MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY TELECENTERS

1
MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY TELECENTERS
(MCT) www.barangayconnect.ph Ms. Merlita M.
Opeña DOST-Philippine Council for Health Research
and Development
2
PROJECT NOTES

• EVALUATION
• INDICATORS, objective-based
• PROJECT SHIFTS, LEARN AS YOU RUN midway,
  exit
• REFLECTION, and probing, one can extend
  observations to gender analyses
• EVALUATION, an ongoing process hence, No
  one-time COST

3
What is MCT?

• MCT piloted in four Philippine villages
  (barangays) the introduction of Information and
  Communication Technology (ICT) as a tool for
  rural development
• MCT aims to contribute to peoples empowerment
  and development by providing access to community
  and partners information and communication
  resources and services.

4
What MCT expects to achieve?

• To set-up a one-stop information resource center
  for the people in the barangays (villages), by
  giving them access to information, people, and
  organizations, with the use of simple and
  state-of-the-art communication tools that can
  provide answers to the communities concerns.

5
What MCT expects to achieve?

• To serve as a venue for learning, interaction,
  creating content and ICT-based applications,
  relevant to the needs of the communities (e.g.,
  health, education, agriculture/fisheries/natural
  resources, rural enterprise development)

6
MCT Services

• Public Calling Office
• Internet Access
• Computer Processing Center
• Library and Reading Center
• Training Resource Center
• Content and ICT-based Applications

7
MCT Development Strategies

• build on existing programs
• work with partners
• create local content/application
• ensure long-term viability and sustainability by
  strengthening local capability

8
Project implementers evaluation

• Lessons learned from
• - site visits/occasional stay-in, observations
  at times with donor
• - talking with individuals, groups (FGDs)
• - learning caravan with the community, from one
  site to the other
• - field reports (staff and partners)
• - logbooks

9
Lessons Learned

• Barangays have the capability to solve their own
  problem they have resources
• The people in the rural community are not always
  waiting for free services they have the
  capability to pay

10
Lessons Learned

• MCT is a relationship project, one works within a
  web of relationships
• Bottom-up governance is viable there is a need
  to shift from the traditional top-down view

11
On management and operation

• Each MCT is different from the others, strongly
  dependent on leaders
• There should be a balance between giving public
  and commercial services
• Voluntarism is valuable, especially when the MCT
  is just starting

12
On community mobilization

• Project ownership by the community is essential
• Active community involvement, sectoral formation
  and participation are very important

13
On community mobilization

• Persons with strong leadership, with the right
  ability and orientation, encourage active
  community participation and help ensure a strong
  and sustainable MCT
• Easier if community has undergone community
  organizing or, if there is an existing
  organization

14
On content development...

• Information need is an evolving concern
• Content/resources/applications available in the
  MCT should respond to the communitys information
  needs

15
On content development...

• Community itself generates its own content a
  major source
• Networking with content generators enriches
  information resource at MCTs

16
On content development...

• Use of local dialect hastens understanding and
  results to action
• Use popular/appropriate language and format
• Communicate proactively

17
On technical infrastructure...

• Use appropriate, stable, and robust technology
  for connectivity, computing, and communication
• MCT operators should be trained on equipment
  maintenance and basic troubleshooting

18
Evaluation by a third party (engaged by donor)

• External evaluators report not well received
  (matter of language), though well-meaning his
  observations were used though in refining project
  activities, e.g., community mobilization, and
  providing information that people need in their
  daily lives

19
Based on evaluation, revise midstream

• Engaged a partner-NGO (eDI) who stayed and
  worked with the community, especially to --
• mobilize the community, by puroks, by
  sector
• conduct training (beyond ICT, including gender
  sensitivity) and PRA

20
Evaluation from close engagement

• Lessons learned from close engagement with
  community showed observable improvements
• - site visits/occasional stay-in, observations
• - talking with individuals, groups (FGDs)
• - field reports (staff and partners)
• - logbooks

21
Evaluation with APC-WNSP (GEM)

• Provided opportunity for more focused
  evaluation, using more tools (4th year of
  project, looking for exit strategies)

22
Evaluation with APC-WNSP (GEM)

• - logbooks, seriously now
• - FGD by GEM
• - observation by GEM (e.g., gender
  composition of volunteers, local government
  council, Management Board)
• - interview (3rd party)
• diary (volunteers)
• storytelling (3rd party)

23
Evaluation with APC-WNSP (GEM)

• From reports generated by all tools used,
  TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITY (in a workshop),
  analysed the results
• all tools, aside from storytelling, generate
  STORIES, e.g., stories behind numbers in logbook
• only the COMMUNITY can explain better the stories
  behind figures or situations

24
Why stories

• ??for monitoring, both the volunteers and the
  telecenter
• ??for determining what specific action(s) to take
• ??to serve as basis for planning
• ??to provide input in decision making
• ??for expression of feeling
• ??to learn from oneself and other volunteers

25
Why stories

• ??to develop writing skills
• ??to serve as a record of events and projects
  history (milestones)
• ??to learn the stories behind user statistics
• ??to serve as a reflection of people who work at
  the telecenter, i.e., their beliefs, culture,
  values, perspectives, and dynamics

26
Why stories

• ??to reflect/record changes in community
  participation and governance
• ??to look into gender/family relations in the
  community
• to contextualize social and power
  structure/relations within the community

27
Why stories

• Learning went beyond answers to question of
  access to services can also be used to probe
  gender awareness, gender considerations in
  designing applications and services, equity in
  accessing services

28
On evaluation and monitoring...

• Storytelling, by itself, and in combination with
  other tools, is a potent way to evaluate projects
• Looking into the views and needs of non-users is
  important

29
On evaluation and monitoring...

• a critical appraisal, not meant for donors only
  importantly, for the community
• documentation of failures as well as successes
• should this be a neutral process?

30
Overall, what we learned

• Setting MCTs, more than technology
• Service convergence, online-offline
  complementation
• Connecting down-up up-down
• Capacity building for all participants
• Sustainability, more than financials

31
Overall, what we learned

• The primacy of the COMUNITY

32
Codifying what we learned

• A Manual