Workshop on Innovations in Governance Measurement April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC Jesper Johnsøn, U4/CMI

A. Some projects Theories of change Cost-effectiveness/-benefit analysis framework for AC (mainstreaming) Proxy indicators, in baskets Focus on the missing middle (outcomes) Adapting evaluation methods to GAC

Theories of change in anti-corruption work Theory-based evaluation tradition, going beyond logframes and result chains, focus on preconditions, interdependencies and complexity Supports indicator development, data collection 5-step tailored methodology

Accountability and Integrity Initiative, Afghanistan

Cost-effectiveness/benefit analysis framework CEA = compares costs to an overall effectiveness measure, outcome level – # bribes, integrity scores, “missing” expenditures, recovered assets, student scores, maternal health Main challenge = identifying same single quantifiable effectiveness measure Opportunity = AC impact does not have to be measured via corruption levels (mainstreaming)

CEA of different anti-corruption interventions

CEA of AC package in sector programmes

Work plan A. Build up body of knowledge from past work: – Map existing academic literature using CEA/CBA methods (done) – Reconstruct CEA/CBA ratios (resource intensive) B. Apply methodology to programmes under design -Formative, operational research -Benefit from piloting, sequencing, and randomisation

B. Response to questions Q1-4: Begin with problem analysis/information needs  define desired outcomes (hard)/questions  develop indicators. – Indicators often the easy part (unless you want one for everything) – Skipping straight to standardised indicators could be prescriptive Q1: Actionable indicators = reform indicators? – Different level of results – overall performance vs. specific reform – Overall performance indicators can be widely standardised, specific reforms cannot. Proxy indicator baskets, LSMS? Q3: Cannot provide reliable, comprehensive data on the cheap – Already much innovation (BEEPS, PETS, QSDS, PAPI, GCB, Afrobarometer, GI/Indaba). – Rely on proxies for non-quantifiable social phenomena. – Combine different types of indicators (including proxies) in country- specific baskets, a la LSMS (poverty) – Need indicators at different levels of results

Code of Conduct example, level of results

Code of Conduct example, building an impact story