1. The ALNAP Meta-evaluation Tony Beck Presentation for the IDEAS Conference, Delhi, 14 th April 2005

2. Outline 1)Background 2)The ALNAP Quality Proforma 3)Agency visits 4)Findings from the agency visits 5)Finding from the Quality Proforma

3. What is the ALNAP and its meta- evaluation?  An overview of evaluation of humanitarian action quality  Identification of strengths and weaknesses  Recommendations for improvement across the sector and in individual agencies

4. Process Review of evaluation reports against a set of standards Visits to and interaction with agency evaluation offices Focus: 2001-2002: Accountability 2003-2005: Accountability and: good practice, dialogue, interaction

5. The ALNAP Quality Proforma ALNAP’s meta- evaluation tool Draws on good practice in EHA and evaluation in general Revised and peer reviewed in 2004

6. The ALNAP Quality Proforma Made up of seven sections: 1.Terms of reference 2.Methods, practice and constraints 3.Contextual analysis 4.Analysis of intervention 5.Assessing the report 6.Overall comments

7. The ALNAP Quality Proforma 4 point rating scale A = good B = satisfactory C = unsatisfactory D = poor Guidance notes for meta- evaluators. Eg: Consideration given to confidentiality and dignity? Guidance: The evaluation report should detail how the overall approach and methods will protect confidentiality and promote respect for stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth.

8. The ALNAP Proforma Coverage 2001-2005: 197 evaluations Process 2 meta-evaluators Reconciliation of rating Analysis by section

9. Mainstreaming of the Quality Proforma By ECHO to revise tor (lesson learning, protection, identification of users, prioritisation, time frame and users of recommendations etc) DEC Southern Africa evaluation (rated 7 agency report) Groupe URD (for planning of evaluations)

10. Agencies included in dialogue: 2003-4 CAFOD, Danida, ECHO, ICRC, OCHA, OFDA, Oxfam, SC-UK, SIDA, UNHCR, and WHO

11. Purpose of agency dialogue Agency response to initial two years of use of Quality Proforma To discuss Quality Proforma rating and agency strengths and weaknesses To discuss processes leading to good evaluation practice To discuss goof practice

12. Findings from dialogue with evaluation managers Areas affecting evaluation quality are not currently captured by the QP, eg Evaluation quality depends on subtle negotiations within agencies Evaluation funds in most cases are not being allocated for follow-up Follow-up to recommendations is complex More agencies are using tracking matrices

13. Findings from dialogue with evaluation managers: the EHA market Main constraint to improved evaluation quality is agencies accessing available evaluators with appropriate skills Does the EHA market need further regulation?

14. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001-2003 TOR – Good practice in approach and method Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 6 94 11 89

15. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001- 2003 TOR – Intended users and uses Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 12 88 8 92

16. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001- 2003 Consultation with primary stakeholders Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 16 84 13 87

17. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001-2003 Use of the DAC criteria Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 52 48 50

18. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001-2003 HR and management Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 50 51 49

19. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001- 2003 CoordinationGood or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 52 48 50

20. Findings from the Proforma Area of enquiry Rating% attaining rating 2004 % attaining rating 2001- 2003 Quality of evaluation of protection issues Good or Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Poor 32 68 10 90

21. Findings from the Proforma - 2005 Improvement in most areas noted above of between 10 and 30 per cent Too early to disaggregate or suggest why this improvement has taken place Still a number of areas of generic weakness

22. Conclusions Process: Meta-evaluations need to include interaction with those being meta-evaluated Agency visits have been important is discussing constraints to improved evaluation quality Meta-evaluations need to maintain an appropriate balance between accountability functions and the need to improve evaluation quality through lesson learning

23. Conclusions: findings EHA demonstrates some areas of strength, and improvement over four years, eg use of most of the DAC criteria, analysis of HR Many evaluative areas need to be strengthened, eg gender, identification of use and users, participation of primary stakeholders, transparency of methodologies used