1 / 7

Enhancing DFATD’s Country Program Evaluation Approach for Better Learning and Accountability

This review analyzes DFATD’s Country Program Evaluation (CPE) approach, reflecting on nearly four years of evaluations across 20 focus countries. It underscores the need for a balanced methodology that prioritizes learning alongside accountability, while retaining essential rating scales. The review suggests modifications, including a more in-depth analysis of policy coherence and program relevance, simplified evaluation criteria, and improved mechanisms for efficiency and equity assessments. Ultimately, a stronger emphasis on user engagement and timely evaluations will enhance the utility of findings for programs.

duncan-jackson
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing DFATD’s Country Program Evaluation Approach for Better Learning and Accountability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of DFATD’s Country Program Evaluation Approach

  2. Why do Country Program Evaluations? • Policy requirement – achieving 100% coverage • Unit of accountability – 20 countries of focus • Paris principles – non investment issues • An integrating narrative • History

  3. Why do the review? How? • After 4 years and nearly 20 CPEs – time to reflect • Does the standard methodology serves us well? • Rating scales • Project samples • Numerous criteria • What is the audience? Are users satisfied? • International literature, analysis of past CPEs, interviews with senior executives, program managers, Evaluation Committee, representatives of bilateral development agencies, and external consultants.

  4. Three options • Option 1: Status quo – strong on accountability (external audience) • Option 2: More learning and user focus • Option 3: Totally decentralised – let programs take the lead • Overwhelming preference – Option 2

  5. The Review suggests: Revised Focus for CPEs • Better balance between learning and accountability, but retain rating scales • More focus on depth than breadth of analysis • More analysis of policy coherence across delivery channels • More thorough analysis of Relevance and Rationale (doing the right things?) • More emphasis on program than projects

  6. The Review suggests: Modifications to Design & Methodology • Greater flexibility in evaluation design and products • Use of a smaller number of evaluation criteria and simplified rating system • VfM – improved measures for Efficiency, Economy and Equity • Increased use of contribution analysis • Targeted coverage of delivery channels • Improved usefulness of recommendations

  7. The Review suggests: • Renewed emphasis on neutrality and engagement • Clarity of roles between DFATD and consultants • Improved availability of supporting documents/ data for data collection and analysis • More timely evaluations to increase their usefulness to programs

More Related