Editing Evaluation (section)

==Standards==
{{cleanup|section|date=March 2012}}

Depending on the topic of interest, there are professional groups that review the quality and [[Rigour|rigor]] of evaluation processes.

Evaluating programs and projects, regarding their value and impact within the context they are implemented, can be [[Ethics|ethically]] challenging. Evaluators may encounter complex, culturally specific systems resistant to external evaluation. Furthermore, the project organization or other stakeholders may be invested in a particular evaluation outcome. Finally, evaluators themselves may encounter "[[conflict of interest|conflict of interest (COI)]]" issues, or experience interference or pressure to present findings that support a particular assessment.

General professional [[Code of conduct|codes of conduct]], as determined by the employing organization, usually cover three broad aspects of behavioral standards, and include inter-[[Collegiality|collegial]] relations (such as respect for [[Diversity (politics)|diversity]] and [[privacy]]), operational issues (due [[Competence (human resources)|competence]], documentation accuracy and appropriate use of resources), and conflicts of interest ([[nepotism]], accepting gifts and other kinds of favoritism).<ref name="GEF">{{cite book|title=GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines|year=2007|publisher=Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office|location=Washington, DC, United States|url=http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/EthicalGuidelines.pdf|author=David Todd|access-date=2011-11-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324082500/http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/EthicalGuidelines.pdf|archive-date=2012-03-24|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, specific guidelines particular to the evaluator's role that can be utilized in the management of unique ethical challenges are required. The [[Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation]] has developed standards for program, personnel, and student evaluation. The Joint Committee standards are broken into four sections: Utility, Feasibility, Propriety, and Accuracy. Various European institutions have also prepared their own standards, more or less related to those produced by the Joint Committee. They provide guidelines about basing value judgments on systematic inquiry, evaluator competence and integrity, respect for people, and regard for the general and public welfare.<ref>{{cite web|title=News and Events |url=http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/ |work=Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation |access-date=13 May 2012 |author=Staff |year=2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091015044732/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/ |archive-date=October 15, 2009 }}</ref>

The American Evaluation Association has created a set of Guiding [[Principle]]s for evaluators.<ref>{{cite web|title=AMERICAN EVALUATION ASSOCIATION GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR EVALUATORS|url=http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp|work=American Evaluation Association|access-date=13 May 2012|author=Staff|date=July 2004|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120429201744/http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp|archive-date=29 April 2012}}</ref> The order of these principles does not imply priority among them; priority will vary by situation and evaluator role. The principles run as follows:

* Systematic [[inquiry]]: evaluators conduct systematic, [[data]]-based inquiries about whatever is being evaluated. This requires quality data collection, including a defensible choice of indicators, which lends credibility to findings.<ref name="UNEG">{{cite web|title=UNEG Home|url=http://www.uneval.org/|work=United Nations Evaluation Group|access-date=13 May 2012|author=Staff|year=2012|archive-date=13 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513060655/http://www.uneval.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> Findings are credible when they are demonstrably evidence-based, reliable and valid. This also pertains to the choice of [[methodology]] employed, such that it is consistent with the aims of the evaluation and provides dependable data. Furthermore, utility of findings is critical such that the information obtained by evaluation is comprehensive and timely, and thus serves to provide maximal benefit and use to [[Project stakeholder|stakeholders]].<ref name="GEF" />
* Competence: evaluators provide competent performance to [[Stakeholder (corporate)|stakeholders]]. This requires that evaluation teams comprise an appropriate combination of competencies, such that varied and appropriate expertise is available for the evaluation process, and that evaluators work within their scope of capability.<ref name="GEF" />
* [[Integrity]]/[[Honesty]]: evaluators ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process. A key element of this principle is freedom from bias in evaluation and this is underscored by three principles: impartiality, independence, and transparency.

<blockquote>
Independence is attained through ensuring independence of judgment is upheld such that evaluation conclusions are not influenced or pressured by another party, and avoidance of conflict of interest, such that the evaluator does not have a stake in a particular conclusion. Conflict of interest is at issue particularly where funding of evaluations is provided by particular bodies with a stake in conclusions of the evaluation, and this is seen as potentially compromising the independence of the evaluator. Whilst it is acknowledged that evaluators may be familiar with agencies or projects that they are required to evaluate, independence requires that they not have been involved in the planning or implementation of the project. A declaration of interest should be made where any benefits or association with project are stated. Independence of judgment is required to be maintained against any pressures brought to bear on evaluators, for example, by project funders wishing to modify evaluations such that the project appears more effective than findings can verify.<ref name="GEF" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>
Impartiality pertains to findings being a fair and thorough assessment of strengths and weaknesses of a project or program. This requires taking due input from all stakeholders involved and findings presented without bias and with a transparent, proportionate, and persuasive link between findings and recommendations. Thus evaluators are required to delimit their findings to evidence. A mechanism to ensure impartiality is external and internal review. Such review is required of significant (determined in terms of cost or sensitivity) evaluations. The review is based on quality of work and the degree to which a demonstrable link is provided between findings and recommendations.<ref name="GEF" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>
Transparency requires that stakeholders are aware of the reason for the evaluation, the criteria by which evaluation occurs and the purposes to which the findings will be applied. Access to the evaluation document should be facilitated through findings being easily readable, with clear explanations of evaluation methodologies, approaches, sources of information, and costs incurred.<ref name="GEF" /></blockquote>

* [[Respect]] for People: Evaluators respect the [[security]], [[dignity]] and [[Self-esteem|self-worth]] of the respondents, [[Program (management)|program]] [[Participation (decision making)|participants]], [[Consumer|clients]], and other stakeholders with whom they [[Social interaction|interact]].This is particularly pertinent with regards to those who will be impacted upon by the evaluation findings.<ref name="UNEG" /> Protection of people includes ensuring informed consent from those involved in the evaluation, upholding confidentiality, and ensuring that the identity of those who may provide sensitive information towards the program evaluation is protected.<ref>{{cite web|title=Monitoring & Evaluation for Results Evaluation Ethics What to expect from your evaluators|url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUKRAINE/Resources/328335-1212401346836/5Ethics.pdf|work=World Bank Institute|publisher=The World Bank Group|access-date=13 May 2012|author=World Bank Institute|year=2007|archive-date=1 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121101145741/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUKRAINE/Resources/328335-1212401346836/5Ethics.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Evaluators are ethically required to respect the customs and beliefs of those who are impacted upon by the evaluation or program activities. Examples of how such respect is demonstrated is through respecting local customs e.g. dress codes, respecting peoples privacy, and minimizing demands on others' time.<ref name="GEF" /> Where stakeholders wish to place objections to evaluation findings, such a process should be facilitated through the local office of the evaluation organization, and procedures for lodging complaints or queries should be accessible and clear.
* [[Social responsibility|Responsibilities]] for General and [[Public welfare|Public Welfare]]: Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of [[interest]]s and [[Value (personal and cultural)|values]] that may be related to the general and public welfare. Access to evaluation documents by the wider public should be facilitated such that discussion and feedback is enabled.<ref name="GEF" />

Furthermore, the international organizations such as the I.M.F. and the World Bank have independent evaluation functions. The various funds, programmes, and agencies of the United Nations has a mix of independent, semi-independent and self-evaluation functions, which have organized themselves as a system-wide [[United Nations Evaluation Group|UN Evaluation Group]] (UNEG),<ref name="UNEG" /> that works together to strengthen the function, and to establish UN norms and standards for evaluation. There is also an evaluation group within the OECD-DAC, which endeavors to improve development evaluation standards.<ref>{{cite web|title=DAC Network On Development Evaluation|url=http://www.oecd.org/site/0,2865,en_21571361_34047972_1_1_1_1_1,00.html|work=OECD - Better Policies For Better Lives|publisher=OECD|access-date=13 May 2012|author=Staff|archive-date=2 June 2012|archive-url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAC_Network_on_Development_Evaluation|url-status=live}}</ref> The independent evaluation units of the major multinational development banks (MDBs) have also created the Evaluation Cooperation Group<ref>{{cite web|title=Evaluation Cooperation Group|url=http://www.ecgnet.org/|work=Evaluation Cooperation Group website|publisher=ECG|access-date=31 May 2013|author=Staff|archive-date=13 June 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060613125445/http://www.ecgnet.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref>  to strengthen the use of evaluation for greater MDB effectiveness and accountability, share lessons from MDB evaluations, and promote evaluation harmonization and collaboration.