Description
The overall score of this evaluation has been rated at 3.02 out of 5 on the Likert-type scale applied to assess the quality of government evaluations. This rating implies that the evaluation is of a satisfactory
quality. In itself the evaluation was primarily focused on understanding the current state of the MOD Centre's programme’s implementation in the province and where there are opportunities for its enhanced efficiency. A key component of the evaluation was the extensive engagement with beneficiaries of the programme as well as amongst key parties responsible for the implementation of the programme (including the provincial DCAS, Departments of Education and Social Development). This factor contributed to the highest overarching consideration score of 3.66 being assigned to the evaluation’s ‘partnership approach’. In addition, the evaluator made notable effort to include departmental personnel in the process of compiling questionnaires, participating in the fieldwork process and in understanding the process of translating the feedback from stakeholders into overarching results. All parties interviewed for this assessment viewed this as vital to the knowledge transfer of the project and as such, this assessment assigned the next highest overarching consideration scores of 3.22 and 3.08 to
‘coordination and alignment’ and ‘capacity development’ respectively. This quality assessment found that
the main body of the evaluation report itself could do with some improvement in its readability or ‘accessibility of content’. In particular, while it presents a breadth of valuable information, it is not
presented in a way which is easy to follow which makes it hard for the reader to navigate. Further, there is significant usage of tables and figures but these are either poorly constructed or not clear to
comprehend. The significant use of images in the report also distracts from the key messages, particularly where these are not labelled as relevant to the key points being made. This factor contributed to the report phase of the evaluation being scored lowest at 2.57. The absence of an external peer reviewer to oversee the evaluation also contributed to a low score (2.50) in terms of the ‘evaluation ethics’ overarching consideration. Overall, the parties interviewed for this assessment viewed it as important in garnering an independent perspective of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for enhanced improvement in the MOD Centre programme. This assessment supports the view held by
these parties that the evaluation was of a satisfactory quality and despite a limited budget allocation, provides an important compilation of a sample of primary data on the implementation of the MOD Centre’s programme in the province.
