2010 Banner

Return to search form  

Contact emails are provided for one-to-one contact only and may not be used for mass emailing or group solicitations.

Session Title: Evaluation Capacity Building in International Contexts
Multipaper Session 818 to be held in REPUBLIC A on Saturday, Nov 13, 10:55 AM to 12:25 PM
Sponsored by the International and Cross-cultural Evaluation TIG
Creating a Developmental Framework Through Capacity Building and Quality Evaluation: A Country Focus Analysis on Nigeria and Japanís Developmental State (1860ís-1970ís)
Olanrewaju Olaoye, Tiri, olaoyelanre@yahoo.com
Abstract: This paper aims at identifying the possible factors that are prerequisites for having a quality evaluation structure, and effective capacities which will establish a developmental framework in Nigeria using evidences from Japanís developmental state (1860ís-1970ís). Argument shall be made for the use of effective capacity building and the need to establish creative monitoring/evaluation teams which will recognize and develop planned and emergent approaches to mitigate obstacles to effective evaluations. Furthermore, the need for constitutional reform and the restructuring of the legal system among various institutions shall be emphasized. The model of Japanís developmental state shall be examined while necessary lessons shall be adapted and situated in Nigeriaís socio-political context.
Capacity Building in Monitoring and Evaluation: A Real Challenge for Afghan Ministry of Education, International Donors, and Evaluation Community
Mohammad Javad, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, mjahmadi@gmail.com
Sharon Rallis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sharonr@educ.umass.edu
Abstract: Strengthening the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems of the Ministry of Education (MoE) is a critical element of the ministryís strategy, articulated in the MoE strategic plan. Accordingly, the MoE, with the World Bank support, has begun an ĎM&E capacity developmentí initiative. This initiative is facing important challenges, such as low institutional and personnel capacity, limited resources, lack of infrastructure, low demand inside the MoE, and highly centralized administrative system. Considering these challenges and importance of this initiative, this paper discusses the following questions: -What approaches to evaluation will work in this situation? Logical framework versus participatory or utilization-focused? Quantitative versus qualitative? -What are indicators of success for this initiative? Accountability versus improving performance? -What are best strategies for developing the capacity? What are existing opportunities and strengths the system can use? -What cultural and social factors must be considered in designing and implementing this initiative?
Evaluating Capacity Building of Supreme Audit Institutions
Kristin Amundsen, Office of the Auditor General of Norway, kristin.amundsen@riksrevisjonen.no
Jorild Skrefsrud, Office of the Auditor General of Norway, jorild.skrefsrud@riksrevisjonen.no
Tora Jarlsby, Office of the Auditor General of Norway, tora.jarlsby@riksrevisjonen.no
Abstract: Capacity building of Supreme Audit Institutions is a key factor for ensuring good governance, sound financial management and a transparent public sector. Strategic planning is a key capacity building measure and a pivotal instrument to increase the Supreme Audit Institution's capacity and ability to perform core functions. To ensure quality of impact evaluations of capacity building measures, it is important to assess whether or not the institution actually has increased its ability to perform its core functions. This may supplement the assessment of the outcomes of the specific capacity building measures or technical assistance. The paper will explore dilemmas and opportunities in measuring impacts of strategic planning in Supreme Audit Institutions. This will be elaborated through a case based on ongoing institutional cooperation between the Supreme Audit Institutions of Norway and a developing country.
Quality Evaluation and Capacity Building in the Public Service: Kenyan and Tanzania Experience
Karen Odhiambo, University of Nairobi, karenidhambo1@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract: This paper arises from experience gained while carrying out M&E mainstreaming and capacity building in Kenya and Tanzania Water Sector on climate change and adaptations. Focus has been on Results Based Management(RBM). The need to account for and report on impact at local level by governments and development partners has resulted in demand on M&E within public sector. However the process almost always ends up in a disjointed process that does not reflect M&E knowledge or itís application. The situation is worse where community resilience is the impact. This has resulted in questioning the likelihood of advancing evaluation quality in Africa. The author raises the argument that if the evaluation community is to seriously address evaluation quality, there is need to go beyond quantitative expansion, or numbers trained as well as content relevance to theoretical perspectives that arise as well as organisational. This author will share their experience.
Practical Roles for Evaluation Partners: Challenges to and Opportunities for Evaluation Quality When Evaluation Responsibilities are Shared With Clients
Patty Hill, EnCompass LLC, phill@encompassworld.com
Abstract: This paper provides the examples of two international capacity-building projects in which the outside evaluation partner was engaged from the beginning, but in a role that shares evaluation responsibilities with the project staff. One project was a complex leadership initiative working with Ministries of Health in five countries; the other project focused on improving the mediaís reporting on women and agriculture in three countries. In both projects, the outside evaluator is responsible for facilitating evaluation planning, for developing the evaluation plan, for creating data collection tools for project staff to use, and for conducting the final evaluation. Managing this type of evaluation partnership requires directly addressing specific challenges to evaluation quality, but also presents some creative opportunities for adding value through evaluation; these challenges and opportunities are both explored in this paper.

 Return to Evaluation 2010

Add to Custom Program