Every year, at least one tenth of all projects financed by public funds or donations of over 100,000 euros are to be evaluated. These so-called mandatory evaluations are partly commissioned by Misereor and partly by the Misereor partner organisations to external experts. In this way, Misereor also ensures that its partners recognise that project evaluation is their own responsibility. In 2017, Misereor evaluated 119 projects in 36 evaluations, while the partner organisations themselves commissioned 57 evaluations.

Misereor selects the external experts according to their professional, methodological and linguistic skills. They are independent of us as the client and of the projects. The diverse experience of these experts - also with other projects and organisations - enriches the perspective of Misereor and its partners.

If Misereor commissions evaluations itself, a team of evaluators is usually selected, consisting of one European and one local expert. Misereor contracts the European expert, the project partner contracts the local expert. The partner organisations usually commission experts from their own country. Both evaluators, ideally mixed-gender teams, should complement each other professionally. All evaluations - whether commissioned internationally or locally - follow international standards: they are based on the classic criteria of development cooperation, the OECD/DAC criteria.

Misereor has recorded experts and consulting companies in a database. This also includes people living outside Europe. The experts are listed according to their education, regional and sectoral experience, language and methodological skills.

The planning of the evaluations is published on this website so that experts can apply directly for specific project reviews.

The time required for an evaluation varies depending on the project and the issues to be addressed. As a rule, the preparation and follow-up phases last eight to twelve days. In addition, there is a 10 to 20-day stay on site. This time frame allows the target groups of the projects, i.e. the poor themselves, to be involved in the work.

The Misereor partner organisations benefit in particular from the evaluations. The fact that the project managers are involved often directly triggers improvement processes. To facilitate this, the evaluation report is always written in the relevant foreign language. It is important for Misereor to be able to discuss and assess the implementation of the recommendations with the partners, for example during trips and project meetings.

Misereor also regularly carries out cross-sectional evaluations and meta-evaluations in order to promote its own learning processes. Misereor discusses the resulting overarching learning experiences on the basis of the annual evaluation report and implements any adjustments in its funding practice that are identified as useful.

In order to increase the benefit of the activities, Misereor deliberately does not generally plan individual and cross-sectional evaluations as final project reviews. They are primarily carried out during the project term. In this way, the knowledge gained can be utilised for project management by being incorporated into the planning of subsequent project phases.

Of course, evaluations also cost money. The costs are covered by project funds and are budgeted for in advance. Around one per cent of the annual project approval amount is used for evaluations. The valuable learning experiences that Misereor and its partner organisations gain from the evaluations help to improve the quality and effectiveness of our work. This benefits the people who are served by our work. These funds are therefore also put to good use.

Evaluations can also be negative. Misereor uses evaluations primarily as a learning tool. Misereor therefore expects that reflection and implementation of the recommendations will lead to the necessary improvements in the project. In this way, the desired effects should be achieved. If necessary, Misereor supports the project organiser in this process, for example by providing advice. Cooperation may be terminated if necessary changes cannot be implemented.