{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018731988472622477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.612698412698412, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reaping the Fruits of Evaluation?

PREFACE Preface The Swedish Agency for Development Evaluation (SADEV) is a government-funded institute that conducts and disseminates evaluations of international development cooperation activities. SADEV's overriding objective is to contribute to the achievement of the goals of Swedish development cooperation. Evaluation activities at SADEV are conducted along two main branches. Firstly, SADEV evaluates the organisation of Swedish international development cooperation , focusing on issues such as the management and monitoring of executive organisation , the choice of modalities, donor coordination and the internal efficiency of donor organisations. Secondly, SADEV evaluates the short-and long-term impact of Swedish development cooperation. SADEV's evaluations are available electronically from SADEV's website, and in hard copy. Performance based management and evaluation use are two related concepts that have been much emphasised by policy makers and development practitioners in recent years. In order to put themselves in a position of being able to capitalise on the information provided through evaluations, many aid organisations have established formal systems that are intended to facilitate the process of acting upon evaluations. These are referred to as management response systems. This report presents the findings of three case studies of management response systems, at Sida, EuropeAid, and IFAD. The report provides an analysis of the design and constituent components of the respective systems and seeks to reveal the extent to which: a) the systems achieve their intended objectives, and b) how relevant they are to the organisations and staff that they serve. Based on the findings of these three management response systems, this report makes recommendation that should be addressed when an organisation is developing or redesigning a management response system. Since little research has been produced about this crucial aspect of the evaluation process, this report makes a much-needed contribution to this area.