Both formative and summative evaluations make recommendations. But those prepared at the conclusion of a summative report have a double burden. First, they must receive general acceptance. Then, they must await implementation until a future programme.
The formulation and communication of recommendations is crucial to the success of an evaluation. Unless the recommendations are taken seriously and have an impact on future work, the evaluation study will have been somewhat in vain. This is the case despite terms of reference (TOR) that ask primarily for a judgement of whether the programme has been effective. Surprisingly, a report that merely describes the impact of the programme is not always well-received. Those who commission evaluations want recognition and affirmation, but they also want suggestions for the way forward.
While the evaluation may discover a range of interesting things, it is constrained in its development of recommendations by the TOR or by any negotiated alterations to that document.
Testing Recommendations
Before conveying the final report, evaluators need to test the recommendations they plan to make with a representative stakeholder group. In the case of recommendations for future programmes, evaluators need to interact with those who can test the validity and feasibility of the proposal.
If the proposal has implications for budgeting, staff, or organisation, it may be necessary to test validity and feasibility with an expert outsider. When this is not possible, the recommendation may need to include suggestions about how additional work can be done before implementation.
Directing the Recommendations
Recommendations not directed to an agency capable of implementation may be of general interest, but have the virtue of sermons rather than proposals for policy. If it is not clear at the time that the recommendations are drawn up precisely who will be required to implement them, then this should be ascertained during the testing or final reporting phase.
If necessary, a recommendation can be couched as a double proposal. Such a proposal might state: "This body should investigate and steer the setting up of a standing committee on programme evaluation."
Layering Recommendations
The evaluation team should organise the set of recommendations that emerge from the evaluation so they are easy to understand and also capable of prioritisation over time.
Some recommendations are simple to implement and arouse no controversy. These should be identified as such. For the evaluator, they have the advantage of establishing commitment to the report without requiring major investment from the recipients of the report.
Recommendations that are essential should be separated from those that are optional. Those that will make a fundamental impact on future programmes may be separated from those that might be tried if there is an interest.
Timing Recommendations and the Entire Report
Evaluations are time bound. Individual recommendations should have time schedules attached to them, particularly if the evaluation includes preliminary programme assessment responsibilities.
But the whole report should also set itself a shelf life. Recommendations that are initially passed over but are warmed up long after the report is presented become less relevant because time has passed. This is particularly true of recommendations related to staffing or organisational change.
Evaluators should set a time limit on the efficacy of the recommendations and also suggest a way in which future evaluations may be considered if necessary.
Planning for Implementation
Evaluators move on. Much of what they suggest or write is not implemented. By increasing the ownership, legitimacy, and reliability of the process as the evaluation unfolds, it is possible to increase the chance for implementation of the recommendations.
There is also the face-saving implementation that takes place apparently without regard for the evaluation study, and evaluators should be prepared for this.
Nevertheless, there are moments when evaluators should consider working with their client to establish terms of reference that enable some planning for implementation, and some participation by the evaluation team in that implementation.
Teams that include members of staff of the client organisation may have more success in this, as evaluations that take time to communicate their findings and have these discussed in a planning and stakeholder forum.
