Navigating the Evidence on Transparency, Participation and Accountability:
What Insights Have Emerged? What Gaps Remain?
Terms of reference for the Consultant Author(s)
Summary
The Transparency and Accountability Initiative (T/AI) seeks to issue a contract to an expert, team
or organization to undertake a mapping and synthesis of the evidence related to efforts to
strengthen transparency, citizen participation and government accountability (TAP). This review of
the evidence will build upon the synthesis report commissioned by T/AI in 2010. It is envisaged
that this present exercise will be more closely oriented to the priorities and practical needs of
funders of TAP efforts and initiatives, particularly members of the T/AI funder collaborative. Thus,
the evidence review will serve as a tool for funders to navigate the existing evidence base for the
broader TAP sector, while presenting a deeper analysis of the evidence around specific questions
or topics prioritized by T/AI’s members. The mapping and review of the evidence will involve
close engagement with T/AI and its members, and will entail an initial scan and discussion in early
March 2016, with final deliverables to be completed by summer 2016. The ideal candidate(s) for
this activity will have a solid grounding in the evidence for TAP, but be able to take a fresh and
neutral perspective.
Background
The Transparency and Accountability Initiative (T/AI) is a donor collaborative that aims to seize
the momentum and expand the impact, scale and coordination of funding and activity in the TAP
field, as well as explore applications of this work in new areas. The T/AI is led by a diverse group
of six leading funders in the field that includes: Ford Foundation, Hivos, Omidyar Network, Open
Society Foundations, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
In 2010, T/AI commissioned a synthesis of the evidence of the impacts of the growing body of
efforts and initiatives aimed at fostering greater transparency and accountability. The report, coauthored by Rosemary McGee and John Gaventa, did much to establish the TAP field and the
evidence base of impacts, while highlighting weaknesses and gaps that needed to be addressed
for TAP efforts to realize their potential.
Five years on, T/AI believes the time is right to explore how knowledge in this sector has evolved,
assess the quality of the evidence, and clarify what gaps and questions remain. Several other
meta-analyses of evidence related to TAP questions or categories have been undertaken since the
McGee/Gaventa report (e.g. Fox, 2014; Kosack and Fung, 2014; Brockmyer and Fox, 2015), but
there is a need to systematically assess these efforts for both insights and outstanding gaps.
Furthermore, T/AI would like to tap into burgeoning ‘grey literature’ of TAP initiatives, including
reports and evaluations by funders and NGOs, as well as other insights not typically captured as
formal knowledge or evidence such as documentation and reflection from citizen or government
perspectives.
Thus, while the evidence base has evolved since 2010, and lessons from research and practice
have emerged, there remains a need to synthesize practical insights for actors in this sector. T/AI’s
members would like a resource that helps them navigate the TAP evidence base, but also
addresses specific questions and topics related to their strategies. Finally, T/AI expects that this
effort will offer suggestions for where and how to best support research, learning, and other
efforts that would address priority knowledge gaps going forward.
Proposed objectives
Overall objective: To provide a mapping of the existing TAP evidence that supports decision
making by funders in this sector.
Specific objectives:
1. Summarize and map existing evidence for the TAP sector, with an emphasis on evidence
produced after the McGee/Gaventa report
2. Clarify the quality and strength of the evidence base, as well as weak points, gaps and
unanswered questions
3. Work closely with T/AI funders to synthesize policy-relevant insights on prioritized topics and
questions
Suggested methodology, draft topics and themes, and initial documents list
The responding entities are invited to propose their own approach to the evidence review. T/AI
expects this will involve at a minimum:





Consultation with T/AI funders of priority questions
Consultation with experts, researchers, other funders, networks, etc. to discover grey literature
and other sources
Systematic review of relevant literature and evidence, including the development of a
comprehensive bibliography
o Prior synthesis efforts mentioned above
o Published academic or other research, both qualitative and quantitative, with an
emphasis on research not reviewed by McGee/Gaventa
o Donor funded evaluations, including formal impact evaluations1 and other ‘grey
literature’ assessments, evaluations and reports
o Other evidence and data as needed, such as cross-national surveys or indices (Open
Budget Index or Open Government Index) and documentation or perspectives from
Southern civil society and government actors
Mapping of the evidence base around specific theme, hypotheses and questions, preferably
including visualizations as appropriate, including the sources2, quality and strength of the
available evidence
Analysis and suggestions for funders related to prioritized questions and topics
Potential specific questions and cross cutting themes:
The project includes an inception phase when T/AI funders would be consulted on their priorities.
The questions and focus areas may include, but not be restricted to, the following:
 The role of ‘info-mediaries’ like media in accessing, analysing and packaging data for
different end users
 Characteristics of citizen organizing and engagement associated with improved outcomes for
government responsiveness and accountability, including motivations, collective vs. individual
participation, capacities, spaces for engagement, etc.
 What kinds of transparency, participation, and accountability inputs and efforts are
associated with improved governmental effectiveness, particularly in service delivery?
1
Review should include how impact is defined by institutions, as well as the influence of methodologies such
as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the assessment of impact (see resources from Making All Voices
Count and T/AI).
2
Mapping should explore the nature of evidence production. This could include geographic division (Northern
vs Southern) of knowledge generation, as well as the nature of the institutions producing evidence (academic,
practitioner, funder, etc.). Other categories defined by the consultant(s) are encouraged.






What kinds of linkages between actors and mechanisms yields more successful outcomes for
reforms and implementation?
Intersection between global norms, policies and initiatives, and national or sub-national
implementation
The obstacles and opportunities for linking across the fiscal governance system – particularly
the revenue and expenditure sides – to improve tangible social outcomes
The impact of various forms of inequality on citizen engagement and vice-versa
What are the characteristics of learning organizations in this field, how can these be
supported and encouraged, and what evidence that learning leads to better outcomes?
What is the macro economic impact of fiscal transparency efforts? What is the nature and
quality of evidence that transparent, accountable governance leads to improved economic
growth and/or development outcomes?
Furthermore, T/AI’s work over the past few years has shown that the use of cross-cutting themes
may be helpful to group findings. These themes may include:
 Unpacking the state: incentives, capacities, formal and informal mechanisms, political dynamics,
and other influences on openness and accountability
 Citizen-led accountability: collective citizen and civil society mobilizing, organizing and
engagement around governance processes, claims and tangible services
 Relationships and ecosystems: interactions between transparency, participation and
accountability actors, mechanisms, and the political dynamics and the broader contextual
features across scales (local, national, global)
Initial key document list:
 Synthesis report: Review of impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives.
McGee and Gaventa. 2010.
 The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives. Development Policy Review. Gaventa
and McGee. 2013.
 So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. Gaventa and
Barrett. 2010.
 The Impacts of Fiscal Openness: A Review of the Evidence. de Renzio and Wehner. 2015.
 Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? Fox. 2014.
 Assessing the Evidence: The Effectiveness and Impact of Public Governance-Oriented MultiStakeholder Initiatives. Brockmyer and Fox. 2015.
 Open Data Impact Case Studies. Gov Lab. 2015
 Beyond Magic Bullets in Governance Reform. De Gramont. 2014.
 Why corruption matters: understanding causes, effects and how to address them. Evidence paper
on corruption. DFID. 2015.
 Does Transparency Improve Governance? Kosack and Fung. 2014.
 DFID Empowerment and Accountability Macro Evaluation. ITAD. 2016.
Format and positioning of report – (provisional, subject to discussion)
Audience: Specifically T/AI’s members: Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, Hivos,
Omidyar Network, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the UK Department for International
Development. Potentially other funders of TAP efforts and initiatives, as well as practitioners in
the field.
Language/Approach/References:
 Written in English, the report needs to be clear and understandable, so jargon should be kept
to a minimum and fully explained. Overall, the prose should be practical not academic and



key points of the report need to written in ways that make them readily grasped and
recalled.
The report needs to take a balanced approach, and politically neutral, representing the range
of evidence in the field, identifying guidance to funders that is politically, practically and
financially viable.
Clear and full references to sources used and evidence cited must be included. Use of a
standard citation guide is preferred.
An exported Endnote library including all references should be included in the final
deliverables.
Diagrams/Visuals/Maps: The use of visuals, e.g. diagrams, maps, and tables that can summarise
key and complex information is strongly encouraged. In particular, we encourage the use of at
least a visual associated with the evidence mapping component. Embedded links to relevant webbased sources and materials are also encouraged.
Confidential/sensitive information: If the draft or final reports contain information that should not
be circulated more widely, this must be clearly identified.
Projected timeframe for the study process and deliverables
Activity
Initial consultations with T/AI
funders
Initial scan of evidence
Initial exploration of priority
topics and questions
Presentation, discussion and
refining of mapping and priority
topics/questions with T/AI funders
Expanded review of evidence
Deliverables from consultant author(s)
Final analysis of priority topics
and questions
Final revisions and approval by
T/AI
Virtual roundtable and/or followup consultation sessions with T/AI
funders
Timing
January 2016
February
February
Presentation of initial scan of evidence
and priority topics/questions
March 1-4 (TBC)
Final evidence review and map
June/July
Final funder guidance document
June/July
August
Later 2016
To summarize, the deliverables T/AI would like to receive include:
o A draft evidence scan for comment followed by a final evidence review and map
o A draft document providing initial exploration of priority topics and questions and a final
document providing guidance to funders
o A presentation of initial and final deliverables to the T/AI funders
o An edited version of the above to be made publicly available
While a core written report is desired, applicants are encouraged to suggest creative additions or
formats for the deliverables. These could include innovative visualizations of the evidence mapping
(see above), individual guidance notes for key questions or topics, a digital resource, etc.
Intellectual property
All the products of the study shall be the property of T/AI.
Criteria for consultant/s
The work may be undertaken by a single consultant, by a small team, or by staff of an
organization.



Familiarity with the evidence base for TAP, neutral judgement with respect to methodological
rigor, and capacity to synthesize a field with porous boundaries
A practical focus on getting to realistic recommendations and approaches that can be applied
Capacity to deliver outputs on the timeline proposed above
Management of consultant/s
The consultant/s will be managed by Brendan Halloran, Program Officer of T/AI. T/AI’s steering
committee members will provide advisory guidance throughout the project.
Financial arrangement and logistics
The presentation of initial scanning will likely be held in New York the first week of March. Ideally,
primary consultant will join in person. Other interactions between the consultants and T/AI staff
and steering committee members will be virtual unless convenient in-person opportunities arise.
Bids/proposals
In their bids, potential consultants are asked to:
-
-
-
Outline their proposal in no more than 3 pages, including:
o Key dimensions and considerations for the project
o Proposed approach to the mapping, review and funder guidance
o Qualifications and appropriateness of proposed team
Include up to three CVs of principal team members
A 1-page proposed budget in US dollars
o Include any VAT or other applicable taxes (which they will pay directly)
o Indicate the day rate and number of days for each relevant staff member
o Indicate expected expenses (attendance of primary consultant at T/AI funder meeting
in NYC in March will be covered and arrangements made by T/AI)
Submit these along with any inquiries to Brendan Halloran (Brendan.Halloran@transparencyinitiative.org)
The deadline is Monday January 11, 2015. T/AI may request a follow up call with finalist
candidates.