Description
This evaluation scored 2.8 out of 5. It was an adequately implemented evaluation, scoring 3.13 out of 5 for the implementation phase. It scored adequately in this phase because the planned methodology was reportedly implemented with few deviations, however the lack of a ToR or proposal make this difficult to corroborate. The evaluation scored poorly in terms of terms of planning and design, largely because of a lack of a proposal or ToR, however the methodology designed was good. The evaluation came about from the initiative of the evaluator and not from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture therefore there were no ToRs or even a proposal, nor did the department contribute any resources to the evaluation. Despite being satisfied with the evaluation the project facilitator reported that the had been little follow up use of the evaluation, two of the recommendations were implemented, but beyond that there has been no follow-up, this led to a poor score of 2.33. The report scored 2.86 out 5. It was a well structured reported and adequately written, however there was some findings exceeded the evidence
presented to support them.
Surprisingly, the evaluation scored poorly in terms of capacity development, only 2.22 out of 5, despite being done by an evaluator in training. This was largely because the evaluation did not develop any evaluation skills within the department or project only for the external evaluator.
The evaluation was done with no reported interference, scoring 3.36 for being a free open evaluation process. The project facilitator allowed the evaluator to work without interference. Due to the being limited engagement with stakeholder beyond the project facilitator, the evaluation scored a poor 2.27 for partnership approach. The lack of involvement of the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and the inability to access French stakeholders contributed to this.
There are no ethical concerns regarding this evaluation.
