III. Evaluation Methodology

 We began our evaluation in April 2000 during the second preparatory committee (PrepCom) meeting for the five-year review of the Social Summit (Social Summit + 5) in New York.  Subsequently in June we traveled to the secretariat in Montevideo and to the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) meeting in Geneva.  In order to evaluate this complex initiative we have incorporated diverse sources of information - both quantitative and qualitative - into our data collection and analysis phases.  Our approach included:

 ·        Developing questionnaires tailored to the various actors involved with the initiative – Social Watchers, the Secretariat, Novib and UN officials (see Appendix 1 for questionnaires developed and used to guide this evaluation).

 ·        Conducting individual interviews in New York and Geneva with 26 Social Watchers,[2] NOVIB staff closely involved with Social Watch and senior United Nations officials (see Appendix 2 for types of NGOs interviewed and Appendix 3 for a complete list of interviewees).

 ·        Visiting the Social Watch Secretariat at the Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM)[3] in Montevideo (June 5-9, 2000) to conduct in depth interviews with staff, access the Social Watch database and consolidate archived materials. 

 ·        Analyzing the evolution, content, indicators and indices, format and editorial quality of the Social Watch Annual Reports and monitoring manuals.

 ·        Examining primary and secondary Social Watch documents. 

 ·        Participating in the Social Summit + 5 PrepCom (April 3-14, 2000) and Social Watch meeting (April 8-9, 2000) in New York, UNGASS in Geneva (June 26-30, 2000), and advocacy meetings related to Social Watch such as the Development Caucuses, press conferences, and launch and discussion of A Better World for All report.

 ·        Attending Novib’s self-evaluation meeting held on July 3, 2000 in The Hague.

 This evaluation ultimately gains its strength from the diversity of individuals who took the time to meet with us, complete seemingly endless questionnaires, and respond to the multitude of questions that we raised.  We express our deep appreciation to all of them for sharing invaluable insights on the evolution of Social Watch both within their countries and internationally.  In addition, as the majority of interviewees were not native English speakers, answering our queries often required a great deal of patience and perseverance.  We also extend a very special thanks to the Social Watch secretariat staff in Montevideo, particularly Roberto Bissio, Patricia Garcé and Soledad Bervejillo, for their critical analysis and cooperation, warm generosity and good humor.

[2] This is out of a total of 149 individuals involved to varying degrees in Social Watch.  Each interview was between 45 minutes to several hours long.  They were conducted primarily in English, however one was held in French and three were in Spanish in the presence of a translator.
[3] Third World Institute