EVAL Tool 5: Types of Evaluations

Evaluations can be divided into a number of different categories. Note that there may be overlaps
between types of evaluation:

Evaluation Types by Timing1:

• Ex-ante evaluation: An evaluation that is performed before implementation of an intervention
• Ex-post evaluation: Evaluation of an intervention after it has been completed. Note: It may
be undertaken directly after or long after completion. The intention is to identify the factors of
success or failure, to assess the sustainability of results and impacts, and to draw conclusions
that may inform other interventions
• End-of-project evaluation: These are summative, and are undertaken at the end of a project
to assess performance against intended objectives. These tend to be externally led to allow
for an independent third party analysis.
• Impact evaluation: These are conducted after project activities have ended to assess long-
term changes achieved relative to a project’s goal and purpose, and the sustainability of the
project. Note that the term “impact evaluation” has a separate and more technical meaning in
rigorous evaluation and research contexts. Here it refers to the use of particular methods in
setting up the evaluation in order to determine causal effects of a project on particular
development outcomes. These are known as “experimental” or “quasi-experimental” methods.

• Mid-term evaluation: These are formative evaluations to assess performance against plans
and whether any external or internal factors changed requiring an alteration in plans. They are
undertaken half-way through project implementation to assess whether any changes are
required for the remainder of the project’s life cycle.
• Summative evaluation: A study conducted at the end of an intervention (or a phase of that
intervention) to determine the extent to which anticipated outcomes were produced.
Summative evaluation is intended to provide information about the worth of the program.

Evaluations by Approach/Methodology:
• Cluster evaluation: An evaluation of a set of related activities, projects and/or programs
• Cost-benefit analysis: This is an economic tool used to compare the benefits against the
costs of a project or activity. It values the economic benefits of a project to demonstrate
improvements in human welfare and can supplement other evaluation methods to determine
changes in populations.
• Formative evaluation: Evaluation intended to improve performance, most often conducted
during the implementation phase of projects or programs. Note: Formative evaluations may
also be conducted for other reasons such as compliance, legal requirements or as part of a
larger evaluation initiative
• Meta-evaluation: The term is used for evaluations designed to aggregate findings from a
series of evaluations. It can also be used to denote the evaluation of an evaluation to judge its
quality and/or assess the performance of the evaluators.
• Process evaluation: An evaluation of the internal dynamics of implementing organizations,
their policy instruments, their service delivery mechanisms, their management practices, and

1Many of the descriptions of evaluation types in this section are drawn from Glossary of Key
Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, OECD, 2010
http://www.oecd.org/development/peer-reviews/2754804.pdf
1|P a g e M & E G ui d e l i ne s | E V A L T o o l k i t
 the linkages among these
• Program evaluation: Evaluation of a set of interventions, marshaled to attain specific global,
regional, country, or sector development objectives. Note: a program is a time bound
intervention involving multiple activities that may cut across sectors, themes and/or geographic
areas.
• Project evaluation: Evaluation of an individual intervention designed to achieve specific
objectives within specified resources and implementation schedules, often within the
framework of a broader program.
• Real-time evaluations (RTEs): These are conducted during a project’s implementation to get
real-time analysis of progress against higher-level objectives and facilitate immediate
recommendations on changes to the project to improve implementation.
• Thematic evaluations: Focuses on one thematic area, such as cash or gender, across a
number of projects, and look to common findings or trends. A specific type is a cluster
evaluation which focuses on thematic clusters.

Evaluation Types by Stakeholders Involved:

• External evaluations: These are conducted by evaluators who are not part of the project team
and are often independent consultants, to provide an objective assessment of performance.
These tend to focus on accountability and evaluators are recruited by tender.

• Independent evaluation: An evaluation carried out by entities and persons free of the control
of those responsible for the design and implementation of the intervention. Note: The credibility
of an evaluation depends in part on how independently it has been carried out. Independence
implies freedom from political influence and organizational pressure. It is characterized by full
access to information and by full autonomy.

• Internal evaluation: Evaluation of an intervention conducted by a unit and/or individuals

reporting to the management of the donor, partner, or implementing organization. Related
term: self-evaluation. While cheaper than external evaluations, and helping to build staff
ownership of a project, they may be seen as lacking in credibility given conflict of interest.

• Joint evaluation: An evaluation to which different partners participate. Note: There are various
degrees of “jointness” depending on the extent to which individual partners cooperate in the
evaluation process, merge their evaluation resources and combine their evaluation reporting.
Joint evaluations can help overcome attribution problems in assessing the effectiveness of
programs and strategies, the complementarity of efforts supported by different partners, the
quality of aid coordination, etc. They tend to be useful in humanitarian contexts where
interagency learning is the rationale or where attribution of impact by different projects is
difficult. While costs can be shared, they carry additional costs of coordination.

• Participatory evaluation: Evaluation method in which representatives of agencies and

stakeholders (including beneficiaries) work together in designing, carrying out and interpreting
an evaluation.

• Self-evaluation: An evaluation by those who are entrusted with the design and delivery of an
intervention.

The majority of evaluations should be highly participatory with sizeable input from beneficiaries
and other stakeholders. These can get to the heart of whether needs are being met, but are more
resource intense, both in terms of time and cost. However, they can result in longer term savings
by virtue of better assessing the extent to which needs are met. Evaluations should thus be as

2|P a g e M & E G ui d e l i ne s | E V A L T o o l k i t
participatory as possible. Where time and money are constrained, or beneficiary access is difficult,
evaluations based on staff interviews and cross-checking participatory monitoring data and previous
evaluations is an alternative.
Evaluations can be internally or externally led (refer to the ACF Evaluation Policy for guidance
on when to use internal or external evaluators), each with advantages and disadvantages that
should be considered when planning an evaluation.

Internal Evaluators External evaluators

+ Know the organization + Objective
+ Understand organizational behavior and + No organizational bias
attitudes + Fresh perspectives
+ Are known to staff + Broader experience
+ Are less threatening + More easily hired for longer periods of time
+ Often a greater chance of adopting + Can serve as an outside expert
recommendations + Not part of the power structure
+ Are less expensive + Can bring in additional resources
+ Build internal evaluation capability + Trained in evaluation
+ Contribute to program capacity + Experienced in other evaluations
+ Bring fresh perspectives from similar
- Objectivity may be questioned programs in other organizations
- Structure may constrain participation + Regarded as an “expert”
- Personal gain may be questioned
- Accept the assumptions of the organization - May not know the organization
- Full participation may be constrained by - May not know of constraints affecting
usual workload recommendations
- May not be trained in evaluation methods - May be perceived as an adversary
- May lead to the evaluation not having - Expensive
acceptable outside credibility - Contract negotiations may take time
- May have difficulty avoiding bias - Follow up on recommendations is not
- May lack special technical expertise always there
- Unfamiliar with environment

Evaluations should always clarify their primary purpose around accountability or learning and their
primary audience. Most evaluations seek to combine accountability and learning objectives.

Characteristic Accountability-oriented Lesson-learning oriented

Terms of Likely to be set by those Likely to be set by those
Reference (ToR) external to the program, e.g., directly involved in the program
country director/HQ. e.g., program coordinator.

Evaluation Independent external team. Internal team of project staff, or

team mixed team of project and non-
composition project staff.

3|P a g e M & E G ui d e l i ne s | E V A L T o o l k i t
 Resources Likely to require more time and Likely to be less resource
(time & may be more expensive, intensive in most areas, save
budget) particularly if external evaluators internal staff and time.
are recruited and a more thorough
review of project details is
required.

Emphasis in Methodology of data collection Process of reflection and

approach and analysis emphasize objective, reaching conclusions
assessment of achievement of emphasized – more subjective.
plans with resource available.
Evaluation Likely to be undertaken at end of Likely to be undertaken during
type project to check achievement project for lessons to feed back
against plans. into current/future project(s),
e.g., through real time
evaluation. After Action
Reviews are particularly useful
and cost-effective for internal
learning.

Management More directive More facilitative

style

Report In public domain Internal to

dissemination organization/restricted/
external
Source: Adapted from: Buchanan-Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J. (2010) Evaluation of Humanitarian
Action, ALNAP

4|P a g e M & E G ui d e l i ne s | E V A L T o o l k i t