Mapping UNEG Norms and Standards 2005-2016

 UNEG Norms and Standards 2005   UNEG Norms and Standards 2016
Norm 1: Definition NORM 1 Internationally agreed principles, goals and targets
Norm 2: Responsibility for evaluation NORM 13 Responsibility for the evaluation function
Norm 3: Policy NORM 12 Evaluation policy
Norm 4: Intentionality NORM 2 Utility
Norm 5: Impartiality NORM 5 Impartiality
Norm 6: Independence NORM 4 Independence
Norm 7: Evaluability
Norm 8: Quality of evaluation NORM 3 Credibility
Norm 9: Competencies for evaluation NORM 10 Professionalism
Norm 10: Transparency and consultation NORM 7 Transparency
Norm 11: Evaluation ethics NORM 6 Ethics
Norm 12: Follow-up to evaluation NORM 14 Evaluation use and follow-up
Norm 13: Contribution to knowledge building
NORM 8 Human rights and gender equality
NORM 9 National evaluation capacities
NORM 11 Enabling environment
Standard 1.1:

UN Organizations should have an adequate institutional framework for the effective management of their evaluation function.

Standard 1.1 Institutional framework for evaluation

The organization should have an adequate institutional framework for the effective management of its evaluation function.

Standard 1.2:

UN Organizations should develop and evaluation policy and regularly update it, taking into account the Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN system

Standard 1.2 Evaluation policy

Organizations should establish an evaluation policy that is periodically reviewed and updated in order to support the evaluation function’s increased adherence to the UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation.

Standard 1.3:

UN Organizations should ensure that evaluation plans of evaluation activities are submitted to their Governing Bodies and/ or Heads of organizations for review and/ or approval

Standard 1.3 Evaluation plan and reporting

Evaluations should have a mechanism to inform the governing body and/or management on the evaluation plan and on the progress made in plan implementation.

Standard 1.4:

UN Organizations should ensure appropriate evaluation follow-up mechanisms and have an explicit disclosure policy

Standard 1.4 Management response and follow up

The organization should ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that management responds to evaluation recommendations. The mechanisms should outline concrete actions to be undertaken in the management response and in the follow-up to recommendation implementation.

 

Standard 1.5 disclosure policy

The organization should have an explicit disclosure policy for evaluations. To bolster the organization’s public accountability, key evaluation products (including annual reports, evaluation plans, terms of reference, evaluation reports and management responses) should be publicly accessible.

Standard 1.5:

The Head of evaluation has a lead role in ensuring that the evaluation function is fully operational and that evaluation work is conducted according to the highest professional standards.

Standard 2.1 Head of evaluation

The head of evaluation has the primary responsibility for ensuring that UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation are upheld, that the evaluation function is fully operational and duly independent, and that evaluation work is conducted according to the highest professional standards.

Standard 1.6:

The Head of evaluation is responsible for ensuring the preparation of evaluation guidelines

Standard 2.2 Evaluation guidelines

The head of evaluation is responsible for ensuring the provision of appropriate evaluation guidelines.

Standard 1.7:

The Head of evaluation should ensure that the evaluation function is dynamic, adapting to new developments and changing needs both within and outside the organization.

Standard 2.3 Responsiveness of the evaluation function

The head of evaluation should provide global leadership, standard setting and oversight of the evaluation function in order to ensure that it dynamically adapts to new developments and changing internal and external needs.

Standard 2.1:

Persons engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities should possess core evaluation competencies.

Standard 3.1 Competencies

Individuals engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities should possess the core competencies required for their role in the evaluation process.

Standard 2.2:

Evaluators should have relevant educational background, qualification and training in evaluation.

Standard 2.3:

Evaluators should have professional work experience relevant to evaluation.

Standard 2.4:

Evaluators need to have specific technical knowledge of, and be familiar with, the methodology or approach that will be needed for the specific evaluation to be undertaken, as well as certain managerial and personal skills.

Standard 2.5:

Evaluators should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relationships with all stakeholders.

Standard 3.2 Ethics

all those engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluations should conform to agreed ethical standards in order to ensure overall credibility and the responsible use of power and resources.

Standard 2.6:

Evaluators should ensure that their contacts with individuals are characterized by respect.

Standard 2.7:

Evaluators should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual information

Standard 2.8:

Evaluators are responsible for their performance and their product(s).

Standard 3.1:

The evaluation should be designed to ensure timely, valid and reliable information that will be relevant for the subject being assessed.

Standard 4.1 Timeliness and intentionality

Evaluations should be designed to ensure that they provide timely, valid and reliable information that will be relevant to the subject being assessed and should clearly identify the underlying intentionality.

Standard 4.2 Evaluability assessment

an assessment of evaluability should be undertaken as an initial step to increase the likelihood that an evaluation will provide timely and credible information for decision-making.

Standard 3.2:

The Terms of Reference should provide the purpose and describe the process and the product of the evaluation.

Standard 4.3 Terms of reference

The terms of reference should provide the evaluation purpose, scope, design and plan.

Standard 3.3:

The purpose and context of the evaluation should be clearly stated, providing a specific justification for undertaking the evaluation at a particular point in time.

Standard 3.4:

The subject to be evaluated should be clearly described.

Standard 3.5:

Evaluation objectives should be realistic and achievable, in light of the information that can be collected in the context of the undertaking. The scope of the evaluation also needs to be clearly defined.

Standard 4.4 Evaluation scope and objectives

Evaluation scope and objectives should follow from the evaluation purpose and should be realistic and achievable in light of resources available and the information that can be collected.

Standard 3.6:

The evaluation design should clearly spell out the evaluation criteria against which the subject to be evaluated will be assessed.

Standard 3.7:

Evaluation methodologies should be sufficiently rigorous to assess the subject of evaluation and ensure a complete, fair and unbiased assessment.

Standard 4.5 Methodology

Evaluation methodologies must be sufficiently rigorous such that the evaluation responds to the scope and objectives, is designed to answer evaluation questions and leads to a complete, fair and unbiased assessment.

Standard 3.8:

An evaluation should assess cost effectiveness, to the extent feasible.

Standard 3.9:

The evaluation design should, when relevant, include considerations as to what extent the UN system’s commitment to the human-rights based approach has been incorporated in the design of the undertaking to be evaluated.

Standard 4.7 Human rights-based approach and gender mainstreaming strategy

The evaluation design should include considerations of the extent to which the United Nations system’s commitment to the human-rights based approach and gender mainstreaming strategy was incorporated in the design of the evaluation subject.

Standard 3.10:

The relationship between the evaluator and the commissioner(s) of an evaluation must, from the outset, be characterized by mutual respect and trust.

Standard 3.11:

Stakeholders should be consulted in the planning, design, conduct and follow up of evaluations.

Standard 4.6 Stakeholder engagement and reference groups

Inclusive and diverse stakeholder engagement in the planning, design, conduct and follow-up of evaluations is critical to ensure ownership, relevance, credibility and the use of evaluation. Reference groups and other stakeholder engagement mechanisms should be designed for this purpose.

Standard 3.12:

A peer review, or reference group, composed of external experts may be particularly useful.

Standard 3.13:

Evaluations should be conducted by well qualified evaluations teams.

Standard 4.8 Selection and composition of evaluation teams

The evaluation team should be selected through an open and transparent process, taking into account the required competencies, diversity in perspectives and accessibility to the local population. The core members of the team should be experienced evaluators.

Standard 3.14:

The composition of evaluation teams should be gender balanced, geographically diverse and include professionals from the countries or regions concerned.

Standard 3.15:

Evaluations should be conducted in a professional and ethical manner.

Standard 3.16:

The final evaluation report should be logically structured, containing evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations and should be free of information that is not relevant to the overall analysis. The report should be presented in a way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible.

Standard 4.9 Evaluation report and products

The  final evaluation report should be logically structured and contain evidence-based findings, conclusions and recommendations. The products emanating from evaluations should be designed to the needs of its intended users.

Standard 3.17:

Evaluation requires an explicit response by the governing authorities and management addressed by its recommendations.

Standard 4.11 Communication and dissemination

Communication and dissemination are integral and essential parts of evaluations. Evaluation functions should have an effective strategy for communication and dissemination that is focused on enhancing evaluation use.

Standard 4.1:

The title page and opening pages should provide key basic information

Standard 4.2:

The evaluation report should contain an Executive Summary.

Standard 4.3:

The subject being evaluated should be clearly described, including the logic model and/or the expected results chain and intended impact, its implementation strategy and key assumptions.

Standard 4.4:

The role and contributions of the UN organizations and other stakeholders to the subject being evaluated should be clearly described.

Standard 4.5:

The purpose and context of the evaluation should be described.

Standard 4.6:

The evaluation report should provide an explanation of the evaluation criteria that were used by the evaluators.

Standard 4.7:

The evaluation report should provide a clear explanation of the evaluation objectives as well as the scope of the evaluation.

Standard 4.8:

The evaluation report should indicate the extent to which gender issues and relevant human rights considerations were incorporated where applicable.

Standard 4.9:

The applied evaluation methodology should be described in a transparent way, including any limitations to the methodology.

Standard 4.10:

The evaluation should give a complete description of stakeholders’ participation.

Standard 4.11:

The evaluation report should include a discussion of the extent to which the evaluation design included ethical safeguards where appropriate.

Standard 4.12:

In presenting the findings, inputs, outputs, and outcomes/ impacts should be measured to the extent possible (or an appropriate rationale given as to why not).

Standard 4.13:

Analysis should include appropriate discussion of the relative contributions of stakeholders to results.

Standard 4.14:

Reasons for accomplishments and difficulties of the subject being evaluated, especially constraining and enabling factors, should be identified to the extent possible.

Standard 4.15:

Conclusions need to be substantiated by findings consistent with data collected and methodology, and represent insights into identification and/ or solutions of important problems or issues.

Standard 4.16:

Recommendations should be firmly based on evidence and analysis, be relevant and realistic, with priorities for action made clear.

Standard 4.10 Recommendations

Recommendations should be firmly based on evidence and analysis, clear, results-oriented and realistic in terms of implementation.

 

Standard 4.17:

Lessons, when presented, should be generalized beyond the immediate subject being evaluated to indicate what wider relevance they might have.

Standard 4.18:

Annexes should be complete and relevant.

Standard 5.1 Quality assurance system

The head of evaluation should ensure that there is an appropriate quality assurance system.

Standard 5.2 Quality control of the evaluation design Quality should be controlled during the design stage of evaluation.
Standard 5.3 Quality control at the final stage of evaluation Quality should be controlled during the final stage of evaluation.

Comments(0)

Leave a Comment