7.1 Guiding evaluation questions for PVE programming
Guiding evaluation questions for PVE programming is a set of guiding questions to support the development of key lines of inquiry for PVE evaluation. It is advisable not to use more than one or two questions from each of the evaluation criteria depending on the focus of your evaluation. You can also prioritise your lines of inquiry to deepen understanding in specific areas, depending on your evaluation purpose.
Why use it? To help refine and prioritise key lines of inquiry for evaluations.
This tool is most useful at all stages of the programming cycle depending on the purpose of your data collection. It can be used together with:
4.1 Plotting levels of change
4.3 Prioritising indicators
Guiding questions for PVE programming
Adaptability to changing PVE context and emerging evidence
- How flexible, adaptive and agile was the project to changes in the local conflict context, local needs and realities, as specific PVE dynamics in each context? How did projects respond to new evidence related to VE in the context?
- How adaptive were the projects to the cumulative understanding of manifestations and drivers of VE? Were mechanisms for review of objectives, indicators and approaches put in place during programming?
- What level of flexibility was there within the project results framework/log frame to allow for adaptation to contextual needs?
- To what extent were projects able to adapt to the different vulnerabilities, risk factors and impacts of VE for men, women, boys and girls (including as they changed over time)?
Relevance (to context, conflict drivers and PVE questions)
- Are the projects’ aims, results and outputs explicitly PVE-focused, or is PVE a secondary objective?
- What was the violent extremist activity/problem that the project was designed to affect? What was the conflict context?
- To what extent is VE identified and prioritised as a problem by communities within conflict-affected contexts?
- What was the rationale for a PVE project? Conflict analysis, partners’ analysis or donor driven?
- Do the programmes address direct immediate causes/enablers of violent extremism? If so, how (how is this articulated and evidenced in the ToC)?
- Do the projects target those who have been identified as most at risk of engaging in or being a victim of VE?
- Do projects target key actors involved in prevention efforts/supporting resilience?
- What is the relevance of the interventions as perceived by the local population, beneficiaries and external observers? Are there other approaches which stakeholders recommend/identify as more effective?
- How does the project identify the main VE/ PVE actors (people who engage in and support VE or mitigate VE risks)?
- How do programmes identify and address different vulnerabilities, risk factors and impacts of VE for different men, women, boys and girls, and those with other gender identities?
- How well elaborated were the ToCs for each of the projects and how well adapted and tailored to the target groups’ and contexts’ needs (including PVE and conflict dynamics) were they? What are the assumptions behind the ToC? What preconditions must be in place for change to happen? What are the key points along change pathways?
- What were the key threats to the project specific to each location?
- What are the applicable lessons from these programmes that can inform the regional and global future in PVE practice?
- In comparative terms, which interventions were most or least effective in addressing violent extremism?
- How have the partner projects demonstrated potential for sustainability (beyond the project cycle), scale-up and replication within the region?
- How does gender interact with the sustainability of PVE outcomes? Were PVE outcomes more sustainable amongst different men, women, boys or girls and those with other gender identities?
- Did the interventions achieve the desired impact, have unintended consequences, or exacerbate violent extremist conflict?
- What types of government or civil society PVE programming have impact? How does the type of engagement influence impact?
- What was the project’s impact on dividers/tensions and connectors/local capacities for peace: is the programme design, its activities, or its personnel increasing or decreasing dividers/tensions? Is it supporting or undercutting connectors/local capacities for peace?
- What other factors (such as external context) interacted with the project? How did these factors influence project impact?
- What type of projects demonstrate impact in reducing risk of engaging in/increasing resilience to VE amongst different groups (age, gender, socio-economic status, and other demographic and identity markers)?
- How can/did projects strengthen PVE actors/reduce the influence of VE actors? How have local and national PVE capacities and resilience to VE been strengthened?
- How did different men, women, boys and girls, and other gender identities experience and perceive the impact of projects in terms of PVE outcomes?
- Were activities cost-efficient? Were objectives achieved on time? How did changes in the PVE context influence cost-efficiency and timeliness?
- How is value for money assessed in relation to achievement of PVE goals?
- Was the PVE programme implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
- To what extent were/are the stated (explicit, implicit or secondary) PVE objectives achieved? What evidence is cited and verifiable?
- Would the intervention strategy be suitable for future interventions, within this context and elsewhere?
- What were the specific successes and limitations of each project approach in terms of management, implementation, ToC, replication and scale and sustainability? Were some approaches more effective than others?
- What changes can be identified in attitudes, behaviours, relationships or practice in target communities and others?
- What were the major internal and external factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
- What were the direct and indirect, positive and negative, intended and unintended, immediate and long-term results of the project?
- How did projects offer value for money in terms of cost-benefit ratio?
- What type of projects are more effective in reducing risk of engaging in/increasing resilience to VE amongst different groups (age, gender, socio-economic status, and other demographic and identity markers)?