Organizational development impact evaluation: Ethiopia country program

This paper from Pact Ethiopia is the final report from three external consultants who were commissioned to evaluate ten years of capacity building interventions by the organisation.

"The Terms of Reference indicated the need to find out whether or not the capacity building intervention approach, methodology, tools used by Pact Ethiopia had made an impact on their partners and to what extent the overall approach met global standards. Using a participatory approach and methodology, over 100 individuals (staff, old and new partners, donors, like minded organizations) participated in the data collection done in Ethiopia during the month of October.  A selection of key stakeholders participated in a feedback session designed to validate the data collected. The data collection process included, one-on- one interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, observations, review of Pact Ethiopia documents, a selection of Evaluation Partners Pact inspired manuals, other organizational assessments processes and tools, Development Partners documents and relevant literature. The overall approach and methodology of the Evaluation Team (ET) was inclusive and began with a values clarification, accountability framework and a common understanding of the assignment between all three consultants and the three most relevant Pact Ethiopia staff members. The ET maintained regular and ongoing dialogue with Pact Ethiopia and continuously worked at building trust in the evaluation process. The final report is qualitative and focuses on presenting the voices of the evaluation partners." (Tesega, Kelemework & Burke, 2008)

Contents

Specific methods mentioned

• Participatory organizational assessment – p. 10
• Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) – p. 10-11, 38-46, 51-55, 81-82
• Validation Workshop – p. 25
• One-on-One Interviews – p. 26
• Group Discussion – p. 26
• Focus Group – p. 26
• MERIT – p. 16, 79
• Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting , Learning (MERL) – p. 16-17, 21, 79-81