Gender analysis
Development interventions can have differential impacts on men and women: men and women have different needs and constraints, different opportunities to participate in programme design and implementation, and benefit differently from outcomes and impacts. A gender analysis framework should therefore be a component of all evaluation designs. It is also important to have a gender-balanced evaluation team.
World Bank, 2002, ‘Integrating Gender into the PRS Monitoring and Evaluation’ in Chapter 10: Gender of A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies, World Bank, Washington DC, pp.360-366
There is growing evidence that gender-sensitive development strategies contribute significantly to economic growth and equity objectives by ensuring that all groups of the poor share in programme benefits. Yet differences between men’s and women’s needs are often not fully recognised in poverty analysis and participatory planning, and are frequently ignored in the selection and design of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). A full understanding of the gender dimensions of poverty can significantly change the definition of priority policy and programme interventions supported by the PRS. This chapter provides practical guidance on identifying and implementing country-level policies and programmes that will benefit both men and women, and maximise potential benefits for poor families.
Access full text: available online
Evaluators have had limited success in introducing gender sensitive approaches to M&E. This is particularly evident in the use of household surveys which either only interview the household head (usually male) or which interview women in contexts where they are not able to speak freely.
Evaluations should address critical gender issues such as time poverty, participation in household decision-making and women’s multiple roles (e.g. production, social reproduction and community management).
Bambrilla, P., 2001, ‘Gender and Monitoring: A Review of Practical Experiences’, report prepared for the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, BRIDGE Report 63, BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
How can monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes be made gender-sensitive? What measures have organisations taken to assess their effectiveness in mainstreaming gender? This report provides a tool for integrating a gender approach into M&E mechanisms.
Access full text: available online
Value for Money
‘Value for money’ (VFM) is a term used to describe an ‘explicit commitment to ensuring the best results possible are obtained from the money spent’ (Barnett et al 2010). The term has been used by a number of donors and multilateral agencies as part of their appraisal and evaluation procedures. These include DFID, USAID, DANIDA and the Millennium Challenge Commission. There is also growing interest in applying VFM frameworks to development programmes.
Whilst always present in aid effectiveness discussions, the VFM agenda has increased in prominence as a result of growing concern with transparency and accountability in government spending. DFID has stated that improving VFM is not simply an exercise in cost-cutting. It involves addressing economic, efficiency and effectiveness considerations to ensure that fewer resources are spent where possible, and that these resources are spent productively and are focused on achieving objectives.
The following study highlights several options for improving and assessing value for money. While some approaches are more focused on management (they are easier to implement and involve a strengthening of existing processes), others focus on measurement. The latter represent a more radical departure from existing practice and require more rigorous data collection. The ‘ratings and weightings’ approach, where programmes are rated according to pre-determined standards of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, is arguably the most promising.
Barnett, C., et al., 2010, ‘Measuring the Impact and Value for Money of Governance Programmes’, ITAD
How can value for money best be measured in governance and conflict programming? This study reviews options for a VFM approach in relation to governance programmes, including those in conflict-affected and failed states, for the UK’s Department for International Development. VFM involves examining economy, efficiency and effectiveness, identifying the links between them and drawing conclusions based on evidence about how well they perform together. It is an optimal balance that is important, as opposed to a maximum productivity ratio. The cheapest option does not always represent the best value for money.
Access full text: available online
Donors are using the term ‘value for money’ in different ways. DFID’s approach involves assessing whether results achieved represent good value against the costs incurred. Other agencies, such as USAID and the World Bank, aim to achieve VFM through rigorous economic analysis or results-based management.
GSDRC, 2010, ‘Value For Money’, Helpdesk Research Report, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, Birmingham
How are donors approaching ‘value for money’ in their aid programming? DFID appears to have gone the furthest among aid agencies in developing the concept of ‘value for money’ (VFM). Processes include the use of logframes, economic appraisals and portfolio reviews. Newer initiatives include the adoption of a business case model for project approval and the development of unit cost metrics in key sectors. Other donors, while not explicitly adopting ‘value for money’ terminology, aim to achieve VFM through rigorous economic analysis and results-based management.
Access full text: available online