Upload
shino
View
31
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Workshop on Innovations in Governance Measurement. April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC Jesper Johnsøn, U4/CMI. A. Some projects. Focus on the missing middle ( outcomes ). Theories of change Cost-effectiveness /- benefit analysis framework for AC ( mainstreaming ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Workshop on Innovations in Governance Measurement
April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC Jesper Johnsøn, U4/CMI
A. Some projects
• Theories of change • Cost-effectiveness/-benefit analysis
framework for AC (mainstreaming)• Proxy indicators, in baskets
Focus on the missing middle
(outcomes)
Adapting evaluation methods to
GAC
Theories of change in anti-corruption work
• Theory-based evaluation tradition, going beyond logframes and result chains, focus on preconditions, interdependencies and complexity
• Supports indicator development, data collection
• 5-step tailored methodology
Accountability and Integrity Initiative, Afghanistan
Accountability and Integrity Initiative, Afghanistan
Accountability and Integrity Initiative, Afghanistan
Cost-effectiveness/benefit analysis framework• CEA = compares costs to an overall effectiveness
measure, outcome level – # bribes, integrity scores, “missing” expenditures,
recovered assets, student scores, maternal health
• Main challenge = identifying same single quantifiable effectiveness measure
• Opportunity = AC impact does not have to be measured via corruption levels (mainstreaming)
CEA of different anti-corruption interventions
CEA of AC package in sector programmes
Work plan
A. Build up body of knowledge from past work:– Map existing academic literature using CEA/CBA methods
(done)– Reconstruct CEA/CBA ratios (resource intensive)
B. Apply methodology to programmes under design- Formative, operational research- Benefit from piloting, sequencing, and randomisation
B. Response to questions
• Q1-4: Begin with problem analysis/information needs define desired outcomes (hard)/questions develop indicators. – Indicators often the easy part (unless you want one for everything) – Skipping straight to standardised indicators could be prescriptive
• Q1: Actionable indicators = reform indicators?– Different level of results – overall performance vs. specific reform– Overall performance indicators can be widely standardised, specific reforms
cannot . Proxy indicator baskets, LSMS?• Q3: Cannot provide reliable, comprehensive data on the cheap
– Already much innovation (BEEPS, PETS, QSDS, PAPI, GCB, Afrobarometer, GI/Indaba).
– Rely on proxies for non-quantifiable social phenomena. – Combine different types of indicators (including proxies) in country-specific
baskets, a la LSMS (poverty)– Need indicators at different levels of results
Code of Conduct example, level of results
Code of Conduct example, building an impact story