esign, monitoring and evaluation, all of which are management functions, are undertaken within the context of the programming cycle. Evaluation is usually identified both as a management function and as a phase of the programming cycle. The programming cycle comprises of several phases that interact with one another; the main phases are planning, design/formulation, monitoring/implementation, and evaluation:

Design questions belong to the formulation phase, but they are best addressed when the preparation of the program/project has been completed in the planning phase, which comprises of the crucial stages of project identification and project appraisal. A good design provides a clearer guide to implementation and a better basis for evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation require clear identification of problems, precise statements of objectives showing the changes to be achieved, and a detailed description of the delivery mechanisms (planning and formulation phases), as well as the collection of relevant information on the changes that actually occur (implementation phase). Although monitoring and evaluation are complementary and aim at improved management, they are distinct functions with specific purposes.

Monitoring questions apply to the implementation phase and deal with the process of transforming inputs into outputs through activities. Monitoring is, thus, primarily concerned with the delivery process throughout a period of time and assessing the quantity and quality of the program/project outputs and activities.

Evaluation questions are concerned with the effects and impact of outputs and activities assessing the actions or reactions of those affected by the program/project at a certain point in time, either during implementation (interim and final evaluations) or after the completion of activities (ex-post evaluation). Monitoring and evaluation results must be fed back into the implementation of ongoing activities and the planning of new activities.

A well-designed program/project requires a clearly formulated project document, which highlights the logical linkages between the required inputs, planned activities, expected outputs, and objectives. The latter should state what change will be brought about to contribute to the solution of the identified problems and/or satisfy the identified needs.

A project document fulfills three main functions: it serves as a contract, as a guide to planning and implementation, and as a basis for monitoring and evaluation.

Contract

The project document establishes the basis for accountability and lays down the obligations of each of the partners, which are usually as follows:

The host country (government, employers’ organizations, other NGOs)

The UNDP or other international agency

The financing source(s).

Guide to planning and implementation

The project document describes the situation that gave rise to the program/project and explains the reasons why the program/project is undertaken. It establishes the plan for what will be done, what will be produced, when and by whom. It also describes the situation that is expected to exist at the end of the program/project and what is expected to happen after the program/project ends.

Basis for monitoring and evaluation

The project document provides the basis for assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of a program/project. It establishes the criteria by which the success (or lack of success) of the program/project will be evaluated. For example, one could look at how many people benefited, how their lives, practices, habits or participation have improved, how the project has contributed or led to decentralization, institutionalization, and whether its results are sustainable.

Each project document should have a precise, clear and inclusive executive summary, that contains a brief background to the project, summarizes the pre-project situation and the rationale that led to the project, and gives a succinct description of the project status, objectives, major activities, area of operation, and the anticipated inputs. The purpose of the evaluation (e.g., project efficiency, output, relevance) and the objectives of the evaluation mission should also be stated. For mid-term evaluation, for example, the purpose would be to assess the progress made in achieving the project’s objectives, based on the key performance indicators.

For example if a project involves building more schools, the actual increase in the number of schools is not an indicator; the success of the project is to be measured in terms of the proportion of students to classes and the number of students who have attended classes compared to the population of this age group.

The document should answer the following set of basic questions:

Development Support Communication is the planning and systematic use of communication forms to enhance and accomplish participation and dialogue, mobilization and information flow, training and expansion of services.

Some other organizations require strategies for gender equality, i.e., integration of gender concerns into general programs. These could be the advancement of women’s participation, the promotion of equality between men and women, or specific women’s projects.

Every project follows a strategy that was developed in accordance with the goal of the project. If a project wants to fight poverty or illiteracy, for example, it must have a clear strategy regarding how to address and improve the situation and define the beneficiaries and partners.

Direct support is immediate aid that goes from the donors to a target group, be it a specific NGO, a group of NGOs, a university, or any other defined group of people. Institutional development goes to an organization that does capacity-building through training measures, skills enhancement, etc., and thus has a more sustainable output. A project can combine both elements, but it is important to distinguish between them

An institutional framework is an organizational set-up that defines clear structures, responsibilities and roles. It applies to ministries or other governmental institutions, as well as to trade unions, cooperatives, grass-roots associations, private sector enterprises, NGOs, etc.

Another issue to be clarified concerns the target groups. There are indirect beneficiaries and direct recipients and they must be precisely identified and characterized, for example, by age, gender, geographical area, etc.

The linkages between the key design elements, the development objectives, output, activities, and inputs should be under the full control of the project management.

Indicators of Achievement do the following:

Add precision to the formulation of the immediate objectives

Provide verifiable evidence to assess the progress made towards the achievement of the immediate objective(s)

Should be stated in quantifiable or measurable terms

In Institutional Development projects:

Describe what the institution will be capable of doing

In Direct Support projects:

Explain to what extent the target group will be better off.

Assumptions do the following:

Refer to external factors affecting the program/project implementation and performance

Should be stated in precise terms and as positive conditions

Should have a high likelihood of materializing

It is necessary to have monitoring and evaluation as part of the planning process in order to follow up on projects and expenditure and, in the end, provide evaluation reports on inputs and outputs and the overall performance of an organization. Reporting and follow-up mechanisms and procedures are essential to documenting and acting upon management decisions.

When carrying out projects, whether on democracy, advocacy, model parliament, electricity, water, etc., one wants to know whether they are proving successful or not. Improvements may be noticed, but the changes that take place might have occurred anyway and not as a result of the project. An industrial company, for example, wanted to advance the motivation of the workers to increase their productivity and took measures to improve the workers’ environment, e.g., by enlarging their offices, installing music and providing other facilities. When production went up, the company wanted to be sure that this was a result of their measures, so all the improvements were slowly taken away, and the production still went up. Thus, the actual reason was the attentiveness of the administration.

Monitoring and evaluation can also be done at the regional level in terms of geographic regions, population, or administrative districts. Doing this will provide important information on each locality in a country or and on a larger scale, e.g., the Middle East. On an organizational basis, one talks about micro level evaluation whereas a ministry on the national level undergoes macro monitoring and evaluation. If implemented on a regional level, the region would be macro and the different local communities micro.

The aims of both monitoring and evaluation are to improve the overall management of programs/projects and to enhance their achievements by providing information and feedback on the performance and implementation of the programs/projects to all parties concerned.

Therefore every project document should include monitoring and evaluation plans, which answer the following questions:

When will workplans and progress reports be prepared?

When, how, and by whom will the program/project be monitored and evaluated? Plans should provide details concerning the preparation of work plans, progress review and self-evaluation reports, as well as the organization’s independent evaluations, as appropriate.

Monitoring can be defined as the continuous or periodic review of program/ project implementation by management to assess delivery, identify difficulties, ascertain problem areas, and recommend remedial action(s). The purpose of monitoring is to ensure there is efficient and effective program/ project implementation. It provides timely information on the work planned and already done to all the parties concerned. Monitoring is thus primarily concerned with the delivery process, ensuring that inputs, through activities, are transformed into outputs, and analyzing their quantity and quality.

Work plan, progress review and self-evaluation reports are management tools, which guide and document the work of those involved in program/project implementation. While it is the project management that drafts and submits these reports, both their preparation and the follow-up actions require dialogue and consultation with all the parties concerned.

The purpose of the work plan is to guide the program/project implementation (indicating what will be done), facilitate accountability, and provide a basis for progress reviews and self-evaluation. It usually takes the form of a summary information sheet or timetable, and should contain the following:

Priority areas and objective(s)

Outputs/activities to achieve objective(s)

The planned starting and completion dates for each activity

Names of those responsible for delivery (persons/organizations)

The progress review periodically assesses the implementation of the work plan based on the information that has already been collected on the work actually carried out. The progress review is a key tool for examining:

The quality, quantity, and timeliness of outputs produced and activities carried out according to the work plan

The use of resources (inputs)

The management problems or constraints and remedial actions

The validity of assumptions and the existence of any foreseen events affecting implementation

The changes that have taken place and the reasons for them

The adjustments in the work plan and any follow-up actions required.

One of the main outcomes of monitoring may be the adjustment to new needs and conditions, which could not have been foreseen at the design stage, including the definition and adoption of mechanisms for updating the work plan. Any adjustments should be made with the involvement of the actors concerned within and outside the constituents, target groups, counterpart institutions and other cooperating agents.

Evaluation is an essential function that takes place at one point in time and feeds back into current program/project execution and future program/project planning and formulation. Evaluation assesses the progress made towards the achievement of objectives and the impact or effects of programs/ projects. Evaluation is a key tool for:

Enhancing the implementation of ongoing programs/projects

Improving the preparation of new programs/projects

Providing inputs into broader programs and thematic evaluations

The evaluation team has to review all details of the project, including project-related documents, and examine the sources of information. This includes a review of all project files, field trips and site visits. The evaluation itself must be documented in a report that contains information and details on the implementation arrangements, the composition (members) and duration of the evaluation mission, the anticipated costs, and the approach to the evaluation report.

The members of the evaluation mission have to be aware of the possible risks and constraints that may affect the path of their work, such as holidays, or in the Palestinian case, closures, etc. Then the evaluation tasks pertaining to the project implementation results must be listed, i.e., an assessment of the achieved results, the performance, efficiency. etc., and how the result of the evaluation will affect the remainder of the project.

Evaluation is concerned with one or more of the following aspects of program/project performance:

The project impact to be measured through the evaluation are the results achieved compared to the pre-project situation, such as health improvement, an increase in the production level, etc. The evaluation report must state whether the project has achieved its objectives, reached the targeted beneficiaries, and kept within its time limits, and if not, give reasons. It should also be clear regarding the period on which the evaluation focused since a project’s impact may not occur immediately but only after a delay of a year or two. Finally, the ‘critical issues’, i.e., any special features regarding the sustainability of the project, should be listed.

Finally, the evaluation mission should be requested to state its findings, identify the needs to improve utilization, assist efficiency, effectiveness and impact, and list recommendations, taking into consideration the capacity and possibilities available (time, funds, etc.). Based on the recommendations, which should be studied and, if suitable, applied, it can be assessed whether or not it is worthwhile to continue or expand a particular project. Correspondingly, a project can function as a model and be applied to other areas or fields.

There are four criteria for categorizing evaluation: timing, responsibility, coverage and methodology.

Self-evaluation should involve those directly responsible for the program/ project implementation. It identifies to what extent the program/project has achieved or is likely to achieve its stated objectives, and should be followed by adequate actions that result in improved implementation of ongoing activities and better planning of future activities.

Self-evaluation is a useful management tool because it allows for the comprehensive coverage of all activities, facilitates immediate feedback by those directly concerned, passes on the technical knowledge and experience of those responsible for the implementation, and provides analytical input to independent evaluations.

Self-evaluation should be based on the statement of objective(s), work plans, and the results of periodic progress reviews, and focus on the assessment of the following aspects of the program/project:

Progress made towards the achievements of the immediate objective(s) (i.e., effectiveness)

Usefulness of results in meeting the needs of the target groups (relevance)

Whether the results obtained justify the costs incurred, and whether there are alternative ways or modalities of implementation (efficiency)

Durability or results after the withdrawal of external funds (sustainability)

Constraints or problems faced and remedial action taken or planned

and

Lessons learned for improving future programming

Self-evaluations may be complemented by independent evaluations, which involve the participation of persons who are not directly responsible for program/project implementation. The actual degree of ‘independence’, however, is determined by the composition of the evaluation team. Moreover, the question of who nominates the members of the team is crucial.

Independent or external evaluation provides objectivity in the assessment and functions as a mirror for the examined institution. An independent evaluation requires all parties concerned to agree on the terms of reference (TOR), including the following:

The specific purpose of a particular evaluation

The specific issues to be addressed

The approach and methodology to be used, and

The need to overcome constrains and respond to opportunities in a positive and constructive way

The monitoring group or evaluation group – be it a local or international consultancy firm, an office or a group of individuals – must know the terms of reference. These should outline the general evaluation framework, as well as the project status and issues such as the purpose, methodology and costs of the evaluation. Some organizations (e.g., the United Nations Capital Development Fund - UNCDF) demand certain guidelines for the preparation of the terms of reference for an evaluation mission. These may include the name of the country, project number, sponsors, total project cost, financing, actual disbursements.

The TOR are the conditions that one must abide by and should provide guidance to assess the program/project in terms of the following:

Concept and design

Implementation

Performance

Special institutional concerns

Organizational matters to be addressed in TORs are:

Composition of the mission

Timetable and itnerary

Source of information

Consultations and contacts

Final report (preparation, review and dissemination)

A lesson learned can be defined as a generalization based on an experience (e.g., projects, policies or programs) that was evaluated. A distinction can be made between:

normative lessons, which point out what should be done, or what should be avoided, to ensure success and

causal lessons, which correspond to statements that reveal the likely outcomes (positive or negative) of different processes.

Also, the following distinction should be made between ‘lessons learned’ and ‘findings, conclusions, and recommendations’:

A finding is a ‘factual statement’ (such as the repayment rate was 90 percent)

A conclusion is a ‘synthesis’ of ‘factual statements’ corresponding to a ‘specific circumstance’ (policy ‘X’ failed to achieve its objective)

a recommendation is a ‘prescription’ on what should be done under specific circumstances, for example: in order to increase the repayment rate in a certain credit project incentives should be introduced

A lesson learned is a generalization that does not refer to a specific circumstance but to a ‘type’ of situation.

The lessons drawn from evaluation should highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the program/project preparation, design and implementation that affected performance and impact. This information should be relayed to program/project managers so that the knowledge can be used to improve the implementation of ongoing activities and the planning of future activities and, ultimately, the achievement of short- and long-term objectives, Furthermore, such information can be used as the basis for making policy recommendations in related fields.