Evaluation why for whom and how

It also includes competencies in effectively designing, managing, implementing and using evaluation. It includes strengthening a culture of valuing evidence, valuing questioning, and valuing evaluative thinking. Evaluation uses a systematic process to judge quality, combining evidence and values. Good evaluation helps people make better decisions for better outcomes.

Different types of evaluation can be done throughout a program or policy cycle, before implementation, during implementation, or after implementation. BetterEvaluation is an international collaboration to improve the practice and theory of evaluation. We create and curate information on choosing and using evaluation methods and processes, including managing evaluations and strengthening evaluation capacity.

Evaluation use is a key issue for the evaluation community. The aim of evaluation is to be influential, so it should be of use to policymakers, programme developers, project planners and managers. I recently used a survey of evaluators to explore In this blog post, Patricia shares some of her highlights over the past 12 years.

Find new content and the latest events recently added to BetterEvaluation. This article discusses theoretical approaches to evaluation and draws on experiences from agriculture and health. It notes that different stakeholders may have varying expectations of an evaluation and that alternative approaches to evaluation are more suited to meeting some objectives than others.

Randomised controlled trials, or well-designed quasi-experimental studies, probably provide the most persuasive evidence of the impact of a specific intervention but if the primary aim is systematic learning a Theories of Change or Realistic Evaluation approach may be of greater value. If resources permit, different approaches could be combined to cover both accountability and learning objectives. Through a reflective process, the CES Board of Directors, supported by a consultation of members, has crafted and adopted the following as the CES definition of evaluation.

PDF version. An evaluation is methodical, providing information that is credible, reliable, and useful to enable the incorporation of lessons learned into decision-making process of users and funders OECD, Utility: Who needs the evaluation results?

Will the evaluation provide relevant information in a timely manner for them? Feasibility: Are the planned evaluation activities realistic given the time, resources, and expertise at hand?

Propriety: Does the evaluation protect the rights of individuals and protect the welfare of those involved? Does it engage those most directly affected by the program and changes in the program, such as participants or the surrounding community?

Accuracy: Will the evaluation produce findings that are valid and reliable, given the needs of those who will use the results? Sometimes the standards broaden your exploration of choices. Often, they help reduce the options at each step to a manageable number. Feasibility How much time and effort can be devoted to stakeholder engagement?

Propriety To be ethical, which stakeholders need to be consulted, those served by the program or the community in which it operates? Accuracy How broadly do you need to engage stakeholders to paint an accurate picture of this program?

Similarly, there are unlimited ways to gather credible evidence Step 4. Asking these same kinds of questions as you approach evidence gathering will help identify ones what will be most useful, feasible, proper, and accurate for this evaluation at this time.

Thus, the CDC Framework approach supports the fundamental insight that there is no such thing as the right program evaluation. Rather, over the life of a program, any number of evaluations may be appropriate, depending on the situation. Good evaluation requires a combination of skills that are rarely found in one person.

The preferred approach is to choose an evaluation team that includes internal program staff, external stakeholders, and possibly consultants or contractors with evaluation expertise. An initial step in the formation of a team is to decide who will be responsible for planning and implementing evaluation activities. One program staff person should be selected as the lead evaluator to coordinate program efforts. This person should be responsible for evaluation activities, including planning and budgeting for evaluation, developing program objectives, addressing data collection needs, reporting findings, and working with consultants.

The lead evaluator is ultimately responsible for engaging stakeholders, consultants, and other collaborators who bring the skills and interests needed to plan and conduct the evaluation.

Although this staff person should have the skills necessary to competently coordinate evaluation activities, he or she can choose to look elsewhere for technical expertise to design and implement specific tasks. However, developing in-house evaluation expertise and capacity is a beneficial goal for most public health organizations. The lead evaluator should be willing and able to draw out and reconcile differences in values and standards among stakeholders and to work with knowledgeable stakeholder representatives in designing and conducting the evaluation.

Seek additional evaluation expertise in programs within the health department, through external partners e. You can also use outside consultants as volunteers, advisory panel members, or contractors. External consultants can provide high levels of evaluation expertise from an objective point of view.

Important factors to consider when selecting consultants are their level of professional training, experience, and ability to meet your needs.

Be sure to check all references carefully before you enter into a contract with any consultant. To generate discussion around evaluation planning and implementation, several states have formed evaluation advisory panels. Advisory panels typically generate input from local, regional, or national experts otherwise difficult to access.

Such an advisory panel will lend credibility to your efforts and prove useful in cultivating widespread support for evaluation activities. Evaluation team members should clearly define their respective roles. Informal consensus may be enough; others prefer a written agreement that describes who will conduct the evaluation and assigns specific roles and responsibilities to individual team members.