Evaluation Policy
November 2021
Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07
23 November 2021

Geneva, Switzerland

1Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Evaluation Policy
Title
CreatorConsultation
Date approved
Audience
Applicability
Replaces
Is part ofRelateddocuments

Evaluation Policy
Planning, Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit
Evaluation Advisory Board (30 September 2021), Management (6-19 October2021) and Board of Trustees (18-19 November 2021)
19 November 2021
UNITAR and CIFAL staff members and personnel
Applies to all activities of UNITAR and CIFAL Global Network, including
programmes, projects and hosted partnerships
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework (AC/UNITAR/2017/08)
UNITAR results-based management framework
Operational Guidelines for Evaluation
UNITAR Managing for Results Policy (AC/UNITAR/2021/06)

2

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Contents
Introduction

4

Evaluation definition

4

Purposes5

Guiding Norms and Standards

5

Criteria

5

Evaluation Categories and Requirements

6

Evaluation Requirements

8

Exceptions to evaluation requirements

8Discretionary Evaluations

9

Evaluation Planning, Costing and Management

9

Transparency, Dissemination and Disclosure

10

Evaluation Capacity Development

10

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning

11

Roles and Responsibilities

11

Executive Director

11

Planning, Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit

12

Programme Management

13

Other Stakeholders

13

Coverage, Scope and Implementation

13

Review

13

Annex 1 – Glossary of Terms

14

3

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Introduction
1. The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is a dedicated trainingarm of the United Nations with the mission to develop the capacities of individuals,
institutions and organizations in countries and among other United Nations stakeholders
through high-quality learning solutions and related knowledge products and services toenhance decision-making and to support country-level action for overcoming global
challenges. Under its strategic framework, UNITAR programming is guided by the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development and the outcomes of other major United Nations
conferences. In addition to the set of strategic objectives that structures the Institute’s work,
the framework acknowledges the important role that evaluation plays for accountability,
learning and quality improvement.
2. This policy defines the institutional and governing arrangements for evaluation at UNITAR.
Specifically, the policy covers the purpose, scope, categories, requirements, management
and roles and responsibilities for evaluation. The overall purpose of this policy is tocontribute to strengthened accountability in delivering results, learning and quality of
UNITAR programming.
3. The policy replaces the modalities for evaluation that were part of the former Monitoringand Evaluation Policy Framework (AC/UNITAR/2017/08). While evaluation is closely
related to monitoring, issuing the present policy as a distinct document flows from internalreflection on the need to reduce the blurring of the two functions, the practices of otherorganizations with maturing evaluation functions, recommendations from the peer reviewof the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) and endorsement by the UNITAR
Evaluation Advisory Board.

Evaluation definition
4. UNITAR adopts the UNEG definition of evaluation as “an assessment, conducted assystematically and impartially as possible, of an activity, project, programme, strategy,
policy topic, sector, operational area or institutional performance. It analyses the level ofachievement of both expected and unexpected results by examining the results, chain,processes, contextual factors and causality using appropriate criteria such as relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.” 1 The intention of evaluation is toprovide credible and useful information, in view of determining the worth or significance of
the undertaking, incorporating lessons learned into decision-making and enhancing theoverall quality of the Institute’s programming and operations. The definitions of other terms
used in this policy are found in Annex 1.
5. In addition to an oversight function, evaluation constitutes an important element of resultsbased management (RBM) and is complementary to monitoring and measurement
exercises, as well as other RBM processes such as strategic planning and risk
management. Findings from prospective evaluation (or related processes such as appraisal
or baseline studies), for example, are useful in defining indicators for monitoring purposes.
Moreover, findings from monitoring progress towards results can help identify importantevaluation questions.

1 United Nations Evaluation Group Norms and Standards (2016),

http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/1914. The OECD DAC criterion on coherence was added
subsequent to the UNEG Norms and Standards.
4

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Purposes
6. Evaluation serves the following purposes:a. Accountability: As an organization receiving funds in the form of voluntary contributions
from public and private donors, in addition to funds from fee-based training and otherservices, the Institute is answerable to its sources of funding for delivering results.
Evaluation provides donors with assurances on the degree to which UNITAR achieves its
results.
b. Organizational learning and quality improvement: Evaluation is as an opportunity tolearn how to do things better, more effectively, with greater relevance and coherence, withmore efficient utilization of resources and with greater and more sustaining impact. The
results of evaluations need to contribute to knowledge management and learning, andserve as the basis for enhancing the quality of UNITAR products and services.
c. Improved decision-making: Results from evaluations provide the basis for informed,
responsible decisions. Such decisions may include, for example, scaling up, replicating or
phasing out a programme, project or undertaking; adjusting learning objectives;
redesigning content, changing methodologies, assessment activities or modes of delivery;
engagement with partners, etc.

Guiding Norms and Standards
7. The capacity development and evaluation communities have developed guiding principles
and good-practice norms and standards to ensure that evaluations meet quality
requirements. As a member of UNEG, UNITAR aspires to meet the UNEG Norms andStandards (N&S) for Evaluation and the UNEG Ethical Guidelines. UNITAR recognizes thatthe extent to which its evaluation function is aligned with the N&S and guidelines depends
on various factors, including the size and scale of projects, funding and otherconsiderations.
8. UNITAR also applies the UNEG Guidance on Integrating Human Rights and Gender
Equality in Evaluations. In accordance with the UN System-Wide Action Plan for Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UNSWAP), the UNITAR Gender Equality and
Empowerment of Women (GEEW) Policy and the UN System-wide Policy on Disability
Inclusion, UNITAR assigns importance to the principles of GEEW and will strive toincorporate GEEW, human rights and the needs of vulnerable groups (including persons
with disabilities) and beneficiaries from countries in special situations in its evaluative
undertakings.

Criteria
9. The Institute adopts the six Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) Development Assistance Committee criteria for evaluation. These are broadly
defined as follows:a. Relevance: The degree to which an undertaking responds to the needs and priorities of
the targeted beneficiaries, a contextual situation to be addressed and donor priorities.
b. Coherence: The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country,
sector or institution.
c. Effectiveness: The extent to which an undertaking has achieved its objectives.
5

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

d. Efficiency: The cost effectiveness of transferring inputs into outputs taking into
consideration alternative approaches.
e. Impact: The cumulative and/or long-term effects of an undertaking or series ofundertakings which may produce positive or negative, intended or unintended changes.
f. Sustainability: The likelihood that benefits derived from an undertaking will continue overtime after its completion.
10. Not all criteria necessarily apply to all evaluations and that decisions on which criteria apply
to a given undertaking should be based on the type of evaluation, the objective/purpose of
the evaluation, consultations with the evaluation’s stakeholders, the main evaluationquestions and considerations related to methodology, feasibility and resources.

Evaluation Categories and Requirements
11. The Institute undertakes two broad categories of evaluations: independent 2 and selfevaluations.
Independent evaluation
12. Independent evaluations are conducted and/or managed by the Institute’s Planning,
Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit (PPME) and include the following:a. mandated independent project evaluations (in accordance with this policy),b. other independent evaluations, such as strategic, cluster or programme evaluations, at
PPME’s discretion within its approved budget and on the basis of consultations with the
Evaluation Advisory Board and management; andc. discretionary independent evaluations at the request of the Executive Director or adivision or programme unit.
13. Other evaluative exercises undertaken by PPME may include rapid impact assessments,
joint evaluations, meta-evaluations and peer reviews of self-evaluations for quality
assurance purposes. PPME also acts as UNITAR’s primary focal point for any independent
evaluation undertaken by external entities (e.g. donors or other partners).
Self-evaluation

14. Self-evaluations are assessments conducted by the Institute’s divisions, programme units
and other entities. While such exercises are not independent and not necessarily in-depth,
self-evaluations should contain some degree of evaluative thinking beyond measurementof results. For the most part, self-evaluations are undertaken at the project level, but they
may include any subject under an entity’s purview. While self-evaluation has similarities
with the monitoring function and while the results of self-evaluations may be integrated into
narrative reporting, the exercise should seek to ask and respond to key evaluationquestions and include critical analysis and reflection based on the data collected with the
purpose to promote learning and inform quality improvement.

2 Independent evaluation is conducted by entities free from control and undue influence of those responsible forthe design and implementation of an undertaking.

6

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Factors that trigger evaluation
15. As a general rule, all donor-funded projects are subject to some form of evaluation. Given
the Institute’s emphasis on training and the scale of much of its programming, mostevaluations take the form of self-evaluations. Independent evaluation of projects andpooled-funded projects/programmes is triggered by a budgetary threshold or period. The
requirements for self-evaluation and independent evaluation are specified in paragraph 22,
below.
16. With a view to providing opportunities for learning across programmes, PPME also
undertakes cluster or strategic evaluations within its activity budget. Criteria for theselection of such evaluations include the cumulative budgetary value of the cluster,
strategic alignment, visibility, time and resource requirements and opportunity for learningand quality improvement.
17. UNITAR recognizes the linkages between independent and self-evaluations, and that theevaluation of some undertakings may include both approaches. For example, larger, multiyear projects may contain important self-evaluation exercises, with an independent terminal
evaluation scheduled at the project’s end. The two processes may be highly
complementary, with the results of self-evaluations providing opportunities for learning andinput into narrative reporting and project improvement during delivery, and the mandated
independent evaluation providing overall accountability and learning that can feed into
organizational knowledge management practices.
18. Independent and self-evaluations may be undertaken individually (i.e. in the absence ofany partners), jointly (with at least one other partner e.g. donors) and/or throughparticipatory (i.e. involving stakeholders and/or beneficiaries) approaches.

Timing of Evaluations
19. Evaluation may be performed at different times and address different elements of theresults chain and include formative or other types of process-related mid-term
assessments, evaluations of outputs, and/or summative evaluations focusing on outcomes
and impact. Given the Institute’s concentration on learning-related programming, it is useful
to distinguish between intermediate outcomes (e.g. enhanced knowledge and skills ofbeneficiaries) and institutional outcomes (e.g. strengthened organizational capacities as
the result of applied knowledge/skills, increased policy coherence or efficiency, etc.).
20. When a donor agreement or project document does not specify the timing of an
independent evaluation, the timing is decided closely with the programme unit in order forthe exercise to be as useful as possible. This decision takes into account a number offactors, such as the project being a pilot initiative testing a new design that can be improved,
replication or subsequent phase of the project or possible upscaling.

7

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Evaluation Requirements
21. The following evaluations are required:a) Mandatory independent evaluationi. All projects budgeted at $1.5 million are subject to an independent evaluation. 3
ii. Hosted partnerships or programmes receiving pooled project funding shall be subject
to an independent evaluation once per two programme budget cycles (four years).

b) Mandatory self-evaluationiii. Evaluation to obtain beneficiary reaction for all project training events of two days ormore in duration. 4
iv. Evaluation of learning outcomes (e.g. strengthened knowledge or skills) for all projecttraining events of two days or more in duration.5
v. Evaluation of institutional capacity outcomes (e.g. increased individual performance
and/or organizational capacities resulting from the application of knowledge, skills andawareness) for all training projects budgeted at $300,000 or more.6
vi. Evaluation of organizational or other impacts resulting from increased individual
performance for all training projects budgeted at $400,000 or more. 7vii. Outcome evaluation for non-training-related projects budgeted between $500,000
and $1.5 million. 8

Exceptions to evaluation requirements
22. The Institute acknowledges that not all undertakings necessarily merit evaluation, andsome may not be feasible for political or other reasons. Exceptions to the requirements
under paragraph 21 include:i.

high-level political or special events/projects as defined in Annex 1;ii. projects which are subject to an evaluation by the donor or another agency e.g.
projects financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) when an evaluation isforeseen by a GEF implementing agency; and3 This threshold is based on the budget amounts recorded in donor agreements. In case of multi-donor projects,

the threshold is determined by combining the different donor contributions (in which case evaluation costs may beshared proportionally across donors).
4 Equivalent to Level 1 of the Kirkpatrick/Phillips Evaluation Framework for training evaluation. This requirement
also applies to learning-related events delivered on a fee-basis including events contributing to the award ofMaster or executive diplomas.
5 Equivalent to Level 2 of the Kirkpatrick/Phillips Evaluation Framework. This requirement also applies to learningrelated events delivered by UNITAR or with partners on a fee-basis, including events contributing to the award ofMaster or executive diplomas.
6 Equivalent to Level 3 of the Kirkpatrick/Phillips Evaluation Framework, and based on the amount of the projectbudget as recorded in the donor agreement.
7 Equivalent to Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick-Phillips Evaluation Framework and based on the amount of the projectbudget as recorded in the donor agreement.
8 Based on the amount of the project budget values as recorded in the donor agreement. For projects funding thedelivery of outputs that are part of other projects, the evaluation of such projects should assess outputs in relation
to the intended outcomes of the relevant project.
8

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

iii. projects implemented in multiple phases, which are only subject to a mandatory
independent evaluation once during the project’s life cycle, even if the budget of
more than one phase exceeds the $1.5 million threshold.
23. The requirements and exceptions above shall not prejudice any evaluation requirements
or preferences that a donor of a project or undertaking may have or governing bodies ofhosted partnerships. Any decision to waive the mandatory requirements not falling underthe exceptions above shall be supported in writing.

Discretionary Evaluations
24. Apart from the requirements enumerated in paragraph 21, other evaluations may bedesirable to provide information on a project or undertaking’s implementation (e.g.
formative evaluation, mid-term review, legacy evaluation, etc.) or contribution to higherlevel achievements (e.g. impact evaluation, return on investment evaluation). Suchevaluations are discretionary, unless specifically required by a donor.

Evaluation Planning, Costing and Management
Evaluation Planning
25. All donor-funded projects should be conceived in a results-based manner and include a‘theory of change’ or ‘pathway to impact’ on how activities and outputs are expected to
produce outcomes and impact.
26. All donor-funded projects subject to evaluation should include a clause in the project
document/proposal specifying evaluation requirements in accordance with this policy. In
the absence of such a document, the relevant donor agreement should specify evaluation
requirements or make reference to the evaluation policy.
27. For independent evaluations, including mandated independent project evaluations andother independent evaluations, PPME shall maintain a rolling evaluation work plan. Termsof reference will be prepared using international standards and good practice, and include
the following elements: the context and purpose of the evaluation, scope, main evaluationquestions, methodology (data collection tools and analysis), work plan, products of theevaluation, intended use of results and qualifications, timeframe, schedule of deliverables,reference to gender equality and human rights, ethics, professional requirements, etc.

Evaluation Costing
28. The costs to carry out evaluation vary depending on the purpose/type/scope of theevaluation, evaluation questions to be addressed, data collection methods and otherfactors. Adequate resources should be identified and made available for both independentand self-evaluations and be reflected in budgets.
29. Mandatory independent evaluations (paragraph 21a) should be costed at 2.5 per cent of
the project’s or hosted partnerships net budget, unless otherwise determined by PPME in
consultation with the relevant programme unit or hosted partnership, and be identified on a
separate budget line in project budgets. Costs for independent evaluation are distinct fromproject monitoring, self-evaluation and narrative reporting costs. In the event of a terminal/
final project evaluation, the modalities governing commitments and expenditures of
evaluation costs should be discussed and agreed with the respective donor(s) at the time9Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

of formalizing the donor agreement, taking into consideration the project implementationand the agreement periods.

Evaluation Management
30. In conducting evaluations, UNITAR acknowledges that different evaluation designs as wellas quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods for data collection and analysis exist. The
most appropriate design(s), method(s) and approach should be selected, taking into
consideration the evaluation question(s), scope, criteria, human and financial resource
requirements and availability, as well as guiding principles and good practice standards. In
some cases, rapid impact assessment (e.g. impact stories) may be a useful way to assess
impact for smaller-sized projects.
31. For independent evaluations, PPME organizes an evaluation entry conference to clarify
the process, roles and procedures throughout the evaluation and an exit conference todiscuss findings and draft recommendations to promote evaluation utility. The context ofthe evaluand (ongoing, ending, phasing out, etc.) will be taken into account to issue
actionable recommendations aimed at improving the project, future projects, the overall
programme, and general UNITAR strategies.
32. All independent evaluations undertaken by consultants should include a peer review by
PPME for quality assurance purposes prior to finalization.
33. All independent evaluations undertaken by consultants should include a response frommanagement in relation to the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations
and lessons-learned.

Transparency, Dissemination and Disclosure
34. This evaluation policy shall be publicly available on the UNITAR website.
35. In due consultation with the Executive Director and Management, PPME may issue anddisclose final evaluation reports without prior clearance from other UNITAR Management
or functions.

36. Reports from independent and external evaluations will be accessible in a public depository
with a view to ensure transparency and facilitate knowledge management and applicationof lessons learned.

Evaluation Capacity Development
37. Evaluation is an important function in both national and international public service. The
policy framework recognizes the importance of strengthening evaluation capacities within
UNITAR for an enhanced self-evaluation function. PPME regularly organizes in-houselearning opportunities and announces external opportunities as they arise. .
38. As recognized by the UNEG N&S and General Assembly resolution 60/237 of 14 December
2014, building national evaluation capacities at the country level is important fordevelopment activities. PPME will contribute to such efforts upon request and inaccordance with the principle of national ownership.
10

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Knowledge Management and Organizational
Learning
39. As one of the main purposes of evaluation, the creation, storage, management,
dissemination and uptake of knowledge is essential. In view of promoting evaluation use,organizational learning and contributing to quality improvement of the Institute’s products
and services, a learning forum will be organized annually to share lessons learned on
evaluation processes and outcomes.

Roles and Responsibilities
40. The Institute has a shared system of roles and responsibilities in performing evaluation
functions. Roles and responsibilities of other actors not listed below will be defined in theoperational guidelines.

Board of Trustees

41. In accordance with its statutory requirements and on the basis of submissions from the
Executive Director, the Board of Trustees considers and adopts the UNITAR programmebudget, which includes the staffing and programme budget of PPME. The Board ofTrustees also formulates principles and policies to govern the activities and operations of
the Institute, including the evaluation policy.

Evaluation Advisory Board
42. The Evaluation Advisory Board (EAB) advises the Executive Director and the Director of
the Division for Strategic Planning and Performance/Manager of the Planning,
Performance Monitory and Evaluation Unit, reviews the present evaluation policy andprovides recommendations on matters related to the planning, conduct, follow-up and useof evaluations, in accordance with its Terms of Reference.

Executive Director
43. The Executive Director provides the overall direction, leadership and management of
UNITAR. In conjunction with this policy, the roles and responsibilities of the Executive
Director include:a. Safeguarding the integrity of the evaluation function and its independence, and promoting
a strong evaluation culture amongst senior management;b. Approval of the proposed budget and staffing of PPME and submission of the UNITAR
programme budget to the Board of Trustees for consideration and adoption;c. Submission of other reports as may be requested to the Board of Trustees forconsideration;
d. Participating in the Evaluation Advisory Board in an ex officio capacity; ande. Requesting PPME to undertake independent evaluations in accordance with the present
policy.

11

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Planning, Performance Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit
44. Under the Division for Strategic Planning and Performance and with the Division Director
reporting directly to the Executive Director, the Planning, Performance Monitoring, andEvaluation Unit acts as the custodian of the evaluation function. The unit’s roles andresponsibilities are the following:a. Oversees the application of the policy, identifies bottlenecks and constraints and makes
recommendations for updating the requirements or other elements of the policy, in line withinternational good practice, lessons learned as well as the evolving programming andoperational needs and characteristics of UNITAR;
b. Facilitates regular interaction with directors, managers, programme unit evaluation focal
points and other staff, collects feedback and facilitates learning on the policy;c. Acts as secretariat of the EAB;
d. In consultation with the EAB, Executive Director and Management, prepares and maintains
evaluation plans within the established budgetary appropriations;e. Conducts/manages independent evaluations in accordance with the present policy andensures that evaluations are impartial, credible and useful, and that any bias present isminimized. In instances where the independence of PPME may be compromised, ensuresthat a disclaimer is duly acknowledged;
f. In due consultation with the Executive Director and Management, issues and discloses final
evaluation reports to concerned evaluation stakeholders without prior clearance from
Programme Management or other functions;g. Acts as focal point for any external evaluation being undertaken by a donor or other partner;
h. Undertakes periodic peer reviews of self-evaluations for quality assurance purposes;
i. Conducts research and engages in critical and analytical reflection as well as issues
recommendations to management for compliance with the policy;
j. Prepares and maintains operational guidelines to support the implementation of this policy;k. Develops and promotes standards for evaluation and quality assurance;l. Prepares a self-evaluation meta report based on a review of completed self-evaluations;m. Maintains a public repository of evaluation reports with a view to ensuring transparency andfacilitating the integration of lessons learned and best practices into the broader concept ofknowledge management;
n. Oversees the development and maintenance of an intranet-based knowledge management
tool to store, manage and disseminate lessons-learned from evaluations and performance
reporting exercises;o. Promotes knowledge management, organizational learning and lessons learned bykeeping abreast of innovative practices in the field of evaluation, identifying relevant
techniques, tools and methods, and providing divisional units with guidance on the use ofrespective tools and methods;
p. Commits to sharing best practices and lessons learned to enhance the quality of theInstitute’s products and services;q. Organizes meetings on presentation and discussion of evaluation findings and suggested
recommendations to increase organisational learning and the spirit of co-creation;r. Follows up on the implementation of recommendations after evaluation end; ands. Collaborates and coordinates with UNITAR divisional entities and other United Nations
agencies and organizations on issues related to evaluation, and contributes to efforts tostrengthen national evaluation capacities upon request.

12

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Programme Management
45. Programme management is a generic term comprising the director or manager-level postsof all entities, including programmes units offices and secretariats of hosted partnerships.
Programme management’s roles and responsibilities are the following:a. Undertakes evaluation functions in accordance with the present policy, including planningand conducting self-evaluations;b. Informs donors and implementing partners of the Institute’s evaluation requirements when
preparing and negotiating project agreements and modalities for cooperation and, in
consultation with PPME, ensures that evaluation modalities are specified in project
documents or donor agreements including modalities for covering commitments andexpenditures for mandated terminal project evaluations;c. Appoints a member of its staff or personnel to serve as evaluation focal point to help ensurethat the requirements of the policy are applied and that evaluation’s accountability andlearning purposes are achieved;d. Budgets and allocates the required resources for evaluations in accordance with policy
requirements, including for mandated independent evaluations of projects/pooled funded
projects and sets such funds aside to ensure timely evaluations;e. Informs PPME of the scheduling of evaluations on a rolling basis as projects are funded
and implemented;
f. Shares evaluation reports with evaluation stakeholders including donors, interviewees andsurvey respondents among others;g. Follows-up on findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons-learned ofindependent evaluations in the form of a management response;h. Implements accepted evaluation recommendations and informs PPME when implemented;
and,i. Commits to sharing best practices and lessons learned with a view to further strengthening
the quality of the Institute’s products and services.

Other Stakeholders
46. UNITAR also recognizes the importance of other evaluation stakeholders such as
evaluation consultants, implementing partners, donors, project consortium members,
beneficiaries and other relevant evaluation stakeholders.

Coverage, Scope and Implementation
47. The policy applies to the entirety of the Institute’s operations and programming at
headquarters and out-posted offices, hosted partnerships and the CIFAL Global Network.
48. A set of operational guidelines will support the application of the requirements in this policy.

Review
49. The policy will be reviewed periodically and amended when required to account foradjustments and other elements as required, based on the evolving nature of the evaluation
function and taking into consideration international good practices.

13

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Annex 1 – Glossary of Terms
Accomplishment
The achievement of specific results producing changes in behaviour or developmental conditions.
See outcome.
Activity
Any action undertaken or work performed with the objective of transforming inputs into measurable
outputs.
Baseline
Data describing a situation to be addressed by an undertaking which serve as the starting point formeasuring performance.
Beneficiaries
Individuals, entities or groups which may be targeted or not and which may benefit directly or
indirectly from a programme, project or other undertaking.
Best practices
Planning, organizational and/or managerial methods, processes, techniques or other practices
which have produced consistent superior results to those achieved by other means.
Coherence: The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or
institution.
Corporate evaluation
Independent evaluations undertaken and/or managed by the Planning, Performance Monitoring,and Evaluation Unit.
Divisional entities
A collective term that refers to the Institute’s programmes, offices, units and other administrative
entities.
EffectivenessThe extent to which a programme, project or other undertaking achieves its planned results (outputs
outcomes and/or goals).
Efficiency
The cost effectiveness of transforming actions into outputs, taking into consideration alternative
paths.
Evaluability
The extent to which an activity, project, programme or other undertaking can be subject toevaluation in a credible and reliable manner.
Evaluation“An assessment, conducted as systematically and impartially as possible, of an activity, project,programme, strategy, policy topic, sector, operational area or institutional performance. It analyses
the level of achievement of both expected and unexpected results by examining the results chain,processes, contextual factors and causality using appropriate criteria such as relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.” (UNEG 2016)14

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Event
A major activity organized in the form of a briefing, conference, course, fellowship programme,
lecture, meeting, seminar, workshop, side-event, webinar, etc. and announced on the Institute’s
online events management system.
Ex ante evaluation
An evaluation performed prior to the implementation of an undertaking. See baseline.
Ex post evaluation
An evaluation performed after the implementation of an undertaking.
Formative Evaluation
A type of evaluation conducted during the implementation of a project or other undertaking with theaim to provide information that will guide project improvement. This type of evaluation typicallyfocuses on determining whether a programme is being implemented according to plan.
Hosted partnership
A partnership pre-existing outside of UNITAR with a governance structure (e.g. steering committee
or board), leadership (i.e. an appointed head) and funding to which UNITAR agrees to provide aplatform in order to operate and conducts its work subject to consistency with the UNITAR Statuteand other conditions defined in an agreement between UNITAR and the partnership’s governancestructure.
Indicator
A quantitative or qualitative measure of programme performance that is used to demonstratechange and which details the extent to which results are being or have been achieved.
Intermediate outcome
Effects produced as the result of intermediate outcomes. E.g. increased organizational
effectiveness as the result of the application of knowledge or skills by beneficiaries or as the resultsof other intermediate outcomes.
Institutional outcome
Subsequent effects of products and/or services (outputs) delivered. E.g. increased level ofknowledge or skills retained after training or knowledge and skills applied on the job as a result of
training.
Impact
The totality and/or long-term effects of an undertaking. Effects may be positive or negative,
intended or unintended.
Kirkpatrick-Phillips Approach
An approach that categorizes evaluation data based on five levels to evaluating training, including
Level 1 (reaction and planned action), Level 2 (learning and confidence), Level 3 (application andimplementation), Level 4 (impact/organizational change) and Level 5 (ROI). The approach totraining evaluation has evolved over time, building initially on the work of Raymond Katzel and John
Donald Kirkpatrick (covering Levels 1 to 4) and later on Jack J. Phillips and Patti P. Phillips adding
financial data, Level 5, and creating a model that supports implementation utilizing quantitative andqualitative methodologies (see also ROI Methodology).

15

Evaluation Policy | November 2021 | Annex I: AC/UNITAR/2021/07 | 23/11/2021

Knowledge management
The systematic processes, or range of practices, used by organizations to identify, capture, store,create, update, represent and distribute knowledge for use, awareness and learning across theorganization (JIU 2016).
Lessons learned
A generalization derived from an evaluation and applicable to a generic rather than a specificsituation.
Measurement
The process of using a rule or scale that assigns categories or numbers to define or quantify specificattributes or dimensions of data, in order to assess, analyse and understand results.
OutputFinal products or services delivered.
Outcome
Changes in behaviour or development conditions.
Project
A set of planned and interrelated activities designed to achieve specific objectives within a given
budget, period of time and operating framework.
Programme
A set of sub-programmes, projects and/or activities producing outputs and accomplishments witha defined budget and under a set of specific objectives linked to the Institute’s mandate andorganizational goals.
ROI Methodology
An evaluation approach developed by Phillips. It supports the collection and analysis of datareported in the Kirkpatrick/Phillips framework. The model coupled with the supporting standards
ensures that data captured at the different levels are reliable. The implementation of the model
does not require data collection and analysis at the higher levels for all programs. Rather, higher
levels of evaluation are most suitable for high cost, strategic and operationally aligned projects forwhich impact, and sometimes ROI, are important results.
Self-evaluation
Evaluation conducted by the Institute’s programme units or other divisional entities of their own
undertakings primarily for the purpose of learning and quality improvement.
Summative evaluation
A type of evaluation intended to provide information about the merit, worth and impact of aprogramme or project (OIOS). Summative evaluation is usually conducted at the end of aprogramme or project to determine if anticipated results were achieved.
Undertaking
A general term for any programme, project, activity, policy, strategy, etc. which may be subject toevaluation.

16