Nicole’s Thoughts on Evaluation and Community Ownership
Last summer, between my first and second year of BYU’s MPA program, I interned with Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). It was an exciting path from first learning about MCC to actually working at the headquarters in Washington, DC. I was first intrigued and impressed by MCC because it has a strict selection criteria for what countries it’ll work with. It seemed like a shining example of an agency founded on an intellectual experiment of investment with accountability (rather than aid with no accountability). In order to measure policy performance, MCC clearly outlines the partner selection criteria under three categories: (1) Ruling justly, (2) investing in people, (3) and encouraging economic freedom. A candidate country must, for example, demonstrate that it has a certain amount of control of corruption, health services for citizens, and good trade policy. Not only do potential candidates have to measure up, but once MCC starts working with partner countries, the development projects are subject to constant monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the outcomes are significantly greater than the input. Otherwise, what is the work good for? Intentions don’t get you to outcomes in the end. I interned in the Monitoring & Evaluation department and there I learned that you must constantly question which indicators best measure success for things like roads constructed, water access, business growth, or the amount of trade coming through a new port.
What does this have to do with the work that Quiet Way does in Kenya? So much! I am currently consulting with Quiet Way and am impressed with how we are moving forward with our monitoring and evaluation set up from the very beginning. For many nonprofits, it’s an afterthought. For Quiet Way, it’s essential to ensuring that every dollar and every effort invested is going to have returns for the people of Kenya. Not only do people supporting us with their time or money want to know what progress is being made, but if we find half-way through that our efforts are not making a difference and it won’t potentially improve, then we have to change our approach. Before moving forward with the “Give a Dam” initiative, Quiet Way had to make sure that key players in Kenya would participate, that there is enough water within the country itself to distribute throughout (We’ve got water experts up in here!), and that our model could potentially do what we want it to do: activate country-wide collaboration.
Another thing about Quiet Way that really pumps me up is that it’s not just another charity digging wells for villages (although this is often appreciated work!), but we’re focused on getting to the heart of the matter – that means letting the people and local organizations/businesses/government in Kenya OWN the new changes of the “Give a Dam” collaboration. Country ownership is key. It’s the same at MCC. I want to add one more thing about local ownership. Recently, members of management from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation came to BYU and I was able to have conversations with them about what Quiet Way is undertaking. When asking Bob Quint, the Bureau’s Director of Operations, for insights from his time working on water projects in Iraq, he said that the most successful way of getting water to communities was with stand-alone units of water called “compact units.” Why were these the most successful? Because the villages owned them. Each village knows that if they are responsible for their water source, then they will guard and take care of it with great responsibility. I’m thankful for his insight and fully agree that success with water allocation in Kenya will come from having local ownership.
I’m anxious to see what a great impact Quiet Way can make considering the evaluation and ownership aspects of the organization.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
