Activity: Evaluation criteria and peacebuilding interventionsThis is a featured page


Purpose: To introduce peacebuilding evaluation criteria
To raise participants’ awareness of the learning potential of peacebuilding evaluation criteria
Participants:4 to about 20

Time: about 60 min.

Materials:Flip charts
Marker pens
Post-its
Pens
Process: 1. Write on flipchart or white board:

Peacebuilding engagement: relevant, effective, with “impact”, sustainable, efficient, coherent and coordinated, inter-linked

Ask participant whether these criteria aptly describe the general picture of peacebuilding engagement in their context. Facilitate discussion among participants.

2. Develop together with participants an understanding what the terms mean. Following, distribute a handout providing explanations for these evaluation criteria in the context of peacebuilding.

3. Now ask participants to work in pairs with the assignment to 1) find an example for when a project/programme/initiative fulfilled these criteria and 2) reflect each of the criteria what learning potential they would have for (re-)designing a project after an evaluation. Let them write their answers to both aspects on post-its.

4. Write the criteria on separate flipcharts and let participants stick their post-its on the flipcharts.

5. Review the results on the flipcharts in plenary.
Note:


Handout(s): Handout "Peacebuilding Evaluation Criteria" (see below)
Source(s):chachabooth@gmail.com

Handout "Peacebuilding Evaluation Criteria"
Some of the most important criteria are:[1]

  • Relevance: Is the intervention on the right track to contribute to peacebuilding? Does it respond to peacebuilding needs? Here, it is also important to see how the intervention takes what others do into consideration and how it relates to overall strategies and policy frameworks.
  • Effectiveness: Has the intervention/project/programme reached its objectives (expected results)? It is important to note that besides intended effects, there might be unintended ones that can be either positive or negative.
  • Impact: What positive and negative, primary and secondary, intended or unintended long-term effects did an intervention produce? How was the conflict and peacebuilding environment affected? The question of impact evaluation is a difficult one, and sometimes it is not possible to assess long-term effects – yet or because attribution is impossible. In such a situation, outcomes and theories of change should be at the heart of the evaluation and the question whether the intervention can in the long-run contribution to peace needs to be considered.
  • Sustainability: This is the continuation of benefits after the intervention has been completed.
  • Efficiency: Looks at how economically inputs have been translated into results.
  • Coherence (and coordination): Is the intervention consistent with the larger policy context (on national and international level)? Is it coordinated with other policies, programmes or projects?
  • Linkages: This criterion refers to the connections (linkages) between the intervention and activities, projects, programmes, policies on other levels.
[1] See here Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC), Guidance on evaluating conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities (Working draft for application period), OECD 2008, pp. 39-46.. <http://www.oecd.org/secure/pdfDocument/0,2834,en_21571361_34047972_39774574_1_1_1_1,00.pdf > (accessed 14 April 2009)




chachabooth
chachabooth 		Latest page update: made by chachabooth , Aug 26 2009, 11:26 AM EDT (about this update About This Update chachabooth Edited by chachabooth

279 words added

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.