What lessons can be learnt from the successes and failures of government Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems? This paper from the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) advises that there is no ‘best’ model. Rather it is helpful to start by assessing existing systems. M&E does not have inherent value. The bottom-line measure of success is whether information is used to improve government performance.
Fiscal pressures and citizen and donor expectations push governments to provide more services of higher quality. M&E provides information about government policies, programmes and projects. It identifies what works, what does not, and why. Although there are technical aspects to M&E, a technocratic emphasis may overlook those factors that determine the extent to which M&E information is actually used.
Four uses of M&E information support sound governance: a) supporting policy making; b) helping government ministries in development and analysis work; c) supporting ministries and agencies in managing activities; and d) strengthening accountability relationships.
Examples of successful M&E systems reveal the importance of sustainability and of the quality and use of M&E information.
- Chile’s M&E system is largely implemented by the Ministry of Finance. Information is utilised intensively, particularly during the budget process. The system is highly cost effective, but the government is probably not spending enough on evaluations.
- Colombia’s M&E system is supported by laws, regulations and donor assistance. The president makes good use of a subsystem for monitoring progress against presidential and development goals. M&E information is not yet systematically used by ministries responsible for the national budget.
- Australia’s collaborative M&E system, developed in the context of reduced public spending, centres around regular evaluation of public sector programmes. Findings are used for policy advice and budget decision making. A lack of skills in some departments leads to uneven quality of evaluations.
- Uganda and other African countries already posses M&E systems, often supported by donors and used in poverty reduction strategies. Attempts to improve these systems are hampered by poor data quality and unharmonised donor requirements.
Lessons can be drawn from the experience of both developed and developing countries in building M&E systems:
- Demand from government is a prerequisite for successful institutionalisation. Lack of knowledge about M&E is a barrier to demand. Incentives for governments to actually use M&E information are also important.
- In working to build or strengthen M&E, governments should start with a diagnosis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing M&E functions. A powerful champion, such as a minister or senior official, can persuade colleagues to prioritise M&E.
- A capable ministry, often the finance ministry, should take the institutional lead in developing and managing M&E. The arrangement of responsibility is important in ensuring credibility and rigour.
- Over-engineering M&E systems is a common mistake. The general rule with performance indicators is ‘less is more’. Reliable ministry data systems are also essential. M&E training should cover the relative cost-effectiveness of various types of M&E.
- Laws and decrees can be useful vehicles for legitimising M&E, but are not enough to ensure that the significant efforts required to build an M&E system will be undertaken.
- Building an M&E system is a long-haul effort requiring patience and regular evaluation of the system itself.
