Highlights:
1. The report does not present information clearly with some information scattered across several different sub-sections.
2.The executive summary presents the findings/conclusions in a confusing arrangement.
3. The methodology section is detailed and explanation is provided on how the evaluators responded to various challenges. The use of secondary sources of data to address data shortages are undermined by poor referencing.
4. Findings are not adequately backed up with evidence, and the causeand effect links between UNFPA interventions and results are not made clear.
5. The conclusions do not reflect the main programme findings for the three programme areas of gender, reproductive health and population & development.
6. Issues related to programming areas are not addressed in any detail in the recommendations. The evaluators have commented on the ToR and used some elements in the design of the evaluation.
|
Publisher:
UNFPA
,
(2012
) |
Type / Script:
Bulletin or Poster
in English
|
Keywords:
EVALUATION, PROGRAMME EVALUATION, PROJECT EVALUATION, RISK ASSESSMENT, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, EVALUATION RESEARCH, INTERNAL OVERSIGHT, EVALUATION RESEARCH, DISABILITY EVALUATION , JOB EVALUATION, RISK MANAGEMENT
|
Thematic Group:
UNFPA
:
Population studies
|
Thesaurus:
05.02.00
- Management
|
Reference Link:
|
|
|
** This document has been:
526
times viewed
1
times downloaded. Feeder:
LEELASHRESTHA
, Editor:
, Auditor:
View Document History
|
|
|
|
|