Archive

This guideline note on establishing evaluation systems in parliaments draws on the technical understanding we have gained from studying monitoring and evaluation systems in parliaments and across governments, work led by Twende Mbele and facilitated through a partnership with the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results- Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA) in the Strengthening Legislative Oversight program and taking what we know about parliaments generally and specifically the African national and regional parliaments to present preliminary guidance on establishing evaluation systems in parliaments. The objectives of this guideline note are to;

(i) Provide an overview of the parliamentary institutional environment indicating the key institutions necessary in the parliamentary monitoring and evaluation system.

(ii) Highlight the technical and political considerations of establishing a Monitoring and Evaluation system in a political and bureaucratic environment.

(iii) Emphasize the importance of the unique institutional form of parliaments, primarily the work done through committees and its influence in the design of an M&E system.

Twende Mbele has developed a guideline on establishing a national monitoring and evaluation policy (NMEP) or evaluation policy (NEP), targeting the M&E champions in government, as well as their supporters in the wider M&E ecosystem.

The Purpose of the guideline is to provide practical guidance for governments in Africa on developing a national M&E or evaluation policy. This guideline is a good example co-creation amongst partners since it was developed by Ian Goldman, Aloyce Ratemo, Damase Sossou, Nox Chitepo, Takunda Chirau, Edoé Djimitri Agbodjan, David Makhado, Thokozile Molaiwa, Cara Waller, Tim Lubanga, Andrew Asibeye, representing Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda.

This discussion paper starts from the premise that monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) as a performance measurement practice also has the potential to be a dynamic tool that can facilitate and support socio-economic transformation. This can only happen, however, if there are two major shifts in the field of MEL – the practice itself, and the systems within which it is practiced. When the practice of MEL is embedded within a hierarchical management structure and positioned in a routinised and default compliance framework then it loses its potential to be a progressive element of government planning and programming. It turns the wheels of government systems but fails to see new possibilities while struggling to deal with complex challenges where conflicting interests and incomplete information make establishing shared facts and understanding difficult.

This brief is based on a discussion paper titled Interrogating Leadership Paradigms using a Public Sector lens: creating horizontal leadership spaces for inclusive and transformative Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning practice. The brief starts from the premise that monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) as a performance measurement practice also has the potential to be a dynamic tool that can facilitate and support socio-economic transformation. This can only happen, however, if there are two major shifts in the field of MEL – the practice itself, and the structures / systems within which it is practiced.

This guideline seeks to help countries who are thinking of establishing a national evaluation system (NES) and suggests the minimum requirements for doing so. At present in Africa there are three countries with established NESs, Benin, Uganda and South Africa. These systems are outlined in Goldman et al., (2018). This guideline draws from the experience of the three countries and more widely, drawing on authors from those countries1.

The guideline covers what an evaluation system is (section 3), why it is important (section 4), when it is relevant (section 5), the components of a NES (section 6), diagnosing the situation prior to establishing a NES (section 7), the approach to establishing a NES (section 8), phases in establishing a NES (section 9), critical success factors (section 10) and the basic conditions needed (section 11).