1. IATI External Evaluation 2015
Evaluation Working Group
Joan Atherton, USAID

2. Overview & purpose of the session
The independent evaluation was commissioned to gauge the success of IATI as a political initiative. Its Terms of Reference encompassed:
IATI’s role in bringing transparency to the global political agenda;
Success as a global technical standard;
Political profile,
Brand visibility and accessibility,
Governance,
Membership, and
Funding arrangements.
Purpose: The insights and recommendations bring momentum at a key moment for IATI as we reach the deadline of the Busan commitment this month.
Members are invited to accept the report and to celebrate what has been accomplished through the evaluation.
Maintain momentum generated through the evaluation process
Evaluation has been timely, prompting discussions on IATI’s role in the new global development agenda around the SDGs.

3. Process and methodology of evaluation
Guided by the Evaluation Working Group.
Terms of Reference developed by Secretariat guided by Evaluation Working Group
Secretariat Survey March 2015 (56 respondents)
Face to face and skype interviews June-August (38)
Draft reports presented and shared with EWG and members (Aug)
Workshop webinar led by Evaluator September (43 attendees)
Final reports presented incorporating inputs from webinar (Oct)
EWG composed of members of three constituents - US, Honduras, Bangladesh, Bond

4. Evaluation Findings & Follow-up
Findings clustered in three areas were followed up at the Secretariat’s request by the Members Advisory Group (MAG). It made recommendations for follow-up on three main areas of the evaluation and prepared papers to be discussed in subsequent sessions:
Governance
Strategic Vision
Hosting

5. The MAG recommendations to be presented in subsequent sessions for the remainder of Day 1 do not address all of the issues raised in the evaluation, but provide the opportunity for launching dialogue around key topics.
The findings and recommendations of the evaluators are their own and not officially endorsed by the EWG or the larger Steering Committee. We have accepted the evaluators’ reports after circulation to the membership for comment.
We propose that discussion today focus on the feedback of members regarding the findings of the evaluation, concerns, or issues not included in the evaluation, understanding that the reports have been accepted.
These workstreams clearly don’t cover every aspect of the evaluation and and this session presents an opportunity for members to raise points about elements not covered, or not addressed in sufficient detail.

6. Key Evaluation Findings
IATI has been successful in putting aid transparency on the international agenda and has improved access to, and transparency of, aid data.
IATI lacks a strategic vision for the medium- to long-term, from which its institutional arrangements will flow.
IATI must continue to make data more accessible to, and hence used by, partner countries.
Key aspects of IATI’s governance and organisational management, as well as its funding model, should be addressed
IATI is not sufficiently well known outside the circles it currently operates within, particularly within the countries it would benefit the most. There is a critical need to continue increasing the use of IATI data, particularly by partner countries.
This ends the presentation and the floor is open. Reminder to keep those comments on MAG workstreams for later sessions.
Agree periodicity of follow-up evaluations.