1. Andrea Cook, Evaluation Office of UNFPA Geneva April 2016 UNEG Decentralized Evaluation Interest Group

2. Key features of the interest group: 2 Last AGM: decision to create an interest group on decentralized evaluation function UN agencies are facing significant challenges in delivering decentralized evaluations and would like to understand and address those challenges collaboratively within UNEG. Modus operandi for the group: informal forum to discuss and share different practices and challenges regarding decentralized evaluation functions; establishing an information platform (rather than developing products and guidance) Group work launched: July 2015, 4 DEIG meetings

3. Key features of the interest group (cont.): 3 CO-conveners: UNFPA UNODC (since March 23 2016) Members: 16 Agencies: DPKO/DFS, ILO, IOM, OIOS, OCHA, IAEA, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNWOMEN, UNODC, UNRWA, WFP

4. Areas of interest of the group: 4 Agree on definition of decentralized evaluation Issue of impartiality, independence and different models in regards to management and governance of decentralized evaluation Issue of quality assurance versus quality assessment of decentralized evaluation (both quality assurance throughout evaluation process and quality assessment of final evaluation report) Decentralized evaluation in UNDAF/DaO settings Managing decentralized evaluations in situations where it is not feasible to hire full time evaluation staff

5. Interest Group Deliverables: 5 Volunteer presentations on decentralized evaluation function systems by: UNWomen UNICEF UNFPA conducted a survey on decentralized evaluation functions Information repository Input into review of the UNDAF guidelines

6. 11 participants 6 Survey results

7. Definition: decentralized evaluation 7 Some examples:  “evaluations not managed by the independent EO”  “evaluations conducted by independent external evaluators but managed by programmatic offices …”.  “evaluations commissioned and managed by other divisions other than OEV…”  “evaluations conducted by independent internal or external evaluators but managed by programmatic offices not by the central evaluation office”.  “focus on programmatic areas more directly under the control of managers…”  “…a function undertaken outside of the central evaluation function…”  “evaluation work designed, contracted by regional/field offices within an agreed regulatory framework set by the centralised evaluation policy.  “evaluations commissioned by CO, RB, and practice and policy bureau in the programmatic frameworks for which they are responsible…; basis for strategic and programmatic evaluations by the IEO”.

8. Existing decentralized evaluation functions 8 If yes, is it mentioned in your evaluation policy? Exception: IOM – NO/YES

9. Methodological guidance for decentralized evaluations 9 Some examples:  UNFPA: Handbook on how to design and conduct Country Programme Evaluations  UNWOMEN: Evaluation Handbook on ‘How to manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation’ and Guidance on Country Portfolio Evaluations  UNODC: Evaluation Handbook  WFP: Guidance Package for decentralized evaluations  UNDP: Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results  ILO: Web-enabled Policy Guidelines on Evaluation hyperlinked with multiple online guidance notes and templates for decentralized evaluations  UNRWA: Guidance document for decentralized evaluations

10. Training to decentralized units on evaluation 10 If yes, do you provide any certification related with this training?

11. Training to decentralized units on evaluation 11 Some examples:  ILO: Evaluation Managers Certification Process combining a residential 3 day training programme followed by a supervised and scored practicum of managing an evaluation (100 trainees)  UN WOMEN: evaluation professionalization programme that includes an online eLearning course based on the Handbook and a coaching programme to ensure hands-on learning  UNFPA: training to RO & COs M&E staff on how to manage CPEs (about 130 trainees)  UNICEF: Online training (public)  UNDP: Online training for evaluation at the learning centre; evaluation module included in the periodic training by the RB for M&E staff of CO  UNODC: Training provided not enough to satisfy the needs of the organization/ Limitation trainees turn over

12. Quality assurance/assessment mechanisms for decentralized evaluations 12 Some examples:  UNWOMEN: Quality assurance system applied across the full evaluation process (key role of IEO regional evaluation specialists) + IEO Quality Assessment system (GERAAS) of final reports  UNICEF: Quality assurance by RO Regional M&E/Evaluation Advisers; GEROS quality assessment of evaluation reports outsourced by the EO  UNFPA: Quality assurance by RO Regional M&E advisers; ToR approval & pre-qualification of evaluation teams by EO; quality assessment (EQA tool) of all programme level evaluations outsourced + final review for consistency by EO.  ILO: Centralized quality control in signing off on every independent decentralized evaluation followed by two-yearly ex-post external quality assessments using comparable methodologies (since 2008)  WFP: DEQAS, support to implementation, quality assurance + independent quality assessment system for all evaluation reports  UNDP: quality assessment of decentralized evaluations (external consultants to conduct the reviews) by the IEO

13. Repository of decentralized evaluation reports 13 Some examples:  UNFPA: Evaluation database repository of all evaluation reports+ EQA+EMG public website  ILO: i-Track, central repository of evaluation documentation + Evaluation summaries for all independent project evaluations available on the evaluation website  UNWOMEN: Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use (GATE) system public website  UNICEF: Evaluation and Research Database public website  UNODC: All Evaluations published on the website + repository (internal access only)  UNDP: Evaluation Resource Center, provides public access to all evaluations  UNRWA: Repository of reports but not systematically updated

14. Management response to recommendations of decentralized evaluation reports 14 Some examples:  UNWOMEN: GATE system monitors and reports on the status management response key actions.  UNFPA: Evaluation MR tracking system + evaluation database repository of all evaluation reports, EQA,EMG public website  UNICEF: Evaluation MR tracking system  UNDP: All EMR together with the corresponding evaluations posted on the Evaluation Resource Centre public website  UNODC: Not used very frequently.  ILO: I-track data-base generates management response workplans for all independent evaluation and results of follow- up are published and reported to the Governing Body on an annual basis.

15. Management information system or tool to track the expenditures on decentralized evaluation function 15

16. Origin of the financial resources dedicated to decentralized evaluations 16

17. Next Steps: 17  Implications of Agenda 2030 for decentralized evaluation function Innovation: highlighting innovative decentralised evaluations (e.g. formative, impact, country-or civil society partnered, “big data” driven, etc. )