From my contributions in the quality monitoring tools development, there are those to be especially proud of and not ashamed of.
I don’t remember ones flawed at the designing phase (but a couple of implementation phase defected samples, when the customer ignored the starting-up recommendations). But let’s move to a happier note.
The leaders of my personal rating are:
- Quality Performance Assessment Tool for Legal Clinics in Ukraine (quality monitoring tool of legal clinics), that was elaborated partnering with Yuliia Lomzhets, in 2017. But the initial steps in such direction were Legal Clinic model studies dd.2005 (jointly with V. Stadnik) and the personal Legal Clinics quality categorization system, dd.2009.
- and the two tools for the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (monitoring the human rights implementation by local authorities #local_human_rights_index and monitoring the LGBT rights by the police).
That is essential:
- Understand that all previously developed similar tools help in making better the further ones.
- Not only develop but also effectively train to take advantage in their usage.
- Not only train but also accompany for a time to achieve a constant of quality. In fact, Legal Clinics monitoring is the one of all my made, that will go freefall.
The main recommendations under the quality monitoring tools development and implementation:
- Better to asses in scores and the best approach is 0/1 (don’t / have), otherwise subjectivity ruins the quality;
- Better to do the minimum possible indicators. The more – the longer, more difficult and controversial. How not to lose the assessment quality with a small number of indicators – is to evaluate only the final indicator of quality, if intermediate ones are needed to get it. I know all this is difficult to understand, one day I will explain the details.
- Do not evaluate for the grade or penances. It should be done for providing the assessing effective activity. This is the so-called friendly monitoring approach concept. For the Legal Clinics monitoring was made a “2.0” format, that includes a cooperative development and implementation of the development plan under assessment results.
Andrii Halai, Member of Board of the Association of Legal Clinics of Ukraine