Transcript IRG Meeting 30 Nov 2009 Key conclusions & follow-up actions DRAFT Core Evaluation Team Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2 Core Team.

IRG Meeting 30 Nov 2009
Key conclusions & follow-up actions
DRAFT
Core Evaluation Team
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Main Points & Organization of Presentation
• Broad acceptance of the Framework and Country ToRs
derived from Approach Paper and regional workshops
• Several refinements and clarifications to Framework and
country ToRs needed and possible by 7 December, as
outlined. Recommend Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
• Specified understandings outlined on more detailed
methodologies/methods to be incorporated after regional
workshops. For IRG review in Inception report (April)
• Specified additional work on Donor/Agency HQ ToRs by 7
December
• Several steps on enlisting additional countries and clarifying
governance/ accountabilities
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Evaluation Framework & Workplan
1.
Agreed on importance of detailed
standard methodologies and
guidance
• Clear and precise - “interview
ready”
• To be worked through at
second Regional Workshops
and captured in Country
Inception Report/s
• Operational questions on the
application of PD principles/
AAA commitments to be
included
• Need for reasonable balance
of volunteer countries – last
effort to reinforce in Latin
America
• See also country ToRs
• Core Team: April 2010
• Core Team: April 2010
• Secretariat with
Colombia, OAS and
Core Team: 15th January
2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Evaluation Framework & Workplan (2)
2.
Concerns from Draft Generic ToRs, not yet
handled in revised version. Immediate
refinements:
•
Clear questions needed on changes
(long-term/ short-term) in the costs and
benefits to partners and donors of pre-PD
and post-PD partnerships
•
Advancing the “mutual” in mutual
accountability and transparency – add
question assessing implementation of PD
para 50 and AAA para 24
•
Include new summative question on the
relevance of the Paris Declaration and
the ways it has been implemented
implementation to the challenges of aid
effectiveness (in country x)?”
•
Assess effects of PD on different aid
modalities (Refine Question 3c)
•
Include service delivery in assessments
of capacity increases (Question 3d)
• Core Team:
7th December 2009
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Evaluation Framework & Workplan (3)
3.
4.
5.
Agreed on importance of
multi-faceted communication
strategies (national and
international)
Some concern to clarify
governance and final
accountabilities for Country
and Donor/Agency HQ studies
Quality Assurance: peer
review arrangements (for draft
country reports) to be
considered (apart from Core
Team quality support and
assurance) following team
workshops
• Management Group and
National Reference Groups:
April 2010
• Management Group: 7th
December 2009
• Management Group: April 2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Draft Generic Country ToRs
1. Country Evaluations are the primary
vehicle for Phase 2, including donor
performance. Donor HQ Studies are a
supplement.
2. Methodology guidance needs to interpret/
clarify
• Flexibility of common Core Questions
– not detailed where not relevant
• Mutual accountability more focused
question/s as above
• “Less corruption and more
transparency” – specify applying to
both sides of partnerships
• “Increased alignment” not just to
priorities and strategies but specify to
systems, procedures and
communication channels
• Core Team: April 2010
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Draft Generic Country ToRs (2)
• “Sufficient delegation of authority and
incentives” – further guidance needed to
assess
• Build in “degree of confidence” measures
with each assessment of achievement
against expected outcomes
• Specify key common questions/methods for
treatment of health sector and other sectors
• Design of appropriate informed
respondents sample for Question 2
• Capture growth dimensions as possible in
Question 3 in relation to poverty as well as
through sectors (e.g. infrastructure)
• Include assessment of PD burdens under
relevant 11 points and under unintended
consequences
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
• Core Team: April
2010
Core Team
Draft Generic Country ToRs (3)
3. Specific briefing and request for
cooperation to donor
embassies/ field offices
4. Consider inviting political
reviewers to supplement
contractual requirements and
IRG responsibility for quality
assurance of eventual synthesis
5. Special study of “non-PD
sources” should include
impartial assessment of Trust
Funds, Global Funds and “nontraditional” donors/ partners
6. Extract useful inputs from other
WPEFF activities
• Donor HQ (IRG members):
January 2010
• Management Group: October
2010
• Core Team/ Management Group:
January 2010
• Core Team: February 2010
(specific suggestions invited from
IRG members)
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Donor HQ Studies ToRs
• Auckland/ Approach Paper agreement to additional round of donor
studies using the same focus/ approach as Phase 1, with 7
donors/agencies volunteering. In London EMG agreed to offer the
possibility of updates to Phase 1 studies. Limited initial interest –
donors expect to be evaluated in country evaluations for Phase 2.
• Key parameters: studies not full evaluations, studies and any possible
updates are voluntary, limited primary data collection, mainly
formative studies (process focus) with the evaluative element (effects
focus) to be covered through the country evaluations.
• Overall agreement to the questions and agreement to the new
deepening and the mirror questions but with clearer links with the
country evaluations (shared sub-questions and methods?).
• Studies are useful internally as a stand-alone product for the
volunteering Donor/ Agency with additional benefit to the global
evaluation.
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
Donor HQ Studies ToRs (2)
•
Possible Updates to include: Management responses – any follow-up action
to:
 PD Phase 1 Study conclusions and recommendations
 AAA Action Plans
•
“Transaction costs” and benefits
 3-5 suggested questions to be prepared drawing on Concept Paper
(possibly address separately to HQ Policy, HQ operations, front line
decentralised operations) by Dec 7th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
•
“Mirror questions” to 7/11 expected outcomes should be confirmed in line
with Country Terms of Reference, by Dec 7th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Sign-off
•
Consider suggestion that some mirror examination of health tracer sector be
included in Donor/Agency HQ studies Dec 7th Core Team - Mgt. Gp. Signoff
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team
External Support
• Use fast-moving country studies as “informal pilots”
for testing and refining approach
• Extranet: importance of human dimension – IRG
and teams must use it
• Importance of : “being there” – maximising face-toface support role of Core Team at key points
• Onus for quality control of Country Evaluations is
with the country set-up
Joint Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2
Core Team