Value for Money 4E evaluation worksheet
Record evidence for each E, then form an integrated judgment. Provisional ratings of good, concern or unknown due to insufficient data for each E help show the overall picture.
Value for Money 4E evaluation worksheet
Basic information
Define the evaluation framework.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
- Project or program name
- Consultation support including home visits
- Evaluation period
- April–June 2026 (fictional)
- Total budget and actual costs in yen
- JPY 120,000 (fictional)
- Main evaluation use: accountability / learning
- Improve the next period's home visit arrangements
- Evaluator and date
- Staff member A / July 2026 (fictional)
Reason for this entry: Set judgment criteria appropriate to the intended use.
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Define the evaluation framework.
Set judgment criteria appropriate to the intended use.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.
Read the full fictional exampleE1: Economy
Assess procurement reasonableness. Record evidence on unit costs, tendering and market comparisons.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Procured item or service | Actual unit cost | Market rate or benchmark | Difference and reason | Provisional rating: good / concern / unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travel costs for visits | JPY 20,000 total (fictional) | Plan comparison with public transport on the same route and other options. | Incurred to reach people who have difficulty attending | Unknown: alternative comparison incomplete |
Reason for this entry: Do not use low cost as the only criterion.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Procured item or service | Actual unit cost | Market rate or benchmark | Difference and reason | Provisional rating: good / concern / unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Assess procurement reasonableness. Record evidence on unit costs, tendering and market comparisons.
Do not use low cost as the only criterion.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.
Read the full fictional exampleE2: Efficiency
Calculate and compare cost per output.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Output indicator | Actual value | Cost per unit | Comparator, such as a similar program | Difference and suggested improvement | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of consultations | 60 consultations | JPY 2,000 per consultation | Comparable programs of the same quality not yet checked | Investigate potential improvements in recording methods. | Insufficient comparison material |
Reason for this entry: Show that this measures efficiency per output.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Output indicator | Actual value | Cost per unit | Comparator, such as a similar program | Difference and suggested improvement | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Calculate and compare cost per output.
Show that this measures efficiency per output.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.
Read the full fictional exampleE3: Effectiveness
Record target versus actual performance and evidence of outcomes achieved.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Outcome indicator | Target value | Actual value | Achievement rate (%) | Evidence quality: high / medium / low | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number completing applications | Planned target: 12 people | 10 people (fictional) | 83.3% | Low: no comparison | Target not achieved. Causal effect undetermined. |
Reason for this entry: Target achievement rate is 10/12 × 100.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Outcome indicator | Target value | Actual value | Achievement rate (%) | Evidence quality: high / medium / low | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Record target versus actual performance and evidence of outcomes achieved.
Target achievement rate is 10/12 × 100.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.
Read the full fictional exampleE4: Equity
Record beneficiaries' characteristics and geographical distribution, and reach to the most vulnerable groups.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Target segment: characteristics / area | Beneficiary number and percentage | Intended reach target | Gap and reason | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People who have difficulty attending | 5/20 people = 25% (fictional) | Planned target: 5 people | Number reached as planned. Non-users' circumstances unknown. | Additional checks |
Reason for this entry: A percentage alone does not establish equity.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Target segment: characteristics / area | Beneficiary number and percentage | Intended reach target | Gap and reason | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Record beneficiaries' characteristics and geographical distribution, and reach to the most vulnerable groups.
A percentage alone does not establish equity.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.
Read the full fictional exampleIntegrated VfM judgment
Combine findings across the 4Es and describe the overall judgment and recommendations, including trade-offs.
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
Reason for this entry: Use several dimensions to decide what to investigate next.
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Combine findings across the 4Es and describe the overall judgment and recommendations, including trade-offs.
Use several dimensions to decide what to investigate next.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.
Read the full fictional exampleCompletion check
Completed example for this section (fictional)
This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.
- ☑ Checked: Recorded evidence-based assessments for all 4Es
- ☐ Not checked: Compared economy unit costs with benchmarks and market rates
- ☐ Not checked: Compared efficiency indicators with similar programs
- ☑ Checked: Specified the extent of causal attribution in effectiveness: strong / medium / weak
- ☑ Checked: Analyzed beneficiary characteristics in equity assessment
- ☑ Checked: Described trade-offs between the 4Es in the integrated judgment
Reason for this entry: Market rates and similar programs have not yet been checked. State that the overall judgment is provisional.
Writing tips and explanation for this section
About this section
Market rates and similar programs have not yet been checked. State that the overall judgment is provisional.
View the method explanationWriting tips
Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.
Read the full fictional exampleBefore writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves
Value for Money 4E evaluation worksheet is a worksheet for applying Value for Money in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Planning example, not a universal standard duration: 2 weeks–3 months, depending on the scale of data collection and multidimensional analysis” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.
When this worksheet is useful
- When accountability for public procurement or subsidies requires a multidimensional assessment of whether public funds are used appropriately
- When evaluating equity, reaching those most in need, as well as cost-effectiveness in international cooperation or ODA programs
- When diagnosing problems in a program's economy, efficiency or effectiveness to identify improvements
Participants and preparation
Evaluation lead, finance staff for procurement and cost data, and program staff for effect and beneficiary data. Medium or larger evaluations often use an external evaluation team combined with internal review.
Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.
Suggested order
- 1. Basic informationDefine the evaluation framework.
- 2. E1: EconomyAssess procurement reasonableness. Record evidence on unit costs, tendering and market comparisons.
- 3. E2: EfficiencyCalculate and compare cost per output.
- 4. E3: EffectivenessRecord target versus actual performance and evidence of outcomes achieved.
- 5. E4: EquityRecord beneficiaries' characteristics and geographical distribution, and reach to the most vulnerable groups.
- 6. Integrated VfM judgmentCombine findings across the 4Es and describe the overall judgment and recommendations, including trade-offs.
- 7. Completion check
Signs the worksheet is ready for review
- Evaluation matrix by E: findings, evidence and judgment rationale
- Overall VfM judgment summary: strengths, improvements and recommendations
- Benchmark comparison table for economy and efficiency indicators
Cautions for review
- Using economy, low procurement cost, as the only indicator and concluding that cheaper is better. Examine efficiency and effectiveness together to check whether low-cost procurement reduces output quality or effects.
- Treating equity as supplementary and reporting an effect without analyzing beneficiary characteristics misses groups that did not benefit behind the averages.
- Reporting 4E data separately without analyzing trade-offs conceals dynamics such as expansion to improve efficiency reducing reach to the most vulnerable groups.
Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)
A fictional illustrative example supporting 20 service users through 60 consultations at a cost of JPY 120,000.
Basic information
- Project or program name
- Consultation support including home visits
- Evaluation period
- April–June 2026 (fictional)
- Total budget and actual costs in yen
- JPY 120,000 (fictional)
- Main evaluation use: accountability / learning
- Improve the next period's home visit arrangements
- Evaluator and date
- Staff member A / July 2026 (fictional)
Reason for this entry: Set judgment criteria appropriate to the intended use.
E1: Economy
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Procured item or service | Actual unit cost | Market rate or benchmark | Difference and reason | Provisional rating: good / concern / unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travel costs for visits | JPY 20,000 total (fictional) | Plan comparison with public transport on the same route and other options. | Incurred to reach people who have difficulty attending | Unknown: alternative comparison incomplete |
Reason for this entry: Do not use low cost as the only criterion.
E2: Efficiency
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Output indicator | Actual value | Cost per unit | Comparator, such as a similar program | Difference and suggested improvement | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of consultations | 60 consultations | JPY 2,000 per consultation | Comparable programs of the same quality not yet checked | Investigate potential improvements in recording methods. | Insufficient comparison material |
Reason for this entry: Show that this measures efficiency per output.
E3: Effectiveness
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Outcome indicator | Target value | Actual value | Achievement rate (%) | Evidence quality: high / medium / low | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number completing applications | Planned target: 12 people | 10 people (fictional) | 83.3% | Low: no comparison | Target not achieved. Causal effect undetermined. |
Reason for this entry: Target achievement rate is 10/12 × 100.
E4: Equity
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Target segment: characteristics / area | Beneficiary number and percentage | Intended reach target | Gap and reason | Provisional rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People who have difficulty attending | 5/20 people = 25% (fictional) | Planned target: 5 people | Number reached as planned. Non-users' circumstances unknown. | Additional checks |
Reason for this entry: A percentage alone does not establish equity.
Integrated VfM judgment
Reason for this entry: Use several dimensions to decide what to investigate next.
Completion check
- ☑ Checked: Recorded evidence-based assessments for all 4Es
- ☐ Not checked: Compared economy unit costs with benchmarks and market rates
- ☐ Not checked: Compared efficiency indicators with similar programs
- ☑ Checked: Specified the extent of causal attribution in effectiveness: strong / medium / weak
- ☑ Checked: Analyzed beneficiary characteristics in equity assessment
- ☑ Checked: Described trade-offs between the 4Es in the integrated judgment
Reason for this entry: Market rates and similar programs have not yet been checked. State that the overall judgment is provisional.
Common errors in judgment
Treating any reduction in cost per case as improvement
How to revise: Check delivery quality, outcomes and people no longer reached.
Reason: Shorter services or selecting easier participants can also reduce unit costs.
Calling target achievement a causal effect
How to revise: Distinguish comparison with targets from attribution of effects.
Reason: Changes outside the program can also produce target achievement.
References and checked sections
- Value for moneyBetterEvaluation
- Section consulted
- Economy / Efficiency / Effectiveness / Equity
- How it relates to the text
- Consider delivery quality, outputs, outcomes and equity together, rather than only low input unit costs.
How to cite this page
Change history
- — Checked sources for definitions and applicability conditions, and added fictional examples, reasons for judgments and examples for every worksheet field. Revised unverified claims about history and adoption. Also reviewed existing procedures and cautions, and adjusted fixed participant counts and thresholds and generalizations about institutions.