How does evaluation be done in terms of judgment in terms of external criteria?

If you want to view other related topics. Click Here.

Evaluation Criteria

 The OECD/DAC definition of evaluation has been adopted by Danida and all major development agencies internationally. The definition contains five evaluation criteria that should be used in assessing development interventions: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.'

These are general criteria that should be used as a basis for developing evaluative questions through the full range of evaluations topics, i.e. from single intervention through to thematic, and ways of conducting the evaluation, e.g. joint evaluation.

Taken together, these five criteria should provide the decision-maker with the essential information and clues to understand the situation and determine what should be done next.

To the extent that specific evaluations have specific purposes, that there is no one right way to conduct an evaluation and that these criteria are interdependent and not mutually exclusive, their relative meaningfulness for a specific evaluation should be assessed and trade-offs discussed in each case to ensure that key questions are addressed and to avoid unnecessary effort and expense.

In addition, use of the five criteria does not exclude that other criteria might be used as well to better focus the evaluation on specific characteristics of the intervention and its context.

The criteria for the evaluation of humanitarian assistance are a case in point: because of some unique features of humanitarian intervention, the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, ALNAP http://www.alnap.org, has introduced three additional evaluation criteria: connectedness, coherence and coverag

Evaluation criteria

Relevance
The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirement, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies.

Evaluation criteria

Relevance
The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirement, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies.

Efficiency
A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results.

Effectiveness
The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.

Impacts
The positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

Sustainability
The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed. The probability of long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.

Additional criteria for evaluation of humanitarian action

Connectedness
The need to ensure that activities of a short-term emergency nature are carried out in a context that takes longer-term and interconnected problems into account.

Coherence
The need to assess security, developmental, trade and military policies as well as humanitarian policies, to ensure that there is consistency and, in particular, that all policies take into account humanitarian and human rights considerations.

Coverage 
The need to reach major population groups facing life threatening suffering wherever they are.

Relevance

Relevance is a measure of the extent to which development interventions meet population needs and country priorities, and are consistent with donor policies.

For example, in a road project relevance could be assessed in terms of the rationale for constructing the road: was it to serve a political agenda of the few or to exploit real economic potential? In a sector programme to support agriculture, relevance could be assessed in terms of domestic market responses to new crops, farmers’ responses to the various programme initiatives, etc.

A change in society’s policies or priorities could imply that the development interventions are now accorded lower priority, or lose some of their rationale. Once an endemic disease has been eradicated, for instance, it could mean there is no longer any need for a special health programme.

Efficiency
A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results.
Efficiency is a measure of the relationship between outputs, i.e. the products or services of an intervention, and inputs, i.e. the resources that it uses.

An output is a measure of effort; it is the immediate observable result of intervention processes over which the managers of the intervention, i.e. the implementers, have some measure of control. An intervention can be thought of as efficient if it uses the least costly resources that are appropriate and available to achieve the desired outputs, i.e. deliverables, in terms of quantity and quality.

The quality of the inputs and the outputs is an important consideration in assessing efficiency: the most economical resource is not necessarily the most appropriate and the trade-offs between the quantity of outputs and their quality are a key factor of overall performance.

Furthermore, assessing the efficiency of an intervention generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs and this will be easier for some types of intervention that for others.

Effectiveness
The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.

Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which the intervention’s intended outcomes, i.e. its specific objectives – intermediate results – have been achieved.

Explicitly, effectiveness is the relationship between the intervention’s outputs, i.e. its products or services – its immediate results – and its outcomes, meaning usually the intended benefits for a particular target group of beneficiaries.

As such, an intervention is considered effective when its outputs produce the desired outcomes; it is efficient when it uses resources appropriately and economically to produce the desired outputs.

For example, a teaching programme is considered effective if students learn, i.e. acquire intended knowledge, skills and abilities; it is considered efficient if it provides instruction, i.e. teaching time and materials, economically and of quality.

Impacts
The positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

Impact is a measure of all significant effects of the development intervention, positive or negative, expected or unforeseen, on its beneficiaries and other affected parties.

Whereas effectiveness focuses on the intended outcomes of an intervention, impact is a measure of the broader consequences of the intervention such as economic, social, political, technical or environmental effects; locally, regionally, or at the national level; on the target group and other directly or indirectly affected parties.

For example an HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programme targeting vulnerable groups could have broader effects both positive, such as a reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis on other groups, and negative, such as a reduction of funding to malaria prevention. Effects may also be economic in nature, e.g. size of the workforce, political, e.g. state budget allocation, and so on.

Sustainability
The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed. The probability of long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.