how to write a good terms of reference for for evaluation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation. Programme Management Interest Group 19 October 2010 Pinky Mashigo. Presentation format. Introduction Definitions explored Logframe and Evaluation Link between Logframe and Evaluation Criteria Components of ToR

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation' - clark-alston


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
how to write a good terms of reference for for evaluation

How to write a good TERms of reference foR for Evaluation

Programme Management Interest Group

19 October 2010

PinkyMashigo

presentation format
Presentation format
  • Introduction
  • Definitions explored
  • Logframe and Evaluation
  • Link between Logframe and Evaluation Criteria
  • Components of ToR
  • Summary – Reminder for emphasis
introduction
INTRODUCTION
  • Terms of Reference in general provides a guide towards results that can be used for decision making, planning and learning
  • The theme today is EVALUATION
  • There is a tendency to use certain terms inter-changeably or linked without acknowledging that they all mean different things to different people
  • If terms are used in this manner they tend to confuse outcomes, outputs expected from the study, project purpose, etc.
introduction cont d
Introduction cont’d
  • In order to avoid the confusion, it best we define these terms:
  • These are Monitoring, Evaluation and Audits
distinctions between the three
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE THREE
  • Monitoring: Ongoing analysis of (project) progress towards achieving planned results, with the purpose of improving management decision making
  • Evaluation: systematic collection and analysis of data to ascertain efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of project, programme, policy, etc.
  • Audit:
          • analysis of the legality and regularity of project expenditure & income, ie. Compliance with the laws & regulation
          • analysis whether funds have been used efficiently and economically in accordance with sound financial management
          • whether the project funds have been effectively used for the purpose intended
logframe and evaluation
LOGFRAME AND EVALUATION
  • Having understood the difference – focus is how to write a good Terms of Reference for an Evaluation exercise
  • Key to any evaluation is the Results Chain (Logic Model) Or Logframe
  • Logframe guides in terms of what kind of an evaluation and what kind of results are expected
slide8

Link between evaluation Criteria

IMPACT

IMPACT

OUTCOMES

EFFECTIVENESS

OUTPUTS

SUSTAINABILITY

ACTIVITIES

EFFICIENCY

MEANS

RELEVANCE

PROBLEMATIC SITUATION

LOGFRAMEOBJECTIVE

EVALUATIONCRITERIA

evaluation cont d
Evaluation cont’d
  • Therefore, Terms of Reference must reflect what you want to achieve/intent
  • The ToR is stage 1 of the evaluation process, which is very key:
  • Who should design the ToR, all stakeholder involved in the project, policy to be evaluated
components of tor
Components of ToR
  • Background and Rationale (Introduction)
  • Purpose/Objective of the study
    • What is the focus of the evaluation
    • How will the results be used/utilised
    • Target (primary and secondary users)
    • Timeframe

3. Issues to be studied – Define scope

    • Mid-term
    • End
    • Ex – Post
      • Guide the evaluator in terms of focus, expectation, target group, utilisation of results
components of tor cont d
Components of ToR cont’d

4. What are the assumptions and risks

5. Plan of Work – Evaluation design

  • Methodology of the study (provide guide)
    • Secondary or primary
    • Survey (what type)
    • Quasi experimental
  • Importance: guide on costs, implications and link back to the purpose. Can it be achieved!

(a). Data elements – sources for collection; define method and tools to collect data

(b). Data analysis - what method will be used, what tools can be used

(c). Stakeholders – who should be consulted

components of tor cont d1
Components of ToR cont’d

5. Expertise Required

Team members:

  • Define competencies, experience & skills
  • If required define qualifications as well

Composition of the team

  • Number
  • Language where required
components of tor cont d2
Components of ToR cont’d

6. Reporting

  • Language of the report
  • Date of delivery
  • Number of copies required (recipients)
  • Type of reports (recipients) and timelines
    • Inception
    • Data analysis report
    • Ist draft
    • 2nd draft
    • Final report
components of tor cont d3
Components of ToR cont’d

7. Administration and Logistical Support

  • Management of the evaluation, who is responsible for what
  • Define all the support to be provided to the evaluator (define boundaries)

8. Time Schedule

  • Duration of the study

9. Indicative Budget

summary
SUMMARY
  • Of Importance:
    • Level of evaluation (efficiency, effectiveness, impact & sustainability)
    • Purpose
    • ToR
      • Issues to be studied
      • Team
      • Indicative budget
    • Respondent to the ToR, should be given a chance to ask questions for clarification, correction, etc. Prior to the proposal being submitted