Process of Evaluation

EXT 505 · Capacity Development · Block VI · Theory Topic 28

Planning it, doing it, and actually using what it finds

Introduction

Topics 25–27 covered what evaluation means, why it matters, the principles that govern good practice, and the ways evaluation gets classified. This topic supplies the missing practical piece: the actual step-by-step procedure for conducting an evaluation, from first deciding to evaluate through to acting on what the evaluation finds.

🎯 Learning Outcomes

• Describe the three broad stages of the evaluation process: planning, undertaking, and using.
• List the key elements a Terms of Reference (ToR) document for an evaluation should include.
• Describe the standard components of an evaluation report.
• Explain why "using the evaluation" is treated as a distinct, necessary stage rather than an automatic afterthought.

🔍 Why This Matters

Treating "using the evaluation" as its own explicit stage — not just something that happens automatically once a report is written — exists precisely because evaluation findings are so often filed away unread. Building dissemination and follow-up into the process design itself, rather than assuming it will happen, is what actually connects evaluation back to Topic 25's core purpose of guiding decision making.

1. Three Stages of the Evaluation Process

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in its Evaluation Policy and Guidelines, sets out a three-step evaluation process widely used across development and capacity-building programmes:

Step 1 — Planning the Evaluation

• Clarify the evaluation's purpose (Topic 26)
• Assign responsibilities
• Develop an evaluation workplan
• Verify the budget
• Formulate evaluation questions
• Draft Terms of Reference
• Select evaluators/consultants
• Arrange logistics; brief the evaluation team

Step 2 — Undertaking the Evaluation

• Involve the programme/evaluation manager
• Collect data (Topic 15's methods apply directly here)
• Draft the evaluation report
• Accommodate stakeholder feedback on draft findings

Step 3 — Using the Evaluation

• Consider the recommendations
• Draw up an implementation plan for them
• Disseminate findings to relevant stakeholders

🔗 Cross-Reference — Topic 12

Notice the structural parallel to needs analysis: just as Topic 12 insisted a need should be identified independently of a pre-chosen solution, Step 1 here insists an evaluation's purpose and questions should be clarified before data collection begins — both processes share the same underlying discipline of defining the question clearly before rushing to answer it.

2. Terms of Reference: The Planning Stage's Key Artifact

A Terms of Reference (ToR) document defines the work an evaluator or evaluation team is expected to carry out, and typically includes:

Element	Purpose
Background information	Context on the programme being evaluated
Evaluation purpose and scope	What questions the evaluation must answer, and what it will and won't cover
Evaluation methods	How data will be collected — drawing on Topic 15's individual/group methods
Evaluation team	Who will conduct the evaluation and their qualifications

A clear ToR is what allows an evaluation to be judged later against JCSEE's feasibility and accuracy standards (Topic 26) — without a defined scope and method upfront, there is no baseline against which to judge whether the completed evaluation delivered what was promised.

3. Components of an Evaluation Report

A completed evaluation report typically includes:

Introduction

Restates the programme, purpose, and scope of the evaluation.

Analysis and Major Findings

Presents what the data collection (Step 2) actually revealed.

Outcomes and Impacts

Connects findings back to Topic 27's Behaviour and Results/Impact levels.

Lessons Learned

Broader takeaways useful for future programme design (Topic 9).

Recommendations

Specific, actionable suggestions — the direct input to Step 3's implementation plan.

Conclusions

An overall judgement, often organised around the OECD-DAC criteria (Topic 25).

⚠️ A Report Is Not the End of the Process

A completed, technically excellent evaluation report that is never disseminated or acted upon has failed at Step 3, regardless of how well Steps 1 and 2 were executed. This is precisely the utility standard from Topic 26 in action: an evaluation only serves its intended users if its findings actually reach and influence them.

🌾 Extension Angle

A KVK evaluating a farmer training programme needs to plan (Step 1) which specific questions matter most to its own Scientific Advisory Committee before data collection even begins, undertake (Step 2) field visits and farmer interviews to gather that evidence, and then use (Step 3) the findings to actually revise next season's training calendar — skipping straight from data collection to filing the report would waste the entire exercise.

🇮🇳 Indian Institutional Context

ATMA's annual district-level review cycle (Topic 22) mirrors this three-stage process directly: the Strategic Research and Extension Plan process (Topic 23) functions as the planning stage, field-level monitoring and farmer feedback constitute the undertaking stage, and the resulting recommendations feed directly into the following year's district action plan and budget allocation — the "using" stage made concrete through actual funding decisions.

🔄 Beyond Agriculture

Corporate L&D functions follow an almost identical three-stage cycle when evaluating a major training investment — planning the evaluation's scope with leadership sign-off, undertaking data collection through surveys or performance metrics, and using findings to justify (or discontinue) the programme's budget for the following year.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does "using the evaluation" need to be its own separate stage? +

Because it doesn't happen automatically. Evaluation reports are frequently completed and then left unread or unactioned, which defeats the entire purpose established in Topic 25 — that evaluation exists specifically to guide decision making. Treating dissemination and follow-up as a deliberate stage, with its own steps, is meant to prevent that failure.

What happens if the Terms of Reference is unclear or incomplete? +

The evaluation risks failing Topic 26's feasibility and accuracy standards — without a clearly defined scope, methods, and questions upfront, evaluators may collect the wrong data, run over budget or time, or produce findings that don't actually answer what stakeholders needed to know.

How does this three-step process relate to Topic 27's types of evaluation? +

Topic 27's types (formative/summative, Kirkpatrick's levels, Raab et al.'s functions) describe what kind of evaluation is being conducted. This topic's three-step process describes the generic procedure for conducting any of those types — the same Planning/Undertaking/Using structure applies whether you're running a formative process evaluation or a summative impact evaluation.

📚 References

• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Evaluation Policy and Guidelines. Vienna: UNODC. [Source of the three-step evaluation process: Planning, Undertaking, and Using the Evaluation.]
• Raab, R. T., Swanson, B. E., Wentling, T. L., & Clark, C. D. (Eds.). (1987). A Trainer's Guide to Evaluation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Cross-referenced — see Topics 25 and 27.]
• Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The Program Evaluation Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. [Cross-referenced — see Topic 26.]

EXT 505 — Capacity Development · M.Sc. Extension Education, PAU Ludhiana
Instructor: Dr. Davinder Singh · Theory Topic 28 of 35 · Previous: Topic 27 (Types of Evaluation) · Next: Topic 29 (Use of Evaluation Findings)