MeTA evaluation and future

MeTA Evaluation and Future Saul Walker Acting Team Leader, Health Services Team

MeTA – DFID commitments
£20m 10 year commitment subject to successful pilot phase.
Pilot runs May 2008 – Sept 2010
Most countries implementing plans from beginning to mid-2009
Evaluation of pilot 1Q10 – report in April 2010
Decision in May followed by 6 – 9 month transition phase

The hypothesis … Multi-stakeholder disclosure & scrutiny Transparency Mutual Accountability Efficiency (public/private) Better policies, improved business practice & stronger implementation Validated Information & Appropriate Disclosure

MeTA Process Disclosure of data and scrutiny by multi - stakeholder group Development of policy options Policy change and implementation Improved information for management Improved processes . New validated data on pharmaceutical sector New validated data on pharmaceutical sector Disclosure of data and scrutiny by multi - stakeholder group Development of policy options Policy change and implementation Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion Improved information for management Improved processes . Pilot New validated data on pharmaceutical sector Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion

MeTA Evaluation - Focus
Process evaluation to assess
Viability
Whether supports more informed policy development and business practices and
In the longer term, if likely to support policy implementation and behaviour change

Evaluation Questions Hypothesis Sources
Countries can establish functioning multi-stakeholder groups to agree plans for the generation and disclosure of robust policy relevant information
Country work plans
Proceedings from multi-stakeholder group meetings
IDS multi-stakeholder assessments
Key informant interviews

MeTA has built capacity to and has resulted in the disclosure and scrutiny of relevant and high-quality information
Country work plans
Proceedings from multi-stakeholder meetings
MeTA ‘toolbox’
Documented examples data disclosure
Media coverage of MeTA and ATM issues
Website utilisation data

MeTA has facilitated the development of informed proposals for changes in policy and business practices
Country work plans
Proceedings from multi-stakeholder group meetings
Key informant interviews
Media reporting of ATM issues
Documented examples of policy development/change.

Evaluation Questions - Process
How effective has the structure of MeTA been in supporting country activities and the participation of the three main constituencies?
What have the contributions of WHO and the World Bank participation in MeTA been?
To what degree has MeTA been a country driven process that has been integrated with and broader strategies and mechanisms?
Has the MeTA Secretariat effectively delivered against its objectives?

Recommendations
Sufficiency of evidence that purpose-level objectives are likely to be achieved by 2012
Possible changes to the structure of MeTA to improve country support
Utility of and how to improve constituency participation
Possible changes that could facilitate achievement of goal level objectives
How to sharpen the poverty focus of MeTA

Evaluation Team
DFID Human Development Resource Centre – HLSP
Four person international team (plus additional Russian speaking consultant)
Health, medicines, governance, evaluation, country, civil society and private sector experience
Additional country consultants

Methodology and Sources
Document review
Data review (e.g. baseline surveys)
Key informant interviews – all constituencies
Field visits

Outputs
Detailed report
Executive summary
Short case-studies (to support lesson learning)
Presentation materials

MeTA Post-Pilot

Two scenarios
Positive evaluation - move to implementation phase
Negative evaluation - wind down DFID funding and provide transition support

Implementation Phase
Externalise from DFID
DFID supports but broaden ownership
Expand donor base
Fund-holding mechanism
Develop governance mechanism
Secretariat function
Develop TORs based on evaluation
Competitive Tender

Implementation Phase
Consolidation in MeTA pilot countries
Ongoing support functions
5 year evaluation (2012)
Expand number of participating countries
Criteria for selection
Scoping for scoping and preparation
Develop MeTA model
Accreditation?

Possible Wind Down
6 months support to complete existing country work plans
Transition support to countries that wish to continue transparency activities

MeTA evaluation and future

by MeTApresents on Jan 15, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

MeTA evaluation and future — Presentation Transcript