Transcript From Sida’s Evaluation Manual

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.
When?




Mid-term evaluation – learning
On-going – performance monitoring
At the end of the project
Ex-post - impact
By whom?
Management
 Superior structure
 Donor
 Joint evaluation (mostly donor
driven)
Evaluations often perceived as:
 Instruments of donor control –
partnership and ownership!

From Sida’s Evaluation
Manual
Reporting format
Recommended Outline








EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
THE EVALUATED INTERVENTION
FINDINGS
EVALUATIVE CONCLUSIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEXES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of the evaluation, with
particular emphasis on main findings,
conclusions, lessons learned and
recommendations.
Should be short!!!

INTRODUCTION
Presentation of the evaluation’s purpose,
questions and main findings.
FINDINGS
Factual evidence, data and
observations that are relevant to
the specific questions asked by the
evaluation.

EVALUATIVE CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of the intervention and
Its results against given evaluation
criteria, standards of performance and
policy issues.
LESSONS LEARNED
General conclusions that are likely to
have a potential for wider application
and use.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Actionable proposals to the
evaluation’s users for improved
intervention cycle management and
policy.
ANNEXES
Terms of reference, methodology for
data gathering and analysis,
references, etc.
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
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?