+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

To complete your Assignment, review this week’s Learning Resources. Compose a cohesive document that addresses the following: See attachment for detailed instructions:

  • 2 – 3 pages 
  • APA citing 
  • No plagiarism
  • 12 and 1” margins
  • Include cover page and reference page

Week 8 Assignment

Expanding Contexts for Evaluation

To prepare for this Discussion, pay particular attention to the following Learning Resources:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

· Read Changing Role of Evaluation –
See Word doc

· Basic Principles of Management – See pdf


You will assume the role of an evaluator for your workplace or one in which you are familiar.

· You will draft a progress report that includes measures and reports.

· Your work will describe and assess the plan for the acceptance and use of an evaluation system and/or scorecard.

· In addition, you will choose an evaluation system that you feel is best suited for the work environment.

· Your paper will determine the stage of development for the evaluation system.

· Provide an analysis and recommendation plan for improving the evaluation system within the workplace.

· In conclusion, summarize how the use of an evaluation is an essential indicator of organizational health.

· 2 – 3 pages

· 12 and 1” margin

· Cover page and Reference page

· No plagiarism



Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation i







4.1 Process (implementation) indicators

4.2 Process (implementation) indicators

4.3 Progression indicators (labour market attachment)



Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 1


Youth employment programmes, like any other type of public

policy intervention, are designed to change the current situation of the
target group and achieve specific results, like increasing employment or
reducing unemployment. The key policy question is whether the planned
results (outcomes) were actually achieved. Often, in fact, the attention of
policy-makers and programme managers is focused on inputs (e.g. the
human and financial resources used to deliver a programme) and outputs
(e.g. number of participants), rather than on whether the programme is
achieving its intended outcomes (e.g. participants employed or with the
skills needed to get productive jobs).

Monitoring and evaluation are the processes that allow policy-
makers and programme managers to assess: how an intervention evolves
over time (monitoring); how effectively a programme was implemented
and whether there are gaps between the planned and achieved results
(evaluation); and whether the changes in well-being are due to the
programme and to the programme alone (impact evaluation).

Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting and analysing
information about a programme, and comparing actual against planned
results in order to judge how well the intervention is being implemented. It
uses the data generated by the programme itself (characteristics of
individual participants, enrolment and attendance, end of programme
situation of beneficiaries and costs of the programme) and it makes
comparisons across individuals, types of programmes and geographical
locations. The existence of a reliable monitoring system is essential for

Evaluation is a process that systematically and objectively
assesses all the elements of a programme (e.g. design, implementation
and results achieved) to determine its overall worth or significance. The
objective is to provide credible information for decision-makers to identify
ways to achieve more of the desired results. Broadly speaking, there are
two main types of evaluation:
? Performance evaluations focus on the quality of service delivery

and the outcomes (results) achieved by a programme. They
typically cover short-term and medium-term outcomes
(e.g. student achievement levels, or the number of welfare
recipients who move into full-time work). They are carried out on
the basis of information regularly collected through the programme
monitoring system. Performance evaluation is broader than
monitoring. It attempts to determine whether the progress
achieved is the result of the intervention, or whether another
explanation is responsible for the observed changes.

? Impact evaluations look for changes in outcomes that can be
directly attributed to the programme being evaluated. They
estimate what would have occurred had beneficiaries not
participated in the programme. The determination of causality
between the programme and a specific outcome is the key feature
that distinguishes impact evaluation from any other type of

2 Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation usually include information on the cost of
the programme being monitored or evaluated. This allows judging the
benefits of a programme against its costs and identifying which
intervention has the highest rate of return. Two tools are commonly
? A cost-benefit analysis estimates the total benefit of a

programme compared to its total costs. This type of analysis is
normally used ex-ante, to decide among different programme
options. The main difficulty is to assign a monetary value to
“intangible” benefits. For example, the main benefit of a youth
employment programme is the increase of employment and
the earning opportunities for participants. These are tangible
benefits to which a monetary value can be assigned.
However, having a job also increase people’s self-esteem,
which is more difficult to express in monetary terms as it has
different values for different persons.

? A cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of two or
more programmes in yielding the same outcome. Take for
example a wage subsidy and a public work programme. Each
has the objective to place young people into jobs, but the
wage subsidy does so at the cost of $500 per individual
employed, while the second costs $800. In cost-effectiveness
terms, the wage subsidy performs better than the public work

Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 3


A theory of change describes how an intervention will deliver the
planned results. A causal/result chain (or logical framework) outlines how
the sequence of inputs, activities and outputs of a programme will attain
specific outcomes (objectives). This in turn will contribute to the
achievement of the overall aim. A causal chain maps: (i) inputs (financial,
human and other resources); (ii) activities (actions or work performed to
translate inputs into outputs); (iii) outputs (goods produced and services
delivered); (iv) outcomes (use of outputs by the target groups); and
(v) aim (or final, long-term outcome of the intervention).

In the result chain above, the monitoring system would
continuously track: (i) the resources invested in/used by the programme;
(ii) the implementation of activities in the planned timeframe; and (iii) the
delivery of goods and services. A performance evaluation would, at a
specific point of time, judge the inputs-outputs relationship and the
immediate outcomes. An impact evaluation would provide evidence on
whether the changes observed were caused by the intervention and by
this alone.






goals, typically
achieved in the


Results likely
to be achieved


use outputs

Tangible goods
or services the

produces or



performed to
inputs into



budget and staff

Implementation Results

Figure 1. Results chain

Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 4


Performance management (or results-based management) is a

strategy designed to achieve changes in the way organizations operate,
with improving performance (better results) at the core of the system.
Performance measurement (performance monitoring) is concerned
more narrowly with the production of information on performance. It
focuses on defining objectives, developing indicators, and collecting and
analysing data on results. Results-based management systems typically
comprise seven stages:

1. Formulating objectives: identifying in clear, measurable terms
the results being sought and developing a conceptual framework
for how the results will be achieved.

2. Identifying indicators: for each objective, specifying exactly
what is to be measured along a scale or dimension.

3. Setting targets: for each indicator, specifying the expected level
of results to be achieved by specific dates, which will be used to
judge performance.

4. Monitoring results: developing performance-monitoring systems
that regularly collect data on the results achieved.

5. Reviewing and reporting results: comparing actual results
against the targets (or other criteria for judging performance).

6. Integrating evaluations: conducting evaluations to gather
information not available through performance monitoring

7. Using performance information: using information from
monitoring and evaluation for organizational learning, decision-
making and accountability.

The setting up a performance monitoring system for youth
employment programmes, therefore, requires: clarifying programme
objectives; identifying performance indicators; setting the baseline and
targets, monitoring results, and reporting.

In many instances, the objectives of a youth employment
programme are implied rather than expressly stated. In such cases, the
first task of performance monitoring is to articulate what the programme
intends to achieve in measurable terms. Without clear objectives, in fact, it
becomes difficult to choose the most appropriate measures (indicators)
and express the programme targets.




























Figure 2 Steps of performance management systems

5 Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation


Performance indicators are concise quantitative and qualitative
measures of programme performance that can be easily tracked on a
regular basis. Quantitative indicators measure changes in a specific
value (number, mean or median) and a percentage. Qualitative
indicators provide insights into changes in attitudes, beliefs, motives and
behaviours of individuals. Although important, information on these
indicators is more time-consuming to collect, measure and analyse,
especially in the early stages of programme implementation.

Box .1. Tips for the development of indicators

Relevance. Indicators should be relevant to the needs of the user and to the purpose of monitoring. They should be able to clearly
indicate to the user whether progress is being made (or not) in addressing the problems identified.

Disaggregation. Data should be disaggregated according to what is to be measured. For example, for individuals the basic
disaggregation is by sex, age group, level of education and other personal characteristics useful to understanding how the
programme functions. For services and/or programmes the disaggregation is normally done by type of service/programme.

Comprehensibility. Indicators should be easy to use and understand and data for their calculation relatively simple to collect.

Clarity of definition. A vaguely defined indicator will be open to several interpretations, and may be measured in different ways at
different times and places. It is useful in this regard to include the source of data to be used and calculation examples/methods. For
example, the indicator “employment of participants at follow-up” will require: (i) specification of what constitutes employment (work
for at least one hour for pay, profit or in kind in the 10 days prior to the measurement); (ii) a definition of participants (e.g. those who
attended at least 50 per cent of the programme); and (iii) a follow-up timeframe (six months after the completion of the programme).
Care must also be taken in defining the standard or benchmark of comparison. For example, in examining the status of young
people, what constitutes the norm – the situation of youth in a particular region or at national level?

The number chosen should be small. There are no hard and fast rules to determine the appropriate number of indicators.
However, a rule of thumb is that users should avoid two temptations: information overload and over-aggregation (i.e. too much data
and designing a composite index based on aggregation and weighting schemes which may conceal important information). A
common mistake is to over-engineer a monitoring system (e.g. the collection of data for hundreds of indicators, most of which are
not used). In the field of employment programmes, senior officials tend to make use of high-level strategic indicators such as
outputs and outcomes. Line managers and their staff, conversely, focus on operational indicators that target processes and

Specificity. The selection of indicators should reflect those problems that the youth employment programme intends to address.
For example, a programme aimed at providing work experience to early school leavers needs to incorporate indicators on coverage
(how many among all school leavers participate in the programme), type of enterprises where the work experience takes place and
the occupation, and number of beneficiaries that obtain a job afterwards by individual characteristics (e.g. sex, educational
attainment, household status and so on).

Cost. There is a trade off between indicators and the cost of collecting data for their measurement. If the collection of data
becomes too expensive and time consuming, the indicator may ultimately lose its relevance.

Technical soundness. Data should be reliable. The user should be informed about how the indicators were constructed and the
sources used. A short discussion should be provided about their meaning, interpretation, and, most importantly, their limitations.
Indicators must be available on a timely basis, especially if they are to provide feedback during programme implementation.

Forward-looking. A well-designed system of indicators must not be restricted to conveying information about current concerns.
Indicators must also measure trends over time.

Adaptability. Indicators should be readily adaptable to use in different regions and circumstances.

Source: adapted from Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), 1997. Guide to Gender-Sensitive Indicators
(Ottawa, CIDA).

Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 6

When choosing performance indicators, it is important to
identify indicators at all levels of the results chain, and not just at the
level of outcomes. Information on process is useful for documenting
programme implementation over time and explaining differences
across programme sites. Information on individual participants (e.g.
sex, age group, national origin, medical condition, educational
attainment, length of unemployment spells and so on) allows users to
judge compliance with targeting criteria. Some examples of the most
common implementation indicators are shown in the Table 1 below.

Process indicators Calculation method Disaggregation

1 Composition of entrants,

participants, completers *

Number of entrants in period t*100

= —————————

Total number of entrants in period t

? by type of programme

? by characteristics of individuals

Programme: training, subsidy, self-

employment, etc.

Individuals by sex, age group, education

level, unemployment duration, type of

disadvantage, prior occupation/work


2 Stock variation of entrants,

participants, completers

Number of entrants in period t

= —————————

Number of entrants in period t-1

As above

3 Inflow of entrants (or


Number of new entrants in period t

= —————————

Stock of entrants end of period t-1

As above

4 Degree of coverage of target

population (entrants,

participants, completers)

Number of programme entrants*100

= —————————

Total targeted population

As above

5 Implementation Number of implemented actions

= ————————–

Number of planned actions

As above

6 Average cost per entrant,

participant, completer

Total cost of programme

= —————————

Total number of entrants

By programme

Note: * Entrants are all individuals who start a specific programme. Participants are all individuals who entered and attended the programme for a minimum
period of time (usually determined by the rules of the programme as the minimum period required to produce changes, for example 50 per cent of the
programme duration). Completers are those who completed the whole programme. Dropouts, usually, are those who left the programme before a minimum
period of attendance established by the rules of the programme (e.g. the difference between entrants and participants).

Table.1. Example of common process (implementation) indicators (measurement and



7 Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation

The indicator in the first row, for example, serves to determine
whether the targeting rules of the programme are being complied with. For
instance, in a youth employment programme targeting individuals with
less than primary education, the share of entrants by this level of
education over the total will determine if eligibility rules are being followed
and allow tracking of sites with the best/worst compliance.

The indicators in the second and third rows serve to measure the
evolution of the programme’s intake. It is normal, in fact, to see increases
in intake as the programme matures. The time t may be any time interval
(yearly, quarterly or monthly). The indicator in the fourth row serves to
measure the overall coverage of the programme. Depending on its scope,
the denominator can be the total number of youth (in a country, region,
province or town) or only those who have certain characteristics (e.g. only
those who are unemployed, workers in the informal economy, individuals
with a low level of education). The indicator in the fifth row serves to
measure the pace of implementation compared to the initial plan, while
the indicator in the last row is used to calculate overall costs.

Since the overarching objective of youth employment
programmes is to help young people get a job, the most significant
outcome indicators are: (i) the gross placement (employment) rate by
individual characteristics and type of programme; (ii) average cost per
young person placed; and (iii) the level of earnings of youth participants
employed. The more disaggregated the data, the better, as this allows
comparison across individuals, programmes and geographical locations.

Calculation methods and disaggregation are shown in Table 2 below.






1 Gross placement rates

Number of


= ———————–

Total number


(including dropouts)

? by type of programme

? by characteristics of individuals

? by type of job

Programme: training, subsidy, self-employment,

public work scheme

Individuals by sex, age group, education level,

unemployment duration, type of disadvantage,

prior occupation/work experience

Jobs by economic sector and size of the

enterprise, occupation, contract type and

contract duration

Table 3: Outcome indicators (measurement and disaggregation)


Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 8

The above-mentioned disaggregation also allows data users to
judge the “quality” of the results achieved. The use of total placement
as an indicator of performance, in fact, has two main shortcomings.
The first is the likely prevalence of short-term employment and the
likelihood that beneficiaries re-enter unemployment soon after the end
of the programme. The second is the lack of distinction between “easy-
to-place” youth (who would eventually get a job also without the
programme) and “disadvantaged” youth (who are likely to experience
long spells of unemployment if they are not helped). The first issue
results in “gaming” behaviour, for example, administrators may be
tempted to “cheat” the system by focusing on short-term placement
(with no attention to quality) to achieve programme targets. The second
gives rise to “creaming” (or cream-skimming), namely the selection for
programme participation of those youth most likely to succeed, as
compared to those who most need the programme.

The disaggregation proposed in Table 2 corrects these
shortcomings by requiring collection of information on the
characteristics of individuals employed and the type of jobs they
perform. Calculation of hourly wages helps to measure the welfare
gains more accurately than total earnings, as young workers may have
higher earnings only because they work longer hours.

Cost is another important measure: it allows users to decide
whether a programme is cost-effective (e.g. whether the rate of return
in terms of placement justifies the resources invested).1 Usually, the
overall costs of a programme are compared to those of other
programmes with similar objectives and target groups. Overall costs
include: 1) the disbursements made to service providers (e.g. the
payment made to a training centre to conduct a vocational training
course) or to other agencies (e.g. the cost of insuring participants
during programme participation); 2) payments made to individual
participants (e.g. the reimbursement of transport costs incurred to
reach the site of training, subsidies for living costs and so on); and
3) the administrative cost of running the programme.

2 Earnings Number of individuals

placed in a job and earning

(hourly) wages over the


= ———————–

Number of placements

? by type of programme

? by characteristics of individuals

? by type of jobs

3 Cost per placement Total cost

= ———————–

Number of placements

? by type of programme

1 In terms of youth employment

programmes, cost-efficiency refers to the

simple relation between cost and results

(e.g. cost of the programme vs. number

of individuals placed). Cost-effectiveness

relates also to the quality of placement,

and not only to quantity (e.g. cost of the

programme vs. individuals placed in

“good” jobs).

9 Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation

As outcome indicators depend on the specific objectives of each
youth employment programme, each programme has its own. Some
examples of outcome indicators for the most common employment
programmes are provided in Table 3. When selecting outcome indicators,
attention must be paid to the costs and time involved in collecting the data
needed. For this reason, it is always better to focus on a few, but well-
chosen indicators.

Vocational training

Completion rate

Graduation rate

Drop-out rate

= number of individuals who complete the training programme/number of entrants*

= number of individuals who passed standardized testing at the programme’s

end/number of entrants

= number of individuals who left the course in the first (30, 60, 90) days of

programme/number of entrants

* For training programmes, it is necessary to distinguish between those who

entered the course (entrants) and those who attended a minimum period

(participants). In some programmes, the term “completers” is used to denote

those who complete the whole programme.

Proportion of participants in regular

(unsubsidized) employment at follow-up,


? (For on-the-job training): share of
trainees employed in same
enterprise offering training;

? (For all types of training): share of
trainees employed in the
occupation of training; and

? (For all types of training): share of
trainees using skills acquired
during the training.

= number of participants employed at follow-up/number of entrants/participants

= number of employed trainees in same enterprise/number of trainees employed

= number of trainees employed in occupation of training/number of trainees


= number of trainees employed who use skills learnt/number of trainees employed

Average earnings

= Total earnings of trainees employed/number of trainees employed

= Number of trainees employed earning hourly wages over minimum/number of

trainees employed

Average cost per participant/completer

= total cost /number of participants/completers

Average cost per participant/completer

employed at follow-up

= total cost /number of participants/completer employed

Table 3: Examples of performance indicators for youth employment programmes

Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation 10

Employment subsidy

Proportion of subsidized workers (participants) in

regular employment at follow-up, including:

? Share of subsidized workers still employed
at follow-up in partner enterprise

= number of subsidized workers employed at follow-up/number of


= number of subsidized workers employed at follow-up in partner

enterprise/number of subsidized workers employed at follow-up

Employment subsidy

Average earnings

= Total earnings of subsidized workers/number of subsidized

workers employed at follow-up

= Number of subsidized workers earning hourly wages over

minimum/number of subsidized workers employed at follow-up

Average cost per subsidized worker employed at


= total cost of subsidy/number of subsidized workers employed at


Average cost of subsidy per subsidized worker

= total cost subsidy/number of participants

Self-employment assistance

Proportion of persons still self-employed at follow-up

= number of self-employed at follow-up/number of participants

Average earnings

= Total earnings of self-employed/ number of individuals still self-

employed at follow-up

= Number of self-employed earning incomes over the

minimum/number of individuals who are still self-employed at


* To compare self-employment earnings, one can use either the

level of the statutory minimum wage, or the average earning for

self-employed, if available (this is usually calculated by the

statistical office)

Average cost of assistance per person still self-

employed at follow-up

= total cost of assistance/number of self-employed at follow-up

Average cost per participant

= total cost of assistance/number of participants

Average added employment generated by assisted


= number of additional jobs created (individuals employed) by self-

employed individuals assisted by the programme

Table 3: Examples of performance indicators for youth employment programmes

11 Basic principles of monitoring and evaluation

Employment programmes usually target individuals who are
unemployed according to ILO standards (without work, looking for work
and available to work). Registering with the Public Employment Service
(PES) is usually considered sufficient for an individual to comply with the
three mentioned criteria. Recently, employment programmes started to
target individuals that are in the potential labour force, but do not comply
with all the criteria of the unemployment definition.2 These individuals
(schematically presented in the Figure below) may be targeted by
employment programmes aimed at increasing their labour market

Source: EUROSTAT, Statistics in Focus 2011/57

Progression indicators, therefore, measure the change in labour
market status that services and programme produce in individuals that are
“detached” from the labour market (in the potential labour force, but not
unemployed). For example, progression indicators measure how many
individuals who are available, but not seeking work, become unemployed
(outflow from inactivity into unem