Score Sheet - Evaluations FOR THE National/Provincial/Departmental Evaluation Plan 20 - / - 20 - /20

Score Sheet for Selecting Evaluations for the National/Prov/DEP Evaluation Plan March 2017
SCORE SHEET – EVALUATIONS FOR THE

NATIONAL/PROVINCIAL/DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION PLAN 20_/_ –
20_/20
Name of department
Evaluation title
Evaluation type Diagnostic, design, implementation, impact, economic, synthesis
(Please circle – can be more than one)
Year evaluation requested
Notes:
 This template is based on selection for National Evaluations but can be adapted for Provincial and
Departmental Evaluations.
 Please do not give intermediate scores
1 Is the intervention a national priority and we need to focus on it?

Criteria Max Score
Indicative meaning of scores is indicated to give the range. Score
National Priority why this is a national priority in terms of the following 4 criteria. Note
it does not have to satisfy all criteria.
1.1 Linked to the 14 outcomes/suboutcomes in the MTSF (and especially top 5) 20
20= Directly linked to a sub-outcome of one of the top 5 outcomes and MTSF
15= Directly linked to sub-outcome of one of the other 9 outcomes
10= Addresses a small part of one of the 14 outcomes/NDP
5= Is not part of the 14 outcomes/NDP but otherwise a priority of government
0= Is not part of the 14 outcomes or national priority
Comment
1.2 Innovative – is the intervention testing out new approaches and so learning is key? 10
10= Very innovative, or a key area in an outcome where there is confusion/lack of
clarity/ or not much is known
5= Quite innovative, or an area of an outcome where some is known but it would
benefit from an evaluation
0= Not innovative or an area where quite a lot is known
Comment
1.3 Large (>R500m over MTEF period and in terms of footprint) 10
10= Very large (>R1000m, or targeted to cover >10% of the population)

5= Large (R500-R999m, targeted to cover 5-9% of the population)
0= Small <R499m
Comment
1.4 Substantial public interest (where possible drawn from analysis of the 10
Presidential Hotline)
10= Continuously in the media or many complaints in hotline

5= Regularly in the media and significant number of complaints in hotline
0= Not very much in the public eye
Comment
DPME 1
Overall comment:
Category total score 50
2 Is it important that it is evaluated in 2017/18 or following 2 years?

Criteria Max Score
2.1 Is the intervention at a critical stage where decisions are to be taken 10
for which an evaluation is needed?
10= Critical stage/decision reached by end of 2017/18 where key decisions needed –
evaluation needs to start asap
8= Critical stage/decision reached by end of 2018/19 where key decisions needed
5= Critical stage/decision reached by end of 2019/20 where key decisions needed
0= Not critical decision point
Comment
2.2 Previous evaluations - How recently was this intervention evaluated? 5

5= If>5 years
0= If <2 years (unless the evaluation proposed is very different)
Comment
Overall comment
3 How feasible will it be to evaluate this year?

Note these questions are not killers, and may just mean that the evaluation will take more work
Criteria Max Score

3.1 Focus of evaluation - Is the object of evaluation clear (policy, 10
programme, plan or project), and are the evaluative questions clear?
10= The evaluation is clear with strong evaluative questions
5= The evaluation has a reasonable focus but could be clarified
0= The evaluation is unclear
Comment
3.2 Availability of monitoring data - Is there sufficient evidence to undertake 15

an evaluation, especially if an impact evaluation is requested?
10= Key data is needed and available
5= Key data is needed but will have to be collected
0= Key data is needed but difficult to obtain
Comment
3.3 Availability of budget - How assured are we that there is a budget for the 10
evaluation from the department or donors?
10= Full budget available from department/donor but DPME can procure
DPME 2
Criteria Max Score

5= Budget likely or partially available from department, and supplemented by DPME
0= Only budget available is from DPME, or department unwilling for DPME to procure
Comment
Overall comment
AGGREGATE/ OVERALL SCORE Max score Score %

Importance of the intervention 50
Important that done in the 3 years 15
Feasibility of doing evaluation this year 35
Total (maximum 100)
Recommendation by assessors (please Appropriate Not appropriate for Needs
put cross) for NEP NEP but dept should rethinking
do as part of dept
evaluation plan
Assessors
_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

Signed Signed Signed
Name Name Name
Member : ETWG Member : ETWG Member : ETWG

Date: Date: Date:
_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

Signed Signed Signed
Name Name Name
Member : ETWG Member : ETWG Member : ETWG

Date: Date: Date:
DPME 3
FINAL DECISION AND FEEDBACK TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THE EVALUATION

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
(to be completed after the assessment based on overall decisions of the ETWG)
No. DECISION AND FEEDBACK Please

tick (X)
1 Yes, evaluation should be considered for the plan for the year requested
(2017/18; 2018/19; 2019/20 - circle the year requested).
Reasons:
2 Not recommended for the 2017/18 national evaluation plan but a good idea,
and could be considered for national evaluation plan for 2018/19 or 2019/20
(recommend which by circling the year).
Reasons:
3 Not included in the plan and the department needs to strengthen certain
aspects (either to implement itself, or to resubmit next year).
Reasons and aspects to be strengthened:
4 Rethink and we suggest these areas need to be revisited (to be indicated)

Reasons and areas to be revisited:
Signed on
behalf of
DPME: ______________________
Signed
Dr Ian Goldman
Head: Evaluation and Research Unit, DPME
Date:
DPME 4

Score Sheet - Evaluations FOR THE National/Provincial/Departmental Evaluation Plan 20 - / - 20 - /20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Score Sheet - Evaluations FOR THE National/Provincial/Departmental Evaluation Plan 20 - / - 20 - /20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Score Sheet - Evaluations FOR THE National/Provincial/Departmental Evaluation Plan 20 - / - 20 - /20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Score Sheet for Selecting Evaluations for the National/Prov/DEP Evaluation Plan March 2017

SCORE SHEET – EVALUATIONS FOR THE

1 Is the intervention a national priority and we need to focus on it?

1.3 Large (>R500m over MTEF period and in terms of footprint) 10

10= Very large (>R1000m, or targeted to cover >10% of the population)

10= Continuously in the media or many complaints in hotline

Category total score 50

2 Is it important that it is evaluated in 2017/18 or following 2 years?

2.2 Previous evaluations - How recently was this intervention evaluated? 5

Category total score 15

3 How feasible will it be to evaluate this year?

Criteria Max Score

3.2 Availability of monitoring data - Is there sufficient evidence to undertake 15

Criteria Max Score

Category total score 35

AGGREGATE/ OVERALL SCORE Max score Score %

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

Member : ETWG Member : ETWG Member : ETWG

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

Member : ETWG Member : ETWG Member : ETWG

FINAL DECISION AND FEEDBACK TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THE EVALUATION

No. DECISION AND FEEDBACK Please

4 Rethink and we suggest these areas need to be revisited (to be indicated)

You might also like

_____________ _ _____________

_____________ _ _____________