Despite the increased attention of evaluation theorists and practitioners on theory-based evaluation, there is still no agreement regarding how to apply this evaluation approach in practice. In order to further advance the application of theory-based evaluation, the article elaborates a specific causal model for the in-depth evaluation of capacity-building interventions supported by the European Social Fund. This model of program outcomes is used to make a contribution claim: that better results of one set of performance management projects can be explained by their better design and more favorable conditions for their implementation compared to other similar projects. The article suggests setting some specific conditionalities – such as assessing the organizational maturity of potential beneficiaries and improving their project management systems before the start of project execution – to improve the implementation of future capacity-building interventions.
BjurulfSVedungELarssonCG (2012) A triangulation approach to impact evaluation. Evaluation19(1): 56–73.
3.
BouckaertGHalliganJ (2008) Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
4.
BouckaertGNemecJNakrošisV. (2009) (eds) Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.
5.
CastroFGKellisonJGBoydSJKopakA (2010) A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research4(4): 342–60.
6.
CorynCLSNoakesLAWestineCDSchroterDC (2011) A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation32(2): 199–226.
7.
DelahaisTToulemondeJ (2012) Applying contribution analysis: lessons from five years of experience. Evaluation18(3): 281–93.
FunnellSFRogersPJ (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
HuyseHMolenaersNPhlixG, et al. (2012) Evaluating NGO-capacity development interventions: enhancing frameworks, fitting the (Belgian) context. Evaluation18(1): 129–50.
12.
LeeuwFL (2012) Linking theory-based evaluation and contribution analysis: three problems and a few solutions. Evaluation18(3): 348–63.
13.
LemireSTNielsenSBDybdalL (2012) Making contribution analysis work: a practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations. Evaluation18(3): 294–309.
14.
Lietuvos projektų vadybos asociacija (2011) Projektų valdymo kultūros ir projektų vadovų karjeros situacijos tyrimas Lietuvos įmonėse [Research of project management culture and project managers’ career situation in Lithuanian companies]. URL: http://www.lpva.lt/cms/files/lpva/resources/2500_PV_tyrimas_2011_v1.pdf
15.
MayneJ (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation16(1): 1–24.
16.
MayneJ (2012) Contribution analysis: coming of age?Evaluation18(3): 270–80.
17.
Meyer-SahlingJ-H (2011) The durability of EU civil service policy in Central and Eastern Europe after accession. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions24(2): 231–60.
18.
NakrošisVČerniūtėR (2010) Kokybės vadyba Lietuvos viešajame administravime: svarbiausiosios iniciatyvos ir jų taikymas [Quality management in Lithuanian public administration: the main initiatives and their application]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas [Public Policy and Administration] 31: 63–76.
19.
NakrošisVMartinaitisŽ (eds) (2011) Lithuanian Agencies and Other Public Sector Organisations: Organisation, Autonomy, Control and Performance. Vilnius: Vilnius University.
20.
NakrošisVVilpišauskasRKuokštisV (2013) Fiscal consolidation in Lithuania in the period 2008–2012: from grand ambitions to hectic firefighting. Paper for the COCOPS project.
21.
OstromE (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. The Policy Studies Journal39(1): 7–27.
22.
PattonMQ (2012) A utilization-focused approach to contribution analysis. Evaluation18(3): 364–77.
23.
PawsonR (2003) Nothing as practical as a good theory. Evaluation9(4): 471–90.
24.
PollittCBouckaertG (eds) (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: NPM, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
PollittCVan ThielSHomburgV (eds) (2007) New Public Management in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
RogersPJ (2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation14(1): 29–48.
28.
SabatierPA (1998) Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy6(1): 21–38.
29.
SteinbergPF (2007) Causal assessment in small-n policy studies. The Policy Studies Journal35(2): 181–204.
The European Commission (2011a) Monitoring and evaluation of European cohesion policy: concepts and recommendations. Guidance document. Draft. Brussels.
32.
The European Commission (2011b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006. COM(2011) 607 final. Brussels.
33.
The European Commission (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Lithuania for the period 2014–2020. 26October.
34.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999. Official Journal of the European Union.
35.
VilpišauskasRNakrošisV (2003) Politikos įgyvendinimas Lietuvoje ir ES įtaka [Policy Implementation in Lithuania and the EU Influence]. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
