Do assessments actually affect decision making, planning and programming? This report presents observations from an informal analysis of conflict, governance, and fragility/stability assessment tools developed by bilateral and multilateral actors. Use of assessments is affected by clarity of purpose, timing, incentives, staff competencies and linking assessment into a broader strategy. It is important to be realistic about what assessments can accomplish, link assessments to a planning cycle and build a culture of analysis.
In recent years, donor governments and international organisations have developed a number of frameworks and tools to assess governance, conflict, and fragility. However, there may be multiple, contradictory objectives underlying the development and use of such assessment tools. There may be deep, unstated assumptions. Different agencies tend to define the problem through their own institutional lens, and the assessment tools they create reflect these biases.
This study finds that so far, assessment tools have produced mixed results in terms of impacts on decision making, planning, and programming. Though producing good quality analysis is important, the extent of an assessment’s influence is determined by more than just the content or quality of analysis. The use of assessments is mainly determined by five key factors:
- Clarity of purpose: Different agencies and organisations can have varying perspectives on the purpose and objectives of an assessment, how it should be conducted, its target audience, and the use of its results.
- Timing and timeframes: Timing determines whether and how the results of an assessment are used. If the assessment misses the window of influence, it is likely to have little impact.
- Interests and incentives: Individual and institutional interests and incentives affect how effectively assessments are conducted and how the results are used. Buy-in of local staff is important. If scope for dissent from or change within a given policy, strategy, or programme is limited, receptivity to assessment results may well be limited.
- People and competencies: Certain skills and competencies are particularly valuable in generating an assessment that can be easily understood and effectively used. The use of external consultants to conduct assessments has benefits and drawbacks.
- Links between assessment and planning: Inadequate attention is paid to how assessment tools fit into broader strategic planning processes. Assessment processes can be one-off exercises, rather than regular analysis to feed into planning cycles.
Where interagency or whole-of-government planning is the primary objective, the emphasis of assessment methodology can be entirely on process. The goal can become “good enough” analysis with a basic level of agreement among the key players in order to provide the basis for a common strategy.
It is important to be realistic about what assessments can accomplish, and situate assessments in the political context. Good analysis does not always point to solutions; more often it only reveals the limitations of donor options. Donors also need to enure that assessments are consistently linked to an overarching planning cycle and to shift the focus from tools to developing a culture of analysis. They should:
- Develop clear protocols that set out: i) how assessment feeds into planning or programming, ii) what the appropriate link to monitoring and evaluation is, and iii) how to disseminate the results of assessments to avoid their becoming one-off exercises.
- Ensure that assessments are clear and appropriate for the end user.
- Streamline political analysis throughout development-agency thinking.
- Cultivate multiple sources of information and analysis locally and internationally.
- Encourage staff to ‘think politically’ so that programming is regularly informed by contextual information.
- Prioritise country, as well as thematic, expertise.
