This document presents a draft logic model for evaluation capacity development. It summarizes inputs like skills, resources, and understanding that feed into activities such as identifying needs, training, and conducting evaluations. These activities then produce outputs like experience, frameworks, and evaluations. The intended outcomes are sustainable evaluation practices, use of evaluations, and adaptation to context. Feedback is sought on the draft model. Next steps may include further literature review, model refinement, and practitioner interviews.

1. draft A Logic Modelfor Evaluation Capacity Development Abridged version of slides presented at the Canadian Evaluation Society 2011 Conference Edmonton, Alberta May 2nd by Michael Obrecht and Robyn Sachs with acknowledgement of the contribution of Wendy Ryan

2. Note on the Abridged Version This version of the presentation focuses on the draft logic model and our ideas for next steps At the conference we had also presented slides on the evaluation capacity development project that inspired our work

3. Why a Logic Model? A simple logic model for evaluation capacity development should be useful when … Assessing needs for development of evaluation capacity Discussing approaches to improving evaluation capacity Examining progress in capacity development A logic model will complement other types of model that are already documented in the evaluation literature

4. Drafting the Logic Model We brainstormed on Inputs, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes by reflecting on our experiences with evaluation capacity development in Indiaand Canada We searched the literature for existing models on evaluation capacity We found: “A Multidisciplinary Model of Evaluation Capacity Development” by HalliePreskill and Shanelle Boyle in the American Journal of Evaluation, 2008

5. Work by Others The Preskill-Boyle model (2008) Shows the elements of a learning organization Thorough and complete Scholarly and evidence-based, with 52 supporting references Non-linear - Does not illustrate sequential development of evaluation capacity

6. Other Points from the Literature … Specifying the goals for capacity development up front helps orient activities Organizational culture, attitude, and readiness will affect evaluation capacity development Evaluation capacity development may lead to organizational learning and change It can be especially challenging to develop evaluation capacity in a government environment

7. … continued Evaluation capacity development is a long, slow process It involves consideration of not just education and experience, but also motivation and personality Soft-skills are critical A balancing of formal training, mentorship, and hands-on experience is required Two or more years of capacity development are needed before someone is ready to lead an evaluation

8. First Draft of a Logic Model Initial efforts were focused on getting the broad categories clear Working definitions of Inputs, Activities, Outputs and Outcomes were flexible Our exposition of the draft model will focus on Inputs and Activities

10. Engage

11. Assess

12. Train

13. Mentor

14. Conduct

15. Portfolios

16. Experience

17. Careers

18. Staff

19. Managers

20. Capabilities

21. Frameworks

23. Govern

24. Monitor

26. Policies

27. Assurance

29. Use

31. Flexiblity

33. Engage

34. Assess

35. Train

36. Mentor

37. Conduct

38. Portfolios

39. Experience

40. Careers

41. Staff

42. Managers

43. Capabilities

44. Frameworks

46. Govern

47. Monitor

49. Policies

50. Assurance

52. Use

54. Flexibility

56. Engage

57. Assess

58. Train

59. Mentor

60. Conduct

61. Portfolios

62. Experience

63. Careers

64. Staff

65. Managers

66. Capabilities

67. Frameworks

69. Govern

70. Monitor

72. Policies

73. Assurance

75. Use

77. Flexibility

78. AdaptationUnderstanding

80. Engage

81. Assess

82. Train

83. Mentor

84. Conduct

85. Portfolios

86. Experience

87. Careers

88. Staff

89. Managers

90. Capabilities

91. Frameworks

93. Govern

94. Monitor

96. Policies

97. Assurance

99. Use

101. Flexibility

102. AdaptationPolitics

104. Engage

105. Assess

106. Train

107. Mentor

108. Conduct

109. Portfolios

110. Experience

111. Careers

112. Staff

113. Managers

114. Capabilities

115. Frameworks

117. Govern

118. Monitor

120. Policies

121. Assurance

123. Use

125. Flexibility

127. Engage

128. Assess

129. Train

130. Mentor

131. Conduct

132. Portfolios

133. Experience

134. Careers

135. Staff

136. Managers

137. Capabilities

138. Frameworks

140. Govern

141. Monitor

143. Policies

144. Assurance

146. Use

148. Flexibility

150. Engage

151. Assess

152. Train

153. Mentor

154. Conduct

155. Portfolios

156. Experience

157. Careers

158. Staff

159. Managers

160. Capabilities

161. Frameworks

163. Govern

164. Monitor

166. Policies

167. Assurance

169. Use

171. Flexibility

173. Recommended Readings Two issues of the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, focused on evaluation capacity: 1) Volume 23, Number 3, 2008 2) Special issue, 2011 and Preskill, H., and Boyle, S. A Multidisciplinary Model of Evaluation Capacity Development. American Journal of Evaluation (Online). September 2008.

174. Thank You We welcome your feedback! For further information: Michael Obrecht m@obrecht.ca Robyn Sachs sachs.robyn@gmail.com