Evaluation Archive

0

The Alliance for Useful Evidence champions the use of evidence in social policy and practice

alliance_logoKarsten Weitzenegger Consulting joined The Alliance for Useful Evidence.

The Alliance is a UK-based network that promotes the use of high quality evidence to inform decisions on strategy, policy and practice. It is an open access network of individuals from across government, universities, charities, business and local authorities in the UK and internationally.

We do this through advocacy, publishing research, sharing ideas and advice, and holding events and training. If you are interested in the use of evidence in policy making, then you should join our free network of over 3000 individuals across the world. See more at: http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org

Recent activities

0

OECD publishes 2016 Review | Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation

Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation | 2016 Review

DOI:10.1787/9789264262065-en
Evaluation is widely recognised as an important component for learning and improving development effectiveness. Evaluation responds to public and taxpayer demands for credible information and independent assessment of development co-operation activities. The Development Assistance Committee’s Network on Development Evaluation supports members in their efforts to strengthen and continuously improve evaluation systems.

The 2016 review of evaluation systems in development co-operation looks at the changes and trends in evaluation systems over the last five years. The report describes the role and management of evaluation in development agencies, ministries and multilateral banks. It provides information about the specific institutional settings, resources, policies and practices of DAC Evaluation Network members, and includes specific profiles on each member’s evaluation system. The study identifies major trends and current challenges in development evaluation. It covers issues such as human and financial resources, institutional setups and policies, independence of the evaluation function, reporting and use of evaluation findings, joint evaluation, and the involvement of partner countries in evaluation work.

This report is part of the DAC Network on Development Evaluation’s ongoing efforts to increase the effectiveness of development co-operation policies and programmes by promoting high-quality, independent evaluation.

0

Five tips to make your evaluation more influential

0

United Nations set new Norms and Standards for Evaluation

The updated UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation was endorsed at the 2016 AGM. It combines Norms and Standards into one document and responds to the evolving global, regional and national contexts, as well as the increasing demand for accountability and national ownership in evaluation. The ten general norms should be upheld in the conduct of any evaluation; the four institutional norms should be reflected in the management and governance of evaluation functions. The associated standards support the implementation of these normative principles. The updated Norms and Standards is now available on the UNEG website (www.unevaluation.org/2016-Norms-and-Standards) and will be printed and distributed to UNEG members, member states, executives in your organizations, UN country offices, and our partner organizations. We encourage colleagues in other cities and regions to disseminate this document to partners as well.

The updated UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation was endorsed at the 2016 AGM. It combines Norms and Standards into one document and responds to the evolving global, regional and national contexts, as well as the increasing demand for accountability and national ownership in evaluation.

The ten general norms should be upheld in the conduct of any evaluation; the four institutional norms should be reflected in the management and governance of evaluation functions. The associated standards support the implementation of these normative principles.

The updated Norms and Standards is now available on the UNEG website (www.unevaluation.org/2016-Norms-and-Standards) and will be printed and distributed to UNEG members, member states, executives in your organizations, UN country offices, and our partner organizations. We encourage colleagues in other cities and regions to disseminate this document to partners as well.

0

SDG follow-up and review needs interlinked indicators, monitoring and evaluation

EVALSDG Network’ second briefing note is ready: Counting critically: SDG ‘follow-up and review’ needs interlinked indicators, monitoring and evaluation Global indicators are important for understanding progress towards each of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, they can mask sub-national and thematic variations. They cannot explain how or why change occurred or its significance to different stakeholders. Evaluation helps to define and assess the worth, merit and significance of national policies in different contexts. This briefing introduces key considerations for the use of indicators, monitoring and evaluation of SDGs implementation, review and follow-up at the national level. It promotes the importance of context-sensitivity, broad stakeholder involvement and adaptive management approaches in efforts to achieve development results. It is the second in a series of briefings discussing the role of evaluation in achieving the SDGs. Download the pdf at http://pubs.iied.org/17363IIED EVALSDGs is a network of policymakers, institutions, and practitioners who advocate for […]

EVALSDG Network’ second briefing note is ready:

Counting critically: SDG ‘follow-up and review’ needs interlinked indicators, monitoring and evaluation

Global indicators are important for understanding progress towards each of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, they can mask sub-national and thematic variations. They cannot explain how or why change occurred or its significance to different stakeholders. Evaluation helps to define and assess the worth, merit and significance of national policies in different contexts. This briefing introduces key considerations for the use of indicators, monitoring and evaluation of SDGs implementation, review and follow-up at the national level. It promotes the importance of context-sensitivity, broad stakeholder involvement and adaptive management approaches in efforts to achieve development results. It is the second in a series of briefings discussing the role of evaluation in achieving the SDGs.

Download the pdf at http://pubs.iied.org/17363IIED

EVALSDGs is a network of policymakers, institutions, and practitioners who advocate for the critical roles played by evaluation at the national, regional, and global levels in examining progress toward achievement of the SDGs. EvalSDG members work to support the evaluation community to be prepared for evaluating initiatives towards better outcomes for the SDGs and ultimately, the “World We Want”.

0

The development effectiveness of Development Finance Institutions

Development funding is increasingly being channelled through Development Finance Institutions. These national institutions are particularly solicited when using development aid money to free up further investment, known as leveraging. When used well, these tools have the potential to allow sectors of developing countries’ economies that wouldn’t otherwise attract investment to strengthen and expand. However, this joint TUDCN-CPDE research paper highlights a number of alarming shortfalls in how these institutions operate that can seriously undermine international development goals.

This new report, entitled ‘The development effectiveness of supporting the private sector with ODA funds’ examined nine Development Finance Institutions (DFIs). It is jointly produced by the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) and the TUDCN. Five case studies (available below) provided a background for the study which found that DFI practice is lacking in three vital areas:

Ownership

Ownership has been repeatedly highlighted as a fundamental pillar of development. In spite of that, the majority of the DFIs examined had policies that expressed a preference for supporting the interests of the donor country. This is in clear contradiction of the aim of promoting local ownership and that of ensuring that aid by untied from external interests. In the case of COFIDES (Spain) and OPIC (USA) they go as far as requiring that any investment they make benefit their national (donor) companies. It is perhaps no coincidence that these are the only two DFIs examined in the study that are part owned by private national stakeholders. The issue of private ownership needs to be addressed as it creates a bias that can evidently lead to the compromising of development interests. The concept of ownership also extends to setting the aims of projects. However, not one of the DFIs require that either developing country governments or local social partners be consulted in setting out the aims of a project.

Development results

In order to obtain a good and independent idea of what the development impacts are on the ground, there is a need for performance standards and monitoring systems to be accessible. However, reporting standards are insufficient across the board. There is currently too strong a reliance on self-reporting and limited use of monitoring indicators. Key documentation required for ensuring accountability is not made available. Furthermore, as highlighted by the Panama Papers, it is widely recognised that offshore financial centres (OFCs) have a negative impact on developing countries. It is astounding then that 75% of CDC’s (UK) investments went through jurisdictions that are among the 20 most secretive. This poses serious challenges to the transparency of the DFIs’ work.

Mutual accountability

Meanwhile, accountability flows in only one direction. There is a need for stakeholders to have access to essential information and for complaint procedures to be systematically put in place in order for the opinions of the beneficiaries to be heard. The ability of workers to get organised and raise a complaint to the relevant body is also questioned. This reflects a broader approach of DFIs to labour standards as distinct from development goals. This outlook is symptomatic of a general contempt for labour interests among DFIs which is otherwise illustrated by the fact that none of them require the board to include a workers’ representative.

In light of these findings, the current performance of DFIs is unsatisfactory. Examples of best practice can lead the way to a sustainable approach to the use of financial tools for development.

The full report is available here: EN FR ES

The full case studies are available here:

Source: ITUC http://www.ituc-csi.org/DFI-study

0

What Comes After the Evaluation is Completed? | Independent Evaluation Group

Five tips to make your evaluation more influential

In this blog, Caorline Heider looks at some of the follow-up processes and measures that can help ensure that evaluations result in meaningful action.  Often, institutions do not schedule time or money for this work, but it is essential to get ownership, learning, action and change from an evaluation.

Source: What Comes After the Evaluation is Completed? | Independent Evaluation Group

0

Evaluation of Finnish Aid for Trade – Free Webinar

Evaluation of Finnish Aid for Trade – Free Webinar Monday, June 13, 2016 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM CEST Register now: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2812033248815322370 Finland’s Action Plan for Aid for Trade 2012 – 2015 “Creating jobs through private sector and trade development” was evaluated. It was interesting, how the cross cutting objectives and human rights based approach are fulfilled in Aid for Trade projects and analyze the relations between Aid for Trade and other sectors and themes. The evaluation also analyzed different forms of cooperation in Aid for Trade (for example country- and region level, multilateral and EU-cooperation, companies, NGOs etc.) as well as the funding instruments (Finnfund and Finnpartnerhip). This Webinar will serve to present and discuss the conclusions and recommendations.

Evaluation of Finnish Aid for Trade – Free Webinar

Monday, June 13, 2016 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM CEST

Register now: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2812033248815322370

Finland’s Action Plan for Aid for Trade 2012 – 2015 “Creating jobs through private sector and trade development” was evaluated. It was interesting, how the cross cutting objectives and human rights based approach are fulfilled in Aid for Trade projects and analyze the relations between Aid for Trade and other sectors and themes. The evaluation also analyzed different forms of cooperation in Aid for Trade (for example country- and region level, multilateral and EU-cooperation, companies, NGOs etc.) as well as the funding instruments (Finnfund and Finnpartnerhip). This Webinar will serve to present and discuss the conclusions and recommendations.

0

Parliamentarians’ EvalStories to Promote Demand and Use of Evaluation

Here are videos from parliamentarians under the “Parliamentarians for Evaluation” campaign. The Global Parliamentarians Forum for Evaluation (GPFE) initiated the campaign inviting parliamentarians around the world to advocate for evaluation in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030) ensuring “No one left behind” in line with the Global Evaluation Agenda 2016-2020 (EvalAgenda 2020). Parliamentarians’ advocacy messages indeed represent an invaluable resource for increasing the quality of demand and use of evaluation work. The campaign aims to strengthen an enabling environment and to create an archive of shared knowledge for the global evaluation community. Furthermore, the campaign highlights the importance of equity focused and gender responsive evaluation.

Source: Global Parliamentarians Forum for Evaluation – YouTube

0

All You Need to Know About Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Questions – SocialCops Blog

A complete guide on how to use closed-ended and open-ended questions to design surveys that yield the best information in the most efficient way.

Source: All You Need to Know About Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Questions – SocialCops Blog