Department of State Program Evaluation Policy. For the most recently published version of the Evaluation Policy, see http: //www. Evaluation Requirement. E. Types of Evaluations. F. The Role of the Office of U. S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F) and the Bureau of Resource Management (RM)G. Evaluation Standards. H. Evaluation Responsibility. I. Bureau Evaluation Plans. K. Bureau Point of Contact. L. Evaluation Resources. M. Documenting and Sharing Evaluations Reports. A. Introduction. The Department of State is the lead institution for the conduct of American diplomacy and all foreign affairs efforts are paid for by the foreign affairs budget. The Department is committed to using performance management best practices, including where feasible and useful, program evaluation, to achieve the most effective U. S. This Department policy embodies the aims of the current National Security Strategy, the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. The policy applies to evaluations of the Department’s diplomatic and development programs, projects and activities. A robust, coordinated and targeted evaluation function is essential to the ability of the Department to measure and monitor program performance; make decisions for programmatic adjustments and changes; document program impact; identify best practices and lessons learned; help assess return on investment; provide inputs for policy, planning and budget decisions; and assure accountability to the American people. With the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1. EDU 760 01 001 - Program Evaluation & Strategic Plan; EDU 760 01 002 - Program Evaluation & Strategic Plan; EDU 760 01 004 - Program Evaluation & Strategic Plan; EDU 760 01 005 - Program Evaluation & Strategic Plan; EDU 760. Program evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer questions about projects, policies and programs, particularly about their effectiveness and efficiency. Planning a Program Evaluation G3658-1. Acknowledgements For their timely and thoughtful review of this publication, the authors wish to thank. This guide is designed to help you plan a program evaluation. The second level is process evaluation of the program implemented at the local level. Sample Evaluation Plan Table ~ Grant County SPF SIG Coalition. Update epi profile and strategic plan. Program implementation. Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan. This section should delineate the criteria for evaluation prioritization and include a. GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2. Congress strengthened the mandate to evaluate programs and required agencies to include a discussion of program evaluations in their strategic plans and performance reports. Although USAID and the Department have made significant progress toward fulfilling these mandates, this policy is intended to provide a more coherent evaluation policy and a coordinated strategy and work plan for conducting evaluations in the Department consistent with GPRAMA, the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1. E- Government Act of 2. OMB Memorandum M- 1. Chief Information Officer Authorities. This policy also responds to today’s needs. Many stakeholders are demanding greater transparency in decision- making and disclosure of information. This policy works in concert with existing and pending Department policies, strategies and operational guidance, including those that are forthcoming from the QDDR implementation effort. In addition, the policy is consistent with the USAID evaluation policy. The Department will continue to work collaboratively with USAID and other USG agencies to ensure that the organizations’ guidelines and procedures with respect to evaluation are mutually reinforcing. Key Definitions. Evaluation: Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of programs and projects as a basis for judgments, to improve effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about current and future programming. Evaluation is distinct from assessment, which may be designed to examine country or sector context to inform project design, or an informal review of projects. Performance Evaluation: Performance evaluations focus on the implementation of an intervention (or management effort) and describe what a particular project or program has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period); how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision making. Performance evaluations often incorporate before- after comparisons, but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. Impact Evaluation: Impact evaluations assess/measure the change in the targeted groups, organizations and other beneficiaries that can be attributed to a project, program or policy. Impact evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual to control for factors other than the intervention that might account for the observed change. The essence of impact evaluation lies in establishing that the changes have occurred as a result of the intervention, or at least the latter has substantially contributed to it. Impact evaluations require defining a counterfactual by establishing a treatment and a control group. Summative/ Ex- Post Evaluations: They differ from performance evaluations in that their focus is primarily on outcomes and impacts but they often include evaluation of effectiveness and are conducted when an intervention has ended or is soon likely to end. Program Background and Purpose of Strategic Evaluation Plan Program Background In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a five year grant program funding health. AIU Strategic Plan Program Evaluation Action Plans Did you know? The Program Evaluation Action Plan Committee developed a tool and process that AIU programs can use to evaluate programs and services. Programs can use this. Second, develop an overall evaluation strategy. Ideally an EERE Office should have an overall evaluation strategy and supporting multi-year evaluation plan that addresses each critical program element, including a schedule for. Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that. Call for Material to Further EPP’s Strategic. Global/Regional Evaluations: Are designed to examine the performance and outcomes of a major sector or sub- sector of foreign affairs programs to draw general findings, conclusions and lessons. The purpose of a global evaluation is not to evaluate the success or failure of individual projects but to determine the efficacy and outcomes of the programs per se. Experience Reviews: These involve systematic analysis of past experience. They focus on a limited range of questions that are of paramount interest to policy and decision makers. Experience reviews do not require fieldwork, and the needed information is gathered from sources such as literature reviews, experts’ workshops, key informant interviews and/or surveys. Monitoring: Monitoring provides an indication of progress against goals and indicators of performance, reveals whether desired results are occurring, and confirms whether implementation is on track. In general the results measured are the direct and near term consequences of program activities; whereas evaluations document the achievement of outcomes and results and, in some cases, the value of continuing the investment. Performance Indicator: Performance indicators measure a particular characteristic or dimension of an intervention’s outputs or outcomes. Outputs are directly attributable to the intervention activities, while outcomes represent results to which a given program contributes but for which it is not solely responsible. Program: A program is a set of activities or projects that are typically implemented by several parties over a specified period of time. A program evaluation often involves an assessment or study of multiple activities that may cut across sectors and/or geographic areas. Project: A project is a set of planned and then executed interventions identified through a design process, which are together intended to achieve a defined result, generally by solving an associated problem or challenge. The term project does not refer only or primarily to an implementing mechanism, such as a contract or grant. A set of projects makes up the portfolio of a program. A project evaluation is often carried out within the framework of a broader program. Activity: An activity is a component of a project that contributes to a project purpose. It refers to an award (such as a contract, grant or cooperative agreement), or a component of a project such as training or technical assistance. B. Purpose. This new evaluation policy proposes a framework, where applicable, to implement evaluations of programs, projects, and activities that are carried out and funded by the Department. This policy is intended to provide clarity about the purposes of evaluation, the requirements for evaluation, the types of evaluations that are possible, and an approach for conducting, disseminating and using evaluations. Evaluation at the Department has two primary purposes: (1) accountability to stakeholders and (2) learning, which could inform and improve program, project, and activity design and implementation. Accountability: Well designed and timely evaluations help to ensure accountability for the USG resources spent on foreign affairs activities. Evaluations enable program managers and leadership to determine the cost effectiveness of programs, projects, initiatives, activities, interventions, etc., and in the case of a program or project, quality of its planning and implementation. Consequently, evaluation findings can provide empirical data for reports to various stakeholders in foreign assistance planning and in larger diplomatic activities. Learning: Evaluations document the results, impact, or effectiveness of organizational and programming activities, thereby facilitating learning from experience. The Department can apply such learning to the development of new projects, programs, strategies and policies. Empirically- grounded evaluations also aid informed decision making when considering new programs or projects, interventions, activities, etc. C. Applicability. Effective February 1. State Bureaus and S/GAC. Other offices designated by the Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) may also be requested to adhere to this policy on a case by case basis. D. Evaluation Requirement. The Department of State requires that all large programs, projects, and activities be evaluated at least once in their lifetime or every five years, whichever is less. Bureaus will determine which programs, projects or activities to evaluate; upon request RM and F will assist in this effort. For most bureaus, a “large” program, project, or activity is one whose dollar value equals or exceeds the median program/ project/ activity size for the bureau. For bureaus that conduct their programs, projects, and activities primarily with staff resources, a “large” program, project, or activity can instead be identified using criteria based on the number of full time staff (or equivalent). In this case, a “large” program, project, or activity is one for which the number of full time staff associated with the program, project, or activity exceeds the median number of staff associated with individual programs, projects, and activities in the bureau.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2016
Categories |