1 THE DCED STANDARD FOR MEASURING RESULTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POINTS AND COMPLIANCE CRITERIA Version VII, April 2015
2 The DCED Standard for Measuring Results in Private Sector Development Version VII, April 2015 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ARTICULATING THE RESULTS CHAIN DEFINING INDICATORS OF CHANGE MEASURING CHANGES IN INDICATORS ESTIMATING ATTRIBUTABLE CHANGES CAPTURING WIDER CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM OR MARKET TRACKING PROGRAMME COSTS REPORTING RESULTS MANAGING THE SYSTEM FOR RESULTS MEASUREMENT... 7 SCORING SHEET FOR THE DCED STANDARD... 8 DEFINITIONS Introduction What is the DCED Standard for Measuring Results? The DCED Standard is a practical framework for private sector development programmes to monitor progress towards their objectives. It comprises eight elements, listed in the box to the right, which are the minimum required for a credible results measurement process. By adopting these elements, programme managers can understand what is working and why, and use monitoring information to improve the effectiveness of their work. The DCED Standard at a glance 1. Articulating the Results Chain 2. Defining indicators of change 3. Measuring changes in indicators 4. Estimating attributable changes 5. Capturing wider changes in the system or market 6. Tracking programme costs 7. Reporting results 8. Managing the system for results measurement The underlying requirement of the DCED Standard is for programme managers to think through, and validate, the logic of their work. The first step is for managers to articulate the results chain, a simple yet powerful tool which maps
3 3 the activities conducted by the project, and shows how these are expected to contribute to positive development impacts. This format enables managers to be explicit about the assumptions that they make. Based on this, programmes formulate and monitor indicators which are designed to test these assumptions, assess attribution and broader changes to the market system, and use the results for reporting and programme management. The DCED promotes a pragmatic approach to results measurement. It calls on programmes to measure results to a level that is complex enough to be credible, yet simple enough to be practical. In the words of John Maynard Keynes, it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong. The key test of the DCED Standard is whether the approach taken by the programme would convince a reasonable but sceptical observer. For those agencies and programmes that are seriously engaged in monitoring their results, the DCED offers an optional, confidential audit service, which can lend additional credibility to the results measurement system. An audit involves an external, objective assessment of the monitoring system in use in the programme. The monitoring system is assessed against transparent and publically available criteria, giving every programme an incentive to improve and a goal to aim for. The DCED Standard has to date primarily been used in private sector development programmes. This is reflected in the common indicators (below) and the case studies available online. The basic framework, however, is more broadly applicable. We would be interested to hear from programmes which are using it outside private sector development. Why use the DCED Standard? There are three main reasons to use the DCED Standard for Results Measurement: quality, credibility, and practicality. Quality. The DCED Standard represents a shared, inter-agency understanding of good practice around the estimation of results. In particular, it requires programmes to clearly articulate how the activities of the programme are expected to lead to outputs, outcomes, and eventually development impact. This process can improve design and management, as well as monitoring. The DCED Standard has been designed and revised in collaboration with field practitioners and results measurement specialists. Credibility. Programmes can be audited for their use of the DCED Standard, which provides an external assessment of the quality of the results measurement system. We encourage programmes to voluntarily publish their audit report, although it is kept confidential if the programme wishes. 1 Donors, evaluators, and others can use the findings of the audit to assess the credibility of self-reported results. Practicality. The DCED Standard recognises the limits of results measurement, and does not demand unrealistic levels of rigour or precision. Moreover, it lays out a relatively simple framework for programmes to improve their results measurement, removing the need for programmes to reinvent the wheel. Practitioners have access to guidelines and other support to make it easier to learn about and adhere to the DCED Standard. 2 By encouraging a worldwide community of practice, the DCED offers opportunities for exchange and learning with other programmes, agencies and consultants. 1 See for the current published audit reports. 2
4 4 The DCED Standard is particularly relevant for development programmes which seek to solve complex problems; that is, problems which are unpredictable and constantly changing. Success therefore requires a new emphasis on trying out multiple approaches, continually monitoring progress and learning in real time to inform implementation. An effective management and results measurement system can identify which components are succeeding and should be expanded, and which ones are not. It can gather evidence which will inform the development of new approaches. Common Impact Indicators All programmes and agencies are under pressure to report results that have been aggregated across the entire portfolio. That is only possible if a few, common indicators are consistently defined and measured. The indicators selected for aggregation should, in principle, influence the selection, design and implementation of programmes. Consequently, the definition of those few indicators is largely a function of the priorities and culture of the individual agency or programme. One technical challenge is that common indicators are often only found at the impact level; all programmes contribute to impact, but through different routes. The DCED has therefore proposed three common impact indicators that many private sector development programmes aim to influence. At audit, however, there is no penalty for not using the three indicators suggested here, if the programme has documented reasons why they are not appropriate, and measures alternative indicators as far along the results chain as possible. The key is for programmes to be able to aggregate some element of their results in a credible way (reflected particularly in Control Point 2.3, below). The three common impact indicators are Scale, Net change in income and Net change in jobs; further detail is given in the definitions section at the end of this document. As impact indicators, they refer to changes for the people that the programme ultimately aims to benefit, rather than intermediaries such as businesses, NGOs, or governments. How to use this document Readers who are new to the DCED Standard, or who want a quick overview, should read the summary on page five. This summary lists each of the eight elements of the DCED Standard, and the control points which summarise the minimum requirements that would satisfy the auditors for each element. Those control points labelled are deemed necessary for all participating programmes (and are shown in green); those labelled Rec (Recommended) conform to good practice, but may be difficult for some programmes to comply with at this point (shown in yellow). These recommendations may become s in the future as the field of results measurement improves. Readers who are familiar with the Standard, or interested in having their results measurement system audited, should read the scoring sheet, on page seven. This scoring sheet provides more detail by listing compliance criteria for each control point, which can be used by auditors to assess whether the control point was met or not.
5 5 Further sources of Guidance The DCED offers a range of support and resources to programmes that are interested in applying the DCED Standard. Almost all of them can be accessed through the DCED website, This includes: Implementation Guidelines. 3 The DCED has developed an implementation guideline for each of the elements of the Standard. They discuss each control point and compliance criteria, and explain what is necessary to meet the DCED Standard. Thematic guidelines. The DCED has developed guidelines for implementing the Standard in challenge funds, conflict affected environments, and business environment reform. Case Studies. 4 The case studies give practical examples of how different programmes are working towards the DCED Standard. DCED Standard Consultants Marketplace. 5 The consultants' marketplace on the website lists consultants who have experience in the implementation of the DCED Standard. Training Courses. 6 The website lists upcoming training courses from the DCED and private providers, including those aimed at beginners and more advanced users. newsletter. Keep in touch by signing up for the newsletter from the front page of the website. Alternatively, anyone can the DCED directly at Development.org
6 6 The DCED Standard for Measuring Results 1. Articulating the Results Chain 1.1 An appropriate, sufficiently detailed and logical results chain(s) is articulated explicitly for each of the interventions. 1.2 Each results chain is supported by adequate research and analysis. 1.3 Mid and senior level programme staff are familiar with the results chain(s) and use them to guide their activities; key partners can explain the logic of interventions. 1.4 The results chain(s) are regularly reviewed to reflect changes in the programme strategy, external players and the programme circumstances. 1.5 The results chains or another tool outline what broader systemic changes are expected, and how the programme expects to influence them. 1.6 The research and analysis underlying the results chain(s) take into account the risk of displacement. Rec Rec 2. Defining Indicators of Change 2.1 There is at least one relevant indicator associated with each change described in the results chain(s). 2.2 Information to be collected includes qualitative information on changes at various levels of the results chain. 2.3 A small number of indicators at the impact level can be aggregated across the programme. 2.4 There are specific indicators that enable the assessment of sustainability of results. 2.5 Mid and senior level programme staff understand the indicators and how they illustrate programme progress. 2.6 Anticipated impacts are realistically projected for key quantitative indicators to appropriate dates. Rec 3. Measuring Changes in Indicators 3.1 Baseline information on key indicators is collected. 3.2 Information for each indicator is collected using methods that conform to good research practices.
7 7 3.3 Programmes have a mechanism for assessing and understanding differentiated results by gender. 3.4 Programmes monitor to identify unintended effects. Rec 4. Estimating Attributable Changes 4.1 Attributable changes in all key indicators in the results chains are estimated using methods that conform to established good practice. 5. Capturing Wider Changes in the System or Market 5.1 Systemic changes are assessed using appropriate methods. Rec 6. Tracking Programme Costs 6.1 Costs are tracked annually and cumulatively. 6.2 Costs are allocated by major component of the programme. (Applicable only to programmes with more than one main component) Rec 7. Reporting Results 7.1 The programme clearly and appropriately aggregates programme-wide impact at least annually 7.2 The programme produces a report at least annually which describes results to date. 7.3 Results of systemic change are reported. Rec 7.4 Results are published. Rec 8. Managing the System for Results Measurement 8.1 The programme has a clear system for using information from the results measurement system in management and decision-making. 8.2 The system is supported by sufficient human and financial resources. 8.3 The system is well managed and integrated with programme management.
8 Scoring Sheet for the DCED Standard This scoring sheet has been prepared to outline the compliance criteria by which auditors would assess a programme against each control point outlined in the DCED Standard for Results Measurement. During an audit, each compliance criterion will be rated out of a maximum of 10 points, based on the degree to which the programme meets the requirements. The rating will be based on examining a selection of individual projects/interventions within a programme, as well as the overall programme. The compliance criteria for the control points have been formulated to score programmes on whether they have the different elements in place, whether they are of good quality and on whether they are being used. A score of 100% on an audit does not imply that a programme has a perfect results measurement system, but one which meets the requirements of the DCED Standard. A lower score suggests that the results measurement system may have significant flaws. All programmes with an audit score of over 85% on the '' control points will be listed on the DCED website. 7 New initiatives may wish to know if the system that they are establishing is likely to be compliant with the Standard. Some of the compliance criteria have therefore been marked Use, in which case compliance is not required for initiatives that have been established for less than one year. In that case, auditors will certify that the system in place is compliant, not that it is in regular use, or generating credible information. Compliance criteria that will not be applicable for all programmes are marked W/A (where applicable). 8 If a programme is not aiming to achieve systemic change, for example, the relevant control points would be marked 'not applicable' in an audit, and consequently not scored. 1. Articulating the Results Chains No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 1.1 An appropriate, sufficiently detailed and logical A results chain is developed and documented for each intervention. results chain(s) is articulated explicitly for each Each results chain shows all key changes arranged in logical order, demonstrating as far of the interventions. as possible how the selected intervention leads to achievement of development goals. Each results chain is sufficiently detailed so that changes at all levels can be assessed 1.2 Each results chain is supported by adequate research and analysis quantitatively and/or qualitatively. The programme has documented critical external assumptions that affect the logic of the results chain For instance in control point 1.3, the compliance criteria states Key partners can describe the logic of interventions that is reflected in results chains. (W/A). This is only scored if the programme is working with external partners.
9 9 1.3 Mid and senior level programme staff are familiar with the results chain(s) and use them to guide their activities; key partners can explain the logic of interventions. 1.4 The results chain(s) are regularly reviewed to reflect changes in the programme strategy, external players and the programme circumstances. 1.5 The results chains or another tool outline what broader systemic changes are expected, and how the programme expects to influence them. 1.6 The research and analysis underlying the results chain(s) take into account the risk of displacement. The programme has documented reasons that support the logical links of the results chain. The documentation explains how the changes outlined in each results chain are likely to lead to lasting impact. Mid and senior level programme staff can describe the respective results chain(s) covering their work. Mid and senior level programme staff can give examples of how they will use or how they have used (for programmes more than 1 year old) results chain to guide their work. Key partners can describe the logic of interventions that is reflected in results chains. (W/A) The programme has a clear system for reviewing the results chain(s) at least once a year. Use: The programme has evidence to show that the results chain(s) have been reviewed at least once in the last year. Using a results chain or an appropriate tool, the programme has outlined what broader systemic changes are expected, and how the programme expects to influence them. (W/A) The programme can cite or produce evidence that displacement has been taken into account in the development of the results chain(s). 2. Defining Indicators of Change No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 2.1 There is at least one relevant indicator associated with each change described in the results chain(s). Quantitative and/or qualitative indicators are defined for each change in the results chain(s). The indicators are relevant to the associated changes in the results chain(s). 2.2 Information to be collected includes qualitative information on changes at various levels of the results chain. Assessment of changes includes qualitative information. Qualitative information enables an appropriate assessment of why changes are or are not taking place and the character, depth and sustainability of changes at various levels of the results chain.
10 A small number of indicators at the impact level can be aggregated across the programme. 2.4 There are specific indicators that enable the assessment of sustainability of results. 2.5 Mid and senior level programme staff understand the indicators and how they illustrate programme progress. 2.6 Anticipated impacts are realistically projected for key quantitative indicators to appropriate dates. Each results chain includes either the common impact indicators, or alternative aggregatable indicators at the closest feasible level in the results chain. If any results chain does not include these indicators, written justification is provided explaining why not. Specific indicators (qualitative and/or quantitative) are defined that enable assessment of sustainability of results in the results chains. The indicators are relevant and appropriate to assessing the sustainability of results at key levels of the results chains. Mid and senior level programme staff can describe the indicators covering their work. Mid and senior level programme staff can give examples of how they will use or how they have used (for programmes more than 1 year old) information on changes in indicators to inform their strategy and implementation decisions. There are projections for key quantitative indicators, including the common indicators where possible, to either the end of the programme or to two years after the end of the programme. Projections are expressed as a change in indicator value due to the programme by a specific date. The projections are supported by documented research, analysis and clear calculations, with sources of information and assumptions explicitly outlined. There is evidence to show that projections have been reviewed at least once in the last year. 3. Measuring Changes in Indicators No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 3.1 Baseline information on key indicators is collected. A documented plan is in place to gather baseline information, Use: The programme has baseline data which show the status of key indicators before 3.2 Information for each indicator is collected using methods that conform to good research practices. activities have led to change A documented plan is in place to collect information for each indicator at appropriate times. The plan is thorough, realistic and in accordance with good research practice. It shows for each indicator what information will be collected, when and how the information will be collected and how each indicator will be calculated or described.
11 Programmes have a mechanism for assessing and understanding differentiated results by gender. 3.4 Programmes monitor to identify unintended effects. Use: The programme can demonstrate that it used the plan to collect information. Use: The programme can demonstrate that information collection conformed to established good practices (in terms of research design, timing, sampling, quality control, etc.) Programmes have a system for assessing and understanding differentiated results by gender. Use: Programmes have used this system to assess and understand differentiated results by gender. Programmes have documentary evidence that they gather or will gather information to identify unintended effects, both positive and negative.. Use: Programmes can demonstrate that, when significant unintended effects are found, they have used this information to review their programme logic. 4. Estimating Attributable Changes No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 4.1 Attributable changes in all key indicators in the results chains are estimated using methods that conform to established good practice. The programme has a documented plan for assessing and estimating the attribution of observed changes to programme activities for each of the key indicators in the results chain. The methods chosen to assess and estimate attribution link back to the results chains, are appropriate to the programme context and conform to established good practices. Use: The programme has used the plan to estimate attributable change in indicators. Use: The programme can demonstrate and staff can explain the methods used to assess and estimate attribution and how the methods conform to established good practices. Use: Figures are supported by clear calculations; assumptions are outlined if necessary.
12 12 5. Capturing Wider Changes in the System or Market No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 5.1 Systemic changes are assessed using appropriate methods. The programme has a documented plan for assessing and estimating the results of systemic change. The methods chosen to assess systemic change are appropriate to the programme s expectations and context, take attribution into account and conform to good research practices. Use: The programme has used the plan to assess and estimate the extent of systemic change. Use: The programme can demonstrate and staff can explain the methods used to assess systemic change and how the methods conform to established good practices. Use: Figures are supported by clear calculations; any assumptions are outlined. 6. Tracking Programme Costs No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 6.1 Costs are tracked annually and cumulatively. A clear, accounting system is in place to track costs and produce annual and cumulative totals of all programme-related costs spent in country. Use: The programme has annual and cumulative totals of all programme-related costs spent in country. 6.2 Costs are allocated by major component of the programme. (Applicable only to programmes with more than one main intervention) The accounting system enables management to estimate and produce totals on costs spent on each major component of the programme for which impact is estimated. Use: The programme has annual and cumulative estimates of costs for each component for which impact is estimated.
13 13 7. Reporting Results No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 7.1 The programme clearly and appropriately aggregates programme-wide impact at least annually. 7.2 The programme produces a report at least annually which describes results to date. The programme has a documented system for estimating programme-wide impacts for common impact indicators (and/or other high level common indicators) at least annually. The system for estimating programme-wide impacts is clear, thorough and appropriate. Use: The programme can clearly explain how the estimates were derived and show supporting calculations. These calculations take overlap into account. (W/A) The programme has a report with clear estimates of programme-wide impacts for the common impact indicators (and/or other high level common indicators) produced in the last year. The report outlines the context needed to understand the quantitative results. The report outlines qualitative achievements and discusses progress towards the sustainability of results. When reported changes are due in part to the work of other publicly-funded programmes and private contributions, they are acknowledged in the report. 7.3 Results of systemic change are reported. The results of systemic changes are reported. 7.4 Results are published. A document with the results and costs described in sections is made publicly available. 8. Managing the system for results measurement No. Control Points Compliance criteria broken down for Scoring Score (10) 8.1 The programme has a clear system for using information from the results measurement system in management and decision-making. The programme has a documented system in place to show how information from the results measurement system will inform management decision making. The system is realistic and ensures that results information is regularly and effectively integrated into management decision making. Use: Managers can explain to what extent underlying assumptions in the results chain(s) are proving to be valid, and can cite decisions they have made based on the information provided by the results measurement system.
14 The system is supported by sufficient human and financial resources. 8.3 The system is well managed and integrated with programme management. The programme can show that sufficient human and financial resources are available and have been allocated to manage and implement the results measurement system. Staff are able to accurately describe their tasks and responsibilities in results measurement. Tasks and responsibilities in relation to results measurement are appropriate and documented. Evidence exists of the results measurement system having been institutionalized, for example in the form of inclusion in programme management documents, job descriptions, staff performance reviews, regular meetings etc. All programme staff have access to written guidance (e.g. manual or staff guide) on how to implement all elements of the results measurement system. The programme systematically checks the quality of all results measurement activities and outputs in the system.
15 Definitions Note: Where possible, the definitions given below are in line with the Glossary of Key Terms developed by the DAC Network on Development Evaluation 9. Definitions taken directly from the DAC Glossary are given in italics. In many cases, further detail has been added, in order to give the level of specificity required for the purpose of this methodology. Activity: Aggregate: Assess: Assumption: Attribution: Baseline: A discrete piece of work, typically represented by a contract between the programme and a contractor, partner or consultant. Interventions typically consist of several activities, that are intended to achieve change at various different points in the overall market system. To combine the impact a programme has caused from various interventions; overlap must be taken into account when aggregating impact. To gauge the change in an indicator using either or both quantitative or qualitative methodologies. Hypotheses about factors or risks which could affect the progress or success of a development intervention. The ascription of a causal link between observed (or expected to be observed) changes and a specific intervention. An analysis describing the situation prior to a development intervention, against which progress can be assessed or comparisons made. Collaborating programme: A public programme (donor or government) with which the programme has a written agreement outlining collaboration and which has contributed to the attributable changes claimed. Component: Copying: Crowding in: A part of a programme that forms a coherent set of interventions, typically around a thematic interest. The target group of the programme (e.g. smallholder farmers, poor households, etc) copying behavioural changes that those affected directly by programme activities have adopted. Enterprises (e.g importers/exporters, wholesalers, retailers) other than the programme target group copying behaviours that those enterprises affected by programme activities have adopted. This term can also apply to government agencies or civil society organizations who copy behaviours of those who are directly involved in the programme. Displacement: In a static market, expansion of some enterprises supported by the programme may come at the expense of the market share of other enterprises. This negative effect is referred to as displacement. Impact: Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. 9
16 16 Indicators: Quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development sector. Information gathering: The collection of qualitative and quantitative information to measure the changes resulting from a programme at any level of the programme s results chain and to estimate attribution. Intermediate indicator: An indicator of change at any level other than the goal or final level. Intervention: Job: A coherent set of activities that are designed to achieve a specific system change, reflected in one results chain. An intervention is generally a subset of a component. Full-time equivalent, taken over one year (240 days/year); may be seasonal, paid in kind etc, but does not include unpaid family labour. Methodology: A means to assess the value of indicators, for example a survey, focus group discussion or key informant interviews. Monitoring: A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. Net change in income: A sustainable net change in income (additional sales minus additional costs) accrued to the target group as a result of the programme per year and cumulatively. Net change in jobs: A sustainable net change in the number of full time equivalent jobs created for the target group as a result of the programme, per year and cumulatively. Additional means jobs created minus jobs lost. Per year comprises 240 working days. Jobs saved or sustained may be reported separately. Overlap: Poor: When two different interventions reach the same target group there is a risk of overlap. Programmes need to correct for overlap instead of adding the impact of all interventions (when overlap is likely) in order to avoid double counting. There are multiple definitions of poverty. Frequently used poverty lines include the $1.25, $2, and $2.50 per day at 1993 purchasing power parity, and many countries have their own definition. Primary research: Information gathering directly from respondents (enterprises, service providers, government agencies etc.) in the field. Private contributor: A private enterprise that has contributed to the impact reported by the programme. Programme: Projection Reasonable: A programme is the typical unit of analysis for a donor, often contracted to one overall partner or company. A programme consists of several components. A reasonable estimate of future results, based on current, informed knowledge. A conclusion that an external, unbiased and relatively informed observer would come to.
17 17 Results Chain: The causal sequence for a development intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes, impacts and feedback. Results measurement: The process of implementing a measurement system in order to provide rapid feedback on the results achieved, in order to improve project effectiveness and reporting. Scale: Number of members of the target group who realize a financial benefit as a result of the programme s activities per year and cumulatively. Sustainability: The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed. The probability of continued long term benefits. (For measurement purposes, sustainability will be indicated by continuation of benefits at least two years after the end of a programme). Systemic change: Systemic change is change in the underlying causes of market system performance that leads to a better-functioning, more pro-poor market system. A systemic change must have three characteristics: scale, sustainability and resilience. If a programme aspires to systemic change, it must define what is, and is not, systemic change. This must be in a format that can be monitored. Target group: The type of people that a programme ultimately aims to benefit, typically poor producers, employees, or consumers. The programme must define its target group. Unintended impacts: Any changes that are due to a programme s activities and that were not anticipated when designing the activities. These impacts may be positive or negative.
ANNEX E: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS IN M&E Source: Development Assistance Committee (DAC). 2002. Glossary of Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management. Paris: OECD. This glossary is available in English,
UNODC Independent Evaluation Unit Evaluation Quality Assessment Template General Project Information Project/Programme Number and Name Thematic Area Geographic Area (Region, Country) Type of Evaluation
Guidelines for UNODC Evaluation Reports 1 CONTENTS A standard evaluation report starts with a cover page, a table of contents, a list of abbreviations and acronyms, an executive summary and a matrix of
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Keywords: Monitoring, evaluation, accountability, learning, plan, budget Introduction In this session on MEAL Planning and Budgeting, you will
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Primer for DRL Grantees I. What is a monitoring and evaluation plan? A monitoring and evaluation plan (M&E plan), sometimes also referred to as a performance monitoring or
For Official Use DCD/DAC/EV(2000)6 DCD/DAC/EV(2000)6 English text only For Official Use Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques OLIS : 25-Oct-2000 Organisation for Economic Co-operation
Published: 17 March 2015 Background M&E/Learning Guidelines for IPs (To be used for preparation of Concept Notes and Proposals to LIFT) LIFT's new strategy (2015-2018) envisions LIFT as a knowledge platform.
DFAT MONITORING AND EVALUATION STANDARDS December 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) STANDARDS 2 STANDARD 1 INVESTMENT DESIGN (REQUIRED ELEMENTS RELATING TO M&E) 6 STANDARD
United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms for Evaluation in the UN System Towards a UN system better serving the peoples of the world; overcoming weaknesses and building on strengths from a strong evidence
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT PIFS(12)FEMK.05 FORUM ECONOMIC MINISTERS MEETING Tarawa, Kiribati 2-4 July 2012 SESSION 2 FEMM BIENNIAL STOCKTAKE 2012 The attached paper, prepared by the Forum Secretariat,
Calll for Expression of Interest CARE International in Myanmar Date: 6 th October 2016 Terms of Reference: National Consultant for Mid Term Review of GRO Project is a Non-Government Organization representing
How to Measure and Report Social Impact A Guide for investees The Social Investment Business Group January 2014 Table of contents Introduction: The Development, Uses and Principles of Social Impact Measurement
Policy for Monitoring and Evaluation of Compacts and Threshold Programs May 1, 2012 Version: Final Submitted by: Department of Policy and Evaluation Millennium Challenge Corporation 875 15th Street N.W.
Guide for the Development of Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks August, 2001 Treasury Board Secretariat TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction to the Results-based Management and
Chapter 5 Use a mixed-methods approach: The logic of the comparative advantages of methods The work by Campbell and others on validity and threats to validity within experiments and other types of evaluations
Terms of Reference for Evaluation of WASH, Winterization and Protection Project for Refugees Fleeing Syria Living in Bekka (Lebanon), funded by DFID Project title: WASH, Winterization and Protection Project
Change Manager Foundation Level Competency Model The Change Manager Foundation competency model sets an independent industry benchmark for ENTRY LEVEL change management practitioners. This competency model
Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation Using the Logical Framework Approach Developed and Presented by: Umhlaba Development Services Umhlaba Development Services Noswal Hall, Braamfontein, Johannesburg,
Activity: A specific action or process undertaken over a specific period of time by an organization to convert resources to products or services to achieve results. Related term: Project. Appraisal: An
Corporate Strategy on Capacity Development A. DEFINITION OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 1. In international development, capacity is seen as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage
the role of the head of internal audit in public service organisations 2010 CIPFA Statement on the role of the Head of Internal Audit in public service organisations The Head of Internal Audit in a public
AusAID NGO Cooperation Program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework May 2012 Disclaimer: This document outlines a proposed new monitoring, evaluation and learning framework (MELF) for the AusAID
GIIRS Emerging Market Assessment Resource Guide: What s in this Guide? I. Definition: What Are Stakeholders? II. Why Engage with Stakeholders? III. Designing a Plan IV. Methods of Engagement V. Principles
Recordkeeping maturity model and road map: Improving recordkeeping in Queensland public authorities Queensland State Archives October 2010 Security classification: Public Department of Science, Information
Achieve Performance objectives Performance objectives are benchmarks of effective performance that describe the types of work activities students and affiliates will be involved in as trainee accountants.
This statement should be read alongside the statement for Main Panel F and the generic statement. Absences of chair and declaration of interests 1. Sub-panel members will not take responsibility for assessing
Five Levels of Project Portfolio Management Figure 49 summarizes five levels of project portfolio management maturity . Each level represents the adoption of an increasingly comprehensive and effective
ISCA Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool and Low Carbon Tendering A Collaborative Project between the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc) and the CRC for Low Carbon Living
2016 Charter School Application Evaluation Rubric For applications submitted to The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education 2016 Charter School Application Evaluation Rubric The purpose of
CEIOPS-DOC-37/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions Article 86 f Standards for Data Quality (former CP 43) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327
2013 Communication on Progress Participant The Coca-Cola Company Published 2014/01/02 Time period January 2012 November 2013 Files 2012-2013-gri-report_Coca-Cola.pdf (English) Links http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability
Indicators What is it? A quick search on the world-wide-web on indicators provides us with an overwhelming amount of hits on business indicators, economic indicators, social indicators, environmental indicators,
MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORKSHEETS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I. Introduction to Results Based Monitoring HED will use its results-based monitoring and evaluation system to effectively manage partnership
III. Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders are people, groups, or institutions, which are likely to be affected by a proposed project (either negatively or positively), or those which can affect the outcome
How can BBOP help companies? This document is intended for developers who are considering undertaking a biodiversity offset and may welcome help from the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP).
BRIEFING Integrated data and information management in social protection Key messages > Integrating data and information management of social protection programs through a Single Registry and associated
RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM GUIDE FOR WRITING A RESEARCH PROTOCOL Research Grants Program (RGP) Research Coordination (HDP/HDR) Division of Health and Human Development (HDP) Pan American Health Organization
SECTION XIX Guidelines on Knowledge Management Table of Contents Introduction How will knowledge management unfold in result-based COSOP? Practical steps Knowledge management and learning tools Support
Honours Degree (top-up) Business Abbreviated Programme Specification Containing Both Core + Supplementary Information 1 Awarding Institution / body: Lancaster University 2a Teaching institution: University
OLB certification process for Forestry Companies GP01 Reference: GP01 OLB FC 1.2 version, 22/03/2013 Bureau Veritas Certification France 60 Général de Gaulle Avenue - 92046 Paris - La Défense Cedex - France
Social Return on Investment Valuing what you do Guidance on understanding and completing the Social Return on Investment toolkit for your organisation 60838 SROI v2.indd 1 07/03/2013 16:50 60838 SROI v2.indd
Guidelines for Preparation of Review Protocols Type of document: Policy _x_ Guideline Procedure Version: 1.0, January 1 2001 Decision: Steering Group, Date? A Campbell Systematic Review is meant to review
Operational Planning for HIV/AIDS: A Guidance Note Produced by the AIDS Strategy and Action Planning Service (ASAP) DRAFT COMMENTS WELCOME May 2009 i Contents Acronyms... ii Purpose... 1 Process of Developing
SPTF Universal Standards for Social Performance Management 1 2 3 DEFINE AND MONITOR SOCIAL GOALS ENSURE BOARD, MANAGEMENT, AND EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT TO SOCIAL GOALS DESIGN PRODUCTS, SERVICES, DELIVERY MODELS
www.pwc.co.uk October 2012 Comparison between the OECD Gold Supplement and World Gold Council Conflict- A summary for 1. Purpose and methodology Purpose The World Gold Council commissioned PwC to conduct
TRACKING FINANCIAL CAPABILITY Build Your Logic Model JANUARY 2015 AUTHORS Pamela Chan, Parker Cohen, Kori Hattemer, Emily Hoagland and Elizabeth McGuinness ABOUT CFED CFED empowers low- and moderate-income
II. Figure 5: 6 The project cycle can be explained in terms of five phases: identification, preparation and formulation, review and approval, implementation, and evaluation. Distinctions among these phases,
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT FOR RECIPIENTS OF EU FUNDS FOR EXTERNAL ACTIONS MODULE 7 MODULE 7 - Real life story The project Human Relief and Rights was run by a public sector organisation which had its
NUMBER 8 2 ND EDITION, 2010 PERFORMANCE MONITORING & EVALUATION TIPS BASELINES AND TARGETS ABOUT TIPS These TIPS provide practical advice and suggestions to USAID managers on issues related to performance
Practical Advice for Selecting Sample Sizes William Fairbairn and Adam Kessler. Sample Size Calculator by Richard Tanburn. May 2015 Links updated Sept. 16 1 Introduction Many project managers today have
AT A GLANCE August 2016 Supporting Credibility and Trust in Emerging Forms of Reporting An overview of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board s Discussion Paper: Supporting Credibility
An introduction to impact measurement Contents 1 Introduction 2 Some definitions 3 Impact measurement at BIG 4 Setting impact measures for programmes APPENDICES A External Resources (separate document)
VPQ Level 6 Business, Management and Enterprise VPQ Level 6 Certificate in Business, Management and Enterprise The VPQ Level 6 Certificate in Business, Management and Enterprise is a 30 credit qualification.
Evaluation Guidance Note Series UNIFEM Evaluation Unit October 2009 Guidance Note on Developing Terms of Reference (ToR) for Evaluations Terms of Reference (ToR) What? Why? And How? These guidelines aim
Full-time MSc in Retail Management Course structure and content Course modules Term 1 Managing Brands and Consumer Equity Understanding and Managing People and Organisations Integrated Marketing Communications
European Court of Auditors Adding quality to the audit process; a practical example: audit and evaluation James MCQUADE Eduardo RUIZ GARCIA Budapest March, 2007 European Court of Auditors Supreme Audit
Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Food Security and Agriculture Programmes Planning for monitoring and evaluation activities during the programme's lifetime Text-only version In this lesson
A Guide to Curriculum Development: Purposes, Practices, Procedures The purpose of this guide is to provide some general instructions to school districts as staff begin to develop or revise their curriculum
Level 5 NVQ in Occupational Health and Safety Practice (3644) Candidate logbook Publications and enquiries The publications listed below are available free of charge from Publications Sales City & Guilds
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Thematic development, impact, evaluation and innovative actions Evaluation and additionality The New Programming Period 2007-2013 INDICATIVE GUIDELINES
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Aide-Mémoire on Gender Mainstreaming Projects 1. Purpose This Aide-Mémoire aims to provide you with a practical tool to gender mainstream the OSCE programmes
What is Social Return on Investment (SROI)? Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a process of understanding, measuring and reporting on the social, environmental and economic value created by an organisation.
UNDP s Monitoring Framework for Climate Change Adaptation Socioeconomic information in adaptation The link for UNDP: Adaptation Design, Tracking, and Evaluation Adaptation is about development effectiveness
INTOSAI Performance Audit Subcommittee - PAS Designing performance audits: setting the audit questions and criteria 1 Introduction A difficult phase in performance auditing is planning and designing. In
Introduction This comparison takes each part of the PMBOK and gives an opinion on what match there is with elements of the PRINCE2 method. It can be used in any discussion of the respective merits of the
EVALUATION ID 1430-2015/003 UNICEF Global Evaluation Report Oversight System (GEROS) Review Template Colour Coding CC Dark green Green Amber Red White s Outstanding Satisfactory No Not Applicable Section
OUTLINE OF PRINCIPLES OF IMPACT EVALUATION PART I KEY CONCEPTS Definition Impact evaluation is an assessment of how the intervention being evaluated affects outcomes, whether these effects are intended
Management and Business Consultancy National Occupational Standards October 2009 Skills CFA 6 Graphite Square, Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5EE T: 0207 0919620 F: 0207 0917340 Info@skillscfa.org www.skillscfa.org
Excerpt from How To Establish Service Level Agreements NAOMI KARTEN 781-986-8148 email@example.com www.nkarten.com www.servicelevelagreements.com 2001 Naomi Karten Excerpt from How to Establish Service
Guidelines for Evaluation Terms of Reference 1. The present Guidelines for Evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR) form part of a common set of ITC Evaluation Guidelines that operationalize the ITC Evaluation
pm4dev, 2007 management for development series Introduction to Project Management PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS A methodology to manage
We re committed to helping you and your organization understand the updated requirements. This guidance document identifies the steps you should take to achieve compliance to ISO 9001:2015, and more importantly;
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority Procurement Performance Measurement System User's Guide August 2008 Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority Procurement Performance
State University of New York Charter Renewal Benchmarks Version 5.0, May 2012 Introduction The State University of New York Charter Renewal Benchmarks 1 (the Benchmarks ) serve two primary functions at
Annexure 1: MAP quality assurance approach and Diagnostic Report Structure Quality assurance is a key focus area of MAP to ensure a consistent relevant approach to improve financial inclusion across the
General Management Department of Strategy, Operations and External Relations Department of International Business and Relations pôle emploi VDAB and the digital transition Ensuring a successful transition
C A Q A p p r Qo a c h to A u d i t u a l i ty n d i c a to r s A C A Q A p p r o a c h to A u d i t Q u a l i ty n d i c a to r s The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) is an autonomous public policy organization
2015-2023 RIIO-ED1 BUSINESS PLAN SA-09 Supplementary Annex Data assurance June 2013 (Updated April 2014) SA-09 Data assurance Contents 1 Introduction... 3 Structure of this document... 3 2 Data assurance
Practice Resource DEMOGRAPHIC DATA COLLECTION GUIDE These materials are based on the Law Society of Upper Canada s Justicia materials, and are used with permission from the Law Society of Upper Canada.
TOOL D14 Monitoring and evaluation: a framework 159 TOOL D14 Monitoring and evaluation: a framework TOOL D14 For: About: Purpose: Use: Resource: Commissioners in primary care trusts (PCTs) and local authorities
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and HM Treasury Improving access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises HC 734 SesSIon 2013-14 1 November
Evaluating the impact of institutional funding for CSOs: The case of the UK Civil Society Challenge Fund Anne-Marie O Riordan Making Impact Evaluation Matter September 2014 Research background Two year