Cover Image
close this bookAPPEAL - Training Materials for Continuing Education Personnel (ATLP-CE) - Volume 5: Income-Generating Programmes (APEID - UNESCO, 1993, 127 p.)
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentFOREWORD
View the documentINTRODUCTION
View the documentChapter 1: Rationale and Principles
View the documentChapter 2: Programme Framework
View the documentChapter 3: Types of Programmes
View the documentChapter 4: Organization and Delivery System
View the documentChapter 5: Resources for Income Generating Activities
View the documentChapter 6: Personnel and Their Development
View the documentChapter 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
View the documentChapter 8: Issues and Prospects
Open this folder and view contentsANNEXES
View the documentBACK COVER

Chapter 7: Monitoring and Evaluation

A. Need for Evaluation

Like any education programme, an IGP has to be monitored and evaluated to assess its effectiveness. Like in any educational evaluation, the goal of evaluation is to assess whether or not the desired objectives have been achieved.

Evaluation of IGPs is needed for the following reasons:-

· to help in formulating national policy;
· to facilitate better coordination between the wide variety of agencies;
· to assess results in the short and long term;
· to check on the effectiveness of innovative programmes and activities.

In this context, evaluation would enable corrective intervention wherever required.

Because many IGPs are relatively new and innovative they also need to be carefully monitored and guided during all phases of implementation. This can be achieved through careful supervision and counselling. On going monitoring is essential.

In Chapter Two a general framework was presented for Income Generating Programmes. The framework showed three basic components:

1) Development from low income levels to higher levels.

2) General Intervention strategies through income generating activities to promote development.

3) Specific projects and activities for specific groups.

Any system of evaluation for an IGP should address all of these components. It is important to know if the development levels have been carefully defined. It is critical that the intervention is appropriate and effective. It is also important to Low if the current groups of clientele have been identified and that suitable projects have been prepared for them.

In practice the overall programme has to be evaluated during all phases of its development and implementation. This concept is illustrated in the following diagram.


Evaluation is a continuous process, providing evidence about the immediate effectiveness of the design and implementation and also on longer term affects. Feedback obtained from the evaluation should be used to adjust all aspects of IGP needing improvement.

B. Levels of Monitoring and Evaluation

Like all other forms of continuing education, IGPs are also organized at national, provincial and local levels. There should be a monitoring and evaluating body at each level. These could be the NCCE, PCCC and LCCC as suggested in ATLP-CE Volume I. Monitoring data from specific projects should be transmitted to trainers. Higher level bodies should use this information to assist and facilitate the work of lower levels without constraining their independence and innovation. Evaluation, therefore flows both from the lower to higher levels and from the higher to the lower. This is especially important for IGPs because of the large number and variety of agencies delivering the programmes at the local level.

C. Methods of Monitoring and Evaluation

All educational programmes have basic and familiar methods of monitoring and evaluation. In this volume, attention is given only to issues and methods specifically relevant to IGPs.


Examples of Specific Issues


1. Planning

- Relevance of national development policy in relation to IGPs.

Questionnaire to planners.
Market surveys
Employment surveys

- Relevance to poverty alleviation

Survey of extent of poverty
Survey of income level.

- Distribution of income

Economic surveys

- Strategies and methods for raising levels of income

Survey of community practice for IGP.
Occupational survey.
Needs survey.

- Delivery and organization for IGPs

Survey of existing and potential delivery systems.

2. Programming

- Design of programme

· Target group oriented

Interviews with clientele.

· Programme catering for all people needing to improve their basic income.

Enrolment and access surveys

· Determination of suitable elements of the programme adequately integrated.

Analysis of the effectiveness of elements.

- Survey of changing income levels.

Economic survey.

- Selection of methods for increasing income.

Survey of changing income levels.

3. Organization and delivery

- Appropriateness of organizational structure for promoting IGPs.

Analysis of effectiveness of organization.

- Degree of coordination between IGP agencies.

Critical review of management system.

- Participation level.

Numbers enrolled and drop-out rate.

- Effectiveness of networking

Study of benefits gained from the network.

- Effectiveness of delivery mechanism for raising income and quality of life.

Survey of changing levels of income

- Effectiveness of Management Information System.

Analysis of the appropriateness and usefulness of data obtained.

4. Physical resources

- Adequacy of institutional facilities.

Facilities inventory.

- Effectiveness of learning materials.

Try-out and feedback.

- Adequacy of financial provision and financial management.


5. Personnel and their training

- Categories and numbers of personnel needed for IGPs

Survey of needs and existing manpower.

- Types and quality of training.

Job analysis
Analysis of training curriculum.
Evaluation of instruction.

- Access to training for trainers

Survey of training needs and opportunities.

- Overall effective of personnel

Study of the effectiveness of personnel in fostering income generation.

6. Impact

- Effectiveness in increasing income of individuals

Survey of income gain.

- Improvement in quality of life.

Life style survey.

- Improved civic involvement

Attitude survey and survey of community participation.

- Overall improvement in socio-economic pattern and status

Measured against socio-economic indicators

D. Personnel Responsible for Evaluation

All personnel at all levels of organisation and delivery of an IGP have responsibility in monitoring and evaluation. Categories of personnel involved depend on the purpose of the evaluation. For overall evaluation at national level, including evaluation of policy and of longer term impact, the responsibility mainly rests with senior government officials and leaders of commerce and industry. Such macro-level evaluation may need to be validated by independent agencies or groups such as teams of international or national consultants.

At the provincial level, evaluation focusses mainly on the implementation of national policy, on management aspects and on assessing the effectiveness of specific projects. Supervisors, project developers, trainers of trainers and other management personnel should accept responsibility for this work.

Local organizers, facilitators and presentors in formal vocational institutions, in on-job settings, in community-based enterprises and so on, should themselves accept responsibility for evaluating the day-to-day and longer term effectiveness of their IGP activities. They may need help in this important work from provincial level experts.

At all levels continuous ongoing evaluation needs to be built in to all IGP activities. The evaluation work of personnel from many sectors and a variety of agencies needs to be systematically organized and utilized for improvement of all aspects of the overall programme. Costs for this must be shared. Government alone cannot meet all the costs involved. In particular the industrial and commercial sectors should play their part. They will share with the workers the benefits of IGPs and therefore should contribute to the costs of implementation, including the costs of evaluation.

E. Focusing on Outcomes

In most forms of continuing education, programmes aim to produce specific skills. This is of course true for IGPs. But in IGPs, it is especially important that these skills be applied in working life. This means that the focus of evaluation should be on application of relevant skills to daily life. The ultimate test is whether an individual, a community and a nation as a whole have generated more income.

Further, evaluation should look into whether this income is being used wisely. Does it lead to improved quality of life, enhanced civic awareness and development of positive social values? Evaluation of these long term outcomes is difficult but should be undertaken. It is these aspects which are at the heart of personal and national development. The only effective way of evaluation is to become closely involved with members of the community. This technique is variously called Quality Research, Participatory Observation or a Community Adoption Scheme. Evaluation should measure social change against a series of indicators in relation to individual and community life especially in terms of obtaining and managing resources (income) and the extent and nature of people’s involvement in community affairs.

In the longer term, if the IGPs have been truly effective, they bring about structural changes and progressively improve them. A small rural village may become a business center: places without schools may build schools; factories may improve productivity and improve the opportunities for their employees, and so on.

Some examples of in-depth community intervention to improve income are given below as a series of case studies. In each case study the evaluation procedures used at each phase of implementation are briefly described.

The case studies chosen are from different levels of development reflecting different needs in terms of income generation.

Case Study I (Nepal) is about a very poor rural community almost at the point of extinction. The community has very low self-esteem. Skills needed are absolutely essential for survival.

Case Study II (Malaysia) focuses mainly on the need to change the attitudes of a group of hard core poor in a rural area of a rapidly developing country.

Case Study III (Thailand) is about a small rural community with low levels of income needing to extend their opportunities for gaining further income.

Case Study IV (Australia) is concerned with a specific group of unemployed youth in a developed country who need job related skills.

These case studies, therefore, involve target groups representative of development stages outlined in the general programme framework presented in Chapter Two.

Each case study is presented in a series of project steps and for each step the evaluation procedures have been built in and are briefly described. The purpose is to show how evaluation must be an integral part of any IGP. Most of the case studies are described under the following steps:

1. Surveying the community.
2. Analyzing how to increase income
3. Assessing how to overcome problems
4. Determining project aims
5. Helping to develop skills needed
6. Setting up the training programme
7. Ensuring application of skills
8. Outcomes: assessing long term change



Chepang are a tribal community living in extremely rugged territory in the Mahapharat. They are a most disadvantaged population, on the verge of extinction. They live in small mud-built huts scattered on steep hill-sides. The soil is poor and there are few natural resources.


Because the Chepang women are seasonal workers the project objective was to promote income generation through providing employment in months when the women and youth are usually unemployed. Another objective was to improve farming practice to further increase income in general.

Team and Resources

The project was sponsored by the Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development of Tribhuvan University and the action team consisted of 12 professional and field staff working with the villagers. Resources included training materials, improved seeds, fertilisers and other materials to upgrade Arming practice.

Steps in the Project

Evaluation Procedure

1. Surveying the Community

Field team found that the occupation of the Chepangs is farming. They work on difficult and poor land. The products are adequate just for 3-4 months each year. This-compels the people to look for other wage earning jobs. The level of income falls well below the poverty lines.

The study team consisting of economists, educationists, sociologists, anthropologists and other experts visited the project area and conducted a social survey using observation scales and interviews schedules.

They spent about 15 days in the field.

2. Analysing how to increase income

A Study was made to find out how to increase income in the community. It was found that since the people were engaged in seasonal agriculture for only about 3 to 4 months per year, their remaining time could be utilized in other income generating activities such as agro-based employment.

The study team held discussions with the local people to find out the exact pattern of seasonal employment and to verify what they really wanted to do and could do during the months of unemployment. They also made a survey to find out available physical resources for suggesting appropriate income-generating schemes.

3. Determining Aims.

The aim of intervention was therefore defined to break the vicious circle of poverty by enhancing levels of income through adoption of income generating activities, including better farming practice.

A group of experts reviewed the specific programme designed to raise the income level of the target populations.

4. Helping the Community Identify skills needed to raise standard of living through increasing income

The people were divided into several groups in terms of income-generating activities based on local settings.
Each group was asked to identify their needs and relevant skills required to satisfy their respective needs.
A revolving fund was established to provide loans to the action groups.

Experts met the target groups and held discussions with them to identify needs and required skills. Experts helped establish the revolving fund for the project and checked whether it was appropriate and adequate.

5. Setting up the Training Programme

A community learning centre was established at a central point in the project area for conducting various skill centred training programmes based on a base-line survey. Some non-formal education centres were also established within the project area.

The facilities available in the community centre as well as non-formal education centres were also recorded to indicate their locations and coverage.

6. Conducting Training

The centre organized various non-formal classes, discussions, training activities and forums for disseminating technical information. Non-formal education centres organized classes on literacy, numeracy, and functional skills in health sanitation, child care, environment protection.

The contents of the non-formal classes were analyzed and classes were observed by the respective experts individually or in groups. Experts held discussion with the facilitators and target groups to find out if they had benefitted from the training. The data collected were recorded in categories.

7. Helping the Community use Skills to make Money

People of the project area were asked to select one or several types of income-generating actions based on their needs and skills. These were grouped into the following categories:

- Live stock raising (goat)
- Horticulture (banana, pineapple, orange)
- Cash-crop farming (ginger, maize, sugar cane)
- Kitchen gardening
- Animal drafting
- Poultry farming

The experts analyzed the feasibility of the income-generating projects selected by the community. Some changes in the selection of the projects were made because they were found to be unsuitable for some specific groups.

The participants also received training in use of pesticides and preparation of organic manure.

8. Outcomes - Assessing Long-term Changes

Project team found the following:-

- Participants were found to be more aware of their development problems.

The level of awareness towards development problems and improved life were studied by using observation scales and by participatory observations techniques.

- Their level of awareness towards improved ways of agriculture, health, nutrition, sanitation, home management, personal cleanliness, environment protection and other life-related activities increased significantly.

Experts recorded gain in income through data from structured interviews.

- The nutritional status of children was significantly improved.

- The income-generating activities raised living standards. Most families started renovating or reconstructing their houses. Some people started giving loans instead of borrowing from others.

- Some people even began taking initiatives on their own in profitable activities which were not envisaged by the project.




Rural people whose economy is based on agriculture.

Why Chosen


Income from all sources M$175.00 which is below poverty line by Malaysian standard.



To increase income by providing and using employable skills.

Team and Resources


1. KEMAS Workers (Community Development Workers - CDW)

2. Local Authority

3. Implementing Agencies

4. Village Development Committee

5. Funds from Federal Government

Steps in the Project

Evaluation Procedure

1. Surveying the Community

Local authorities identified those people whose total income was M$175.00 monthly or less. They were termed the “hard core poor”.

CDWs was sent to meet families to verify the lists of hard core poor.

It was also found that attitudes were poor, health standards were low and there was little initiative.

CDWs were sent to stay with the families to check these elements and confirm the situation.

2. Analyzing How to Increase Income

CDW looked into the capacity of the local people to improve. They found that there was vacant land around the houses. The women after doing house work spent their time freely and not did care much about general hygiene.

CDW checked with local authorities if there were any economic projects that could be provided for the people and found that several IGPs were in fact available in the local district.

3. Assessing How to Increase Income

CDWs proposed IGPs but people initially not responsive.

CDW identified attitudes through discussion with families and community leaders. It was found that the people had plenty of free time, were keen to earn extra money, but did not know how.

CDWs were given a one weeks orientation courses by senior KEMAS staff. Motivational aspects and methods for identifying of needs were noted.

After the courses CDWs were sent to stay with the families for ten days. They helped with daily work of the families.

At the same time they looked into the needs and resources of the families, with a view to organizing relevant income generating projects.

4. Determining Aim of the Project

Aim was stated as building on present practices to enhance income.

CDWs discussed with the families how to use their existing skills, such as rearing chicken, cattle, fish and planting vegetables and also general hygiene. Reactions were carefully noted.

5. Helping to develop Skills Needed

CDW encouraged community leaders and religious leaders to discuss IGP and to foster participation

CDW listed all those who wanted to take part in IGPs. At any village meeting, the ideas of IGPs were discussed. Reactions were continually monitored.

6. Setting up Training Programme

CDW formed a training committee. All implementing agencies were called together with representatives of the Village Development Committee. Several possible IGPs were identified. Short term course were designed with both local and personal experience as input. CDW conducted the training courses.

All aspects monitored by CDW personnel.

7. Ensuring application of Skill

CDW then introduced further skills such as home-management, and food processing course.

Changes in community practice were observed and recorded. The following were noted: Family initiatives increased. Families salted eggs and sold them rather than selling fresh eggs. When they had free time, the women themselves organized cooking, dress making and flower making classes.

8. Outcomes: assessing Long-term Change

CDW maintained close contact with the local people.

It was found that:-

1. Many families had established their own chicken pens.
2. Homes were better kept.
3. Personal hygiene was improved.
4. Home surroundings were cleaner.
5. Self-reliant agricultural projects were established.
6. Family initiatives increased including development of home crafts.

Family incomes were significantly increased. The IGPs changed the life styles of the people because more money was available. Numbers of hard core poor reduced by more than 10 per cent after one project cycle.

Course designs were evaluated by conventional curriculum evaluation methods and by interviews with participants. Outcomes were carefully observed and recorded.

Long term impact was evaluated as follows:

1. Home visits were made.
2. Questionnaires were sent out to find income levels.
3. Extent of participation in community work was recorded.



Ban Nong Prong is a small rural village of 98 households situated in Rayong province, 200 km. to the east of Bangkok. Most of the people earn their living by growing casava and rubber. Some boys and girls who do not continue schooling and do not have enough land for cultivating cash crops usually get jobs in sawmill factories in a nearby town or migrate to Bangkok.

Why chosen

The Non-formal Education Department in 1990 selected Ban Nong Prong as a project site for Strengthening Occupations for Rural Employment (NORE) because of the low levels of income and the willingness of the people to be involved.


The project aimed to upgrade community income and to lift standards of living.

Team of Resources Persons

The intervention teams consisted of the following personnel:

· Vocational Trainers of Rayong NFE Provincial Centre
· Researchers of the Eastern Regional NFE Centre
· Educational Programme Planners of the NFE Department

Steps in the Project

Evaluation Procedure

1. Surveying the community

a) Team collected information about the community
- number of households
- natural and human resources
- economic status (e.g. income levels)
- occupations

- Check if the data were sufficient for planning
- Check if the indicators were appropriate for measuring changes.

b) Team conducted individual and group interviews

- Assessment of the extent to which data had been used for project activities.

- community economic problems

c) Team observed the employment characteristics of community

- Peer review of findings

- division of employment

- community life style.

2. Analyzing of the Community Interests and Needs for Increasing Income

Team used interviews and questionnaire to determine interests and needs of individuals and groups;

- Interviews to check on the degree the community and project staff were satisfied with the project aims and appropriateness of its design.

- careers

- knowledge, skills, attitude

- community resources

- markets available

3. Exploring of the wider scope of Occupational Information

Team assisted individuals and groups of villagers obtain more information about employment patterns both in local towns and other cities. This was done through lists of information provided by resource persons and by study visits.

- Check on participants knowledge of occupations.

- Check on suitability of participants choice of skill training.

4. Setting up Training Programmes

Planning committee was set up to coordinate activities of NFE personnel and a village committee was established to organize plans for:

- timing
- number of participants
- duration of courses
- sites for training
- materials and equipment needed

- Check on the appropriateness of training.

- Assessment of attitudes of people to be trained.

5. Conducting the Training Programme

The training conducted was in several places. In the village, other towns and other provinces, depending on the skill training available in the various locations.

- The effectiveness of the project was monitored using indicators such as:

· drop out rate
· successes and problems

6. Helping Community use the Skills
The project staff helped participants utilize their skills for earning income in:

- planning businesses
- selecting locations
- identifying sources of funding
- undertaking market place analysis
- improving business

- The appropriateness of training and the sufficiently of materials was assessed.

Effectiveness evaluated by

- interviews to check satisfaction of the job holders and customers.

- observation of the sustain ability of the activity.

7. Outcomes - Assessing long term change
The team conduct a study by collecting and analysing social data and analyzing both advantages and disadvantages that affected the project from beginning to end.

- recording the numbers of participants entering the job market.

The effectiveness of the project evaluated by:

- changes in individual and family incomes;

It was found that

- changes in community infrastructure affected by the project;

· income levels improved

- community opinion of the projects.

· employment levels increased

· living standards were raised

· social attitudes were more positive



An industrial town in a remote rural area with economy based on mining and basic processing of iron ore.

Why chosen

A high level of unemployment (40%) amongst youths 16-24 years of age in the town.


To provide skills for the unemployed youth to equip them for community service employment for an award wage as members of a Conservation Corps.

Team and Resources

Teaching staff of the Technical Education System. Senior project officers and project officers. Youth Assistance Grants for purchase of training materials, special clothing. resource materials and to meet travel costs. Youth Strategies Grants administered locally by Regional Coordinating Committees to assist disadvantaged young people obtain employment.

Composite Report

The following description is based on activities in more than one State and is therefore not an account of a specific project, but includes elements from several projects.

Steps in the Project

Evaluation Procedure

1. Surveying the community

Analysis of social attitudes and life styles with special reference to youth 16-24 by means of structured sampling - interview and questionnaire.

Data from social survey validated by visits to selected families - observation schedule and in-depth interviews.

Assessment of per cent unemployed and of job vacancies by analysis of data from the local office of the National Employment Service.

Data checked by interviews with structured samples employers.

2. Analyzing How to Increase Income
Project officers surveyed employment opportunities only to find none through conventional outlets.
Noted that there were nearby National Parks needing physical upgrading - e.g. nature trails, shelter sheds, picnic areas and fire trails.

If young people could be recruited to do this work and paid a small wage under a government JOBTRAIN Project they could be trained in appropriate construction skills e.g.

Checked by Surveys Undertaken of:

i) Work to be done in the local National Park.

ii) Numbers of unemployed youth 16-24 interested in the possibility of training through a Conservation Corps to do this work for a small wage.

iii) Availability of training facilities to develop the skills needed to undertake the work


Brick laying



Basic Carpentry

3. Developing Aim of the Intervention

The aim determined by the Project Officers was to develop basic construction skills likely to lead to employment in the town and which would allow opportunity for further training in specific construction trades.

Appropriateness of aim checked by a survey of job opportunities in building construction both in the town and the nearby district and also by a survey of local educational opportunities for further training in building and construction.

4. Helping the Community Identity Skills Needed to Raise Standards of Living Through Increasing Income
Project Officers organized a publicity campaign through local newspaper to interest the young people in joining he programme.

Effectiveness of the publicity campaign assessed by level of response. Publicity campaign then expanded using radio and local T.V.

5. Setting up Training Programme

Planning Committee Formed consisting of Project Officers, National Park managers and wardens, technical college staff and representatives of employers and of youth groups.

Specific construction projects and work skills identified and organize in a learning sequence.

Course designed with 30 per cent input by local college and 70 per cent input through on job work experience in the National Park.

Programme design self-evaluated by the committee and by an independent group of vocational educators. Focus on:-

i) appropriateness of aims and objectives;

ii) interrelation between college work and on-job experience;

iii) skills curriculum;

iv) assessment procedures.

Effectiveness of Programme assessed by:

6. Conducting the Training Programme
Construction projects in the local National Park implemented. Each Project 20 weeks duration (five months) with 10-15 participants in each.

Relevant training modules conducted by local Technical College from its Certificate in Introductory Vocational Education and from other specialised subjects from the College curriculum e.g. horticulture; rural studies.

Practical work in National Park supervised by Project Officers.

i) drop out rate;

ii) quality of construction work in the park;

iii) assessment of on job skills developed by individuals;

iv) course assessment by the Technical College.

7. Helping the Community Use the Skills

Effectiveness evaluated by:

i) Local employment office identified appropriate vacancies and advertised them.

i) Analysis of changes in unemployment over two-years from figures available from employment office.

ii) Project Officers provided vocational guidance educational placement and job search skills for trainees in each project

ii) Survey of employers to assess their degree of satisfaction with skills of trainees.

iii) Assistance was given to specific trainees in job placement.

iii) Tracer studies of placement of trainees in further education and on their performance at work and in education.

iv) Follow-up undertaken by visits and interviews with newly employed youth and employers on quality of work.

v) Advice given to trainees on further educational and training opportunities.

8. Assessing Long Term Changes Project officers monitored general employment levels and standards of living in the community.

It was found that

· unemployment decreased

· numbers of youth enrolled in further technical education increased;

· community attitudes improved.

Long term changes evaluated as follows:-

i) Employment and unemployment data collected over time.

ii) Income levels and general standard of living assessed by questionnaire survey.

iii) Survey of community attitudes towards the impact of the programme in sample survey.


Programme for the town to be «replicated» throughout a wider region in situations with similar patterns of youth unemployment. Outcomes of the wider coverage to be evaluated by longer term impact studies across a series of socio-economic indicators.

F. Evaluation Techniques

The above case studies of IGPs indicate the types of evaluation which could be used at different phases of a community involvement project. By way of summary the evaluation techniques that were employed are listed below:

Evaluation techniques Used at Different Phases of Selected Income-Generating Programmes - See Section E above:

(a) Pre-implementation Stage

Survey of unemployment levels by age.
Observation schedules to review status of community.
Discussion meetings to determine or validate survey data on levels of income.
Identification of courses and projects already in operation.
Interviews to determine needs.
Inventory of training facilities in learning centres and elsewhere.
Content analysis of relevant non-formal courses in the community.
Attitude surveys to validate social survey data
Survey of employment opportunities

(b) On-Going Assessment

Observation schedules to assess quality of training.
Discussions with participants to assess benefits.
Feasibility surveys of project effectiveness.
Inventory of response levels and drop-out rates.
Curriculum evaluation schedules.
Achievement tests for formal courses.
Observation schedules for assessing quality of work performed.
Economic surveys to assess changes in income levels

(c) Final Evaluation

Longitudinal surveys of changing employment levels and levels of income.
Attitude surveys on effectiveness of project.
Participatory observation schedules to assess application of skills.
Structured interviews to assess impact on individuals and on the community as a whole.
Interview schedules to assess reactions of employers.
Tracer studies to check on placement of trainees in jobs and in further education.

Community impact surveys across a range of socio-economic indicators.

A review of the case studies given above indicates the following general aspects of IGP evaluation.

(a) In spite of the differences and levels of content the evaluation procedures are almost the same. All involve intensive interaction with the target groups individually in a family setting and in the community as a whole.

(b) All of the evaluation methods investigate the development and use of skills in income generating activities.

(c) In every step evaluation feedback is used to suggest adequate and timely intervention for the improvement of project performance.

(d) Evaluation activities occur naturally as needed but systematically. They are built-in to the development process. The field officers and facilitators must be sensitive to the need for evaluation and to the timing and purpose of the evaluation.

(e) The techniques of evaluation depend on its purpose. If income levels are to be assessed an economic survey would need to carried out. If altitude changes are to be measured people would need to be interviewed or their behaviour observed. In other words the evaluation techniques follow logically from each aspect and development step.

(f) Field evaluators must apply a wide range of evaluation techniques and methods. Therefore they must be appropriately trained.

G. Conclusion

The evaluation needed for IGPs is holistic. Since the aim of the programmes is to increase the income of participants and so improve quality of life all aspects of the evaluation should be concerned with checking on achievement of this goal. For this reason this volume does not provide details of specific data gathering instruments such as questionnaires, interview and observation schedules and course evaluation schedules. The format for such instruments is much the same for the evaluation of any educational programme.

Evaluation of IGPs needs to focus on four aspects:

· The effectiveness of individual projects in achieving their objectives.

· The extent to which specific target groups have been helped to increase their incomes.

· The extent to which individual participants have improved their income generating capacity and their general standards of living.

· The wider impact of the programme as a whole on the socio-economic development of the country and quality of life of all citizens.

If a programme increases the income of an individual, improves his or her quality of life and promotes the well-being of a community then it has been a success.