Bangladesh - Belgium

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study
Intervention name
Federation (BSSF)
Participatory methods
Observation of training and meetings
9. Rupantar FGD with villagers
Interviews with project staff, union and upazila coordination committees.
Use of most significant change methodology
10. Samata Samata has recently undergone an extensive impact evaluation. FGD
with women and men’s groups. FGD with Women’s Action Committee
members, FGD with advanced leaders.
Use of most significant change methodology
Mini Review
11. GTZ brokered
dialogue
FGD with NGO staff included in dialogue sessions
Interviews with Trade union leaders
Interviews with GTZ
In addition to the extensive interview and focus group discussion processes,
secondary data including Evaluation reports and Annual reports were reviewed. All
of these are mentioned in the Summary Sheets (Annex C)
Models of change were developed ‘to test their main components in relation to how
the interventions are actually implemented, the results achieved or not and, crucially,
why the implementation logic of a given intervention might differ form the original
programme theory’. (ODI methodological Guidelines) These were derived from
project log frames where available or from discussions around the intervention logic
held with project staff.
Final Analysis using DAC criteria
The analysis of the findings of the case studies used the five DAC evaluation criteria;
Table B.4.
DAC Evaluation Criteria and CVA questions
DAC Criteria Relevant questions in relation to CVA
Relevance • How well matched are V&A interventions to the political and socioeconomic
context?
• In what ways do V&A interventions take account of the specificities
of the enabling environment?
• Are opportunities, entry points and risks clearly articulated?
• Are the objectives and activities of V&A interventions consistent
with the key features of the enabling environment?
• Are the objectives and activities consistent with expected results
and outcomes?
• What are the key assumptions? (particularly for capacity building)
Efficiency • Are project/programme inputs consistent with the efficient
achievement of outputs and outcomes?
• Have project funds been disbursed in ways consistent with the
efficient achievement of objectives?
• Given objectives, were alternative approaches available that could
have used resources more efficiently?
Effectiveness • Have V&A interventions achieved or are likely to achieve their
objectives?
• To what extent is the choice of V&A channels and mechanisms
adequate to achieve the intended results?
• What are the main obstacles/challenges to achieve policy, practice
and behaviour change?
• Has there been any change in objectives?
• What explains any non-achievement of objectives?
• Are there unexpected outcomes?
59