Types of Evaluation

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 Sidas Evaluation Manual

• Reporting format

5
Recommended Outline

• 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 evaluations 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
• evaluations users for improved
• intervention cycle management and
• policy.

12

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

13
Some questions 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
Contd

• 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?