100 likes | 223 Views
This document explores the ROMA (Rapid Outcome Mapping Approach) methodology and its importance in evaluating development programs. It provides insights into evaluation types, including process, outcome, and impact evaluations, and distinguishes between outputs and outcomes using case studies. The ROMA methodology emphasizes planning and mapping desired changes, guiding teams through iterative processes. It equips participants with the skills and tools necessary to navigate complex environments, enhancing the impact of policy and practice based on evidence. Learn how to design effective evaluations for your networks' activities.
E N D
Whyweneedit? Excurssion to theevaluationtheory
What to evaluate? • Outputs • Outcomes • Impacts • Process
Exercise Destinguishoutputs/outcomes and resultsofthe case study from Brno
Typesofevaluation • Processevaluation • Outcomesevaluation • Program´s impact evaluation • Prospectiveresearch study • Formative assessment • Sumativeassement
What type ofevaluationwouldyou use foryournetworks´activities? Why?
Whatis ROMA R – RAPID (research and policy in Developmentprogramme) • isone of many teams at the Overseas Development Institute (independent, global think tank, working for a sustainable and peaceful world in which every person thrives) O – outcome M – mapping • OutcomeMaping was developed by the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) as a wayof planning international development workand measuring its results. • The focus is on changes in behaviour,relationships, actions and activities in the people,groups and organizations it works with directly. • set of tools or guidancethat steers project or programme teams through aniterative process to identify their desired change andto work collaboratively to bring it about. A – approach
Rationale Why ROMA? once equipped with : • a set of simple stepsto formulate and implement a plan, • sufficientskills and appropriate tools. For these seeking to: • effect change could navigate incomplex environment and • improve thelikelihood of their evidence being listened to andincorporated into policy and practice.