Monitoring and evaluation

Standards in Evaluation
Prof. Hemanthi Ranasinghe
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
hemanthi.ranasinghe@gmail.com

1. Institutional Standards
2. Management of the Evaluation function
3. Evaluation Competencies
4. Conduct of Evaluation
5. Quality

Standard 1: Institutional
Framework

Standard 1.1: Institutional Framework for evaluation
 Evaluation is part of the organization’s
governance and management
functions;
 Evaluations are independent, credible
and useful;
 Evaluations make essential
contributions to managing for results;
 The evaluation function is independent
of other management functions
 There are sufficient and earmarked
financial and human resources for
evaluation
• The organization should have an
adequate institutional framework for
the effective management of its
evaluation function.

Standard 1.2: Evaluation Policy
Purpose, concepts, rules and use of evaluation within
the organization;
Roles and responsibilities of evaluation professionals,
senior management and programme managers with
regard to evaluation;
Organization’s disclosure policy for the dissemination
of evaluation results;
Measures to safeguard evaluation independence and
public accountability;
Measures to ensure the quality and the use of
evaluations in post-evaluation follow-up;
Framework for evaluation capacity development,
where applicable; and
Provisions for peer or external review.
• Organizations should establish an
evaluation policy that is periodically
reviewed and updated

Standard 1.3: Evaluation Plan and
Reporting
• Evaluations should have a
mechanism to inform the governing
body and/or management on the
evaluation plan and on the progress
made in plan implementation

Standard 1.4: Management response and follow up
• The organization should ensure
that appropriate mechanisms are in
place to ensure that management
responds to evaluation
recommendations.
• The mechanisms should outline
concrete actions to be undertaken
in the management response and
in the follow-up to recommendation
implementation.

Standard 1.5: Disclosure Policy
• The organization should have an
explicit disclosure policy for
evaluations.
• To bolster the organization’s public
accountability, key evaluation
products (including annual reports,
evaluation plans, terms of
reference, evaluation reports and
management responses) should be
publicly accessible.

Standard 2: Management of the
Evaluation Function

Standard 2.1: Head of
Evaluation
The Head of evaluation has the primary responsibility
for ensuring that UNEG Norms and Standards for
Evaluation are upheld, that the evaluation function is
fully operational and duly independent, and that
evaluation work is conducted according to the highest
professional standards.

Standard 2.2: Evaluation
Guidelines
• The Head of evaluation is responsible for ensuring the provision of appropriate
evaluation guidelines. They should have;
The roles and responsibilities in setting up, managing, conducting, quality
controlling, reporting and disseminating evaluations
The process of evaluation;
Stakeholder involvement;
Guidance on methodologies and quality control; and
Reporting, dissemination and the promotion of learning.

Standard 2.3: Responsiveness of
the Evaluation Function
• The Head of Evaluation is responsible for management of
the evaluation function which include:
Raising awareness and/or building evaluation capacity;
Facilitating and managing of evaluation networks;
Designing and implementing evaluation methodologies and
systems;
Ensuring the maintenance of institutional memory through user-
friendly mechanisms; and
Promoting the systematic compilation of lessons.

Standard 3: Evaluation
Competencies

Standard 3.1: Competencies
• Individuals engaged in
designing, conducting
and managing
evaluation activities
should possess the core
competencies required
for their role in the
evaluation process.

Standard 3.2: Ethics
• All those engaged in designing, conducting and managing
evaluations should conform to agreed ethical standards in
order to ensure overall credibility and the responsible use
of power and resources. The items include;
• Intentionality
• Conflict of Interest
• Interactions with participants
• Evaluation processes and products
• Discovery of wrongdoings

Standard 4: Conduct of Evaluations

Standard 4.1: Timelines and
intentionality
Evaluations should be designed to ensure that they provide timely, valid and reliable
information that will be relevant to the subject being assessed and should clearly
identify the underlying intentionality

Standard 4.2: Evaluability
Assessment
• An assessment of evaluability should be undertaken as an initial
step to increase the likelihood that an evaluation will provide timely
and credible information for decision-making.
• The evaluability assessment implies verifying if:
• There is clarity in the intent of the subject to be evaluated;
• Sufficient data are available or collectable at a reasonable cost; and
• There are no major factors that will hinder an impartial evaluation
process.

Standard 4.3: Terms of Reference
• The terms of reference should provide the evaluation purpose,
scope, design and plan. It needs to include;
The evaluation context and purpose;
A description and a clear definition of the subject to be evaluated;
The scope of evaluation;
The evaluation objectives with key evaluation questions and/or
criteria;
Evaluation methodology;
Management arrangements;
Expected deliverables; and
The evaluation process and timetable.

Standard 4.4: Evaluation Scope and
Objectives
• Evaluation scope and
objectives should follow from
the evaluation purpose and
should be realistic and
achievable in light of resources
available and the information
that can be collected.

Standard 4.5: Methodology
• Evaluation methodologies must be
sufficiently rigorous such that the
evaluation responds to the scope
and objectives, is designed to
answer evaluation questions and
leads to a complete, fair and
unbiased assessment.

Standard 4.6: Stakeholder
engagement and reference groups
• Inclusive and diverse stakeholder
engagement in the planning, design,
conduct and follow-up of evaluations
is critical to ensure ownership,
relevance, credibility and the use of
evaluation.
• Reference groups and other
stakeholder engagement
mechanisms should be designed for
this purpose.

Standard 4.7: Human rights-based
approach and gender mainstreaming
strategy
• The evaluation design should include considerations of the
extent to which the United Nations system’s commitment
to the human-rights based approach and gender
mainstreaming strategy was incorporated in the design of
the evaluation subject

Standard 4.8: Selection and
Composition of Evaluation Teams
The evaluation team should be selected through an open and
transparent process, taking into account the required competencies,
diversity in perspectives and accessibility to the local population. The
core members of the team should be experienced evaluators.

Standard 4.9: Evaluation Report
and Products
• The final evaluation report should be logically structured and contain evidence-
based findings, conclusions and recommendations. The products emanating from
evaluations should be designed to the needs of its intended users.
What was evaluated and why (purpose and scope);
How the evaluation was designed and conducted (evaluation questions, methodology and limitations);
What was found and on what evidence base (findings and evidences);
What was concluded from the findings in relation to main evaluation questions asked, and how such conclusions
were drawn (conclusions);
What was recommended (recommendations); and
What could be learned from the evaluation if any (lessons learned).

Standard 4.10: Recommendations
• Recommendations should be firmly based on evidence
and analysis, clear, results-oriented and realistic in terms
of implementation.

Standard 4.11: Communication and
Dissemination
• Communication and dissemination are integral and essential parts of evaluations.
Evaluation functions should have an effective strategy for communication and
dissemination that is focused on enhancing evaluation use
Messages to communicate include:
Key findings and recommendations from evaluations;
Relevance and contribution of evaluations to the effectiveness of the organization and its operations;
Successes and good practices identified by evaluations, including the uptake of findings and
recommendations for improvement;
The organization’s evaluation experience and technical capability; � Any outstanding evaluation
innovations or products; and
The evaluation progress.

Standard 5.1: Quality Assurance
System
• The Head of evaluation should ensure that there is an
appropriate quality assurance system.

Standard 5.2: Quality control of the
evaluation design
• Quality should be controlled during the design stage of evaluation. At the design
stage of evaluation, the quality should be controlled4 by examining whether:
The terms of reference are clear and contain all the necessary elements;
The scope and methodology fit within the allocated budget and time;
The methodology is appropriate to achieving the evaluation’s objectives;
The methodology ensures the collection of robust and triangulated data and lead to credible analysis and findings;
Evaluation design adequately reflects human rights and gender equality standards;
The evaluation processes are sufficiently consultative to ensure its relevance and usefulness;
The evaluation team has an appropriate range of expertise;
The process of selecting evaluators ensures the recruitment of the best-possible candidates and is devoid of conflicts of
interest and other ethical issues.

Standard 5.3: Quality Control at the
final stage of the evaluation
• Quality should be controlled during the final stage of evaluation.
• The evaluation was conducted according to quality-assured methodologies
and processes and that divergence from them were appropriately addressed

Monitoring and evaluation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Monitoring and evaluation (20)

More from Maxwell Ranasinghe (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Monitoring and evaluation