MINISTERUL FINANŢELOR PUBLICE Autoritatea de Management pentru Cadrul de Sprijin Comunitar

1. MINISTERUL FINANŢELOR PUBLICE Autoritatea de Management pentru Cadrul de Sprijin Comunitar Unitatea Centrală de Evaluare Evaluation Working Group – first training seminar for evaluation staff of 2007-2013 Romanian NSRF and Operational Programmes April 12, 2006 Niall McCann, TA Project on Programming, Monitoring and Evaluation David Hegarty, Irish Ministry of Finance

2. Seminar 1 – Presentation structure – what is evaluation? • Part 1 – 9.45 – 12.30 • Different types of evaluation and evaluation systems • The evaluation cycle (briefly!) • Part 2 – 13.30 – 14.30 • The evaluation criteria – relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability

3. Part 1 – What is evaluation? • Different types of evaluation and evaluation systems – part A • Definitions of evaluation • The role of evaluation in PCM • Evaluation, monitoring and audit • Purpose of evaluation • Principles of evaluation • What happens as a result of evaluation?

4. What is evaluation? • Different types of evaluation and evaluation systems – part B • Formative v summative evaluation • Impact evaluation/experimental design v theory-based evaluation • External v internal evaluation • Centralised v decentralised evaluation

5. Defining Evaluation • Some definitions: • “A judgement of interventions according to the results, impacts and needs they aim to satisfy” (EU Commission) • “…the process of assessing the extent to which project, programme or policy objectives have been achieved and how economically and efficiently” (Economic and Financial Evaluation: Measurement, Meaning and Management, Michael Mulreany, IPA Ireland, 1999,) • “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

6. The role of evaluation in PCM • The 5 stages of the project cycle… • 1. Programming • 2. Identification • 3. Formulation • 4. Implementation (including Monitoring and Reporting) • 5. Evaluation and Audit • EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Guidelines

7. Logframe Matrix

8. Link between evaluation criteria and the Logframe • Logframe provides framework for evaluation • Specifies what was to be achieved (results and purpose) • How these achievements were to be verified (indicators and means of verification) • What the key assumptions were.

9. Evaluation criteria and LF levels s u s t a i n a b i l i t y Overall objective impact Project purpose effectiveness Results efficiency Activities Means relevance Problematic Situation Logframe objective hierarchy Evaluation criteria

10. Evaluation, monitoring and audit • Evaluation • Assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability • Monitoring • Ongoing analysis of project progress towards achieving planned results with the purpose of improving management decision making • Audit • Assessment of the (i) legality and regularity of project expenditure and income…(ii) whether project funds have been used…in accordance with sound financial management...and (iii)…for purposes intended.

11. Monitoring is…. • …an ongoing, continuous, systematic process • 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

12. Audit… • …is always carried out by professionally qualified auditors • …aims to provide professional assurance • …is sometimes divided between a financial audit and a performance audit. • Performance audits are similar to evaluation but confide their studies to an analysis of efficiency, economy and effectiveness.

13. 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

14. Purpose of Evaluation • 3 main purposes • To address accountability concerns • To assist in the allocation of resources • To help improve programme management? • Overarching Purpose “To learn through systematic enquiry how to better design, implement and deliver public programmes and policies” (EU Guide)

15. 4 Principles of evaluation • (EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Guidelines) • Impartiality and independence – from programming and implementation • Credibility – use of skilled and independent experts • Participation of stakeholders – to ensure different perspectives are taken into account • Usefulness – of findings and recommendations

16. Evaluation Characteristics • Evaluations should be: • Analytical • Systematic • Reliable • Issue-oriented • User-driven

17. What happens as a result of evaluation? • Continuation of the programme as planned? • Minor reorientation of the programme (management issues, etc.)? • Major restructuring of the programme (change of beneficiaries, etc.)? • Stopping of the programme? • Change of future projects or programmes, taking into account the lessons learned? • Change of policies and subsequent programming?

18. Different types of evaluation and evaluation systems • Formative v summative evaluation • Impact evaluation/experimental design v theory-based evaluation • External v internal evaluation • Centralised v decentralised evaluation

19. Formative v summative evaluation • Summative evaluation • Accountability focus • What has been achieved? • What's the value of a programme? • Is this programme worthwhile? • Formative evaluation • Development or learning focus • How can we improve performance and delivery of programme? • Both relevant and useful to public sector

20. Impact evaluation v theory based evaluation • Impact evaluation/experimental design • Primarily concerned with asking “how do we know if the programmes and projects we are evaluating are successful?” • Related more with summative evaluation • Tries to “scientifically” combat 2 problems: • 1. what is the project responsible for? • 2. will implementers only make positive data/views available? • ED chooses an experimental group, and a control group

21. Impact evaluation/ Experimental design • The problems with ED are: • 1. method-driven • 2. asks what works? But not why, or how? • 3. ignores side-effects • 4. elitist – ignores the views of stakeholders?

22. Impact evaluation v theory based evaluation • Theory-based evaluation • TBE criticises the importance given to methodology • Programmes are complex, implemented in diverse environments. • Therefore we need theories on what programmes will work where and why. • ED can be inconsistent. What if the same programme in 5 cities brings different results. Contexts can be ignored. • Will a programme or project that is successful in one setting be similarly successful in an alternate, broadly similar setting? • Related more with formative evaluation

23. Theory-based evaluation • Main problem with TBE… • If programmes can work in a variety of different ways, how do we choose a hypothesis which can be tested in the first place?

24. External v internal evaluation • Strengths of internal evaluation model • Helps to improve evaluation demand better TOR, quality control • Better than external for some work • Indicators • Formative evaluation, how can programme be improved? • Weaknesses • Will not have sectoral expertise for some work • May not be perceived as independent • Difficult to recruit and retain skilled staff

25. External v internal evaluation • Strengths • Flexibility • Wider range of expertise • Better at summative evaluation, i.e., is the programme worthwhile? • Weaknesses • Can be expensive • Doesn’t help develop internal capacity • Commercial pressures may limit independence

26. Centralised v decentralised evaluation • Centralised model (Ireland, CSF 2000-2006) • Organized by MOF or central evaluation unit • Ensures focus on cross-OP issues • Consistent approach • Lower evaluation costs for MAs • Unit looks after technical work (TOR, indicators) • MAs can focus on core management tasks • OP evaluations more credible because external to MA • Decentralised (Ireland, CSF 1994-1999) • Responsibility of each OP MA • Allows MAs to tailor evaluations specifically to their needs • Can call on MACSF ECU for technical expertise • Proposed model for Romania 2007-2013 is mix between centralised/decentralised!

27. The Evaluation Cycle • Before (ex-ante evaluation) • Aim is to improve allocation of resources and programme design (next presentation) • During (interim evaluation) • External developments and their implications? • Is the programme meeting its objectives? • Can we improve programme management? • After (ex-post evaluation) • What has been achieved? • What difference did it make?

28. Part 2 – Evaluation Criteria • What's the basis for evaluation judgements? • Common EU approach has 5 criteria • Relevance (including Rationale) • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Impact • Sustainability

29. Relevance • Are socio-economic development programmes relevant to the needs of stakeholders? • Have circumstances changed since the start of the programme? • Do these changes render the programme irrelevant? • Why is public money delivering the programme? • Could the private sector not meet the needs of the stakeholders? • Where is the market failure?

30. Effectiveness • Are the programmes achieving their objectives? • Are outputs being produced that correspond to the needs as expressed in the programme design?

31. Efficiency • Are the programmes providing value-for-money? • Could the outputs be produced cheaper? • Are unit costs too high? • Even though targets may be reached, are they being reached in a way that makes the programmes too costly to continue?

32. Impact • What changes as a result of the programmes? • Are there benefits to the programmes simply beyond their outputs?

33. Sustainability • Will the effects of the programmes, or indeed the programmes themselves, have a life beyond their implementation date? • Will alternative sources of funding be found?

34. 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