1

Evaluation of RAS program initiative

Overview and recent developments

Patrice Djamen (>Rescar)

wth materials from Sanne et al, Kristin

Key points

• What is agricultural extension ? • Evaluating RAS systems and methods• The Evaluation imitative ? • Outcomes and prospects of the

Wageningen meeting

3

Defining Extension

GFRAS”All the activities that provide the information and services needed and demanded by farmers and other actors to assist them in developing their skills and practises so as to improve their livelihood and well-being”

Three Areas Technology and

information sharing Advice related to farm,

organisational and business management

Facilitation and brokerage in rural development and value chains

Technology and information

sharing

Advice / support to farm

management

Capacity development

Facilitation

Extension Paradigms

4

Evaluating RAS Systems • Evaluation = a structured process of

collecting, analysing, and making judgments on a given system or intervention (Gfras, 2012)

Importance of Evaluation Increasing interest and demand for more

efficient and performant RAS with increasing contribution to sustainable development

Accountability to donors and clientele Need for systematic evidence to support

advocacy and decision making / policy formulation

Learning to improve Extension systems/methods (internally and externally)

5

Guidance in ways to assess the value of extension with focus on the values that are meaningful to users of the services

Challenges • Viewing extension as part

of the innovation system• Attribution of impacts of

extension within complex systems

• Evaluating extension while keeping systemic issues in mind

• Evaluating extension in a volatile world, Etc.

Evaluating RAS Systems

Guide to Evaluating Rural ExtensionGfras, 2012

Key points to consider• What is the purpose ? • Who are the users of the

results? • Translation of the

complexity• What is the most

appropriate / best-fit methodology?Examples

Exp. Most Significant Change; cost-benefits analysis; Outcome Mapping; Appreciative Inquiry, RAAKS, Impact Evaluation

6

GFRAS Evaluation Initiative GFRAS Function 2: Supporting the

development and synthesis of evidence-based approaches and policies for improving the effectiveness of RAS

Actors : GFRAS; International Reference Group (IRG), regional networks RELASER, AFAAS, AESA, APIRAS; FAO, MEAS, IFPRI, Bioversity, Ministry of Agrarian Development Brazil, Unicamp (Brazil)

Governance : Country Reference Groups, GFRAS Regional Networks, International Reference Group, GFRAS Secretariat, GFRAS Steering Committee

7

Key outcomes of the Wageningen meeting 23rd – 24th April, 2015

Building Regional Capacity for Assessments & Evaluations of Extension Programmes

Build regional capacities to do evaluation and assessments at regional and country level

Aim : develop learning materials based on recent works, the GFRAS Guide to Evaluation of Rural Extension etc.

8

Topical Content of training on RAS Evaluation

Stakeholders mapping, Complexity of RAS in AIS

Planning and M&E, Documentation, Theory of change and impact

pathways Creating the demand, Accountability Knowledge management RAS evaluation methods, tools, and

techniques

> Doing evaluation, Using evaluation results, Knowing the indicators, roles in the assessment to ensure active involvement, objectives for extension evaluation, role of different AIS actors, MEL for accountability or learning etc.

Core competencies (cross-cutting)

Specific depending on Audience

9

Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting

The audience

Regional level Country level

•Thematic WG on assessment and evaluation•INGOs•Donors•Think tanks /researchers

• Senior staff of RAS providers • Individual organisations and

their M&E • RAS systems (CF, MoA etc.)• Projects & programs• Extension providers (e.g POs,

NGOs)• Consulting firms • Universities • Think tanks/researchers

10

• Identification of the core competencies for all audiences

• Typology of key stakeholders to be involved >> : Enablers, Managers, Doers, Trainers, Users of RAS

• Inventory of existing learning resources

• Inventory of existing learning resources

F2F for the introduction, Training modules with

case studies Mentoring + On the job

training Self-directed learning

materials Training of trainers Backstopping, e-

learning (after training) etc.

Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting

What kind of training mode?

A process to be linked to the GFRAS evaluation initiative, not just doing training but sharing experiences and

documenting outcomes

11

Recommendations & prospects• Increase the tools, metrics, and capitalisation of

experiences• Focus on evaluation as learning and on what is really

important and feasible• Need case studies of how RAS organisations learn• Involvement of the diversity of Users • Needs for tools and guidelines as part of capacity

strengthening• Strategy to mobilise people to do it

Definition of boundaries of and roles for GFRAS to carry out the work – what is the added value and comparative advantage?

12

Recommendations and prospects

- Phase 1 : Elaboration and validation of Outline of the synthesis of learning materials (Sanne C. Proposed as synthesiser)

- Phase 2 : - selection and editing /packaging of appropriate

existing resources according to the difference audiences

- Identify contributors to the difference competenciesTimeline

Suggestions: Report ready by end of May Outline by end of August Circulated outline and feedback by September (GFRAS

meeting) Detailed outline prepared (October) Potential contributors identified and tasks assigned

(November)

Merci pour votre attentionThank You

14

Guiding questions

• What do you see as important to evaluate?

• How are you currently evaluating RAS? • What kind of support do you need to do

that evaluation ? • Do you have some particular lessons

learnt/good practices to share about implementation of RAS evaluation and utilization of its outcomes ?