 | Sustainable Development and Persons with Disabilities: The Process of Self-Empowerment (ADF, 1995, 117 p.) |
 |  | (introduction...) |
| | About the author |
| | Foreword |
| | Foreword |
| | Abbreviations |
| | Sources and acknowledgements |
|  | Section I: Understanding and perception |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Chapter 1: Introduction |
| | Objectives of this guide |
| | Who may use the guide |
| | Language and liberation |
| | Debate and discussion must continue |
| | Chapter 2: An integrated approach to sustainable development for persons with disability |
| | Chapter 3: The enabling environment: SAPs, development and disability |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Appendix 1: Structural adjustment programme (SAP) - The experience of Zambia |
| | Chapter 4: Community-based rehabilitation |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Practices in relation to the PWDs |
| | What is CBR? |
| | Case studies |
| | A general assessment of CBR: Possibilities and limitations |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Section II: Building economic self-reliance |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Chapter 5: Building economic self-reliance |
| | The importance of self-reliance |
| | Employment options for PWDs |
| | Group versus individually designed and managed IGPs |
| | IGPs at the crossroads of gender and class |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Chapter 6: Income generating project planning |
| | The importance of planning |
| | The experience of a clothing manufacturing project run by a PWD organisation |
| | Other lessons to learn from other experiences |
| | Recommendations of the entebbe workshop |
| | What is involved in successful planning |
| | What kind of information is needed for planning? |
| | What do we do with all this information? |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Chapter 7: Implementation and resource mobilisation |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Sustainability |
| | Resource mobilisation |
| | Running an enterprise |
| | Some case studies of projects run by PWDs |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Appendix 1: Revolving loan scheme (RLS) |
| | Appendix 2: The Entebbe workshop resolution con RLS |
| | Chapter 8: Monitoring and evaluation: Measuring the success of IGPs |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Monitoring |
| | Evaluation |
| | Methodology of monitoring and evaluation |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Chapter 9: Capacity building: Skills training and institution building |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Empowerment |
| | The pedagogy of disability training |
| | Women with disabilities and capacity building for IGPs |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Section III: Lobbying, networking and building alliances |
| | (introduction...) |
| | Chapter 10: Strategies for lobbying, networking and building alliances |
| | PWDs are their own principal change agents |
| | Lobbying, advocacy and networking |
| | Broad alliances |
| | Action guidelines |
| | Notes and references |
| | (introduction...) |
| | ADF board of directors |
Action guidelines
A. Far Persons with Disability
· PWDs must maintain regular monitoring of the performance of the enterprise. As the proverb goes: "A stitch in time saves nine."
· In monitoring, they must maintain an open mind about being criticised for their limitations, and be prepared to amend or repair damage.
· The same applies to evaluation, except that it has to be much more rigorous and planned in detail.
· They should employ external evaluators where necessary. However, they must retain full internal control of the enterprise and the processes of transformation.
B. For the Government
· It should monitor the quality performance of IGPs.
· It should ensure that foreign funded projects do not destroy or impair local initiative.
C. For NGOs, INGOs and Donors
· They should not use evaluation as a policing
tool.
· They should encourage participatory evaluation.
· They
should ensure that evaluation is built into the project proposal.
·
They should use lessons learnt from monitoring and feedback.
· They
should use the services of local evaluators.
Some Areas fur Further Discussion
In spite of the obvious advantages of regular monitoring of the performance of IGPs, it is seldom done. What explains this refusal to utilize one of the most useful tools of management? Could it be linked with a dictatorial style of management?
How does a dictatorial style of management affect the monitoring and evaluation of the project?
What is the difference between monitoring and evaluation? What different objectives do they fulfil?
What are the advantages of "participatory evaluation"? When may an outsider evaluator be called upon to help with an evaluation process?
Look at the examples given in Chapter 8 again, and consider the
reasons for their success or
failure.
|
|