An Online Survey on Identification of Evaluation Capacity, Needs and Current Practice of Programme Evaluation in Community-based Rehabilitation
Purpose: Evaluation of Community-based Rehabilitation (CBR) is important for developing good practice and providing a foundation for evidence of efficacy of practice. Since not much is known about the extent to which monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are carried out within CBR programmes, this study aimed to enhance knowledge by focussing on current M&E activities, the need and capacity of programmes to conduct evaluations and the challenges experienced.
Method: An online survey of 15 questions was developed, field-tested and sent out to 236 CBR managers in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Results: The majority (86%) of the respondents indicated that their programmes had been evaluated in the past.While this was mainly done by international donors (87%), only around half of the respondents reported programme participants as the main audience. Just over half of the programmes (54%) included people with disabilities, their families and community members in evaluation processes. Insufficient financial resources were considered the most important challenge to conduct evaluation, particularly in the African region and among smaller programmes. The complexity of CBR was also indicated as an important barrier to evaluation.Conclusions and Recommendations: Although evaluations have been widely implemented in CBR programmes, many of them are not locally owned, and people with disabilities and their families are often not included in evaluation processes. The issues of limited financial resources and CBR complexity reflect current discussions in other areas of mainstream development. It is therefore recommended that models for evaluation in CBR should learn from, and be embedded in, ongoing developments in mainstream evaluation in international development.
Alavi Y, Kuper H (Eds.) (2010). Evaluating the Impact of Rehabilitation in the Lives of People with Disabilities and their Families in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Review of Tools. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine – UK; CBM – Germany
Bamberger M, Rugh J, Mabry L (2012). Real World Evaluation: Working under Budget, Time and Data constraints. Sage Publications, New York
Bamberger M, Vaessen J, Estelle R (2016). Dealing with complexity in development evaluation. Sage Publications, New York
Braun V, Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 3 (2): 77-101. ISSN 1478-0887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cornielje H, Velema J, Finkenfluegel H (2008). Community based rehabilitation programmes: monitoring and evaluation in order to measure results. Leprosy Review; 79: 36-49. PMid:18540236
Finkenflugel H, Wolffers I, Huijsman R (2005). The evidence base for community-based rehabilitation: a literature review. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research; 28(3): 187-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200509000-00001. PMid: 16046912 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200509000-00001
Grandisson M, Hébert M, Thibeault R (2014). A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation; 36(4): 265-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.785602. PMid:23614357. PMCid:PMC3913006
Iemmi V, Bibson L, Blanchet K, Kumar S, Rath S, Hartley S, Murthy GVS, Patel V, Weber J, Kuper H (2015). Community based Rehabilitation for people with disabilities in low and middle-income countries. The Campbell Collaboration, London International Labour Organisation/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation/World Health Organisation (2004). CBR, a strategy for rehabilitation, equalisation of opportunities, poverty reduction and social inclusion of people with disabilities, Geneva
Kuiper P, Hartley S (2006). A process for the systematic review of community-based rehabilitation evaluation reports: formulating evidence for policy and practice. Int J Rehabil Res.; 29(1): 27-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mrr.0000185950.02552.db. PMid:16432386
Levine C, Grino L (2015). Local Ownership in Evaluation: Moving from Participant Inclusion to Ownership in Evaluation and Decision Making. Briefing Paper, Interaction.
Mannan H, Turnbull PA (2007). A review of community based rehabilitation evaluations: quality of life as an outcome measure for future evaluations. Asia Pacific Disability Journal; 18(1): 29.
Nulty D (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 33(3): 301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
Ramalingam B (2013). Aid at the edge of Chaos. Oxford University Press. Oxford
Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies R, Befani B (2012). Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Department of International Development Working. Paper 38. London
United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York.
Wirz S, Thomas M (2002). Evaluation of community-based rehabilitation programmes: A search for appropriate indicators. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research; 25(3): 163-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200209000-00001. PMid:12352169
World Health Organisation. CBR global database. [Accessed in April 2013) http://www.who.int/disabilities/cbr/global_database_form/en/
World Health Organisation/ World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva.
World Health Organisation, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, International Labour Organisation, International Disability and Development Consortium (2010). Community-based rehabilitation: CBR Guidelines. Geneva, WHO Press.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 Joerg Weber, Sarah Polack, Sally Hartley
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development