in seeing your project for what it is. In this situation, embellishing simply makes no sense. Therefore, you should not view the self-evaluation situation as a potential conflict of interest or be concerned about it.
Principle 5. Safety.
Self-evaluation should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all its participants, regardless of their role, social status and individual characteristics. When conducting a self-evaluation, you should consider the possible negative effects it can have on both individuals and organizations. The risk of possible negative consequences should be minimized, and participants in the self-evaluation should be informed about them.
Recommendations:
• Discuss whether or not self-evaluation could result in harming someone. If this is a possibility, even in theory, all participants should be made aware about it.
• Discuss how you can minimize the risk of negative consequences of self-evaluation. Do your best to avoid such consequences.
• Self-evaluation should be conducted when NGO employees are in a resourceful state; that is, when they have enough emotional, physical, mental strength and energy to do so. Participating in self-evaluations is an additional burden for the employees, and this should be considered when planning their work, to avoid burnout.
• Self-evaluations are part of your organization’s activities, so they must be conducted in strict compliance with the ethical standards relevant to your NGO’s scope of work.
Principle 6. Flexibility.
It is necessary to provide for the possibility of adapting the self-evaluation methodology to each specific case, as well as to changing conditions.
Recommendations:
• There are many different approaches to evaluating projects and programs. You should choose the one that is best for your project, given the conditions. Even if something has worked well for evaluating your projects in the past, it does not necessarily mean it will work for your current project.
• In the process, be flexible and adjust the plan, methods, and tools of self-evaluation as needed to accommodate changing conditions or newly emerging factors.
• Just in case, check yourself: isn’t the decision to be “flexible” an excuse for not conducting self-evaluation in good faith, and could it lead to negative consequences?
PRINCIPLES OF SELF-EVALUATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN EVALUATION
Self-evaluation involves building one’s capacity for evaluation. In this regard, it may be useful for NGOs to keep in mind the following “formula” (Kuzmin, 2009):
According to this “formula,” if you know how to do an evaluation but don’t do it, the capacity is zero. Similarly, if you do an evaluation but don’t know how to do it, the result is still zero.
In other words, capacity development in evaluation involves balancing two interrelated tasks: one must both learn and apply the knowledge and skills gained in practice. The principles of self-evaluation take both factors into account.
REFERENCES
1. Baron, M. E. (2011). Designing internal evaluation for a small organization with limited resources. Internal evaluation in the 21st century. New Directions for Evaluation, 132, 87–99.
2. Gargani, J. (2012). The future of evaluation: 10 predictions. Retrieved from: https://evalblog.com/2012/01/30/the-future-of-evaluation-10-predictions/
3. House, E. R. (1986). Internal Evaluation.
Evaluation Practice, 7(1), 63–64. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/109821408600700105.
4. Kuzmin, A. (2009). Use of evaluation training in evaluation capacity building. In M. Segone (Ed.), From policies to results: Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems. New York: UNICEF.
5. Kuzmin, A., Karimov, A., Borovykh, A., Abdykadyrova, A., Efendiev, D., Greshnova, E…. Balakirev, V. (2007). Program Evaluation Development in the Newly Independent States. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4(7), 84–91. Retrieved from: https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/14/29.
6. Love, A. J. (1983). The organizational context and the development of internal evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 20, 5–22.
7. Love, A. J. (1991). Internal Evaluation: Building Organizations from Within: SAGE Publications.
8. McClintock, C. (1983). Internal Evaluation: The New Challenge. American Journal of Evaluation, 4, 61–62.
9. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
10. Rogers, A., McCoy, A., & Kelly, L. M. (2019). Evaluation Literacy: Perspectives of Internal Evaluators in Non-Government Organizations Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation / La Revue canadienne d’évaluation de programme, 34(1), 1–20. Retrieved from: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjpe/article/view/42190.
11. Volkov, B. B. (2011). Internal evaluation a quarter-century later: A conversation with Arnold J. Love. New Directions for Evaluation (132), 5–12.
12. Volkov, B. B., & Baron, M. E. (2011). Issues in internal evaluation: Implications for practice, training, and research. In B. B. Volkov & M. E. Baron (Eds.), Internal evaluation in the 21st century. New Directions for Evaluation. (Vol. 132, pp. 101–111).
13. Альянс PROОЦЕНКУ. (2023). Принципы самооценивания программ и проектов в НКО. Режим доступа: https://www.processconsulting.ru/attach_files/menu_21_12_22_19.pdf. PROOCENKU Alliance (2023). Principles of self-evaluation of NGO programs and projects. Retrieved from: https://www.processconsulting.ru/attach_files/menu_21_12_22_19.pdf.
14. АСОПП. (2017). Принципы оценки программ и политик. (05.02.2023). Режим доступа: https://eval.ru/attach_files/file_menu_78.pdf. ASPPE. (2017). Principles of program and policy evaluation. (05.02.2023). Retrieved from: https://eval.ru/attach_files/file_menu_78.pdf.
15. Кузьмин, А. И. (2016). Будущее оценки. Режим доступа: https://evaluationconsulting.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_14.html. Kuzmin, A. I. (2016). The Future of Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://evaluationconsulting.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_14.html.
16. Кузьмин, А. И. (2020). История развития мониторинга и оценки в Сети СЦПОИ. Начало. Режим доступа: https://evaluationconsulting.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html. Kuzmin, A. I. (2020). History of the development of monitoring and evaluation in the SCISC Network. Beginning. Retrieved from: https://evaluationconsulting.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post.html.
Союз дела и денег. Оценка экономической устойчивости проектов в области социального предпринимательства
Елена Авраменко
DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2023–3–1–44–57
Осенью 2022 года по заказу Фонда поддержки социальных проектов была разработана модель оценки воздействия проектов в области социального предпринимательства. Экспертная группа авторов модели из представителей Фабрики позитивных изменений, фонда «Глэдвэй» и других организаций предложила включить в нее компонент «экономическая устойчивость», наряду с «социальным воздействием» и «актуальностью решаемой проблемы». В апробации модели приняли участие 10 социальных предприятий. В этом материале мы расскажем суть оценки экономической устойчивости проектов, предложенной в рамках разработанной модели, и почему методика ее проведения является подспорьем для выработки верных решений.
Елена Авраменко
Эксперт проекта «Разработка модели оценки социально-экономического воздействия НКО» фонда GLADWAY, мастер Lean 6 Sigma уровня Green Belt
ГАРМОНИЧНЫЙ СОЮЗ
Социальное предпринимательство в идеальном варианте должно представлять собой гармоничный союз эффективного решения важной социальной проблемы и устойчивой бизнес-модели. Организация может управлять
