Document Abstract
Published:
2011
How to monitor and evaluate anti-corruption agencies: guidelines for agencies, donors, and evaluators
To evaluate the success of an anti-corruption agency, disaggregated indicators are required
The number of Anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) around the world has increased dramatically, but the actual evidence about ACAs performance is scarce. This report argues that ACAs need to do a better job at establishing results-based indicators for their work, showing how activities lead to impact.
To help ACAs to measure their success, the paper provides practical guidance that assist staff of ACAs in undertaking monitoring and evaluation.
Conclusions encompass:
Furthermore, concerning the indicators used to track performance, the authors underline that:
The document additionally illustrates that while the development of good indicators is the responsibility of the ACAs themselves, donors may play a constructive role by providing advice, quality assurance, and critique.
To help ACAs to measure their success, the paper provides practical guidance that assist staff of ACAs in undertaking monitoring and evaluation.
Conclusions encompass:
- evaluations of ACAs should try to clarify the appropriate causal mechanisms for good anti-corruption interventions, clarify the actual impact of ACAs, and explore ways in which they can improve their work
- the evaluation process should have built-in mechanisms for dissemination of the report and for feedback
- conclusions, recommendations, and lessons need to be clear, relevant, targeted, and actionable in order for the evaluation to promote learning
- a formal management response and follow up system should be developed to systematise implementation of the recommendations
- all ACA staff should be able to have their voices heard in the evaluation process and flag potential issues for attention
Furthermore, concerning the indicators used to track performance, the authors underline that:
- although indicators can be used for both monitoring and evaluation purposes, they should be treated differently for each purpose
- in principle, indicators should so far as possible be disaggregated to capture differences in types of corruption
- the use of mixed methods for monitoring and evaluation is advised, both in the sense of mixing quantitative and qualitative indicators, or mixing perception-based indicators with indicators which directly measure corruption
The document additionally illustrates that while the development of good indicators is the responsibility of the ACAs themselves, donors may play a constructive role by providing advice, quality assurance, and critique.
