mali, Mozambique, the Philippines, and South Africa) that are reporting on both the short- and long-term impact of these public/private partnerships.5 For instance, in Mozambique's FY2000 R4, one indicator -- perceptions on whether questions of local interest are better resolved through collaboration between local government, citizens, and the private sector -- has been developed to measure the Mission's Strategic Objective 2, "government and civil society are effective partners in democratic governance at the national and local levels." It has been noted by USAID staff and partners that there are few conventional indicators to measure intangible results, such as those often associated with ISPs.6 There is a misconception that subjective indicators assessing intangible results are not acceptable when reporting to Washington. Inter-sectoral partnering, as with many other development activities, will often produce intangible results, and subjective indicators will be necessary to assess them. Accurate judgements about results will depend upon growing acceptance of the value and validity of qualitative and subjective indicators. A number of scholars and development practitioners have offered a variety of suggestions on how to measure intangible results. In "Assessing NGO Performance: Difficulties, Dilemmas, and A Way Ahead," Alan Fowler notes that in measuring the impact of NGOs:
These same principles apply to measuring the impact of inter-sectoral partnering. To ensure that the above conditions are met, members of ISPs should participate in both the process of defining objectives and results and that of selecting indicators to measure the impact of inter-sectoral partnering. Indicators will typically be more qualitative and subjective than quantitative and objective. The following sections lay out a framework useful in the selection of indicators to measure the impact of inter-sectoral partnering. In addition to describing the framework and providing a menu of indicators, those organizations and USAID missions that have successfully used these indicators are identified. FOOTNOTES 5 - The Results Review and Resource Request (R4) database is available on USAID's Center for Development Information (CDIE) web page [http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2001] as well as on the external web page [http://www.dec.org/partners/r4_public]. Users can search the database which stores Agency indicators by reporting unit, strategic objective title, intermediate result title, indicator name, or Agency goal or objective. 6 - Intangible results are those results that can be observed or inferred indirectly. |
 |
|||
|
