PM E This presentation looks specifically at evaluation. It is based on the positioning document validated by the Programme Board of Directors on 4th.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Project Cycle Management
Advertisements

Division Radio and Television Public Service Media Governance and the public Public Service Media Governance Consultation Meeting Strasbourg 17 – 18 September.
Consultants Briefing Package On The Family and Community Component of IMCI WHO/AFRO.
Guidance Note on Joint Programming
Delivering as One UN Albania October 2009 – Kigali.
UN Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS Midterm Performance review (2001 – 2003) Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group 29 July 2003.
Page 1 26 th of NovemberE-learning quality – Greek Workshop Piraeus E-learning Quality in Higher Education Amaury Legait Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées.
DIGITAL EDITION AND LIBRARIES in APPRENTICESHIP NETWORKS Dean Project 10th, 11th y 12th December IES Avenida de los toreros.
Planning and use of funding instruments
EU funds’ evaluation plan , Latvia
Implications for the Regions EU-Regional Policy 1 Governance White Paper Introduction Adoption of White Paper on European Governance, July 25, 2001 Aim:
The Implementation Structure DG AGRI, October 2005
What is valorisation ? Growth €
The Management of European Structural Funds in Western Scotland ISPA Partners Meeting April 2003 Laurie Russell Strathclyde European Partnership.
INFSO/F3 1 The TEN-Telecom Programme Jose Soler INFSO/F3, EC TEN-TELECOM Information Day.
INFSO/F3 1 Guide for proposers Willy Maes INFSO/F3, EC TEN-TELECOM Information Day.
Information Day Call 2001/1 - Brussels 19 June Call for proposals 2001/1 HOW TO PREPARE AND PRESENT YOUR PROPOSAL Willy MAES DG INFSO/F3
Action s innovant es t ransnational es Calls for Proposals France: ESF Innovative Transnational Actions.
1 Managing Authority Conducting a self assessment 10 June 2008 A. Badrichani – DG Regional Policy – Audit Unit J3.
Guide to statistics in European Commission Development Co-operation
Regional Policy Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Brussels.
EU-Regional Policy and Cohesion Structural Funds and Accession 1 ANNUAL MEETING OF ISPA PARTNERS 2003 FROM ISPA TO COHESION AND STRUCTURAL FUNDS BRUSSELS,
1 Establishing Performance Indicators in Support of The Illinois Commitment Presented to the Illinois Board of Higher Education December 11, 2001.
Massachusetts Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) December 2009.
Toufic Sbeiti, Web Operations Manager Louis Galipeau, Senior Internet Specialist Accessibility Assessment and Teamwork.
National Agenda for CSO Capacity Development Yin Soriya, Ph.D.
REPORTING ON STATISTICAL DEVELOPMENT Reporting on partners activities in country: CRESS or C-PRESS June 4, 2010 PARIS21 Seminar - OECD Conference Center.
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Survey Design Workshop MICS Technical Assistance MICS Survey Design Workshop.
1 WSSD Global Partnership for Capacity Building to Implement the Globally Harmonized System of Chemical Classification and Labelling Objectives, Targets.
SAI Performance Measurement Framework
A business response to HIV/AIDS. Background Vision To mobilise and empower South African Business to take effective action on HIV/AIDS in the workplace.
FORESTUR: “Tailored training for professionals in the rural tourist sector” ES/06/B/F/PP VALORISATION & SUSTAINIBILITY PLAN Budapest, June 2007.
1 The Data Protection Officer at work Experience, good practices and lessons learnt Pierre Vernhes – former DPO at the Council of the EU Workshop on Data.
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto — Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna — The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) eLearning and Virtual.
Enhancing the Effectiveness of School Feeding/Nutrition Programmes through Rights-based Approaches A Project Note SCN – Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics.
The SEND reforms and Independent Support 13 th March 2014.
Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar January 2014 Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar.
LEADER -The acronym ‘LEADER' derives from the French words "Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économique Rurale“ which means, ‘Links between.
BECOMING ACTIVE PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP & MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS AGREEMENTS GENEVIÈVE LÉGARÉ EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE MELS-SSCAAAPN JUNE.
The evaluation of research units at HCERES
How could the development of a common conceptual framework improve humanitarian action? Dr Edith Favoreu DIHAD 12th Edition
Culture Programme - Selection procedure Katharina Riediger Infoday Praha 10/06/2010.
CR Toolkit Workshop CR Stakeholder Identification Tool ICMM Toolkit# 1 & 2 Trainers: Joe Samara and Merikas Timori Date: 07 th August 2013 Venue: CR Conference.
New Guidelines for the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) Eric Rancourt Statistics Canada (Chair of PARIS21 NSDS Guidelines Review.
Impact evaluation: External and internal stakes Impact evaluation seminar - 2 to 6 December, Phnom Penh.
IAOD Evaluation Section, the Development Agenda (DA) and Development Oriented Activities Julia Flores Marfetan, Senior Evaluator.
Quality Management (WP5) Roman CHIRCA Agency for Innovation and Technological Transfer TecTNet ………... This project has been funded with support from the.
DG ECHO GENDER POLICY and GENDER-AGE MARKER
Regional Seminar 2005 EVALUATING POLICY Are your policies working? How do you know? School Development Planning Initiative.
MEDITERRANEAN LIVING HERITAGE (MedLiHer) IMPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN EGYPT, JORDAN, LEBANON.
Evaluation Capacity building in Lithuania Presentation for Presentation for Evaluation Units Open days by Mrs. Ana Stankaitienė EU Programmes Management.
Professional Certificate in Electoral Processes Understanding and Demonstrating Assessment Criteria Facilitator: Tony Cash.
4 July 2011 European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA)
The partnership principle and the European Code of Conduct on Partnership.
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION National evaluation conference Marielle Riché Evaluation unit, DG REGIO Bucharest, 18.
July 2007 National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee & Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project Role of Action Planning in The Developmental.
PMEPME This presentation looks specifically at the monitoring of projects/ programmes. It follows on from a more general introduction to PME systems.
Application procedure From theory to practice Dieter H. Henzler, Steinbeis-Transfercenter Cultural Resources Management, Berlin.
Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into Humanitarian Programmes Lessons learnt and recommendations following the FRIEND Program.
Corporate social Responsabilty (a French example) Non Profit Europe Meeting in Gdansk (May 2012)
Module 4 – Evaluation: General Characteristics. 25/02/20162 Overview of the Module Definitions Purposes Milestones Stakeholders A win-win exercise.
Rooting evaluation independence in the context of multilateral development organizations Oscar A. Garcia Director, Independent Office of Evaluation of.
> 1 ACP S&T Grant Contract N° FED/2009/ Introducing WP6 Monitoring & Quality control Objectives, actions, procedures Dr Sarah Bracking.
Civil Society Participation and Contribution to the UNCAC Review Process Towards Transparency – TI National Contact Vietnam UNCAC Self Assessment Process:
The Pan-African Statistics Programme (PAS)
Lithuanian Standards for Evaluation of EU Structural Funds
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
To critically review aspects of your provision to an agreed criteria
Data collection and validation support for the management of the ESF
The Global Evaluation Agenda
Presentation transcript:

PM E This presentation looks specifically at evaluation. It is based on the positioning document validated by the Programme Board of Directors on 4th June 2004 Version 1– July 2004 Double-click on the icon to open this positioning document :

Contents  Our external evaluation practice.  Why evaluate?  Who decides to evaluate?  When to evaluate?  Who evaluates ?  What to evaluate?  How to evaluate?

Our external evaluation practice  Little mobilisation of external expertise in relation to the number of projects : 7 external evaluations in 2001, 10 in 2002, 8 in  More external evaluations in the former ANS fields, in particular in rural development (9 external evaluations out of the 25 identified).  A concentration on certain programmes and projects.

Why evaluate? 1. To analyse an operation, 2. To give account, 3. To learn from experience, 4. To contribute towards social change.

Who decides to evaluate?  Handicap International  The funding body(ies)  The partner(s)

When to evaluate?  At the implementation stage of the operation, at the end of the operation, at a later date.  The resources are identified during the co- development stage of the project.  The system is defined in detail at the start of the project.  Any project of 3 years’ duration or more should be evaluated.

Who evaluates?  One person or a team of people, internal or external.  If a project of three years’ duration or more is only to be evaluated once, this evaluation will be carried out by an external consultant.  To avoid being both judge and judged, an internal evaluator must not have been involved in the development or implementation of the project.

What to evaluate? - One or several projects or one or several programmes, - A partnership, - A dynamic, a process, - The effects, the impact of an operation, - An approach, a concept, - A structure.

How to evaluate? 1 - Decision to plan an evaluation 2 – Drawing up of the terms of reference 3 – Selection of the evaluator(s) 4 – Definition of the method 5 – Preparation of the mission 6 – Completion of the mission in the field 7 –Writing of the report 8 –Presentation of the report 9 – Diffusion of the report 10 –Follow up of the recommendations 11 – Valorisation of the report 12 – Impact of the evaluation

A few quality criteria Impartiality & independence of the evaluators. Credibility & transparency of the evaluators. Utility of the evaluation, and the way it is run, in decision-making. Participation of the parties involved in the project so as to strengthen their capacity in the field of evaluation, but mainly to make it easier for them to appropriate the lessons drawn from the exercise.

Bibliography COTA, 2002, Organiser l’ évaluation d’une action de développement dans le sud,[Organising the evaluation of an operation in the south] 82p. Feuerstein Marie-Thérèse, 1986, Partners in evaluation – Evaluating development and community programmes with participants, Macmaillan publishers, TALC, 194p. Heeren Nicolas, 2002, Evaluation, a management tool, Handicap International, 10 p. Heeren Nicolas & Villeval Philippe, 2002, Une pratique et une culture de l’évaluation qui permettent une conduite effective du changement [A practice and culture of evaluation for the effective management of change], Contribution to the seminar on 16th and 17th December 2002 « Les pratiques d’évaluation des acteurs français du développement et du l’humanitaire [Evaluation practices of French development and humanitarian stakeholders] », MAE/HI, Lyons, France, 3p. Graugnard Gilbert & Heeren Nicolas, 1999, Prise en compte de l’impact et construction d’indicateurs d’impact [Consideration of the impact and construction of impact indicators], F3E/ CIEDEL, 50p. – Document available on F3E’s website. Guéneau Marie-Christine & Beaudoux Etienne, 1996, L’évaluation un outil au service de l’action [Evaluation, a tool to assist the activity, F3E/ IRAM, 71p. –. Document available on F3E’s website Save the children, 2003, Toolkits – a practical guide to planning, monitoring evaluation and impact assessment, second edition, 341 p.

END