80 likes | 216 Views
Reflections on Revising the Guidance: An Evaluation. Dr. Thania Paffenholz Oslo 17 February 2011. Impact. Contribution to better Quality in CPPB work. Outcome 3. Results. Improved Evaluation Practice. Outcome 2. Outcome 1. Awareness for/of EVAL + CPPB field. Draft Guidance. Output.
E N D
Reflections on Revising the Guidance: An Evaluation Dr. Thania Paffenholz Oslo 17 February 2011
Impact Contribution to better Quality in CPPB work Outcome 3 Results Improved Evaluation Practice Outcome 2 Outcome 1 Awareness for/of EVAL + CPPB field Draft Guidance Output 2 DAC Networks + Experts Input
Evaluation along Criteria • Relevance • Is the Draft Guidance responding to the needs of CPPB field? • Is the Draft Guidance responding to the needs of evaluation field? • Effectiveness • Intended outcomes: • How effectively has the Draft Guidance replied to the needs of the two main target groups: Evaluators and Evaluation Managers? • Unintended outcomes: • What kinds of other outcomes (positive and negative) have the Draft Guidance so far produced? • Sustainability • How can the Guidance be used for sustainable learning in CPPB? What kinds of processes have been build-in to ensure follow ups?
Revision: Main Points • Structure of Guidance • needs to serve purpose of audiences • Evaluation Managers • Evaluators (DEV + CPPB) • Broader CPPB field • New Overall Structure • Introduction of CPPB Context • Introduction into evaluations • General • Specificities of CPPB evaluation (incl. conflict sensitivity as eval goal, transversal theme or conduct issue • Managing/Preparing an Evaluation • Conducting an Evaluation • Preconditions for Evaluations -> Planning for Results, Evaluability and closing strategic gap
Revision: Main Points • Chapter 2 Managing/Preparing an Evaluation: Points to be added/changed • Evaluation’s general focus • Evaluation Criteria (DAC + 3C) + transversal themes (e.g. conflict sensitivity, gender) • Process Design • Elaborate on Conflict Analysis Topic • Build-in Quality Control • Phases + Reporting (distinction along Types of eval) • Politics and other real world risks • Build-in Reference/Steering group + ombudsperson • Feedback, Dissemination, Learning etc • TORs + how they will be adapted after inception phase! • (Flexible) budgets • Request (potential) evaluators to develop proposal for evaluation design, approaches, methodologies, feasibility
Revision: Main Points • Chapter 3: Conducting an Evaluation: much more focus on HOW • Overall evaluation designs • Distinction between different types + scopes of evaluations • Evaluation Approaches: purposes + HOW+ best practice • Linking elements + methodology to criteria • Relevance: need for conflict analysis + theory of change + HOW to do it with a set of options + examples (incl. sampling) • Effectiveness (theory of change), etc. • Clarification about impact assessment (impact versus outcomes versus conflict effects) • Core challenges • Data gathering under constraints including overreliance on interviews + reality based options on HOW incl. sequences + feasibility • Politics
Revision: Main Points • Conflict / Context Analysis • Transparency about • HOW, Ownership and USE in Evaluation • Adjusting Types of Analysis to Evaluation Goals • Elements • Historical, Socio-economic context, etc • National + local level • Conflict Analysis insufficient, more elements needed • Analysis of Peacebuilding Context and short, medium and long-term needs • Assessing conflict sensitivity of activities: general + context specific definition and assessment (+ options for how, ex. Coverage/partners, power relations => link to conflict analysis) • Assessing conflict monitoring capacity/performance • Assessing adaptation capacities • ‘Conflict’ is not always the good term!!!
Sustainability • Draft Guidance follow ups • Revision • Dissemination in different forms • Capacity Building/Training for Eval Managers + (potential) Evaluators • Work on Evaluation Culture • Awareness Building in different communities • DAC EVAL Net to draft harmonized SUPER Guidance • How to use the Guidance for Learning in CPPB • INCAF to make use of policy lessons • Ongoing feedback loop needs to be institutionalised