Presentation on theme: "Capacity development & learning in evaluation"— Presentation transcript:
1Capacity development & learning in evaluation Uganda Evaluation Week19th to 223rd May 2014
2Contents What do we mean by evaluation capacity? Links to managing for resultsEvidence from organisations who have introduced results management systemsThe challenge of evaluation cultureThe experience of DFIDResults system or results cultureConclusions
3What do we mean by evaluation capacity? Promoting accountability, transparency & learningQuestion policies and practicesCapacity empowers stakeholders to …A process of good governance?Building blocks?IndividualOrganisationEnabling environment systemsBuilding blocksProcessLeads to demand, supply and use of evaluationBoth ?
4Individuals’ knowledge, skills and competences Individual LevelIndividuals’ knowledge, skills and competencesSenior management capacity for strategy & planningAt mid-management level, understanding of the role of evaluation as a tool for effectively achieving development results.Behavioural independence and professional competences of those who manage and/ or conduct evaluations.Source: Adapted from Segone, 2010, Moving from policies to results by developing national capacities for country ledmonitoring and evaluation systems.
5The institutional framework Institutional LevelThe institutional frameworkEvaluation policy exists and is implemented.An evaluation unit with a clearly defined role, responsibilities.Functional Quality Assurance system.Independence of funding for evaluations.System to plan, undertake and report evaluation findings in an independent, credible and useful way exists.Open dissemination of evaluation results.Knowledge management systems in support of the evaluation function exists and is used.Source: Adapted from Segone, 2010, Moving from policies to results by developing national capacities for country led monitoring and evaluation systems.
6Enabling EnvironmentA context that fosters the performance and results of individuals and organizationsFunctioning National voluntary organisation for professional evaluation.National policy on evaluationStrong evaluation culture.Public administration committed to transparency and managing for results and accountability.Political will to institutionalize evaluation.Existence of adequate information and statistical systems.Legislation and/or policies to institutionalize monitoring and evaluation systemsSource: Adapted from Segone, 2010, Moving from policies to results by developing national capacities for country ledmonitoring and evaluation systems.
7All or nothing? Individual Organisation Environment Neglect of… Means that …IndividualSkills are lacking at all levelsDemand doesn’t emergeOrganisationLack of structures and processesIndividuals’ skills are not appliedEnvironmentAbsence of legislation & supportive policiesLack of clarity in roles and responsibilities
8Results management framework Strategic Results FrameworkObjectives, indicators & strategyRoles & responsibilityProgramme Results FrameworkResults chain & theory of changeAlign with strategic frameworkPerformance indicatorsCredible performance reportingRelevant, timely & reliable reportingUse results to improveperformanceAdjust the programmeDevelop lessons & good practicesCredible measurement & analysisMeasure & assess resultsAssess contribution to strategic objectivesSource: Itad Ltd, adapted from ‘Managing for Development Results Handbook’
9Expectations for managers PlanningUnderstanding the theory of changeSetting out performance expectationsImplementationMeasure and analyse results and assess contributionDecision-making & learningDeliberately learn from evidence and analysisAccountabilityReporting on performance achieved against expectationsMayne, John (2008) Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management. Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative Brief 20. CGIAR 4p
10Evaluations of RBM UNDP (2007) Finland (2010) Significant progress was made on: on sensitising staff to results; and on creating the tools to enable a fast and efficient flow of information.Managing for results has proved harder to achieve. Stronger emphasis on resource mobilisation and delivery, a culture fostering a low level of risk-taking, weak information systems at country level, the lack of clear lines of accountability and the lack of a staff incentive structure all work against building a strong culture of results.Finland (2010)Tools and procedures are comprehensive and well established . Good standards of project design are not consistently applied.Low priority given by managers to monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Most monitoring reports were activity-based or financial and there was little reporting against logframes.Managing for results depends not only on technical methodology, but also on the way the development cooperation programme is organised and managed. Finland’s approach is characterised as being risk-averse; few examples of results being used to inform policy.
11‘Can we demonstrate the difference that Norwegian aid makes?’ Overall conclusionAlthough there are some elements of good foundations for better results measurement, current arrangements lack the strength of leadership, depth of guidance and coherence of procedures necessary for effective evaluation of Norwegian aid.As a result of a lack of incentives, poor processes for planning and monitoring grants, and weaknesses in the procedures for evaluations, this cannot be demonstrated.ITAD Ltd (2014) Can we demonstrate the difference that Norwegian Aid makes? Evaluation of results measurement and how this can be improvedAvailable at:
12What is an evaluative culture? An organization with a strong evaluative culture:engages in self-reflection and self-examination:deliberately seeks evidence on what it is achieving, such as through monitoring and evaluation,uses results information to challenge and support what it is doing, and values candour, challenge and genuine dialogue;engages in evidence-based learning:makes time to learn in a structured fashion,learns from mistakes and weak performance, andencourages knowledge sharing;encourages experimentation and change:supports deliberate risk taking, andseeks out new ways of doing business.Mayne, John (2008) Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management. Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative Brief 20. CGIAR 4p
13UK Department for International Development A 2009 study into DFID’s evaluation reports found:Weaknesses were systemic in nature linked to top management, requiring a significant change in culture.A key overarching problem was an unduly defensive attitude to the findings from evaluation.Other detailed recommendations called for:evaluability issues to be considered at the planning stage;for training of staff;for strengthening the evidence base that underpins evaluations; andfor requiring managers to make a formal response to evaluations.Roger C Riddell (2009) The Quality of DFID’s Evaluation Reports and Assurance Systems. IACDI (The Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact)
14DFID – Highly rated for evaluability Five features of DFID’s approach combine to justify high ratings :Continuity of guidance from planning a project Business Case; quality assurance arrangements; evaluation policy; and evaluation training materials, with some cross referencing.Recognition that a clear logic model and results based on prior evidence strengthens the quality of project design rather than being a formality to complete a project proposal.Evaluability is assessed from several perspectives: expected impact and outcomes; strength of the evidence base; theory of change; and what arrangements are need to measure, monitor and evaluate progress and results.Documentation includes detailed descriptions, training or self-briefing materials and examples for staff to follow.There is consistency of message across planning guidance, appraisal and approval, with a detailed checklist for quality assurance.Source: ITAD Ltd (2014) Can we demonstrate the difference that Norwegian aid makes?An evaluation of results measurement and how this can be improved. Annex 5 (available on
15DFID – Embedding Embedding: Business Cases and Evaluation advisors Since 2011: 37 advisers in a evaluation role;150 staff accredited in evaluation and 700 people receiving basic training.Significant increase in the quantity of evaluations commissioned increased from 12 per year, prior to 2011, to an estimated 40 completed evaluations in 2013/14.The embedding process has increased the actual and potential demand.Decision to evaluate now made during the preparation of BCs. Good for programme performance, but a lack of a broader strategic focus.Depth of this capacity is less than required with 81% accredited to date only at the foundation or competent levelGaps in capacity relate to:understanding why and when to commission evaluationenhancing the contexts of evaluations and engaging stakeholders appropriatelyselecting and implementing appropriate evaluation approaches while ensuring reliability of data and validity of analysisreporting and presenting information in a useful and timely manner.Need to:strengthen evaluation governance; develop a DFID evaluation strategySource DFID (2014) Rapid Review of Embedding Evaluation in UK DFID
16Core quality model Quality assurance Technical guidance Programme StandardsPerfor-manceTechnical guidanceHow to do itTrainingProgrammeProcedures, roles & responsibilitiesResults & evaluabilityComment is the QA can lead to risk averse reactions:References for World Bank and DFID are both from internal reviews:for DFID the ‘Quality Assurance Unit Annual Report 2011/12’; and ‘Better Programme Management: Update on the End-to-End Review of the Programme Cycle May 2013’and for the World Bank,Delivering results by enhancing our focus on quality. OPCS (2012) para 41
17DFID LearningDFID is the highest performing civil service main department for ‘learning and development’. (Cabinet Office survey)Evaluations are a key source of knowledge.40 evaluations completed in425 evaluations either underway or planned as at July 2013.Annual, mid-term and project completion reviews are an under-utilised resource.Staff find it hard to identify what is important and what is irrelevant.DFID’s ability to influence has been strengthened by its investment in knowledge.Issues:Workload pressures restricts making time to learn.Staff often feel under pressure to be positive about assessing both current and future project performance.Knowledge is sometimes selectively used to support decision-making.Positive bias links to a culture where staff have often felt afraid to discuss failure.Many evaluations are not sufficiently concise or timely to affect decision-making.Source: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (2014) How DFID Learns
18UK – National Audit Office £44m spent on government evaluation inEstimated 102 FTE staff working on evaluation in the governmentFindingsRecommendationsSignificant spendCoverage incompleteRationale for what the government evaluates is unclear.Evaluations often not robust enough to reliably identify the impact.Learning not used to improve impact and cost-effectiveness.Plan evaluation when designing all new policies.Design policy implementation to facilitate robust evaluation.Departments to make data available to independent evaluators for research purposes.Source NAO (2014) Evaluation in Government
19Results system or results culture? Many organizations have systems of resultsA results-based planning system with results frameworks for programmes.Results monitoring systems in place generating results data.Evaluations undertaken to assess the results achieved by an evaluation unit.Reporting systems in place providing data on the results achieved.But these should not be mistaken for an evaluative culture. Indeed, on their own, they can become a burdensome system that does not help management at all.Mayne, John (2008) Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management. Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative Brief 20. CGIAR 4p
20Measures to foster an evaluative culture LeadershipDemonstrated senior management leadership and commitmentRegular informed demand for results informationBuilding capacity for results measurement and results managementEstablishing and communicating a clear role and responsibilities for results managementOrganisational support structuresSupportive organizational incentivesSupportive organizational systems, practices and proceduresAn outcome-oriented and supportive accountability regimeLearning-focused evaluation and monitoringA learning focusBuilding in learningTolerating and learning from mistakesMayne, John (2008) Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management. Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative Brief 20. CGIAR
21Conclusions – taking a positive view Evaluation only one source of information alongside research and implementation experience. ECD needs to inform how these work together.Quality evaluation is built on quality planning. ECD needs to be linked to better planning systems.Technical skills are necessary but are not sufficient.Effective evaluation will be determined by the culture and incentives in the organisation.ECD is a journey, not a destination. Systems are not static; they need continual review, learning and revision. There is no simple solution but rather systems need to be introduced, used, tested, reviewed and then updated in a rolling cycle.