Role of Evaluation Units in fulfilling Evaluation Mandate 1 Pre-Conference for the International Year of Evaluation 2015 Swiss Evaluation Society (SEVAL) / Geneva Evaluation Network (GEN) Chaitali Chattopadhyay, WSSCC

Presentation Structure I.WSSCC and its Evaluation Theory of Change I.Case Study-Sanitation and Hygiene Thematic Window in partnership with International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) II.WSSCC Evaluation role/functions: Reflections and way forward 2

3 Founded in 1990 by the UN General Assembly resolution A global, multi-stakeholder membership and partnership organization Works with poor & marginalized people, their organizations, governments to improve sanitation and hygiene at scale A membership of over 3000 water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) professionals from over 130 countries Governed by a Steering Committee of elected members from the membership constituency Hosted by the United Nations (WHO until 2009 and UNOPS since 2010) WSSCC’s main corporate priorities: Equality and Non-discrimination and Access and Use at scale.

Guiding principles Spirit of collaboration, facilitator & brokering a collective leadership, neutral player Policy advocacy, voices of people, justice, human rights, most vulnerable and marginalised people 4

WSSCC Organogram 5

6 Where do we work

A multi-stakeholder environment Academia UN Agencies Private Sector NGOs People! Government

Evaluation Mandate: The Theory of Change Organizational and Sectoral learning-central to the Evaluation function Accountability for the results Committed in this MTSP 8

Evaluation: the journey so far… Period covering Raison d'êtreCorporate performance, relevance, value for money assessment Corporate performance, relevance, value for money assessment Sector contribution, sector learning center stage, Policy influencing plans, multi- sectoral approach, minimize duplication Evaluation Mandate Donor sponsored WSSCC /Organization driven Funding supportDonors Embedded in the organisational budget External quality assurance mechanisms No Peer review/advisory mechanisms in place Nature of Evaluation External Evaluation External Evaluation (s) Evaluation structure, dedicated HR No separate M&E unit Dedicated M&E unit 2 full time technical staff under the NKM PM 9

Quick facts 10 StructureNot an independent Evaluation Office/ stand-alone Co-located- Networking, Knowledge Management Dept. MaturityRelatively nascent, the M&E Unit Policy FrameworkUNEG institutional partner, Not a full member No organizational Evaluation Policy Eval Staff versus total organizational staff Two full-time staff, NKM Programme Manager versus 41 staff Monitoring and Evaluation functions Still within the same unit, likely to be separated Budget in the current MTSP 1% of overall organizational budget

How can we contribute towards an evidence- based culture and practice? How can we go beyond the WASH Sector and make it a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral learning and enriching experience ? Can we strengthen monitoring and evaluation of advocacy and policy influencing? Process should be as important as the evidence How can we contribute meaningfully towards the International Year of Evaluation? 11 Case study: The sanitation and hygiene thematic window for impact Evaluation

WSSCC & 3IE: A unique/complementary partnership WSSCC Global membership organization, spirit of collaboration, facilitator & brokering a collective leadership, Policy advocacy, voices of people and experience of managing a Global fund for sanitation and hygiene 3IE Mandate to generate high-quality evidence to deliver better policies and program in order to improve lives Cutting-edge technical expertise Developing country focused grant portfolio 12

Evaluation Advisory Committee M ulti-disciplinary experts- Evaluation, WASH, Health/Reproductive health, Academia/ Research, Donor constituency P rovide technical support, minimise duplication, inter-agency collaboration, learning and sharing to collectively influence an evidence-building culture Who are they? 13 Sam Bickle UNICEF Andrea E Cook UNFPA Dr Pavani Ram Univ of Buffalo Dr Bertha Briceno, IADB Johan Sundberg SIDA

Impact Evaluations (2) Systematic Reviews (2) Evaluating advocacy approaches in development WSSCC Mid Term Review (MTR) FACETS OF WORK 14

Features/strengths Equity and Gender- Evaluation team composition Independence with inclusion –Senior management in safeguarding independence –process important- enhancing stakeholder involvement in evaluation Utilization focused, results into action, management response 15

Ground realities… Evolving evaluation culture Limited systems of monitoring and data quality assurance Nearly 50% of our programmes do not have conventional results framework/log frame- challenging the evaluability Oversight/ management functions along with the core evaluation function 16

Forward looking vision Member state driven- rather than agency driven- putting principles of aid effectiveness at the center-stage Multi-agency/multi-sectoral learning, avoid duplication Increase in joint evaluations Use of evaluation to support evidence-based policy and decision- making National evaluation capacity development- member states and the local governance level 17

What does this mean for WSSCC? Accountability for whom? Investing in evidence building Applying evidence to its own work Preparing for change/ Reinvigorating itself 18

THANK YOU 19