Lack of horizontal assessment: the most common problem in TORs is a lack of horizontal assessment. There are various gaps in the evaluation process that could be filled but, instead, TORs often request to focus on their issue vertically rather than horizontally.
We, as evaluators, are obliged to execute the TORs duly and this causes:
- Lack in oversight: we should be able to use the important external elements that may have influenced the intervention to our advantage.
- Gap in observation tools, such as behavioral tools for stakeholders
- Gap in focus group discussions: i.e., lack of time and preparation
- Gaps in external factors to the programme.
There is also often inadequate understanding of the community, sites, or the intervention by the evaluation team: most assessors come into the issue with preconceived notions based on their previous experiences. This is one of the most serious errors we make. I strongly think that comparable programs may face different obstacles, methodologies, beneficiary profiles, and behaviors, and that time variables should be considered. We need to think about new difficulties. Do not use the same team over and again.
Here are some of the social and environmental aspects that should be included in evaluation:
Livelihoods need to be assessed based on the subject and local context, f.icrop production: evaluation needs to look into government or any other organization collaboration and cohesion, capacity (f.i. government logistics and services to the community: health facilities, education, agriculture centers for advocacy, product collections beneficiaries' capacity, collaborative capacity development) and new knowledge on climate changes, hazards mitigation, government subsidies (advises, fertilizers, seeds, technology etc.)
Contribution of stakeholders: Assessing community knowledge and actions related to their livelihoods. Gaps in consistency, technical knowledge, logistics (localize and new crop development technologies), product knowledge, market information, price variables, and market middleman contributions. In addition, there are local political interferences and impacts.
Stakeholders (Beneficiaries behaviors) - Consistency in production fields: health aspects (wellbeing risks, health deterioration due to epidemic, infectious illnesses, family and external abuses, education levels (formal, informal, and subjective), family nutritional level (adult and children).
Financial Management - Poverty: Reduction Traps, wins and losses, women have greater access to microfinance inside and between families. Credit should be targeted at low-income households, particularly women.
RE: Are you considering social and environmental criteria in your evaluations?
The issues are as follows:
Lack of horizontal assessment: the most common problem in TORs is a lack of horizontal assessment. There are various gaps in the evaluation process that could be filled but, instead, TORs often request to focus on their issue vertically rather than horizontally.
We, as evaluators, are obliged to execute the TORs duly and this causes:
- Lack in oversight: we should be able to use the important external elements that may have influenced the intervention to our advantage.
- Gap in observation tools, such as behavioral tools for stakeholders
- Gap in focus group discussions: i.e., lack of time and preparation
- Gaps in external factors to the programme.
There is also often inadequate understanding of the community, sites, or the intervention by the evaluation team: most assessors come into the issue with preconceived notions based on their previous experiences. This is one of the most serious errors we make. I strongly think that comparable programs may face different obstacles, methodologies, beneficiary profiles, and behaviors, and that time variables should be considered. We need to think about new difficulties. Do not use the same team over and again.
Here are some of the social and environmental aspects that should be included in evaluation:
Livelihoods need to be assessed based on the subject and local context, f.i crop production: evaluation needs to look into government or any other organization collaboration and cohesion, capacity (f.i. government logistics and services to the community: health facilities, education, agriculture centers for advocacy, product collections beneficiaries' capacity, collaborative capacity development) and new knowledge on climate changes, hazards mitigation, government subsidies (advises, fertilizers, seeds, technology etc.)
Contribution of stakeholders: Assessing community knowledge and actions related to their livelihoods. Gaps in consistency, technical knowledge, logistics (localize and new crop development technologies), product knowledge, market information, price variables, and market middleman contributions. In addition, there are local political interferences and impacts.
Stakeholders (Beneficiaries behaviors) - Consistency in production fields: health aspects (wellbeing risks, health deterioration due to epidemic, infectious illnesses, family and external abuses, education levels (formal, informal, and subjective), family nutritional level (adult and children).
Financial Management - Poverty: Reduction Traps, wins and losses, women have greater access to microfinance inside and between families. Credit should be targeted at low-income households, particularly women.