1 / 14

Types of Evaluation – For whom and why?

Types of Evaluation – For whom and why?. Instrumental use – input decision making Conceptual – deeper understanding, learning Legitimisation – mobilise official support Tactical use – gain time Ritual use – empty and see the “big picture Process use

kele
Download Presentation

Types of Evaluation – For whom and why?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Types of Evaluation –For whom and why? • Instrumental use – input decision making • Conceptual – deeper understanding, learning • Legitimisation – mobilise official support • Tactical use – gain time • Ritual use – empty and see the “big picture • Process use • Evaluation questions and responsibility of the evaluation. ToR critically important.

  2. When? • Mid-term evaluation – learning • On-going – performance monitoring • At the end of the project • Ex-post - impact

  3. By whom? • Management • Superior structure • Donor • Joint evaluation (mostly donor driven) Evaluations often perceived as: • Instruments of donor control – partnership and ownership!

  4. From Sida’s Evaluation Manual Reporting format

  5. RecommendedOutline • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • INTRODUCTION • THE EVALUATED INTERVENTION • FINDINGS • EVALUATIVE CONCLUSIONS • LESSONS LEARNED • RECOMMENDATIONS • ANNEXES

  6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of the evaluation, with particular emphasis on main findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. Should be short!!!

  7. INTRODUCTION Presentation of the evaluation’s purpose, questions and main findings.

  8. FINDINGS Factual evidence, data and observations that are relevant to the specific questions asked by the evaluation.

  9. EVALUATIVE CONCLUSIONS Assessment of the intervention and Its results against given evaluation criteria, standards of performance and policy issues.

  10. LESSONS LEARNED General conclusions that are likely to have a potential for wider application and use.

  11. RECOMMENDATIONS Actionable proposals to the evaluation’s users for improved intervention cycle management and policy.

  12. ANNEXES Terms of reference, methodology for data gathering and analysis, references, etc.

  13. Somequestions to be asked • Was there a specific objective for the evaluation – also to be found in the Terms of Reference (ToR)? • Were the ToR attached to the evaluation? • Were the qualifications of the evaluators explicitly stated? • Were there OVIs (Objectively Verifiable Indicators)? • Were there any specific references to Guidelines, Manuals, Methods in the ToR and in the Evaluation itself

  14. Cont’d • Is it clear from the document when, where and by whom the evaluation was made? • Was a base-line study needed? If so, was it carried out? • Has poverty alleviation explicitly been dealt with (over arching objective of the GoM)? • Have other cross-cutting issues been adequately dealt with? (Environment, gender, HIV/AIDS, good governance) • Has the issue of cost-effectiveness been dealt with? Is there any discussion of costs and benefits in the evaluation?

More Related