Maximising the Use of Evaluation Reports

1

Thomas Alveteg

HIV Joint Evaluation Workshop, Limbé, March 15 – 19 2010

Content

Introduction – the need to improve the use of evaluation reports

Proposal: System for response to evaluationsGroup discussionSumming 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 forfunding

Implementation

EvaluationRecommendations, lessons learned

Follow up

The follow up process of the mid-term evaluation in Cote d’Ivoire – some reflectionsBSCI - meeting to review recommendations and propose

line of actions, changes to the on-going programmeFiBS – 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 FeedbackImplementation

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 ofevaluationresults

Feedback

Why management response?

8

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

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

ImplementingBible Society

Grant givingBible 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

15Source: 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

16Source: Partly based on ‘Evaluation Guidelines, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland ‘(2007).

Division of roles and responsibilities..

17

ImplementingBible Society

Grant givingBible Society

UBS HIV

Service

External donors

..for the follow up of external evaluations

Continued implementationof 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

ManagementResponseDocument

Evaluationreport

ImplementingBible Society

HIVService

Grant givingBible Society

Comments on evaluation,Draft management response

Joint reviewmeeting

Jointly agreed Management Response, including action plan

Evaluationrecommendations

In connection to theannual JEW workshop or separately

The Management Response Process (2)

19

Implementation of the recommendations according to the action plan

Joint follow upmeeting

Follow up on the action planafter 6 months / 1 year

Implementationof the action plan

ManagementResponseDocument

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

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