Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$CQE=U]^\]Z: KAZAKHSTAN - OECD Online Bookshop$

Evaluating Country Programmes 102 Appendix 2.8 Checklist for Donors Initiating a CPE The following is a list of questions which donors can use to clarify the rationale, scope and approach for any given CPE. The answers to these questions can be used to structure the terms of reference and the mandate for the Steering Committee. Other guidelines that are particularly valuable (although very different) include IDB 1998 (“Evaluability guidelines”) Hopkins 1997 (for the UNDP). Checklist of questions Is this a review of – A distinct programme cycle? or – The entire course of donor-recipient aid relations? Is the CPE intended to evaluate: – Relevance of country programme for partner country needs? – Relevance of country programme for donor agency-wide goals (e.g. poverty reduction)? – Relevance of country programme design for specified country-specific goals? – Country programme management (efficiency, sustainability)? – Country programme and agency-wide management (efficiency and sustainability, looking also at HQ-CP relations)? – Effectiveness and/or impact? Is the CPE limited to post-facto evaluation? What components are to be evaluated? – Completed projects – Projects starting in previous cycle, finishing in this cycle – Projects started in this cycle, finishing in this cycle Ongoing projects – Projects starting in previous cycle, extended or not yet finished – Projects starting in this cycle, not yet finished Country-level management Goals of the CPE: is it to – Evaluate progress to date, making recommendations to improve ongoing country programme? – Test agency-wide goals (e.g. poverty reduction, gender equity) through a CP case study? – Test agency-wide management policies and practices/relationship between HQ and CPs? – Make formal recommendations for a new country programme document? – Provide post-facto/historical evaluation of completed projects within ongoing country programme, for application to this and other countries? – Provide post-facto/historical evaluation of a completed country programme, for application to other countries? OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Checklist of questions (cont.) Country Programme Evaluation: A State of the Art Review Is the evaluation to examine influence of agency-wide/donor HQ policies and systems on CP performance? – If yes, allocate time for interviews and document analysis in donor country. Possibilities for productive joint (two or more) donor CPE? – What are the potential costs and benefits in a joint evaluation? (Advantages: comparators, cost savings, better able to comment on government without fear of punitive reaction, build basis for improved donor co-ordination. Disadvantages/obstacles: different ideas about scope, focus or cost; reluctance to accept criticism; fundamental differences in development philosophy) – Which donor(s) would be suitable partners? (similar country programme, similar development aims, established evaluation capacity, willing to give and take honest criticism, agree on cost and process of evaluation) Possibilities for productive partnership (government-donor) CPE? – What are the potential costs and benefits in a joint donor-partner evaluation? (Advantages: comparators, build basis for improved aid co-ordination/government ownership of recommendations. Disadvantages/obstacles: different ideas about scope, focus or cost; reluctance to accept criticism; fundamental differences in development philosophy) Disclosure. The final report is presumably to be supplied to the CP and donor HQ. Is it also: – Supplied to partner government? If, so, how? – Supplied to country programmes (of same donor) in other countries for ‘‘lessons learned’’? – Supplied to other donors in the same country? How? (e.g. as briefing document at CG meetings, through sectoral meetings, etc.) – Supplied to partner organisations (NGOs, etc.)? – Supplied to country-level development community generally (e.g. placed in NGO apex body libraries, universities and development institutions, etc.)? – Published in donor country for parliamentary/public debate? – Made available globally (e.g. abstract entered on DAC evaluation inventory website)? Who/how many people from different stakeholder/researcher groups are to be involved in – From donor HQ – From other country programmes (perhaps the M and E unit) of the donor (peer evaluation) – From country programme HQ – From project staff – From partner organisations (e.g. implementing NGOs) – From other donors operating in that country – From Northern academic institutions/consultancies – From partner government-Ministry of Finance, aid co-ordinating agencies, M and E/audit units – From partner government-partner line ministries and agencies – From partner country academic/consultancy institutions – From academic/consultancy institutions in neighbouring Southern countries A: Writing ToR B: Research C: Steering committee 103
Page 1 and 2:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 3 and 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluating Country Programmes 4 The
Page 7 and 8:
Evaluating Country Programmes 6 SDC
Page 9 and 10:
OECD 1999 Glossary of Acronyms and
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 1 Co
Page 13 and 14:
Rationale, purpose and use OECD 199
Page 15 and 16:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
DONOR INFLUENCES Evaluation skills
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
13.00-14.30 Lunch break 14.30-15.30
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
OECD 1999 FINLANDE/FINLAND Ms. Eeva
Page 47 and 48:
OECD 1999 PORTUGAL Mr. Mario Mendes
Page 49 and 50: Mr. Wolfgang GRUBER Director, Proje
Page 51 and 52: OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 53 and 54: Evaluating Country Programmes 54 It
Page 55 and 56: OECD 1999 56 Mali . . . . . . . . .
Page 57 and 58: Evaluating Country Programmes 58 -
Page 59 and 60: Evaluating Country Programmes 60 po
Page 61 and 62: Evaluating Country Programmes 62 Bo
Page 63 and 64: Evaluating Country Programmes 64 -
Page 65 and 66: Evaluating Country Programmes 66 In
Page 67 and 68: Evaluating Country Programmes 68 Ti
Page 71 and 72: Evaluating Country Programmes 72 Re
Page 73 and 74: Evaluating Country Programmes 74 pe
Page 75 and 76: Evaluating Country Programmes 76 va
Page 77 and 78: Evaluating Country Programmes 78 (e
Page 79 and 80: Evaluating Country Programmes 80 Th
Page 81 and 82: Evaluating Country Programmes 82 ou
Page 83 and 84: Evaluating Country Programmes 84 Wi
Page 87 and 88: Evaluating Country Programmes 88 Ap
Page 89 and 90: OECD 1999 Appendix 2.3 Complete Lis
Page 91 and 92: OECD 1999 93 Complete list of known
Page 93 and 94: OECD 1999 95 Complete list of known
Page 95 and 96: OECD 1999 The CPE review instrument
Page 97 and 98: OECD 1999 Appendix 2.5 List of Dono
Page 99: OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 103 and 104: Country programme evaluations - See
Page 105 and 106: Summary OECD 1999 Chapter 3 Country
Page 107 and 108: Background OECD 1999 CPE in the Net
Page 109 and 110: CPE in the Netherland’s Developme
Page 111 and 112: OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 115 and 116: Methodology OECD 1999 CPE in the Ne
Page 121 and 122: Evaluating Country Programmes 124 P
Page 123 and 124: Evaluating Country Programmes 126 G
Page 125 and 126: Evaluating Country Programmes 128 R
Page 127 and 128: Evaluating Country Programmes 130 3
Page 129 and 130: Evaluating Country Programmes 132 P
Page 131 and 132: Evaluating Country Programmes 134 Y
Page 133 and 134: Evaluating Country Programmes 136 N
Page 135 and 136: Evaluating Country Programmes 138 O
Page 137 and 138: Evaluating Country Programmes 140 p
Page 139 and 140: Evaluating Country Programmes 142 R
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 5 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 143 and 144: Country Assistance Evaluation in th
Page 145 and 146: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 151 and 152:
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 153 and 154:
Traditional tools: relevance, effic
Page 155 and 156:
Measuring sustainability OECD 1999
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Rating country strategies and assis
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
OECD 1999 Chapter 6 French Experien
Page 171 and 172:
OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 173 and 174:
OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 175 and 176:
French Experience with Country Prog
Page 177 and 178:
OECD 1999 Chapter 7 Issues for Coun
Page 179 and 180:
Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 181 and 182:
Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 183 and 184:
OECD 1999 Issues for Country Evalua
Page 185 and 186:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 8 Co
Page 187 and 188:
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Country Assistance Strategies as a
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 9 Th
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Executive summary OECD 1999 Chapter
Page 213 and 214:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
OECD 1999 Chapter 11 Real Progress:
Page 229 and 230:
Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Assessment OECD 1999 Real Progress:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Sectoral successes: activities with
Page 257 and 258:
Evaluation of macro-level performan
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
OECD 1999 Appendix 11.1 Sectoral an
Page 271 and 272:
OECD 1999 Bibliography Real Progres
show all

Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?