MSF OCBEbola Response – Supply functioning, by Stockholm Evaluation Unit 1

[Introduction - This template is a tool to help improve consistency across MSF Evaluation Reports. When using this template, make sure all red text is deleted, and change all other instructional body text in black to your content, following the guidance within the text as much as possible. Titles may be adjusted, however only if necessary for the logic of the report.

All the correct formatting is in place in the template document, however if formatting needs to re-adjusted, the most important items to remember are:

1. Use MSF SEU font, Calibri light throughout. Headings as follows:

Main headings: Select ‘Heading 1’ and reformat to bold,26 in CAPS

Sub heading 1: Select ‘Heading 2’ (bold, 12 in CAPS)

Sub heading 2: Select ‘Heading 3’ (bold, 11 and underlined)

Sub heading 3: Select ‘Heading 4’ (Italic, 11 and underlined)
  • Body text, plain, 11.
  • Italic or Bold can be used for emphasis or captions)

2. Single line spacing, (0pt before,10pt after)

3. Use MSF colours.

Evaluation Covers - To distinguish Evaluations from other type of publications include:

  • A photograph from the project being evaluated, and sized to cover the width of the cover, with height taking up 4 or 5 horizontal bars.
  • Since evaluations are not 100% MSF authored, the following statement must be on the cover: “This publication was produced at the request of Médecins Sans Frontières. It was prepared independently by <list authors and/or organizations involved in the preparation of the report>.”

INSIDE FRONT COVER - The inside front cover of a publication may be left blank or used for a variety of purposes such as acknowledgements, front cover photo caption, abstracts, etc.]

[Section titles and order are illustrative but should be followed as much as possible.]

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT BACKGROUND

EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS

FINDINGS

CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEXES

ANNEX I: TERMS OF REFERENCE

ANNEX II: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

ANNEX III: INFORMATION SOURCES

1

MSF OCBEvaluation Name –Subheading, by Stockholm Evaluation Unit

ACRONYMS

[Examples below] / [update based on acronyms used in the report]
ADS / Automated Directives System
DEC / Development Experience Clearinghouse
FY / Fiscal Year
SOW / Statement of Work
MSF / Médecins Sans Frontières

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary should stand alone as a summary of the key sections of the report, and should summarize the content of the full report without adding new information. The Executive Summary should be no more than three to four pages.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

In one to three pages, this section should clearly outline the project (or program) being evaluated in one to three pages, including the original problem or challenge the project is designed to address and the underlying development hypothesis, or causal logic, of the project or the broader program of which the project is a part. If a results framework (for strategies, objectives or programs) or logical framework (for projects) is available, this should be included here. This information provides important context for understanding the evaluation purpose, questions, methods, findings and conclusions.

SUB-HEADING 1

Regular text

Sub-heading 2

Regular text

EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS

This section should provide a detailed description of the evaluation methods and why they were chosen. The reader needs to understand what the evaluation team did and why to make an informed judgment about the credibility of the findings and conclusions and the underlying evaluation design including the data collection and analysis methods.

Important also to describe any limitations in data collection and analysis, data quality or access to data sources that may result in bias.

This section is the main body of the report, synthesizing what was learned during the evaluation and presenting it in an easy to understand and logical fashion. Whenever possible, data should be presented visually in easy to read charts, tables, graphs, and maps to demonstrate the evidence that supports conclusions and recommendations.

FINDINGS

Findings are facts based on data collected or reviewed during the evaluation and should not rely only on opinion, even of experts.

SUB-HEADING 1

Regular text

Sub-heading 2

Regular text

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions are interpretations of findings and the “judgments” supported by specific findings. Overall the conclusions should provide the answers to the evaluation questions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are included if requested in the evaluation statement of work. They advocate action, i.e. specific actions the evaluation team proposes be taken by program management that are based on findings and conclusions. The reader should be able to discern what evidence supports the conclusions and recommendations. Make sure that the recommendations are realistic given the context and doable within budgetary constraints. Evaluators should limit the number of ‘key recommendations’ to a maximum of five. Recommendations can be set out using the table below:

Recommendations 1: xyz
Recommendations 2: xyz
Recommendations 3: xyz
Recommendations 4: xyz
Recommendations 5: xyz

ANNEXES

Evaluation reports should include the following as annexes:

1) theToR,

2) List of interviewees

3) List of information sources (including documents reviewed, sites visited) and referenced

ANNEX I: TERMS OF REFERENCE

ANNEX II: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

[First name Last name, Title] / [Function]

ANNEX III: INFORMATION SOURCES

Stockholm Evaluation Unit

Médecins Sans Frontières

1

MSF OCBEvaluation Name –Subheading, by Stockholm Evaluation Unit