1

Review of DFATD’s Country Program Evaluation Approach

2

Policy requirement – achieving 100% coverage

Unit of accountability – 20 countries of focus

Paris principles – non investment issues

An integrating narrative

History

Why do Country Program Evaluations?

3

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.

Why do the review? How?

4

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

Three options

5

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

The Review suggests:

6

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

The Review suggests:

7

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

The Review suggests: