evalueringskonferansen 2013: niels dabelstein

E V A L U E R I N G S K O N F E R A N S E N 2 0 1 3 D R A M M E N , N O R G E N I E L S D A B E L S T E I N

DESIGNING FOR EFFECTIVE EVALUATION FEEDBACK

2

“I can honestly say that not a day goes by when we don’t use those evaluations in one way or another.”

Written by Mark M. Rogers and illustrated by Lawson Sworh

DEFINITION OF EVALUATION (DAC)

An assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and result.

- to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

- be credible, timely, and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of recipients and donors.

USEFULNES/UTILITY

Evaluation must serve the information needs of the intended primary users.

MULTIPLE TARGET GROUPS (USERS)

• Internal: • Management • Operational staff • Partners

• External:

• Parliament/policy makers • Opinion makers/leaders • General public • Academics/researchers/students • External Resource base • NGOs

INTERNAL FEEDBACK

• Follow-up Memo • Department/Senior management

• Discussion in Management group • Workshops / Seminars / Training • Contribute to policy, strategy & guidelines • Annual report to Board

EXTERNAL DISSEMINATION

• Evaluation Report • 4 page summary • Presentations in partner countries • 25 page ”popular version” (in local languages) • Press conference/seminar • Video/film • Eval’s annual report to Board • Danida’s annual report • Udvikling – Danidas bi-monthly magazine • Public meetings/Professional Associations • Lectures Universities/high Schools • WWW

THE EVALUATION OF THE PARIS DECLARATION

In 2005 130+ countries’ donors and agencies committed to improve development effectiveness by improving:

•Ownership •Alignment •Harmonization •Managing for Results •Mutual Accountability

A JOINT EVALUATION

• Based on the principles of the Paris Declaration: partner countries and development partners developed the evaluation framework/approach jointly

• The evaluation itself was a tool for mutual accountability: • 22 Country-level evaluations led by partner countries and

managed in-country

• 18 Donor/agency HQ studies

EVALUATION COMPONENTS

Country Evaluations & Donor Studies

ENSURING UTILITY

• Legitimacy of the evaluation (mandate) • Genuine participation of primary stakeholders • Transparency, communication and knowledge

sharing. http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/PDE

• Dissemination /communication strategy • Plain language (trilingual) • Timeliness

TENSIONS # 1

The tension between stakeholder involvement and evaluator independence impartiality.

15

TENSION # 2

The tension between strength of evidence and delivering the findings on time

A BALANCING ACT: STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE VS. TIMELINESS

17

On Time

DISSEMINATION INSTRUMENTS

• 55 Reports (synthesis (2), country and donor evaluations, special studies, meta evaluation)

• Free standing summaries of synthesis reports • 9 Thematic policy briefs (5+4) • Everything on www • 36 national and international meetings and

workshops • Video and film on www and Facebook

USEFUL LINKS

www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/evaluationofthe implementationoftheparisdeclaration.htm www.evaluering.dk