Recommendations - Development Through Radio (DTR) Radio Listening Clubs, Zambia: Impact Evaluation Report

Recommendations

1. Panos S.Af must establish a system of documenting the radio programmes – topic, content, respondent, clubs, outcomes. Tapes should be kept of all programmes, and transcripts into English should be made of a proportion of the programmes. Fackson's idea of employing people to monitor and record the programmes as they are aired may be an efficient way of solving the problem of documentation.
2. The Mfuwe Clubs repeatedly complain about the difficulty of communication in their area – it is hard for the local coordinator to visit all the clubs regularly, and hard for the clubs to visit one another. It is not at all obvious what Panos can do to solve this problem, but the request of some of the clubs for bicycles should perhaps be considered seriously. When will mobile phones be a possibility?
3. Some of the clubs that do not have their own equipment for listening and recording have requested this. For the sake of equity among the clubs their requests should be considered – but bearing in mind that this will lead to the clubs collectively producing a much larger volume of recorded material for programmes, while the airtime available is not likely to increase. To avoid creating frustration, the question should be carefully discussed with the clubs themselves.
4. This evaluation mission did not succeed in getting many comments from NGO or government officials and politicians who had participated as respondents in radio programmes. This is a serious gap in our understanding of the impact of the project: does it change their attitudes to and knowledge about rural women and development? I suggest that an effort to elicit feedback should be built into all contacts with actual and potential respondents (just one or two questions could be asked). The Programme Officer should also try to interview respondents by telephone on a regular basis (eg every two or three months), to “capture” their comments while their participation in the programme is fresh in their minds.
5. The project's success to date in getting material benefits for the communities and high-level respondents in programmes has no doubt been important to the communities' support for the project and to its development impact on the ground. We do not know to what extent this success has been due to the personal commitment and political contacts of the producer. In new projects being launched in other languages, and in future phases of this one in the event (quite likely) that the present producer leaves, it will be important to monitor the effectiveness of other producers, and the factors that contribute to this.
6. The Clubs expected, but have not achieved, support for their income-generating activities. The project should attempt to achieve this, through accessing material support, through building stronger links with the Clubs in Zimbabwe, or some other means.
7. This project has evolved in ways its originators might not have expected. It would be interesting to compare it with the DTR projects in Zimbawe, KwaZulu Natal and Malawi (and any others that have been established elsewhere), which have all probably evolved in different directions. This would help to identify the real long-term benefits and strengths of DTR projects, and the inputs and conditions needed for these to be achieved.
8. An emerging question is, what would be the best way for an outside agency to give the clubs information or new ways of looking at issues without contradicting the essential characteristic of the project, which is that the clubs make their own programmes according to their own ideas and priorities? This question is arising in relation to HIV/AIDS, other health information, and (with the Borana pastoralists in Kenya) conflict resolution. It is important partly because as other organisations start adopting the model, they are likely to want to use it for their own information agendas, and we should be in a position to recommend the best way of doing this. This project in Zambia has a lot to teach us. Panos should start sytematically testing different ways of supporting the clubs with information input, evaluating the experiences and learning from them. HIV/AIDS would be a good subject to start with, as it is arising as an issue for our radio projects in several different countries – Zambia, Malawi, Kenya and probably others.
9. There are many favourable conditions for launching the project in other languages in Zambia – the positive experience so far, the commitment of ZNBC, and the presence of a nation-wide partner NGO (Women for Change). Panos must plan this expanded phase very carefully, and must make sure there is sufficient management capacity, within Panos or the partner NGO. Two aspects that will need to be monitored and supported are:
   
   • the role, commitment and effectiveness of the new producers, and whether the amount of work demanded by the project can be sustained on a longer-term and broader scale, without financial incentives
   • Document and monitor closely the quality and content of the radio programmes and discussions – because this project will be a significant step in a new direction for the Panos DTR project.
10. It is time for Panos to start thinking about an exit strategy from the Mfuwe clubs. This should probably be done in consultation with the Clubs and ZNBC. Would ZNBC be willing to continue the project indefinitely? Can the project gains be institutionalised in some way within the clubs?