Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The ALNAP Meta-evaluation
Tony Beck
Presentation for the IDEAS Conference, Delhi, 14th April 2005
Outline
1) Background
2) The ALNAP Quality Proforma
3) Agency visits
4) Findings from the agency visits
5) Finding from the Quality Proforma
What is the ALNAP and its meta-evaluation?
An overview of evaluation of humanitarian action quality
Identification of strengths and weaknesses
Recommendations for improvement across the sector and in individual agencies
Process
• Review of evaluation reports against a set of standards
• Visits to and interaction with agency evaluation offices
Focus:• 2001-2002: Accountability• 2003-2005: Accountability and: good practice,
dialogue, interaction
The ALNAP Quality Proforma
• ALNAP’s meta-evaluation tool
• Draws on good practice in EHA and evaluation in general
• Revised and peer reviewed in 2004
The ALNAP Quality Proforma
Made up of seven sections:
1. Terms of reference
2. Methods, practice and constraints
3. Contextual analysis
4. Analysis of intervention
5. Assessing the report
6. Overall comments
The ALNAP Quality Proforma
4 point rating scale
A = good
B = satisfactory
C = unsatisfactory
D = poor
Guidance notes for meta-evaluators. Eg: Consideration given to confidentiality and dignity?
Guidance: The evaluation report should detail how the overall approach and methods will protect confidentiality and promote respect for stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth.
The ALNAP Proforma
CoverageCoverage
2001-2005: 197 evaluations
Process•2 meta-evaluators•Reconciliation of rating•Analysis by section
Mainstreaming of the Quality Proforma
• By ECHO to revise tor (lesson learning, protection, identification of users, prioritisation, time frame and users of recommendations etc)
• DEC Southern Africa evaluation (rated 7 agency report)
• Groupe URD (for planning of evaluations)
Agencies included in dialogue: 2003-4
CAFOD, Danida, ECHO, ICRC, OCHA, OFDA, Oxfam, SC-UK, SIDA, UNHCR, and WHO
Purpose of agency dialogue
• Agency response to initial two years of use of Quality Proforma
• To discuss Quality Proforma rating and agency strengths and weaknesses
• To discuss processes leading to good evaluation practice
• To discuss goof practice
Findings from dialogue with evaluation managers
• Areas affecting evaluation quality are not currently captured by the QP, eg
Evaluation quality depends on subtle negotiations within agencies
Evaluation funds in most cases are not being allocated for follow-up
Follow-up to recommendations is complex
More agencies are using tracking matrices
Findings from dialogue with evaluation managers: the EHA market
• Main constraint to improved evaluation quality is agencies accessing available evaluators with appropriate skills
• Does the EHA market need further regulation?
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
TOR – Good practice in approach and method
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
6
94
11
89
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
TOR – Intended users and uses
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
12
88
8
92
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
Consultation with primary stakeholders
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
16
84
13
87
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
Use of the DAC criteria
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
52
48
50
50
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
HR and management
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
50
50
51
49
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
Coordination Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
52
48
50
50
Findings from the Proforma
Area of enquiry
Rating % attaining rating 2004
% attaining rating 2001-2003
Quality of evaluation of protection issues
Good or
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
or Poor
32
68
10
90
Findings from the Proforma - 2005
• Improvement in most areas noted above of between 10 and 30 per cent
• Too early to disaggregate or suggest why this improvement has taken place
• Still a number of areas of generic weakness
Conclusions
Process:•Meta-evaluations need to include interaction with those being meta-evaluated•Agency visits have been important is discussing constraints to improved evaluation quality•Meta-evaluations need to maintain an appropriate balance between accountability functions and the need to improve evaluation quality through lesson learning
Conclusions: findings
• EHA demonstrates some areas of strength, and improvement over four years, eg use of most of the DAC criteria, analysis of HR
• Many evaluative areas need to be strengthened, eg gender, identification of use and users, participation of primary stakeholders, transparency of methodologies used
