1 / 23

Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports

Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports. HIV Joint Evaluation Workshop, Limbé , March 15 – 19 2010. Thomas Alveteg. Content. Introduction – the need to improve the use of evaluation reports Proposal: System for response to evaluations Group discussion Summing up. External evaluations:.

nimrod
Download Presentation

Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports HIV Joint Evaluation Workshop, Limbé, March 15 – 19 2010 Thomas Alveteg

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

  3. 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

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

  5. 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

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

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

  8. Why management response?

  9. Why management response? • 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

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

  11. 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.

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

  13. Proposal for a Management Response System

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

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

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

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

  18. The Management Response Process (2) Implementation of the recommendations according to the action plan Follow up on the action plan after 6 months / 1 year Implementation of theaction plan Management Response Document Jointfollow up meeting

  19. Summary of the proposal: • 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 • A Joint Management Response Document – which includes an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations • 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: • What did you like in the proposal? • Do you think that this proposal can improve how we work with the evaluation tool in the Good Samaritan? • Do you have any improvements to suggest to the proposal?

More Related