Niels Dabelstein 19.09.13: Designing for effective evaluation feedback

1. E V A L U E R I N G S K O N F E R A N S E N 2 0 1 3
D R A M M E N , N O R G E
N I E L S D A B E L S T E I N
DESIGNING FOR EFFECTIVE
EVALUATION FEEDBACK

2. 2
“I can honestly say that not a day goes by when we don’t use
those evaluations in one way or another.”
Written by Mark M. Rogers and illustrated by Lawson Sworh

3. DEFINITION OF EVALUATION (DAC)
An assessment, as systematic and objective as
possible, of an on-going or completed project,
programme or policy, its design, implementation
and result.
- to determine the relevance and fulfilment of
objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and sustainability.
- be credible, timely, and useful, enabling the
incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-
making process of recipients and donors.

4. USEFULNES/UTILITY
Evaluation must serve the information needs of the
intended primary users.

5. MULTIPLE TARGET GROUPS (USERS)
• Internal:
• Management
• Operational staff
• Partners
• External:
• Parliament/policy makers
• Opinion makers/leaders
• General public
• Academics/researchers/students
• External Resource base
• NGOs

6. INTERNAL FEEDBACK
• Follow-up Memo
• Department/Senior management
• Discussion in Management group
• Workshops / Seminars / Training
• Contribute to policy, strategy & guidelines
• Annual report to Board

7. EXTERNAL DISSEMINATION
• Evaluation Report
• 4 page summary
• Presentations in partner countries
• 25 page ”popular version” (in local languages)
• Press conference/seminar
• Video/film
• Eval’s annual report to Board
• Danida’s annual report
• Udvikling – Danidas bi-monthly magazine
• Public meetings/Professional Associations
• Lectures Universities/high Schools
• WWW

8. THE EVALUATION OF
THE PARIS DECLARATION
In 2005 130+ countries’ donors and agencies
committed to improve development effectiveness
by improving:
•Ownership
•Alignment
•Harmonization
•Managing for Results
•Mutual Accountability

9. A JOINT EVALUATION
• Based on the principles of the Paris Declaration:
partner countries and development partners
developed the evaluation framework/approach
jointly
• The evaluation itself was a tool for mutual
accountability:
• 22 Country-level evaluations led by partner countries and
managed in-country
• 18 Donor/agency HQ studies

10. EVALUATION COMPONENTS

11. Country Evaluations & Donor Studies

12. ENSURING UTILITY
• Legitimacy of the evaluation (mandate)
• Genuine participation of primary stakeholders
• Transparency, communication and knowledge
sharing.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/PDE
• Dissemination /communication strategy
• Plain language (trilingual)
• Timeliness

13. TENSIONS # 1
The tension between
stakeholder involvement
and
evaluator independence
impartiality.

15. 15

16. TENSION # 2
The tension between
strength of evidence
and
delivering the findings
on time

17. A BALANCING ACT:
STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE VS. TIMELINESS
17
On
Time

18. DISSEMINATION INSTRUMENTS
• 55 Reports (synthesis (2), country and donor
evaluations, special studies, meta evaluation)
• Free standing summaries of synthesis reports
• 9 Thematic policy briefs (5+4)
• Everything on www
• 36 national and international meetings and
workshops
• Video and film on www and Facebook

19. USEFUL LINKS
www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/evaluationofthe
implementationoftheparisdeclaration.htm
www.evaluering.dk