TERMS OF REFERENCE
For
Outcome Evaluation
UNDP contribution towards socio-economic rehabilitation in Chernobyl
affected areas since 2001
UNDP BELARUS
A. STATEMENT OF WORK
Purpose of evaluation
According to evaluation plan of the UNDP County Office in Belarus (hereinafter UNDP Belarus),
outcome evaluation is to be conducted in the second quarter of 2007 for the following Country
Programme outcome - “Create favorable conditions for socio-economic development of the Chernobylaffected areas”.
2007 is the second year of UNDP Belarus Country Programme cycle. UNDP-funded project in support of
the abovementioned outcome is to be completed at the end of 2007, and there is a need to assess how
and why an outcome is or is not being achieved in a country context, and the role that UNDP has
played. This outcome evaluation will also help to clarify underlying factors affecting the situation,
highlight unintended consequences (positive and negative), recommend actions to improve
performance in future programming and partnership building, and generate lessons learned.
Besides, similar programmes/ projects are currently being supported by other UN agencies, such as
World Bank, UNFPA and UNICEF, and there is an indication of commitment to develop a joint UN
programme in the area of recovery and sustainable socio-economic development of the Chernobylaffected territories with the involvement of UNDP, UNCIEF and UNFPA. Preliminary discussions
regarding such potential cooperation have been held with the key national counterpart – the Ministry of
Emergencies of the Republic of Belarus, and a need for the re-examination of current cooperation
approach has been stated.
In view of the above, the timing of the outcome evaluation is very important in order to base on the
review of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement. This outcome evaluation will
provide timely and valuable contribution to support strategic decision-making of UNDP Belarus in the
development of upcoming programme interventions and discussions with national counterparts as well
as prioritization of UNDP support towards achievement of other expected Country Programme
outcomes.
Intended Outcome: Create favorable conditions for socio-economic development of the
Chernobyl-affected areas
Outcome Indicators:

Increase in economic activities (number of new initiatives covered by the
programme in the districts, amount of investments into economically active
spheres, increase in employment rate, increase in production of clean products and
increase in the competitive advantage of these products, market expansion)

Increase in citizen active participation
Baseline: 4 districts out of 21 Chernobyl-affected districts of Belarus are covered by the CORE
Programme
2
It should be also taken into account that since there was no official evaluation of the UNDP
interventions in the Chernobyl-affected areas in the course of the implementation of the CCF 20012005, the proposed mission will also make an attempt to evaluate the combined impact (institutional,
situational and/ or human development changes) resulting from previous as well as the current
programme interventions.
Description of the context
Belarus suffered the most widespread consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986 with 23% of
its territory and 2 millions people, including 500,000 children, directly affected. Approximately 70% of
the nuclear radiation fallout landed inside the territory of Belarus. Upon independence in 1991, Belarus
found itself alone in coping with the consequences of a disaster that occurred under another state (the
USSR), and in another place (Ukraine). 2,640 km of agricultural land became abandoned and 20% of all
forest was contaminated; 54 collective and state farms were disbanded, 9 factories shut down. Today,
it is estimated that about 1,3 million people including over 200,000 children live in the contaminated
areas. Around 135,000 people have been resettled from the most contaminated and dangerous zones.
Chernobyl changed the perceptions of the Belarusian people about the larger world community. It
generated angst in the hearts of Belarusians, yielding a deep sense of insecurity about the future, and
inflicted upon them deep-seated health and psychological concerns.
Recent national and international studies from the World Bank, the European Union and the UN,
among others, have emphasized the demand of affected people for the development of new
approaches for the improvement of their living conditions. As the 2002 UN Report, ‘Human
Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: A Strategy for Recovery’ pointed out, this goal needs to
be achieved through a holistic and integrated approach, accounting for diverse and interrelated issues
including public health, environment, economic development, dosimetry, radiological protection,
education to mention but a few.
The consequences of the catastrophe have been a national priority of the Belarusian government for
several years. The Government adopted three consecutive state programmes on mitigation of
consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident and according to its figures, the costs of
dealing with consequences of Chernobyl has been of 6-25 % of Belarus annual budget, amounting till
now to a total of 17 billion USD. The international community has also made significant efforts
including a wide range of humanitarian initiatives dealing with humanitarian assistance and children
recuperation abroad, scientific and technical projects. Current international initiatives include the
“Cooperation for Rehabilitation” (CORE) Programme, the funding of a dedicated website to Chernobyl
issues, the Chernobyl Forum, a scientific forum under the aegis of the International Agency of Atomic
Energy (IAEA) and the International Chernobyl Research and Information Network (ICRIN) aimed at
addressing the information needs of the population living in the affected territories.
Description of the subject of evaluation
The specifics of this evaluation are related to an unprecedented nature and consequences of the
problem from which Chernobyl-affected regions have been trying to recover over the past 20 years.
Since 1986 United Nations system organizations and major non-governmental organizations and
3
foundations have launched more than 2301 different projects in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia in addition
to significant recovery efforts taken by the governments of the three countries. Nonetheless, both the
direct impact of radiation contamination and the indirect effects on the socio-economic situation,
health and environment continue to be a major hurdle for sustainable development.
Under the previous CCF (2001-2005), UNDP provided assistance to the Government in the area of
“Environmental conservation and management”. This programme area supported the Government in
the design of appropriate policies and development of capacity for sustainable management of
environment resources and the promotion of viable approaches to the development of areas affected
by fall-out from the Chernobyl catastrophe. Support was based on provisions of international
conventions and by adopting an approach that recognizes people-environment interactions and social,
economic and environmental linkages for sustainable development. UNDP targeted community-based
approaches to sustainable development to improve the lives of people affected by consequences of
the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
To mitigate the effects from the Chernobyl disaster and provide alternatives, UNDP assisted the
Government in improving the lives of people affected by the Chernobyl disaster by supporting local
efforts to improve economic and social conditions. Since international humanitarian appeals have
brought relatively small response or benefit and because of the uncertainty in the economic
environment in the affected areas, the programme used community-based institutional approaches,
based on self-help and self-management. Special consideration was given to linkages among social,
economic and environmental factors to help reduce the continuing consequences from the radioactive
fall-out. This was done by strengthening the institutional capacities and networking of local authorities
and NGOs and by providing communities with choices for support. UNDP provided the Government
with viable institutional and policy options for environmental management and sustainable
development and facilitated resource mobilization from the international community. Selection of the
areas, and the work itself, employed approaches and capacities developed under other parts of the
UNDP programme, and took into account the scientific work undertaken by Belarusian and
international institutions with support from WHO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and
the Office of the United Nations Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs and the work done with
Belarusian communities in partnership with international NGOS and donors.
UNDP assisted the government through various projects that were not directly linked to Chernobyl
rehabilitation issues mainly those were environmental interventions that UNDP undertook during
2001-2005. However, in 2001 UNDP initiated the project “Strengthening Partnerships and Resource
Mobilization Mechanisms to Mitigate the Chernobyl Disaster Consequences”. The project assisted the
Government in formation of the Internat ional Chernobyl Research and Information network (ICRIN)
bodies in Belarus, in complet ing the multi-stakeholder process and publishing final report “An
Information Needs Assessment of the Chernobyl-affected Population in the Republic of Belarus”.
In 2003 UNDP signed up the Declaration of Principles for Cooperation for Rehabilitation Programme
(CORE) and started a new “Support Project for the Programme “Cooperation for Rehabilitation”. In
close partnership with government, local authorities, international organizations and local
communities UNDP is working in the four CORE districts to engage and mobilize communities to
assume responsibility for improving their own wellbeing as well as to actively involve them in
cooperation with international partners and with each other.
1
http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/countries.html
4
The project aims at sustainable development of the affected regions in accordance with the CORE
Programme Priority Areas, and with the agreement of all CORE participants concerning the
Programme’s principles, and the mechanisms for implementation listed in the Declaration of Principles.
The strategy for implementation of this project aims to meet the following goals in support of
implementation of the CORE Programme:
1. Provide technical support for the design, improvement, and assessment of projects within the
CORE Programme, and technical support as needed for implementation and monitoring of the
Programme.
2. Provide support to coordination and integration of activities in the priority areas of the
Programme.
3. Help in creating conditions for involvement of other affected areas into the Programme, and
linkages with similar work in other Chernobyl affected areas in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
4. Administer donors’ resources for the Programme in support of the CORE primary program
objective – sustainable development of the affected regions in accordance with the CORE
Program priority areas and the agreements between all the CORE participants concerning
implementation of the Programme.
5. Support implementation of the Programme by bringing transparent, accountable and flexible
procedures.
Summary of UNDP supported projects that are associated with the outcome
The following table shows the UNDP-supported projects that are associated with the outcome.
Project ID
00011734
00011742
Project Title
Total Budget (in
US$)
Strengthening Partnerships USD 178,632
and Resource Mobilisation
Mechanisms to Mitigate the
Chernobyl Disaster
Consequences
Support Project for the
USD 825,483 (project
Programme “Cooperation itself) + USD 71,628
for Rehabilitation”
(administration of
other CORE projects)
Project
Duration
Implementing
partner
2001 - 31
Komchernobyl
December 2004
October 2003 – Komchernobyl
31 December
2007
In 2006, the Committee of Chernobyl was merged with the Ministry of Emergencies, UNDP’s new
partner. A number of donor interventions have also taken place over the last 6 years. UNDP has
assumed a new responsibility from UNOCHA on coordination of Chernobyl rehabilitations efforts.
Therefore, there is a need for UNDP Belarus CO to evaluate the previous interventions and set clear
priorities for its further efficient involvement in the rehabilitation of Chernobyl affected territories. This
outcome evaluation will help UNDP CO to identify major areas of future involvement to achieve the
5
outcome or if it is necessary to revise the outcome and propose new strategies and areas for UNDP
interventions for the next 3-5 years.
Evaluation Objectives and Scope:
The underlying objectives of the evaluation are to:
1. Provide appraisal on the validity/relevance of the outcome for UNDP assisted interventions, and the
extent to which the set objectives and envisaged outcomes have been achieved;
2. Assess the level of efficiency and relevance of the UNDP assisted interventions vis-à-vis the state
programmes on mitigating the consequences of Chernobyl disaster and interventions of other
major donors.
3. Identify gaps and weaknesses in the strategy, and what could be recommended regarding the
achievement of the envisaged outcomes.
4. Identify lessons learnt from previous and ongoing interventions in this area with a view to
ascertaining suitability of such interventions for continuation; discontinuation, refining and
adoption in future work.
5. Provide an example for the Country office and its partners of a sound methodology for conducting
future outcome evaluations and to share the experience widely.
Evaluation questions
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the potential for achieving the selected outcome and UNDP’s
potential contributions in achieving that outcome. The assessment will consider the scope, relevance,
efficiency, and sustainability of UNDP’s support. Based on this assessment, the evaluation will make
recommendations on how UNDP could improve the prospects of achieving the selected outcome
through adjusting its programming, partnership arrangements, resource mobilization strategies,
working methods or management structures.
In this context the scope of the outcome evaluation will focus on the analysis of the objectives at the
output level and the effectiveness of the implementation strategy, thus far, assessing whether a course
re-direction is required for the remaining period of the current programme cycle. This should also
assess the operational aspects (especially management issues under the CORE support project) and
explore whether these are appropriate under the circumstances. It is critical that the evaluation makes
both the substantive and operational linkage between the quality of the output level deliverables and
the progress towards achieving the outcome. i.e can the outputs, as they are currently conceived,
realistically facilitate the achievement of the outcome level objectives.
In this vein the outcome evaluation is based upon a set of very clear goals:



Assess organizational and operational effectiveness of the projects in terms of their
contribution to the rehabilitation and sustainable development of Chernobyl affected regions
and in accordance to the projects’ objectives
Provide a platform for evidence-based strategic decision-making by UNDP
Build knowledge, learning and ownership amongst all stakeholders
6
Principally these goals should be pursued through the prism of the following criteria
 Relevance: whether the activities are in line with local and national needs and priorities (as well
as with donor policies);
 Efficiency: to what degree the outputs achieved derive from efficient use of financial, human
and material resources;
 Effectiveness: the extent to which objectives have been achieved, or can be expected to be
achieved;
 Impact which includes an assessment of the positive and negative effects of the projects to
date;
 Sustainability: assessing whether the right kind of approach has been taken to provide the
highest chance of long-term impact and durability of interventions.
The evaluation will need to address the following issues in depth
1. Progress towards the outcome
 Are the stated outcome, indicator and targets appropriate for the situation in Belarus and
UNDP’s programme of assistance in this field?
 What is the current status and prospects for achieving the outcome with the indicated inputs
and within the indicated timeframe?
 What are the main factors (positive and negative) within and beyond UNDP’s interventions that
are affecting or that will affect the achievement of the outcome? How have or will these factors
limit or facilitate progress towards the outcome?
 Are UNDP’s proposed contributions to the achievement of the outcome appropriate, sufficient,
effective and sustainable?
2. Output analysis




What are the key outputs that have been or that will most likely be produced by UNDP to
contribute to the outcome?
Are the UNDP outputs relevant to the outcome?
Are the monitoring and evaluation indicators appropriate to link these outputs to the
outcome, or is there a need to improve these indicators?
Is sufficient progress been made with regard to UNDP outputs?
3. Resources, partnerships, and management analysis




Is UNDP’s partnership strategy in this field appropriate and likely to be effective in
achieving the outputs and ultimately the outcome?
Are the resources available adequate for achieving these objectives
Are UNDP’s management structures and working methods appropriate and likely to be
effective in achieving the objectives?
Overall, assess the scope, relevance, efficiency and sustainability of UNDP’s partnership
and management arrangements in achieving its objectives.
7
4. Recommendations

Based on the above analysis, how should UNDP adjust its programming, partnership
arrangements, resource mobilization strategies, working methods and/or management
structures to ensure that the outputs and proposed outcome is fully achieved by the end of
the programme period (31 December 2009).
Methodological framework
Information on the methodologies is given in Guidelines for Outcome Evaluators, issued by Evaluation
Office, UNDP. The evaluators are expected to use all relevant methods to obtain data and information
for their analysis and drawing up of findings, conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations. These
include:
a) Documentation review: Begin with the Country Programme Document for a description of the
intended outcome, the baseline for the outcome and the indicators and benchmarks used. Examine
contextual information and baselines contained in corresponding project documents, their
evaluation reports and other sources;
b) Use interviews, field visits, questionnaires and meetings to validate information about the status of
the outcome; also use to the extent possible and appropriate the data collected and analysis
undertaken by the country office prior to the outcome evaluation; and examine local sources of
knowledge about factors influencing the outcome;
c) Identify the major contributing factors that “drive” change. Do not identify or elaborate all
conceivable factors;
d) Probe the pre-selected outcome indicators, go beyond these to explore other possible outcome
indicators, and determine whether the indicators have actually been continuously tracked;
e) Undertake a constructive critique of the outcome formulation itself; determine whether or not
individual outputs are effective in contributing to outcomes, drawing the link between UNDP
outputs and outcomes.
f)
Analysis of intended or unintended effects of the interventions.
g) Determine whether or not the UNDP strategy and management of overall country operations
appears to be coherently focused on change at the outcome level. Examine whether UNDP’s inhouse planning and management of different interventions has been aligned to exploit synergies in
contributing to outcomes.
h) Determine whether or not there is consensus among UNDP actors, stakeholders and partners that
the partnership strategy designed was the best one to achieve the outcome; Look at how the
partnerships were formed and how they performed; Look at how the partnership strategy affected
the achievement of or progress towards the outcome.
Expected products
8
The consultants are expected to produce a report that highlights the findings, recommendations and
lessons learnt, and give a rating of performance. This might be summarized into an Action List – with a
description of best practices in selected areas or in the appropriate niche for UNDP interventions. The
report should include the following sections:
a. Summary including Action List
b. Background Information
c. Description of Approach/Methodologyd. Analysis of the situation with regard to
outcome, outputs, resources, partnerships, management and working methods and/or
implementation strategy. Findings in the various areas referred to in section 3. Scope
d. Rating on programme towards outcomes and progress towards outputs
e. Recommendations including those related to:
i. Strategies for continuing/concluding assistance towards the outcome
ii. Lessons learned – good practices in producing outputs, and linking them to
outcomes and using partnerships strategically, as well as suggested action plan
for follow-up.
B. MANAGEMENT, STAFFING, SCHEDULING AND BUDGET
Composition and skills for evaluation team
The evaluation mission will comprise of one international and one national consultant. An international
consultant should have masters’ degree or higher level relevant academic training, extensive hands-on
experience in the evaluation and management of complex programmes in relevant field; have a
demonstrated capacity for strategic thinking, and a good knowledge of transition economies. He (she)
should be aware of results-oriented evaluation principles and methodology and also be familiar with
UNDP operations and knowledge of relevant UNDP’ policies. The international consultant will be the
team leader and would be expected to:




Lead and manage the evaluation mission;
Design the detailed evaluation scope and methodology and approach;
Ensure efficient division of tasks between the mission members;
Conduct the outcome evaluation in accordance with the proposed objectives and scope of the
evaluation;
 Draft and communicate the evaluation report;
 Finalize the evaluation report in English and submit it to UNDP
A national consultant should have masters’ degree or higher level relevant academic training, and over
5 years experience of experience in management or administration of international
projects/programmes, and/or in evaluation of international projects. A national consultant, as the other
member of the evaluation team is expected to:




Review documents;
Participate in the design of the evaluation methodology;
Conduct the evaluation together with the team leader in accordance with the proposed
objectives and scope of the evaluation;
Draft related parts of the evaluation report;
9

Assist the Team Leader in finalizing the draft evaluation report through incorporating
suggestions received.
Timeframe
The mission will commence on 5 September, 2007. The duration of the mission is 6 weeks.
Activity
Evaluation design,
methodology and detailed
work plan
Desk review
Field visits, interviews,
consultations
Submission of draft
evaluation report prior to
debriefing
Debriefing management
Submission of the final
evaluation report





Timeframe
5 September 2007 – 12
September 2007 (6 days)
Place
Online via email
correspondence
13 September 2007 – 24 Online (through
September 2007 (7 days)
website)
25 September 2007 – 10
Minsk and
October 2007 (12 days)
Chernobyl
affected regions
11 October 2007
Minsk
Responsible Party
UNDP M&E focal point
Team leader and consultant
12 October 2007
Minsk
19 October 2007
Minsk
Team Leader /M&E Focal
point
Team Leader
Team Leader and Consultant
Team Leader and Consultant
Team Leader
Upon arrival, the team will spend the first two to three days reviewing the documents and
discussing the mission schedule and approach with UNDP management and staff;
The next ten days will be spent on visiting the projects’ sites and conducting the interviews;
Towards the middle of the third week, the team will debrief the national counterparts and
UNDP of its findings;
Towards the end of the mission, the draft report is prepared and shared with the national
counterparts and UNDP in a stakeholders meeting asking for their comments and inputs;
If feasible, the final report will be prepared incorporating the comments of the stakeholders
before the end of the mission. If not feasible, the team leader will submit the final report to
UNDP no later than a week after the mission.
Budget
The estimated total cost of the evaluation mission is USD 25, 000.
C. UNDP REQUIREMENTS
UNDP management arrangements
To facilitate the outcome evaluation process, UNDP Belarus will set up an Evaluation Working Group
(EWG). The team shall consist of relevant UNDP staff including Evaluation Focal Point and focal points
from the Ministry of Emergencies and the Ministry of Economy. The EWG will assist in connecting the
evaluation mission with UNDP Programme Unit, senior management, and key stakeholders. In
10
addition, the EWG will provide both substantive and logistical support to the evaluation team, ensure
participatory evaluation process, and comment on the draft evaluation report. During the evaluation,
EWG will help identify the key partners for interviews by the evaluation mission. The evaluation will
retain its full integrity and flexibility to determine the best approach to collecting and analyzing data for
the outcome evaluation.
At the end of the mission period, the draft evaluation reports will be shared with UNDP Country Office,
the Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Economy, and other key stakeholders for comments. The
UNDP Country Office will provide logistical support; organize meetings and interactions with relevant
stakeholders; comment on the draft report; and follow up on recommendations.
Draft report comprising especially the findings, outline lessons, conclusions and recommendations
should be made available at least three days prior to the scheduled completion date of the evaluation
mission. This draft report will be discussed with stakeholders and UNDP management to validate
findings, lessons and recommendations.
A wrap up meeting will be held two working days prior to the scheduled completion date of the
evaluation mission.
Final Evaluation Report and any other associated documents should be submitted to the Resident
Representative, UNDP Belarus within two weeks of completion of the evaluation mission.
Deadline to receive proposals
The deadline to receive expression of interest is June 20, 2007.
D. Annexes
SELECTED DOCUMENTS TO BE STUDIED BY THE EVALUATORS













UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results
UNDP Guidelines for Outcome Evaluators
UNDP Country Programme Document (CPD) for Belarus
UNDP related project documents, project monitoring reports, and project evaluation reports,
concepts and relevant mission findings
Belarus MDG Report (2003)
National policies, strategies, and plans related to the outcome
Other documents and materials related to the outcome (e.g. government, donors)
UNEG Norms and Standards
State Programs on rehabilitation of consequences of the catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP
UNDP/UNICEF Report “Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: A Strategy for
Recovery”
World Bank Report “Belarus: Chernobyl Review”
National Report “20 Years after the Chernobyl Catastrophe: the consequences in the Republic of
Belarus and their overcoming.”
Conclusions of international conference “Chernobyl 20 years after. Strategy for recovery and
sustainable development of the affected regions” (Minsk, 19-21 April 2006)
11

Documents and informational materials regarding CORE Programme (project document of
“Support Project for the Program “Cooperation for Rehabilitation” (CORE Programme)”, CORE
Declaration of Principals; Annual Reviews, analytical notes on development of priority areas)
12
Attachment to Terms of Reference
Outcome Evaluation Report Template2
This is an outline for an outcome evaluation report. It does not follow a prescribed format but simply
presents one way to organize the information. Project evaluations should employ a similar structure
and emphasize results, although they may differ somewhat in terms of scope and substance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 What is the context and purpose of the outcome evaluation?
 What are the main findings and conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned?
INTRODUCTION
 Why was this outcome selected for evaluation? (refer back to the rationale for including this
outcome in the evaluation plan at the beginning of the Country Programme)
 What is the purpose of the outcome evaluation? Is there any special reason why the evaluation is
being done at this point in time? (is this an early, mid-term or late evaluation in the Country
Programme)
 What products are expected from the evaluation? (should be stated in TOR)
 What are the key issues addressed by the evaluation? (should be stated in the TOR)
 What was the methodology used for the evaluation? (should be stated in the TOR)
 What is the structure of the evaluation report? (how the content will be organized in the report)
THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
 When and why did UNDP begin working towards this outcome and for how long has it been doing
so? What are the problems that the outcome is expected to address?
 Who are the key partners for the outcome? The main stakeholders? The expected beneficiaries?
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings and conclusions of the evaluation report should reflect the scope presented in the TOR.
There should be some flexibility for the evaluation team to include new issues that arise during the
course of the evaluation. The findings and conclusions in the report will take their lead from the nature
of the exercise. If the purpose of the outcome evaluation was to learn about the partnership strategy,
the findings and recommendations may address issues of partnership more than the other elements
listed below. If the purpose was for mid-course adjustments to outputs produced by UNDP, the report
findings and conclusions might give some more emphasis to issues related to UNDP’s contribution to
the outcome via outputs. The section on findings and conclusions should include the ratings assigned
by the outcome evaluator to the outcome, outputs and, if relevant, to the sustainability and relevance
of the outcome.
The following questions are typical of those that must be answered by the findings and conclusions
section of an outcome evaluation. They reflect the four categories of analysis.
2
This format is also presented in the annex to the Guidelines for Outcome Evaluators ( Guidelines for
Outcome Evaluators).
13
1. Status of the outcome
 Has the outcome been achieved or has progress been made towards its achievement?
 Was the outcome selected relevant given the country context and needs, and UNDP’s niche?
(Presumably, if the outcome is within the SRF it is relevant; however, the outcome evaluation
should verify this assumption.)
2. Factors affecting the outcome
 What factors (political, sociological, economic, etc.) have affected the outcome, either positively or
negatively?
 How have these factors limited or facilitated progress towards the outcome?
3. UNDP contributions to the outcome through outputs
 What were the key outputs produced by UNDP that contributed to the outcome (including outputs
produced by “soft” and hard assistance)?
 Were the outputs produced by UNDP relevant to the outcome?
 What were the quantity, quality and timeliness of outputs? What factors impeded or facilitated the
production of such outputs?
 How well did UNDP use its resources to produce target outputs?
 Were the monitoring and evaluation indicators appropriate to link outputs to outcome or is there a
need to establish or improve these indicators?
 Did UNDP have an effect on the outcome directly through “soft” assistance (e.g., policy advice,
dialogue, advocacy and brokerage) that may not have translated into clearly identifiable outputs or
may have predated UNDP’s full-fledged involvement in the outcome? (For example, was policy
advice delivered by UNDP advisors over the course of several years on the advisability of reforming
the public service delivery system and on the various options available? Could this have laid the
groundwork for reform that subsequently occurred?)
4. UNDP partnership strategy
 What was the partnership strategy used by UNDP in pursuing the outcome and was it effective?
 Were partners, stakeholders and/or beneficiaries of UNDP assistance involved in the design of
UNDP interventions in the outcome area? If yes, what were the nature and extent of their
participation? If no, why not?
RECOMMENDATIONS
Flowing from the discussion above, the section on recommendations should answer the following
question:
 What corrective actions are recommended for the new, ongoing or future UNDP work in this
outcome?
LESSONS LEARNED
 What are the main lessons that can be drawn from the outcome experience that may have generic
application?
 What are the best and worst practices in designing, undertaking, monitoring and evaluating
outputs, activities and partnerships around the outcome?
ANNEXES
14
Annexes are to include the following: TOR, itinerary and list of persons interviewed, summary of field
visits, questionnaire used and summary of results, list of documents reviewed and any other relevant
material.
15
Table 8. A Good Evaluation Report is…
 impartial
 credible
 balanced
 clear and easy to understand
 information rich
 action oriented and crisp
 focused on evidence that supports conclusions
A Weak Evaluation Report is…
 repetitious
 too long
 unclear and unreadable
 insufficiently action oriented
 lacking hard data and relying on opinion
 poorly structured and lacking focus on key
findings
 lacking comprehension of the local context
 negative or vague in its findings
Source: Adapted from DAC review of principles for evaluation of development assistance, 1998
16