Guiding Note on Indicators for Communication for Development

This 32-page paper is designed to give concrete guidance on the process of identifying relevant communication for development indicators to those involved in the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of bilateral development assistance. It is offered in the context of an effort by Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) to align its project and sector programme support to priorities articulated in the Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) process and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Note explores indicators for a strategic communication process that promotes social changes through dialogue, knowledge sharing, and the active participation of key actors both at the vertical level (between participants at national, regional, and community levels) and at the horizontal level (between peers, e.g., community members, civil society organisations, authorities, decision-makers). This process is characterised by:

• the exchange of information, knowledge, ideas and values among individuals and communities
• the promotion of citizens' participation and community empowerment
• advocacy with policy-makers and opinion leaders to support specific plans, programmes, policies and reforms
• the use of the media to reach large audiences and affect public opinion.

To clarify this process, the document begins with a brief overview of the recent changes in the communication environment in developing countries, including: "a revolution in media and communication environments in developing countries; major changes in development policies which has substantially increased the relevance of communication for development in achieving current development objectives; and a major set of changes in how practitioners approach communication in the development context." This discussion is premised on Danida's observation that most current development policy rests on the belief that development works best when it is rooted in country ownership, when people have a voice in their own development, and when they can hold both governments and others in power to account. "Communication strategies enable people to know and understand issues that affect them, and they provide people with the means and spaces to articulate their own perspectives in public and political debate."

As explained here, Danida is now operating within a 2-tier perspective, the components of which are interrelated and interdepedent:

1. development of free, open, and plural media that provide the communication structures for a democratic dialogue between participants in a communication process; and
2. development of communication processes that provide contents for and means of channelling the dialogue

These 2 perspectives require different competencies, but share the requirement of a free flow of information. This core need informs Danida's strategic framework for communication for development in the context of its assistance decisions, which are also designed to bolster the PRS process and the MDGs. In short, Danida recognises that there are various ways and methods of how best to involve the participants and ensure that they have access to needed information and to voice their opinions, ranging from behaviour change models to participatory communication models such as communication for social change (CFSC). Danida suggests using methods as appropriate for specific contexts; a communication planning model outlined here is designed to assist with the process of selecting an appropriate method and carrying out planning.

The bulk of the document focuses on providing general guidelines for monitoring and indicators on communication for development, with a focus on guidance for monitoring of short-term communication objectives and related activities. Danida stresses that, before monitoring is started, the following questions should be clarified: who wants to know what and why? These questions will help evaluators determine how to go about their work and which indicators to use; that said, "whatever the indicators tell us, they will never tell us why communication makes a difference." Danida stresses that the most important indicators are often not quantifiable (for example, the number of people participating in a social network is relatively unimportant compared to the quality of relationships and dialogue within that network). Examples of quantitative and qualitative communication indicators are provided for message-based communication and CFSC approaches. Also explored here is the fact that the type of indicators varies not only in accordance with the chosen approach to communication interventions, but also in relation to the various stages of the monitoring and evaluation process (examples are provided).

Danida does not attempt here to generate a generic list of indicators, because indicators depend on the actual goals of communication interventions determined by the diagnosis of the problem, the type of strategy, and approach selected. However, "ideally indicators should be developed through a participatory process to satisfy the need for locally-owned, meaningful indicators in a given context." Tips are provided to faciliate this process; for instance, "less is more" (it is better to identify fewer indicators that are meaningful and useful, rather than to generate a long, challenging list).

Danida goes on to analyse the process of identifying indicators in programmes (1) where communication in itself is a vehicle for social change (media development), and (2) where communication is an integral part of a sector/development programme (development communication). Examples are provided to illustrate how to identify and use indicators, such as a case history of the Philippine-based Tambuli Community Media Project that highlights the objectives of a typical media development programme, offers sample monitoring questions, indicators, and means of verification. Other evaluation processes explored here include Zambia's Parliament and Public Information System; Support to Independent Media (part of the Human Rights and Good Governance Programme in Nepal); Honduras's Bay Island Environment Management; and Kenya's Use of Local Radio in Agricultural Extension.

Reflecting on these examples, Danida notes that:

• Communication indicators should be established during programme planning, preferably in a participatory process.
• The type of indicators and their characteristics are dependent on the chosen communication approach and the stage of the monitoring and evaluation process.
• Communication indicators relate to the objectives, inputs and outputs of the communication intervention.
• Correspondence between communication goals and indicators are important for meaningful monitoring of progress and achievements to take place.
• Communication objectives may link to overall development objectives in sector programmes, which again may link to the PRS process and the MDGs if these are synchronised; in such cases indicators should be harmonised.
• Change processes are long-term, but more immediate data are often needed to indicate the contribution being made; in communication, the intent to change has been used as predictor of actual change.
• Communication interventions are gender-sensitive, and indicators should be sex disaggregated when relevant and possible.

Please contact the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the address below to obtain a copy of this paper.