Presented at the 2015 CGIAR Evaluation Community of Practice meeitng. CGIAR is moving towards a coordinated evaluation system to comprehensively cover the programs, insitutions, and activities. The presentation offers examples of decentralized evaluaitons as approached by other agencies, and aspects for CGIAR to consider.
2. Where We Are
ā¢ Mixed performance on CCEEs
ā¢ Coincidental rather than planned linkage between IEA evaluations and
CCEEs
ā¢ Need for a transparent and searchable database for evaluations
ā¢ Mixed levels of support requested from the IEA
ā¢ Mixed implementation of existing guidance
ā¢ Commissioned by those who designed/mange the CRP (in some cases)
ā¢ Absence of rigorous quality control mechanism (credibility)
ā¢ Lack of consistent management response and follow-up
ā¢ Mixed capacity of M&E staff and/or limited time allocation for evaluation
ā¢ Lack of evaluation/KPIs for evaluation function
ā¢ Mixed resourcing for CCEEs
3. Target Outcomes Though Upgraded Use of
Decentralized Evaluations
ā¢ Greater emphasis on organizational learning, so that evaluations
serve the diverse needs and priorities of CRPs and Lead Centers
ā¢ An increased commitment to a corporate culture of accountability for
achieving results and using resources efficiently
ā¢ A more integrated and coherent evaluation system with strong
linkages across the evaluation function
ā¢ A renewed commitment to use evaluation as a means to improving
impact
4. Who is decentralized?
ā¢ UNICEF
ā¢ UN Women
ā¢ ILO
ā¢ UDP
ā¢ WFP
ā¢ UN Habitat
ā¢ ILO
ā¢ UNDP
ā¢ UNEP
ā¢ DFID
ā¢ USAID
ā¢ Gates
5. What is a Decentralized Evaluation System?
ā¢ Evaluation is the independent, systematic and
objective assessment of an on-going or
completed project, program, institution, policy
or modality, its design, implementation and
results. It determines the relevance and
fulfilment of objectives, development efficiency,
quality, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
ā¢ Decentralized evaluation is under the direct
management of CRPs (roles and responsibilities
more generally fall to the CRP)
6. Pros and Cons
Potential Advantages
ā¢ Actually reflects the
decentralized nature of CGIAR
ā¢ Evidence generated is relevant
to the local context (fit for
purpose)
ā¢ Decentralized learning
ā¢ More flexibility?
Potential Disadvantages
ā¢ Disagreement on roles and
responsibilities
ā¢ Higher transaction costs to manage
a complex, hybrid system (e.g.,
capacity building)
ā¢ Independence and credibility may
be threatened
ā¢ Overlap/duplication of efforts/ lack
of corporate knowledge/ use of
evidence
7. Hybrid
System
IEA: conducts independent
evaluations (IEEs), set standards,
guidelines and to provide
guidance across the CGIAR,
CRPs: primarily responsible for
facilitating IEEs, conducting
CCEEs and occasional join
project evaluations according
the standards and guidelines set
by the IEA.
IEA/CRP: 5 Review and
Validation Studies (CCEE ++),
which became CRP
commissioned full evaluations
8. Recurring themes
1. Independence and impartiality
2. Quality assurance
3. Professionalization/capacity building
4. Monitoring the evaluation function
5. Integration and coherence of the evaluation function
9. 1. Independence and Impartiality
When do we expect impartiality?
All stages of evaluation process
ā¢ planning of evaluation
ā¢ selection of evaluation teams
ā¢ conduct of the evaluation
ā¢ formulation of findings and recommendations and recommendations
10. Possible Mitigation Measures
1.Submission of the draft report to the commissioning unit and the IEA
simultaneously
2.āAudit trailā to track comments and responses by the evaluation team
3.Emphasize use of the Management Response to provide clarifications
or express differences of opinion
4.Scale up M&E staff at the country and regional level
5.Update guidelines for decentralized evaluations
6.Communication / training to increase awareness
11. 2. Quality Assurance System
Quality Assurance AssessmentQuality Assurance Mechanisms
ā¢ During evaluation
ā¢ Guidelines for CCEEs
ā¢ Criteria for Peer Review (inception
and draft reports)
ā¢ Quality Assessment Oversight
groups (ERG, Management group)
ā¢ Real time support
ā¢ Checklist
ā¢ Concise assessment of quality
after evaluation
ā¢ Report on overall quality of
evaluations reports
ā¢ Strengthen internal evaluation
capacity (during and after)
ā¢ Contribute to organizational
learning by identifying evaluations
to be used in meta-analysis
ā¢ Quality Assessment integrated into
evaluation database
12. Internal Review
Planning Designing Contracting Start Up Collecting
Information
Analysis Reporting
Preparatory Phase Inception Phase Inquiry Phase Reporting Phase
Evaluationā Output and QA
TORS
QA feedback
Selection of team
QA advice
Inception report
QA internal and
external review
QA feedback
Draft report
QA internal and
external review
QA internal and
external review
Final report
QA validation
13. Quality Assessment
Evaluation Quality Assessment Grid
(UNFPA)
ā¢ Simple, 8 criteria (based on 8 UNEG
adapted standards)
ā¢ Conducted by internally by EO
ā¢ Low cost
ā¢ 4 scoring levels
Global Evaluation Reports Oversight
System (UNICEF)
ā¢ Complex (58 criteria, subdivided by
8 UNEG adapted standards)
ā¢ Conducted by external reviewer/
consulting company
ā¢ Results are sent to commissioning
body to improve future evaluations
ā¢ Rigour allows for pre-selection for
meta evaluation report
ā¢ High cost
MIS for Evaluation Reporting:
ā¢ ILO iTrack
ā¢ UNICEF Evaluation database
ā¢ UN Women Gate
ā¢ UNFPA Evaluation Database
14. 3. Professionalization of Evaluation Staff
ā¢ Moving beyond focal points
ā¢ Capacity building
ā¢ Mentoring
ā¢ Certification/training
ā¢ Sharing staff more effectively
ā¢ Moving beyond the evaluation function alone
15. 4. M&E of the Evaluation Function
Monitoring
Possible KPIs include outputs and outcomes:
1. Human resources for M&E
2. Financial resources invested in evaluation
3. Evaluation coverage
4. Evaluation implementation rate
5. Quality of evaluation reports
6. Evaluation Reports with Management Response
uploaded to IEA database
7. Number of staff that have completed
certification programme
8. Percentage of CRPs that managed evaluation in
a specific year compliant with QA standards
Evaluation
ā¢ Periodic evaluation of the evaluation function (3-5
years?)
ā¢ Evaluating the evaluators
ā¢ Sharing good practice and experience, stimulates
change to achieve goals and standards
ā¢ Criteria for evaluation: independence, credibility
and utility
ā¢ Can be aimed at either centralized or decentralized
evaluation = flexible to achieve best fit
ā¢ See: DAC/UNEG, Framework on Professional Peer
Reviews of the Evaluation Function
16. 5. Integrated and Coherent Decentralized
Evaluation System
ā¢ Coherent within CRP and across CGIAR
ā¢ CCEEs are building blocks for external evaluations, important source for
internal learning for CRPs
ā¢ Publication of evaluation schedule
ā¢ Guidance for full CRP 2 Proposal calls for 5 year CCEE plan
ā¢ Joint evaluations?
ā¢ Thematic or Geographic focus
ā¢ IEA co-ordination
ā¢ What would an effective evaluation synergy tool look like? How would it
function?
18. Topics for Discussion
1. Strengthening the capacity to manage and conduct decentralized
evaluations through the professionalization of the evaluation function
across the CGIAR
2. Quality Assurance and Quality Control System to ensure that evaluations
meet basic quality criteria
3. Monitoring the performance of the evaluation function ā KPIs/MIS
(particular focus on decentralized evaluations)
4. Ensuring that evaluations are impartial and how to assess impartiality as
a component of a QA system
5. Strengthened coordination of evaluations within a decentralized
evaluation system
6. Wild Jack and Jill ā¦ everything these
19. Group Work
1. Based on the presentation and your own experience, discuss in
groups of equal size one of the suggested focus areas.
2. Nominate in each group: 1) a rapporteur to present the results of
the discussion and 2) a note taker to document it.
3. Include āconsensusā and āoutlierā ideas, and categorize them as
according to who should take responsibility: ECOP members, IEA,
Other
Purpose: to develop a list of actionable recommendations that can feed
into a larger discussion on how to strengthen the culture of
decentralized evaluations in order to enhance their quality and
usefulness.
20. Next Steps
1) Needs Assessment
ā¢ I have developed a needs assessment tool. Please return it to me
(kchild@outlook.com) by 30 November.
2) Advisory Working Group
ā¢ The IEA would like to set up an Advisory Working Group to formalize a
list of recommendations on how to strengthen the culture of
decentralized evaluations in the CGIAR. Coordination of evaluation
plans leading into second phase of proposals
Editor's Notes
Introduce yourself
Introduce your topic: decentralized evaluations, by which in our system means primarily CCEEs
Interesting to know from centers on their level of guidance (faithfully have you followed guidance notes)
Moving toward a more coordinated, cost effective evaluation regime some of the desired outcomes we are hoping to achieve are:
Second Call for proposals requires a 300,000 per year budget for CCEEs
Fortunately we are not alone.
An evaluation is ā¦ (read from slide)
So what is a decentralized evaluation? To the WFP and others, a decentralized evaluation is simply and evaluation commissioned by someone other than the Evaluation Office. In our case, a decentralized evaluation simply refers to an evaluation under the management of a CRP.
What we have at the moment in the IEA is a sort of hybrid system.
Interpret Graph
It is important to first try to understand the organization and how the evaluation function can best serve it prior to looking in depth at the machinery.
conducting independent evaluations, set standards, guidelines and to provide guidance across the CGIAR, whereas CRPs are primarily responsible for conducting facilitating IEEs, conducting CCEEs and occasional join project evaluations according the standards and guidelines set by the IEA.
5 RVS review and validation study became full IEA evaluation CCEE++
No figure pointing
However, we face a constant danger of eroding impartiality:
Consultants who only conduct evaluations for the CGIAR
Pressure on consultants to āsoftenā findings and conclusions
Reports are ācorrectedā by CRP staff
Other challenges?
Mitigation Measures:
Submission of the draft report to the commissioning unit and the IEA simultaneously
āAudit trailā to track comments and responses by the evaluation team
Emphasize use of the Management Response to provide clarifications or express differences of opinion
Scale up M&E staff at the country and regional level
Update guidelines for decentralized evaluations
Communication / training to increase awareness
G
ILO iTrack
UNICEF Evaluation database
UN Women Gate
UNFPA Evaluation Database
Once the reports are assessed, detailed feedback on how to improve future evaluations is sent to the office that commissioned the evaluation.Ā Meta-evaluationĀ reports (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010) are produced, disseminated and used to improve UNICEF decentralized evaluation function.
As indicated in the EQA grid, the scoring scale comprises four levels: (1) unsatisfactory, (2) poor, (3)
good, (4) very good.
Annex to all ToRs
IEA quality assessments
RVS 5 quality assemssments
Roles and responsibilities
Moving beyond focal points ā making fp effective, avoiding ambiguity over role (multiple focal points), sufficient time allocation, etc.
Neither accountability or learing can be achieved soley through the evaluation function. Each requires internal actions by senior
Capacity building
Mentoring
Certification
Hiring more M&E staff/ sharing staff more effectively
This is not the same, but is closely related to building a quality assessment system because its often reported on the same MIS.
A peer evaluation of the evaluation function is never implies a punitive decision or sanction, but in our case might help to strengthen a renewed decentralized evaluation system.
Half of budgeted CRP activities should be covered by CCEEs in a CRP cycle (5 years)
Livestock and Fish want to do a CCEE next year on Feeds, but they have no money.
Tool building IEA can provide
Needs assessment: is this something that they want help with?
What are the criteria for selecting topics for CCEEs vs IEEs
A lot of these ideas require formal changes in the way that a decentralized system is build.
Often however, the problem is not so much with the system, as its implementation. This is to say that many of the basics to building an effective decentralized system my already be in place, but that we simply need to implement them more effectively or in their entirety.
Including coherence
IEA Role, their role/ other
Discussion in plenary