Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports 1 Thomas Alveteg HIV Joint Evaluation Workshop, Limbé, March 15 –

Content Introduction – the need to improve the use of evaluation reports Proposal: System for response to evaluations Group discussion Summing up 2

External evaluations: Has become a regular feature of the Good Samaritan Has become a part of the learning process - to continuously improve the programme Presentation of external evaluations of country programmes at the annual JEW workshops – sharing of lessons learned 3

The project cycle 4 Project design Application for funding Implementation Evaluation Recommendations, lessons learned Follow up

The follow up process of the mid-term evaluation in Cote d’Ivoire – some reflections BSCI - meeting to review recommendations and propose line of actions, changes to the on-going programme FiBS – response comments to the proposed line of actions Un clear roles of the parties involved, including the HIV Service, in the process to follow up on the recommendations of the evaluation 5

The evaluation process Source: Evaluation Guidelines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (2007). 6 Preparation of the evaluation Use of evaluation results Feedback Implementation

Today's focus: Source: Evaluation Guidelines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (2007). 7 Preparation of the evaluation Implementation (Reporting, dissemination) Management Response – action plan Follow up on the Management Response Use of evaluation results Feedback

Why management response? 8

To ensure that we are using the money spent on evaluations in an efficient way To ensure that we make good use of the evaluation and the evaluation team’s expertise Evaluation - part of the learning process, the institutional memory 9

Why management response? A review of previous evaluations show that some key recommendations are not followed up properly 10

Why management response? Time for analysis and reflection prior to take actions on the recommendations made by the evaluation To decide on priorities in terms of implementation of the recommendations...convert into actions......and to decide on which recommendations that will not be implemented. 11

Need to define roles and responsibilities.. 12 Implementing Bible Society Grant giving Bible Society UBS HIV Service External donors..for the follow up of external evaluations ? ? ?

13

Proposal for a Management Response System 14

The Management Response document – content: 1. Comment on the relevance of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation 2. State what recommendations that will not be considered and the reason for this 3. Outline actions to be taken to implement the recommendations - to improve future GS programmes – time specific and organisation responsible 15 Source: Partly based on ‘Evaluation Guidelines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland ‘(2007).

Identify 3 levels of recommendations “to be converted into an action plan”: a) The national programme context b) Methodological development of the GS programme c) Fundraising related issues and related to strategic support to HIV Service 16 Source: Partly based on ‘Evaluation Guidelines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland ‘(2007).

Division of roles and responsibilities.. 17 Implementing Bible Society Grant giving Bible Society UBS HIV Service External donors..for the follow up of external evaluations Continued implementation of the country programme Development of the GS, Methods & strategies Issues concerning relation to donors, Strategic support to HIV Service

The Management Response Process (1) 18 Management Response Document Evaluation report Implementing Bible Society HIV Service Grant giving Bible Society Comments on evaluation, Draft management response Joint review meeting Jointly agreed Management Response, including action plan Evaluation recommendations In connection to the annual JEW workshop or separately

The Management Response Process (2) 19 Implementation of the recommendations according to the action plan Joint follow up meeting Follow up on the action plan after 6 months / 1 year Implementation of the action plan Management Response Document

Summary of the proposal: 1. A Joint Management Response Process - to ensure that the evaluation recommendations are analyzed, translated into actions and that the implementation of the recommendations is monitored 2. A Joint Management Response Document – which includes an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations 3. Clear roles and responsibilities -for the follow up (implementing BS, grant giving BS and the HIV Service) 20

Group work to discuss the proposal 21

Group work to discuss the proposal - questions: 1. What did you like in the proposal? 2. Do you think that this proposal can improve how we work with the evaluation tool in the Good Samaritan? 3. Do you have any improvements to suggest to the proposal? 22

23