IDEAS Delhi, Workshop – DAC April 2005 1 Independent Evaluation « Quality Assessment of SDC’s...

IDEAS Delhi, Workshop – DAC April 2005

1

Independent Evaluation

« Quality Assessment of SDC’s External Evaluation Reports »

Anne BichselEvaluation + Controlling Division


2

Content

1. Objectives of the Quality Assessment

2. Procedures and Method

3. Findings

4. Recommendations


3

1. Objectives ot the Quality Assessment

• To assess the quality of SDC‘sexternal evaluation reports

• To contribute to improving future performance and achieving a higher evaluation quality of SDC‘s external evaluations


4

2. Procedures and Method (I)

• Step I: Random Sample of 12 external evaluation reports

• Step 2: devise a list of evaluation standards on the basis of- „DAC Minimum Sufficient Evaluation Standards“- SEVAL Standards- Key questions in Approach Paper


5

2. Procedures and Method (II)

List of evaluation standards with 4 categories

• Utility (9 standards): readable, accessible, timely evaluations with a good summary

• Feasibility (3 standards): realistic well thought-out evaluations

• Propriety (4 standards): ethical aspect of evaluations

• Accuracy (7 standards): proper scientific methods and procedures


6

2. Procedures and Method (III)

• Step 3: review documents, conduct interviews with desk managers and evaluators

• Step 4: work through all the standards for the sample of evaluations. Result: 12 fact sheets

• Step 5: analysis and comparison

• Step 6: conclusions and recommendations


7

3. Findings (I)

Strengths of external evaluation reports

• Identification and participation of stakeholders

• Timely reporting

• Cost effectiveness

• Complete and balanced assessment


8

3. Findings (II)

Weaknesses of external evaluations reports

• Selection procedures of evaluation team

• Formal written agreement

• Comprehensive and clear reporting

• Description of evaluation purpose and objectives

• Description of evaluation procedures and methods

• Making findings available


9

4. Recommendations (I)

Draft good, realistic and comprehensive TORs

• Clear purpose

• Clear, focused, concise and understandable objectives with three to four questions

• Agreement on TORs among SDC divisions

• Realistic expectations in terms of resources and timeframe

• Beware of questions at the impact level


10

4. Recommendations (II)

Ensure more competitive and open selection procedures

• Aim at balance in desired knowhow and independence of evaluators

• Place more weight on evaluation knowhow (methods)

• More open and transparent selection procedures

• More competition

• Careful team building in matching personalities, skills, division of labor


11

4. Recommendations (III)

Improve the conditions for the utilisation of external evaluations

• Accompany evaluations closely for maximum learning potential

• Continuity on the part of desk managers

• Reports need to be more accessible to a wider audience

• Enhance the quality of evaluation reports

• Make results of external evaluations more widely available


12

4. Recommendations (IV)

Enhance the conditions for high quality external evaluations

Evaluations are a challenging business, hence:Provide support and training for desk managers

• Training in evaluation

• Support in drafting TORs and commissioning evaluations

• Support in obtaining high quality reports


13

In sum: less is more !


14

Follow-up by the Core Learning Group: Evaluation & Controlling Net

H-Bereich O-Bereich E-Bereich M-Bereich F-Bereich A-Bereich

ChristophJakob

KunoSchläfli

Peter Meier

Regula Bäbler

MarkusGlatz

IvoAngehrn

AlexandreKobel

Direktor DEZA

Stellv. Direktor

Gerhard SiegfriedSamuel WältyAnne Bichsel

Sekretariat (je 50%)Regula HerlanChrista Rohner

jeweilige Bereichsleitung


15

Steps of an Independent Evaluation

COSTRAComité Stratégique

•TORs&contracts•Implementation•Draft Report•Debriefing •Final Report

•Approach Paper •Core Learning Partners (CLP)

•Approach Paper •Core Learning Partners (CLP)

•Agreement at Completion Point•Dissemination to Broad Learning Partners (BLP)

•Agreement at Completion Point•Dissemination to Broad Learning Partners (BLP)

•Senior Management Standpoint discussed in COSTRA

•Senior Management Standpoint discussed in COSTRA

I.

II.

III.

IV.

•COSTRA Decision•COSTRA Decision0.


16

Measures to improve quality

Communicated evaluation results / recommendations in all departments

Clarified and communicated the palette of instruments

Developing toolkit for commissioners of evaluations Intraweb: Description of Process / examples Principles to ensure successful Use of

Evaluations Improving training courses: curriculum and

availability (1 day training Ext. Evals) Backstopping and Quality Control by the E&C

Net


17

Independent Evaluation

External Evaluation

External Review

Self-Evaluation

Expert Opinion

Palette of Instruments


18

Independent Evaluationssince 2001

2 – 5 annually

outside line management( E&C Division)

- issues of interest across departments- selected country programs

aim for the same

DAC Executive

Registration

ExternalEvaluations

5 – 10 annually

within

- to generate knowledge within the department- of interest across divisions

standards

Summary

in data management

ExternalReviews

according to operational needs

line management

- ongoing operations - in the context of program cycle management

system (DMS)


19


20

IDEAS Delhi, Workshop – DAC April 2005 1 Independent Evaluation « Quality Assessment of SDC’s...

Documents

Transcript of IDEAS Delhi, Workshop – DAC April 2005 1 Independent Evaluation « Quality Assessment of SDC’s...