DE LA AUTORIDAD PARENTAL

According to Mackay (2006), a governments aim is, rather than having a supply driven approach to an M&E system where large amounts of information is generated, the system should allow rigorous use of the findings of both monitoring and evaluation and that the system is cost-effective. This view is allied to the political structure of accountability within a government such that, “it would be hard to convince a sceptical finance ministry that it should continue to fund an M&E system whose outputs are not being utilized. Such systems would deservedly be regarded as useless” (Mackay, 2006).

Despite this, the perception is that very little data exists on how much an appropriate M&E system costs in terms of capital investment and ongoing implementation and maintenance. Returning to a previous question – should a system be integrated and within an organisation as a management tool and implemented by all, or be implemented by a technical team, or should a system be outwardly observed - the cost implication no doubt varies significantly and yet again little data exists on either structure. As seen within the discussion on purpose and use some of these questions are inter-dependent to the clarification of what and why an M&E system is being applied and yet do not appear as part of the discussions or debates.

The purpose can be affected by the availability of funds and therefore it is imperative that there is sufficient awareness of how much one type or another M&E system costs.

The literature review found very little data that provides a comprehensive breakdown of the costs of the various M&E systems available across any sector. The World Bank (2004) defines the costs of the tool, method or approach as low, medium or high in terms of application. DFID FEF (n.d.) suggests an investment of between 10-20% of the overall grant value is required to ensure a ‘rigorous approach’ to monitoring is facilitated. Vine & Sathaye (2000) examines costs of M&E in energy efficiency projects, Brands & Rajagopal (2007) discusses the economics of place-based monitoring and Peersman et al (2009) considers whether the investment levels in national M&E

systems is paying off. Due to the lack of academic or grey literature articles available, the search was widened by way of carrying out a general Google search. This resulted in a couple of recorded interviews (see Box 2-1).

Neither did the review find any outline of a conceptual framework of cost of M&E. This potentially has a negative impact for budgetary planning purposes and raises, where the cost of M&E sits in the debate and discussion around transparency and accountability – ostensibly contradictory.

For the purposes of this review and the research itself, the following scenarios of costs were not considered: cost of life consequence; cost of misappropriation of M&E funds; cost of not undertaking M&E. However, they should be recognised as potential costs in the broader scheme of a conceptual framework of cost of M&E.

Charities Evaluation Services (n.d.) stipulate that “it is difficult to give a precise answer to what will an evaluation cost us?” They report that depending on the scope and nature of the evaluation the cost will vary widely. Instead the suggestion is made that in the event of wanting to publish and widely disseminate the findings of any evaluation (to make a good case for refunding) it is likely to affect who is contracted to do the work in turn the level needed to budget. Despite the authors suggesting the guidance paper outlines the possible costs for each of the 7 components of costing an evaluation, the only values outlined are “external consultant fees” and “focus group”. In addition they are defined as a range or banding of values.

An alternative defining or setting out of costs is that presented by David (2008) as part of a newsletter sub-headed “Allocation of Budget for Evaluation” which references various comments and questions re: cost (see Box 2-2).

One of the few academic references to do with the costs of M&E, is that of Rommelmann et al (2003). When examining the costs of complementary information generation activities they concluded that “policy-makers and programme planners should be aware of the many trade-offs with respect to

system costs, coverage, production, representativeness and quality control” when making investment choices for monitoring and evaluation.

Another example of cost breakdown is that of Kisweski et al (2007) who estimate the average global costs of malaria control for a ten year period (2006- 2015). They suggest, in respect of Africa, 19% of budget is allocated to programme costs of which an optimistic budgeting of 2.6% is then allocated for operational research and monitoring and evaluation. For Asia, Oceania and the Americas, these values are 14.1% and 2.3% respectively. The analysis for calculating these costs was not included in the paper. Furthermore, international level costs for managing such assistance, including monitoring and evaluation, research and development, were not factored in.

Box 2-1 Selection of recorded interviews

The first interview is talking about M&E, its importance, some of the associated challenges with planning and implementation and advice for successful promotion and strategy with respect to family planning. Despite not being related to the WASH sector, Dr Bertrand* reflected that 10-15% of project/programme budget is a good figure to apply but that there is not a single number. Furthermore, that the question should be "where along the spectrum are we able to invest in M&E?". In turn, she goes on to identify that good programmes seem to attract more funds allowing higher levels of investment in M&E activities which result in better data allowing the glory of the 'excellent programme' to be reflected (Bertrand, 2008).

The second interview is in relation to whether planning, monitoring and evaluation aids learning from past experiences, improves service delivery, planning and allocation of resources. Dr Price** reflected that planning, monitoring and evaluation are expensive activities given they take a lot of time, expertise but it is much more costly not to undertake M&E. She also suggests that PME are not isolated activities (Price, 2009).

‘*’ Dr Jane Bertrand, Director, John Hopkins Centre for Communication Programs, USA ‘**’ Dr Lucy Voss Price, Head of Regenesys Public School of Management, South Africa.

Box 2-2 Questions and answers on budget allocations for M&E

(A1-5 are a series of respondents to the original enquiry (Q) as presented in the IMA International, M&E News Summary, 2008)