pa546 23 february 2009 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PA546 23 February 2009 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PA546 23 February 2009

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

PA546 23 February 2009 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 182 Views
  • Uploaded on

PA546 23 February 2009. Evaluation: A View from the Field Monitoring & Evaluation There relations Designing a monitoring system . Critical Terms. Process Evaluation Monitoring Process Monitoring Outcome Monitoring M & E Monitoring (where a program is) & Evaluation (why it is there)

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 'PA546 23 February 2009' - patch


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
pa546 23 february 2009

PA54623 February 2009

Evaluation: A View from the Field

Monitoring & Evaluation

There relations

Designing a monitoring system

critical terms
Critical Terms
  • Process Evaluation
  • Monitoring
    • Process Monitoring
    • Outcome Monitoring
    • M & E
      • Monitoring (where a program is) & Evaluation (why it is there)
      • Implementation focused vs Results focused
questions
Questions
  • Why should program evaluations know about M & E?
  • What should they know?
  • Come up with a plan if you were building a M & E system for a food bank
  • Serving two masters – potential conflict between providing feedback for program improvement and deciding program worth
who wants to know about m e
Who wants to know about M&E
  • Internal (?) evaluators
    • Who work with program managers and
    • Help design MIS
  • External evaluators
    • Who are responding to RFPs to design an M&E or
    • Who may recommend creating an MIS
rossi s perspective on m e
Rossi’s perspective on M & E
  • Explains why program achieve their outcomes
  • Needed for external accountability
    • What was done
    • To whom
    • With what result
kusek rist perspective
Kusek & Rist Perspective
  • Implementation focused M & E: answers questions of compliance
  • Results focused help answer
    • What are the goals of the organization
    • Are they being achieved
    • How can the achievement be demonstrated
kusek rists steps 1 2 highlights
Kusek & Rists Steps 1& 2- Highlights
  • Readiness for M & E
    • Who wants M&E system built? Why?
    • What is the capacity to measure, maintain & monitor?
  • Agreeing on outcomes
    • Who should be involved?
    • Make statement positive; 1 outcome/statement
    • Is there a plan for achieving the outcome?
kusek rist step 4 selecting indicators
Kusek & Rist: Step 4 – Selecting Indicators
  • Basic questions to be answered
      • How will we know we are successful
      • How will if we are moving in the right direction
  • Remember outcome indicators are not the same as outcome
  • Should measure all levels, e.g., inputs, activities and so on
  • Getting quality indicators: CREAM
kusek rist setting baselines
Kusek & Rist: Setting Baselines
  • Take > 3 measures to establish baseline & trends
  • The basic questions
    • What are the data sources & collection methods?
    • Who will collect the data? How often?
    • What is the cost and difficulty to collect the data?
    • Who will analyze the data? Report the data?
    • Who will use the data?
  • Pages 83-86 discuss data sources & collection methods
kusek rist results targets
Kusek & Rist: Results Targets
  • The number, timing and location of what is to be realized
  • What should be considered
    • Previous performance
    • Changes in capacity, e.g., funding & other resources
    • Limited time frame (the further out the more likely external events will have an impact)
kusek rist monitoring performance
Kusek & Rist: Monitoring Performance
  • Needs of a M & E system
    • Ownership – to assure sound data are generated, shared, and reported.
    • Management & Maintenance
    • Credibility
  • The data triangle: reliability, validity & timeliness
kusek rist evaluation at last
Kusek & Rist: Evaluation (at last)
  • Relationship to monitoring
    • Monitoring can raise evaluation questions (or the reverse)
    • Uses monitoring data, but different questions
  • Used by managers to
    • Decide on resource allocation or on competing alternatives
    • Rethink a problem; identify emerging problems
  • Answers management questions
    • Are the right things being done
    • Are they being done right
    • Are there better ways to reach our goals
usaid perspective
USAID Perspective
  • Results framework process meant to
    • Have customer focus
    • Manage for results
    • Involve teamwork
    • Empowerment & accountability
assumed value of results framework
Assumed value of Results Framework
  • Customer focus achieved b/c strategic objective benefits the customer
  • Managing for results b/c staff constantly focused on results than on activities
  • Requires effort by stakeholders to identify results & steps needed to achieve them
  • Empowers team to achieve results & holds them accountable for what is achieved
a set of results ngo
A set of results: NGO
  • Strategic Objective: NGOs use systematic approach to service delivery
  • Intermediate result: Improve mgt & adm. Capabilities
  • 4 lower level (prior to intermediate) results – intended to achieve intermediate results
getting the data
Getting the data
  • 6 data sources
  • Creation of 3 databases to monitor activities
    • Consultant database
    • NGO data base
    • MIS – management, finances, sales
  • Plus each project keeps its own data
self assessment
Self Assessment
  • Positives
    • Keeps staff from getting side tracked
    • Less stress on stakeholders about evaluation outcomes (than wt a traditional evaluation)
    • Less time consuming over time
    • Creates a longitudinal design
  • Negatives
    • May miss important factors
    • May not meet program monitoring needs
    • Evaluation process may dominate project
    • Staff involvement may distort data
    • Loss of evaluator objectivity
next class march 9
Next Class: March 9
  • Randomized field studies
  • Read: Rossi & al., chapter 8; Morris 5
  • React to Morris 5 – scenarios 1 & 2 including be able to
    • Describe the design
    • Assess the methodology
    • Identify & assess the problems in implementation