Sign in or 
Activity: Evaluation criteria and peacebuilding interventions |
Version Compare
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 26 2009, 11:26 AM EDT (current) | chachabooth | 279 words added |
| Aug 26 2009, 11:23 AM EDT | chachabooth | 180 words added, 3 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
| 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.
