Theory-based evaluation of capacity-building interventions

Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 134-150

  Nakrošis, Vitalis ^a  

^a VILNIUS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

Author keywords

administrative capacity building; causal models; contribution analysis; performance management; theory based evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891877013     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389013517763     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. AIRMIC, ALARM and IRM (2002) A Risk Management Standard. URL: http://www.alarm-uk.org/pdf/risk-management-standard.pdf.
2. Bjurulf S,Vedung E,Larsson CG.A triangulation approach to impact evaluation.Evaluation. 2012;19 (1): 56-73.
3. Bouckaert G,Halligan JManaging Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge; 2008:.
4. Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Bouckaert GNemec JNakrošis V, ed. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press; 2009:.
5. Castro FG,Kellison JG,Boyd SJ,Kopak A.A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analysis.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2010;4 (4): 342-60.
6. Coryn CLS,Noakes LA,Westine CD,Schroter DC.A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009.American Journal of Evaluation. 2011;32 (2): 199-226.
7. Delahais T,Toulemonde J.Applying contribution analysis: lessons from five years of experience.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 281-93.
8. DRN (2012) Evaluation methodology & baseline study of European Commission technical cooperation support. Final Report, September. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports/2012/1310_en.pdf.
9. ECORYS (2011) Assessment of administrative and institutional capacity building interventions and future needs in the context of European Social Fund. Final Report, 21March, Rotterdam/Brussels. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=701&langId=en&internal_pagesId=616&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=INTERNAL_PAGES.
10. Funnell SF,Rogers PJPurposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2011:.
11. Huyse H,Molenaers N,Phlix G, et al, et al.Evaluating NGO-capacity development interventions: enhancing frameworks, fitting the (Belgian) context.Evaluation. 2012;18 (1): 129-50.
12. Leeuw FL.Linking theory-based evaluation and contribution analysis: three problems and a few solutions.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 348-63.
13. Lemire ST,Nielsen SB,Dybdal L.Making contribution analysis work: a practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 294-309.
14. Lietuvos projektu{ogonek} vadybos asociacija (2011) Projektu{ogonek} valdymo kultūros ir projektu{ogonek} vadovu{ogonek} karjeros situacijos tyrimas Lietuvos i{ogonek}monėse [Research of project management culture and project managers' career situation in Lithuanian companies]. URL: http://www.lpva.lt/cms/files/lpva/resources/2500_PV_tyrimas_2011_v1.pdf.
15. Mayne J.Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly.The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2001;16 (1): 1-24.
16. Mayne J.Contribution analysis: coming of age?.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 270-80.
17. Meyer-Sahling J-H.The durability of EU civil service policy in Central and Eastern Europe after accession.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 2011;24 (2): 231-60.
18. Nakrošis V,Černiūtė R.Kokybės vadyba Lietuvos viešajame administravime: svarbiausiosios iniciatyvos ir ju{ogonek} taikymas.Viešoji politika ir administravimas. 2010;31:63-76.
19. Lithuanian Agencies and Other Public Sector Organisations: Organisation, Autonomy, Control and Performance. Nakrošis VMartinaitis Ž, ed. Vilnius: Vilnius University; 2011:.
20. Nakrošis V,Vilpišauskas R,Kuokštis V.Fiscal consolidation in Lithuania in the period 2008-2012: from grand ambitions to hectic firefighting. Paper for the COCOPS project. 2013;:.
21. Ostrom E.Background on the institutional analysis and development framework.The Policy Studies Journal. 2011;39 (1): 7-27.
22. Patton MQ.A utilization-focused approach to contribution analysis.Evaluation. 2012;18 (3): 364-77.
23. Pawson R.Nothing as practical as a good theory.Evaluation. 2003;9 (4): 471-90.
24. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: NPM, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Pollitt CBouckaert G, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:.
25. New Public Management in Europe. Pollitt CVan Thiel SHomburg V, ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007:.
26. Public Policy and Management Institute (2011) Summary of the Evaluation of the Human Resources Development Operational Programme Priority 4. Vilnius, Lithuania. URL: http://www.esparama.lt/es_parama_pletra/failai/fm/failai/Vertinimas_ESSP_Neringos/Ataskaitos_2010MVP/4_prioriteto_vertinimo_Summary.pdf.
27. Rogers PJ.Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions.Evaluation. 2008;14 (1): 29-48.
28. Sabatier PA.Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis.Journal of Public Policy. 1998;6 (1): 21-38.
29. Steinberg PF.Causal assessment in small-n policy studies.The Policy Studies Journal. 2007;35 (2): 181-204.
30. SternEStameNMayneJ. (2012) Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Report of a study commissioned by the Department for International Development, Working Paper 38, April. URL: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/design-method-impact-eval.pdf.
31. Brussels; 2011a:.
32. Brussels; 2011b:.
33. Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Lithuania for the period 2014-2020. 2012;:.
34. Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999. 2006;:.
35. Vilpišauskas R,Nakrošis VPolitikos i{ogonek}gyvendinimas Lietuvoje ir ES i{ogonek}taka. Vilnius: Eugrimas; 2003:.