Evaluation and Corporate Results Reporting in Multilateral Organisations

Transkript

1 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Evaluation and Corporate Results Reporting in Multilateral Organisations Relevance and Priorities for SDC Presentation to SDC Multilateral Network June 30,

2 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Evaluation in Multilateral Organisations 2

3 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Situation in most UN Funds and Programmes: Degree of dependence/independence of Evaluation Office: Director of Evaluation appointed by Executive Director/Administrator Re-hiring of Director of Evaluation for a 2nd term by Executive Director/Administrator Budget presented to Board as part of organisation s overall budget Some organisation have a clear target for budget to be spent on evaluation Decentralized/country programme and project evaluations under management s responsibility 3

4 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division This is where the quality and use of evaluations is the lowest This is where the action is and where the money goes This is where it is most crucial that evaluation data is reliable This is where most of the learning has to happen through behavioural change Decentralized/country programme and project evaluations under management s responsibility 4

5 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Primary areas and moments of intervention: Independence Policy review and revision discussions Core budget discussion Appointment/Re-hiring of Evaluation Director Learning Long-term tracking of management action following evaluation findings/ recommendations (learning through behavioural change and action) Decentralized evaluation Capacity building in local offices Better guidance for decentralized evaluation Better distinction and accounting for evaluation and monitoring Annual meta-evaluation of decentralized evaluations to be presented to the Board 5

6 Key Outputs Objective UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and UN-Women, achieve high standards of organisational and development effectiveness due to results and impact oriented operations which are guided by solid results management and evaluations Main Outcome Institutionalized strong culture of results-based management, reporting, knowledge management and evaluation UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF main indicator: Increased percentage of country offices using common results-based management tools and principles [QCPR] UN-Women (incl. UN-SWAP) main indicator: Percentage of country/multi-country programmes showing a clear results chain from the UNDAF and showing use of common UNDG RBM principles [QCPR] UNFPA UNICEF UNDP UN-Women UN-SWAP Output 1: Enhanced programme effectiveness by improving quality assurance, monitoring, and evaluation Output 1.1: In coordination with Regional Offices, effective technical support products and services provided to UNICEF offices related to country programme guidance Output 1.4: In coordination with Regional Offices, effective technical support products and services provided to UNICEF offices related to programming guidance and systems (including in guidance, corporate planning & performance management) Evaluability Assessment Report with clear findings and recommendations regarding the results logic and indicators in the Strategic Plan Methodological study report laying out approaches for evaluation of policies Training curriculum designed and expert trainers contracted Guidance document developed on new methods and approaches, in particular to better assess the impact of UNDP support and programmes Revised knowledge management strategy; upgrade to the the IEO data archiving system; guidance, training and then full use of XTML markup for all IEO online published evaluations Tracking system developed (coarranged with UNDP management). Assessment of management response action implemention developed, carried out, and reported. New guidance document for countrylevel evaluations produced. Output 1 Mechanism for measuring and tracking the organization s adherence to RBM standards in place Output 2 Improved knowledge, evidence, and understanding of level of quality of RBM in the organization. Output 3 The organization is managing for results by utilizing a user friendly results management system in its every day programming work. Output 4 The organization is equipped with and is using up to date and relevant training material on RBM that is available to all staff members. Output 1 Increased capacity of the UN system to operationalize the UN- SWAP Performance Indicators Output 2 Support for the development of gender policies Output 3 Capacity development and assessment Output 4 Tracking resources for gender equality and women s empowerment Output 5 Sharing of good practices in the area of accountability for and promotion of gender equality and women s empowerment Management Response Review report with findings and recommendations to improve follow up Guidance document developed on evaluating capacity building GEROS system extended to provide quality assurance of research products

7 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Corporate Results Reporting in Multilateral Organisations 7

8 UNDP Development Performance Report Card 8

9 MOPAN MOPAN CCM Self-Assessments

10 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Global Institutions Division Feedback on Annual Multilateral Performance Assessment AMPA

11 1. Allgemeine Bewertung der Leistung der 18 prioritären Organisationen 2. Bewertung der durch die Schweiz direkt unterstützten Resultate der 18 prioritären Organisationen Status Handlungsbedarf Status Handlungsbedarf I. Prozentsatz der als ausreichend (adequate) oder besser bewerteten Organisationen 78% (4/18) - (kein) 94% (1/18) - (kein) II. Anzahl Organisationen, welche expliziter Kenntnisnahme der Situation und/oder strategischer Entscheide bedürfen 0/18 - (kein) 0/18 - (kein)

12 Wie und wann fliessen die CCM Annual Report und AMPA-Erkenntnise zurück in den Steuerungsprozess? Individual each org. Aggregate all orgs. Erstellen der Annual Multilateral Erstellen der CCM Annual Reports Performance Assessments (AMPA) Erstellen der CCM Management Response Jahresplanung der Abteilungen Integration in DEZA- Steuerungsbericht Multilaterales Netzwerk Performance Review- Sitzung Reporting Process Planning Process September October November December January February

13 Next Steps: Gegenstand Termin Verantwortung Involvierte Akteure Fertigstellung CCM-Annual Report Ende Oktober 2015 Desks Auswertung AMPA Mitte November 2015 AEGLU Consultant King Zollinger Finalisierung CCM-Management Response Ende November 2015 Abteilungsleitende Integration der Resultate in den DEZA- Steuerungsbericht Mitte Januar 2015 E+C/AEGLU Consultant King Zollinger Präsentation der Resultate sowie des entsprechenden neuen Indikators für den DEZA Steuerungsbericht in DEZA Direktionssitzung Erstes Quartal 2016 AEGLU E+C, QS 13

14 Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Abteilung Globale Institutionen Thank you! 14

15 Wann wird ein Handlungsbedarf auf Ebene Direktion angezeigt? Handlungsbedarf «mittel» wenn: Der Prozentsatz der als ausreichend (adequate) oder besser bewerteten Organisationen weniger als 75% beträgt; Eine Organisation in 3 aufeinanderfolgenden Jahren mit unzureichend (inadequate) oder schlechter bewertet wurde; oder Die Bewertung einer Organisation durch ein neu publiziertes MOPAN Assessment von ausreichend (adequate) oder besser auf unzureichend (inadequate) oder schlechter fällt. 15

16 Wann wird ein Handlungsbedarf auf Ebene Direktion angezeigt? Handlungsbedarf «hoch» wenn: Der Prozentsatz der als ausreichend (adequate) oder besser bewerteten Organisationen weniger als 50% beträgt; Zwei oder mehr Organisationen in 3 aufeinanderfolgenden Jahren mit unzureichend (inadequate) oder schlechter bewertet wurde; oder Die Bewertung von zwei oder mehr Organisationen durch ein neu publiziertes MOPAN Assessment von ausreichend (adequate) oder besser auf unzureichend (inadequate) oder schlechter fällt. 16

17

18