Third-Party Monitoring – Rasa Sunrise

Third Party Monitoring (TPM)

On one hand, Third Party Monitoring (TPM) can be described in simple terms as the conducting of monitoring by a third party – i.e. neither the donor nor implementer. Alternatively, it can be seen as a complex, fast-growing field characterized by a wide variety of forms, all shaped by highly diverse donor needs, reflecting myriad local contexts. That said, it can still be distilled into two main types – the monitoring of the views of people, which is seen as more commonplace than the monitoring of assets. TPM is not only used by donors; it is used by some larger INGOs in high-risk areas where they themselves lack access.

Conventional Model

The ‘conventional model’ sees an international TPM implementer working as the main interlocutor with the donor.

Alternative Model

A second ‘alternative model’ sees donors work directly with local organizations. Those who have been involved in various TPM projects tend to believe that while it is possible to think of a ‘core’ methodology, each TPM program’s design tends to be quite unique, because of the diverse requirements (technical, social, political) placed on the monitoring.

Types of TPM

According to RASA practitioners in TPM, a useful way of looking at the field of TPM is that, fundamentally, it typically sets out to monitor either people or assets.

People

TPM projects more commonly set out to engage with ‘people’ through qualitative and quantitative research with:

Direct beneficiaries – immediate recipients of the aid
Indirect beneficiaries – those who benefit indirectly
Programme management – the key staff from the implementing partner
Other stakeholders (such as community leaders, and thematic experts) through ‘Key Informant Interviews.

TPM practitioners consider that the use of TPM to monitor the opinions of people is significantly more common than the use of TPM to monitor assets. For this reason, the remainder of this report defaults to a discussion of the TPM of people, with reference made to assets where applicable.

Assets

In the sorts of fragile and conflict-affected places where access may be impossible and so TPM is more likely to be useful, medium-value Non-Food Items (NFIs) or high-value infrastructural assets may be distributed, and the donor may want to be confident that these remain in the possession of the intended party/ies. In addition to tangible assets, TPM can set out to look at intangible assets such as the systems and processes of the IP itself.

One relatively common form of TPM is to assess the strength of IPs’ MEL systems – the logic being that if the donor can be confident that the IP has the ability to report data well, then there is less need for a high-cost, long-term version of TPM.

Models of TPM

Figure 4 shows what practitioners feel has become the ‘standard’, ‘international’ TPM model – i.e. the one that donors most commonly fund. In this model, the donors set out to commission a reputable and experienced lead TPM agency (‘Lead Agencies’ or ‘LAs’) typically in Brussels, Washington, or London, who in turn work with one or more local ‘data collection’ firms (‘DC’s) to visit the donor’s Implementing Partners (IPs). The number of IPs involved in a typical program was described as ranging in number from two to a dozen. In this setup, the LA will typically consist of: