Review of Post Distribution Monitoring Tools

Report
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?

similar documents