Monitoring and evaluation methodology
1 / 30

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

MONITORING AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY. KEVIN P O’KELLY. Draft Report. Introduction Definitions Social Inclusion as a European Issue OMC NAPs Scope of MSI Project Why Mainstreaming?. Draft Report. Poverty, Social Inclusion and Public Policy Participative Methodology

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - kali

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

Draft report l.jpg
Draft Report

  • Introduction

    • Definitions

  • Social Inclusion as a European Issue

    • OMC

    • NAPs

    • Scope of MSI Project

  • Why Mainstreaming?

Draft report3 l.jpg
Draft Report

  • Poverty, Social Inclusion and Public Policy

  • Participative Methodology

  • Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation l.jpg
Monitoring and Evaluation

Structure of the chapter:

  • Define ‘Monitoring;’ and ‘Evaluation’

  • Theory of Evaluation

  • Designing an evaluation scheme (research design)

  • Indicators

  • Evaluating MSI

Monitoring l.jpg

Monitoring or Process Evaluation:

  • Carried out during implementation

  • How, Why and under what conditions?

  • What happens during implementation?

  • Is implementation in line with original design?

Evaluation l.jpg

Types of Evaluation

  • Impact or summative

  • Outcome

  • Variation

  • Counterfactual

What is evaluation l.jpg
What is Evaluation?

A systematic assessment of the operation and/or the outcomes of a programme or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the programme or policy (C H Weiss, 1998)

What is evaluation8 l.jpg
What is Evaluation?

UK Treasury Green Book

Actors l.jpg

  • Political / Policy level

  • Administration / Management

  • Service providers

  • Target Groups / Recipients

Design of evaluation l.jpg
Design of Evaluation

Evaluation Questions

  • Does the policy work?

  • Why does it work?

  • Why (how) should policies work?

    (Robert Walker – June 2004)

Infrastructure for evaluation l.jpg






What worked?

Infrastructure for evaluation

Has the policy worked?

Is there a problem?

What policy would work?




Is this policy working?

Will this



Can we make this work?

Evaluation questions l.jpg
Evaluation Questions

  • Factual

  • Behavioural

  • Attitudinal

  • Knowledge

Design of evaluation14 l.jpg
Design of Evaluation

Twelve Steps

  • Advisory Committee

    • Resources

  • Selection of evaluators

  • Key questions

  • Methodology

  • How to collect data

  • Questionnaire / interview guidelines

Design of evaluation15 l.jpg
Design of Evaluation

  • Target sample

  • Field work

  • Analysis

  • Meta-analysis

  • Write up findings

  • Publication / dissemination

Policy indicators l.jpg
Policy Indicators

  • Social Policy Committee (Laeken) indicators

    • Low incomes households

    • Long-term unemployed

    • Low education levels

    • Health status

  • ‘In-work’ poor

Policy indicators17 l.jpg
Policy Indicators

  • EAPN Indicators

    • Employment

    • Income levels

    • Housing

    • Health

    • Education

  • Participation and identity

    • Definition

Policy indicators18 l.jpg
Policy Indicators

Participation and Identity - ADefinition:

The percentage share of the population with an income below 60% of the median (national poverty level) that are members of or connected with:

(a range of social, community and cultural activities)

Evaluating msi l.jpg
Evaluating MSI

  • Mainstreaming is a process

  • Political commitment

  • Involve ALL key stakeholders

  • Realistic expectations

Evaluating msi20 l.jpg
Evaluating MSI

Design issues:

  • What target groups?

  • What outcomes?

  • Quality of data

  • Comparison of small and large units

  • Collection of data at point of delivery (local level)

  • Challenge of ‘Silo’ policies

Evaluating msi21 l.jpg
Evaluating MSI

  • Access to data

  • What level of governance is mainstreaming implemented?

  • Political environment / decision-making

  • Structures

  • Link between governance roles

  • Culture

  • Different criteria for success

Msi question l.jpg
MSI Question

Does Mainstreaming of Social Inclusion have an impact on the policy process and outcomes? If so, can it be measured?

  • European level: NAPs/incl. & OMC

  • Implementation level of NAPs/incl.

Stephen donnelly paper l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

  • Mainstreaming issues

    • Any measurement of mainstreaming will effectively be a measurement of qualitative processes … the ultimate purpose of mainstreaming is to produce measurable poverty reduction outcomes.

    • A key challenge in attempting to determine how far poverty reduction activities are mainstreamed centres on the subjectivity of any measurement tools that are put in place

Stephen donnelly paper24 l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

Measuring ‘Mainstreaming’ is subjective!

How to define:

  • Political will /leadership

  • Partnership

  • Ownership

  • Cross-departmental working?

Stephen donnelly paper25 l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

  • ‘Positive action’ initiatives are NOT mainstreaming

  • However, mainstreaming doesn’t preclude ‘positive action’

  • ‘Poverty Proofing’

Stephen donnelly paper26 l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

A number of elements which are fundamental to mainstreaming:

  • Leadership

  • Structures

  • Capacity and skills

  • Community participation and


  • Research and evaluation

Why Mainstreaming?

Stephen donnelly paper27 l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

Draft Measurement Framework:

  • Political Leadership and sponsorship

  • Executive leadership and strategies

  • Capacity

  • Structures

  • Data, research and evaluation

  • Community engagement and participation

Stephen donnelly paper28 l.jpg
Stephen Donnelly Paper

Poses the question: is

social auditing / theory of change

an alternative to Mainstreaming?

Measuring mainstreaming l.jpg
Measuring Mainstreaming

  • Qualitative?

  • Quantitative?

  • Combination?

Slide30 l.jpg


CONTEXT (EU; National; Regional; Local // Economic; Demographic; Social; Cultural; etc.)


Social Inclusion




  • Cross-cutting

  • Policy development

  • Participation

  • Monitoring and evaluation

  • Political commitment

  • Inputs (resources)

  • Organisation of resources

  • Outputs

  • Indicators



(Robert Walker)

  • What worked?

  • How did it work?

  • Has the policy worked?

  • How did it (not) work?

  • Is this policy working?

  • How is it working?

  • Is there a problem?

  • What is the problem?

  • What policy would work?

  • How would it work?

  • Will this policy work?

  • How will it (not) work?

  • Can we make this policy work?

  • How can we make it work?



  • Clear Policy Objectives

  • Clear ‘Theory of Change’

  • Clear Evaluation Objectives


  • What would be good evaluation questions on the process of mainstreaming (Mst.)?

  • Can we build a scenario for an evaluation framework to a) identify & b) measure the impact of Mst.?

  • Do we have the tools to analysis the process and measure the impact? If ‘no’, how do we get the tools?

  • Can we identify evaluation processes of Mst. in the different Member States?

  • Why Mst? Is it better?

Revised Research Question


  • Case studies by

  • Theme

  • Country

  • Governance level

  • Meta-analysis (JIMs, JIRs)

  • Theory of change

  • Scale of features

  • Interviews with key actors


e.g. Is Mts. a process / tool or a policy?

No counterfactual