Types of evaluation Rossi et al. (2004, p. 53) distinguish five types of evaluation. Firstly, there is needs assessment, which poses questions about the social conditions a programme is intended to ameliorate and about the needs of the programme. It assesses: the nature, magnitude and distribution of a social problem; the extent to which there is a need for intervention; and the implications of those circumstances for the design of the intervention. As indicated in all the modules in this manual, Zimbabwe has been subjected to politically motivated violence coupled with economic hardships. Violence destroyed normal community life, particularly during periods of electoral contestation. Secondly, there is assessment of programme theory, which asks questions about programme conceptualisation and design. Rossi et al. (2004, p. 54) posit that the conceptualisation of the programme must reflect valid assumptions about the nature of the problem and represent a feasible approach to resolving it. Thirdly, there is assessment of programme process (or process evaluation). This considers questions about programme operations, implementation and service delivery. Given a plausible theory about how to intervene in an accurately diagnosed social problem, a programme must still be well implemented in order to have a reasonable chance of actually improving the situation. Rossi et al. (2004, p. 56) warn that it is not unusual to find that programmes are not implemented and executed according to their intended design. A programme may be poorly managed, compromised by personality clashes and political interference, or designed in ways that make implementation impossible. Sometimes, appropriate personnel are not available, facilities are inadequate, and programme staff lack motivation, expertise or training. Possibly, they continue, the intended programme participants do not exist in the numbers required, cannot be identified precisely, or are not cooperative. The information about programme outcomes that evaluations of impact provide is incomplete and ambiguous without knowledge of programme activities and the services that produced those outcomes. On the one hand, when the desired impact is lacking, process evaluation may have diagnostic value by indicating whether this was because of implementation failure (e.g. the intended services were not provided) or because, when implemented as intended, the programme failed to produce the expected effects. On the other hand, when positive programme effects are found, process evaluation helps confirm that they resulted from programme activities rather than from spurious sources and identifies the aspects of the service most instrumental in producing the effects. Fourthly, Rossi et al. (2004, p. 58) posit that there is impact assessment (impact evaluation or outcome evaluation), which examines programme outcomes and longer-term impact. It gauges the extent to which a programme has produced the intended improvements in social conditions. Impact assessment also asks whether the designed outcomes were attained and whether the changes included unintended side effects. To conduct an impact assessment, the evaluator must establish the status of programme recipients on relevant outcome measures and also estimate what their status would be had they not received the intervention. Fifthly, Rossi et al. (2004, p. 60) identify efficiency assessment, which asks questions about costs and cost-effectiveness. An efficiency assessment takes account of the relationship between a programme’s costs and its effectiveness. Typical issues include whether a programme produces sufficient benefits in relation to its costs or whether other interventions or delivery systems can produce the benefits at a lower cost. Module 8: Understanding programme monitoring and evaluation 129 8