<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252" ?><rss version="2.0">    <channel>        <title>GSDRC newsfeed on Monitoring and evaluation</title>        <link>http://www.gsdrc.org</link>        <description>Academic and policy-relevant publications on governance and international development.</description>        <language>en-uk</language>        <copyright>Copyright &#169; 2010 Governance and Social Development Resource Centre</copyright>        <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:00:07 GMT</pubDate>        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:00:07 GMT</lastBuildDate>        <docs>http://www.gsdrc.org/rss/open</docs>        <managingEditor>george@gsdrc.org</managingEditor>        <webMaster>george@gsdrc.org</webMaster>                <item>            <title>Following the Money: Do Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys Matter?</title>            <author>Geir Sundet</author>            <description>Expenditure tracking, or ‘follow the money’, has become a byword in development circles for interventions that look into whether the money gets to where it is supposed to be going. The best known ‘follow the money’ initiative is the Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) methodology that was developed in Uganda in the 1990s. The Uganda PETS found that 80% of the funds intended for primary schools were diverted on the way. This large ‘leakage’ was subsequently cut to only 20%, an improvement that was attributed to a public information campaign that was initiated after the publication of the first PETS. This U4 Issues Paper reviews the evidence concerning the efficacy of expenditure tracking, recommending closer attention to the political context.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3581&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3581&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Improving Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability in Water Supply and Sanitation: Action, Learning, Experiences</title>            <author>John Butterworth, Donald O&apos;Leary, Mar&#xed;a Gonz&#xe1;lez de As&#xed;s</author>            <description>What can individual professionals do to address corruption in the water and sanitation sector? Module 3 of this World Bank book outlines &apos;Tools for Addressing Corruption in the Water and Sanitation Sector&apos;, including how to select appropriate tools for different situations. It focuses on cases from Honduras and Nicaragua. Strategies to improve transparency in decision making, enhance accountability and improve the information available to citizens can help prevent corruption and its negative impacts on service delivery. Diagnosis is essential before planning any anti-corruption actions and actions must be monitored. Strategies must be adapted to each country.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3327&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3327&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>A Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of the Delivery of Education Aid in Fragile States</title>            <author>C Berry</author>            <description>How can the effectiveness of education aid in fragile states be assessed and improved? This paper from the Journal of Education for International Development presents an assessment framework based on OECD principles of coordination, state building and &apos;do no harm&apos;. The framework is applied to four approaches to education aid (sector-wide approaches, trust funds, social funds, and UN-led approaches). No single approach will provide all the answers. Planning structures that include a wide range of stakeholders are particularly important in fragile state contexts.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3259&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=3259&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Monitoring Performance of Legal and Judicial Reform in International Development Assistance</title>            <author>L Armytage</author>            <description>How can the impact of legal and judicial reforms be monitored? This paper, presented to the International Bar Association, examines the application of performance monitoring in Cambodia and Papua New Guinea. It argues for substantial increases in international investment in performance monitoring and evaluation of legal and judicial reform efforts. This requires a transition from monitoring implementation of reform activities to refocus on developing frameworks that are capable of monitoring the impact of those activities on sector performance.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2970&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2970&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Monitoring and Evaluation in Post-Conflict Settings</title>            <author>USAID</author>            <description>How does monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) differ in post-conflict settings? This report produced for USAID reviews recent experience, literature and lessons regarding M&amp;E in post-conflict settings, with particular emphasis on Iraq and Afghanistan. The report’s main aims are to clarify the unique features that distinguish M&amp;E in post-conflict settings and to present emerging best practices for responding to these challenges.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2946&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2946&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Third-Generation PCIA: Introducing the Aid for Peace Approach</title>            <author>T Paffenholz</author>            <description>How can the Peace for Aid approach help to address the questions surrounding the debate on Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA)? This Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management paper moves on the PCIA approach and debate by presenting Aid for Peace. The Aid for Peace approach is a multi-purpose and multi-level process that facilitates the planning, assessment and evaluation of peace as well as aid interventions in conflict situations.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2944&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2944&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Evaluation of Citizens&apos; Voice and Accountability: Review of the Literature and Donor Approaches</title>            <author>T O Neil and M Foresti</author>            <description>How can the effectiveness of voice and accountability (V&amp;A) interventions be assessed? This paper from the Department for International Development (DFID) reviews the strategy and policy documents of seven DAC donors in order to contribute to the design of a V&amp;A evaluation framework. Donors need to give higher priority to evaluation research and the development of performance measures to generate more systematic evidence about the effectiveness of their activities. </description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2918&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2918&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>How to Build M&amp;E Systems to Support Better Government</title>            <author>K Mackay</author>            <description>What lessons can be learnt from the successes and failures of government Monitoring and Evaluation (M&amp;E) systems? This paper from the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) advises that there is no &apos;best&apos; model. Rather it is helpful to start by assessing existing systems. M&amp;E does not have inherent value. The bottom-line measure of success is whether information is used to improve government performance.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2830&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2830&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Following the Money: Toward Better Tracking of Global Health Resources</title>            <author>R Levine and K Blumer</author>            <description>How can we tell how much funding is devoted to global health programmes? How can planning and policymaking in the health sector be improved? This paper from the Center for Global Development&apos;s Global Health Resource Tracking Working Group argues that more timely, complete, and detailed data are required in order to mobilise the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). More attention needs to be given to improving the management of public-sector expenditures in developing countries, strengthening and institutionalising national health accounts work, and improving the timeliness and comprehensiveness of reporting of external support from bilateral, multilateral, and private sources.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2807&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2807&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Innovations in Government: International Perspectives on Civil Service Reform</title>            <author>G Lodge and S Kalitowski</author>            <description>What are the challenges confronting civil services around the world? This paper from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) surveys several case studies from developed countries to identify a variety of international approaches to civil service reform. Some common challenges include: enhancing accountability; improving policymaking; developing institutional memory; building staff expertise; and promoting joined-up government. Meeting these challenges requires clarifying the roles of ministers and officials, opening up policymaking, capturing innovation and narrowing the gap between the centre and frontline delivery services.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2776&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2776&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Strengthening the Evaluation Design and the Validity of the Conclusions</title>            <author>M Bamberger et al</author>            <description>How can threats to the validity of evaluations be identified and addressed? This chapter from Realworld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints outlines some of the most common threats to the validity of both quantitative (QUANT) and qualitative (QUAL) evaluation designs. It offers recommendations on how and when corrective measures can be taken to protect validity.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2761&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2761&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Executive Agencies: Do they Perform Better?</title>            <author>Government of Tanzania</author>            <description>Has the transformation of some Tanzanian ministerial departments into executive agencies (EAs) improved their delivery of services and internal efficiency? This paper published by the Tanzanian President&apos;s Office of Public Service Management analyses a series of indicators relating to several former ministries to assess the effect of their new identity as agencies. While there have been slight improvements in service delivery, overall financial performance has remained unchanged. Human resources management has seen improved staff composition indicators, but this has been cancelled out by growing personnel shortages.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2756&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2756&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>A Diagnosis of Colombia&apos;s National M&amp;E System</title>            <author>World Bank</author>            <description>Colombia&apos;s national system for monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) is one of the strongest in Latin America. This assessment by the World Bank&apos;s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) identifies its strengths and weaknesses. A number of options are identified for further strengthening the system so that it becomes fully institutionalised. </description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2734&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2734&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints: An Overview</title>            <author>M Bamberger et al</author>            <description>How can the principles of optimal evaluation design be applied under real world conditions with budget, time, data and political constraints? This paper, adapted from chapter 16 of &lt;em&gt;RealWorld Evaluation: Working under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints&lt;/em&gt; provides an overview of the RealWorld Evaluation (RWE) approach. It addresses constraints through practical suggestions applicable to both developing and developed world research. Understanding the aims and purpose of the evaluation, as well as the local context, is critical.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2724&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2724&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Harmonising Ex-ante Poverty Impact Assessment</title>            <author>OECD</author>            <description>How can donors and partner countries assess the intended and unintended consequences of donor interventions? This paper from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) explores &lt;em&gt;ex ante&lt;/em&gt; Poverty impact assessment (&lt;em&gt;ex ante&lt;/em&gt; PIA), which can assist in modifying the design of interventions to improve pro-poor impacts by identifying key areas for monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E). It can be applied to most modalities of donor support.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2715&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2715&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>The Power of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Insights from South-West China</title>            <author>R Vernooy</author>            <description>Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&amp;E) is a partnership between researchers and other stakeholders to systematically assess research or development activities. Focusing on participatory field research for community-based natural-resource management (CBNRM), this article from Development in Practice describes the capacity-building experiences of two research teams in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in south-west China. The ongoing democratisation and decentralisation processes in China aim to allow more space for local voice and decision-making power over NRM. So, who participates and what difference does participation make? </description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2709&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2709&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation</title>            <author>M Estrella</author>            <description>Since the 1980s concepts of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&amp;E) have entered the policy-making domain of larger donor agencies and development organisations. This introductory chapter from &lt;em&gt;Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation&lt;/em&gt; draws on twelve case studies to describe how different stakeholders have applied PM&amp;E approaches across a range of purposes and contexts. It outlines some of the key concepts and differences between participatory and conventional approaches to M&amp;E and highlights some emerging issues.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2708&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2708&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Impact Evaluation and the Project Cycle</title>            <author>World Bank</author>            <description>The goal of an impact evaluation (IE) is to attribute impacts to a project using a comparison group to measure what would have happened to the project beneficiaries had it not taken place. The process of identifying this group, collecting the required data and conducting the relevant analysis requires careful planning. This paper from the World Bank provides practical guidance on designing and executing IEs. It includes some illustrative costs and ideas for increasing government buy-in to the process.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2707&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2707&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Building Country Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluation in the Public Sector: Selected Lessons of International Experience</title>            <author>World Bank</author>            <description>The Evalution Capacity Development (ECD) unit of World Bank&apos;s Operations Evaluation Department is designed to help countries strengthen their monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) capacity. The unit targets &apos;high-intensity&apos; support to Uganda and Egypt and various other types of support to an additional 32 countries. This paper from the World Bank collates some of the main lessons learned from ECD activities and outlines the major issues which need to be addressed. </description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2706&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2706&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>        <item>            <title>Integrating Gender into the PRS Monitoring and Evaluation</title>            <author>World Bank</author>            <description>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&apos;s and women&apos;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 from the World Bank PRSP Sourcebook 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.</description>            <link>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2705&amp;source=rss</link>            <guid>http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=2705&amp;source=rss</guid>            <category>Monitoring and evaluation</category>            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>        </item>    </channel></rss>
