l

What are Evaluation Theories?

Evaluation theories refer to the conceptual frameworks,
models, and principles that guide the systematic assessment
and analysis of programs, policies, interventions, and other
Social phenomena. They provide a set of organizing principles
and methodologies to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency,
relevance, and sustainability of various interventions and
initiatives in different domains, including education, health
care, social services, environmental protection, and public
policy. Evaluation theories draw from various disciplines, such
as psychology, sociology, economics, statistics, and
management, and they may emphasize different aspects of
the evaluation process, such as the role· of stakeholders, the
criteria for success, the methods for data collection and
analysis, and the use of evaluation results.

THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING

.
EVALUATION THEORY

1. Clarifying evaluation goals

2. Identifying appropriate method
3. Ensuring evaluation quality
4. Engaging stakeholder
5. Enhancing evaluation impact
 Categories of theory that evaluators use in their work

.,_
.,_
.,_
., _ THEORIES

• Social
Programme :: Evaluation
Science
theory 111 •- theory
.-.,- theory ■-

Types of evaluation theories

1. Utilization focus evaluation
2. Values engaged evaluation theory
~- Empowerment_ evaluation theory
4. Theory driven evaluation theory

Evaluation theory explains the "why". An approach offers

guidance to an evaluator; describes her role in the
evaluation (its prescriptive); and informs decision-making
during the evaluation. Thus, its a way of implementing a
theory in practice, see Patton's 17 steps in UFE. These are
just a few examples and definitions of evaluation
theories.
-

Utilisation-Focoused theories

Developed by Based on
see on
.
m1se
~alue

n lies

Key principles

• Designed to meet the specific informatio n need of stockholde rs and to

Inform descislon-m aking
Use driven

• Stakeholde r are actively involved in all stages of evaluation processes ,

and their input and feedback is valued and used
ColtdlJorative

• Evaluation is viewed as an ongoing process of learning and improvem ent

that the evaluation design and method are adopted as need to ensure
111 ·r .i live that the evaluation is meeting the need·the stakeholde r
 Value engaged evaluation
,,

-4
r,· ( · ;
f :-- I • .1, • : 'f j\ •

• Jennifer Greene
-- ~------- ..... --.- ---·-.. ~~--:-..- - ~
- ··-·-:r--:,:--;rr :;.-~ r-•:r·"':"I'" :-.~~~'"'= '"·--:--.. ------ ...~-

. . :: ··~ nt~'n:1 •• • · · ····

• VEE seek to provide contextualize understanding of social program

that have particu lar promise for underserved and
underrepresented popula tion.

• It is a democ ratic approach that is highly responsive to contes t and

emphasise stakeholder value •
 for
Fe tte rm an ou tlin es thr ee ma in steps
:
co nd uc tin g em po we rm en t ev alu ati on

Develop and refine the

"mission"

Take stock and prioritize the

program's activities, and

Plan for the future

-.SQ '. 1
Theory-Driven Evaluation
••r. .) Theory

• Huey Chen,P.hd is • This approach

one of the main focuses on the theory
contributors. of change and causal
mechanisms
underlying the
program.

')
....:i.c: :i.-"°'" ""'-~.: ...i...,_ ,~-.
-L,;......J ,f
~........
"·... ... ~"
,.._.,

l
 BNd'rn·Jib 6 the-
"'
~f- . ' • • uap :-.E"afiu·att on -~ • d
EYsi luat"' .- · _ . . •• .. • ir.

t• •'·_ ,rh .r -eory an •Prac tice

1llllJ§.i a r~l l
from a,'dlverS'I! arra y of app lied social
• ••
s.ci eni~ ;-4illio~g~~r.~: new ffeld tlra~ bas emeerged . on
~Yaluati'Qn the.my to ~ra.~.f~-~-or.fe~·~e.d
~, _ther 'has 1been.,.a proHfe-ratl,on o~ rese arch
e-ba sed _pract~ce.
:Accorcltng to Sh : Pr.~crJb~_ Utt.d~rlyJ~~![tameworks ·ofenta :eyJtlErnc
l purpo-se= of ,evalLranon
{l9~ !'J, ,Hte •nto dam
,theatytJs ~o s ,.a~itsb. s,C~ok, &_ Le.vfton e ab~ t
.tbe· va.l' ·:. ,'l:-_ ~~!~ fea lblep!"l.ttl.cesi1t:hat evaJuators can fll~~:tp cor,1sti::uct k~ow ~edg mai n
o~ cons ists of fiv.e
-~n •- • •• , ·-~ ?1.; .S'QClqf, Program
s: 'This,~xp,~anatlan oT. :evaluation ·the •.7 .
~~tnP.Qtie.t(tsrn .. z_·t;t_-C.~" -YSe,1Kn~ 1J....
. : _• ·- . .-rr.:'!F WlerfBe(1va/ri.it1g, and saclaFprograrrftrtlno~ te its •th ~ore tica l
Et'afti~-~~r~ ~houJd ftt~t- q>nsider tJre, pnrp
6.$.e Qf' the evaluatfon ·rci, det~ l"~ir es,
1

-stions-;to. fnform rn·e:thcrdol~g .y. Ofre nti~

,f~AA~ti.Qn;; and' then ,tfe,ve]:QJ?ieyalu:lltlon ,que- evalu-atiofi .rather than the_overatl purp o~e .
.e"91~mQ.r~ fgcus,on_. tl:re; te.dmi_caf detafls of
1 th-e;
1sta keho l1e~
.ct ensi if.et the. p.r~-~~s-~- "'fi.e~
i~~ hJ~ - ron the~ry .~~ l:be- ~,n~ et o'f a ptoje u '
~11alysfs, TeportJngJ 1s intentJ,onal, purp ose
.,n~lveut,e..n.t, •m_et1rad'oJ-O'gy; data .collection,
llil'CI ll)(tt e us~ ~ f-0:r-th-e·dJ:ent.

Ut}J.i~~t1Jm..Pb.cu$~d tv.aluation Th~ory.-

·r1on-Fg~1.,1.s·~d,E.~aluatto·n (t;JFEJ on l:he
_premi~e
Mic}J}):~l ([a'um l'®:on., P.hlt .dev~Jopea 9tm~ , 201 3). Thrs
thei r utili ty :and -aGtual us.e" (Patton,
that "eva;J'Qatlons shQ~l(J be judg ed by
end:.:iS-~~1 _ls .ln-s:truf!tental' use (i.e. disc rete
theo r~tt ~f :mQ4el slrop.-ld ,b.e ~pp'jted·, wlte n th~us~ 1.bj,prlmar:y- fri.f~nded _users... To eng age
dectslon-mak'fag)... Uf'E'. rfQPUses on H:(te
rrded
dire ct,
pr.mta11,·Jnt~~-~d.U'St:!~, tutf evaJ µa,toy mus t identify s~keholrl.er's who-:have. tlre:mo·st
fts 11es-11lts1- iIJ otlte r wo;rds, tn~ '\pe rson
al faat or"
1idert1iili~·ofe sml<e in the eval,1..01Uo,n and the process-. The
' user s at -ev.ery stage· of:
(J'~ttob. ~(h~-~-;_fire e~t uatp r J.hY~lv¢s. 1ntended ·of use.
ultfm~t~, p~)ipriel ,ef UE~· fs pragr~mmat
ic i~prov~mertt tlt;lve.n by ~ psy.chofogy ;pro cess
hip .of the
lnterr.d.ed lUSets aJt~ mo.~
UJ<efyi to us:e. ishe evaluatrort if they fe,el
QWners
taliyl tlier~fore, tlt~ ev~ luat or mus t: rein forc e
~-d ·Ii&- $ti ~-- {fse. d®:S n.ot '.happen natu·stag ~· df.the· eval uati o~. e;att.a.n pres cr1b
es :er 17
utUUy b,y .e11gagibg -mfe'ttded usersi:at ,each
1
• ----
g to end .
,step processffo,: facjJi tafingJJFE: from !>~dinnin
I

vatu-es ~ga ged Ev-c1IU-.@fJ01t Un~ory

J~:omfer .i§reene,. Pn.f>~ efev.~roJ:r«!d V~lu.es
·eqg~ged .Bvaluat-ion i(VEE.) as a dem ocra tic
~nd e'.mphasi;zes stakelroJdE!r yaliles. VE.E
iil>-~t.ili fhit f~ hJghlJ_ re.~Qbsiiv..e ,ttt eon.text :af saoJa1' prng-rams- fth~t hav e arti cula r
s,ee,ki: _t.P. ttfrOJti~~ ~-q~rex~~lfz8:'1 ~:ntt¢.r~t
1
ijn_dJngs
: , _ di_ u .d-e·r .re resen e pq a ions reene 201 . lt ·
prom_,se. ~-r. = _ ·, -~I~
•.- epcourages t e,eva:)uato~ to incl~de.
~~n~~, er.~d- a r,,~~maerati'd!~ appro~eb b_ecaus:e
,th.te.e ,Jus~ifjt!atit>ns ;fQr :including stak eho lder
~,eJ .e~: .$?;ak~ha.nf~r ~~'.u~~- ~re:ene ~ff.et~ of us~), (2.) ;emanc:ipat'ory (1 emp-ow
va_lrr.es: ~J. iQl!~gnta.th;. (ket trccr.eas:es clfan
ce e
tleU fier. afive (:L.e~ e.on siders all •i- rests-).• w1 ·th t,h• s• _app roaerhs
1 c
s~k.eb'o .hlle~Jll .@.d...,1(3} . h , -
e~ ..--- d th' - '
·tt • ~~· A
Jve:s as tfre e -uat ot und con text
. m.et od.0J0,-ov. ey-a 4 :~n s e
an:.:.t
~~w :Ya --~ ~..:;.,~gq,-,. ;lnl,f
d' ..Jt •~ • • • -
b - d • '
d J' r,:,.,r.• ·d witb an.,-J.. wer urg
va •JJAA-un. e.qy,ma4 U1e 'crc;,·m-am. VEE is• co • ftrne
it::.
, - d's •
ro.a and .in-
nee , -an• • ~ ir. (;:'' • • - Q. -
d.epth1questiofis and ls ..
more a'b~u~,r ~ ~ ·, . I •-~lor~ S\tited1 fqr f:9rmative rather than Sttm.mative eval,uations. Read
·'- ~\I <rene ss.tages -Of VE_E\

·Etnp'C)we-rmem Evatmitto,n Theory

i0a'gjd Fetterman b-k·o d , . h t ' t·

re· r: • . . ' (i.u , ~v.e1opegl 'Emp·ower,ment &v.aluat1on .~s ~n _.appr~ac o 1 0s, er
iir~01.4:tnp~emem ihr.ough empowerment and sel(¼letermmat~Q!T (Fett~an, ~01~)-
1

. .. ~e:r:~,nations theo·cy describes an 1ndivldual's agency to chart his or own:course 1~ Itfe

an_d ~e _ahi1tw, .tb iden:tffy, and e-xpres-s! n¢.eds, Petterman ·believes the: evaluaro~·s r:ole 15 to
1

~ r · 5..~~oltl'.ers to :take .ow.nership of the eya[q_atlcm process as a veh1de for. self-

1

de.te.rmm~tton_ Th.! evaluatgr engages -a diverse range of prog_ram stakehQld~rs and acts as
a, "€tTi~idl ·friendH•.OT. ~toa.~hu while :gµidin_g them through the evaluation ·process.
S~po~rment ev.a:luati~n s-eeks to increase the pr-obability .of pro_gram success .by
prav.ig\·ng stakelw\ders wjth the to.of:S and skill~ to,,seJf..evaluate and mainstream-.evaluatton
with;~ thw organt-zation. .Fetterma·n 1_outlin:es thr.e.e ,mairt steps· for .condueting
ein,pOWenJlent ~v~_l.liati:QD~ (1) E>e-velop and refine· the ~'missiont (2J take stock and
pf-i.orJlliZe •tlre prog.ratfl"s acf1Vitie$, and i3) plan. f-0r· the future"' R'ead m.ore on Fetterman's
1

,theory of';n1tpQ~~rrm~nt Eya1uatlon!

T,heory;;:Drfv~n Ev~l-uatinn Jbeor-y·-

'.l=l&Jey Ctten, ;PhD,; i:S oo.e of me m~l),co~rlbtrtors to, llheox-y-Driven Evaluati•on. 1Hi:s ctp-proach
focuses on ,the· tfieory of change ,~nd ,causal mechanisms untlerlyin,g the program. Che.n
ireco,gnlzes 1that progriaros1.ezj'st fn. an open system) c;:onsistjng o.f inputs, outputs, outcomes,
•and i·flJJJ"acts. He suggests that eva.lu·ac~r~ sh.ould start by wo-rking with stakeholders to
t\tl<lers'tand•:.th.&. as-suinptions and intended logic behind th.e ,program. A logic model can be
used to· nlus.trat~ the ~.s:al r.e'l.a.tton.sJ.ijp..s b_gtween activities ~nd outcomes. Chen offers
many ~ggestio1ts (or COllStmtVl-ng_ praijrant t}Xeo'ry mod.efs, such as -action model (i.e.
1

£}'stem.a-tic ·plan. for arra:ngin,g ' S ~ resoums, setting_s ,to deltv~r sewices.) and change
madeJ (.LA, $.S of desa-iptrjv:e ~ssu.mp,tiop9 Qbqut causal) processes tutderlyin~ intervention
and 1Q'llfOQl)le}. :Ev.aluatars sb.atilcil .cons11der using this approa~~ when worl~ing with
1

p·r-Q~U~a.fQ. tmplem·ente.ti& ,ttt produce v-aluitbJ:e information for formative program

ltnprovem.~nt. Read m-cfre·about Chen's·Theory-1D-rfven approach here.
Difference between formative and summative approach 1
emphasizing the importance 0 f . . .
• proc 1igning the evaluation
th at th e evaluation da . with the program's goals and ensuring
ess pro uces actionable insights.

Conclusion
These evaluation theories highlight the diversity of approaches within the field, each offering
unique strengths tailored to different contexts and objectives. Whether the focus is on utility.
st
akeholder values, empowerment, or uhderstanding causal mechanisms. these th eories
provide evaluators with frameworks that ensure the evaluation process is meaningful,
inclusive, and impactful. By selecting the appropriate evaluation theory, evaluators can
en hance the effectiveness of their work and contribute to the continuous
• •impro vement of
social programs.
I

Unit 2: Logical Framework Approach (LPA)

LFA ls:
• An instrument for logical analysis and structured thinking In project planning
• A framework, a battery of questions which, if they are used in a uniform way,
provide a structure for the dialogue between different stakeholders in a project.
• A planning instrument, which encompasses the different elements in a process of
change (problems, objective, stakeholders, plan for implementation etc.). The
project plan may be summarized in a LFA matrix, the log frame.
• An instrument to create participation/ accountability/ ownership.

L'FA is used during all the phases of a project cycle and is suitable for capacity development.
"One basic idea in the LFA method is that one should not siart talking about what one
wants to do (the_activities) ~ut ~bout the p_roblem that~~ be',olved and about what
one wants to achieve/ the ob1ecttves". - Sida (2002)~ ' V"

The steps In LFA ~

According to Sida (2003) the LFA method cont,a.iie different steps

Step 1 Context analysis-the project's envi'{~~ckground infonnatlon- lt is necessary

to make an initial overall "scannin~'~o~~ett's context by SWOT analysis etc. •

Step 2 Stakeholder analysis/ Pa~cipatio~analysis - those who should be inv~lved when

planning and impJ.ementing~~~pr~ject. Stakeholders are those who are influenced
(directly or indirectly) b~n ~"'it an influence on those things that take place in the
project-they can be both fo't: anq against a change. Stakeholder can be beneficiaries/ target
group, implementers.,.decisioo-makers and financiers.

Information may be collected from them by "LFA Workshop" or "GOPP" (Goal Oriented
Project Planning)

Step 3 Probl~m Analysis/ Situation Analysis - an analysis of the problem that shall be solved
by the project and the reasons for its existence.

The causes are analyzed in order to find the reasons for the focal problem and, thereby, the
solutions/the relevant activities. The effects demonstrate the arguments (the needs) for
implementing the change/ the project.

The basic questions that a problem analysis should answer the following:
• What is the main/ focal problem that shall be solved with the aid of the project?
(Why is change/ a project nee~ed?)

Ill
 -
.. .

• What are the causes of this problem? (Why does it exist?)

• What effects does the problem have? (Why is it important to solve the problem?)
• Who is affected by the problem and who "owns" the problem tree?
A problem analysis is sometimes made by drawing a so-called problem tree during a
participatory workshop. In the problem tree, the causes are the roots of the focal problem,
which in turn, is symbolized by the trunk of the tree. The effects of the problem form the
top of the tree.

A problem tree is always "read" from the bottom up. The problems below lead to the
problems above. A problem analysis should preferably be made during a workshop to
which different stakeholders are invited.
Step 4 Objective Analysis- the picture of the future situation
The project group should set 3 levels of objectives: Overall ob~es, Project purpose and
Results. • '. '\,
Relationship between the problem analysisJI!. o i;,ctive analysis
Problem tree L, , ~. - ~ bjective tree
Effects :=============~ -""', ·-., .~ Development objectives
u L1~~ ~
Focal problem :============: .. ~ject purposei Immediate objective
U
• Causes '
~-~~r
~ •
. u
Immediate rsults/ outputs

.Gfs.:. ..t,, Activities

. ,, .
Hence, the objectives are expl~p~'ft1:>ns of what the project is going to achieve in the short,
"!. ·i •
medium and the long run. 7
,,.

~;.;. . --~-- ·!'i#

tr
Steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 The Lo& Frame Matrix
Defining the hierarchy ofobjectives:
Logical framework approach
The logical framework. approach is a framework for designing change process, monito~in~
and evaluation impact. The first logical framework was devel~ped for Un~te
~;~t~e~gency for International Development (~SA_ID) by the end of 1960 sand has smce
been utilized by many of the larger donor organ1zat1ons. .
The LFA consists of a set of interlocking concepts that dfacilimtaatter~a~~::~!~:~e:e~~:j•:~
. f • t The LFA centers aroun a ,
and evaluat10~ o a proJ_ec •.
Planning M~tn~-PPM, w_h1ch
series of principles. ~a1_n m
~:r~::r
leted b following a standardized terminology and a
LFA c:Usists of four items viz., narrative summary,
f verification and important assumptions.
objectively verifiable 1nd1cators, means o . •

_ _L
 ·;
,y
l/

Narrative summary
ment objectives,
components of project are (a) develop
it d~fines t_he project structure. The
(b) immediate objectives, (c) outputs, (d) activities, and (e) inputs.
cribes the
ed as a broad objective or goal. It des
• Development objectives It is also call gain from
ective target groups can expect to
development benefits which the resp ch arc
pro ject or pro gram me. ft con tain s hints on the kind of benefits whi
the should
ups and by what type capabilities they
expected to accurate to the target gro eco nom ic, soc ial and
r conditions in changing
be enabled to keep up or improve thei ject / pro gra ms
it is a long term goal that a pro
institutional environments. Therefore,
development interventions.
aims to achieve in synergy with other
purp~se
ct objectiv~s or pr~ ct purpose. The
• Immediate objectives Also called as dire changes m bel}~~r, structures or capacity
the
of programme or a project describes _v~rable
the targ et gro ups which directly result ~ro~ th~tihZ@!ion. of the deli
of it ~s the
put s or resu lts of the pro gram me or proJect 1~x_P,eiedto yield. Thus,
out Ject /
n, to t;{eiei1r at the end of pro
specific change in behavior or conditio ~
programme. ct
Also called as results, whi ch des lmi ~Jr e, goods and services, the dire
• Outputs mme. The
fr.<>V~1icfe of a ~roje~ or progra
deliverables which are contributed sup por t or the
nat u~ top e and mtens1ty of
outputs or results must express t~ provide
.e result of project's activities which
solution being sought. Thus, it is~~~bJ
the opportunity for change or -P la
~~
• Activities Measures or~~~ out by the pro jec t/ programme in
order to
tive tasks
Therefore, it is specific substan
achieve and obtain the oii~ ~ff esu lts.
ciates.
performed by the pro ~4 /1\ :r asso
means for
which are identified as necessary
• Inputs Also caJed ~r}i;rurces, ng par ties.
urces provided by the participati
performing a. ti itie II project reso
mary, objectively
For each cell of the narrative sum
Objectively verifiable ~ icators: means that the
eloped. They should be SMART. It
verifiable indicators need to be dev
attainable, relevant and timely.
indicators should be simple, measurable,
ditions the
be specific and to relate to the con
- Specific: Key indicators need to
activities see to change.
ntitative or
be able to be measured in either qua
- Measurable: An indicator must they are precise,
ors are preferred because
qualitative terms. Quantifiable indicat . How ever,
statistical analysis of the data
can be aggregated and allow further litative
men t process indicato rs may be difficult to quantify and qua
dev elop
indicators should be used.
t using an
Att aina ·~le: The !nd icator mu st be attainable at reasonable cos
- equipment
ropriat e collection met hod. It sho uld be feasible in terms of finances ' '
app
skills and time.
r --. --

- Relevant- Indicators sho

uld be relevant to the manag
the peop\~ who will use the ement information need~ of
data. Also, an indicator should
to measure in an accurate reflect what we are trymg
way as well as, capable of
time period. pic kin g up changes over the
- Timely: An indicator sho
uld be able to provide inform
ation in a timely manner.
Means of verification: On
ce the indicators have bee
information, method of dat n developed, the source
a collection, method of dat of
collection and tesources nee a analysis, periodicity of dat
ded to be established for eac a
h indicator.
Assumptions: For each item
of the narrative description,
The purpose of specifying assumptions have to be specifi
assumptions is to (a) assess ed.
concept right from initial sta the potential risks to the pro
ges of project planning, (b) ject
during the implementation to support monitoring of risk
of s
adjustments ~ithin the projec the project, and (c) to pr ov 1§rm · basis for necessary
t whenever it should be requfr
external factors / condition e _erefore, these are mainly
s bearing on implementatio
managers have no direct no roJ 11t over which projects
con
hierarchy of project elements trol. To identify assumi1 , . has· to go through
from bottom to top, ask g the the
to our knowledge and experi tion; what else, according
ence, needs to be in pl A ~~
before we reach the next lev s outside the projects contro
el? ~~. ~-:;;, l)
LFA / Project Pl an tn -iM
Narrative 0
Objectively verifiable 4\e aH '~
summary indicators .,, of Important assumptio
r:· -~( ica tto n ns
Development What are
the quantitative-.~ S~ rce
objectives ways of measurin,g, ~rr s of - What external factors
..\ "'1.nformation are necessary for
qualitative ways of ju~l sustaining objectives in the long
~!ng,i -~.... 'Methods of run?
whether th es #~ ~r,o~cL !i data
objectives are b~ing acb i~\ collecti on
d 'f' - Methods of 1 - -
Immediate What are th~-~q_µanti~
tive data analysis ----
(immediate obj- -----
objectives measures ◄ or qu~lftative - Periodicity ectives to bro-ad- - ---i
objective)
ev ide nc e'\ by . of Wh at condition external to the pro
which data collection necessary if achieve ject are
ach iev em efi ~W dis trib uti ments of the projects
on - Resources pur pose is to contribute to reac
of impacts aiM;benefits can hing the
be needed project goal or broad objective.
judged?
Outputs What kind of quantity
of (outputs immediate objectives
outputs and by when ¼'.ill the ) What are the
y factors not within the control
be produced? of the project
which, if not present, are
(quantity, quality, time) liable to restrict
progress from outputs to
achievements of
project immediate objectives
Activities What kind of specific task
s (Activities to outputs)
performed by the pro What external factors must
ject be realized to
staff? obtain planned outputs on sch
edu
What kind of decisions or acti le?
ons outside the
control of the project is
necessary for
inception of the project?
Inputs What types and levels Main external factors / conditi
of ons bearing on
resources provided by the implementation of a pro
the ject over which
participating parties project managers have no dire
ct control
 I
I

f Implementation
. . . • r
I The oper atio nal pha se of a proJ•ect commences when Implementing act1v1ties begm m orde
t h' or two year s afte r
In most cases, this may be one
t~ ac •e~e th e expected outp uts/ results. In the
at the end of the design pha se (PPM).
e pr~Ject conc ept had been established mu st
changed, so that a verification of the PPM
meantime, log. frame conditions may have
.
take place dun ng the operational planning
the
ational and it shou ld be esta blis hed by
lm~Iementation should have a plan of oper proj ect
(a) wor k plans / wor k sche dule s, (b)
proJect team and will be documented as plan /
l plans, (d) mat eria l and equ ipm ent
budget / reso urce plans, (c) personne
proc urem ent plan / staf f training plans.
analysis?
Why have the different step s in the LFA lder
s 1-4 (context, prob lem analysis, stak eho
• Relevance: With the assistance of step t thin g, by
sure that w~ oi~ g the righ
analysis, objective analysis), we can make
dealing ~ th~ 1gh ~ prob ~e~ s and
involv.in~ the rele vant ~ta~eholder~,
e~a bl,~ "~td se~ ct t~e righ t act1v1t1es ~ta
estabhshmg the corr ect ob1ect1ves, which
Jec 'Ws .~ev ant 1n a prob lem -sol ving
later sta~e. These step s ensu re that the pro
perspective.
~ ..) ,
~7' pct ivi ty plan, reso urce planning
• Feasibility: With the assistance of st~ gs in the righ t
• hat we are doin g thin
indicators of objective fulfillment), we ca
~~ a h e righ t activities and with suff
icie nt
way, that the programme is ~ e
resources (personnel, equipm ~tJ~ ~im e) to solve the prob lem .
can
(analysis of risks and assu mpt ions ), we
• Sustain~bility: With the a·. i~e )~8 -
assess whe ther the pro· ec e
c\Pt mue by itself, with out exte rnal supp
ort, and that
-term.
the project purp ose is : , f)ie in the long
r
I The Log Frame Mo n..l f,n g~u atl on

I Log
Hierarchy
fram~ ~e " of Monitoring & Evaluati
activity
Ex-post evaluation
on Level of Information

~ Goal
Purpose Evaluation at completion and ongoing Out com es/ Imp act
Out com es/ effe ctiv enes s
review
Monitoring and Review Sust aina bilit y
Outputs
Out put
Monitorin_g Inpu t/ Out puts
Activities ·'

Inputs

a suitably flexible man ner.

This needs to be applied and inte rpre ted in
 Relationship between evaluation criteria and LFA term
inology (See LFA matrix)
\._o_v_er_a_ll_ob_:_j_ec_ti_ve_s_ _ _J\ < - - - - -.. . Sustainability

\~P_r_oj_ec_t_p_ur.....:;_p_os_e_ _ _ ___J\ <:.----------' Relevance/ Impact

\...__R_es_ul_ts_ _ _ ____J \ < - - - - - ' Effectiveness

\~A_c_ti_vi_ti_es_ _ _ _ __j\ < - - - - -
- - - J Efficiency
\ Resources/ Means

LFA method will:

• Make a dialogue possible between all parties
i5v e" b efidaries, implementers,
decision makers and financiers) ~"'I
• Offer a tool for the identification of proli.e1ft'l!~
~ ·rrect solutions to problems.
• Contribute to clarify and concretizi~ t h ~
t s objectives and specifying correct
activities that are necessary to rea iz\.~ e o~c
tive s.
• Facilitate the production of fo o- , - -l~, erts
and evaluations.
• Create a joint approach to t~~ oj,t et, duci
ng complexity.
• Insure that the ow ner shi p\~ ~~e ct ends
up with the partn~r in co-operation.
• Make the imp lem enta fi~~ lt}e project more
efficient, reduce the amount of time
required and make the p~le ct/ programme susta
• Improve the cond ,, ~' , inable.
itions for relevance, feasibility and sustainab
,t - ility of projects and
design.

"How the LFA method works depends very much

on its users. LFA is no better and no
worse than its users." (Norad)

• Advantages
1. It ensures that fundamental questions are
asked and weaknesses are analysed, in
order to provide decision makers with better
and more relevant information.
2. It guides systematic and logical analysis
of the inter-related key elements which
constitute a well-designed project. \
3. It improves planning by highlighting
linkages between project elements and
external factors.

i
 - -

analysis of the effects of

4 for sys tem atic monitoring and
• It P_rovides a bet ter bas is
proJects.
en decision-
mo n und ers tan din g and bet ter communication bet we
S. It facilitates com t.
par ties involved in the projec
makers, ma nag ers and oth er pro ced ure s for
em ent and adm ini stra tio n benefit from sta nda rdi zed
6. Ma nag
ation.
collecting and ass ess ing inform
tinu ity of app roa ch wh en
atic monitoring ens ure s con
7. Th e use of LFA and sys tem
laced.
origin'al pro jec t staffs are rep communication
re ins titu tio ns ado pt the LFA con cep t it ma y facilitate
8. As mo
ncies.
bet we en Govt. and don or age ert ake both sec tor al stu die s
format makes it eas ier to und
9. Wi des pre ad use of the LFA
eral.·
and com par ativ e stu die s in gen ~
ent activities.
10. FA highlights key ma nag em ea kn es se s in project
ntify unrealistic ob jec ~~ a~
11. LFA makes it easier to ide ~
design. uri ng tha t the
the pla nni ng pro ces s by pro vid in. (!, strt~cture and ens
12. LFA guides ct design.
damental as /~ ts· ~l je
manager thinks through the fun
-~
and ev alu at1 ~o n.
13. Useful guide to monitoring

Limitations of LFA
~ ~
.

• Rig idity in pro jec t administrclb,iQ

9
o ~> wi se when objectives and
o, ~~ .P sized. This can be
specified at the out set are
reviews wh ere the key eie 1n
ext ern al factors
avoided by reg ula r pro jec t
t~ l'b e re-evaluated and adjust
ed.
ch- stifling creativity,
eo ple into a 'blueprint' app roa
• Being used too rig idl y~ aJ~
innovative thinking apd a~ tiv
e management.
ns as income
gen era l a1a lyti c too l. It is policy-neutral on such que stio
• LFA is a
, local participation, cos t
ortunities, access to resources
di str ib ut io n,{ ~~ nt opp
cts on the env iro nm ent .
and feasibility offStr ategies and technology, or effe
par atio n,
ls to be used dur ing pro jec t pre
;
ref ore onl y one of sev era l too
• LFA is the gro up analysis, cost-
lem ent atio n and eva lua tion , and it does not replace tar get
imp
benefit analysis, time planning,
impact analysis, etc.
training of
s of util izin g LFA can be ach ieved only thr oug h sys tem atic
• The full benefit
dological follow up.
all par ties involved and metho
of uncertainty.
• Limited atte nti on to problems objective table.
t through set of activities and
• A ten den cy for poo rly tho ugh es the res t of the LFA
- initial negative focus per vad
• Begins by identifying problems for situ atio ns
tim es cre ate s pro ble ms in som e cul tur es is not sui tab le
process. At lor ato ry style.
ich hav e gre at unc erta inty . Also does not allow for an exp
wh vision.
rat her than opp ort uni ties and
• Focusing too much of pro ble ms
 /

,
I

been designed as a mere requirement

• LFA's at times developed after the project has
of funding agencies.
consequences.
• Do not readily enable monitoring unintended
and measure complex, social changes
• Expectations to quantify the unquantifiable
and movements.
• Too project centered.

) LffJ .a i-/41i ~ e r . I M l~ j J l f . ~ ~
,4-/;:jl;- :Wrwd;,;,_ 1/wi~ Mr i ~f ol T, '
i) L-ffl d;, M1 ~ 4 ~ ·man,·uv~ ~ ·

~,.~7

~ ~

I
I IAEVALUATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Block 1: Programme Hvaluatlon
Unltl:lntroductlontoHvaluatlon

The demand for evaluation of extension programmes/projects is growing as

funding agencies and stakeholders want feedback from the programme/project
planners on:
• What did you do with the money?
• Why should we continue to fund extensionprogrammes/projects?
• Are the programmes effective?
• How will you improve or terminateineffective programmes/projects?
Therefore evaluation of extension programmes/projects is essential in order to
answer theabove-mentioned questions along withcorroborative evidence.
I
. Appraisal vs. Monitoring vs. Evaluation vs. Impact Assessment
Though they are often interchangeably used, following distinctions exist between them:
• Appraisal: It is a critical examination. of a programme/project proposal, normally
beforeimplementation and funding with respect to economic viability, technical
feasibility, and/social desirability. It is basically a planning and project
formulation activity guided by evaluation findings of similar
programmes/projects that have already been implemented.
• Monitoring; It is a continuous process that starts and ends with a
~rogramme/project which isrequired for immediate use and mid-course
correction. It is usually done by implementing personnelwho cover all aspects of
the programme/project for its correction or management. Monitoring is
asymptomatic and early warning system.
• Evaluation: It is an in-depth one-shot operation at a point of time (usually at
completion or midwayin the programme) undertaken for future
planning/replication/expansion. It is a learning anddiagnostic process usually
done by an outside agency covering a sample.
• Impact Assessment: Building on appraisal, monitoring and evaluation, the focus
of an impactassessment is on longer-term and wider-ranging changes, beyond
the immediate results of theprogram_me or project.

Monitoring
• Monitoring is the ·systematic process of observing and recording on a
regular basis, the activities carried out in a project, to ensure that the
activities are in line with the objectives of the programme.
• Monitoring takes into account optimum utilization of resources, to assist
the mangers in rational decision making. It keeps a track on the progress
and checks the quality of the project or programme against set criteria and
checks adherence to established standards.
I
I

• The information collected in monitoring

process helps an~lyse each aspect
--
of the project, to gauge the efficiency and
adjust inputs wherever essential.
Evaluation
From French evaluation noun of action
from evaluer"to find the value of,"
It I( -l
from e- out" see ex-) valuer,' fr&hi t~Hn
tfhY~fe "He' ~troH~! 'be' Wehf Be' ~t'1alu~,
be worth" {from PIE root -wai; "to b1 stro 1
hg' ). e 1

• Evaluation means assessment of value,

worth or merit of something
• Evaluation is a continuous effort to judg
e a programme, activity or thing
• It is the determination of the extent to
which the desire objectives have been
attained or the amount of movement
that has been made in the desired
direction.
• It can be defined as the process of dete
rmining the value or amount of success
in achieving predetermined objectives.
• Any attempt to obtain information on
the effect of training programme and
assess the value of training.
It is the measurement of programme aga
inst ~he predetermined goals.
• Evaluation is defined as an objective
and rigorous analysis of a continuing
or completed project, to determine its
significance, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability by comparing the resu
lt with ~e set of standards. It is
the process of passing value judgment con
cerning the performance level or
attainment of defined objectives.
• In short, evaluation is a process that criti
cally assesses, tests and measures
the design, implementation and results of
the project or programme, in the
light of objectives. It can be con
ducted both qualitatively and
quantitatively, to determine the differen
ce between actual and desired
outcome.

COMPLEMEN- Monitoring Evaluation

TARY ROLES • Routine colection of information • • Analyzing ilfamaoon
FOR • Trocking project . • A.ssessing effectiven~
MONITORING implementaoon p~ress ard impact
I AND • Measuring effitiency • Confirming project expectations
EVALUATION 6 • Memurirg impacts

Questi>n: Is the project doing Question: Is the project dcir,J

things right? the' right things?
' '

What is evaluation?
 - ----
-
j
-
·--
. process of assessing the
Programme evaluation is a con t'mua1an d systematic
.,, value or potential value of extension programme to guide decision-making for
the programme's future .
When we evaluate ....
► We examine the assumptions upon which an existing or proposed
programme is based.
► We study the goals and objectives of the programme.
► We collect information about a programme's inputs and outcomes.
► We compare it to some pre-set standards.
► We make a value judgment about the programme.
► We report findings in a manner that facilitates their use.

Why evaluate?
Demands on extension for programme efficiency, programme effectiveness
and for public accountability are increasing. Evaluation can help meet these
demands in various ways.
► Planning
• To assess needs
• To set priorities
• To direct allocation of resources
• To guide policy
► Analysis of programme effectiveness or quality
• To determine achievement of project objectives
• To identify strengths and weaknesses of a programme
• To determine if the needs of beneficiaries are being met
• To determine the cost-effectiveness of a programme
• To assess causes of success or failure
► Direct decision-making
• To improve programme management and effectiveness
• To identify and facilitate needed change
• To continue expand or terminate a programme
► Maintain accountability
• To stakeholders
• To funding agencies
• To the general public
► Programme impact assessment
• To discover a programme's impact on individuals and/or
communities
► Advocate
 -
. -. .
..

• To gain sup por t from policy maker

s and advisory councils
• To dire ct attention to needs of par
ticular stak eho lde r groups

When to evaluate?
The re are several basic questions
to ask wh en deciding wh eth er to car
an evaluation. If the answers to the ry out
se questions are "No'', this may not
time for any evaluation. be the
► Is the pro gra mm e imp
orta nt or significant enough to
evaluation? wa rra nt
► Is the re a legal req uire me
nt to carry ~ut an evaluation?
► Will the res ults of the evalua
tion influence decision-making abo
pro gra mm e? Will the evaluation ut the
answer questions posed by your
stak eho lde rs or tho se interested in
evaluation?
► Are sufficient funds availab
le to carry out the evaluation?
► Is the re eno ugh time to com
plete the evaluation?
Role of evaluator?
The role of an eva lua tor is continu
ally expanding. The traditional role
eva lua tor wa s a com bin atio n of an
of expert, scientist and res ear che
unc ove red cle ar- cut cause-and-effe r who
ct relationships. Today evaluators
oft en edu cat ors , facilitators, con are
sultants, interpreters, mediators
cha nge age nts . and /or

An evaluator's credibility
An eva lua tor is judged by his
or h~r competence and personal
Competence is developed thro ugh style.
training and experience. Personal
develops ove r tim e thro ugh a style
combination of training, experience
per son al characteristics. and
Competence:
► Background in the pro gra mm
e are a are being evaluated
► Capacity to und ers tan d a pro
gramme's context, goals and objecti
► Conceptual skills to design
ves
the evaluation
► Mastery of qualitative and qua
ntitative approaches to evaluation
data
collection
► Basic qua ntit ativ e and qualita
tive dat a analysis skills
► Rep ort wri ting and pre sen tati
on skills
Per son al style:
► Com mu nic atio n skills
► Confidence
► Str ong inte rpe rso nal skills

C
• -

► Ability to nurt ure trus t and rapp ort

► Sensitivity in repo rting

Objective ·of Programme Evaluation:

exte nt to which the program
1. Assessment of Effectiveness: Determine the
achieves its intended objectives and goals.
urce utilization in relation
2. Efficiency Analysis: Assess the efficiency of reso
to the outcomes produced by the program.
ance of the program's
3. Relevance Determination: Evaluate the relev
targ et population or the
objectives and activities to the needs of the
broa der context.
ts or changes resu lting from
4. Impact Assessment: Measure the broa der effec
.
the program, including unintended consequences
to stak ehol ders to facilitate
5. Improvement and Learning: Provide feedback
ramme.
learning and continuous improvement of the prog

Types of Programme Evaluation:

on the prog ramm e phas e(s)
Evaluations are of the following types based
h evaluation is conducted:
(planning, implementation, andconch:1sion) at whic
form of baseline evaluation to
i. Baseline Evaluation: Needs assessment is a
s/ex pect ation s from the
find out the targetgroup and their perceived need
baseline data to com pare
programme. If collected, this will alsoestablish
al welfareeducation in
programme results later. Example: Scope for anim
s asse ssm ent stud y in
open and distance learning: findings from a need
India (Sasidharand Jayasimha, 2015).
n duri ng the prog ramm e
ii. Formative Evaluation: It is undertake
ramm e is going as per
implementation stage to determinewhether the prdg
t theobjectives. It is also
plan, and changes, if any, are required to mee Generally,
evaluation.
termed as proc ess/m id-te rm/c oncu rren t mes /pro jects
prog ram
formativeevaluations are undertaken in long-term
Formative evaluation of
for cross checking/correctivemeasures. Example:
,2006).
Kisan Call Centres in Tamil Nadu (Karthikeyan etal.
iii. Summative Evaluation: It is undertaken
once the prog ram me achieves a
prog ramm e to find out its
stable state of operationor towards the end of a
seof action. Summative
results, effectiveness, impact and furth er cour
ries/funding agencies to
evaluation findings help extension functiona
modifications, furth er
makedecisions on programme continuation,
ve evaluation is done
expansion, reduction, or closure. Ifsummati
called term inal/ outc ome
immediately after completion of a project it is
on of a project, it is called
evaluation. If it is done some time after completi
broiler farming: An
ex-postevaluation. Example: Integrated contract ,I
di, 2015 ).
evaluation case study in India (Sasidharand Suve I
 iv. Follow-up Evaluation:
programme to see wh It is undertaken long aft er completion of the
etherthere are any lon
beneficiaries. When follow g-term changes among
-up evaluations are repeate
to study the long term be dat set time intervals
nefits, sustainability of res
arecal\ed longitudinal ev ults and outcomes, they
aluations. Example: Ev
education radio farm sc aluation of a dtS tance
hoolprogramme in India:
up (Sasidhar et al., 2011) Im plications for scaling

Evaluation criteria
1. Relevance - the ex
tent to which the ob
intervention are consist jectives of the develop
ent with beneficiaries' ne ment
needs, global priorities eds and problems, coun
and partners' and dono try
objectives continue to be rs' policies; whether the
relevant.
2. Effectiveness - the
extent to which the ob
intervention were achie jectives of the develop
ved, or are expected to ment
account their relative im be achieved, taking into
portance.
3. Bffldency- examines
how resources inputs, fun
converted to results an ds, expertise, time - have
d whether the .results we been
cost. re achieved at a reasona
ble
4. Sustainability - the
extent to which the be
intervention continue nefits from a developme
after major developme nt
completed and the prob nt assis tan ce has been
ability of continued long
5. Impact- the positive an term benefits.
d negative, primary and
produced by a developm secondary long-term effec
ent intervention, directly ts
unintended. or ind irectly, intended or

Approaches of Programm
e Evaluation:
1. Quantitative Approach
es: Utilize nume_rical data
measure program outco and statistical analysis to
mes, such as surveys,
administrative records. pre-post tests, and
2. Qualitative Approach
es: Focus on understan
perceptions, and perspec ding the experiences,
tives of program particip
through methods like int ants and stakeholders
erviews, focus groups, an
3. Mixed-Methods Appr d case studies.
oaches: Combine quantitativ
to provide a more comp e and qualitative methods
rehensive understanding
of program effectiveness
and impact.
-•
orks to
4. Theory-Based Approaches: Use theori es and conceptual framew
,
guide the evaluation process, including logic models, theori es of change
and progra m theories.
process,
5. Participatory Approaches: Involve stakeh olders in the evaluation
ce
from planni ng and design to data collection and analysis, to enhan
relevance, ownership, and utilization of evaluation findings.

Evaluation Principles
General principes of evaluation
As an evaluator one must keep in mind following points:
ting
1. Clearly specify what is to be evaluated. Are you intere sted in evalua
knowledge acquir ed or attitud es qeveloped?
to the
2. Select an evaluation technique in terms of its relevance
ting
characteristics or performance to be measured. The tools for evalua
knowledge will be different from the tools for evaluating attitud es.
ques.
3. Comprehensive evaluation requires a variety of evaluation techni
(such
Even for evaluating knowledge you will require variety of test items
e
as multiple choice or short answer). This is a writte n test You may requir
an oral test or a open book examination to evaluate the knowledge base.
4. Awareness of limitations of evaluation techniques improve their use.