The use of third-party monitoring in development projects has gained increasing prominence in recent years, driven by the demand for more robust accountability mechanisms. Typically, the goal is to bring an independent perspective on project performance by using outside parties who are neither direct beneficiaries nor part of the project’s management structures. Increasingly, however, third-party monitoring is being used more as a risk management tool in countries considered too volatile for development agencies to deploy their staff. This raises important quality, ethical, and technical issues that deserve a wider debate.
Third-party monitoring (TPM) is defined as monitoring by parties that are external to the project or program’s direct beneficiary chain or management structure to assess whether intended outputs, outcomes, and impacts have been achieved by the project. TPM is mainly used to provide an independent perspective on project or government performance. It can be conducted by CSOs, think tanks, academic institutions, media, or private firms. Although monitoring and evaluation, the two core components of TPM, are interrelated, they are distinct functions. As monitoring is primarily concerned with a project’s processes and their immediate effects its operations are often continuous and regular. On the other hand, evaluations are more often episodic and external as the approach to assessment is more comprehensive.
The goal of using third parties to assess the status and performance of a project, its compliance status, or emerging issues through a specialized party is to provide an unbiased perspective on the issue and status and to make recommendations for improvement, where relevant. TPM is used widely in technical and engineering projects, physical infrastructure, financial or procurement compliance, governance and accountability, and environmental and social monitoring of project implementation.
As TPM is employed by different aid actors within the humanitarian and development sectors including donor countries/organizations, multilateral and bilateral support agencies, and international NGOs, the activities and services entailed differing in focus, methods, and objectives. For example, it is common practice for larger aid organizations to employ their staff to both manage and implement monitoring activities. Meanwhile, specialized evaluation departments typically manage their evaluations while they are implemented by a third party.
There are two main models of TPM. The ‘conventional model’ sees an international TPM implementer working as the main interlocutor with the donor. A second ‘alternative model’ sees donors work directly with local organizations. While it is possible to think of a ‘core’ methodology, each TPM programme’s design tends to be unique, because of the diverse requirements (technical, social, political) placed on the monitoring. Donor’s motivations for undertaking TPM center around a lack of access, which is underpinned by a desire (i) to be accountable (ii) to optimize performance, and (iii) to mitigate financial and other risks.
Implementing TPM involves a series of necessary steps including identification of information and reporting requirements, coverage areas and frequency of monitoring, selection of TPM providers, training and capacity-building, integration with any existing monitoring framework, pilot exercises, validation of findings, and utilization of results.
Benefits of Third party monitoring (TPM)
- Serving as a proxy, TPM is vital in ensuring access and collecting data in insecure areas where it is more difficult for an organization’s staff to be deployed. Additionally, as TPM service providers usually have better access they are also potentially able to provide more frequent monitoring and data collection.
- TPM offers a low-visibility option. This is because TPM reduces the need for staff visits which are higher in visibility due to their need to comply with stricter safety requirements. In this context, TPM may also present a more economical modality to monitoring as employing one’s staff generally entails added costs, such as organizing appropriate security arrangements, paying for adequate training, and adjusting staff salary levels.
- Verifying partner activities and ensuring compliance. TPM can offer services of greater quality, especially in cases where an implementing partner’s capacity may be limited or otherwise compromised.
Limitations of Third party monitoring
- Dissatisfaction with the overall quality of the TPM report. There are concerns over the reliability of collected data, poor translation, and limitations in technical capabilities.
- TPM providers’ objectivity in their assessments and reporting. Skepticism among some aid workers about the impartiality of TPM services has been observed. Continuous visits to the same place or repeat contracts with the same donors threaten TPM’s adherence to principles of neutrality.
- Lack of transparency throughout the provision of TPM services may also hinder efforts to build trust between donors and implementing and local NGOs, CSOs, and other partnering entities. This is because TPM reports are often not shared with those implementing partners who are being monitored.
- TPM staff do not always conduct their activities in a manner that builds trust with local communities as they may lack comprehensive training on key humanitarian principles. This risks impairing relations between donors and beneficiaries, particularly when TPM staff erroneously present their affiliations to donors, often resulting in confusion among beneficiaries about the role and purpose of TPM staff and their activities.