Consultative Impact Monitoring of Policy - CoIMPact - Example: Kenya's Participatory Impact Monitoring - KePIM
Background of KePIM
As part of the process of implementing the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) within the framework of the National Poverty Eradication Plan (NPEP), the Government of Kenya, with the support of the Social Policy Advisory Services project of the German Development Corporation, GTZ, are in the process of undertaking a participatory impact monitoring exercise, known as KePIM. The lead agencies from the government’s side are the Human Resources and Social Services Department (HRSSD) and the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in the Ministry of Finance and Planning, and the Poverty Eradication Unit (PEU) in the Office of the President.
KePIM, Kenya’s Participatory Impact Monitoring exercise is designed to assess the effectiveness of various poverty focused policies and programmes. In particular, it is designed to monitor progress in the implementation of the PRSP. It uses non-standard participatory methods of data collection to elicit the knowledge, views and opinions of local people. Among the tools used in the first round of the exercise (and in other similar exercises) are resources maps, time lines, Venn diagrams, focus group discussions and matrices for the analysis of the data.
Exercises that generate “qualitative” data offer poor people’s perceptions on their quality of life, as well as their priorities, constraints and opportunities for improving their situations. This type of data deepens the understanding of poverty, and helps to define the priorities of the poor for poverty reduction interventions.
KePIM is a process, not a one-off-exercise, and will be carried out over a number of rounds, building on the knowledge and experience gained in earlier rounds. To date one full round of data collection has been carried out in six districts in 2001 (Kwale, Guvha, Makueni, Vihiga, Transmara and Mandera), and a second round of investigation, in eight of the country’s districts, is planned for 2002 (Murangaa, Butere -Mumias, Bomet, Kisumu, Nairobi, Garissa, Mwingi and Malindi).
Objectives of KePIM
The first and second rounds of the exercise were carried out in five phases:
The overall objective of the KePIM exercise was to consult with the poorest sections of the community to ensure that their voices and concerns are included in the on-going policy making process. It is expected that KePIM will eventually become an institutionalised qualitative monitoring system using participatory methods, involving both government and other stakeholders to keep policy makers informed about progress in implementing and assessing the impact of the PRSP. It is one of the objectives of the exercise that the capacity of government, and its partners in the development process, is established so that they can carry out future rounds of the exercise on their own.
Figure 1: Main phases required for one round of the KePIM exercise 6
Policy Areas for Investigation The KePIM exercise has strived to ensure a link to policy – this starts with the identification of areas for investigation, through the analysis of previous reports and documentation, and then undertaking a detailed policy analysis of the areas to be investigated. This strong policy focus is one of the major differences between KePIM and a traditional Participatory Poverty Assessment. The first round of KePIM assessed at the impact of policies in the areas of health, education, water and sanitation and food security. After the completion of the analysis phase it became apparent that two very important areas required further detailed investigation – the delivery of agricultural extension services and people’s access to credit. These were taken up in the second round of KePIM. The following checklist can be adapted for use for the policy analysis work:
Selection of Sites
In the first round of the exercise, 18 sites were visited across six district – in the second round, it is expected that 16 sites will be visited in eight districts – providing a little more breadth to the study. The individual districts to be researched have been selected using a detailed, purposive, selection process to ensure a broad variety of livelihood systems will be investigated. This included the development of a composite poverty indicator to take account of issues of income, access to water and education, while also including aspects such as the population density.
Those involved in KePIM have always stressed the importance of the link between the exercise and policy formulation. This is based on the assumption that for a PRS (or any other policy) to be successful, effective and relevant, it requires feedback that can be used to make adjustments to interventions and provide information on future policy decisions. To ensure this can happen a conducive institutional framework was established at the start to make sure that senior policy makers and planners were on board from the beginning. The feedback process includes:
A number of reports have been produced in order to facilitate the feedback process. These include the full final report; a popular version of the report, and a series of briefing leaflets that highlighted the key findings and recommendations from the report. The briefing leaflets were produced in non-technical language as well as in Kiswahili.
The KePIM Tool Box:
Participatory data collection exercises, such as KePIM, collect different types of data, these can be grouped under the following headings:
Some tools act as Eye Openers. These assist the research team in gaining an insight into the community without the need for deeper analysis – in general they are not contentious and can include maps, transect walks, timelines and calendars. The second group is more Analytical in nature and help the research team to get a deeper understanding of the topic under discussion, included under this heading are wealth rankings and problem analysis.
Ten guiding principles for participatory data collection:
1. Semi Structured Interview
In depth, Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI) can be conducted with individuals or groups. The SSI helps in the establishment of a dialogue between the interview partners. An interview checklist (or guideline) is used which serves as a guide during the interview and ensures that comparable information is generated from a number of people. The checklist determines only the interview topics and the respondent is encouraged to expand on their answers, allowing a degree of freedom.
2. Time Line
The Time Line shows major events in the community over a certain time period. The time line can deal with issues such as the seasonal planting of crops, or major interactions with the government (such as elections or aid initiatives). The events are displayed along a line drawn on paper (or on the ground) starting with the most distant event, and marking or symbolizing subsequent events up to the present. It presents the views of members of the community on what events have affected them mostly or were most important to them.
3. Well -Being Matrix (Wealth Ranking)
The Well Being Matrix can show how different groups perceive their (or their community’s) social and economic status. Criteria for social and economic status are identified, as well as different socio-economic levels existing in the community. The end objective is to show how many people (or households) belong to each social group.
4. Venn Diagram
A Venn Diagram (also known as a Chapatti Diagram) captures the perception of the communities on the social and economic relations that impact on them. The community (or individual) is drawn in the middle of the chart. The institutions with which they interact are represented as circles arrayed around the community. The size of the different circles surrounding the interview partner represents the importance of the institution to them, while the position of the circle (close or distant) shows how often the interview partner has contact with the mentioned institution. This shows the working relationship between the respondents and the institutions.
5. Service Map
Following on the Venn (Chapatti) Diagram, the community can be asked to draw a Service Map to identify the actual distances they must travel to access services. For the sake of consistency, the services included here should be those identified on the Venn Diagram.
6. Village Resource Map
The village map is designed to show the location of the various households in the village in relation to the local infrastructure (such as roads), resources (such as water) and various amenities (such as churches or government offices). This tool is generally non-sensitive, and can be used in a large group as an icebreaker.
7. Transect Walk (Line)
A transect walk (or line) is a cross-sectional picture of the physical or geographical diversity of a community. It shows the main land features, uses and variations. It provides the opportunity to validate and crosscheck information collected using other methods. It also allows researchers to develop a clear impression of the physical community. The exercise should be done in the company of a small group of local people who will be able to explain to the team what they see.
8. Pairwise Ranking
This tool can be used to distinguish a group’s priorities or preferences, for instance problems encountered or services available . It starts with the community identifying their own priorities / problems, and then devising a matrix that will allow for them to be compared to each other, one pair at a time.
9. Problem Ranking
Problem ranking helps in identifying people’s priorities with regard to problems or needs. In general, the facilitator asks the group for their problems and lists them during the discussion. The interviewers are asked to “vote on” or rank the problems according to their importance by placing markers (for example stones, beans, paper clips) on each “problem”. The more markers a problem receives, the higher the priority for solving it. By giving each person some physical symbol (i.e. paper clip, stone, bean) it helps to ensure that those without a voice get the opportunity to present their point of view and to prioritise the identified problems jointly.
10. Problem Analysis Flow Diagram
A problem analysis diagram shows a selected “main” problem in the centre of the diagram and draws links from the different causes of the problem through to the effects that this has. This tool can be especially strong if the interview partners can identify solutions for each aspect of the diagram, particularly if it is an area they can take action on themselves. The Problem Analysis Diagram is designed to provide more detailed information about a selected priority problem, and to trace its cause-and-effect relationship. It also allows the possibility for identifying potential solutions to the problems.
11. Calendars (Seasonal and Daily)
Calendars, whether seasonal or daily, can be very valuable tools for assessing changes in availability of goods or experience of problems throughout the years, or the daily schedules of women. It gives researchers insight into the schedules for both men and women and also allows an easy comparison of the schedules. Furthermore, when schedules are compared with each other researchers are able to determine the amount of productive time available.
GTZ-SPAS, Ministry of Finance and Planning, HRSSD, 2002. “An introduction to KePIM, Kenya’s Participatory Impact Monitoring Exercise.”
GTZ-SPAS, Ministry of Finance and Planning, HRSSD, Special Issue August 2002. “An introduction to KePIM, Kenya’s Participatory Impact Monitoring Exercise.”
GTZ-SPAS, Ministry of Finance and Planning, HRSSD 2002. “KePIM Key Findings”.”
GTZ-SPAS, Ministry of Finance and Planning, HRSSD, August 2002. “An introduction to CiReCa, Kenya’s Citizen Report Card Initiative” Ministry of Finance and Planning, HRSSD, 2002. “Kenya Participatory Impact Monitoring: Field Manual.”
Pain, Chris. Undated. “Stepwise Approach for the Implementation of the Kenya Participatory Impact Monitoring Exercise.”
Wagle S and P Shah (2002) “Report Cards: A General Note on Methodology” World Bank, Washington.