Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis.
This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public
service of the RAND Corporation.
Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
Support RAND
Browse Reports & Bookstore
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Europe
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice
appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is
provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to
a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright
law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research
documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see
RAND Permissions.
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TRANSPORTATION
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LAW AND BUSINESS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY

This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may
include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions
of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru-ments,
modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and
supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un-dergo
rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality
and objectivity.

technical REPORT
Monitoring and evaluation
in stabilisation interventions
Reviewing the state of the art
and suggesting ways forward
Christian van Stolk • Tom Ling • Anaïs Reding • Matt Bassford
Prepared for the Stabilisation Unit (UK)
EUROPE

The research described in this document was prepared for the Stabilisation Unit (UK).
RAND Europe is an independent, not-for-profit research organisation whose mission is
to improve policy and decision making for the public good. RAND’s publications do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
Cover photo copyright Stabilisation Unit (UK)
© Copyright 2011 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it
is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.
Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND
documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking
permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2011 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, United Kingdom
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
RAND Europe URL: http://www.rand.org/randeurope
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org

iii
Preface
This study was commissioned by the UK’s Stabilisation Unit to help develop a better
understanding of how effective monitoring and evaluation activities may improve strategic
planning and the implementation of stabilisation interventions. Successful implementation
requires a regular review of activities to understand what works in what context. The
overall objective of this study therefore was to improve the ability of the Stabilisation Unit
and its international partners to monitor and evaluate stabilisation interventions.
The Stabilisation Unit was established in 2004 as the Post Conflict Reconstruction Unit. It
is a joint unit of the Department for International Development, the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, reflecting the requirement for
coherent and complementary stabilisation efforts for the defence, diplomacy and
development sectors. The Post Conflict Reconstruction Unit was renamed the Stabilisation
Unit in 2007 (Stabilisation Unit 2008) and its mission today is:
• to co-ordinate and support cross-government stabilisation planning and execution;
• to ensure the rapid and integrated delivery of targeted expertise in a cross-government
approach;
• to lead on stabilisation lesson-learning and assist with implementation
(Stabilisation Unit 2011).
RAND Europe is an independent not-for-profit policy research organisation that aims to
improve policy and decision making in the public interest, through research and analysis.
RAND Europe’s clients include European governments, institutions, non-governmental
organisations and firms with a need for rigorous, independent, multidisciplinary analysis.
This report has been peer reviewed in accordance with RAND’s quality assurance
standards.
For more information about RAND Europe or this document, please contact:
Christian van Stolk
RAND Europe
Westbrook Centre
Milton Road
Cambridge CB4 1YG
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 1223 353 329
E-mail: stolk@rand.org

Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions

v
Acknowledgements
This report has benefited from the contribution of a range of people. Most importantly,
we would like to thank the UK Stabilisation Unit for funding this study. Lou Perrotta,
Head of the Lessons team, and Imogen Parsons, part of this team, provided helpful
guidance througout the research project.
The research team would also like to thank the individuals who agreed to be interviewed.
They often work in difficult and complex environments and their valuable insights have
provided important substance and context for this report.
• In the United Kingdom: Colonel Greville Bibby from the Military Stabilisation
Support Group, Ministry of Defence; and Christine Kolbe from Coffey
International Limited.
• In the United States: Arthur Collins, Captain Steve Comacho, and Heather Felton
from Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities
from the Department of Defense; Mike Cooper from the Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, Department of State; Graham
Kessler from Logos Technologies; and Anne Kovacs from US Crest.
• In Australia: Stefan Knollmeyer, Anneke Outred, and Christina Landsberg from
the Afghanistan Country Program and Crisis Prevention, Stabilisation and
Recovery Group, Australian Department of Overseas Aid Program.
• At the United Nations: Madalene O’Donnell, Justin Brady, Stephen Crispin,
Gillian Cull, Sergiusz Sidorowicz and Elizabeth Kissam from the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations; Adrian Morrice from the Department of Political
Affairs; and Brian James Williams and Willemijn van Levyveld from the
Peacebuilding Support Office.
• At the European Union: Maureen Brown from the Civilian Planning and
Conduct Capability.
• At the World Bank: Roy Gilbert from the Independent Evaluation Group.
All interviews are anonymised in the report.
Finally, the research team would also like to thank Dr. Stuart Johnson and Hans Pung,
colleagues from RAND, who reviewed earlier drafts of this report and helped to improve
it. The views expressed in this report represent those of the authors only.

vii
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................ iii
Summary ..................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 Monitoring and evaluation is central to learning lessons in
stabilisation interventions ................................................................ 1
1.1 The study aims to improve strategic planning in stabilisation by
strengthening monitoring and evaluation .......................................................... 1
1.2 Stabilisation aims to reduce the risk of a normal political process
becoming violent ............................................................................................... 2
1.3 Stabilisation outcomes focus on changes in beliefs and behaviour ...................... 3
1.4 Monitoring and evaluation is central to understanding what works and
what needs to be improved in stabilisation interventions ................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions
needs to move beyond conventional approaches ............................... 5
2.1 Conventional monitoring and evaluation approaches are difficult to apply
in stabilisation interventions .............................................................................. 5
2.2 A number of challenges to the effective use of monitoring and evaluation
of stabilisation interventions exist ...................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Monitoring and evaluation needs to reflect how stabilisation
interventions unfold – but there are different ways to structure
interventions ........................................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation needs to be relevant across different
time horizons – but there is a tendency to prioritise short-term
indicators ............................................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation requires organisational resources and
capacity – including leadership and cultural commitment .................... 8
2.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation frameworks need clarity on what to
measure – but it is not clear what are the right data or ‘good
enough’ evidence in a complex and fragile environment ....................... 8
CHAPTER 3 Theory of change can underpin effective monitoring and
evaluation ....................................................................................... 11
3.1 There are key principles that underpin effective evaluation .............................. 11
3.2 Theory of change provides a framework to guide the evaluation approach ....... 12

Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation RAND Europe
3.3 Applying the theory of change early in an intervention has some
advantages ....................................................................................................... 13
3.4 There is consensus that theory of change frameworks are relevant in
stabilisation – but they need to be adapted to specific contexts while using
best practice in evaluation ................................................................................ 14
3.5 The limitations of theory of change frameworks need to be considered
and addressed when applied to the stabilisation context ................................... 14
CHAPTER 4 Theory of change approaches need to be tailored carefully to
the stabilisation context ................................................................. 17
4.1 The theory of change approach needs to be tailored for stabilisation ................ 17
4.2 The use of contribution stories helps the attribution of outcomes and the
management of unintended outcomes ............................................................. 17
4.3 Real Time Evaluation allows the learning of lessons as activities progress
by capturing feedback loops ............................................................................. 19
4.4 Evaluators need to establish what ‘good enough‘ evidence is in
stabilisation environments ............................................................................... 20
4.5 Evaluators need to prioritise metrics and develop an indicator set to
support monitoring and evaluation .................................................................. 21
4.6 Stabilisation places some further demands on how data are prioritised and
collected .......................................................................................................... 22
List of references 23
Annex 1: A number of theories of change applicable to stabilisation
interventions .................................................................................. 26
Annex 2: OECD-DAC approach to monitoring and evaluation ................................ 29
Annex 3: Research methodology ............................................................................... 31
viii

ix
Summary
The UK Stabilisation Unit (SU) commissioned RAND Europe to assist in improving
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of stabilisation interventions. This assignment has two
phases. The aim of phase 1 is to draft a think piece on what is considered current practice
in M&E frameworks in stabilisation interventions and identify a number of steps that
could be taken forwards to improve the M&E of stabilisation interventions. The aim of
the subsequent phase, phase 2, is to develop guidance to assist strategic planners, in
conjunction with the Stabilisation Unit. This report describes the conclusions of phase 1.
Stabilisation entails an integrated approach to dealing with a range of complex problems
and needs that arise from unstable and violent environments. Stabilisation is essentially the
process or collection of activities which are aimed at reducing the risk of normal political
processes becoming violent. To achieve this, two outcomes are required:
• a change in the perceptions of individuals and groups (e.g. regarding views on
corruption and approval ratings of government);
• a change in behaviour towards non-violent conflict resolution, in a sustained and
consistent manner.
M&E is central to learning lessons in stabilisation interventions. Its frameworks, in
general, are important in producing explicit accounts of how the proposed activities would
lead to the desired outcome. M&E tells us whether the right things are being done, and
overall whether they are having the impact expected and desired. When it is done well
M&E helps to draw out lessons for the future.
There is a great demand for M&E in stabilisation. However, it is clear that applying
conventional M&E frameworks is problematic in stabilisation interventions. This is mainly
because of how stabilisation interventions are structured and of what they aim to address.
We note four main challenges:
• the particular way in which stabilisation interventions tend to unfold, with a wide
range of often concurrent activities that have different underlying logics;
• related to the first, the different time horizons and pressures for measuring
progress that apply to the actors and activities in a given stabilisation intervention;
• the limited capacities (e.g. organisational culture and technical skills) of actors
involved in stabilisation for undertaking M&E activities, owing to time pressure
and the lack of training in M&E;

• the complexity of the environment in which stabilisation takes place – what you
are trying to measure is often intangible, which has an impact on M&E processes
such as data collection and the interpretation of data.
Therefore an approach to M&E needs to be tailored carefully to the stabilisation context.
In terms of current practice, there is broad agreement in the stabilisation, peace support
and development community that theory of change (ToC) frameworks are a good basis for
M&E. They inform the design of the M&E framework by providing a systematic way to
think about the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of a stabilisation
intervention. Using ToC frameworks early on may enable several of the challenges to the
effective use of M&E in stabilisation to be addressed. In addition, the frameworks link
objectives clearly to activities by considering the logic of intervention. This makes it easier
to prioritise data gathering and to evaluate whether activities are contributing to the
outcomes envisioned.
However, few organisations have applied them. In order to make a ToC approach practical
and relevant, we need to overcome a number of challenges. Some of these arise from the
ToC framework itself, while others are associated with the stabilisation context. These
include:
• attributing outcomes and managing unintended outcomes;
• capturing feedback loops;
• considering what is good enough evidence;
• prioritising indicators on outcomes.
Therefore, for ToC to be fully relevant and appropriate for the stabilisation context, the
framework needs to be adapted or tailored. This is achievable, and we propose a number of
ways to strengthen the ToC framework that should help inform the M&E debate in
stabilisation. They include the use of the following:
• Contribution stories based on ToC to create well-developed narratives that
facilitate easier consideration of unintended outcomes and better attribution of
outcomes.
• Real-time and embedded evaluation (as opposed to ad-hoc after-action reviews) to
review the ToC regularly and capture feedback loops.
• Criteria to guide evaluators’ judgement of evidence and prioritisation of
x
performance metrics.

CHAPTER 1 Monitoring and evaluation is central to
learning lessons in stabilisation
interventions
1.1 The study aims to improve strategic planning in stabilisation by
strengthening monitoring and evaluation
The objective of this assignment is to improve the international community’s ability to
monitor and evaluate stabilisation efforts. The report outlines a conceptual theory of
change (ToC) framework to guide M&E efforts in the stabilisation context and suggests
how this might be applied to the stabilisation environment. The suggestions are not aimed
solely at supporting bilateral stabilisation interventions. Rather, they have been
intentionally designed to fit within, and be useful to, broader multilateral stabilisation
interventions.
This think piece is not an end in itself. While we outline the key characteristics of effective
M&E in the stabilisation context, the agenda that is presented is designed to facilitate
discussion rather than to define specific improvement activities. The aim of our work
subsequent to this report will be to develop guidance on the implementation of M&E in
stabilisation interventions for potential use by the SU and its key stakeholders and
partners.
The report reflects on what stabilisation is and the outcomes that a stabilisation
intervention tries to achieve. This discussion seems of value, given the divergent views of
what a stabilisation intervention may entail. Then, in this chapter, we make the case for
the importance of M&E in stabilisation. Subsequent chapters develop the M&E approach.
Chapter 2 sets the landscape of the M&E of stabilisation interventions and associated
challenges. Chapter 3 introduces a ToC framework to guide evaluation approaches. It
discusses what needs to be considered when applying such approaches to stabilisation
contexts. Finally, Chapter 4 outlines how the ToC approach may be tailored to suit
stabilisation interventions. There are also three annexes: the first provides examples of
theories of change, the second describes the OECD-DAC’s approach to monitoring and
evaluation, and the third details the research methodology.
1

In writing this report we drew upon a documentary review and 15 interviews with
individuals involved in stabilisation efforts. These included the military, national
government stabilisation entities, development agencies and international organisations.
1.2 Stabilisation aims to reduce the risk of a normal political process
2
becoming violent
[Stabilisation is] a space rather than a plan
First of all we did not have a plan; we had a broad spectrum of possible courses of action
Each situation is different – either requiring a rapid intervention or slower consensus building
Participants’ feedback at an MNE 61 workshop in Shrivenham, 18 June 2010.
Stabilisation entails making an integrated approach to dealing with a range of complex
problems and needs that arise from unstable and violent environments. It is essentially the
process or collection of activities that are aimed at reducing the risk of normal political
processes becoming violent. This risk reduction results from changes in the beliefs,
perceptions, behaviours of and relationships between individuals and groups. It entails
changes in the incentives that stimulate violent versus non-violent behaviours.
Stabilisation aims to discourage groups from resorting to violent means in order to
compete for power – or in order to control people, land or natural resources – by
encouraging them to resort to non-violent means of competition and conflict resolution.
The process focuses on the establishment of political and security stability. At its heart lies
a strong political focus, as opposed to humanitarian assistance. It incorporates the
capacities of a wide range of government partners – civilian and military, national and
international – working together with the aim of collaboration (Slotin et al. 2010). The
UK concept of stabilisation has emerged in response to needs on the ground in
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept and approach may
be applied to a broad range of complex conflict environments, including ones in which
multilateral partners dominate.
Stabilisation as a concept overlaps and interacts with a wide range of activities and
objectives in the political, humanitarian, military and development fields. It may be a
necessary condition for other activities to take place or be successful. It is also true that
activities in other fields may affect the success of stabilisation efforts. Stabilisation
contributes to peace building and state building through the prevention or reduction of
1 The United States Joint Forces Command website explains that “MNE 6 represents the latest in the MNE
series of experiments hosted by USJFCOM. The experiment series began in November 2001 as a venue to
develop better methods to plan and conduct coalition operations. Since then, the MNE community developed
structures, processes and tools to make future multinational engagements in crisis interventions more effective
and efficient. MNE 6 is a two-year effort involving 16 nations [including the UK] and NATO's Allied
Transformation Command (ACT). The goal is to improve coalition capabilities using a whole of government
approach to counter actions of irregular adversaries and other non-state actors.”(USJFCOM 2009)

RAND Europe Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation
conflict and the creation of sufficient security to kick-start a political or peace process and
by beginning to make progress on the underlying causes of conflict. It complements early
recovery efforts in crisis environments by focusing on post-conflict zones and the re-establishment
of political and security stability within them. Stabilisation complements
counter-insurgency operations by addressing the grievances of insurgents. The relationship
between stabilisation and humanitarian assistance may be tense; humanitarian assistance is
impartial, while stabilisation is part of a political intervention and position. However, the
two may be complementary. Stabilisation activities may help humanitarian assistance to
reach insecure areas while humanitarian assistance may strengthen efforts directed at
stabilisation.
A stabilisation intervention may consist of a wide range of activities undertaken by various
actors and partners. They may operate in partnership or in silos, and may use different
intervention logics that contribute to the overall goal of improving political stability and
security. Stabilisation activities, once begun, may need to be sustained simultaneously over
years rather than months in order to consolidate an impact and engage actors at different
points in time (SU 2008).
1.3 Stabilisation outcomes focus on changes in beliefs and behaviour
Stabilisation interventions focus on a range of outcomes relating to the beliefs and
behaviours of groups and individuals. Those setting objectives for stabilisation
interventions increasingly look at efforts such as those in the following examples:
• building a school: whether they produce measurable and sustained changes in
beliefs and perceptions such as reduction in perceptions of corruption, exclusion
or impunity, especially on the part of politically relevant individuals and groups;
• changes in the incentive structure: whether they are producing measurable and
consistent changes in behaviour and relationships, such as the resolution of more
disputes without recourse to violence, a broader base of enthusiastic participants in
a peace process, and so on.
These outcome measures provide a solid basis for framing M&E activities and thinking
about how outcomes may be measured.
1.4 Monitoring and evaluation is central to understanding what works and
what needs to be improved in stabilisation interventions
M&E is important in giving those involved in managing programmes the right
information to enable them to manage and to adjust strategies and to draw lessons for the
future. It may involve reflecting on whether programmes are ‘doing the right things’ and
provide answers about whether programmes are ‘doing things right’ (Rynn and Hiscock
2009) by looking respectively at intended and unintended outcomes. It is particularly
important for those implementing policy initiatives and change programmes to ensure that
the strategic objectives and outcomes of the interventions are achieved.
3

M&E is critical to stabilisation in relation to creating a means of learning from successes
and mistakes and adapting programmes as they unfold, to ensure that the chances of
achieving success and minimising harm are maximised. There needs to be recognition in
the wider policy community that mistakes will be made in stabilisation interventions. The
key objective of M&E is to ensure that lessons are learnt from those mistakes. So, to be
effective M&E should provide vital information and insights upon which actions can be
based – for instance, to assist in strategic planning, improve stabilisation efforts and draw
lessons for the future. The move towards the development of M&E frameworks looking at
stabilisation is also closely linked to the development of results-based management,
ensuring that interventions deliver outcomes (see e.g. Cox and Thornton 2010). In this
context M&E is an ongoing activity that forms part of the overall approach, rather than a
one-off snapshot or diagnosis of success or failure after the fact.
4

CHAPTER 2 Monitoring and evaluation in
stabilisation interventions needs to
move beyond conventional approaches
2.1 Conventional monitoring and evaluation approaches are difficult to apply
in stabilisation interventions
There is great demand for M&E of stabilisation interventions as those involved seek to
understand what works in what context. However, M&E of stabilisation interventions is
often described as ‘being in its infancy’, ‘developing’ and at present consisting of a ‘blank
piece of paper’. It is clear that applying conventional models of M&E (see, for instance, the
OECD-DAC’s model in Annex 2) or ideal M&E types to stabilisation interventions is
proving difficult because of the challenges that characterise these contexts. The speed of
response is one such challenge. In addition, stabilisation environments tend to be fragile
and complex. This means that inputs and processes often do not lead to the outcomes
expected. A more flexible and adaptive approach to M&E is called for: one that is
responsive to these challenges and captures unintended consequences as well as
interdependencies between different strands of an intervention. Developing such an
approach requires a detailed understanding of the challenges at hand and also of the
discussions that are taking place around the globe to improve the M&E of stabilisation
interventions.
2.2 A number of challenges to the effective use of monitoring and evaluation
of stabilisation interventions exist
It is clear that applying M&E frameworks to stabilisation interventions is problematic.
Difficulties reside in how stabilisation interventions are structured and in the substance of
what stabilisation interventions try to address. Our work points to the following four main
characteristics of stabilisation interventions that cause problems for M&E (see e.g. Cox and
Thornton 2010, de Coning and Romita 2009, Scheye and Chigas 2009, Coffey
International 2009, Rynn and Hiscock 2009):
• the particular way in which stabilisation interventions tend to unfold, with a wide
range of often concurrent activities that have different underlying logics;
5

• related to the first, the different time horizons and pressures for measuring
progress that apply to the actors and activities in a given stabilisation intervention;
• the limited capacities (e.g. organisational culture and technical capacities) of actors
involved in stabilisation to undertake M&E activities, owing to time pressure and
the lack of training in M&E;
• the complexity of the environment in which stabilisation takes place, where what
you are trying to measure is often intangible, which in turn has an impact on
M&E processes such as data collection and the interpretation of data.
The first three observations reflect on how stabilisation interventions are structured and
resourced, while the last reflects on the substance of a stabilisation intervention. These
observations are considered below in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.4.
2.2.1 Monitoring and evaluation needs to reflect how stabilisation interventions unfold
– but there are different ways to structure interventions
Among the main challenges for M&E in stabilisation interventions are to structure the
activities involved in a coherent way, to articulate common goals, and to allow the relative
contributions of each strand of activity to those goals to be understood. This is particularly
problematical because there are often a range of activities involved, with elements of
conflict prevention, peace building, state building and institution building operating over
different timeframes (see e.g. DfID 2009, International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and
Statebuilding 2010, Jones and Rathmell 2005b). There is no right way to structure an
intervention; examples include programmatic approaches, integrated planning, and
building a portfolio of relevant activities. Different ways of structuring an intervention will
be needed depending on the context, type of intervention and range of organisations
involved. We identified three main approaches to planning and managing the possible
range of activities, each with particular implications for M&E design.
Having to act quickly. The practical reality of stabilisation is that component activities are
often introduced quickly and with limited planning in response to a crisis situation. It is
therefore in the nature of stabilisation interventions that you begin with a group of broad
and at times disparate activities. This type of intervention relies less on the internal logic
and complementarity of activities and more on the judgement of individuals in different
agencies in identifying the best activities within their political and agency constraints and
undertaking these in a timely fashion. The challenge of M&E is to make sense of the
activities once they have been initiated, to make judgements on their interdependency and
complementarity as they unfold, and to enable learning and adaptation in order to increase
coherence.
Transferring models and experience. This approach focuses on using a suite of activities in
stabilisation that has proved successful in various parts of the world. These include, for
instance, the transposition of military tactics used in Iraq to Afghanistan. The approach
has similarities to the one considered above, but starts with assumptions about what works
and what does not in a given context. It therefore relies less on ad-hoc agency judgement,
and calls for some in-built knowledge of interdependencies and complementarity.
However, this approach may be based on faulty assumptions as particular models are
sometimes less easily transferable to different contexts than initially thought. M&E may
6

play a role in helping organisations to identify how the models and lessons from other
experiences need to be adapted and changed to fit the local context.
Selecting projects/programmes. This approach attempts to structure a balanced set of
stabilisation activities. Projects and programmes are individually selected. It is appealing
from an M&E point of view because the structured process of inclusion should make the
M&E framework explicit up front, meaning that the goals will be aligned to activities up
front. This is the approach increasingly used by the United Nations Peacebuilding Support
Office (PBSO) in administering the Peacebuilding Fund, and it then influences post-completion
reviews of the programme. The approach has some similarities with those of
other donor-funding mechanisms. The main problem with this approach is that it does not
ensure a comprehensive set of programmes and activities, and it may not be able to adapt
to quickly changing circumstances. In its most extreme application (active portfolio
management), the approach may implicitly assume that certain activities will fail and take
this as a given, a position which it may be difficult to maintain for political and value-for-money
7
reasons.
Developing an M&E framework will be useful in all the three approaches. However, M&E
will have different roles in each. In the first, M&E is less likely to have been considered up
front due to the speed of the intervention and other related factors. In this situation, M&E
can be used during the intervention as a tool for increasing complementarity and
coherence across different agencies and helping organisations to ensure that they are
contributing to overall objectives. The main challenge for those involved in evaluating and
reviewing programmes is to build in reviews that will allow ToCs to be made explicit and
baseline assessments to take place. In the last two approaches, M&E frameworks tend to be
more embedded at the outset of the interventions and therefore the ToC would be more
explicit and could be reviewed accordingly. Nonetheless, all three approaches would call
for real-time reviews, thinking through the theories of change of individual programme
components and how they link to strategic plans, and designing appropriate metrics to
measure outputs, outcome and impacts.
2.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation needs to be relevant across different time horizons –
but there is a tendency to prioritise short-term indicators
Some of the tension in stabilisation has tended to arise because of the different time
horizons used by actors engaged in stabilisation. Some look more explicitly at the short
term, while others have longer outlooks for achieving results.2 This is compounded by the
fact that conflict and stabilisation are not linear processes, so sequencing and staging of
activities over time is difficult (see e.g. Jones and Rathmell 2005a). Furthermore, political
pressure requires that the stabilisation community shows progress in the short to medium
term, thus putting pressure on M&E frameworks to show progress and prioritise short-
2 It also has implications at the actor level. For instance, the UN places a lot of emphasis on conflict prevention
and peace building, particularly in addressing the root causes of conflict and violence. The OECD-DAC
guidance focuses in particular on strengthening the relationship between state and society, the United States
emphasise security cooperation, and Australia and Canada stress peace keeping. Each implies slightly different
geographical and time horizons.

term indicators. The response of M&E frameworks under such pressure is often to focus
on outputs rather than on outcomes and impacts.
2.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation requires organisational resources and capacity –
including leadership and cultural commitment
One of the more difficult challenges is how to embed M&E frameworks in stabilisation
interventions when organisations have limited capacity to manage and use them or when
they resist their use. This may also relate to the limited capacity of those involved in M&E
in stabilisation environments to make sense of the data that are collected. That reflects the
limited time available to undertake M&E activities, as well as the capacity to collect the
‘right’ data and make sense of them. An example is a programme on police training in
which outcomes were relatively straightforward to measure, but attributing responsibility
for delivering those outcomes had proved difficult in terms of getting buy-in from
organisational leadership and building an environment in which learning could take place.
We identified three ways to tackle this problem:
• by focusing on training of staff and building capacities – for instance in data
8
collection, M&E and reporting;
• by building on existing capacities, within the organisation and more widely, which
can be used for M&E;
• by encouraging learning across the different agencies involved in stabilisation.
An example of the first of these is current work that the Helmand Provincial
Reconstruction Team and Department for International Development (DfID) Afghanistan
are conducting to support the M&E of stabilisation plans and programmes. It appears that
bottom-up processes endorsed by senior decision-makers may also empower staff on the
ground and make them take ownership of M&E. Another approach has been used in the
United States, to develop interagency learning lessons fora as well as databases that cut
across the main silos in which policy-makers can engage.
2.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation frameworks need clarity on what to measure – but it
is not clear what are the right data or ‘good enough’ evidence in a complex and
fragile environment
The substance of stabilisation is crucial in understanding why conventional M&E models
are difficult to apply in this environment. Stabilisation activities are often fluid and subject
to change over time. Moreover, the outcomes associated with stabilisation interventions –
such as political and social change, community perceptions, conflict dynamics, and so on –
are difficult to measure. This has two important consequences for M&E frameworks.
Firstly, it is not clear what data should be collected. The consequence has been that
substantial efforts have been made to collect data, while less effort has been made to
analyse these data. For instance, of the 5–8 per cent of resources spent on collecting and
analysing data in some US stabilisation interventions, on balance significantly less is spent
on analysing the data and drawing the lessons for stabilisation operations than on data
collection. It is not always clear that the right data are being collected and where the right
data may be collected; and it is not clear that proper use is made of the data as an input
into M&E activities. There appears to be a need for clever metrics that increase

understanding rather than risk ‘data being collected for the sake of it’ (see Agoglia et al.
2010).
Secondly, M&E frameworks in stabilisation interventions are increasingly relying on
qualitative measures and perceptions data to capture outcomes. However, the question that
remains is how to establish baselines and make sense of longer-term trends using such data
in a complex and changing environment. This requires judgement on and understanding
of what can be considered ‘good enough’ data and evidence. This judgement is especially
important given some of the difficulties in gathering reliable data in insecure and
dangerous areas.
9

CHAPTER 3 Theory of change can underpin effective
monitoring and evaluation
3.1 There are key principles that underpin effective evaluation
As identified earlier, significant resources are put into data collection for monitoring
purposes but often a framework to organise and make sense of the metrics is lacking.3 We
suggest that delivering this would be best supported by ensuring, as far as possible, that
evaluations have the following features (Greenhalgh et al. 2004):
1. Attention to processes – focusing on programme outcomes as well as, in equal
measure, attention to processes. This contrasts with more classical evaluation
approaches, which tend to look at outcomes first and then to look for evidence to
support attribution.
2. Carefully descriptive – providing enough contextual detail to allow judgements to
be made and to determine which lessons are most likely to be transferrable.
3. Adopt common indicators and measures – developing agreed definitions of concepts
and prioritising measurements over time (this would logically tend to follow the
first two steps).
4. Multidisciplinary and multimethod – the evidence used to support or undercut
hypothesised connections between actions and outcomes is likely to be generated
by a variety of disciplines and approaches.
5. Participatory – to ensure that views are adequately and fairly represented, and that
evaluations are useful to stakeholders.
The last two of these are particularly relevant when thinking of ways to measure
changes in perceptions and behaviour in stabilisation environments. Observations
from staff in the field might be corroborated by polling information and focus groups
as well as by analysis of secondary data on, for example, economic activity. Evaluations
and reviews therefore not only seek to include views but also to make the information
3 See the extensive set of potential data points presented in Agoglia et al. (2010).
11

useful for those who participate in activities subject to review or in the M&E process
itself.
3.2 Theory of change provides a framework to guide the evaluation approach
There is wide support for using a ToC to underpin M&E. However, there is less
understanding of how this should be managed practically.
In applying the ToC we use as a starting point the argument of Weiss (1995):
Grounding evaluation in theories of change takes for granted that social
programmes are based on explicit or implicit theories about how and why the
programme will work … The evaluation should surface those theories and lay
them out in as fine detail as possible, identifying all the assumptions and sub-assumptions
built into the programme. The evaluators then construct methods
for data collection and analysis to track the unfolding assumptions. The aim is
to examine the extent to which programme theories hold … the evaluation
should show which of the assumptions underlying the programme are best
supported by the evidence.
ToC provides a conceptual framework that can guide an evaluation approach, rather than
constituting a methodology in itself. Its benefit is that it requires a focused discussion on
the overall aims of stabilisation and, preferably at the very start, an explicit account of how
the proposed activities would lead to the desired outcome (see Figure 3.1). In this
approach, aims are identified, as are the inputs, processes and outputs required to achieve
the aims. For each of these stages we need to understand the ‘why, what, who, when, and
how’. For instance, if police training is to achieve improvements in standards of behaviour
and hence increase local acceptance and legitimacy – in turn contributing to greater
stability – we need to know why this is expected, what will be done, who will do it, when it
will be done and how.
Figure 3.1: Outline of a basic logic model
SOURCE: RAND Europe, 2010.
Practically, the ToC approach places four requirements on those involved in M&E.
Individually these steps are neither controversial nor radical, and taken together they
provide a firm and pragmatic base for evaluations and reviews:
12

1. A focus on programme outcomes, but requiring that equal attention is paid to
processes. This contrasts with more classical evaluation approaches, which tend to
look at outcomes first and then for evidence to support attribution.
2. An ability to reconstruct and represent the sequence of events connecting actions to
each other in order to understand causal chains and pathways. This also requires an
appreciation of how these actions were intended to contribute to the identified
outcomes, preferably identifying causal mechanisms.
3. Sensitivity to the possibility that, during the life of a programme or intervention,
widely held initial theories of change may evolve in response to learning or to
external events. The evaluation should capture these changing understandings and
resulting actions.
4. Sensitivity to the fact that different and potentially conflicting theories of change
(both explicit and implicit) may be simultaneously pursued – that different
stakeholders may have alternate theories in mind.
3.3 Applying the theory of change early in an intervention has some
advantages
There is agreement that ToC frameworks need to be introduced early when designing
interventions. This has the advantage of informing the design of the M&E framework by
providing a systematic way to think about the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes of a
stabilisation intervention. This makes it easier to prioritise data gathering and to evaluate
whether activities are contributing to the outcomes envisioned.
There are a number of associated advantages as well:
• It allows for the ToC to be clarified and tested throughout the stabilisation
intervention and for lessons to be learnt and stabilisation activities to be
adjusted and improved.
• Baseline assessments are possible once the ToC has been made clear. These
should include identifying key sources of conflict and violence, the key groups
involved, and the narratives that explain which factors the activities aim to
influence and which impacts are expected (Cox and Thornton 2010).
• The contribution of individual programme components to an overall strategic
plan would be clearer. These assessments need to be integrated into planning
cycles, and not form one-off exercises – as is currently often the case (Slotin et
al. 2010)
13

3.4 There is consensus that theory of change frameworks are relevant in
stabilisation – but they need to be adapted to specific contexts while using
best practice in evaluation
There exists a broad consensus that ToC frameworks are relevant and useful in
stabilisation. Although their use is well documented in the literature (see e.g. OECD-DAC
2009, Cox and Thornton 2010), few cases in which ToC approaches were systematically
applied were identified in the present study. This observation possibly reflects the
difficulties of applying conventional ToC models to stabilisation and also the need to tailor
ToC approaches to take into account the challenges described earlier. These challenges do
not mean that it is impossible to collect evaluative data and to form evidence-based
judgements. Understanding what was intended, what happened, what was learned and
what should be done differently are minimum requirements of an evaluation, however
complex the evaluation process may be. Our approach tries to move beyond conventional
models of M&E by recognising the complexity and the challenges of the stabilisation
context. It seeks to arrive at a pragmatic M&E approach that can be adapted to a range of
circumstances, reflect on available capacities, and make the best use of the data available.
To do this, we need to reflect on what the ToC approach can offer M&E activities and
also which limitations of the approach and which challenges associated with its use in the
stabilisation context need to be addressed.
3.5 The limitations of theory of change frameworks need to be considered and
addressed when applied to the stabilisation context
There are two notable drawbacks of using ToC approaches:
• The frameworks may be perceived as abstract. If not reviewed regularly, they may
become linear and fail to pay enough attention to unintended outcomes.
Attribution of outcomes and managing unintended outcomes are key aspects of
M&E in stabilisation. It is likely that changes in stabilisation such as ‘improved
perceptions of security’ are the product of a complex array of factors, of which
international interventions may play but one part. Attributing causality is
problematic, though it should not prevent effective monitoring from taking place.
• The frameworks have typically been used in a programme – or programme
component – rather than as strategies, and therefore they often ignore
interdependencies and feedback loops. Capturing relevant feedback loops is
problematic in complex and dynamic environments (Coffey International
Development 2009). However, we know that this is important in adjusting
stabilisation interventions over time and learning lessons as interventions unfold.
Capturing feedback loops is also important as strategic planning assumptions are
often proved wrong.
The unique environment of stabilisation interventions adds a number of challenges, which
need to be addressed when applying a ToC approach:
• Considering what is good enough evidence relates to the need to make judgements
on the basis of evidence and what the data say and cannot say.
14

• Prioritising data capture and metrics is important. This point is related to the
previous point, but focuses on using capacity and solid criteria in stabilisation
interventions in order to select a set of metrics that enables those monitoring and
evaluating to make sense of the range of data available, taking into account the
reliability of those data.
15

CHAPTER 4 Theory of change approaches need to
be tailored carefully to the stabilisation
context
4.1 The theory of change approach needs to be tailored for stabilisation
It is apparent that the ToC approach needs to be adapted or tailored to take into account
the challenges associated with stabilisation interventions. Our judgement is that this is
worthwhile and achievable. This chapter outlines how this might be achieved and informs
the M&E debate in stabilisation by looking at four main steps:
• development of contribution stories;
• use of real-time revaluation;
• identifying evidence that is good enough;
• prioritising performance metrics.
We use the terms ‘evaluation’ and ‘review’ interchangeably and recognise that most M&E
activity in stabilisation environments is likely to involve monitoring and review. Our
emphasis here is on real-time review or on reviews conducted prior to implementation
rather than on post-completion evaluations.
4.2 The use of contribution stories helps the attribution of outcomes and the
management of unintended outcomes
Contribution stories provide insight into why practitioners and policy-makers believe that
their use of resources (money, authority, expertise, time, etc.) will contribute to intended
outcomes, and what side-effects and unintended outcomes they envisage (Mayne 2008).
By reflecting on the side-effects and unintended outcomes, they may be differentiated from
typical ToC approaches. They provide a way of embedding a ToC approach in an
evaluation by ensuring that the ToC is informed and shaped by the stories of those who
are in a position to provide rich, contextualised narratives that explain their understanding
of the causal pathways connecting their activities to the aims of stabilisation. Contribution
stories can be used to identify what evidence you need to evaluate how well a programme
17

has met its stated goals, as well as highlighting where gaps exist between different types of
expectation and the reality of what a programme has delivered.
We outline here the tenets of the contribution analysis, which we aim to apply to the
stabilisation context:4
1. Building a contribution story. Firstly, in order to understand the contribution
story it is necessary to identify the formally stated objectives, activities and
expectations of those involved in stabilisation interventions and those affected by
the interventions. These should be contextualised and developed by exploring the
tacit assumptions held by a range of stakeholders and partners, focusing on what
their intended outcomes were, and what led them to expect (or not) that their
planned and current activities would result in those future outcomes. These stories
may be fruitfully explored (e.g. through interviews, surveys or focus groups) at
different levels of impact. The stories are typically developed at the outset of a
project. However, they may also be used for reviews or evaluations of
interventions. They mostly help develop the intervention logic or test the initial
ToC assumptions held at the outset of the intervention.
2. Comparing and contrasting contribution stories. It is also critical to identify
where differing contribution stories exist within and between organisations.
Themes should be identified (e.g. Do certain organisations or types of person have
shared understandings of these contributions stories?)
3. Testing contribution stories. Once the perceived and expected contribution
stories have been identified, it is important that they are tested with others
through workshops or other means, possibly asking respondents to score them for
how compelling they were. Apparent leaps of faith could be explored and
assumptions challenged.
4. Preparing for the unexpected. When drafting contribution stories for
stabilisation interventions, it is useful to incorporate future planning. There are
situations that may be defined as breaking points. These have been described to us
as a dry woodpile that one match (e.g. an election, a civilian casualty) could ignite.
The trend data, in this case, may tell only a part of the story and may fail to
distinguish between a situation that is poor but manageable and a situation that is
on the verge of breakdown. Any contribution story therefore requires some further
contextualising and it is likely that this will involve expert judgement on how
likely or how certain events are (e.g. using expert consultations or the development
of scenarios to understand the likely futures that could occur).
5. Outlining the shared contribution story. A final and challenging step is to
identify the evidence needed to support these stories and determine actual
performance standards. This requires an assessment of what the available evidence
shows, the filling of any evidence gaps and weighing the strength of the evidence.
4 Wider applicability will be tested in workshops conducted in a later stage of the overall project.
18

Identifying contribution stories provides a sound basis for developing a ToC with which to
gain traction on seven basic questions:
1. How well founded were the ToC and people’s contribution stories?
2. Were the selected activities the right ones?
3. Was each separate activity well managed and were synergies identified and
19
exploited?
4. Were projects adapted and learned from appropriately?
5. What were the intended outcomes and how far did the project contribute to these?
6. Were unintended consequences identified and assessed?
7. (How) should the ToC be revised and adapted in the future?
Using contribution stories is not a sufficient reason for believing that outcomes are
attributable to the activities, but it establishes both a baseline and a potential causal
pathway to explore. This approach is also likely to identify possible unintended outcomes
over time (again, these would need to be tested against the evidence). This approach
therefore lends itself naturally to Real Time Evaluation (RTE).
4.3 Real Time Evaluation allows the learning of lessons as activities progress
by capturing feedback loops
RTE is embedded evaluation whereby the reviewer/evaluator observes the activity and
gathers data throughout the intervention or at critical junctures.
The products of RTE are periodic review reports on the logic of intervention. It should
begin as early as possible in the activity and continue at intervals throughout its life (see
Cosgrave et al. 2009). It is not necessary (and not desirable) for these to be time
consuming. Each iteration following the initial establishing of the contribution story
should be brief and focused on revising or confirming the original story. That will reflect
on whether and how intended outcomes have been achieved and whether there have been
unintended outcomes associated with the activity. There is no reason for respondents to be
drawn only from civilian sources or to be professional evaluators. However, it is important
for their potential biases to be taken into account and for a relatively independent
evaluator/reviewer to be responsible for analysing these responses.
Developing the RTE, however, involves more than compiling and analysing the changing
contribution stories. ToC needs to be evaluated against the evidence available. The
categories of evidence, and the concepts behind them, should as far as possible be
consistent, allowing comparison over time and between different areas. This can be
difficult to achieve when the ToC is changing (see section 4.4).
Above all, the RTE should be oriented towards improvement and integrated into the
planning cycle. The RTEs also provide the basic data for more substantial evaluations
(possibly synthesising a number of RTEs) that may support learning.

4.4 Evaluators need to establish what ‘good enough‘ evidence is in
stabilisation environments
There are a number of factors for evaluators/reviewers to consider when deciding when
evidence may be considered ‘good enough’.
The first is to consider evidence in a spectrum of types of evidence to assess how good it is.
This would reflect on issues such as these:
1. Relevance of evidence – does it relate to what we need to know?
2. Robustness of data collection – does data collection apply recognised standards
20
(e.g. could it be easily replicated)?
3. Systematic basis of evidence – is evidence somewhat anecdotal and ad hoc, or is it
part of a more systematic body of knowledge (e.g. longitudinal data collection)?
The second factor is concerned with the legitimacy of the evidence. Even good evidence
may be seen as illegitimate in the eyes of key stakeholders. To help gain ownership of these
indicators, it is important to try to develop them with all parties involved in the
stabilisation programme (Jones and Rathmell 2005a). Involving stakeholders (e.g. engaging
with non-governmental organisations) may also be of the utmost help in the collection of
data, ensuring linkages between different data collection exercises.
This leads to a third aspect of corroborating evidence. It seems to be important to use both
quantitative and qualitative indicators in a complementary fashion in order to control, to
as great an extent as is possible, for unreliable or incomplete information (de Coning and
Romita 2009, Kessler et al. 2009, DfID 2010). Data from different datasets may be helpful
as well.
The fourth aspect is seeing what the evidence can say about your ToC or causal pathway.
This also ensures that data collection supports M&E activities. A coherent and
comprehensive combination of outcome and process measures is desirable in order to avoid
incomplete and misleading approximations, although it can be time consuming to use this
(Scheye and Chigas 2009). Evidence should also tie inputs to outputs and outcomes (Jones
and Rathmell 2005a). A final important aspect is that data can be collected over time in a
consistent manner to continue to inform your intervention.
Continuity of data collection in ToC frameworks may be difficult to achieve. When a ToC
is adjusted over time, the type of metrics collected may change and affect the collection.
However, outcome and impact measures mostly remain the same, mitigating this
challenge. What changes in typical cases is how activities link to outputs and outcomes.
Fifth, evidence needs to cover most of the areas relevant to stabilisation – hence the
economic, social, political and security dimensions – and not just those that the
programme being evaluated is targeting (Jones and Rathmell 2005a). This will help
capture all relevant feedback loops – external intervening factors as well as causal
relationships. We do not imply that all relevant aspects of stabilisation need to be
measured, but that outcomes may be broader in scope than inputs and activities.

4.5 Evaluators need to prioritise metrics and develop an indicator set to
support monitoring and evaluation
Making sense of data available is often a significant challenge. Though there are a number
of factors involved in how we make sense of data collected in stabilisation interventions,
prioritisation can help in this. Any prioritisation exercise may have to be revisited over time
to ensure that the metrics are still relevant and appropriate. There are broadly two
approaches to prioritisation, which may help with developing contribution stories and
RTE approaches:
1) The pragmatic approach. This focuses specifically on the objectives of a
stabilisation activity and how data can be collected feasibly. The campaign
assessment in Bosnia is a good example (see Lambert 2002). This assessment
incorporated grassroots indicators on the prices of major goods. Each data point
had the potential for observable changes during the mission duration.
Multinational soldiers with no local language had to be able to carry out data
collection. Proxy indicators for economic recovery and conflict reduction had to
be used. They consisted of the number of television aerials in villages and the
reduction in the price of women’s underwear. The indicators were set by
operational analysts supporting senior commanders in the field, who assessed them
for relevance and appropriateness.
2) The reductionist approach. This is based on mining information that is already
collected (e.g. other agencies’ monitoring systems, open-access databases) in order
to allow evaluators, reviewers or programme staff to focus their efforts on
collecting a smaller set of data (Kessler et al. 2009, USAID 2006). The normal
way to reduce the number of indicators is to assess each dataset against
independent criteria. An example is FABRIC (Cabinet Office 2001), which
assesses whether data is:
Focused on the organisation’s aims and objectives;
Appropriate to, and useful for, the stakeholders who are likely to use it;
Balanced, giving a picture of what the organisation is doing, covering all
significant areas of work;
Robust, in order to withstand organisational changes or individuals leaving;
Integrated into the organisation, being part of the business planning and
management processes;
Cost effective, balancing the benefits of the information against the costs.
The output of such an approach is a range of indicators, which may be further prioritised
in a dashboard. This is of course only one way to display data. This type of exercise is
particularly well suited to prioritising data in data-rich environments.
21

4.6 Stabilisation places some further demands on how data are prioritised
and collected
Finally, it is important to note that the stabilisation environment, being by its nature
interested in changes in perceptions and behaviour, has two further important
consequences for how data is prioritised and collected:
• Prioritisation. The assessment of whether progress has been made and whether
objectives have been achieved has to be clearly informed by the perceptions and
behaviour of local individuals and organisations. Their views on progress and
behaviour are more relevant than external views on progress. Perception data are
often difficult to interpret in terms of establishing a baseline or trends. As such,
they require additional corroboration from other sources of information.
• Data collection. Arriving at judgements on behaviour and perceptions may
require a range of methodologies, including sociological and anthropological
approaches. An example would be the use of observational analysis in
communities and important meetings. The challenge of stabilisation and
consequently of M&E in stabilisation is to use state-of-the-art qualitative and
quantitative approaches and make the most of the evidence available. The use of
such methodologies may be compromised by difficulties in gathering data in
insecure and dangerous areas. This in turn has consequences for what is
considered good enough evidence and how to prioritise data.
22

23
List of references
Agoglia J., M. Dziedzic and B. Sotirin (eds.) (2010) Measuring Progress in Conflict
Environments (MPICE). A Metrics Framework. Washington: United States Institute of
Peace.
Cabinet Office (2001) ‘FABRIC’. London: The Stationery Office.
Church, C., and M. Rogers (2006) Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and
Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs, Search for Common Ground.
Available online: http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/ilr/ilt_manualpage.html [accessed
March 7 2011].
Coffey International Development (2009), The Cost of a Good Deed: Project Monitoring in
Post-conflict Environments and the Application of the Logframe. Reading: Coffey
International Limited.
Cosgrave, J., B. Ramalingam and T. Beck (2009) Real-time Evaluations of Humanitarian
Action. An ALNAP Guide, pilot version. Overseas Development Institute. Available
online: http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/rteguide.pdf [accessed March 7 2011].
Cox, M., and N. Thornton (2010) Managing Results in Conflict-affected and Fragile States:
A Stock-take of Lessons, Experience and Practice. London: Agulhas Applied Knowledge.
DAC Network on Conflict, Peace and Development Cooperation and DAC Network on
Development Evaluation (2007) Encouraging Effective Evaluation of Conflict
Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities: Towards DAC Guidance.
OECD/Development Cooperation Directorate. Available online:
http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=2958&source=bulletin
[accessed March 7 2011].
de Coning, C., and P. Romita (2009) Monitoring and Evaluation of Peace Operations. New
York: International Peace Institute.
DfID (2009) ‘Building the State and Securing the Peace’. Emerging Policy Paper. DfID.
Available online: http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3210
DfID (2010) Working Effectively in Conflict-affected and Fragile Situations: Briefing
Paper I: Monitoring and Evaluation. Practice Paper. Available online:
http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/CON77.pdf [accessed March 7 2011].

Greenhalgh, T., R. Robert, et al. (2004). ‘Diffusion of Innovations in Service
Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations’. The Milbank Quarterly
82(4): 581-629.
International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (2010) Dili Declaration A new
vision for peacebuilding and statebuilding. Available online: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/
influencing-policy/Dili%20Declaration_FINAL_12042010.pdf [accessed 6 July
24
2010].
Jones, S.G., and A. Rathmell (2005a) ‘Getting Results: How Do we Implement Post-conflict
Stabilisation?’ RAND Europe. Prepared for the Post Conflict Reconstruction
Unit. (Restriced publication)
Jones, S.G., and A. Rathmell (2005b) ‘The Art of Stabilisation: Designing Post-conflict
Stabilisation Interventions’, RAND Europe. Prepared for the Post Conflict
Reconstruction Unit. (Restricted publication)
Kessler, G., K. Jones and G. Notel (July 24 2009) ‘Assessing Progress in Military
Operations: Recommendations for Improvement. Draft for comment version 0.5’.
Multinational Experimentation. Joint Futures Lab. (Restricted publication)
Kilcullen, D., (2009) Measuring Progress in Afghanistan. Available online:
http://hts.army.mil/Documents/Measuring%20Progress%20Afghanistan%20(2).pdf
Lambert, N.J. (2002) ‘Measuring the success of the NATO operation in Bosnia and
Herzegovina 1995–2000’, European Journal of Operational Research 140, 459–481.
Mayne, J. (2008) ‘Contribution Analysis: An Approach to Exploring Cause and Effect’.
ILAC Brief 16. Available online: http://www.cgiar-ilac.org/content/contribution-analysis-
approach-exploring-cause-and-effect [accessed March 7 2011].
OECD-DAC (2002). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based
Management.
OECD-DAC (2009) Draft Justice and Security Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit.
Washington DC: INCAF Task Team on Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, Security, Task
Team Meeting 3, November 2009.
Rynn, S., and D. Hiscock (2009) Evaluating for Security and Justice: Challenges and
Opportunities for Improved Monitoring and Evaluation of Security System Reform
Programmes, Saferworld. Available online:
http://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/Evaluating%20for%20security%20
and%20justice.pdf [accessed March 7 2011].
Scheye, E., and D. Chigas (2009) Development of a Basket of Conflict, Security and
Justice Indicators. Manuscript. Available online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23391359/Conflict-Security-Justice-Global-Indicators-
Final-Report [accessed March 7 2011].
Slotin, J., V. Wyeth and P. Romita (2010) Power Politics and Change: How International
Actors Assess Local Context, New York: International Peace Institute. Available online:
http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3959 [accessed March 7 2011].

SU (2008) ‘The UK Approach to Stabilisation: Stabilisation Unit Guidance Notes’,
Stabilisation Unit. Available online:
http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/resources/Stabilisation_guide.pdf [accessed March
7 2011].
Stabilisation Unit (2011) http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/about-us.html [accessed
25
March 7 2011].
USAID (2006) Monitoring and Evaluation in Postconflict Settings, USAID. Available
online: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADG193.pdf [accessed March 7 2011].
USFJCOM (2009) Command to begin next step in multinational experimentation.
Available online: http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2009/pa012309.html
Weiss, C. H. (1995) ‘Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory Based
Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families’, in J.
Connell, A.C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (Eds.) New Approaches to
Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts, Washington DC:
The Aspen Institute, pp. 66-67.

Annex 1: A number of theories of change
applicable to stabilisation interventions
DfID (2010), drawing upon Church and Rogers (2006), suggests a number of different
theories of change that may be relevant to stabilisation activities. These are paraphrased
below:
• Individual change theory: stabilisation comes through the transformative change
of a critical mass of people, including their knowledge, attitude, behaviours and
skills.
• Healthy relationships and connections theory: stabilisation comes from breaking
down isolation, polarisation, division, prejudice and stereotypes between/among
groups.
• Withdrawal of the resources of war theory: war requires vast amounts of material
and human capital to be sustained. If the supply of people and goods is disrupted,
the war-making system will collapse.
• Reduction of violence theory: stabilisation results from a reduction in the level of
violence perpetrated by combatants.
• Root causes / justice theory: stabilisation can be achieved by addressing the
underlying issues of injustice, oppression, exploitation, threats to identity and
security, and people’s sense of injury and victimisation.
• Institutional development theory: stabilisation is secured by establishing social
institutions that guarantee democracy, equity, justice and fair allocation of
resources.
• Political elites theory: stabilisation comes about when it is in the interest of
political (and other) leaders to take the necessary steps. Peace-building efforts must
change the political calculus of leaders and elites.
• Grassroots mobilisation theory: if enough people are mobilised to support
stabilisation, political leaders will have to pay attention.
• Economic theory: individuals and leaders make decision about war and peace
based on systems of incentives that are essentially economic in nature. By
changing the economic logic associated with war, we can bring about stabilisation.
• Public attitudes theory: war and violence are partly motivated by prejudice,
misperceptions and intolerance of difference. We can promote stabilisation by
26

using the media (television and radio) to change public attitudes and build greater
tolerance in society.
27

Annex 2: OECD-DAC approach to monitoring and
evaluation
OECD-DAC guidance (2002) distinguishes between ‘monitoring’, ‘reviewing’ and
‘evaluation’ as follows:
• ‘Monitoring’ refers to the systematic collection of data and information to provide
those involved in an intervention or programme with adequate information to
monitor progress against objectives and outcomes. It is different from reporting in
that monitoring refers to the collection and interpretation of information and not
the delivery of information.
• ‘Review’ and ‘evaluation’ are similar. An evaluation is a systematic and objective
assessment of a completed intervention. Evaluation determines the relevance,
appropriateness and fulfilment of objectives. It looks at efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and sustainability. An evaluation should enable decision-makers to judge
the relative worth of a programme and draw lessons for other and future
programmes. A review tends to be less in depth than an evaluation and can be
done more regularly and throughout an intervention.
A metrics and evaluation framework should have clear purposes. Delivering effective M&E
should help (taken from OECD-DAC 2002):
• establish realistic goals and timescales;
• spread understanding of shared goals;
• integrate different activities and securing synergies;
• strengthen learning, adaptation and improvement;
• entrench accountability in appropriate ways.
29

Annex 3: Research methodology
This report presents the findings from the first phase of the assignment that the UK’s
Stabilisation Unit commissioned RAND Europe. The aim of phase 1 is to draft a think
piece on what is considered current practice in M&E frameworks in stabilisation
interventions and identify a number of steps that could be taken forwards to improve the
M&E of stabilisation interventions. The aim of the subsequent phase, phase 2, is to
develop guidance to assist strategic planners, in conjunction with the Stabilisation Unit.
Phase 1 of the project started in June 2010 and was completed in December 2010. It
involved two main steps:
1) First, the RAND research team reviewed the literature on monitoring and
evaluation in stabilisation environments. It identified this literature through a
targeted search on Google (“monitoring and evaluation of stabilisation
interventions” and synonyms and combinations thereof) and by asking every
interviewee (see next step) for key references.
2) Second, RAND conducted 22 semi-structured interviews lasting approximately
one hour with individuals from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia,
the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank (see
acknowledgements page). The interview questionnaire was structured around the
following three themes and included around thirty sub-questions :
• In your experience, how are stabilisation efforts evaluated?
• What do you feel are the challenges to an effective monitoring and evaluation
31
of stabilisation programmes?
• In your view, what is best practice in monitoring and evaluation of
stabilisation programmes?

Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions (20)

Monitoring and evaluation in stabilisation interventions