FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 49 | 50 || 52 | 53 |   ...   | 62 |

«Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The ...»

-- [ Page 51 ] --

For the majority of USAID Dg projects, however, the goal should be more modest. Where USAID mission directors request them, the initiative should provide support and advice to help the missions request and oversee good-quality impact evaluations that pay attention to all three elements of good evaluation practices: a focus on outcomes, good baseline measurements, and comparison with untreated groups. Evaluations should include pre- and postintervention outcome measures, along with, where possible, an analysis of outcomes in a relevant control group. As Chapters 5, 6, and 7 demonstrated, a wide variety of evaluation designs aside from randomized assignments are available to help USAID accumulate systematic evidence of the efficacy of particular approaches in order to guide its decision making as new investments are planned.

 IMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE To assist in the effort, the committee recommends that the USAID administrator consider establishing a social sciences advisory group for the agency. This group could play a useful role in advising on the design of the evaluation initiative, helping work through issues that arise during implementation, and developing a peer review process for assessing the evaluations undertaken during the initiative.

Resources The five-year Dg evaluation initiative should be supported with special, dedicated resources outside the usual project structure. Supporting the initiative with special funds would be another signal of the strong commitment to change. The committee is not able to provide an estimate of the likely cost of the initiative, in part because the difficulties in obtaining estimates of what USAID currently spends on M&E provide no basis for comparison. Some of the essential components are discussed below to provide a rough basis for making an estimate. But the important point is that the funds not come out of current mission program budgets that are already stretched thin.

It is also important that the resources be used to support both the special impact evaluations chosen as the chief task of the DG evaluation initiative and efforts by country missions to improve their evaluations or conduct their own impact evaluations on chosen projects. The initiative should thus make its resources and expertise available to mission directors who want its support in conducting impact evaluations or otherwise changing their mix of M&E activities, in order to make the initiative an asset to the Dg officers in the field rather than an additional unfunded burden.

Capacity One of the biggest challenges facing the initiative relates to capacity.

Over the past four decades, the structure of USAID has been transformed, moving away from an in-house professional staff of development experts with a significant and substantive role in projects toward an arrangement in which development projects are prioritized, solicited, approved, and overseen by USAID officers, but projects are largely designed, carried out, and evaluated by outside implementers (NRC 2006). This shift has led to an increasing focus on time-consuming issues of grant and contract management rather than project design and evaluation. This long-term shift has taken place in parallel with the more recent changes in agency policy described in Chapter 2 toward an increased emphasis on project monitoring and the use of evaluations to respond periodically to management needs, rather than systematically assess project impacts.


One consequence of these changes in policy and in the responsibilities of USAID staff has been the erosion of the skill base and expertise required to design and oversee impact evaluations for a variety of programs and contexts. The DG officers the committee encountered were experienced and knowledgeable in substantive matters, but even if they had training in general social sciences research methods, they rarely had training or experience with impact evaluation design. The evaluation capacity of USAID’s DG programs, like other capabilities, has thus increasingly shifted to the implementers who design and carry out the projects. Although the committee found in its own field visits that DG officers were, in general, quite willing to work with the committee’s consultants who were evaluation experts and that the DG officers were open to considering new approaches to testing the efficacy of their programs, few of the officers thought they were capable of judging and overseeing varied impact evaluation designs without additional assistance and resources.

The expertise needed among USAID professionals and, in particular, DG officers to support the initiative deserves particular attention. USAID’s past hiring in the DG field has stressed bringing in individuals with practical or theoretical training in democratic processes and institutions.

This will continue to be the main area for DG expertise, but it is clearly distinct from, and not sufficient for, providing expertise in the full range of project evaluation strategies. The World Bank, health care agencies, and other foreign assistance organizations regularly hire Ph.D.-level researchers whose advanced training focused on carrying out experimental and statistical evaluation analyses to support their subject matter experts. To increase its in-house capacity to support improved evaluations, USAID will need to hire more individuals with Ph.D.s in the social sciences whose training was strong in techniques of experimental and statistical analysis that can be applied to DG projects. The committee recommends that USAID acquire sufficient internal expertise in this area to both guide an initiative at USAID headquarters and provide advice and support to field missions as a key element of the initiative.

The DG office, like other parts of USAID, has made use of short-term appointments to augment its expertise. In the committee’s judgment, however, if the recommended evaluation initiative is accepted, the practice of having an occasional Ph.D.-trained experimental analyst as a fellow in the DG office can be helpful but will probably not be sufficient. As discussed further below, valuable assistance could be provided by outside experts through USAID’s various contracting mechanisms, but the leadership and confidence that come with in-house knowledge will be important to the success of the proposed initiative.

For many years the lack of staff capacity was offset by an active agency-wide centralized evaluation office (as in most bilateral and multiIMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE lateral development agencies)—the Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE). The DG office in particular was the subject of many detailed CDIE evaluations, including substantial comparative studies of DG projects (see, e.g., Blair and Hanson 1994, de Zeeuw and Kumar 2006). As already discussed, these were generally process evaluations and not formal impact evaluations, but they did provide systematic research intended to gather lessons and compare experiences. With the increased emphasis on project monitoring, however, CDIE had grown gradually weaker in recent years and was recently absorbed into the office of the new director of foreign assistance in the State Department.

Whether or not an independent central evaluation office should be restored is beyond this committee’s charge, but the committee believes the capacity of USAID headquarters to provide significant resources and expertise to assist DG officers in the field (and perhaps other USAID programs as well) who wish to develop impact evaluations of their programs would be a valuable augmentation of USAID’s in-house resources.

Partnerships to Add Capacity from Outside USAID While the committee believes that a substantial augmentation of USAID’s internal capacity for evaluation design is necessary for the proposed evaluation initiative to be effective, there is no reason that USAID’s efforts to improve evaluation must be purely an in-house affair. The need for supplemental outside capacity is particularly acute with regard to impact evaluations and broad-based learning. There is no need to keep on staff sufficient experts on evaluation design to provide all the assistance requested by country missions in that regard, if USAID can find other means to deliver the required technical support to field staff at critical moments of project design, implementation, and evaluation. And many of USAID’s organizational learning activities can and should be enriched by partnerships with academic institutions and think tanks exploring similar issues.

USAID has a number of options through its current contracting mechanisms to acquire this support. The committee’s discussions in Washington and during its field visits suggest that a significant number of implementers already have or could readily add the necessary expertise in impact evaluations; the problem has been a lack of demand for impact evaluations as parts of calls for proposals, rather than a lack of capacity among implementers.3 As discussed earlier, the committee believes that 3 Local grantees, such as NGOs, pose a different problem. Although it was found in the

–  –  –

it is important to maintain independence between those implementing a program and those responsible for its evaluation, but this could be achieved in a number of ways.

Universities also offer a major source of expertise related to highquality impact evaluations. Many university-based scholars already serve as consultants to USAID implementers on a range of DG issues. Increasingly, scholars are also partnering directly with international development agencies and NGOs to design and undertake systematic program evaluations. Mechanisms such as the Democracy Fellows program allow USAID to bring scholars onto its staff for short-term appointments.

Moreover, there is ample precedent in USAID for drawing on the expertise and resources of universities rather than individual scholars.

Over several decades USAID established itself as a pioneer in research leading to development in the field of agriculture. The agency accomplished this through a wide array of partnerships (usually constructed in the form of “cooperative agreements”) with U.S. land grant colleges and universities. These were institutions that had long been carrying out the research needed to achieve better agricultural outcomes. Land grant officials were accustomed to working with state agricultural extension services, for example, providing them with technical support to detect, diagnose, and cure outbreaks of diseases and infestations threatening crops and livestock. The research was not limited to agricultural production itself but dealt with a wide range of issues, including rural credit, in which Ohio State University played a key role, or land tenure, in which the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin became the world leader. Those partnerships expanded beyond the borders of the United States into international networks of research centers dedicated to agricultural research and extension. A prime illustration is Zamorano, in Honduras, but there are many others.

When USAID embarked on democracy programs as a major effort distinct from its other programs, it did not make a comparable investment in basic research partnerships with universities to provide additional knowledge and intellectual capacity. In most cases the focus was and remains on doing democracy rather than studying how to do democracy.

There were and are important exceptions, and in addition some universities are major implementers of USAID DG programs, such as SUNY Albany’s long-term efforts at legislative strengthening, or the work of the IRIS Center at the University of Maryland on issues related to economic development and governance.4 Although not necessary for the initial DG evaluation initiative, for the longer term USAID might consider investing resources to develop a 4 Further information about the IRIS program may be found at http://www.iris.umd.edu/ and

–  –  –

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 49 | 50 || 52 | 53 |   ...   | 62 |

Similar works:

«National Environmental Policy Act N Recommendations E for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact P Statements Second Edition A December 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Environment, Safety and Health Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements Second Edition December 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Environment, Safety and Health Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance printed...»

«Traktographische Untersuchungen am frontalen Operculum des menschlichen Gehirns Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Hohen Medizinischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Martin Mercier aus Mönchengladbach Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Bonn 1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Bernd Weber 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Volker Coenen Tag der Mündlichen Prüfung: 28.06.2012 Aus der Epileptologischen Klinik der Rheinischen...»

«Geschäftsführender Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. dent. Roland Frankenberger Abteilung für Zahnerhaltung Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. dent. Roland Frankenberger Einfluss der „Etch-and-rinse“ Technik auf die Dentinhaftung an sklerotischem Dentin Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Zahnmedizin dem Fachbereich Medizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg vorgelegt von Heike Flöttmann aus Gelsenkirchen Marburg 2013 Angenommen vom Fachbereich Medizin der...»

«How to Manage Asbestos in School Buildings: The AHERA Designated Person's Self Study Guide January 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pre-course Quiz Chapter 1 Using the Self-Study Guide Chapter 2 An Introduction to Asbestos Chapter 3 Asbestos Health Risks Chapter 4 What is Required of the LEA? Chapter 5 The AHERA Inspection Chapter 6 The Management Plan Chapter 7 Reinspections and Periodic Surveillance Chapter 8 The Operations and Maintenance Program Chapter 9 Training and Accreditation Chapter 10...»

«Untersuchung der weichgeweblichen Integration von verschiedenen Abutmentmaterialien und Abutmentoberflächenstrukturen in die periimplantäre Mukosa Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Hohen Medizinischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Frederike Heikamp aus Duisburg Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Bonn 1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. med. dent. Helmut Stark 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. med. Werner Götz Tag der...»

«VOLUME #1: Roots Hey Change Maker, Meegwich, for picking up this resource. Merci, for all the ways that you’re invested in learning about and practicing anti-oppression. Thank you for having the courage to prevent discrimination and fight for equality. Gracias, for your commitment to building equitable access to resources in your work, community & personal life. Shishi for believing in the possibility of healthier ways to live and love together. Asante sana for the ways you are resilient....»

«Internationale Vergleiche von Gesundheitssystemen und die Neubestimmung des Leistungskatalogs in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung Was bringt ein Blick über die Grenzen? Von Axel Olaf Kern und Stephan Dieter Kupsch Zusammenfassung In nahezu allen industrialisierten Ländern besteht der Anspruch, der gesamten Bevölkerung oder zumindest den Mitgliedern der Sozialversicherung alle medizinischen Leistungen zugänglich zu machen, die am Markt verfügbar sind. Dabei müssen die Länder nicht nur...»

«Enterotypes are Shared by Chimpanzees and Humans Andrew H. Moeller1, Patrick H. Degnan1, Anne E. Pusey2, Michael L. Wilson3, Beatrice H. Hahn4, and Howard Ochman1* Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,...»

«Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states Cover photo: A man rides his bicycle through a part of Kabul totally ruined by many years of war. (© Fredrik Naumann/Panos) Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states Published by the Department for International Development January 2005 Foreword All too frequently on our TV screens or in the newspapers we see what it is like to live in a country where government is failing, where basic rights to life and security are violated,...»

«Paper PH10-2012 An Analysis of Diabetes Risk Factors Using Data Mining Approach Akkarapol Sa-ngasoongsong and Jongsawas Chongwatpol Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA ABSTRACT Preventing the disease of diabetes is an ongoing area of interest to the healthcare community. Although many studies employ several data mining techniques to assess the leading causes of diabetes, only small sets of clinical risk factors are considered. Consequently, not only many potentially important...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.