2.1. The elaboration of the four evaluation questions
The evaluators have elaborated a methodological framework, based on the four questions formulated in the Terms of Reference (see annex 1).
Questions on strategic objectives, especially when related to mainstreaming strategies, are too complex to be answered directly. Therefore, the consultants have broken down the evaluation questions into different criteria – usually worded as operational objectives (or sub-objectives). The achievement of these criteria or (sub-objectives) can be better practically observed and assessed. The level of achievement of these sub-objectives allows a judgement to be made on the extent of the achievements, as questioned in the overall evaluation questions, that have been realised during the period under review. It helps to identify any gaps or weaknesses of the CFA’s strategy in its achievement of the long-term objective. In this way, they are judgement criteria (JC). Judgement criteria are sub-evaluation questions.
The number of judgement criteria has been generally limited to three. The different intervention strategies (poverty reduction, civil society building, advocacy and lobbying) have been built into the judgement criteria (judgement criteria 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). For each judgement criteria, indicators have been formulated and differentiations have been made for high prevalence region and low prevalence regions, where relevant. The following table gives a brief overview of the four evaluation questions and judgment criteria that have been developed. Information on indicators can be found in the inception report (available on request).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
