1 / 15

Training Seminar for Evaluation Plan Committee Members, Bucharest, 26/2/2007

Training Seminar for Evaluation Plan Committee Members, Bucharest, 26/2/2007. Introductory Presentation by David Hegarty David Hegarty Phone: +35312986379 EVALCON Mobile: +353879819905 Evaluation and Economic Consultancy Services Email: david.hegarty@evalcon.eu. Presentation Structure.

larkinr
Télécharger la présentation

Training Seminar for Evaluation Plan Committee Members, Bucharest, 26/2/2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Training Seminar for Evaluation Plan Committee Members,Bucharest, 26/2/2007 Introductory Presentation by David Hegarty David Hegarty Phone: +35312986379 EVALCON Mobile: +353879819905 Evaluation and Economic Consultancy Services Email: david.hegarty@evalcon.eu

  2. Presentation Structure • Monitoring and relationship with evaluation • What is evaluation and why is it done? • Evaluation criteria • Evaluation cycle • Conclusion

  3. What is monitoring? • An ongoing, continuous, systematic process • Management function • Examines or checks programme coverage and delivery • Some monitoring questions • How much has been spent? • What did we get for it? • Who benefited? • Are we on track? • Uses financial and performance indicator data

  4. Monitoring and Evaluation • Monitoring and evaluation are linked processes • But monitoring is ongoing • Evaluation is discrete • Evaluators use monitoring information • Indicators • Monitoring acts as an early warning system • Highlights problems or areas that require evaluation

  5. What is evaluation? • “Evaluation” is a common, everyday activity • People evaluate films, restaurants etc • Firms evaluate investments • “Evaluation is an elastic word that stretches to cover judgements of many kinds” (Weiss) • Public sphere • A tool used in management of public policies, programmes and projects • Other tools are monitoring and audit

  6. Defining Evaluation • Some definitions: • “A judgement of interventions according to the results, impacts and needs they aim to satisfy” (EU Commission) • “A critical and detached look at the objectives and how they are being met” (UK Treasury) • Involves judgement on basis of criteria • More comprehensive than monitoring • Applies to policies, programmes and projects

  7. Why evaluate? • Evaluation of EU programmes is mandatory • 3 main overt purposes in public sector context • Planning: to assist in the allocation of resources (ex-ante) • Implementation: To improve programme management (interim evaluation) • Accountability: To address accountability concerns (ex-post) • But evaluation sometimes used for other purposes • Justify decisions already made • Postpone decisions • Public relations • Compliance • “A rational exercise often undertaken for non-rational reasons” (Weiss)

  8. Purpose of Evaluation • Overarching learning purpose “To learn through systematic enquiry how to better design, implement and deliver public programmes and policies” (EU Evalsed Guide)

  9. Evaluation Types • Summative evaluation • Accountability focus • What has been achieved? • What's the value of a programme? • Formative evaluation • Development or learning focus • How can we improve performance and delivery of programme? • “When the cook tastes the soup that’s formative evaluation. When the guest tastes it, that’s summative evaluation” • Both relevant and useful to public sector

  10. Evaluation Criteria • What's the basis for evaluation judgements? • 5 main criteria • Rationale • Relevance • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Impact/Sustainability • Effectiveness issue is where monitoring and evaluation meet

  11. Evaluation Criteria Needs Problems Issues Impacts Society Economy Environment Results Intervention Programme Objectives Inputs Outputs Efficiency Rationale & Relevance Effectiveness Evaluation Impact/Sustainability

  12. The EU Evaluation Cycle • Before (ex-ante evaluation) • Completed in Romania for each OP • General aim: improve allocation of resources and programme design • During (ongoing evaluation) • External developments and their implications? • Is the programme meeting its objectives? • Can we improve programme management? • Required under General Regulation • Managing authority responsibility • Evaluation plan • After (ex-post evaluation) • What has been achieved? • What difference did it make? • EU Commission responsibility

  13. Evaluation Cycle and Focus

  14. Policy Review Policy Formulation Programme Conclusions Programme Design Ex-post Evaluation Ex-ante Evaluation Interim Evaluation Programme Implementation Policy Delivery Policy, Programme & Evaluation Cycles Source: The Guide

  15. Summary/Concluding Points • Relationship between monitoring and evaluation • Purpose of evaluation …. • Need to have an evaluation framework • Evaluation questions or criteria • Focus varies over policy/programme cycle

More Related