p.s. I came out as a Constructivist Evaluator…
A new publication has been released by Donor Committee for Enterprise Development providing practical advice for selecting sample sizes (pdf). The publication is particularly useful for considering sampling issues for online surveys and provides a lot of good advice and tips.
In communicating evaluation findings, challenges are often seen with the key product to do so – the evaluation report. Often evaluation reports suffer from being long, wordy and just plain boring! Therefore, we have to find new ways to communication evaluation findings.
One way I find interesting is the use of a visual summary of findings – that summarises the evaluation findings graphically and in a limited number of pages. I recently had the opportunity to use this format for an evaluation for Oxfam – as seen in the image in this post. You can view the full summary by clicking on the image (it brings you to a pdf file).
It’s a very comprehensive guide and I’d add it to my previous list of best resources for advocacy evaluation>>
DFID have released a new paper on the practice of beneficiary feedback in evaluation (pdf).
The paper highlights five key messages (listed below), with a main point being that beneficiaries are often only seen as a provider of data and aren’t given a broader role in the evaluation process – a point I can confirm from having been involved in many evaluations.
Rather ironically, the DFID study on beneficiary feedback includes no feedback from beneficiaries on the study…
Key Message 1: Lack of definitional clarity has led to a situation where the term beneficiary feedback is subject to vastly differing interpretations and levels of ambition within evaluation.
Key Message 2: There is a shared, normative value that it is important to hear from those who are affected by an intervention about their experiences. However, in practice this has been translated into beneficiary as data provider, rather than beneficiary as having a role to play in design, data validation and analysis and dissemination and communication.
Key Message 3: It is possible to adopt a meaningful, appropriate and robust approach to beneficiary feedback at key stages of the evaluation process, if not in all of them.
Key Message 4: It is recommended that a minimum standard is put in place. This minimum standard would require that evaluation commissioners and evaluators give due consideration to applying a beneficiary feedback approach at each of the four key stages of the evaluation process.
Key Message 5: A beneficiary feedback approach to evaluation does not in any way negate the need to give due consideration to the best combination of methods for collecting reliable data from beneficiaries and sourcing evidence from other sources.
For those in the Geneva region, here is an interesting event presented by the Geneva Evaluation Network:
Dr. Davies will make a presentation on the role of Systematic Reviews in strengthening empirical evidence base for policies or programmes. Dr Davies’ presentation will be followed by two SR case studies from ILO and WSSCC.
Dr. Davies is the Deputy Director of the Systematic Reviews section at the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 3ie. He heads 3ie’s European office based at the London International Development Centre and is responsible for representing 3ie in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
The event will take place on May 7, 2015 from 13.30 to 16.00, Room AB 13.1 in the WIPO’s main building. The presentation will be made in English. Coffee and tea will be served.
Here are two new advocacy evaluation tools from the Center for Evaluation Innovation:
The Advocacy Strategy Framework (pdf): presents a simple one-page tool for thinking about theories of change that underlie policy advocacy strategies. Check out the “interim outcomes and indicators” on the last page – very good range of advocacy outcomes/indicators.
Four Tools for Assessing Grantee Contribution to Advocacy Efforts (pdf): offers funders practical guidance on how to assess a grantee’s contribution to advocacy outcomes.The four tools include:
1. A question bank
2. Structured grantee reporting
3. An external partner interview guide
4. Contribution analysis