Tool 3: Evaluating local government programmes through community focus groups

 

Box 27. Focus group discussions

Focus group discussions are an efficient, cost effective method for capturing a variety of views held by community members. They can also enable the sharing of information about government programmes. Focus groups work best if the participants are grouped by interest or identity; for instance, grouping women, men, young people, old people, community leaders or elite, or different ethnic groups. The number and composition of the focus groups should be adjusted to the local conditions. As a rule of thumb, focus groups should be composed of 5–10 people to ease facilitation and note taking.

Focus groups can have problems with ‘group think’ or similar group dynamics that influence people’s views. However, there are some steps that the facilitator can take to avoid these problems. For instance, the influence of community leaders or elites on others can be reduced through the use of secret ballots for evaluations.

Managing focus groups requires strong facilitation skills. If there are no skilled facilitators available, it is not advisable to use this method. However, in some cases it is possible to design a discussion process that reduces the need for experienced facilitators.

Community evaluation is a way for local government to learn whether programmes are having the desired impact. There are many ways to conduct evaluations—the tool selected for this source book deals with focus group interviews.

Focus groups are panels of similar individuals brought together to discuss or evaluate specific topics guided by a facilitator. Focus groups provide a quick and cost effective means of collecting a diversity of opinion drawn from the selected group. For our purpose here, focus group members are from communities that were the intended beneficiaries of the government programmes being evaluated. They should know how well the programme was implemented and whether it had the intended outcomes and impacts. As a result, focus groups can provide valuable feedback for governments attempting to respond to the needs of their constituents.

Once completed, the results of several focus groups are compiled and summarised in a narrative report, which can include quantified scores and graphs. This information is then reported back to local government as input for their next cycle of planning and decision making.

Why is community evaluation useful?

Communities are the beneficiaries of many government programmes. However, these programmes frequently do not meet local needs or improve wellbeing. Often governments do not learn of such problems until it is too late to adjust the programme.

Community evaluation provides a channel for communities to articulate their views and communicate with government officials. It can be used to meet legal requirements for community participation in government decisions. Besides, a more complete understanding of poverty and wellbeing is possible when communities can voice their opinions about the programmes that affect them.

Community evaluation provides:

  • Citizen input into government decision making through feedback about the implementation, outcomes and impacts of local government programmes;
  • A process that empowers the poor through improved understanding of the workings of local government and what they should be able to expect from its programmes;
  • An opportunity for local government to communicate about its programmes and build relationships with community members;
  • More transparency about the implementation and quality of government programmes.

This type of evaluation can also help local government to focus better on the issues of most concern to its constituents. Local government officials tend to monitor only certain aspects of project implementation, such as expenditure and physical outputs (e.g. the number of water pumps purchased). This is usually a requirement set by higher levels of government, primarily for accountability. Communities may wish to focus on actual impacts (e.g. the number of households with access to pumped water or whether the pumps actually function) rather than on programme outputs. Independent monitoring of programmes can provide a check to government reporting. Evaluation can also provide information about redundancies or inefficiencies in programmes.

When organising focus groups, make sure that the benefits of participating in the evaluation are clear. Communities have an incentive to participate when the information from the assessment feeds into government planning and improves communication with the government. Local government officials should be motivated to participate in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of poverty alleviation programmes and to gain support from their constituency.

Box 28. Not yet responsive in Indonesia

In theory, decentralisation helps government to be more responsive to its citizens. Ideally, people have more opportunities to make demands and give feedback to their local government when decision makers are at the local level. However, in practice, decentralisation does not automatically generate more responsive governance.

Indonesia’s experience is instructive. Because of 32 years of authoritarian rule and centralised government under Soeharto (1965–1998), district officials in Indonesia have little experience with bottom-up planning. Civil society organisations are weak after being repressed, dismantled or banned for decades. Although some laws stipulate local people’s participation, the laws are rarely enforced. The Department of Internal Affairs developed a manual on participatory village development planning and conducted training in applying the methods, but in 2006 district staff still did not use the methods.

There are many reasons why local government has not become more responsive:

  • Many officials do not value the input of communities. They are more interested in maintaining their status as government officials and look down upon villagers;
  • Officials often do not want to travel to remote villages;
  • The districts’ main concern is upward accountability to national authorities for the budgets received; therefore, district officials tend to focus on physical and financial indicators associated with implementation as measures of a programme’s success;
  • The districts seldom collect information about how well programmes work; furthermore, communities often lack experience and skill in communicating their needs;
  • Finally, the organisational culture of the districts is strongly hierarchical and rife with opportunism; problems of collusion, corruption and decision making for personal gain make district officials reluctant to monitor outcomes.
< back


 

© 2007 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Contributors and copyright information