The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report to Congressional Committees entitled: Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity, released November 13, 2014
“In a governmentwide survey of agency Performance Improvement Officers (PIO), GAO found uneven levels of evaluation expertise, organizational support within and outside the organization, and use across the government. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) is a key component of the enabling environment for federal evaluation capacity, having established a solid foundation of agency performance reporting and leadership commitment to using evidence in decision making. However, only half the agencies reported congressional interest in or requests for program evaluation studies.”
“GAO is not making recommendations.”
Full Report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666893.pdf
International Parliamentarians’ Evaluation Seminar (6th MES International Evaluation Conference: 24-28 March, 2014)
Jointly organized by:
Malaysian Evaluation Society (MES) & South Asia Parliamentarians’ Forum (SAPF)
Ministry of Finance Malaysia
Evaluation Capacity Development Group (ECDG)
Asia-Pacific Evaluation Association (APEA)
Nonprofit organizations historically have attempted to solve society’s wicked problems in silos. Using the “collective impact” model, Mile High United Way and other organizations are beginning to pool resources and collaborate in order to achieve solutions to society’s problems. Essential to collective impact is a shared measurement system among participants. Mile High United Way wants to understand the capacity of organizations in the Denver area to evaluate progress towards the shared indicators.
Relevant literature was reviewed to identify the possible indicators and barriers of evaluation capacity. The ability to acquire and sustain evaluation capacity is dependent on the organizational environment, including available resources, culture, incentives, demands, and policies. Practical training and hands-on experiences are essential to developing an understanding of and appreciation for evaluation. A major barrier is the transfer of learning to daily work and peers but this can be overcome by the right organizational environment. Mile High United Way has an opportunity to shape capacity through implementation of evaluation capacity building (ECB) interventions, creating positive demands for ECB participation, and providing the right resources.
Prepared for Mile High United Way by the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
PUAD 5361: Capstone Seminar
Robyn Scrafford and Dr. Christine Martell
“In the last 10 years, PNG has made significant developments in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), laying a sound base for future improvements in the practice of collection and use of evidence. PNG has developed an elaborate platform for the development and implementation of good monitoring and evaluation. Good legal and institutional frameworks are in place to oversight, implement and drive fiscal and results monitoring and reporting.
This paper provides a broad overview of the current legal and institutional arrangements that underpin M&E in PNG. It highlights key initiatives undertaken by the Government of PNG (GoPNG) with support from AusAID and explores how these initiatives are contributing to M&E improvements; and the expected flow-on effects on accountability, service delivery, learning and improvement.
The paper highlights that a fundamental challenge has been and remains inculcating a culture and practice of good monitoring and evaluation for accountability, decision making and learning – especially within public institutions. Moreover it acknowledges the inherent challenges of weak coordination between the GoPNG agencies and more broadly, the low M&E capacity.”
Paper presented to the Australasia Evaluation Society
Gachugu, Mukii(1); Kapa, Joe(3); Lesa,Kenny(2); Miranda, Diego(2)
1 AusAID, Papua New Guinea
2 Departmentof Implementation and Rural Development, Papua New Guinea
3 Department of National Planning and Monitoring, Papua New Guinea
State of Evaluation 2012: Evaluation Practice and Capacity in the Nonprofit Sector
Researched and written by Johanna Morariu, Katherine Athanasiades and Ann Emery
“Nonprofit organizations and foundations hold great promise for developing new ideas to overcome old problems and for helping people the world over to live healthier, happier lives. But for all that promise, problems are still getting worse. In the face of ever growing need, funders and nonprofits need to use every tool at their disposal to maximize impact. Doing good isn’t enough. We need to do ever better.
Evaluation is an often undervalued, overlooked tool for improving outcomes and maximizing impact. It is seen as a nice to have, not as a need to have. In State of Evaluation 2012 we report that more than two-thirds of organizations do not have the promising capacities and behaviors in place to meaningfully engage in evaluation. And 47% of organizations with annual budgets greater than $5 million did not have at least one full-time employee dedicate to evaluation. In a sector where results matter, it is incumbent upon us all to evaluate, learn, and improve.”
Report on the Forum on Civil Society’s Evaluation Capacities which took place in Chiang Mai, Thailand from 3 to 6 December 2012.
The Forum brought together 80+ representatives of global, regional and national Voluntary Organizations for Professional Evaluation (VOPEs) from all over the world, as well as representatives from the academia and international organizations. The Forum facilitated the exchange of good practices and lessons learned by VOPEs and other partners engaged on Evaluation Capacity Development (ECD) while identifying EvalPartners priorities to be implemented in 2013 and which are presently underway.
Theme: use of evaluation in decision making for public policies and programme
Co-hosted by the Evaluation Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Public Service Commission of South Africa. 12–14 September 2011 Johannesburg, South Africa.
Objectives of the conference
The broader purpose of the conference was to provide a forum for open discussion on issues confronting evaluation in countries, enabling participants to draw on the innovative experiences of others. The conference was also intended to promote the understanding of international standards in evaluation and to advocate for evaluation as a means to manage for development results, thereby improving public accountability and learning. To enhance the understanding and appreciation of evaluation as a powerful tool of public accountability, the conference’s objectives were to:
- Share experiences from countries that have different levels of development of national monitoring and evaluation systems (including those that may be considering creating one), or that have important experiences with other types of evaluation efforts;
- Identify lessons and constraints in implementing national monitoring and evaluation systems; and
- Identify supply and demand for technical assistance in strengthening institutional capacities for national monitoring and evaluation systems under the umbrella of South-South and triangular cooperation.
This publication provides a brief overview of the evaluation units of 43 United Nations (UN) entities that are current members or observers of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). The 43 snapshot “cards” present the institutional set-up of each UN evaluation unit represented in UNEG and highlight the diverse human and financial resources, and work priorities underpinning evaluation in the UN System.
(The document is in a compressed/zipped format due to its 100 page length.)
This is a report for the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Task Force on National Evaluation Capacity Development.
The purpose of the report is to provide both technical and non-technical staff in the United Nations (UN) system with practical tips on how to strengthen national evaluation capacity systems. It is not meant to be prescriptive but is intended to highlight key elements to consider when working on national evaluation capacity development.