Monitoring & Evaluation
CSE Evaluation model
The CSE (Center for the Study of Evaluation Approach) evaluation model of Marvin C. Alkin (1969) focuses on assessment for decision-making. Alkin defined this assessment as the process of defining the boundaries of what is involved in making a decision, choosing the correct information, data collection, and analysis to prepare a summary report to the decision-makers in selecting the appropriate approach for project implementation. The CSE evaluation model consists of five steps as follows:
1. System Assessment describes the condition of a system to compare the actual situation and the expectation that will happen. System Assessment will allow us to define boundaries and appropriate objectives. This step includes The needs of people, communities, and society regarding the current situation. Different techniques and methods are required to evaluate each part of the system
2. Program Planning is an assessment before the project is implemented to find information that should be used in making decisions about the appropriate choice of the project. The evaluation consultants must find information that demonstrates expectations to achieve the project goal, evaluate the use of various operational methods, be able to see the comparison, and figure out suitable alternatives using different methods depending on the nature of the problem. Typically, assessments are based on external and internal criteria.
3. Program Implementation is an assessment while the project is in the process to check whether implementation of the project is feasible according to the planned steps, whether the project results were consistent with what was planned, or how much was expected.
4. Program Improvement is an assessment to find information on the project implementation to achieve the objectives and results that occur unintentionally. Therefore, the evaluation consultants play an essential role in obtaining information about the success or failure of all aspects of the project, as well as its impact on other projects, to use for further improvement.
5. Program Certification At this stage, the evaluation consultants must find information to assess the value and potential of the project and summarize the project outcomes and those that can be applied in a wide range of other situations. This step should help executives or project managers decide on the project, such as stopping, scale-up, or extending the project.
CIPP
The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) evaluation model is a comprehensive framework developed by Daniel L. Stufflebeam for conducting evaluations. The fundamental concept of the CIPP evaluation model is to provide a systematic and holistic approach to evaluating programs, policies, or initiatives in various contexts.
The CIPP model consists of four interrelated components:
1. Context Evaluation: This component focuses on understanding the contextual factors that influence the program or initiative being evaluated. It involves assessing stakeholders’ needs, values, priorities, and external factors such as social, political, and economic conditions. Context evaluation helps identify the broader context within which the program operates and provides a foundation for understanding the relevance and appropriateness of the program.
2. Input Evaluation: Input evaluation focuses on the resources, materials, and personnel involved in the program. It examines the adequacy and quality of the resources, including funding, staff, facilities, and equipment. Input evaluation assesses whether the inputs are sufficient and aligned with the goals and objectives of the program.
3. Process Evaluation: Process evaluation examines the actual implementation and delivery of the program. It assesses how well the program is being executed, the fidelity to the program design, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and activities. Process evaluation helps identify strengths and weaknesses in the implementation and provides insights for improving program delivery.
4. Product Evaluation: Product evaluation focuses on the program’s outcomes, impacts, or results. It examines the extent to which the program achieves its intended goals and objectives and whether it produces desired outcomes. Product evaluation helps determine the effectiveness and overall impact of the program, providing information for decision-making and future program improvement.
The CIPP evaluation model emphasizes a comprehensive and systematic approach to evaluation, considering multiple dimensions and stages of a program’s lifecycle. It promotes a focus on both the internal processes and external context, recognizing the importance of understanding the inputs, processes, and outcomes of the program’s goals and the needs of stakeholders. By utilizing the CIPP model, evaluators can gather data and insights from multiple perspectives, providing a robust evaluation that informs decision-making, program improvement, and accountability.
ROI and SROI
ROI (Return on Investment) and SROI (Social Return on Investment) are evaluation approaches used to measure the impact and value generated by an investment or intervention.
1. ROI (Return on Investment):
ROI is a financial metric that calculates the return or profit generated from an investment relative to its cost. It is typically expressed as a percentage, comparing the net gains or benefits to the initial investment. ROI focuses on quantifying the financial return and assessing the profitability or efficiency of an investment. It is commonly used in business and economic contexts to evaluate the success or viability of projects, initiatives, or business decisions.
2. SROI (Social Return on Investment):
SROI expands on the concept of ROI by considering the financial returns and the social and environmental impacts of investment. It is a framework for assessing and quantifying the social value created by an intervention. SROI considers tangible and intangible outcomes, including social, environmental, and economic factors. It involves identifying and valuing the social benefits and costs associated with the intervention, considering the perspectives of various stakeholders. SROI allows for a broader assessment of the impact and value generated beyond financial returns and is often used in evaluating social programs, initiatives, or social enterprises.
The key concept in both ROI and SROI is the measurement and assessment of value and impact. While ROI focuses primarily on financial returns, SROI takes a more comprehensive approach, considering a broader range of social, environmental, and economic outcomes. Both approaches provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of investments, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions, allocate resources effectively, and demonstrate the value created by their actions.
OECD DAC
The OECD DAC (Development Assistance Committee) evaluation model is a framework for evaluating development programs and projects. The fundamental concept of the OECD DAC evaluation model is to assess the effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of development assistance efforts.
The DAC evaluation model consists of five critical evaluation criteria:
1. Relevance: This criterion assesses the extent to which the development intervention addresses the needs, priorities, and goals of the target population or country. It examines the alignment of the intervention with national development strategies and the relevance of its objectives and activities.
2. Effectiveness: Effectiveness evaluates the extent to which the development intervention achieves its intended outcomes and contributes to the desired changes. It examines the results and outcomes achieved, considering the effectiveness of the strategies, approaches, and interventions employed.
3. Efficiency: Efficiency focuses on the optimal use of resources in achieving the desired outcomes. It assesses the cost-effectiveness of the intervention by evaluating the relationship between the inputs, such as financial resources and human capital, and the outputs or results achieved.
4. Sustainability: Sustainability evaluates the likelihood of the development intervention’s long-term continuation and capacity to generate lasting impacts beyond the initial project or program period. It assesses the factors that contribute to the sustainability of the intervention, including institutional capacity, ownership, financial viability, and environmental considerations.
5. Impact: Impact examines the broader effects and changes resulting from the development intervention. It assesses the positive and negative consequences, both intended and unintended, and measures the extent to which the intervention has contributed to the overall development goals and targets.
The OECD DAC evaluation model emphasizes a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to evaluation, considering various aspects of the development intervention’s design, implementation, and outcomes. It focuses on providing evidence-based insights and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of development assistance efforts. Using the OECD DAC evaluation model, evaluators and development practitioners can ensure a rigorous and standardized evaluation process, facilitate learning and accountability, and support evidence-based decision-making for development interventions. The model promotes transparency, learning, and continuous improvement in international development.
GTO
The GTO evaluation model, or Getting to Outcome, is one of the tools of Implementation Science invented by Professor Abraham Wandersman of the University of South Carolina, USA. It is the science of how to make research-based knowledge and evidence-based work practices systematically used in routine tasks. The GTO can enhance the quality and effectiveness of work. It consists of various approaches that have been continuously developed to result in different practices. Initially, GTO was used in medical and public health services. Instead, it has been used in various social services and development projects. The GTO evaluation model consists of 10 steps.
Each step has an assessment form that helps project staff to design systematic improvement of projects by focusing on “outcomes” as the most critical factor in determining the project direction.
Who we work with
