Monitoring and Indicators for Communication for Development

This 41-page guidance note is offered in the context of an increased focus on strengthening monitoring of programmes drawing on communication for development as expressed in the Aid Management Guidelines (AMG) of the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). The need for identification of valid indicators necessitated by this intensified focus also reflects a desire to align project and sector programme support with priorities in the Poverty Reduction Strategies Papers (PRSP) process, and the desire to measure Danish development assistance against the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Though not intended to be a blueprint or a manual, the document aims to offer concrete guidance on the process of identifying relevant communication indicators for the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of bilateral development assistance.

In this note, communication for development is perceived as a two-way planned, strategic process that promotes social changes through dialogue, knowledge sharing, and participation. It centres around the active participation of key actors in a development process and maps out the necessary flow of communication at all levels, e.g. at the vertical level, between participants at national, regional, and community levels, and at the horizontal level between peers (community members, civil society organisation (CSOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and authorities). In short, communication for development strategies "enable people to know and understand issues that affect them, and they provide people with the means and spaces to articulate their own perspectives in public and political debate."

As detailed in this paper, "major changes in development policies... [have] substantially increased the relevance of communication for development in achieving current development objectives". Namely, there has been "a revolution in media and communication environments in developing countries" due in part to: widespread liberalisation of media in general and of broadcasting in particular, new information and communication technologies (ICTs), and the growth of "increasingly active, organized and networked civil society movements", all of which have "transformed communication patterns" and "fundamentally shifted the way in which people in developing countries access information". These shifts have led to "a major set of changes in how practitioners approach communication in the development context."

In this context, the guidance note outlines a strategic framework for communication for development in Danish development assistance and the alignment with PRSPs and MDGs, which includes the following tiers:

• Development of free, open, and plural media that provide the communication structures for a democratic dialogue
• Development of communication processes that provide the contents and way of channelling the dialogue through participation, knowledge sharing, and policy discussions.

There are various ways and methods of how best to involve participants in the above, and to ensure that they have access to needed information and are free to voice their opinions; one such approach is communication for social change (CFSC). A planning model is offered here that shows some of the steps involved in this type of communication strategy and that indicates at which step indicators should be identified and monitoring should be undertaken.

A key premise of this paper is that, while externally-derived indicators such as those provided here may stimulate ideas, "indicators should be developed through a participatory process to satisfy the need for locally-owned, meaningful indicators in a given context....Because indicators depend on the actual goals of communication interventions determined by the diagnosis of the problem, the type of strategy, and approach selected, it is impossible to produce a general list of indicators."

That said, the guidance note does offer some broad guidelines - in narrative as well as in table format. One observation is that "most important indicators are often not quantifiable. For example the number of people participating in a social network is relatively unimportant compared to the quality of relationships and dialogue within that network. In such instances, qualitative indicators (generally descriptive) provide more meaningful measures..." Further, indicators should be relevant and accurate enough for those concerned to interpret the information; they can, for instance, take the form of pictures and stories, "the meanings of which can be checked with communities later on."

Recommendations - illlustrated by case studies - are provided to describe the evaluation process within two types of programmes:

1. where communication in itself is a vehicle for social change (media development) - Indicators will typically be related to issues such as:
   
   • media coverage (e.g. how many and who are reached)
   • style (form/formats) (e.g. does the media provide a platform for participation and debate?)
   • contents (e.g. what is channelled through the medium and does it appeal to the participants and cover their needs?)
   • effect (e.g. what planned or unplanned actions/activities have occurred as a result of the media development programme?).
2. where communication is an integral part of a sector/development programme
   (development communication). - Indicators need to be:
   • established during initial programme planning
   • tied in with general objectives
   • linked or derived from communication goals
   • easy to measure
   • monitored throughout the project/programme

In short:

• Communication indicators should be established during programme planning, preferably in a participatory process.
• The type of indicators and their characteristics are dependent on the chosen communication approach and the stage of the monitoring and evaluation process.
• Communication indicators relate to the objectives, inputs and outputs of the communication intervention.
• Correspondence between communication goals and indicators is important for meaningful monitoring of progress and achievements.
• Communication objectives may link to overall development objectives in sector programmes, which again may link to the PRSPs and the MDGs if these are synchronised; in such cases indicators should be harmonised.
• Change processes are long-term but more immediate data are often needed to indicate the contribution being made. This requires agreement on communication indicators which when measured in the short term will indicate a strong likelihood of long-term changes. Thus, in communication, the intent to change has been used as predictor of actual change.
• Communication interventions are gender-sensitive and indicators should be
  sex disaggregated when relevant and possible.