WWW.BOOK.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 9 | 10 || 12 | 13 |   ...   | 62 |

«Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The ...»

-- [ Page 11 ] --

State of California. 2007. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Analysis of the 2007-2008 Budget Bill, Transportation Chapter. Available at: http://www.lao.ca.go/analysis_00/ transportation/trans_anl0.pdf. Accessed on August 18, 2007.

Tilly, C. 2004. Contention and Democracy in Europe, 0-000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, C. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Tocqueville, A. 1969. Democracy in America. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 2006. USAID Primer: What We Do and How We Do It. Washington, DC: USAID, p. 31. Available at: http://www.usaid.go/ about_usaid/PDACG00.pdf. Accessed on August 7, 2007.

USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 2007. Our Work: Democracy and Governance: Technical Areas. Available at: http://www.usaid.go/our_work/democracy_ and_goernance/technical_areas. Accessed on July 10, 2007.

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs. 2007. Provincial Reconstruction Teams:

Building Iraqi Capacity and Accelerating the Transition to Iraqi Self-Reliance. Available at: http://www.state.go/documents/organization/.pdf.

White, H. 2006. Impact Ealuation—The Experience of the Independent Ealuation Group of the World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank.

White, H. 2007. Technical Rigor Must Not Take Precedence Over Other Kinds of Valuable Lessons. Pp. 81-89 in Making Aid Work. A.V. Banerjee, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., and Newcomer, K.E. 2004. Handbook of Practical Program Ealuation, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

de Zeeuw, J., and Kumar, K. 2006. Promoting Democracy in Postconflict Societies. Boulder:

Lynne Rienner.

Evaluation in USAID DG Programs:

Current Practices and Problems

INTRODUCTION

To make decisions about the best ways to assist the spread of democracy and governance (DG), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) must address at least two broad questions:

1. Where to intervene. In what countries and in what sectors within countries? Selecting the targets for DG programming requires a theory, or at least hypothesis, about the relationships among different institutions and processes and how they contribute to shaping overall trajectories toward democracy and governance. It also requires strategic assessment, that is, the ability to identify the current quality of democratic institutions and processes in various countries and set reasonable goals for their future development.

2. How to intervene. Which DG projects will work best in a given country under current conditions? Learning how well various projects work in specific conditions requires well-designed impact evaluations that can determine how much specific activities contribute to desired outcomes in those conditions.

The two questions are clearly connected. To decide where to intervene (Question 1), one wants to know which interventions can work (Question 2) in the conditions facing particular countries. Indeed, in the current state of scientific knowledge, answers to Question 2 may provide the most helpful guidance to answering Question 1.

  IMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE This chapter therefore focuses on USAID’s policies and practices for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of its DG projects. To provide a context, we begin with a brief description of the current state of evaluations of development assistance programs in general. Then existing USAID assessment, monitoring, and evaluation practices for DG programs are described. Since such programs are called into existence and bounded by U.S. laws and policies, the key laws and policies that shape current USAID DG assessment and evaluation practices are examined, to lay the foundation for the changes recommended later in the report. The chapter concludes with a discussion of three key problems that USAID encounters in its efforts to decide where and how to intervene.

CURRENT EvALUATION PRACTICES IN DEvELOPMENT

ASSISTANCE: gENERAL OBSERvATIONS

As Chapter 5 discusses later in detail, there is a widely recognized set of practices for how to make sound and credible determinations of how well specific programs have worked in a particular place and time (see, e.g., Shadish et al 2001, Wholey et al 2004). The goal of these practices is to determine, not merely what happened following a given assistance program, but how much what happened differs from what would be obsered in the absence of that program. The final phrase is critical, because many factors other than the given policy intervention—including ongoing longterm trends and influences from other sources—are generally involved in shaping observed outcomes. Without attention to these other factors and some attempt to account for their impact, it is easy to be misled regarding how much an aid program really is contributing to an observed outcome, whether positive or negative.

The practices used to make this determination generally have three parts: (1) collection of baseline data before a program begins, to determine the starting point of the individuals, groups, or communities who will be receiving assistance; (2) collection of data on the relevant desired outcome indicators, to determine conditions after the program has begun or operated for a certain time; and (3) collection of these same “before and after” data for a comparison set of appropriately selected or assigned individuals, groups, or communities that will not receive assistance, to estimate what would have happened in the absence of such aid.1 1 The ideal comparison group is achieved by random assignment, and if full randomization is achieved, a “before” measurement may not be required, as randomization effectively sets the control and intervention groups at the same starting point. However, both because randomization is often not achievable, requiring the use of matched or baseline-adjusted comparison groups, and because baseline data collection itself often yields valuable information about the conditions that policymakers desire to change, we generally keep to the three-part model of sound evaluation design.





 EVALUATION IN USAID DG PROGRAMS Wide recognition of these practices for determining project impacts does not mean that they are widely or consistently applied, however.

Nor does it mean that policy professionals or evaluation specialists agree that the three elements are feasible or appropriate in all circumstances, especially for highly diverse and politically sensitive programs such as democracy assistance or other social programs. Thus, while some areas of development assistance, such as public health, have a long history of using impact evaluation designs to assess whether policy interventions have their intended impact, social programs are generally much less likely to employ such methods.

In 2006 the Center for Global Development (CGD), a think tank devoted to improving the effectiveness of foreign assistance in reducing global poverty and inequality, released the report of an “Evaluation Gap

Working Group” convened to focus on the problem of improving evaluations in development projects. Their report concludes:

Successful programs to improve health, literacy and learning, and household economic conditions are an essential part of global progress. Yet... it is deeply disappointing to recognize that we know relatively little about the net impact of most of these social programs.... [This is because] governments, official donors, and other funders do not demand or produce enough impact evaluations and because those that are conducted are often methodologically flawed.

Too few impact evaluations are being carried out. Documentation shows that UN agencies, multilateral development banks, and developing country governments spend substantial sums on evaluations that are useful for monitoring and operational assessments, but do not put sufficient resources into the kinds of studies needed to judge which interventions work under given conditions, what difference they make, and at what cost. (Savedoff et al 2006:1-2) Although not a focus for the CGD analysis, democracy assistance reflects this general weakness. As a recent survey of evaluations in democracy programming noted: “Lagging behind our programming, however, is research focusing on the impact of our assistance, knowledge of what types of programming is (most) effective, and how programming design and effectiveness vary with differing conditions” (Green and Kohl 2007:152). The Canadian House of Commons recently investigated

Canada’s DG programs and came to similar conclusions:

[W]eaknesses... have been identified in evaluating the effectiveness of Canada’s existing democracy assistance funding.... Canada should invest more in practical knowledge generation and research on effective democratic development assistance. (House of Commons 2007) As discussed in more detail below, there are many reasons why DG projects—and social development programs more generally—are not rouIMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE tinely subject to the highest standards of impact evaluation. One reason is that “evaluation” is a broad concept, of which impact evaluations are but one type (see, e.g., World Bank 2004). On more than one occasion committee members found themselves talking past USAID staff and implementers because they lack a shared vocabulary and understanding of what was meant by “evaluation.” Diverse Types of Evaluations Because the term “evaluation” is used so broadly, it may be useful to review the various types of evaluations that may be undertaken to review aid projects.

The type of evaluations most commonly called for in current USAID procedures is process evaluation. In these evaluations investigators are chosen after the project has been implemented and spend several weeks visiting the program site to study how the project was implemented, how people reacted, and what outcomes can be observed. Such an evaluation often provides vital information to DG missions, such as whether there were problems with carrying out program plans due to unexpected obstacles, or “spoilers,” or unanticipated events or other actors who became involved. They are the primary source of “lessons learned” and “best practices” intended to inform and assist project managers and implementers. They may reveal factors about the context that were not originally taken into account but that turned out to be vital for program success.

Process evaluations focus on “how” and “why” a program unfolded in a particular fashion, and if there were problems, why things did not go as originally planned.

However, such evaluations have a difficult time determining precisely how much any observed changes in key outcomes can be attributed to a foreign assistance project. This is because they often are unable to re-create appropriate baseline data if such data were not gathered before the program started and because they generally do not collect data on appropriate comparison groups, focusing instead on how a given DG project was carried out for its intended participants.

A second type of evaluation is participatory evaluation. In these evaluations the individuals, groups, or communities who will receive assistance are involved in the development of project goals, and investigators interview or survey participants after a project was carried out to determine how valuable the activity was to them and whether they were satisfied with the project’s results. Participatory evaluation is an increasingly important part of both process and impact evaluations. In regard to all evaluations, aid agencies have come to recognize that input from participants is vital in defining project goals and understanding what conEVALUATION IN USAID DG PROGRAMS stitutes success for activities that are intended to affect them. This focus on building relationships and engaging people as a project goal means this type of evaluation may also be considered part of regular project activity and not just a tool to assess its effects.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 9 | 10 || 12 | 13 |   ...   | 62 |


Similar works:

«AUS DER FAKULTÄT FÜR MEDIZIN DER UNIVERSITÄT REGENSBURG PROF. DR. MED. E.-D. KREUSER FACHGEBIET HÄMATOLOGIE UND INTERNISTISCHE ONKOLOGIE IMPLEMENTIERUNG EINER DEFINIERTEN PARENTERALEN ERNÄHRUNG VON TUMORPATIENTEN UNTER CHEMOUND ANTIKÖRPERTHERAPIE: EINE PROSPEKTIVE BEOBACHTUNGSSTUDIE Inaugural – Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Medizin der Fakultät für Medizin der Universität Regensburg vorgelegt von Susanne Daum AUS DER FAKULTÄT FÜR MEDIZIN DER UNIVERSITÄT...»

«Exhibit 5.7: Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) Proposal Format and Content Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) Proposal Format Title Page Table of Contents Introduction Background Research Design Organization and Personnel Schedule Native American Coordination Permits Curation References Cited Maps Appendices Updated site records. Peer Review and Approval Page E-5.7 i 2014 Update rev: 07/31/15 Volume 2 -Standard Environmental Reference Copyright © 2014...»

«Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik und Poliklinik der Technischen Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar (Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. W. Arnold) Signaltransduktion von Endothelin-A (ETA) Rezeptoren der Arteria cochlearis propria: Differentielle Desensitisierung der zytosolischen Ca2+-Mobilisierung; Rho-kinase vermittelte Ca2+-Sensitisierung der Myofilamente Elias Scherer Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Medizin der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen...»

«The Construction of the Labour Migrant’s Body: West Germany’s Medical Selection of Turkish Labour Migrants (1961-1973) Maria Kramer Abstract Health boundaries may demarcate the nation state without necessarily running along its territorial borders. Their intention is to regulate the mobility of people and objects across state borders from a health politics point of view. However, delineating spaces of liminality, health boundaries do not only restrict, they also constitute spaces of...»

«COMMISSIONED OFFICER'S HANDBOOK U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Program Support Center Human Resources Service Division of Commissioned Personnel 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 4A-15 Rockville, MD 20857-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSIONED CORPS OFFICERS......................... 1...»

«CSR Compendium A COMPENDIUM OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACTIVITIES WORLDWIDE* Catalyst Consortium 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 T. 202.775.1977 F. 202.775.1988 www.rhcatalyst.org U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia and Near East Bureau Strategic Planning, Operations & Technical Support (SPOTS) 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 www.usaid.gov *WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ASIA AND NEAR EAST REGION JULY 2002 21ST CENTURY...»

«Air Quality Guidelines Global Update Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005 Abstract The WHO air quality guidelines offer guidance to policy-makers on reducing the effects on health of air pollution. This book presents revised guideline values for the four most common air pollutants – particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. It also gives a comprehensive review of the issues affecting the use of the...»

«Health and Safety Executive Thorough examination of lifting equipment A simple guide for employers Introduction Health and Safety Executive Thorough examination If you are an employer or self-employed person providing lifting equipment for use of lifting equipment at work, or if you have control of the use of lifting equipment, you must make sure A simple guide for employers the lifting equipment is safe. The main requirements for you as a ‘duty holder’ are in the Provision and Use of Work...»

«Aus der Augenklinik und Poliklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Direktor : Prof. Dr. med. Anselm Kampik DIE HINTERE TENDEKTOMIE ZUR THERAPIE DES KONGENITALEN BROWN-SYNDROMS THE SUPERIOR OBLIQUE POSTERIOR TENECTOMY AS THERAPY FOR CONGENITAL BROWN’S SYNDROME Dissertation zum Erwerb des Doktorgrades der Medizin an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Andreea Ciubotaru aus Constanţa, Rumänien Mit Genehmigung der Medizinischen...»

«A UST RA LI A N A Q UATI C VE TE RI NA RY E MERG E NCY PLA N AQUAVETPLAN Enterprise Manual Version 2.0, 2015 AQUAVETPLAN is a series of manuals that outline Australia’s approach to national disease preparedness and proposes the technical response and control strategies to be activated in a national aquatic animal disease emergency. National Biosecurity Committee AQUAVETPLAN Enterprise Manual This manual forms part of: AQUAVETPLAN This strategy will be reviewed regularly. Suggestions and...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.