PRACTICE AND USE OF PUBLIC POLITICIES EVALUATION PRACTICE AND USE OF PUBLIC POLITICIES EVALUATION IN BENININ BENIN

Presented by Mr. Aristide N. DJIDJOHOCoordinator of the Public Policies Evaluation Bureau

REPUBLIC OF BENINREPUBLIC OF BENIN

Public Policies Evaluation Bureau ---------

Social Change Observatory

Panel Session No. 1 « Systemic factors contributing to use of evaluation »

--------------------

OverviewOverviewIntroduction

I. Public policy evaluation institutional

framework

II. Implementation of Public Policy Evaluation

II.1 – Public Policy Evaluation

II.2 – Evaluation of the Growth Strategy for

Poverty Reduction (SCRP/GSPR)

III. Perspectives : Need of National Evaluation

Policy

Conclusion2

Introduction 1/2Introduction 1/2

1. Benin, like other countries, has its own development conceptual framework (Alafia 2005, OSD 2006 – 2011, SCRP, Sector strategies etc.)

2. The government has undertaken an evaluation development procedure to grow in transparency and in capitalization on its know how on the implemented public policies.

3. The Benin evaluation days organized in June 2010, confirmed that evaluation remains capital and should be used to reinforce its compulsory cultural result for the effectiveness in the public action.

4. It is in virtue of this importance that Public Policy Evaluation has been declared national priority by the government of Benin in 2010.

3

5. In Benin, the Public Policy Evaluation Bureau (BEPP)

assures the leadership in the evaluation development on

national plan and conducts the public sectors policy

evaluation on the account of the government. During the

last three years, the BEPP has largely invested in capacity

building and in the reinforcement of the national

evaluation system.

6. The Social Change Observatory (SCO) is the national

body that evaluates the impact of the government social

policies. By this title, it is in charge of the technical

dispositions for the follow up to be put in place for the

development strategy for the poverty reduction.

4

Introduction 2/2Introduction 2/2

I.I. Public Policy Evaluation Public Policy Evaluation Institutional Framework 1/2Institutional Framework 1/2

1. The institutional framework has enabled a more effective evaluation system for the establishment of a suitable device for carrying out assessments. This device is used for :

• identification of the evaluations to be conducted ;

• the creation of bodies responsible for assessment and control to ensure the scientific quality of the evaluation

• participation of stakeholders in the assessment;

• dissemination of results;

• monitoring the implementation of evaluation

recommendations.2. The device has increased the involvement of stakeholders

at the different stages of the process, at the recommendations making level, and at the integration of their concerns in assessments.

5

1 Projets Management Bodies2 Development Agencies

MINISTRIES

DPP/(CSP ET CSEPP)

MDAEP-DGPD-DGSPP-DGIFD-OCS-INSAE-DPP/CEPP-CAPOD-DDPD

MEF

- IGF

-FINANCIALONTROL-CSPEF-DPP/CSE

TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PARTNERS

PREFECTURES

LOCAL COLLECTIVITI

ES

Advisory or control bodies

JUDICIAL

SUPREME COURT

LEGISLATIVE

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

SOCIETY CIVILE

PRESIDENCY

GOVERNMENT

GENERAL INSPECTION OF STATE

NGO, Beneficiaries

, Associations, Universiies, Institutes…

Private Sector

Benin evaluation network

BEPPBEPP

SCIENTIFICAL COUNSCL FOR EVALUATION

SCIENTIFICAL COUNSCL FOR EVALUATION

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE

Diagram of the institutional framework for public policy evaluation

II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation 1/3

1. The Office conducts evaluations of both sectoral projects and multisectoral programs as well as public policies in specific areas (decentralization, education, electrification, agriculture, health ...).

2. The reports are used in a well-defined process including:

i. Transmission to the Minister’s Council to approve the findings and recommendations to be implemented with a monitoring system of these recommendations;

ii. Dissemination of results to stakeholders and the public;

iii. The capitalization of knowledge and gains by the structures of programming and implementation, and the development of a general report on public policies evaluation. 7

Evaluation serves then 4 main uses:

A.At the Government Level

1.Help decision making by providing further guidance on the reforms and changes needed.

2.Learn and inform decision makers to help them reach a qualified level of information on interventions in their area.

B.At the level of execution bodies and partners

1. Improve the implementation by real exchange of information and the use of evaluation results as a tool for advocacy and programming.

2.Capitalizing by strengthening the achievements and good practices and developing better programs.

8

II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation 2/3

C. At the level of Public Policy Evaluation Bureau (BEPP/PPEB)

1. Inform, advocate and mobilize for further reform and promotion of best practices.

2. Follow up on recommendations and instructions of the Council of Ministers induced evaluations.

D. At the level of Civil Society and beneficiaries

1. Inform / Engage stakeholders, civil society actors and local communities around the stakes of public policy.

In total, the BEPP/PPEB has completed 7 evaluations concerning the functioning of Public Administration and the implementation of public policies and the results were adopted by the Council of Ministers and reports disseminated to various stakeholders in the institutional framework.

9

II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation II. 1 - Public Policies Evaluation 3/3

10

II. 2 - Evaluation of SCRP 1/3II. 2 - Evaluation of SCRP 1/3

1. The technical monitoring of the implementation of the Growth Strategy for Poverty Reduction 2007-2009 (SCRP/GSPR) was provided by the SCO which is also responsible for the impact assessment of the strategies on poverty and social.

2. The periodic evaluation of implementation of the CPRS suffered in the past from weaknesses in the system for collecting information and the low involvement of ground-based stakeholders.

3. Most evaluations have been initiated or promoted by the central government to meet commitments made to the technical and financial partners.

4. To correct these problems, when developing the third generation of the PRS, the device of the 2011-2015 SCRP was strengthened to allow greater participation and better use of the results.

11

II.2 - Evaluation of SCRP 2/3II.2 - Evaluation of SCRP 2/3 A practical use of policy evaluation under the

CPRS/GSPR 2007-2009 is presented here.1. Evaluation ex ante on the "Impact of the introduction of the

Local Development Tax (TDL) in the tax system of Commons on poverty and on social issues."

• As part of the results : 1. The study found that the impact of collection of the tax

burden on the TDL/LDT is insignificant. Municipalities mobilize less than 1% of national income which is well below the levels in northern countries where local finance account for 10% of GDP and 40% of the state budget.

• The study conducted simulations which show that :1. The introduction of the TDL/LDT will induce an improvement

in social indicators (increase enrollment by 0.4 percentage points and lower the mortality rate by 1 point);

2. The effect of TDL/LDT on growth is relatively low with an increase of 0.1 point. On the contrary, the impact on inflation is of 0.4 percentage points.

12

II.2 - Evaluation of SCRP 3/3II.2 - Evaluation of SCRP 3/3 The following recommendations were made to the

attention of each group of actors involved in the study :1. Towards the state: to improve the reform of the TDL/LDT and

strengthen the planning management capacity of Commons;2. Towards Technical and Financial Partners (TFP): to support the

introduction of the TDL/LDT;3. Towards Organizations of civil society organizations (CSOs): to

support local communities through awareness and training of people ;

4. Towards Municipalities, to establish an effective mechanism for collecting taxes.

• In terms of using assessment results :1. For the state: taking into account the recommendations of the

evaluation in the development of the Finance Law for 2011;2. For the TFP: commitment to initiate actions in terms of

strengthening the capacity of municipalities;3. For CSOs and municipalities: preparation of activities to raise

public awareness.

A. Why a national evaluation policy? 1. In Benin, evaluative practice has been recognized as a

necessity to improve the usefulness of evaluations .2. In this regard, a National Evaluation Policy is designed to

serve as a unifying tool.B. Objectives of the National Evaluation Policy 1. The National Evaluation Policy (NEP) aims to: • use evaluation to improve the efficiency of public

policies;• make of public policy evaluation a tool for decision

making. 2. NEP clarifies and organizes the role of evaluation

within the management framework of public administration.

3. NEP helps spread the culture and practice of evaluation, important link for results-based management. 13

III.III.Prospects : The need for a National Prospects : The need for a National Evaluation Policy 1/3Evaluation Policy 1/3

C. The main actions identified under the NEP1. the professionalization of the evaluative function;2. the establishment within each ministry of a Sectoral Policies

Evaluation Unit;3. the establishment of a National Fund for Evaluation

Development;4. the creation of a Scientific Evaluation Council to oversee

and develop evaluation practices;5. the establishment of a regulatory framework laying down

practice provisions for by the various bodies in charge of evaluation;

6. the development and implementation of a program of national capacity building in evaluation;

7. the assistance of the BEPP/PPEB to local governments interested in developing their evaluation capacity;

8. The involvement of training institutions and national universities to offer training courses in evaluation. 14

III.III.Prospects : The need for a National Prospects : The need for a National Evaluation Policy Evaluation Policy 2/32/3

Table of the benefits of an evaluation policy

Short term Medium and long term

1. Financing of evaluation provided through existing budgeting mechanisms

7. Progressive development of evaluation culture

2. Institutionalization through the establishment of permanent institutions

8. Systematization of evaluation in management

3. Timely implementation of recommendations resulting from evaluation / use

9. National capacity building within and outside the public administration

4. Strengthening the implementation and monitoring of projects and programs

10.Improving the planning and coherence of interventions

5. Improving the implementation of Result-based Management

11.Improved statistical production

6. Better management of information and mobilization of stakeholders (including advocacy with TFP)

12.Capitalization of gains and knowledge on public policies

15

III.III.Prospects : The need for a National Prospects : The need for a National Evaluation Policy Evaluation Policy 3/33/3

Conclusion 1/2Conclusion 1/2 For the National Evaluation Policy (NEP):

1. A policy document adopted by the Government and

implemented is a powerful tool for the development

of the evaluation. It shows the political will to move

towards an efficient and learning public

administration. The adoption process of the national

evaluation policy is underway.

2. The policy document provides the sustainability of the

effort for the development of evaluation as well as

the one of the bodies that are established for this purpose.

3. The National Evaluation Policy is a good guarantee for

the professionalization and a stable funding of

evaluation activities by the state.16

Conclusion 2/2Conclusion 2/2 For the use of evaluation :

1. A strong political will contribute to greater consideration

of evaluations in the management of development.

2. Important role of partners in advocacy for evaluation

and its financing.

3. Evaluation is a means to bring innovative solutions to

the problems of our populations.

4. Possibility of an optimal use of evaluation for

better management of recommendations.

5. Development of South-South and North-South

cooperation to optimize the implementation of

evaluation and sharing experiences.

17

Thanks for attention !Thanks for attention !

18