My Rights My Voice Completion Report 2011-2016

This is a report summarising the evaluation findings of the My Right My Voice (MRMV) program. It is an example of how an evaluation can be conducted by both young, peer-evaluators and a professional consultant evaluator. Key pages are page 52-53. It is a useful example for thinking about Deciding who will conduct the evaluationDefining quality evaluation standards and how to balance participatory approaches with standards relating to independence, and Developing evaluation capacity to enable participation of youth in evaluations.

The following information was provided to BetterEvaluation by Jessica Noske-Turner as part of the Evaluating C4D Resource Hub

The Evaluating C4D Resource Hub sits within BetterEvaluation and houses a growing collection of the available guides, toolkits, tools and methods to use for research monitoring and evaluation (R,M&E) of Communication for Development (C4D) initiatives. The Hub is structured around two combined frameworks:

C4D Evaluation Framework (represented by the circle) is an approach. It describes the values and principles that guide our decisions in C4D. 

The BetterEvaluation Rainbow Framework (represented by the rainbows) is a structure. It organises the practical tasks into seven categories or 'clusters' and provides options.

While the resource recommendation below discusses the resource specifically in relation to its usefulness for evaluating C4D within the Evaluating C4D Resource Hub's C4D Framework, this resource may also be of use for people working in other contexts and with different frameworks.

Authors and their affiliation

Imogen Davies, Lien van Mellaert and Jane Garton

Year of publication 

Page accessed on December 12, 2016

Type of resource

Overview

Key features

This report documents a process in which a youth audit was undertaken each year, allowing for tracking the prioritisation of young people's voices and the gender sensitivity of the work. The Mid-Term Review was structured as a "peer review" to stimulate maximum exchange and learning between countries. Youth familiar with the programme were included in the field research and presented the findings to Oxfam staff and partners. The results were compiled by a team of independent evaluators. 

Who is this resource useful for?

  • Evaluators 
  • Communication for Development practitioners 
  • Program Officers
  • Researchers 
  • Consultants 

How have you used or intend on using this resource?

This resource has been identified as particularly useful for evaluating of communication for development (C4D). It was identified as part of a research project in collaboration with UNICEF C4D.

Why would you recommend it to other people?

This example is consistent with the C4D Evaluation framework in relation to this task in the following ways

  • learning-based: participation of young people in peer-evaluation was to support mutual learning. youth peer-evaluators were trained to use appropriate data collection tools. In countries where access by international evaluators was restricted due to visa and safety issues, a senior national evaluator conducted the fieldwork with distance coaching from the core evaluation team.
  • Participatory: the evaluation was by a team of independent evaluators, but worked closely to support youth familiar with the programme to independently carry out evaluation research with peers, parents and teachers, and present the findings to Oxfam staff and partners. It is an example of participatory research that incorporates strategies to ensure quality standards (such as independence and impartiality) are maintained.

Source

Davies, I., van Mellaert, L. and Garton, J., 2016. My Rights My Voice Completion Report 2011–2016. Vancouver

0
No votes yet
Rate this Resource:

Comments

There are currently no comments. Be the first to comment on this page!

Add new comment

Login Login and comment as BetterEvaluation member or simply fill out the fields below.