Review of Post Distribution Monitoring Tools PQWG – August 2014 Ruco Van Der Merwe Objectives • Review and analyze existing PDM tools and methodologies being used by partners • Develop common PDM template and/or methodological guidance if desired by PQWG 16 Participants Data Sources WFP South Sudan World Vision Samaritan's Purse FAO WFP Solidarites ACF Somalia CVMG OXFAM (Philippines) CARE (Pakistan) Caritas UNHCR Secondary Through Internet 33% Directly From Partner 67% Analysis - Examined commonalities (themes) across three spheres - Themes only occurring once were dropped - Outcome indicators indicated in red IN-KIND PDM C&V PDM METHODOLOGY IN-KIND PDM 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Inclusion Rate C&V PDM 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Inclusion Rate METHODOLOGY Common Themes • Generally conducted 1-2 weeks following distributions. • Simple random sampling where beneficiary lists are available. • Unit of sampling: Beneficiary Household • Sample Size: – Sample 3-10% of total beneficiary population – 90% C / +-10% CI – 95% C / +-5% CI METHODOLOGY Questions • Given that PDMs are routine data collection mechanisms, is it realistic/useful to gather large sample sizes? • Should brevity be valued to ensure increased accuracy and predictability? Lessons Learned • Tracking outcomes is not mainstreamed across PDMs. • Wide variation in PDM length and methodology. Next Steps • Is there a need for PDM template which captures most frequently used elements? • Is there a need for methodological guidance? • What about market monitoring / surveillance?