at selected project sites.4 The main evaluation mission took place in July 2009 to collect information from within the country based on the framework established during planning. Approximately 225 informants were interviewed for the ADR, including those who attended focus groups at various project sites.5 Visits to three regions in different parts of the country were undertaken by various members of the evaluation team. During the inception mission these regions were determined to be central for UNDP involvement with a number of project activities and beneficiaries cutting across various thematic areas.6 During the scoping mission interviews were also held at UNDP New York Headquarters and several telephone interviews were conducted with informants outside of Guyana following the main field mission in July. The final report was prepared and validated from August 2009 to April 2010 through the exchange of drafts among the Evaluation Office, the country office, the Government of Guyana (GoG) and other national stakeholders, as well as comments from an external review panel composed of experienced senior evaluators with development knowledge of Guyana and a participatory stakeholder workshop held in Guyana in April 2010. The ADR was conducted in accordance with United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN System (2005) and with the ADR Guidelines (2009) and draft Methods Manual (2009) of the UNDP Evaluation Office, as well as with universal evaluation best practices such as the triangulation principle and validation of facts and
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Following the introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides information on the main development challenges facing the country (as embodied in key national policy documents), how the government has responded to these challenges over time, and the evolving role of external development assistance in this context. Chapter 3 outlines the UN response to Guyana’s development challenges and the role of UNDP, as well as background information on the overall UNDP development assistance strategy and framework in Guyana (from 2001 to the present). Chapters 4 and 5 provide information on the main findings from the evaluation research. Specifically, Chapter 4 describes UNDP contribution to
The validity of qualitative information from purposive or pragmatic sampling is mainly assured in programme evaluations via triangulation or cross-checking to validate information obtained from multiple sources. See also Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 2001 and E.G. Guba and Y.S. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989 for more information on the qualitative techniques used to plan and implement the ADR.
See Annexes 4 and 5 for lists of individuals and documents consulted during data collection for the ADR.
Three regions were selected for site visits: Region 1, which is in the northwest of the country; Region 9, which is south-central; and Region 5, which is east of Georgetown. All are considered rural areas, but Regions 1 and 9 are classified as ‘hinterlands’ due to their remoteness from the settled coastal regions. The selection of these regions was judged by the ADR team, based on inputs from the country office, to provide a good cross-section of UNDP work in remote or rural areas, especially with the rural poor and Amerindian populations. Each region was deemed to have unique characteristics including partnership arrangements that would provide different perspectives on the programme.
4
5 6
4
findings with relevant stakeholders in an ethical, non-judgmental manner. The evaluators signed and adhered closely to the UNEG Code of Conduct (2007) throughout the ADR in terms of evaluation standards and ethics, including independence, impartiality, honesty and integrity, competence and accountability. Prior to every interview conducted by the team information was shared with individuals regarding respect for confidentiality. Other best practices followed by the team included avoidance of harm, accuracy, completeness, reliability and transparency. It should be noted that each evaluation team member signed a declaration of interest form (attached to the UNEG Code of Conduct) prior to commencing work on the evaluation, which clearly stated the extent to which they had any direct or indirect interests related to the focus of the ADR.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION