Financial and human resources related to the evaluation system

This section outlines the types and volume of evaluations being implemented, appraises the changes that have been made in human and financial resources committed to evaluation systems since 2010. The section therefore starts with an overview of the different evaluation activities that are undertaken across the member organisations.

Types of evaluation

Figure 2.2 describes the types of evaluations carried out by both multilateral organisations and bilateral agencies. Similar to the patterns identified in 2010, almost 90% of members undertake thematic evaluations. Although there is an increased emphasis in member policies and planning on strategic priorities, the use of policy/strategy evaluations appears to have become less common (from 92% in 2010 to 60% in 2016). Where 49% of institutions were performing project/activity evaluations in 2010, 76% are now undertaking them.

Figure 2.2. Types of evaluation

Percentage of responding evaluation units that conduct

Source: Online survey completed by EvalNet members for the purposes of this report, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/ reviewofevaluationsystems.htm.

The total number of evaluations undertaken during the last five years is reported to be 5 916 (reported by 6 multilateral organisations and 27 bilateral agencies).4 Although the 2010 review found that the trend was to move away from ex-post evaluations, 39% of evaluations performed in the past five years are reportedly ex-post and 26% ex-ante. Over 580 impact assessments have been performed during the period (500 by GIZ) and 452 evaluability assessments (120 by the Inter-American Bank and 250 by Korea International Cooperation Agency [KOICA]).5

Out of the 1 557 ex-ante evaluations performed during the past five years, 1 262 were performed by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and 200 were implemented by KOICA, reflecting the emphasis in their policies on both types of evaluation. Based on these aggregate figures, an average of 26 reports are produced by each evaluation department per year, similar to the average of 24 in 2010, however due to the variances in terms of the intensity and frequency of evaluations, this may not be particularly illustrative.6

Figure 2.3. Volume of evaluation

Percentage of evaluations undertaken by type during the past five years

%

Source: Online survey completed by EvalNet members for the purposes of this report, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/ reviewofevaluationsystems.htm.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >