AusAID Bilateral Donor System
• Country Program Evaluations included in Performance Management and Evaluation Policy (PMEP) of the Agency
• Part of Tier 2 of Agency Results Framework• Three identified components to ‘purpose’ –
management, learning and accountability • Builds on and tests self assessed Annual
Program Performance Reports (APPR)
AusAID CPE MethodologyEvaluates three elements of the strategic architecture – Country Situation Analysis – analysis and
policies to inform the ODA approach Country Strategy – a public statement of the
ODA approach Delivery Strategies – how AusAID will deliver
aid in each sector or priority area
AusAID CPE MethodologyEvaluative Criteria – Selectivity and focus – has a clear and informed allocation
rationale Represent whole-of-government interests – means the
interests of various Australian Government departments delivering ODA
Effectively managed – is strategic in nature, takes risks into due consideration and deploys resources efficiently
Produce results – refers to the outputs, outcomes and impacts (intended or unintended) of the cooperation program
Methodological Challenges Explicit versus implicit – strategy acknowledged as
only a small part of what the program does Operational approach entails much wider scale of
ways of working – understanding the link between the two is difficult
Avoiding retrospective strategies – does the strategy drive the program or the program drive the strategy?
Enough structure while not restricting innovation in approach
Choosing CPEsOffice for Development Effectiveness (ODE) responsible for CPEs- Work plan decided by Independent Evaluation Committee
(3 outside members 1 internal) - Largely driven by current internal performance and policy
priorities – Health Checks prepared by Operations to inform choices (set of broad-based program metrics)
- Very few CPEs in last 5 years – huge political opposition internally and little clarity without significant work on strategies themselves
- No mandatory requirement, but have returned to favor given political pressures on spend