0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
111 Ansichten6 Seiten
Interaction welcomes the prominence given to evaluation and evidence-based decision-making. The U.S. Government should promote a range of evaluation approaches, it says. Make evaluation responsive to the host governments, civil society organizations.
Originalbeschreibung:
Originaltitel
Sec13_2011_InterAction Foreign Assistance Briefing Book
Interaction welcomes the prominence given to evaluation and evidence-based decision-making. The U.S. Government should promote a range of evaluation approaches, it says. Make evaluation responsive to the host governments, civil society organizations.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Interaction welcomes the prominence given to evaluation and evidence-based decision-making. The U.S. Government should promote a range of evaluation approaches, it says. Make evaluation responsive to the host governments, civil society organizations.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Monitoring Disaster Risk andReduction Evaluation Policy Brief January 2011
Evaluating for Effective
Development Assistance Problem Recommendations & Actions Understanding what InterAction welcomes the prominence given to evaluation and evidence-based decision-mak- works and why is crucial ing in the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and to the success of U.S. Development Review and the draft Global Partnerships Act of 2010. The U.S. Government development assistance should prioritize development assistance evaluation so it can strengthen our work with develop- and to achieving the ing country governments and civil society to design and undertake cost-effective interventions most cost-effective that build their capacity to address their development needs and thus contribute to lasting use of limited aid development change. The U.S. Government must promote a range of evaluation approaches resources. A number that suit different contexts, interventions and evaluation questions, as well as provide guidelines of challenges inhibit for evidentiary rigor that address a range of situational circumstances and anticipated changes. the U.S. Government’s • Support USAID’s efforts to reinvigorate its evaluation function and strengthen interna- ability to achieve and tional development evaluation practices. demonstrate results, • Prioritize evaluation within development assistance by: including: (1) project »» Setting aside a minimum portion of program budgets for evaluation purposes; timeframes not aligned »» Requiring USAID missions to reserve a portion of their funding to conduct evaluations with the time required across portfolios of related projects to promote learning in areas of strategic interest; to meet development »» Focusing on outcome-level changes; and outcomes; (2) reporting »» Changing incentives to reward those who learn from their interventions, rather than requirements that those who report positive results. focus more on how • Make evaluation responsive to the host governments, civil society organizations and money is spent than people with whom we work by mandating their inclusion as partners in evaluation design, on lives changed; implementation, dissemination and use. (3) placing donors’ • Ensure evaluation methods and notions of rigorous evidence are well-suited to the con- demands over local texts and questions raised by the evaluation. priorities for long-term • Where security concerns allow, present evaluation findings transparently and publicly changes; (4) reluctance in-country and in the United States. to acknowledge development’s Results complexity, take risks Greater commitment to evaluating development programs, and to evaluating and learn from failures; them in the appropriate ways, reap positive results including: and (5) insufficient • The U.S. Government, through USAID, will emerge as a leader in development pro- funding for evaluation. gram evaluation and be enabled to undertake a more effective, efficient and respon- sive U.S. foreign assistance program. • Development assistance implementers will be able to reach a larger number of peo- www.InterAction.org ple and contribute to better outcomes with the limited resources available. In more concrete terms, this means having an aid program more responsive to the govern- 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 ments, communities and individuals with whom we partner, and more capable of Washington, DC 20036 producing lasting improvements in people’s lives. 202-667-8227 Background be successful. Fear that negative evaluation results will undercut support for aid (or funding for a specific organization) means evaluation findings are not widely Within USAID, steps are already being taken to rebuild the shared, limiting opportunities to correct and learn from agency’s evaluation capacity. In June 2010, for example, failures. USAID established the Office of Learning, Evaluation and • Demand for quick results: Development takes time. Research within the new Bureau of Policy, Planning and Yet organizations are often asked to report on impact Learning. The new office promises to elevate the promi- over time periods too short for that impact to be nence of results measurement and the use of evidence in achieved, much less evaluated. While some meaning- USAID. This same office is working on a new Evaluation ful impacts, such as increases in agricultural yields or Policy (due for release in January 2011) that will articu- patients treated, can be measured within a relatively late expectations regarding evaluation practices, with short time period, others, such as increases in income an emphasis on higher methodological standards, trans- or improvements in health status or learning, may take parency and utility performance and impact evaluations. years to materialize. USAID is also developing new evaluation training programs • Inadequate funding for evaluation: Monitoring and for program managers and evaluation specialists. In addi- evaluation-related budget items are among the first to tion, through an interagency process, it is actively engaged be cut when budgets need to be trimmed. This is a sign in developing the monitoring and evaluation frameworks that the agency does not prioritize evaluation. for several presidential initiatives (Global Health, Feed the Future and Climate Change) in a way that is consistent with There are encouraging signs that some of these problems a renewed emphasis on impact measurement. will be addressed and that the decline of evaluation within Evaluation at USAID has an uneven history, marked by USAID is starting to be reversed. The prominence given to a sharp decline in capacity over the past decade.1 One evaluation and evidence-based decision-making by senior particularly troubling trend has been the growing emphasis Administration officials is particularly welcome. Setting the on performance monitoring at the expense of evaluation, tone for all agencies involved in development assistance, resulting in a decline in the number of evaluations con- the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development ducted and too much attention paid to collecting data on calls for the rigorous evaluation of the impact of policies large numbers of low-level indicators. Much of the remain- and programs, and for the results of such evaluations to ing evaluation work is done by implementing partners, drive policy and budget processes. In addition, the direc- preventing USAID from gaining the experience and advan- tive calls for more “substantial investment of resources in tages that stem from undertaking such work. In 2006, the monitoring and evaluation.”2 Center for Development Information and Evaluation, which Previewing the contents of the Quadrennial Diplomacy had been charged the previous year with leading an initia- and Defense Review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set tive to revitalize evaluation within USAID, was abolished. out a vision of USAID as an agency in which decisions are These and other factors have resulted in several prob- “based on hard evidence to ensure that investments deliver lems that must be addressed for development assistance results” and which measures success on the basis of to be successful. These include: improvements in people’s lives rather than on “the number • Focus on outputs rather than outcomes: Evalua- of programs run.”3 She also reinforced statements made by tion at USAID has suffered due to the overriding focus USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah about being transparent on tracking how money is spent, rather than on what about successes and failures and learning from them. results aid has achieved. Too often, the focus has been on measures such as the number of schools built or teachers trained, rather than on the ultimate objective of such activities—improvements in children’s learn- ing. Furthermore, these measures are often decided in Washington, with insufficient input from those actually overseeing, implementing or affected by programs in the field. • Aversion to risk: Just as no one would expect every 2 “Fact Sheet: U.S. Global Development Policy,” September 22, 2010. business start-up to become profitable, it is unrea- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/fact-sheet- sonable to expect every development program to us-global-development-policy (accessed October 27, 2010) 3 Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Leading Through Civilian Power: Redefining American Diplomacy and Development,” Foreign Affairs, November/ 1 Andrew Natsios, “The Clash of the Counter-bureaucracy and Develop- December 2010. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66799/hillary- ment,” Center for Global Development, July 2010. rodham-clinton/leading-through-civilian-power Contributors to the Evaluation Policy Brief Organization URL CARE www.care.org Church World Service www.churchworldservice.org World Learning www.worldlearning.org
InterAction Evaluation and Program
Effectiveness Working Group Organization URL Academy for Educational Development www.aed.org Action Against Hunger www.actionagainsthunger.org Adventist Development and Relief Agency International www.adra.org African Medical & Research Foundation www.amref.org Africare www.africare.org Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. www.akdn.org All Hands Volunteers www.hands.org American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee www.jdc.org American Red Cross International Services www.redcross.org American Refugee Committee International www.archq.org AmeriCares www.americares.org America’s Development Foundation www.adfusa.org Baptist World Alliance/Baptist World Aid www.bwanet.org CARE www.care.org Catholic Relief Services www.crs.org CHF International www.chfinternational.org Christian Blind Mission www.cbmus.org ChildFund International www.childfund.org Christian Reformed World Relief Committee www.crwrc.org Church World Service www.churchworldservice.org CONCERN Worldwide US www.concernusa.org Counterpart International www.counterpart.org Development Gateway www.developmentgateway.org Education Development Center www.edc.org Episcopal Relief & Development www.er-d.org Ethiopian Community Development Council www.ecdcinternational.org Food for the Hungry www.fh.org Global Fund for Children www.globalfundforchildren.org Global Health Council www.globalhealth.org Goodwill Industries International, Inc. www.goodwill.org Habitat for Humanity International www.habitat.org Handicap International www.handicap-international.us Heifer International www.heifer.org Helen Keller International www.hki.org The Hunger Project www.thp.org INMED Partnerships for Children www.inmed.org Institute for Sustainable Communities www.iscvt.org International Center for Research on Women www.icrw.org International Foundation for Electoral Systems www.ifes.org International Medical Corps www.imcworldwide.org International Relief & Development www.ird.org International Rescue Committee www.theirc.org International Youth Foundation www.iyfnet.org Organization URL Interplast www.interplast.org Islamic Relief USA www.irw.org Jesuit Refugee Service / USA www.jrsusa.org Lutheran World Relief www.lwr.org Management Sciences for Health www.msh.org MAP International www.map.org Mercy Corps www.mercycorps.org Mobility International USA www.miusa.org Oxfam America www.oxfamamerica.org Pact www.pactworld.org PATH www.path.org Pathfinder International www.pathfind.org Plan USA www.planusa.org Plant with Purpose www.plantwithpurpose.org ProLiteracy Worldwide www.proliteracy.org Refugees International www.refugeesinternational.org Relief International www.ri.org Salvation Army World Service Office www.sawso.org Save the Children www.savethechildren.org SEVA Foundation www.seva.org Trickle Up Program, Inc. www.trickleup.org United Methodist Committee on Relief www.umcor.org Winrock International www.winrock.org Women for Women International www.womenforwomen.org Women Thrive Worldwide www.womenthrive.org World Concern www.worldconcern.org World Learning www.worldlearning.org World Relief www.worldrelief.org World Vision, United States www.worldvision.org World Wildlife Fund www.worldwildlife.org