Evaluation Management Training Course

Participants can establish whether an evaluation is justified and define its intended users and decisions.

• Decision-focused evaluation purpose statements linked to management decision points
• Primary users mapped by influence, information needs and anticipated actions
• Accountability, learning and strategic purposes distinguished before commissioning
• Timing evaluations around programme milestones, funding decisions and adaptation windows
• Evaluability assessment identifies evidence gaps before a formal evaluation
• Demand analysis prevents routine evaluations with no defined use pathway

Participants can reconstruct and test a theory of change suitable for evaluation planning.

• Theory of change distinguishes activities, outputs, outcomes, impacts and assumptions
• Causal pathways mapped with contextual factors, risks and behavioural mechanisms
• Assumption testing identifies claims requiring evidence during the evaluation
• Contribution claims framed without overstating attribution or causality
• Reconstructing undocumented programme logic from plans, reports and stakeholder interviews
• Results frameworks checked for vertical logic and measurable outcome statements

Participants can develop focused evaluation questions using appropriate criteria, judgement criteria and evidence needs.

• OECD DAC criteria applied to development intervention performance questions
• Humanitarian evaluation criteria adapted for relevance, coverage and connectedness
• Evaluation questions prioritised using utility, feasibility and ethical sensitivity
• Judgement criteria define what constitutes satisfactory programme performance
• Subquestions separate descriptive, causal, comparative and explanatory evidence needs
• Question burden controlled through scope boundaries and decision-focused prioritisation

Participants can produce an evaluation matrix that links questions, indicators, methods and judgement criteria.

• Evaluation matrices connect questions, indicators, sources, methods and limitations
• Existing monitoring data assessed for completeness, validity and disaggregation
• Evidence gaps matched to feasible primary and secondary data collection
• Triangulation plans compare findings across methods, sources and respondent groups
• Data collection responsibilities assigned across evaluators, partners and programme teams
• Matrix reviews identify unanswerable questions before fieldwork begins

Participants can select proportionate evaluation designs and explain the limits of causal claims.

• Experimental, quasi-experimental and theory-based designs compared for decision needs
• Contribution analysis tests causal claims through evidence and rival explanations
• Process tracing assesses mechanisms, alternative explanations and confidence levels
• Before-and-after comparisons interpreted with confounding and secular trend risks
• Comparison groups assessed for selection bias, contamination and ethical feasibility
• Design choices balanced against budget, timing, access and data availability

Participants can approve sampling and mixed-methods plans appropriate to evaluation questions and constraints.

• Probability sampling frames, sample sizes and confidence limitations explained
• Purposive sampling strategies for key informants, cases and hard-to-reach groups
• Focus groups designed around participant composition, facilitation and safeguarding
• Key informant interviews structured using topic guides and respondent selection
• Survey questionnaires tested for wording, translation and response bias
• Mixed-methods integration planned at design, analysis and interpretation stages

Participants can identify and manage ethical, safeguarding and data-protection risks throughout an evaluation.

• Informed consent procedures address purpose, risks, confidentiality and withdrawal
• Do-no-harm assessments identify potential participant and community risks
• Safeguarding protocols cover disclosures, referral pathways and evaluator conduct
• Data minimisation limits collection to information required for evaluation questions
• Anonymisation, pseudonymisation and access controls protect sensitive respondent data
• Ethics review requirements assessed for vulnerable groups and sensitive topics

Participants can design stakeholder engagement that improves relevance, legitimacy and use without compromising independence.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies rights-holders, duty-bearers, implementers and decision-makers
• Reference groups establish technical input without directing evaluation conclusions
• Participatory approaches involve affected people in questions, interpretation and validation
• Power analysis anticipates exclusion, gatekeeping and respondent retaliation risks
• Feedback mechanisms communicate findings back to participating communities responsibly
• Engagement plans specify touchpoints, roles, language and accessibility arrangements

Participants can prepare terms of reference and manage a transparent evaluator selection process.

• Terms of reference specify purpose, scope, questions, deliverables and governance
• Technical specifications define required methods without predetermining findings or conclusions
• Budgets estimate evaluator days, travel, translation, data collection and contingencies
• Procurement scoring evaluates technical quality, experience, price and safeguarding capacity
• Conflict-of-interest declarations protect evaluator independence and perceived impartiality
• Contract clauses cover ownership, confidentiality, milestones and quality acceptance

Participants can oversee inception and fieldwork while maintaining scope control, quality and ethical compliance.

• Inception reports reviewed against questions, methods, sampling and workplan
• Fieldwork readiness checks cover permissions, security, logistics and communications
• Change-control procedures document approved adjustments to scope, methods and timelines
• Daily fieldwork monitoring identifies nonresponse, access constraints and emerging risks
• Remote data collection assessed for consent, exclusion and data-security limitations
• Regular check-ins maintain independence while resolving operational barriers promptly

Participants can assess the credibility, limitations and sufficiency of evaluation evidence.

• Data quality dimensions include validity, reliability, precision, integrity and timeliness
• Audit trails document data cleaning, coding decisions and analytical changes
• Source criticism assesses bias, incentives, provenance and corroborating evidence
• Qualitative coding frameworks link themes directly to evaluation questions
• Descriptive statistics checked for missing data, outliers and subgroup differences
• Evidence-strength ratings distinguish plausible findings from well-supported conclusions

Participants can distinguish evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations during technical review.

• Findings state evidence-based answers without premature interpretation or prescription
• Conclusions synthesise findings into reasoned judgements against stated criteria
• Recommendations specify actions, owners, priorities, resources and implementation conditions
• Root-cause analysis separates symptoms from structural and operational causes
• Disaggregation examines differential outcomes by gender, age, disability and location
• Negative findings communicated accurately without blame or unsupported certainty

Participants can conduct structured quality assurance reviews of evaluation reports and supporting evidence.

• UNEG quality criteria applied to report structure, methods, ethics and findings
• Executive summaries tested for accuracy, decision relevance and evidence consistency
• Methods sections reviewed for sampling transparency, limitations and triangulation
• Claims traced from recommendations through conclusions, findings and source evidence
• Quality review comments prioritised by materiality, clarity and revision feasibility
• Acceptance decisions documented using report-review checklists and sign-off records

Participants can convert evaluation findings into owned actions, learning products and decision support.

• Utilisation plans identify users, decisions, products, timing and communication channels
• Management responses assign recommendation owners, deadlines and resource commitments
• Recommendation tracking logs status, evidence of completion and overdue actions
• Learning workshops test findings with programme teams before action planning
• Briefing products translate technical evidence for boards, donors and communities
• Follow-up reviews assess whether evaluation actions changed programme decisions

Participants can adapt evaluation management methods to humanitarian access, protection and coordination conditions.

• Real-time evaluations support course correction during active emergency responses
• Humanitarian access constraints shape sampling, security and remote-method decisions
• Protection risks assessed when collecting data from crisis-affected populations
• Coordination evaluations examine cluster performance, coverage and operational complementarity
• Humanitarian principles considered when assessing relevance, impartiality and effectiveness
• After-action reviews distinguished from independent evaluations and lessons-learned exercises

Participants can plan an evaluation portfolio and establish controls for consistent evaluation management.

• Evaluation calendars align commissioning cycles with programme and donor milestones
• Portfolio prioritisation weighs strategic value, risk, expenditure and evidence gaps
• Evaluation registries track status, budgets, findings and management response progress
• Standard operating procedures define review gates, approvals and document retention
• Annual synthesis identifies recurring findings across projects, countries and themes
• Evaluation budgets planned as a proportionate component of programme resourcing

Participants can build, review and present a complete evaluation management package for a realistic programme case.

• Programme brief analysed to define decisions, users, scope and evaluation purpose
• Theory of change reconstructed with assumptions, risks and causal pathways
• Evaluation questions and matrix prepared using OECD DAC judgement criteria
• Terms of reference drafted with methods, governance, budget and deliverables
• Quality-assurance and ethical-risk controls incorporated into the management plan
• Management response and utilisation plan presented to a simulated decision panel