Donor/Agency HQ Evaluations
Presentation to International Reference Group
30 November, 2009
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Building blocks at Donor/Agency HQ level
• Eleven Phase 1 evaluations
• Anticipated seven new Phase 2 evaluations
• Updates of the Phase 1 evaluations
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Purpose of Donor/Agency HQ Evaluations
• To deepen our understanding of the findings and results
emerging from Monitoring Survey inputs;
• To facilitate global learning on aid effectiveness through
the evaluation processes and to facilitate more efficient
implementation of the Paris Declaration;
• To make specific recommendations to development
agencies and to the global aid community for improving
aid effectiveness;
• To supplement and strengthen the basis for the main
focus of the Phase 2 evaluation, a strong set of Countrylevel Evaluations.
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Objectives of Donor/Agency HQ Evaluations
• To enable donors/agencies to clarify, improve and
strengthen policies and practice consistent with the
Paris Declaration in pursuit of aid effectiveness and
development effectiveness.
• To highlight barriers and difficulties that may have
limited the implementation of the Paris Declaration and
its effects and impacts – and ways that these barriers
and difficulties may be overcome.
• To enable sharing and exchange of experience among
stakeholders, countries and partnerships so as to
facilitate reflection, lesson-learning and policy
improvement.
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Focus of Donor/Agency HQ Evaluations
Phase 1:
Input, output and ”enabling
conditions”:
a) Commitment to the Paris
Declaration principles,
b) Capacity to implement it,
and
c) Incentives to do so.
Phase 2:
Same as Phase 1
Development outcomes
and effectiveness will be
examined through the
country studies
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Benefitting from Experience
• Interpreting the enabling conditions using ”best
practices”
• Improving understanding of context
• Deepening understanding on MfDR and Mutual
Accountability and use of country systems
• Adding “Mirror questions”, including examining
policy coherence
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Interpreting the enabling conditions
• Commitment: Internal and external factors
• Capacities: Institutional capacity and systemic
capacity
• Incentives and disincentives: Individual level,
agency level, and level of government
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Understanding Context
• Staff, budget, geographic spread of
programme, multi/bilateral share, share
provided to vertical funds, and aid modalities
(project, programme, budget support, TA etc.)
• Organizational structure including
decentralization
• Performance management
• Action plans to implement Accra
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Deepening Understanding
• What is the main problem facing donors/agencies in fulfilling
the Paris Declaration commitment to Manage for
Development Results?
• What arrangements or mechanisms for Mutual Accountability
have been in place and how well are they working?
• What explains the lack of use of country systems even
where these are considered relatively strong?
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
“Mirror questions”
• From Approach Paper
 Have “transaction costs” of
delivering aid actually been
reduced and/or shifted
because of implementation
of the Paris Declaration? If
so, how, and what are the
effects of such changes?
 What would be the likely
implications for
development results if
donors were to shift a
majority of aid to either
general or sector-specific
budget support?
• New Questions
What is the influence of the Paris
Declaration on government
policies with implications for
developing countries?
Who are the key actors in the
donor country (or constituency for
multilateral agencies) involved in
the aid arena, taking major
decisions on aid flows, priorities,
activities, programs and projects?
How are their perceptions and
decisions influenced by the Paris
Declaration and the Accra Agenda
for Action?
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Evaluation Methods
• Literature and documentation review
• Syntheses and meta-analyses of existing evidence
• Semi-structured interviews and focus groups (key
respondents at HQ level and relevant field staff, either
by phone or video conference or through selected field
visits)
• Structured surveys and questionnaires focused on the
embassies / country offices located in those of the
countries which have volunteered to conduct a country
level evaluation
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Updates to Phase 1: Purpose
•
•
•
The purpose of the updates is to further strengthen
the robustness of the evaluation as such through an
effort to:
Address certain weaknesses on the knowledge and
evidence base at HQ level, identified in phase 1 that
would strengthen the scope of coverage;
Increase potential for cross validation between the
country studies and the HQ studies by examining a
series of “mirror questions” that would add depth to
the evaluation; and
If possible, throw light on what changes the Accra
commitments have lead to at the HQ level.
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Updates to Phase 1: Questions
• Context: Staff, Budget, Geographic spread of programme,
Multi/bilateral share, share provided to vertical funds, and aid
modalities (project, programme, budget support, TA etc.),
organizational structure including decentralization, performance
management, action plans to implement Accra
• “Mirror questions”: questions in country studies that can be
“mirrored” on the donor/agency side, in areas where it would
enhance the depth of the evaluation if there was evidence from
both levels. Questions were suggested in the Approach Paper
and new questions that emerged from the regional workshops
• “Deepening questions”: questions elaborating on issues where
there is a general recognition (expressed in the Monitoring
Survey and in the London meeting with the Evaluation
Coordinators) that there is insufficient knowledge: Managing for
Development Results and Mutual Accountability, and use of
country systems .
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Support & Timeline
• Support: refer to separate presentation
• Timeline:
For Donor/Agency HQ Studies updates – end May
2010
For Donor/Agency HQ Studies first draft report – 15th
September 2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team