Home

Results 1 - 10 of 503,240 for evaluation. Search took 1.077 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
The Management Evaluation Unit in the Department of Management, based at UN Headquarters in New York, conducts the majority of management evaluations. (...) In order to request a management evaluation of the decision you are contesting you should fill out and send the completed Request for Management Evaluation form to the Management Evaluation Unit of the Department of Management at meu@un.org. (...) MEU/DM phone: 1-212-963-6419 The Management Evaluation Unit of the Department of Management has an iSeek page with more information on the management evaluation with links to resources you should review in order to fully understand the Management Evaluation process.
Language:English
Score: 489080.27 - https://www.un.org/en/internal...he-management-evaluation.shtml
Data Source: un
Implementing entities remain a relevant evaluation stakeholder for all type of evaluations the Sub‐Fund  requires to be conducted under this policy.   (...) The intended users of evaluation are those individuals or groups who  have a vested interest in the evaluation results and are in a position to make decisions or take action  based on the evaluation results.  (...) ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK OF THE 2030 AGENDA SUB‐FUND  Actors  Self‐Assessment  Outcome Project Evaluation  Programme Evaluation  Steering Committee  1) Endorses: the Evaluation System; the Evaluation timelines and Sub‐Fund Work Plan; the selection of projects and/or type of  evaluation to undertake at the Programme level;   2) Considers the conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned of programme level evaluations for decision making and  UNPDF governance purposes. 
Language:English
Score: 488270.56 - https://www.un.org/en/unpdf/as...202030%20Agenda%20Sub-Fund.pdf
Data Source: un
• 2- Measuring progress through collective evaluations: What is the potential for using collective evaluation and evaluation synthesis to inform our analysis and understanding of progress made towards the achievement of WHS commitments and the SG’s Agenda for Humanity? • 3- The use of evaluation evidence by decision makers: Are evaluations currently used to their full potential by policy and decision-makers, and in which ways can the use of evaluation continue to be improved? (...) John Mitchell, Director, ALNAP Background Material Link to the pages on Inter-agency Humanitarian Evaluations at the IASC website: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/evaluations Contact For more information, please contact: Victoria Saiz-Omenaca (saiz-omenaca@un.org) https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/evaluations
Language:English
Score: 486931.45 - https://www.un.org/ecosoc/site...ss_towards_the_2030_Agenda.pdf
Data Source: un
Underpinning this work is a monitoring and evaluation function that stresses learning as well as accountability. Ensuring high-quality evaluation is a shared responsibility between the PBF and fund recipients, with responsibility for mandatory project evaluations resting with fund recipients, while evaluations of whole country portfolios are undertaken by PBSO. (...) PBF’s promotion of Community-Based Monitoring, moreover, amplifies the voice of the Fund’s ultimate stakeholders and closes accountability loops to decision makers. Evaluation Framework in PBF-Eligible Countries   Evaluability assessments Project evaluations Portfolio evaluations Frequency First 6-9 months of implementation Mid-term and/or end of each project End of 5-year eligibility cycle Objectives & methods Programme design and M&E review for early adjustments Participatory PBSO-managed Outcome-level assessments Mixed methods Recipient-managed, PBSO-supported Outcome-level assessment Mixed methods PBSO-managed   Project Evaluations and Evaluability Assessments BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA   BURKINA FASO   BURUNDI   CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC   COTE D'IVOIRE DR CONGO EL SALVADOR   GUATEMALA   GUINEA   GUINEA-BISSAU HAITI   KYRGYZSTAN   LIBERIA   MADAGASCAR MALI   MYANMAR   NIGER   PAPUA NEW GUINEA   PHILIPPINES   SIERRA LEONE SOLOMON ISLANDS   SOMALIA   SRI LANKA   TANZANIA   THE GAMBIA  .   
Language:English
Score: 484484.67 - https://www.un.org/peacebuildi...ontent/pbf-project-evaluations
Data Source: un
Portfolio Evaluations | PEACEBUILDING Skip to main content Welcome to the United Nations Toggle navigation Language: عربي 中文 English Français Русский Español PEACEBUILDING Search form Search Toggle navigation Home Peacebuilding Commission About Us Mandate Membership Rules of procedure and working methods Civil Society Engagement PBC Gender Strategy Annual Session Documents Programme of Work Virtual Meetings Peacebuilding Fund ABOUT US The Fund Advisory Group BUILDING PEACE Countries Global Results Reporting PARTNERS Contributions NEWS Stories Events Visits PEACEBUILDING PRACTICE Thematic Reviews Project Evaluations Portfolio Evaluations Guidance Notes APPLY TO THE PBF Application Guidelines Gender and Youth Promotion Initiative Policy Issues and Partnerships SG's Reports SG's Statements Women and Peacebuilding Youth, Peace and Security Lessons Learned UN-World Bank Partnership UN-AU Partnership ECOWAS-PBSO Partnership ODA Snapshot Other Policy Documents Peacebuilding Support Office About News Speeches and Statements 2020 Review Independent Eminent Persons PBC Meetings on 2020 review 2020 Review: PBC Consultation on Women, Peace and Security Regional and Thematic Consultations Thematic Papers Home Portfolio Evaluations Portfolio Evaluations The Peacebuilding Fund embraces its central role in contributing to the knowledge base on what works and what doesn’t when supporting conflict-affected communities. Underpinning this work is a monitoring and evaluation function that stresses learning as well as accountability. Ensuring high-quality evaluation is a shared responsibility between the PBF and fund recipients, with responsibility for mandatory project evaluations resting with fund recipients, while evaluations of whole country portfolios are undertaken by the Peacebuilding Support Office. 
Language:English
Score: 481816.55 - https://www.un.org/peacebuildi.../content/portfolio-evaluations
Data Source: un
Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 | LDC Portal - International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries Skip to main content Welcome to the United Nations Toggle navigation Language: عربي 中文 English Français Русский Español LDC Portal - International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries Search form A-Z Site Index Search Toggle navigation Home Trade-related support for LDCs Financial and technical cooperation Support for LDC participation in international forums Support for LDC graduation (Gradjet) Organizations LDC library LDC News and Events Events archive News archive About Home Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 Document Summary:  The 2020 program evaluation of the least developed countries fund (LDCF) covers performance and progress towards LDCF objectives and results in the four years since the 2016 LDCF program evaluation. The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the progress the LDCF has made since the 2016 LDCF program evaluation and the extent to which the LDCF is in the process of achieving the objectives set out in the GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for LDCF/SCCF (2018–2022). The evaluation focuses on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of outcomes and additionality of the LDCF.
Language:English
Score: 478670.26 - https://www.un.org/ldcportal/c...loped-countries-fund-ldcf-2020
Data Source: un
Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 | LDC Portal - International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries Skip to main content Welcome to the United Nations Toggle navigation Language: عربي 中文 English Français Русский Español LDC Portal - International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries Search form A-Z Site Index Search Toggle navigation Home Trade-related support for LDCs Financial and technical cooperation Support for LDC participation in international forums Support for LDC graduation (Gradjet) Organizations LDC library LDC News and Events Events archive News archive About Home Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) 2020 Document Summary:  The 2020 program evaluation of the least developed countries fund (LDCF) covers performance and progress towards LDCF objectives and results in the four years since the 2016 LDCF program evaluation. The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the progress the LDCF has made since the 2016 LDCF program evaluation and the extent to which the LDCF is in the process of achieving the objectives set out in the GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for LDCF/SCCF (2018–2022). The evaluation focuses on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of outcomes and additionality of the LDCF.
Language:English
Score: 478670.26 - https://www.un.org/ldcportal/node/2635
Data Source: un
Are there institutional arrangements for the evaluation of intended, ongoing or completed SDG policies? (...) Please answer below: 4. Is the evaluation commissioned or conducted by the administration itself? (...) |_| Yes |_| No |_| Don’t Know 16. Does the evaluation include the preparedness of government for SDG policy design, implementation and evaluation?
Language:English
Score: 477292.4 - https://unpan.un.org/sites/unp...20Block%209_Questionnaire.docx
Data Source: un
If you do not receive a response to your request for management evaluation within the applicable 30/45 days’ time limit, and you wish to file an application to the UNDT, you must submit your application to the UNDT within 90 calendar days from the date the management evaluation should have been received (but was not). If the Administration does conduct a management evaluation, and you are not satisfied with the outcome , if you wish to appeal the administrative decision, you must submit an application to the UNDT within 90 calendar days after you received the management evaluation. (...) This can be pursued before or while a request for management evaluation is made. The management evaluation deadline may be extended by the Secretary-General, upon request of a staff member, pending efforts for informal resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Language:English
Score: 474965.43 - https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/undt/time-limits.shtml
Data Source: un
Wei Chen, Renmin University, Beijing, China,  Evaluation of the completeness of birth registration in China using analytical methods and multiple sources of data [ note ] Presentation: Everton Campos de Lima, University of Campinas, Brazil and Bernardo Lanza Queiroz, CEDEPLAR, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil,  Lessons learned with the use of demographic methods and multiple sources of data to evaluate the completeness and data quality from birth registration in Latin America [ note ]    13:45 – 15:45 Session 3. Analytical methods to evaluate the completeness and quality of death registration (part 1)  Moderator: Ken Hill, Independent Consultant Presentation:  Haidong Wang, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington,   Indirect methods used for the evaluation of death registration for the Global Burden of Diseases, and review of national estimates of completeness Presentation: Nan Li and Patrick Gerland, United Nations Population Division,  Evaluating the Completeness of Death Registration for Developing Countries [ note ] Presentation: Alberto Palloni, Univ. of Wisconsin and Hiram Beltran-Sanchez (UCLA,  Lessons learned with the application of indirect methods for the evaluation of death registration in Latin America [ note ] Presentation: Romesh Silva, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Beirut, Lebanon,    Lessons learned with the application of indirect methods for the evaluation of death registration in the ESCWA region   16:00 – 18:00 Session 4. Analytical methods to evaluate the completeness and quality of death registration (part 2) Moderator:   Ken Hill, Independent Consultant Presentation: Danzhen You, UNICEF,  International experience with the use of analytical approaches and multiple data sources to evaluate the completeness of infant and neonatal mortality in LMICs Presentation: Michel Guillot, Univ. of Pennsylvania,  Lessons learned with the application of indirect methods for the evaluation of (infant) death registration in Central Asian republics by subnational characteristics [ note ] [ supporting paper ] Presentation: Rob Dorrington, Centre for Actuarial Research, Univ. of Cape Town,  National and subnational experience with estimating the extent and trend in completeness of registration of deaths in South Africa Presentation:  Bernardo Lanza Queiroz, CEDEPLAR, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil and Everton Campos de Lima, University of Campinas, Brazil,  National and subnational experience with estimating the extent and trend in completeness of registration of deaths in Brazil [ note ]   Friday, 4 November 2016 09:00 – 10:45 Session 5.
Language:English
Score: 474133.84 - https://www.un.org/development...completeness-and-quality-vital
Data Source: un