MONITORING PROGRESS ON JOINT EVALUATION AND PARTNER COUNTRY INVOLVEMENT 10-11 February 2010 10th meeting

Monitoring matrix An evolving instrument, first attempt to define measurable indicators Monitoring the current status (“where we are”) and changes over time rather than setting specific targets In longer term, helping generate a common sense on action needed to advance the joint evaluation agenda

Facilitating participation in joint evaluation Objectives Indicators 2009 Baseline Include joint evaluations clearly in the internal evaluation policy and actual evaluation work 1.1 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who have introduced joint evaluations in their evaluation policy (E.g. policy instruments, strategic planning or budget documents, programme planning, etc.) 51 % 1.2 % of evaluations undertaken jointly with partner countries and multiple donors per year by DAC Evaluation Network members (4 %) estimate 1.3 % of evaluations undertaken jointly with partner countries per year by DAC Evaluation Network members 9% 1.4 % of evaluations undertaken jointly with other donors agencies at the central level per year by DAC Evaluation Network members 22%

Facilitating participation in joint evaluation (continued) Objectives Indicators 2009 Baseline Share and use annual evaluation plans 2.1 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who send their evaluation plans to the DAC Secretariat on a regular basis (annually or when revised) 87% based on current spreadsheet (95%) (based on questionnaire responses) 2.2 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who consult other donor evaluation plans when setting their own evaluation plans 76% Ensure joint policies and programmes are evaluated jointly 3.1 TBD (For example: % of Joint Assistance Strategies which have been evaluated jointly)

Increasing partner country participation and ownership Objectives Indicators 2009 Baseline Establish a common capacity building programme in evaluation 4.1 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who have a strategy for supporting evaluation capacity development (ECD) in partner countries 40% Involve the partner country at an early stage 5.1 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who involve partner countries when deciding to undertake a particular evaluation 27% 5.2 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who involve partner countries in designing evaluations (e.g. elaborating the ToR) 46% 5.3 % of DAC Evaluation Network members who involve partner countries as members of a Steering/Management Committee 32%

Monitoring matrix : discussion questions How do you interpret the findings of the first round of monitoring? Are there suggestions for an indicator for objective 3.1 “ensuring joint policies and programmes are evaluated jointly”? What further steps can be taken to continue progress on increasing joint evaluation and partner country involvement?