1. Making Evaluation Work for Effective Policy Reform and Revision Chris Nelson, Director, Quality and Performance Systems Branch Sophie Davies, Manager Evaluations Support, Quality and Performance Systems

2. The Aid Context >Current aid program is $4.8 bn (or 0.35% GNI) >89% of Australia’s aid goes through AusAID >Bi-partisan commitment to aid budget of 0.5% of GNI or $8 bn by 2015 >Donor commitment to 0.7% of GNI never been fully realised >Development effort guided by internationally agreed MDGs

3. Drivers for Policy Revision Process >Performance Management and Evaluation Policy (PMEP) review drivers: >(1) Develop and drive senior management engagement with performance and quality >(2) Situate PMEP at the heart of an emerging performance management culture >(3) PMEP to support:  participatory processes based on evidence;  flexibility and strategic delivery of the aid program

4. Domestic parameters – aid review >PMEP review took place in context of the Independent review of aid effectiveness >Objective of aid review:  To examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Australian aid program and make recommendations to improve its structure and delivery. >Findings and response released on 7 July: “Making a real difference: delivering real results”  supported PMEP review findings

5. Purpose of AusAID’s PMEP >Management  Improvements to future aid program  Informs program and budget decisions >Learning  What works, when, where and how  Helps to focus funding where it’s most effective, efficient and relevant >Accountability  To public, e.g. Annual Review of Development Effectiveness (ARDE)  To partner governments, communities, Whole of Govt, implementing partners

6. Implementation of PMEP >Self-assessments of quality balanced by independent evaluation, supported by: >Programs areas >Performance & Quality network/ managers >Quality & Performance Systems branch:  Policy and guidance; Support to programs >Office for Development Effectiveness:  Quality checks, Annual Reviews  Agency relevant thematic/ country level evaluations

7. PMEP Review process >Over 3 months in 2010 >Policy Reference Group (PRG) formed: cross Agency, members were required to commit to full process >PRG was divided into 4 focus groups  interrogated data against 4 key evaluation questions: provided recommendations >Consolidated recommendations discussed with and agreed by external stakeholders 15.12.2010/PMEP review findings

8. PMEP Review Findings >Good practice exists and can drive improvement >M&E and performance management must be seen as a core function of all staff >M&E information is not being efficiently used. >There is uncertainty about where accountability resides in a ‘results-based’ approach to aid delivery >Evaluation is being driven by accountability/ compliance, not by management/ learning

9. PMEP Review Recommendations 1.Define and promote a consistent approach to performance management across AusAID, which is tailored to new ways of working 2.Take a strategic approach to information collection use and re-use, and improve feedback loops 3.Realign and leverage business processes so that current systems support results-based decision making 4.Implementation of the policy is supported by strengthened accountability for program performance management, improved staff capacity building and guidance 15.12.2010/PMEP review findings

10. Conclusion: Making a real difference >For greater management utility  Improve feedback loops between evaluation information and design, planning and implementation decisions  People are accountable for use of evaluation information >For greater learning  Participatory approaches promote a more prominent culture of transparency and learning >For better accountability:  Reporting on results: the Results Framework