Monitoring and evaluation of public-sector investment in the UK

Cracknell, Basil E.

doi:10.1080/02688867.1994.9726955

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We elicited the donation decision through an open question, so that participants could enter any amount between £0 and £1, with two decimals allowed. The beneficiary environmental organization was selected with the aim of maximizing its appeal to a wide audience: WWF UK is well known both in the United Kingdom and internationally, and is widely perceived as being politically neutral (Cracknell et al, 2013; Pharoah, 2017; Strauss, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Nudges to Affect Spillovers in Environmental Behaviors

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental self-identity is considered a promising lever to generate positive spillovers across pro-environmental behaviors: existing evidence shows that it is positively correlated with pro-environmental choices and that it can be easily manipulated, by reminding individuals of their past pro-environmental actions. However, it remains unclear whether it can be successfully used for environmental policy making. In two online, incentive-compatible experiments, we manipulate participants’ environmental self-identity and test whether this leads to increased donations to an environmental charity. Additionally, we investigate the interaction between self-identity priming and two commonly used behavioral policy tools: social information (Study 1, N = 400) and goal commitment (Study 2, N = 495). Our results suggest caution in leveraging environmental self-identity to promote pro-environmental behaviors, provide indications on how to target policies based on self-identity primes, and offer novel evidence on the interaction between different behavioral policy tools.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Nudges to Affect Spillovers in Environmental Behaviors

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EFN conducted surveys of ENGOs at two time points: the first wave was collected between February and April 2013 and the second was collected between September 2016 and January 2017. The first wave of the survey was sent to 300 ENGOs operating in the UK (Cracknell et al, 2013). Of the 300 ENGOs, 150 were identified through data provided the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC), which lists the largest SMOs in the UK according to income.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 300 ENGOs, 150 were identified through data provided the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC), which lists the largest SMOs in the UK according to income. The remaining 150 were selected by the EFN based on past research on UK ENGOs (Cracknell et al, 2013). The second wave of the survey was sent to 330 ENGOs, including the same 150 organizations identified by the TSRC with an additional 180 groups representing a diverse mix of environmental groups in the UK (Miller et al, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second wave of the survey was sent to 330 ENGOs, including the same 150 organizations identified by the TSRC with an additional 180 groups representing a diverse mix of environmental groups in the UK (Miller et al, 2017). The organizations responding to the surveys include large ENGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Greenpeace UK in addition to smaller and more specialized organizations such as the Lydd Airport Action Group and Biofuelwatch (for participating organizations, see Cracknell et al, 2013; Miller et al, 2017)). The response rate for wave 1 was 46.3% (139 ENGOs) and for wave 2 was 27.9% (92 ENGOs) (Cracknell et al, 2013; Miller et al, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Penalty or Payoff? Diversity of Tactics and Resource Mobilization Among Environmental Organizations

Chewinski

Corrigall‐Brown

2022

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) need resources in order to mount campaigns and ensure their stability over time. What is the most effective strategy to attract these resources? Building upon research on social movement strategy and resource mobilization, we examine how a diversity of income sources, tactics, and issue focus affects three measures of mobilization outcomes: income, staff, and members. We examine these relationships using a unique panel data set of ENGOs in the UK collected by the Environmental Funders Network in 2013 and 2016. Our analyses show that using a more diverse range of tactics in wave 1 is associated with mobilizing more staff and members in wave 2. However, there is no significant penalty or payoff for groups that engage in issue or income diversification. We argue that diversifying tactics benefits organizations by helping them accrue the necessary human resources required for environmental action.

show abstract

“…Being influenced by the Results Based Management environment, since the mid 1990s, CIDA has modified the Logical Framework Approach to a 'Results-Oriented Logical Framework' (Cummings, 1997). Other slightly adapted versions of the Logical Framework include the Project Framework, which was introduced by the UK's Overseas Development Administration (ODA) in 1985 (Cracknell, 1994); the ZOPP (Zielorientierte Projektplanung: targetgroup-oriented project planning) method used by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (Musto, 1991); and the Project Cycle Management (PCM) method introduced by the Directorate General for Development (DG VIII) of the EC in 1992 (Eggers, 1994). 4.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Desk Screening of Development Projects: Is it Effective?

Holvoet

Renard

2003

Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donor agencies rely to varying degrees on desk reviews by headquarter staff for the selection, monitoring and evaluation of projects initiated by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). If information provided in the various documents submitted by NGOs is inadequate or incomplete then the reliability of desk reviews as a management tool for allocation of project funding becomes questionable. A study of European Union funding of NGO projects compared findings from a desk evaluation of a structured sample of 30 projects with those from a field assessment of the same projects. The findings show that a field assessment on the basis of more complete information from a wider range of stakeholders leads to a markedly lower scoring on most of the standard criteria of project evaluation. An important policy implication is that ex ante screening, monitoring and evaluation on the basis of project documents are an ineffective management tool for donor agencies if not backed up by substantive follow-up in the field. This article places such management tools in the wider context of principal-agent relations.K E Y WO R D S : aid management; desk project review; field assessment; NGO co-funding; principal-agent relationship Evaluation

show abstract

Monitoring and evaluation of public-sector investment in the UK

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

On the Use of Nudges to Affect Spillovers in Environmental Behaviors

On the Use of Nudges to Affect Spillovers in Environmental Behaviors

Penalty or Payoff? Diversity of Tactics and Resource Mobilization Among Environmental Organizations

Desk Screening of Development Projects: Is it Effective?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About