Guidelines For Conducting Joint Evaluations of Humanitarian Action

WhatWeKnowAbout
JointEvaluations
ofHumanitarianAction

LearningfromNGOExperiences

Section1of3:THEGUIDE
April2011

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... 3
ABOUTTHISBOOKLET .......................................................................................... 4
THEGUIDE .............................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER1:WHYDOAJOINTEVALUATION? .......................................................... 5
TheBenefitsofaJointEvaluation ............................................................................................... 5
TheDownsidesofaJointEvaluation ........................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER2:JOINTEVALUATIONWHEN,WHOANDHOW? .................................... 8
Whenwillittakeplace? ............................................................................................................. 8
Whowilltakepartinit? ............................................................................................................. 8
Isthereenoughtimeforajointevaluation? ................................................................................ 8
Howwillitbepaidfor? .............................................................................................................. 9
Howcanthejointevaluationbemostusefultovariousstakeholders? .......................................... 9
CHAPTER3:WHATTODOBEFORETHEEVALUATION ............................................ 10
Choosealeadagencyandagreeonroles .................................................................................. 10
Setupamanagementstructure................................................................................................ 10
Estimatecostsandduration ..................................................................................................... 11
Communicatewhattheevaluationisabout ............................................................................... 12
Findacompetentadministrator/manager ................................................................................. 12
Carefullypickevaluationteammembers ................................................................................... 12
Chooseafewobjectivestocover .............................................................................................. 14
Agreeonevaluationstandardsandmethods ............................................................................. 14
Writeaninceptionreport......................................................................................................... 15
Managecommunicationswithinthecollaboration ..................................................................... 15
Prepare,prepare,prepare!....................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER4:WHATTODODURINGTHEEVALUATION ............................................ 16
Brieftheteamuponarrival ...................................................................................................... 16
Sharefindingsasyougo ........................................................................................................... 16
Ensurefindingsarereportedwithsensitivity ............................................................................. 16
FinalizingtheEvaluationReport ................................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER5:WHATTODOAFTERTHEEVALUATION............................................... 18
Developbothcollectiveandindividualrolloutplans ................................................................... 18
Emphasizepeeraccountability ................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER6:JOINTEVALUATIONSINREALTIME .................................................... 19
Preparefortheevaluationbeforetheemergencystarts ............................................................. 19
Takeagoodenoughapproachtotheevaluation ..................................................................... 19
Callonadditionalresources ..................................................................................................... 19
Considersomeotherjointreflectionprocess ............................................................................. 20
ReferencesandFurtherReading.......................................................................... 21

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Manypeoplehavesharedtheirvaluableexperienceandtimeinthecreationofthisbooklet.Special
thanksgotoallofthem,particularly,inGuatemala,CarlaAguilarofSavetheChildrenUS,HughAprileof
CatholicReliefServices,BorysChinchillaofMercyCorps,andJuanManuelGironDurinioftheECBProject;
inNiger,JasmineBatesandMariannaHensleyofCatholicReliefServices,andJuliannaWhite,ofCARE;in
Indonesia,AdhongRamadhanandJosephineWijiastutiofCatholicReliefServices,AgusBudiartoandEvi
EsalyKabanofSavetheChildren,HariningMardjukiandAnwarHadipriyantoofCARE,andRichardusIndra
GunawanandYacobusRuntuweneofWorldVisionInternational.SpecialthanksalsogotoJohnWilding,
PaulineWilson,JohnTelford,MauriceHersonofALNAP,JockBakerofCAREandGuySharrockofCatholic
ReliefServiceswhohavegivencriticalinputintothiswork.MalaikaWrightwastheauthorofthefirst
paper.
TheApril2011versionofthebookletwasupdatedbyKatyLovefromtheECBProject,LorettaIshidaof
CatholicReliefServices,JockBakerofCARE,HanaCroweofSavetheChildren,andKevinSavageofWorld
Vision.ThebookletwasrevisedbasedonfeedbackandreportsfromthosewhoparticipatedinECB
supportedjointevaluationsin2010inIndonesia,Haiti,theHornofAfrica,andNiger.Thesepeopleserved
asevaluationmanagersandcoordinators,teamleaders,teammembers,SteeringCommitteemembers,
ECBfieldfacilitators,andECBaccountabilityAdvisersinjointevaluations,including:PaulOHagan,Greg
Brady,YvesLaurentRegis,AngelaRouse,KatyLove,andJockBaker(Haiti);YenniSuryani,PaulineWilson,
LorettaIshida,andLeAnnHager(Indonesia);KevinSavage,CheleDeGruccio,JimAshman,andWynn
Flaten(HornofAfrica);andKadidaMambo(Niger).TheECBProjectthanksallwhocontributedtothis
work.

ABOUTTHISBOOKLET
Thisbookletwaswrittentoshareknowledgegainedfromtheexperiencesofpeoplethathavebeen
involvedinjointevaluationsconductedbynongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs).Itmainlyprofilesthe
workofNGOsinvolvedintheEmergencyCapacityBuildingProject(ECB),whichhasagoaltoimprovethe
speed,qualityandeffectivenesswithwhichthehumanitariancommunitysaveslives,improvesthe
welfare,andprotectstherightsofwomen,menandchildrenaffectedbyemergencies.
Thisbookletalsodrawsonthelessonsofmultiagencyevaluationsthatalreadyexistwithinthe
humanitariansector.Majorcontributionshavecome,inparticular,fromtheActiveLearningNetworkfor
AccountabilityandPerformanceinHumanitarianAction(ALNAP).
Wehopethatlearningfrompreviousexperiencescapturedherewillbeusefulforallthoseconsidering
leadingtheiragenciesthroughajointevaluation.Thelearningsharedhereistargetedatevaluation
practitioners,managers,andNGOscontemplatingajointevaluation.Additionally,wehopethatitwill
contributetoagrowingbodyofknowledgeontheseprocessesandshowthatwhiletherearemany
unansweredquestionsaboutjointevaluations,thereisalotwealreadyknow.
Thisbookletiscomprisedofthreesections.Thefirstsection,TheGuide,canbereferredtoasahowto
forthosecloselyinvolvedinjointevaluations.Itprovidesaframeworkforthoseapproachingan
interagencyevaluation.Thesecondsection,TheStories,sharesseveralcasestudiesfromtheECB
Projectsexperiences.Thethirdsection,TheTools,includesmanytemplatesandtoolsthatcanbe
adaptedforevaluations,includingsampletermsofreferences,agreementdocuments,andchecklists.

THEGUIDE
CHAPTER1:WHYDOAJOINTEVALUATION?
Whyshouldanagencyconsidertakingpartinajointevaluationofanemergencyresponseprogram?1
Afterall,jointevaluationsrequirecollaboration,collaborationmeansmoreworkandtime,andtimeisa
scarcecommodityinemergencyprograms.
Inrecentyears,severalNGOshavesoughttoanswerthisquestionwhiletakingpartinthejoint
evaluationsprofiledinthisbook.Whiletheresultshavebeenmixedandthelearningcurveshavebeen
steep,jointevaluationsconfermanybenefits.Whiletheevaluationsthemselveshaveyieldedinstructive
andusefulfindings,agencieshavealsobenefitedsignificantlyfromthequalityoftheinteractionsthat
tookplaceamongpeeragencies.Jointevaluationsoftenserveasforumsforongoinglearning,dialogue
andevenbegincollaboration.
Agenciesalsoinevitablylearnthattherearesomepitfallsintheprocessofconductingjointevaluations.
Thoughajointevaluationisnotsodifferentfromasingleagencyevaluation,therearesomemajor
differences,someofwhicharehighlightedbelowandaddressedthroughoutthisguide.
Aboveall,likeasingleagencyevaluation,ajointevaluationprovidesanopportunitytolearnfrompast
actionsoastoimprovefuturedecisionmaking.
Itshouldbenotedthatthisguidesetsouttheidealprocessesandstructuresforajointevaluation.Inan
emergencysetting,ofcourse,constraintsemergethatmaketheidealprocessachallengetoachieve.
Evaluators,therefore,mustbeflexibleandwillingtoadapttotherealitiesonthegroundinorderto
achievesomeifnotalloftheobjectivestheysetouttoachieve.2
TheBenefitsofaJointEvaluation
1. SeeingtheBigPicture
Oneevaluatorsaid,You[may]thinkyouvecoveredtheworldbutyouveonlycoveredone
villageinten.Emergencyresponsestypicallyinvolveseveralhumanitarianactors.Whenthe
responsesofmorethanoneactorareputsidebysideandexamined,theoverallpicture
becomesclearer,revealinghowfactorssuchasgeographiccoverage,sectorspecific
interventions,andcommunityinvolvementallfittogether.Jointevaluationsgofurthertowards
measuringimpactbylookingatthecollectiveeffortsofseveralactorstomeetbeneficiaryneeds
andtoidentifywhatgapsexist.
2. BuildingCoordinationandCollaborationtoImproveResponse
Giventhescaleofdisastersandthedisproportionateamountofsufferingtheycause,agencies
workingalonearegenerallynotabletohavealargeimpact.Infact,agenciesthatcoordinate
responsesandworktogetherduringemergenciesarebetterabletomeettheneedsofdisaster
affectedpopulations.Bycomparingagenciesresponsessidebyside,jointevaluationsarebetter
abletopointoutareaswhereNGOscouldhaveactedinacomplementaryfashionandmake
1
Themodelanddefinitionofjointevaluationsusedinthisbookletisanyevaluationthatlooksattheworkofmorethanoneagency.
Thisusuallymeansthatinadditiontomoreactorsbeinginvolved,thereisagreaterbreadthofprogrammingbeingexamined.
2
ReaderslookingforfurtherguidanceshouldreviewShoestringEvaluation:DesigningImpactEvaluationsUnderBudget,Time,and
DataConstraintsbyBamberger,Rugh,Church,andFort.

recommendationsforhowtheycoulddosoinanticipationofthenextemergency.Evaluation
reportsrepeatedlyshowthatbettercoordinationwouldhaveledtoamoreeffectiveresponse.

Insomecaseswhereagenciesarealreadyworkingtogether,ajointevaluationcanbealogical
conclusiontoajointactionorresponse.InIndonesiaandinNigerin2010,agenciesagreedto
conductajointevaluationtoassesstheimpactoftheirjointactivities.3

Theprocessofcollaboratingontheevaluationitselfcanalsobeapowerfulwayofbuilding
relationshipsamongpartneragencystaffthatendureforthelongterm.IntheECBexperience,
someoftheserelationshipshaveledtoongoingactivitiesandeventheformationofanNGO
coordinationforum(seeNiger).InHaiti,thejointevaluationhelpedtobuildrelationshipsamong
nationalstaffandmanagers,servingasastartingpointforlongerterminteragency
collaboration.
3. WieldingWeightierConclusions,ImprovingPeerAccountabilityand
Transparency
Jointevaluationscanbemoreauthoritativebecauseofthecombinedweightofthosebacking
them.Assuchevaluationsareavailabletoawideraudience,thereislikelytobegreaterpressure
toactupontherecommendations.Additionally,theyprovidealargerbodyofevidencefor
purposesofjointadvocacy.
Whenagenciesopenuptooneanotherbysharingweaknessesandstrengths,theyincrease
transparencyandmakeiteasierforthemtoholdonanotheraccountableforactinguponthe
recommendations.Transparencyiscriticalforagenciesinhumanitarianresponses,andsharing
thefindingsofevaluationsacrossagencieshelpstobecomemoretransparent.Infact,agency
peersmaypressuretheagencyactonrecommendationsfromanevaluation.

4. LearningfromandRelationshipBuildingwithPeers
Partnersinajointevaluationhavearareopportunitytolearnabouteachothersprogramming
andoperations,andmaysharetechnicalknowledgethroughtheevaluationprocess,butalso
throughtheongoingrelationshipsthatareoftenestablished.Onepractitionernotedthat
workingwithstafffromotheragenciessometimesbringsnewperspectivesorevenchangesher
thinkingaboutaparticularissue.

Therelationshipbuildingthatoccursthroughajointevaluationallowsagencystafftoidentify
otheragenciesstrengthsandcapacities.Therelationships,foundedontrust,thatarebuilt
throughajointevaluation,mayresultinagencycooperationinthefuture.
TheDownsidesofaJointEvaluation
1. MoreComplexity
Ittakestime,skillandpatiencetogetagenciestoagreetodoajointevaluation,agreeona
manageablelistofobjectives,diffuseanytensionsthatmayarise,ensurethatgroupdecision
makingprocessesareclearandrespected,allwhiledealingwithhiringandsupervisingan
evaluationteam,settingupinterviews,ensuringlogisticsareinplace,etc.Thisbecomeseven
harderduringanemergency.

3 Seethe2010Indonesiajointevaluationreportformoreinformation,availableatwww.ecbproject.org/resources

Withoutaleadagencytotakeontheprimaryresponsibilityforthesetasks,andacommitted
steeringcommitteethatcanjointlyhandlestrategicdecisionmaking,ajointevaluationcanbe
frustratingandunsuccessful.
2. LessDepth
Oftenitisnotfeasibleorrelevanttogointomuchdetailonanyparticularagencysprogramsas
wouldhappeninasingleagencyevaluation.Thereforemanyoftheevaluationquestionsof
interesttoeachagencymaynotgetanswered.

3. MoreExpensive
Giventhenumberofactionsinvolved,jointevaluationscansometimesbemorecostlythan
singleagencyevaluations.Ifagenciesagreetosharethecostsoftheevaluation,however,
additionalcostsperagencywillbeminimal.
Conclusion
JointevaluationsallowNGOstolearnfrommultipleperspectivesandgiventhemamorecomplete
understandingofanemergencyresponse.Theyhelpusworktogethernowandinthefutureandleadto
relationshipsthatcanbeveryproductive.Forthesereasonstheycanbeenrichingexperiencesandhave
aprofoundimpactonthewaywedothingsasindividualagenciesandascollectives.Itisimportantto
havearealisticunderstandingofwhatcanandcannotbeaccomplishedbyajointevaluationbefore
conductingone.

CHAPTER2:JOINTEVALUATIONWHEN,WHOAND
HOW?
Youmaywanttodoajointevaluationandhavegoodreasonstodoso.Butfirst,makesuretherewill
beenoughtimefortheevaluation,willingpartners,andhuman,financialandotherresourcestogetit
done.Thefollowingquestionsaremeanttohelpyoudeterminewhetherajointevaluationisfeasible.
Whenwillittakeplace?
Evaluationscantakeplaceatdifferentpointsofaresponse(during,immediatelyafter,orseveralmonths
after).Thetimingdependsonwhattheagencieswanttogetoutoftheevaluation.Realtimeevaluations
duringaresponseprovideresultsthatcanimprovetheresponsegoingforward(seeChapter6).
Evaluationsconductedneartheendofanemergency,ontheotherhand,captureexperiencesand
learningwhileitisstillfresh.Evaluationsconductedwellafteranemergencyendscanstillbeusefuland
cancapturelongertermimpactofaresponse.
Oneimportantfactorwhencreatingatimelineforjointevaluationsistorememberthatworkingwith
multipleactorscanslowyoudown.Thereisrarelyaperfecttimetoconductajointevaluation,asall
agenciesarebusy.Therefore,especiallyforrealtimeevaluations,itisimportanttostartplanningasearly
aspossibleduringtheemergencyresponse.
Whowilltakepartinit?
Approachotheragenciesthatmayalreadybeconsideringanevaluationforthesamehumanitarian
response.Consideragenciesthathavethesameoverallgoal(e.g.ensuringaffectedpopulationsareable
torecoverquicklyfromthedisaster),andthathavesimilartypesofprogramsingeographicareasthatare
closeenoughtogether.Identifytheappropriatepersontocontact,ideallysomeonewhoprovides
strategicdirectionforthecountryoffice.Explainwhatwillbegainedfromdoingthisevaluationjointly
(seeChapter1).Listentotheirviewsandnotethemdown.Dontbediscouragediftheyarenot
interested.Keeptalkingtootheragencies.
Whentalkingtootheragencies,findouthowtheyapproachevaluations.Dotheyconductthembecause
donorsrequirethem?Howdotheyusethefindings?Whatresourcesdotheydesignateforevaluations?
Takenoteofthistogetasenseofhoweachagencywillapproachtheevaluationandusethefindings.
Theiranswerswillalsohelpprepareyouforpotentialareasofconflict,suchaswillingnesstocontribute
stafftime.SeeTheTools,SuggestedTopicsforDiscussionwithProspectivePartners.Besuretheagencies
arewillingtocommitstafftimeandresourcestosupporttheevaluation.
Forajointeffort,andbecauseevaluationsmayrevealsensitiveissues,itsalsoimportanttobuildtrust
amongtheagencies.Todoso,agreeonthefocusoftheevaluationtogether,ratherthanapproaching
otherswithyourvisionandaskingiftheyareinterestedinjoiningin.Continuecollaboratingby
communicatingclearly,beingtransparentwithinformationandintentions,andfollowingthroughwith
commitments.
Isthereenoughtimeforajointevaluation?
Besuretoallocateenoughtimefortheevaluationteamtogetthejobdone.Unlessthelogisticsofgetting
toandfromfieldsitesisunusuallytimeconsuming,athirtyorfortydaycontractfortheleadevaluatoris
reasonable.Ensuretheevaluatorhasatleasttwodaysbeforeofficiallystartingtheevaluationtodo
preparatoryworksuchastoreviewdocuments,proposemethodology,andplanlogisticswiththe

agencies.Notensuringenoughtimefortheadditionalworkwillcompromisethequalityoftheevaluation.
Ensurethattimeisbuiltintoaccountformisseddeadlines,asmayoccurwhenmanyactorsareinvolved.
Howwillitbepaidfor?
Jointevaluationsusuallytakemoretimetoconduct,andmayrequirearelativelylargeteam.Costs,
therefore,maybehigherthanforsingleagencyevaluations.Thecostscanbespreadoutamongagencies,
andthisshouldbediscussedaspartoftheearliernegotiation.
Havearoughideaofwhattheevaluationmaycost.Themaincostsareforhiringconsultantsandsupport
staff.Comparethiswithwhatfundsmaybeavailableandwhatotheragenciesmaybewillingto
contribute,includingstafftime,lodging,andvehicles.Ifinsufficientfundsareavailablefortheevaluation,
considerajointpeerreviewtoreviewoneanothersprogramsandcometogethertodiscussfindings.
Properandrealisticbudgetingiscritical.
Donorsarelikelytobereceptivetojointevaluationsiftheybringaboutabetterunderstandingofthe
contextandtheoverallhumanitarianresponseandsomedonorscommissionjointevaluations
themselves.Therefore,ifabudgetfundedbyagivendonoralreadyaccountsforanevaluation,thedonor
maybeopentoredirectingthatactivityfromthesingleagencysevaluationtocontributetoajoint
evaluation.
Howcanthejointevaluationbemostusefultovariousstakeholders?
Evaluationstakealotofresourcesandeffortandeveryonewantsthemtobeuseful.Jointevaluations
canbeusefultodifferentstakeholdersindifferentways.Inalargeemergency,agencystaffatregional
andgloballevelswilllikelybeinterestedinthefindings.
Talktopeopleattheheadofficelevelinthecountrywhere TheideafortheECBsupportedGuatemala
theemergencyhappened,attheregionallevel,andat evaluationcamefromheadquarters.Theteamin
headquarterslevel.Evenifthefindingsrefertoprograms GuatemalafeltthatthiswasanotherHQdriven
initiative,sotheirparticipationinsteering
thathaveended,cantheybeusedtoinformother
committeemeetingswaslimited.Theagencieson
programs,systemsandpolicieswithintheorganization?
thegroundtriedtocustomizetheobjectives,butin
retrospectfelttheyshouldhavestartedfrom
Iftheproposalfortheevaluationcamefromheadquarters, scratch.Thisnegativelyimpactedtheevaluation
dothoseinthefield,particularlycountryofficeleadership, processandthustheusageofthefindings.
believethatthiswillbeausefulexerciseforthem?Ifnot,
theymaynotwanttoengage,andtheevaluationwillprove Incontrast,theideafortheECBsupportedjoint
hardtocarryout.Howwilltheyusethefindings?How evaluationinJogyakartaalsocamefrom
committedwilltheybetotheevaluation?Theirinterest headquarters.However,theparticipatingagencies
andengagementneedtobehightomakethisasuccessful onthegroundtooktheleadondefiningtheir
experience. objectives,withadvicefromheadquarters.This
helpedensurethepartnersweremoreincontrolof
Thereshouldbeareasonablelevelofconfidencethatthe theevaluationprocess.
findingswillbeusedbeforeproceedingwiththe
evaluation.Ifnot,theevaluationteamwillstruggletoachievetheobjectives.

CHAPTER3:WHATTODOBEFORETHEEVALUATION
Ifyouhavedecidedtopursueajointevaluation,herearesomethingstoconsider.
Choosealeadagencyandagreeonroles
ECBhashadthebestresultswhenoneagencyleadsthejointevaluationprocess.Thoughsomesharingof
responsibilityisdesirable,agenciesshoulddesignatethemajorityofthedaytodaymanagement
responsibilitiestotheleadagency.Anyoftheagenciesbeing
evaluatedcouldserveasthelead;whatmattersisthattheagencyis Aleadagencythatplaysits
capableofcarryingouttheresponsibilities. rolewellcanmakeamajor
differenceintheprocess.The
Theleadagencyhiresandsupervisestheevaluationteam,coordinates headevaluatorinECBsNiger
travellogistics,providesteammemberswithworkspaces,organizes evaluationfoundthelead
meetings,andgivesleadershipregardingthedefinitionofthe agencysorganizationofthe
evaluationprocessand
objectives.Ultimately,itisthisagencythatisaccountableforensuring
logisticstobethemosthelpful
thattheevaluationtakesplace.
thingtohimincarryingouthis
work.Itwasoneissuewe
Asteeringgroupmadeupofrepresentativesfromeachagencycan
didnthavetothinkabout;it
cometogethertoagreeontherolesoftheleadagency,theroles wassowellorganized,he
assignedtootherparticipatingagencies,andsharethemwithall noted.
involvedpersons,staffandevaluators.(Formore,seesectionbelow
onManagementStructure.)
Setupamanagementstructure
Whensettingupamanagementstructurefortheevaluationitsimportanttorecognizethatyouare
managingnotjustanevaluationbutacollaboration.Dontsuccumbtopressuretomakechoices
favorabletotheleadagency,steeringcommitteemembersorhighlevelsponsorsoftheevaluation(e.g.
wemusthavex,y,andzrepresented,andanyindividualswilldo).Seekoutindividualsforthesteering
committeeandevaluationteamwhoarecommittedtoasuccessfuloutcome,eveniftheyarenot
conventionalchoices.Wherethereisaneedforagencyrepresentation,createspacefortheseindividuals
insomehighprofile,butlesscriticalfunction.
Ajointevaluationmanagementstructurecouldlooksomethinglikethis:
Asteeringcommittee.Thisgroupwillberesponsibleforstrategicdecisionmakingveryearlyon
regardingobjectives,timing,andresourceallocation,includingstaffandfunding.Thesteering
committeewillalsobeactiveinreviewinganddebatingthefindingsandactingupontheir
implicationswithintheiragenciesandbeyond.Itisnormallychairedbytheleadagencyandhas
representationfromeachoftheparticipatingagencies.Thecommitteewouldideallybekepttoa
maximumoffive,makingoversightanddecisionmakingmorefocusedandachievablein
reasonableamountsoftime.This,however,supposesthatagenciesinvolvedarewillingto
delegatestafftoacommittee.
Theidealsteeringcommitteememberisseniorenoughtospeakonbehalfofhis/heragencyand
hastheauthoritytomakedecisions.Thisindividualmusthaveagoodknowledgeofhisorher
organizationsemergencyprogramsandongoingdevelopmentwork.Inaddition,heorshe
shouldbeabletothinkstrategically,andknowenoughaboutevaluationstoadviseonthe
evaluationmethodstobeusedandonthefieldlocationstobecovered.Theseindividualswill
alsobethosemostlikelytofollowuponrelevantrecommendations.

Steeringcommitteemembersshouldagreeonanddocumentclearprocessesandstandardsof
efficiency,transparencyandaccountabilityregardingrolesandresponsibilities.Theyshould
agreeonhowdecisionmakingwouldwork,howtoresolvedisagreementswithinthesteering
committee,andhowtoshareinformation.Steeringcommitteemembersshouldbethesame
throughouttheentiretyoftheevaluation.Whenmembersrotateonandoffthecommittee,
decisionsandguidancemaychange,whichwillcomplicatemattersfortheevaluationteam.

Otheragreementsconcernthereportformat,theuseofagencylogos,theownershipofthe
productsoftheevaluation(i.e.intellectualcopyright),howagencieswillusethefindingsandif
theywillholdoneanotheraccountable,etc.

Achairperson.Thispersonisbasedattheleadagencyfortheevaluationandisamemberand
chairofthesteeringcommittee.Heorshehasmostofthestrategicdecisionmaking,operational
andcollaborationresponsibilitiesoftheevaluation.Thisindividualusuallyassumestheroleof
evaluationmanagerandisthedirectreportinglinefortheteamleader.Thechairpersonshould
managethebudgetandtrackexpenses.
Amanageroradministrator.Thispersonmustideallybebasedintheleadagencywithacertain
percentageofhisorhertimededicatedtotheevaluation.Seethefollowingsectionformore
detailsonthemanagersresponsibilities.Heorshecouldalsositonthesteeringcommitteebut
withoutvotingrights.
Theevaluationteam.Theteamistypicallycomposedofoneortwoindependentconsultants,
andarepresentativefromeachofthepartneragencies.Thisteamisaccountabletothesteering
committee,particularlythecommitteechair.
Therearevariationsonthisstructure,ofcourse.Mostevaluationsalsohavehigherlevelsponsors
thatmayalsoformasuperstructure.Sectorexpertsmayalsobeneededontheevaluationteam.
SeeTheToolsforaSampleAgreementsDocument.
Estimatecostsandduration
Basedonthedraftitinerary,thesteeringcommitteeshouldagreeonadraftbudgetandcostsharing
arrangements.Typicallyagenciesshareconsultantcostsequallyandprovidefundingforthestaffmember
theyappointtojointheevaluationteam.Thinkthroughfundingimplicationsforallaspectsoftheprocess
andhowlongeachactivitywilltake.Forexample,ensurefundsforgoodqualityediting,formatting,and
presentation,asthesecanmakeasignificantdifferenceinhowwidelythereportisread.Berealistic
aboutthetimeitwilltaketheevaluationteamtogetthejobdone.Atleast30daysorevenfortydaysare
recommendedfortheteamleader.Theconsultantwilllikelybethelargestcost,butitisessentialto
budgetfor,ashis/hertaskswillinclude:
Reviewdocuments,preparemethodology,andcorrespondwiththesteeringcommitteepriorto
theevaluation.
Conductfieldvisitstoatleastthreesitesforeachoftheagencies.
Interviewagencystaff.
Interviewotherstakeholders.
Presentthefindingstostakeholdersincountry.
Prepareadraftofthereport.
Incorporateeditsandcommentsonthereportfrommultipleactors.

Communicatewhattheevaluationisabout
Ajointevaluationisanewsworthyevent,butnoteveryonewillunderstanditspurpose.Makesurepeople
insideandoutsidetheparticipatingagencies,includingbeneficiaries,areawareoftheevaluationsothat
theywillbemorelikelytoreviewandmakeuseofthefindings.Draftaonepageinformationalsheet
abouttheevaluationforwidespreadsharing,andespeciallywithcountryofficestaffwhoneedtobe
awareoftheevaluation(thoughtheywouldideallybeengagedthroughouttheprocess).
Itisparticularlyimportanttohavepreparatorydiscussionswithbeneficiarycommunitiestoensurethey
understandthepurposeoftheevaluationandtheyagreetoparticipateintheevaluation.Theyshould
understandthatevaluatorsdonothaveanyassistancetogive.4InHaiti,theevaluationteamtrained30
nationalstafffromtheparticipatingagencieswhospokeHaitianCreoletoberesponsibletoengage
beneficiaries.Theydidsobyconductingfocusgroupdiscussions,askingopenendedquestionsto
understandpeoplesexperiencewiththeemergencyresponse.5
Findacompetentadministrator/manager
Considerhiringsomeonewhocanspendasignificantamountoftime(50100%)focusedonthe
evaluation,especiallyinthemonthortwoleadinguptoit.Thispersonmaybeanadministrator,but
shouldalsobesupervisedbyaseniorpersonwhocanadviseonstrategicissues.
Asuperbadministratorcanmakeamajordifferenceinthesuccessofanyevaluationbutparticularlya
jointevaluation.Ideally,anationalstaffpersonshouldbehiredorsecondedfromoneoftheagencies.He
orshewillberesponsibleformeetingthelogisticalandadministrativeneedsofboththesteering
committeeandtheevaluationteam.
Asampletasklistforthispersoncouldlooklikethis:
Organizetherecruitmentfortheindependentconsultant(s).
Draftandprocesscontractwithconsultant(s).
Arrangeschedulesandmanagethecalendar.
Arrangelogisticalarrangementsfortravelinginthefield.
Coordinateinformationexchangebetweentheagenciesandtheevaluationteam,such
ascollectingtherelevantbackgrounddocumentsfortheevaluationteam.
Arrangemeetingsbothwiththeparticipatingagenciesandwithoutsideactors.
Helpdocumentwhoisresponsibleforwhatandsharethiswithallparties.
Agreeonnormsforperdiemandotherpolicies.Typically,eachagencyfollowstheir
ownandthecoordinatingonehirestheexternalsandusestheirperdiems.
Meetwiththeevaluationteam.
Thesteeringcommitteeorchairpersoncouldappointtheevaluationadministratorormanager.Ideally,
thesteeringcommitteewilldefinetheauthorityleveloftheadministrator,whoheorshewillreportto,
andwhatlevelofauthorityheorshewillhavetomakedecisions.Itshouldbemadecleartheamountof
timeanadministratorwillprovidetosupporttheevaluationteam.
Carefullypickevaluationteammembers
Selecttherightteam.Inadditiontothetechnicalskillstheyneedtoconducttheevaluation,team
memberswillalsohavetobegoodatbalancingtheneedsofmultipleclientswithsensitivity.Whiletheir
rolesshouldbemadeclearbeforetheevaluation,experiencehasshownthattheywillneedtobeflexible
4
SeeTool9intheGoodEnoughGuidetoImpactMeasurementandAccountabilityinEmergencies
5 SeetheCARESavetheChildrenjointevaluationreportatwww.ecbproject.org

oncetheevaluationbegins.Theteamshouldnotbetoolargethatitisdifficulttomanage.Threetofour
teammembersisusuallysufficient.Atypicalteammaybecomposedof:
Anindependentconsultant/teamleader.Thispersonknowsalotaboutevaluationandalsohas
strongmanagementandleadershipskills,theabilitytostaycalmunderpressureandtobe
adaptiveinthefaceoftheunexpected.Ajointevaluationteamleaderalsoneedstheabilityto
dealwithmultiplelayersofmanagementandbalancevariousexpectations,andthusmusthave
strongdiplomacyandcommunicationskillsbothwrittenandverbal.Theteamleadershould
alsohavehadpreviousexperienceasateamleader,sincethisisitselfaspecialskill.Team
leaderswiththeseskillsetsaresometimeshardtofind,anditiscriticalthatthereisabudgetline
topayforthem.
Thoughitsnotalwayspossibletorecruitateamleaderwhohaspreviouslyledjointevaluations,
confirmthatheorshehasexperienceinimpactanalysisinemergencies,asheorshewillneedto
understandhowthevarioussetsofdatacometogethertoformabiggerpicture.Notethat
consultantsoftencomewiththeirownideasandmethodologies,andtheywillneedguidance
andparametersfromthesteeringcommittee.

Anationalconsultant.Thenationalconsultantprovidescriticalguidanceonthepolitical,social,
andculturalcontextoftheemergencytotheteam,especiallytotheteamleader,whoisoftenan
expatriate.Havingsuchapersononhandforajointevaluationcanhelpinnetworkingwith
nationalstakeholdersandensurethatknowledgeisquicklytransferredtotheevaluationteam
aboutkeyactorsandeventsandcanminimizesomeofthecomplexityofthedataandfactorsto
beanalyzed.

Asectorspecialist.Ajointevaluationwillchallengetheteamofevaluatorstoaddressthewide
rangeofprogramareasbeingcoveredwhilealsofocusingonselectedkeyandpriorityaspects,
especiallyaseachagencymayhaveuniqueinterests.Ifagenciesneedmoreindepth
examinationofaparticulartypeofprogram,theyshouldconsiderbringingasectorspecialistto
theteam,freeingupothermemberstofocusontheoverallpicture.
Agencyteammembers.Eachagencytypicallyappointsonerepresentativetotheevaluation
team.Theseindividualsarenotactingonbehalfoftheiragencybutrathermustbeimpartial
evaluators.Theskillsetsofthesepeople,forexampletheirexpertiseincertainsectoralareas,
languageandfacilitationskills,andevaluationexperienceareveryimportanttotheoverall
successoftheteam.Ensuringthatagencyandevencountryofficestaffarerepresentedon
theevaluationteamwillincreaseownershipoftheevaluationfindings.

Itmaybehardforagencyteammemberstobeavailableforthefulllengthoftheevaluation,but
experiencehasshownthatcontinuityisimportanttoevaluationqualityandthelearning
experienceisalsogreatlyenhanced.Agencymanagersshouldthereforemakeeveryeffortto
ensurefullparticipationofagencystaffontheevaluationteam.
Giventheimportanceofgettingcompetentteammembers,itsimportanttostarttherecruitment
processearly.Goodindependentconsultantsnationalandinternationalalikeareoftenbookedfor
weeksorevenmonthsinadvance.
OncethesteeringcommitteehasfinalizedtheTermsofReferenceforteammembersandtheskillsthey
want,agenciesshouldconsiderrequestinghelpfromtheirheadorregionalofficesinrecruitingtheteam,
suchasdoingtheinitialadvertisingandscreeningandthensendingashortlistofcandidatestothelead
agency.

Bythetimehiringbegins,theobjectivesfortheevaluationshouldhavebeenwellenoughdefinedthatthe
steeringcommitteeisclearonwhatprofilesareneededontheteamandthus,whotohire.
SeeTheToolsforSampleTermsofReferenceforEvaluationTeamMembers.
Chooseafewobjectivestocover
Theparticipatingagenciesmayhavedifferentinterestareastheydliketocoverinajointevaluation.But
itisnotpracticaltoaddresstoomanyobjectivesinajointevaluationasthereisalreadymorecontentto
cover.Ideally,thereshouldbenomorethanthreeorfourobjectiveswithinthetermsofreference,and
thescopeshouldbeasnarrowaspossible.Forexample:
Howwelldidthevariousagenciescoordinatetheirresponses?
Howappropriatewastheintervention?
Howtimelywastheintervention?
Howwelldidtheresponseassistpeopleinrecoveringfromthedisaster?
Objectivesthatconcerntheoverallimpactoftheresponseareusuallybestforajointevaluation.
Objectivesofuniqueconcerntooneortwoparticipatingagencies,suchasissuesofoperationalefficiency,
arenotgenerallyappropriate.Inareaswheremoredepthisneeded,hireanadditionalteammemberto
focusspecificallyonaparticulartypeofprogrammingorissue.
Doaskforinputonthescopefromstaffatdifferentlevelsofeachagencywhomyouexpecttousethe
evaluationfindings.Atthesametime,itiswisenottoconsulttoowidely,asyouwillruntheriskofadding
toomanyobjectivesandanunrealisticscopefortheevaluation.
Objectivesshouldbeagreeduponbeforetheevaluationteamishired.Infact,considerbringinginan
externalfacilitatortonegotiatethescopeoftheevaluationaheadoftime.Oncetheleadevaluatorjoins,
heorsheshouldhavethechancetotelltheparticipatingagencieswhatisfeasibleandrealistic.Itis
criticaltofindabalancebetweenwhatagencieswantandwhattheleadevaluatorbelievesispossible.
SeeTheToolsforaTermsofReferenceTemplate.
Agreeonevaluationstandardsandmethods
Jointevaluationsshouldincludeadocumentreview,keyinformantinterviewsandfocusgroupdiscussions
withstaffandbeneficiarygroups.
Theteamleaderwillbuildanapproachtoexamineeachagencysworkwithenoughrigortoinspire
confidenceinthefindings,butnotdetracttoomuchfromafocusontheoverallimpactoftheagencies
response.However,thesteeringcommitteeisexpectedtoadvisethisprocessandalsocommunicatethe
criteriatheywilluseforvillageandbeneficiaryselectionfortheinterviews.
Inadditiontomorelocationsforfieldvisits,forjointevaluations,theremayalsoneedtobemore
interviewswithotheractors,suchasUNagencies,representativesfromcivilsociety,nationalandlocal
partners,andgovernmentofficials.
Certainindicatorswillbenonnegotiabletobeinlinewithacceptedinternationalstandards,suchasthe
OECD/DACstandardsforevaluation.6Spherestandardsareanotherkeypointofreferencewhichshould
6
http://www.alnap.org/resources/guides/evaluation/ehadac.aspx

beassessedduringanevaluation,notonlyfortechnicalsectors,butalsocorestandardsofparticipation.
Onesetofstandardsshouldbeusedforconsistencyinmeasuringperformance.Beclearonwhat
organizationalminimumstandardsare.ReferencetheKeyElementsofAccountabilityontheECBProject
website.
Writeaninceptionreport
Theevaluationteamshoulddevelopaninceptionreportonthetermsofreferenceandwithaworkplan.
Thisreport,writtenbytheteamleader,willensureexpectationsareagreedonbythesteeringcommittee
andtheteamitself.Italsoallowsfortheevaluationteamleadertodialoguewiththesteeringcommittee
aboutwhatisrealisticandfeasible,givenavailabilityofstaff,budget,anddeadlines.
Managecommunicationswithinthecollaboration
Agenciesconductingajointevaluationneedclearagreementsaroundcommunication.Facetoface
meetingsarecriticaltomakesureunderstandingsareclearandtobuildcohesion.Decidinghowtostore
keydocumentsisalsoveryimportant.Onesolutionistosetupasimplewebpagetouploaddocuments,
contactlists,schedulesandotheressentialinformation.
Itisalsoimportanttohaveregularopportunitiesalongthewayfortheevaluationteamtodiscussany
concernswithsteeringcommitteemembers.Forexample,earlyintheprocess,theteamcangive
feedbackastohowwelltheevaluationmethodsareworkingandcheckwiththesteeringcommittee
whethertheseshouldbemodified.Ifthesteeringcommitteeisengaged,theevaluationwillbemuch
morelikelytosucceed.
Itisalsoimportanttoagreeinadvanceonprinciplesoftransparencywithevaluationresults,including
communicatingresultsinatransparentwaytobeneficiarycommunities(whichcouldbeintheformofa
discussionorroundtable).Tryingtocoveruporhideevaluationresultsisnotonlyagainstprinciplesof
accountability,butunderminesorganizationallearningandcanoftenbackfire.
Prepare,prepare,prepare!
Ourexperiencehasshownthatagoodamountofworkcanbeundertakenevenbeforetheevaluation
teamarrives.OncetheTermsofReferencefortheevaluationhasbeenestablished,alistofkeyinformant
interviewscanbedetermined,meetingsestablished,focalpointsready,andpreparatorydocumentscan
beemailedtotheevaluator.

CHAPTER4:WHATTODODURINGTHEEVALUATION
Ifrealisticobjectives,managementstructure,andacompetentteamhavebeenchosenand
established,theevaluationshouldbeeasiertomanage.Theteamwillstillneedgoodlogisticalsupport
andguidance.Hereissomeadditionalguidanceonconductingtheevaluation.
Brieftheteamuponarrival
EnsurethattheteamhasachancetodiscusstheTermsofReferencewitheachofthesteeringcommittee
members.TheleadevaluatorshouldalsogoovertheTermsofReferencewiththesteeringcommitteeas
agroup.
Theadministrator/managerorsteeringcommitteechaircanbriefteammembersonrolesand
responsibilitieswithintheevaluationstructure.Theteamwillneedtobebriefednotonlyonthelogistics
andtheprocessoftheevaluation,butalsoontheresponseprogramswhicharetobeevaluated.The
teamwillneedtobeclearonhowtheevaluationisrun,theroleoftheleadagencyandtheother
agencies,towhomtheteamreports,wheretheywillgetlogisticalsupport,andhowtheywillmaintain
independence.Whenthesearenotclear,confusionabounds,andtheteamwillstruggletoachieve
objectives.Anticipatetheextraconsultationtimeneededwhenestimatinghowmuchtimetheteamwill
needfortheevaluation.
Sharefindingsasyougo
Theteamleadersshouldalsoensurethatthesteeringcommitteeandthestakeholders(asmentioned
below)receiveregularupdatesthroughouttheprocess.Ifthesteeringcommitteeandstakeholdersare
wellbriefedabouttheprogressandinitialfindingsoftheevaluation,therewillbenosurprisesattheend.
Dailydebriefsamongtheevaluationteamdrawsoutpreliminaryfindingswhichtheteamleadercanuse
toprovideregularupdates.
Ensurefindingsarereportedwithsensitivity
Receivingandreviewingthefindingsofajointevaluationcanbeanexcitingtimefortheagenciesbutalso
atimeofapprehension.Theleadevaluatorshouldpresentfindingsinawaythatwillnotmakeanyagency
feelinferiororunfairlycomparedwithothers.Agencieswillalsoinevitablylookformentionsof
themselvesandjudgewhethertheythinkthefindingsarefair.Findingsthatarecriticalinnatureshould
bephrasedinaconstructiveway,supportedbyreasonableevidenceandbalancedwithpositivefeedback.
Inadditiontothemainreport,theevaluatorcouldalsocreateshortindividualreportsforeachofthe
agencies.Inpractice,however,thismaynotbeworththeadditionaleffortsincejointevaluationstendto
bebetteratlookingattheoverallresponseandcoordinationbetweenagencies(i.e.fromabeneficiary
perspective)thanlookingatindividualagencyoperationsindetail.
Anotherapproachisfortheevaluationteamtodoapreliminaryanalysisthatcompilesandgroups
findings.Throughaworkshopormeeting,theteamcanfacilitatestafffromtheparticipatingagencies
(especiallythosewhowillusethefindings)tocollectivelydrawconclusionsandrecommendations.With
thistypeofparticipation,agenciesaremorelikelytoaccepttheconclusionsandfeelresponsiblefor
actingontherecommendations.
Ultimately,whenjointevaluationsarewellplannedandagenciesandtheteamcommunicatethroughout
theprocess,agenciesarelesslikelytotakeissuewiththeresults.Afocusonlearningmakeseventhe
leastflatteringfindingsmorepalatablebecausetheycanbeinstructive.

Oncetheagencieshavehadachancetodiscussanddebatethefindings,theyshoulddiscussthemwitha
broadergroupofstakeholders,especiallythosethatwereconsultedduringtheevaluationprocess,such
asUNagencies,beneficiaries,localNGOs,andlocalgovernment.Onewaytodothisistoholdaninter
agencyvalidationworkshopwherestakeholdersaregivenanopportunitytoconfirmordisputethemajor
findingsandrecommendations.
FinalizingtheEvaluationReport
Theevaluationreportshouldbeeasytoreadandrelativelyshortnomorethan30pages.Itisimportant
tofocusonthatwhichhasgonewell,andgoodpracticeshouldbehighlightedinthereport.
Assumingstakeholdershavebeenbriefedthroughouttheevaluation,thefindingsandrecommendations
intheevaluationshouldnotcomeasasurprise.Doanticipate,however,thatstakeholderswillnotagree
withallfindingsandthesteeringcommitteeshouldbepreparedtoaddressthis.
Itiscriticaltosetoutaperiodtoreceivefeedbackonthedraftofthereport.Beclearandrealisticabout
thetimelineforthisperiod.Itneedstobelongenoughtoallowtherightpeopletoprovidefeedback,but
notsolongthatthefindingsarenolongerrelevantbythetimethereportiscompleted.Afterensuring
thatallofthepeoplewhoneedtogivefeedbackareinformedofthescheduleinadvance,twotofour
weeksisareasonabletimeinwhichtoallowpeopletosubmitfeedback.
Theevaluationteamleaderisultimatelyresponsibletomakethedecisionsaboutwhichfeedbackis
incorporatedandwhichisnot.Ifthereisenoughdisagreementaboutcertainfindingsorconclusions,
thesecanbeaddressedinamanagementresponsethatisannexedtothefinalreport.

CHAPTER5:WHATTODOAFTERTHEEVALUATION
Withtheevaluationworkdoneandthefindingsdetailed,onepartoftheprocesscomestoaclose.But
inotherways,therealworkisjustbeginning.Hereissomeguidanceformakingthemostofthe
completedevaluation.
Developbothcollectiveandindividualrolloutplans
Becausejointevaluationshaverelevancetoawiderangeofactors,agenciesshouldsharethereportwith
humanitarianbodiesandsuchnetworksastheActiveLearningNetworkforAccountabilityand
PerformanceinHumanitarianAction(ALNAP),inadditiontoheadquarters.Sharingthereportfromajoint
evaluationreportwidelydemonstratestransparencyandacommitmenttocontributetolearningwithin
thebroaderhumanitariansector.
Theagenciesmaywanttodevelopsimplecollectiveandindividualcommunicationsplansincluding
distributionlistsforthereportandsmallactionplanningmeetingstodiscussandpresenttheimplications
ofthefindings.
Emphasizepeeraccountability
Withjointevaluations,agencieshavetheopportunitytoholdoneanotheraccountableforprogresson
recommendations.Theymaychoosetoworkonsomerecommendationstogether.Theymayagree
beforehandtoholdafollowupworkshopinsixmonthsorayearstime.Atsuchatime,theycouldthen
discusshowthefindingswereshared,whatprogresswasmadeandwhatwastheoutcomeofanyactions
taken.

CHAPTER6:JOINTEVALUATIONSINREALTIME
Conductedwhiletheemergencyresponseisstillongoing,realtimeevaluations(RTEs)arevaluable
toolsforrectifyingproblemsandmakingimprovementsinprogrammes.However,ajointRTEcanbe
especiallychallenging.Herearesomethingstoconsideriffacingthedecisionofconductingajoint
evaluationinrealtime.
Preparefortheevaluationbeforetheemergencystarts
Incasesofslowonsetemergencies,theremaybetimetoplanmonthsinadvance.Evenwithrapidonset
emergencies,preparednessispossible.Youcanjointlyoutlinegenericplansfortheevaluationwhichcan
beturnedintoactualplansinthefaceofadisaster.Theseplansshouldincludeasmanyoftheaspectsas
possiblethatareoutlinedinthisbookletonhowtoorganiseajointevaluation,including,crucially,the
designationoffocalpoints.Thesefocalpointsareonstandbyandwillhavetheresponsibilityofgettingan
RTEprocessstarted,conveningthevariousactors,etc.andwhowillideallyremainaspointpersons
duringtheprocess.
Takeagoodenoughapproachtotheevaluation
Youmayhavetotakesomeshortcutsanduseagoodenoughapproach.Goodenoughdoesnotmean
secondbest:itmeansinanemergencyresponse,adoptingquickandsimplesolutionsmaybetheonly
practicalpossibility.Whenthesituationchanges,youshouldaimtoreviewyourchosensolutionand
amendyourapproachaccordingly.
Forexample,youcansimplifymanagerialstructures.Withindaysofthepartiesagreeingtodoajoint
evaluation,youmayagreetoestablishasmall,rapidlyorganizedmanagerialstructure(whichcan
subsequentlytransitiontoamorerobustoneatalaterstage).Duringthefirstweek,forinstance,that
groupcouldlookatwhatisminimallynecessary,andcreateapracticalquickanddirtytermsof
reference.Themanagementcommitteecoulddelegatemuchofthedaytodaymanagementtooneor
twokeyactors,andthusspendlesstimeongroupdecisionmakingandconsensusbuilding.
Eachparticipatingagencywouldbetrustedtocarryoutthetasksassignedtotheminaccordancewith
predeterminedplansandstandards.Oncetheprocesshasbeenstartedandtheevaluationisinmotion,
agenciescanthengraduallybuildintighterqualitycontrolmechanisms,morefocusedtermsofreference,
andamoreinclusiveprocess(e.g.alargermanagementgroup).
Suchagoodenoughapproachisnotanidealevaluativeprocess,butlikelyrelevantforRTEsbecause
agenciesareparticularlybusywiththeimplementationofaresponse.However,certainaspectsofthe
jointevaluationshouldnotbesubjectedtoshortcuts.Theseincludeethicalstandards,suchasthe
confidentialityandindependenceoftheevaluativeprocess.
Callonadditionalresources
Participatingagenciescouldconsidercallingonadditionalinternalsupport.Astaffmembercouldbe
secondedtoacountryofficeforsomeweekstohelpwiththejointRTE.Unlikecountryofficestaff,who
wouldpresumablybepreoccupiedwiththeemergencyresponse,thispersonwouldhavetimetofocuson
theevaluation.Heorshecoulddoaninitialscoping,astakeholderanalysisandholdameetingcollectively
orindividuallywithpartnerstogettheirviews.Heorshecouldalsoassistwithpracticalpreparationsfor
theteam,includingsettingupfieldvisits.
Considersomeotherjointreflectionprocess
IfajointRTEisnotrealistic,considerotherlearningprocesseslikeajointafteractionrevieworapeer
review.Agenciescandoquickassessmentsoftheirwork(seeImpactMeasurementandAccountabilityin
Emergencies:TheGoodEnoughGuide)andgettogetherforashortmeeting/workshop,orinvitean
experiencedexperttoprovideadviceonhowtheoperationmaybeadapted.

ReferencesandFurtherReading
JointEvaluations
GuidanceforManagingJointEvaluations.DACEvaluationSeries,OECD2006.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/28/37512030.pdf
JointEvaluations:RecentExperiences,LessonsLearned,andOptionsfortheFuture.DACEvaluation
NetworkWorkingPaper,OECD,2005.
LessonsAboutMultiAgencyEvaluations:AsianTsunamiEvaluationCoalition.http://www.tsunami
evaluation.org/NR/rdonlyres/9DBB5423E2EF43ABB6D2
2F5237342949/0/tec_lessonslearned_ver2_march06_final.pdf
GeneralEvaluations
USAIDCenterforDevelopmentInformationandEvaluation,PerformanceMonitoringandEvaluationTIPS
series.
http://evalweb.usaid.gov/resources/tipsseries.cfm
WesternMichiganUniversity,EvaluationCenter.EvaluationChecklists
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/checklistmenu.htm#models
ShoestringEvaluation:DesigningImpactEvaluationsUnderBudget,Time,andDataConstraints.M.
Bamberger,J.Rugh,M.Church,andL.Fort,TheAmericanJournalofEvaluation,2004.
UtilizationFocusedEvaluationChecklist.MichaelQuinnPatton
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/ufe.pdf

Guidelines For Conducting Joint Evaluations of Humanitarian Action

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Guidelines For Conducting Joint Evaluations of Humanitarian Action

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WhatWeKnowAbout

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 2

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 3

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 4

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 5

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 6

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 7

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 8

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 9

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 10

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 11

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 12

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 13

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 14

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 15

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 16

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 17

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 18

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 20

WhatWeKnowAboutJointEvaluations TheECBProject info@ecbproject.org April2011(v6) 21

Вам также может понравиться