Nowadays, around 12 billion people remain without access to electricity in rural areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America In order to achieve universal access, a wide range of institutions must be involved in long-term rural electrification programs within a regional and national scope In this context, the main objective of this research is to propose an evaluation methodology which aims to promote continual improvement of the programs underway, by undertaking the appropriate modifications in terms of their design and implementation In this regard, a formative approach is sought, as the programs underway require from elements for continual improvement In addition, a management perspective is also sought, as the results focus on program leaders for the implementation of suitable modifications, as and when needed The proposed evaluation methodology considers 4 sustainability dimensions: environmental, technical, socioeconomic and institutional, in turn composed of 15 criteria that allow the design and implementation of the program to be analyzed in detail The criteria are assessed by means of indicators dealing with the specific conditions of each program As a case study, the Venezuelan program "Sowing Light" is taken as an empirical application of the proposed methodology Launched in 2005, this program has been developed in three phases, reaching 900 rural communities to date, and is expected to benefit 2020 more in the near future Hence, the proposed evaluation methodology aims to provide useful results to compare RET-based electrification programs with conventional grid extension Similarly, the methodology promotes continual improvement in favor of universal electricity access in rural communities in this country, as well as lessons learned that can be useful for the development of similar initiatives in other developing countries

/pdf/formative-evaluation-of-sustainability-in-rural-2fzw5fp4qd.pdf

Formative evaluation of sustainability in rural electrification programs from a management perspective: A case study from Venezuela

The next decade in evaluation research

What is the difference between evaluation research and fundamental research? From the outset, however, I will phrase the issue a little bit more specifically: What is the difference between public policy evaluation research and fundamental research on public policy?

Evaluation Research and Fundamental Research

Like measures of outcome, measures of implementation are most useful and analytically powerful when measured at client-level and are quantitative. However, high-quality, individual-level, quantitative service utilization data can be expensive, intrusive, or otherwise impractical to obtain. Cruder data—for example, presence versus absence of a given service—are often more feasible to collect, as well as more likely to be available. Consequently, evaluators can benefit by finding ways to better exploit such data at the analysis phase to compensate for shortcomings at the collection phase. This article documents one such instance in which this was done. Specifically, it describes how quantitative, client-level implementation scales were derived from qualitative (categorical) data and used to support a cross-site synthesis of implementation and outcome analyses in a multisite evaluation. It also suggests additional scenarios in which quantitative implementation scales might be derived form qualitative service...

Constructing quantitative implementation scales from categorical services data. Examples from a multisite evaluation.

Field observation of practicing policy analysts, and review of a growing revisionist literature that examines policy analysis as currently practiced and utilized, produces three themes that diverge...

Policy Analysis and Organizational Decisions Toward a Conceptual Revision

It seems that evaluation means many things to many people. If Congress continues to mandate Federal agency evaluation with the intention of establishing agency accountability while agencies are instead sponsoring evaluation in order to improve program management, the outlook for the mutual satisfaction of both sets of users is something less than promising.

Differing perspectives of evaluation

On the one hand, the importance of evaluation findings for crime control policy now appears to be well understood. On the other hand, the contribution of evaluative data to those findings and to that policy seems much less well established. This paper examines some of the weaknesses of the data base presently available for evaluation in the criminal justice area and relates the quality of evaluation findings to the quality of that data support. A case study (the national-level evaluation of the High-Impact Anti-Crime Program) serves to illustrate the points made and to develop recommendations for new efforts needed in this area.

Eleanor Chelimsky

Papers

Differing perspectives of evaluation

The Need for Better Data to Support Crime Control Policy

Evaluation research credibility andthe congress