Resources search

Purpose: This paper describes a three-year research project leading to the development of the CBR Monitoring Manual and Menu (MM&M). The MM&M is a practical toolkit that meets the needs of CBR managers and stakeholders, and is consistent with the philosophy of CBR and community- based disability-inclusive development. It is designed to produce meaningful and locally useful information and data, based on international data standards where possible, to enable aggregation at regional, national and international levels.

Methods: Five complementary workstreams of research were carried out from 2011 to 2014: 1) literature review and analysis; 2) participatory action research with CBR stakeholders; 3) analysis and refinement of validity of concepts andstructures; 4) consultation and review; and 5) synthesis of results. This article documents the method and key results of each of the five workstreams, and the lessons learned along the way.

Results: The MM&M is now freely available on-line at thttp://sydney.edu. au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/cbr-monitoring.shtml. Collaboration among members of the development team continues, chiefly via an on-line group to which new members have been welcomed.

Conclusion and Implications: At the time of writing, the MM&M is the only international monitoring product, known to the authors, that consciously sets out to reflect both a ‘bottom- up’ and ‘top-down’ perspective of monitoring information and data.To achieve this for a complex programme such as CBR, and to align with its principles, it was essential to use a multi-component and multi-stage strategy for tool development, involving a diverse multidisciplinary team including collaboration with CBR stakeholders.

Purpose: There is limited guidance available on the best ways to evaluate community-based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. In this paper, we share lessons learned on suitable evaluation strategies for CBR through a South African programme evaluation.

Method: An empowerment evaluation of an early childhood development programme was conducted in April 2012. At the end of the field visit, parents, staff members and managers provided feedback anonymously about what they liked and disliked about the evaluation, and offered their suggestions. The principal investigator documented the evaluation process in a journal, recording the barriers and facilitators encountered, the participation of the 3 groups and the effectiveness of the different strategies used. The data analysis followed the principles of grounded theory.

Results: The main lessons learned about CBR programme evaluation are associated with strategies to: 1) foster active participation, 2) collect accurate and credible information, 3) build local capacity, and 4) foster sustainable partnerships. Time spent to promote a positive learning spirit and the use of participatory tools with all groups appeared critical to active engagement in evaluation activities. Sharing tools and experiences in context built more local capacity than was achieved through a formal workshop. The findings also highlight that a flexible model, multiple data collection methods, and involvement of all relevant stakeholders maximise the information gathered. Sensitivity to the impact of culture and to the reactions generated by the evaluation, along with ongoing clarifications with local partners, emerged as core components of sustainable partnerships.

Conclusion: CBR evaluators must use a variety of strategies to facilitate active engagement and build local capacity through the evaluation process. Many of the strategies identified relate to the way in which evaluators interact with local stakeholders to gain their trust, understand their perspectives, facilitate their contribution, and transfer knowledge. Further research is needed on how toconduct empowering CBR programme evaluations.