2014-2017
Regional Evaluation Strategy
Arab States Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ................................................................ 2
II. THE GLOBAL EVALUATION STRATEGIC PLAN (2014-2017) ........................... 4
III. PURPOSE OF THE REGIONAL EVALUATION STRATEGY ............................... 5
IV. STRATEGIC RESULTS AREAS OF THE REGIONAL EVALUATIONSTRATEGY ................................................................................................................ 6
Results Area 1: Effective decentralized evaluation system strengthened andimplemented ............................................................................................................ 6
A. Management attention to decentralized evaluation function is heightened .. 6
A.1 Investment in evaluation .......................................................................... 6
A.2 Adequate and skilled human resources for Monitoring and Evaluation .... 7
A.3 Reinforcing accountabilities for evaluation ............................................... 7
B. Coverage of evaluations improved and maintained ..................................... 8
C. Implementation of evaluations ..................................................................... 8
D. Quality and credibility of evaluations improved ............................................ 9D.1. Quality assurance system in evaluation processes .............................. 10
E. The evaluative evidence generated is used and supports evidence-based
programming ............................................................................................. 11
E.1 The Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use .................... 11
E.2 Management Response and use of evaluations .................................... 12
F. Internal evaluation capacities enhanced to manage and use evaluations . 13
Results Area 2: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted ....... 14
A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development, including regional levelnetworks and groups supported ................................................................ 14
B. Gender equality integrated in UNDAF and joint evaluations ...................... 14
Results Area 3: National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E systemstrengthened.......................................................................................................... 15
A. Civil society capacity development on gender responsive evaluation
strengthened ............................................................................................. 15
B. Government partners have increased evaluation capacity ........................ 16
B.1 Members of Parliament .......................................................................... 16
B.2 Government Partners ............................................................................. 17
V. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EVALUATION FUNCTION ....................................... 17
VI. MECHANISM FOR MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY .. 19VII. RESULTS FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 21
ANNEX I – Theory of Change to strengthen UN Women Evaluation Function………... 24
ANNEX II – Checklist for the Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized Evaluation.. 25
ANNEX III – UN Women Global Evaluation Oversight System Semester 2 – 2013……..28
ANNEX IV – Planned Evaluations 2014-2017 - Arab States Region………………………32
ANNEX V – Planned UNDAF Evaluations 2014-2017 – Arab States Region…………….34
1

Acronyms
CO

Country Office

CR

Country Representative

DaO

Delivering as One

DRD

Deputy Regional Director

EvalMENA

Middle East and North Africa Evaluators Network

GATE

Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation

GEHR

Gender Equality and Human Rights

GERAAS

Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System

GEOS

Global Evaluation Oversight System

IEO

Independent Evaluation Office

MCO

Multi-Country Office(M)COMulti-country/Country Office

MERP

Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Plan

POM

Programme and Operations Manual

RD

Regional Director

RES

Regional Evaluation Specialist

ROAS

Regional Office for Arab States

SN

Strategic Note

ToC

Theory of Change

ToR

Terms of Reference

UNDAF

United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNEG

United Nations Evaluation Group2

I.

Background and Justification

Within the framework of the UN Women Evaluation Policy, evaluation in UN Womenis a comprehensive function that reinforces accountability, learning and oversight inorder to support management decisions and enhance programme effectiveness ongender equality and the empowerment of women. The work of UN Women is largely
anchored in its Strategic Plan which is the centerpiece for organizational programming,management and accountability.
The Regional Office for Arab States (ROAS) and Multi-country/Country offices (M)COin the region have developed Strategic Notes aligned with the Strategic Plan (20142017) covering the period 2014-20171. The Strategic Notes set out the strategic
direction and priorities of the region and guide the normative, operational andcoordination work in the areas of increasing women's leadership and participation;enhancing women's economic empowerment; ending violence against women;
engaging women in all aspects of peace and security processes; and making genderequality central to national development planning and budgeting.
The Arab States Region for UN Women includes 17 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt,
Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. UN Women has a regional office in
Egypt, a multi-country office in Morocco covering Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia;
country offices in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine; and programme presence in Libya
and Yemen.
Monitoring and evaluation is a priority for all UN Women offices in the region. During
2012-2013 evaluation coverage with respect to the number of offices conducting
evaluations was relatively low. Over the 2014-17 the number of evaluations is
expected to grow significantly with all offices commissioning a minimum of two
evaluations. This will require the strengthening of the evaluation function across theregion.
In April 2014, the ROAS conducted a regional M&E survey to assess the needs of UN
Women programme staff in the region. The assessment indicated the need for M&E
capacity development in the region. Two-thirds (67 percent) of respondents had notparticipated in any evaluation training in the past five years . Less than half of
respondents knew of key UN and UN Women evaluation resources – approximately
47% knew about the UN Women Evaluation Policy and Guidance Notes.
Respondents ranked staff knowledge and expertise and staff time as the two biggest
challenges with respect to both monitoring and evaluation. Additional challenges cited
included: integrating the gender perspective in M&E, finding qualified consultants, thelack of prioritization of evaluation, more support for the reporting and use of evaluation,and partner capacity on M&E.

1

The time period of the multi-country / country office strategic notes varies depending on the country specificUnited Nations Development Assistance Framework. All strategic notes begin in 2014 but end with the UNDAF
cycle for their respective country.

3

The top 5 M&E training priorities identified by respondents were:
1. Ensuring evaluations are Gender Equality and Human Rights (GEHR)
responsive
2. Basic concepts of results based monitoring (RBM) and developing a Results
Framework
3. Key principles of monitoring at various levels, monitoring tools, organizing &analyzing monitoring data etc.
4. Setting up a monitoring framework and arrangements
5. UN Women Evaluation Policy and Guidelines / 5. United Nations Evaluation
Group (UNEG) Norms & Standards
II.

The Global Evaluation Strategic Plan (2014-2017)

A Global Evaluation Strategic Plan was developed by the Independent Evaluation
Office (IEO) as a comprehensive framework to guide the entire organization at global,
regional and country level to strengthen the evaluation function. It is guided by a
Theory of Change (ToC) based on a system-approach to strengthen the institutional
capability to better perform and deliver expected results in line with the Evaluation
Policy. The ToC aims to strengthen the capability to demand and use evaluation bysenior managers, as well as the capability to deliver high-quality evaluations by UN
Women staff and M&E officers/focal points at the regional, multi-country and country
office levels. See Annex 1 for details.
Based on the Evaluation Policy, the evaluation function at UN Women focuses on thefollowing major key results areas:
Area 1: Effective corporate evaluation2 systems implemented
Area 2: Effective decentralized evaluation3 systems implemented
Area 3: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
Area 4: National evaluation capacities for gender responsive M&E systems
strengthened
To ensure a transparent and sound system to monitor the performance of theevaluation function in UN-Women, the Independent Evaluation Office has establisheda Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS). The system includes a dashboard that
presents seven (7) key performance indicators for the evaluation function (see Annex
III), specifically:
KPI 1: Human resources for monitoring and evaluation
KPI 2: Financial resources invested in evaluation
KPI 3: Evaluation coverage
2

Corporate evaluations are independent assessments undertaken by the independent Evaluation Office withthe support of external evaluators.
3
Decentralized evaluations are evaluations conducted by independent external evaluators but managed byprogrammatic offices. They are conducted in full consultation or in partnership with national stakeholders andUnited Nations agencies, to the extent possible.

4

KPI 4: Evaluations planned vs. completed
KPI 5: Quality of evaluation reports
KPI 6: Evaluation reports and management response submission rate
KPI 7: Implementation of Management Responses

III.

Purpose of the Regional Evaluation Strategy

The Regional Evaluation Strategy for the Arab States is aligned with the Global
Evaluation Strategic Plan (2014-2017), but based on the unique context and needs ofthe region and will ensure that the evaluation function in the Arab States region plays
the strategic role foreseen by the Evaluation Policy. It seeks to achieve an effective
evaluation function that provides timely and credible evaluative evidence to inform andinfluence programming and decision making at the regional, multi-country and country
levels, and ultimately make UN Women a more effective and efficient organization in
the region.
The strategy aims to build on the gains achieved in improving the evaluation functionin the region so far, and to address remaining gaps in key evaluation performanceareas through providing a clear framework for the realization of all aspects of the
Evaluation Policy pertaining to the regional, multi-country and country offices of ArabStates Region. Furthermore, it supports UN system wide processes and programmes
within the context of UNDAF, UN reforms (DaO M&E), and Joint programming in theregion.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy outlines the rationale, purpose, strategic results,
quality assurance in evaluation processes, responsibilities, mechanisms formonitoring implementation and a results framework. The eventual goal is to support
UN-Women’s mission and help the organization better serve gender equality andwomen empowerment in the region. The strategy is framed around three of the fourglobal strategic result areas, specifically:Area 2: Effective decentralized evaluation systems implemented
Area 3: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
Area 4: National evaluation capacities for gender responsive M&E systems
strengthened

The Regional Evaluation Strategy is based on the needs and priorities of all offices in
the region.4 As outlined in the evaluation chapter of the Programme and Operations
Manual (POM), the decentralized evaluation function is managed through a shared
responsibility involving the country offices, multi-country offices, regional offices, andthe Independent Evaluation Office. Each office assumes a distinct role andresponsibility. Working together, they contribute to a coherent and effective evaluation
function in UN Women. Thus, the strategy is inclusive of the work of the Regional
Office, Multi-country and Country offices.

4

While the Regional Evaluation Strategy is based on the Global Evaluation Strategy, it specifics are grounded in
the specific regional needs as expressed in the M&E Needs Survey and discussions with offices in the region.
Once developed it was shared with all offices who were asked for feedback.

5

IV.

Strategic Results Areas of the Regional Evaluation Strategy

Results Area 1: Effective decentralized evaluation system strengthened andimplemented

A. Management attention to decentralized evaluation function is heightened
The Regional Evaluation Strategy builds on the premise that senior management
assumes overall accountability for evaluation in their respective offices, including
ensuring sufficient resources (human and financial) and quality assurance for
evaluations. In accordance with the Evaluation Policy, senior managers at thedecentralized level (Regional Director and Multi-Country and Country
Representatives) should champion the use of all evaluations in the Arab States Region
and make available adequate financial and human capacity for decentralized
evaluation to ensure a fully effective and efficient evaluation function. They also
assume responsibility for creating an enabling environment for the strengthening of
the evaluation culture in the area under their purview.
Capacity to carry out evaluation function will mean nothing if evaluation plans are notbudgeted, evaluation results are not properly communicated and used, and therequired skills and expertise including mechanisms to build evaluation capacity are notmade available. The Strategy aims to reinforce efforts to advocate for and secure theresources necessary to perform the evaluation function at the regional, multi-country
and country office levels.
The IEO and ROAS will work to ensure that the Evaluation Policy is disseminated andstaff in the Arab States Region are aware of and understand the evaluation function
at UN Women, including the criteria to be applied in UN Women Evaluations, theevaluation criteria to be applied, and the processes and parameters for selecting
evaluations to ensure adequate evaluation coverage.
A.1 Investment in evaluation
Appropriate budget allocation is central in ensuring the quality, credibility, and utility ofevaluation. A retrospective look at investment in evaluation in the region reveals thatthe function is under-resourced. In 2013, only 0.3% of ROAS and CO budgets were
invested in evaluation, well below the minimum level of investment target of 3% set
out in the Evaluation Policy. This underinvestment was largely due to the fact that fiveof the six offices in the region did not conduct evaluations in 2013 and minimal funds
were allotted for evaluation capacity development related activities. As all offices in
the region have planned evaluations in the 2014-2017 period, each office should also
have a costed evaluation plan, ensuring that sufficient funds are allocated for the
conduct and dissemination of each planned evaluation as part of their Monitoring,
Evaluation and Research Plan (MERP). To this end,6 All offices will allocate 3 percent of their total AWP budgets, including both coreand non-core funds, for evaluation related activities over the period of theirstrategic note.5
The RO/MCO/COs will refine their MERPs annually based on their actual office
portfolio/investment to ensure that they are on track to dedicate 3 percent of theirportfolio during the Strategic Note period.
A.2 Adequate and skilled human resources for Monitoring and Evaluation
There are diverse institutional arrangements for staffing at the field level. Congruent
with the decentralized nature of UN-Women, efforts are being made at UN Women toincrease capacity for monitoring and evaluation at the field level. While all of the officesin the region have appointed M&E focal points in 2013, only one country office(Palestine) has a half-time dedicated/specialized M&E officer.
While such an arrangement is understandable given the operational span andresource base of the Entity, the continued absence of such dedicated expertise will
have a significant bearing on the overall evaluative work of UN Women and its capacity
to promote gender-responsive evaluation in joint and/or system-wide evaluation at thecountry-level, including in evaluations of the United Nations Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF).
As part of the Regional Evaluation Strategy
 ROAS will work with all Offices in the region to build the capacity of field office

staff on the conduct, management and use of gender responsive evaluations6
 100 % Offices will continue to ensure they have an M&E focal point and appoint
M&E officers where possible
A.3 Reinforcing accountabilities for evaluation
Ensuring the quality, credibility and use of evaluation is the responsibility of all
managers in UN-Women. This is mainly promoted through a system of organizational
incentives, inclusion in the performance appraisal system and investment in evaluation
capacity development.
In accordance with the Evaluation Policy, the use of evaluation for improved
performance will be included as a key element in the performance appraisals of senior
managers. In this regard, the Regional Director will ensure integration of the evaluation
function in the individual Performance and Management Development (PMD) of
country office representatives. Moreover, the strategy aims to further mainstream the5

The evaluation related budget is not limited only to the conduct of evaluation, but can also include evaluation
related capacity building activities, dissemination of evaluation findings and lessons learned, and staff timespent on evaluation.
6
Annual capacity development plans for UN Women staff in the region will be developed in collaboration with(M)COs.

7

demand for evaluation particularly among senior managers of the regional, multicountry and country offices. To support this aim,

Evaluation will be integrated in the agenda of main country office or regional
office meetings including annual retreats, and the main findings andrecommendations will be discussed and regularly monitored.

B. Coverage of evaluations improved and maintained
All Offices in the region are expected to identify their planned evaluations by analyzing
their respective regional/multi-country/country strategic notes and identifying potential
needs and commitments. Knowing in advance what evaluations will be conducted ina given period allows more time to identify and recruit evaluation teams with the rightexpertise to maximize the potential of evaluations.
For a young entity, the coverage of evaluation in the Arab States Region (2011-2013)is reasonably good. About two-thirds of offices in the region have conducted a projector programme evaluation over the 2011-13 period. However due to various reasons
including unrealistic planning, offices transitioning during the formation of the new
regional architecture, and country specific instability a number of evaluations were
delayed and / or postponed.
Over the next four years all of the offices in the region have planned to complete atleast two evaluations (see Annex IV for list of planned evaluations). The strategy willreinforce the existing systems to ensure that evaluation plans are strategicallydesigned, properly implemented and regularly reviewed.
In this regard, the strategy will pursue the following to improve coverage of evaluations
in Arab States region:ROAS will provide systematic support to regional, multi-country and country offices
to ensure evaluations are strategically planned, carried out according to theevaluation plans, are of high quality, and can be used to improving learning,accountability and programming.
ROAS and COs will ensure timely review of the evaluation plans in line with the
AWP planning and make adjustment based on the needs and priorities of therespective countries/offices.

C. Implementation of evaluations
A number of evaluations were not implemented within the planned timeframe; data for2013 indicates an evaluation completion rate of 33 percent. Only one of the threeevaluations planned for 2013 was completed in 2013; the remaining evaluations were
initiated but have not yet been completed due to interruption in implementation or a
project extension.7 Based on MER plans approved during the 2014 strategic planning
cycle, five evaluations and two evaluability assessments are planned for 2014. It will
be very important for offices to ensure sufficient time, human and financial allocation
for implementing evaluations.
7

MER Plans should be updated quarterly to reflect changes in delays or cancellation of evaluations.

8

The Regional Evaluation Specialist (RES) will work with each office to ensure a clear
understanding of the roles and responsibilities and the key components of realistic
evaluation planning and timely and quality implementation. The Strategy will give
particular focus to those offices with limited experience in conducting project /programme or thematic evaluations. The Strategy will also reinforce the mechanism
for follow up to implementation of evaluation plans through consistent technicalassistance and follow up by the RES, quarterly tracking in the GATE system onplanned and ongoing evaluations, as well as through the Global Evaluation Oversight
System (GEOS)8.
All offices will aim to increase the evaluation implementation rate to 90 percent.

D. Quality and credibility of evaluations improved
The 2013 Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System9 (GERAAS),
established by the IEO with the aim of improving the quality and use of decentralized
evaluations, included one evaluation from the Arab States Region which was rated assatisfactory. As more and more evaluations are planned to be undertaken in the spanof the SN cycle with wider scope and coverage including programme-level, thematic,
joint and UNDAF evaluations, consistent follow up and support is required to multicountry and country offices to conduct high quality and credible evaluations. While
many factors, including limited financial and human capacity at field level can accountfor poor quality evaluations, the 2013 meta-analysis of all UN Women evaluations
globally revealed that the majority of programmes lack explicit theories of change,measurable results frameworks, or adequate monitoring. Most of the evaluation
reports also cite the lack of data as a major constraint to evaluation. All these have asignificant bearing on the quality and credibility of evaluations undertaken in theregion.


The regional evaluation strategy will aim to have 80 percent of evaluation
reports receiving a quality rating of “good” or better.

The ROAS together with the IEO will reinforce the quality assurance mechanism in all
evaluation processes at regional, multi-country and country level. These mechanisms
includes reviewing of terms of reference, participation in selection of consultants,
inception and final reports, assessment using the GERAAS methodology, as well as
oversight, quality assurance and technical support by the regional evaluation specialist
based in the ROAS. As part of the meta-evaluation, executive feedback and results of
the review of individual evaluation reports will be provided to the multi-country andcountry offices citing areas for improvement and learning.
8

The Global Evaluation Oversight System has been established to ensure a transparent and sound system tomonitor the performance of the evaluation function in UN-Women. The system includes a dashboard that
presents key performance indicators for the evaluation function in a user-friendly manner.
9
The Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System (GERAAS) uses UNEG evaluation report
standards as a basis for review and assessment, while ensuring specific standards relevant to UN-Women. The
system provides an independent assessment of the quality and usefulness of evaluation reports. In addition, it
serves knowledge management objectives by synthesizing evaluation findings, good practices and lessons
learned, and capacity development objectives by sending individual practical feedback to commissioning offices
on how to improve the quality and usefulness of future evaluations.

9D.1. Quality assurance system in evaluation processes
A quality assurance system is central in order to continuously improve and enhance
the quality and credibility of UN Women’s decentralized evaluations and of theevaluation function overall. The strategy among others will enforce and strengthen themechanism for quality assurance at different stages of the evaluation process as
outlined in table 1 below. In accordance with the UN Women quality assurance system


All Offices are required to ensure 100% compliance with the quality assurance
process for all evaluations managed by their respective offices.

This indicator will be reported on by respective offices and monitored by the ROAS on
a biannual basis. Annex II provides the form for reporting on the status of complianceagainst the quality assurance process for decentralized evaluation. The RES will workwith MCO/CO staff involved in the quality assurance process to ensure that they
understand the distinct roles and responsibilities and have sufficient capacity toundertake the tasks outline below (for additional information on capacity development
activities see section F). As indicated below, the M&E officer/focal point in each officewill play an integral role in providing technical advice in the evaluation process,including the drafting of ToRs, selection of the expert, and review of reports.
Table 1: Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized Evaluations10
Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Plans (MERP)The M&E officer/focal point develops the MER plan in consultation with concerned
programme officers and senior managers
The draft plan is sent to the Regional Evaluation Specialist (RES) for review
The (M)CO Representative/Regional Director submits the MER plan together with
the SN/AWP for PRG’s review and approval
The M&E officer/focal point uploads the evaluation section of the MER plan to
GATE within one month of approval
Terms of Reference (ToR)The M&E officer/focal point provides assistance in the development of theevaluation’s terms of reference. In the absence of an M&E Officer, the evaluation
task manager takes the lead in developing the ToR.
The draft ToR is sent to the RES for quality review
Final ToR is approved by the country representative/deputy representative
Selection of consultants
The M&E officer/focal point provides assistance in the selection of the consultant
used for the evaluation in consultation with RES. For countries with no M&E officer,
the evaluation task manager plays a key role in the selection of consultant/s.
The final selection of the consultant
representative/deputy representative
10

isapprovedbythecountry

Section V of the Regional Evaluation Strategy outlines the roles and responsibilities of the evaluation
function at UN Women.

10Inception Report
The M&E Officer/focal point or the evaluation task manager takes the primarily
responsibility for quality assuring and approving the inception report.
The draft and final inception report is sent to the RES for quality review
Draft and final evaluation reports
The M&E officer provides assistance in ensuring the quality of the draft evaluation
report. In cases where no M&E officer is appointed, the evaluation task manager
should play the role of assuring the quality of the draft and final evaluation report.
The draft evaluation report is sent to the RES for quality review
The final report is approved by the country representative/deputy representative
The M&E officer/M&E focal point uploads the final evaluation report within six
weeks of finalization to the GATEManagement response
The country representative/deputy representative leads the development of the
management response and ensures timely implementation of key actions
The M&E officer/focal point uploads the management response in the GATE
system within six weeks of finalization
The country representative approves the MER plan, final evaluation report andmanagement response in the GATE system
The country representative or deputy should ensure timely implementation of the
key actions
E. The evaluative evidence generated is used and supports evidence-based
programming
E.1 The Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use
The IEO has established the online Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation- GATE system. The GATE provides a platform to store all evaluations including
management responses in a transparent manner and establishes a follow-up
mechanism to recommendations through a tracking system of implementation of key
actions. Key performance indicator data on evaluation reported to the Executive
Director and Executive Board is primarily drawn from the information entered on aquarterly basis in the GATE system. The ROAS will play an oversight role with respect
to adherence to key corporate requirements in the region.
The evaluation chapter of the POM clearly spells out the user and approval rights of
the GATE system. The Regional Evaluation Strategy will reinforce the appointment ofa GATE focal point by all Offices in the region by the senior management.
All offices will ensure that 100% of reports are uploaded and made available in
the GATE system11E.2 Management Response and use of evaluations
E.2.1 Management response development and uploading it to the GATE system
In line with the requirements established in the Evaluation Policy, management
responses should be prepared for every UN Women evaluation, including joint
evaluations in which UN Women participates directly in the management andimplementation.11 In the Arab States Region, 100 percent of completed evaluations
had management responses in 2013. As the number of evaluations conducted
increases significantly in the next few years, it will be important for offices to continue
to ensure that all evaluation reports uploaded into the GATE system havecorresponding management responses. For decentralized evaluations, the Head of
Office is responsible for finalization, implementation and monitoring of the
management response.
All offices will continue 100% compliance with the development,
implementation and monitoring of management responses and actions and forreporting on their status through the GATE system.

E.2.2 Implementation of management response and key actions
The ultimate success of evaluation depends on the extent to which therecommendations are implemented and used to contribute to organizational
accountability, informed decision making, and learning to improve performance andachievement of results. For evaluations conducted in the region in 2013, 67 (72%) of
the key actions have been completed while 21 (22%) are under implementation and 6(6%) are not yet initiated, representing a 94 percent implementation rate (completed+ initiated) of management response key actions.
Country offices will continue to ensure that a minimum 90 percent
implementation rate of management response key actions. This parameter will
be monitored by the regional evaluation specialist to ensure that key actions
are implemented in a timely manner.

E.2.3 Use of evaluations
While compliance with management response is positive, there is no systematic
approach at the regional, multi-country and country office level to ensure that
evaluation findings are used to inform and improve decision-making and programming.
To increase the utility of evaluation as an evidence-based programming tool, thestrategy will support the establishment of an enforcement mechanism for reviewing
new strategic notes to ensure all include references to evidence from evaluations of
the preceding programme/strategic note cycles.

11

Management responses for joint evaluations only need to address those recommendations specific to UN
Women.

12Moreover, as per UN Women Evaluation Policy, senior managers at the Regional andCountry Office level will assume ultimate responsibility in the use of findings,
recommendations and lessons learned resulting from evaluations commissioned bytheir respective offices and from other corporate or relevant evaluations.
In order to maximize the use and dissemination of evaluations:RO and COs will develop dissemination and communication strategies for allplanned evaluations
ROAS and COs will organize dissemination / learning events to review
evaluation findings, when possible together with other meetings
ROAS will develop thematic evaluation briefs and other knowledge
management products based on the evaluations conducted in the region toensure that findings and lessons learned are shared across the region
ROAS will conduct regional webinars to share and discuss evaluation findings

F. Internal evaluation capacities enhanced to manage and use evaluations
In UN Women, evaluation capacity development is seen as a deliberate process
whereby the abilities to manage, conduct and use GEHR evaluations are acquired,enhanced, and sustained over time. In this context, enhancing capacities on
evaluation will not only provide the impetus to effectively design, manage and use
evaluations but ultimately lead to generating credible evidence and accelerating
progress on gender equality and the empowerment of women in the region.
Different modalities including online, internal and external trainings, inter-country(south-south) collaboration, learning events, workshops, and community of practices
will be promoted and used to build staff capacity on evaluation. More specifically theregional evaluation strategy will support the following sets of strategies towards
enhancing internal capacity on evaluation:






ROAS will conduct annual learning events on GEHR M&E for UN Women
staff in the region;
ROAS will work with (M)COs to develop different user-friendly modalities todeliver training on the conduct, management and use of gender responsive
evaluation to larger group of CO staff
Regional Evaluation Specialist will hold monthly skype conferences with(M)CO M&E focal points;(M)COs will encourage M&E officers/focal points and other staff to participate
in the UN Women Evaluation Community of Practice (CoP)13

Results Area 2: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development, including regional levelnetworks and groups supported
One of UN Women’s roles in promoting United Nations system coherence,
coordination and accountability in terms of gender equality and the empowerment of
women is to support gender responsive evaluation capacity with the UN system.
Participation in interagency M&E groups is one way to work with other UN agencies
on ensuring increased GR evaluation capacity development.
Currently, there is no regional level UN interagency M&E group in the Arab States
region. The ROAS will reach out to other regional UN agencies to explore interest in
establishing an interagency network for the Arab States region to promote anevaluation culture and contribute to UN coherence on evaluation. The interagencygroup can also support the strengthening of regional evaluation capacities among UN
agencies and their partners. The group can also facilitate the exchange of informationand experience of country level M&E groups. To strengthen capacity on gender
responsive evaluation:
ROAS will work to establish regional interagency M&E group(M)COs will participate in interagency M&E groups

B. Gender equality integrated in UNDAF and joint evaluations
As part of its coordination role in the areas of gender equality and the empowermentof women within the UN system, UN Women should participate in joint evaluation,
United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) evaluations,“Delivering as one” evaluations and any relevant system-wide evaluation exercise at
the regional or country level. Over the next four years offices in the region haveplanned to conduct 10 joint evaluations (see Annex IV). Moreover, UNDAF
evaluations (mid-term and / or final) are scheduled for many countries in the region(Annex V).
In order to ensure that gender equality is integrated in UNDAF and joint evaluations,the regional and country offices will actively contribute to regional and country levelevaluation groups, including monitoring the timing of UNDAF evaluations andproviding input throughout the evaluation process, and promoting joint evaluation
initiatives regarding gender equality and system-wide accountability at the regionaland country levels. Over the next four years 80 percent of offices will participate
in UNDAF and joint evaluations. To achieve this:(M)COs will appoint a staff member to serve as focal point for UNDAF / UNCT
M&E groups

14




ROAS will work with the UNDAF focal point in each M(CO) to provide technicalassistance during the UNDAF evaluation related processes12
ROAS will work with joint evaluation task managers in each (M)CO to provide
technical assistance during evaluation related process

In countries where UN Women has no country office, the ROAS will provide input tothe UNDAF evaluation through the Peer Review Group.
Results Area 3: National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E
system strengthened
The development of national capacities as a key element of all its evaluation
processes is a central component of the work of UN-Women. Partnerships for gender
responsive evaluation capacity development initiatives will be promoted to support thecapacity of governments and national and regional evaluation associations andnetworks with respect to gender-responsive evaluation. Increased M&E capacity
development of national partners was also cited as an issue in the M&E Needs
Assessment conducted in early 2014.
Over the next four years the ROAS and (M)COs will work with national partners, bothgovernment and civil society to increase awareness of and capacity in evaluation andparticularly gender responsive evaluation, and promote the practice andinstitutionalization of evaluation at the national level.
A. Civil society capacity development on gender responsive evaluation
strengthened
The practice of evaluation is expanding with the establishment and growth of nationaland regional level evaluation associations.
The MENA Evaluators Network(EvalMENA), a regional network was established in 2011 and Egypt, Jordan and
Morocco have registered evaluation associations. These organizations and others in
the region have worked to develop, adapt and translate evaluation materials for theregion; EvalMENA and EREN (the Egyptian Research and Evaluation Network) haveexpressed interest in integrating modules on equity focused and gender responsive
evaluation into some of the materials they have developed.
ROAS will establish and expand partnerships with national VOPEs.



ROAS will work with regional and national evaluation associations to integrate
modules on gender responsive evaluation into existing materials and courses,
as well as exploring additional collaboration for capacity development ofevaluators on gender responsive evaluation in the region.

12

This could include support to the gender thematic group in exercises that include assessments or evaluationof gender mainstreaming within UNDAF or UNCT.

15

B. Government partners have increased evaluation capacity
There has been increasing recognition of the importance of evaluation for evidencebased public policy making. In the Arab States Region only Morocco has formally
integrated the principle of evaluation in its constitution and articulated the importantrole that Parliament plays in evaluating public policy. Other countries while having nonational evaluation policies or systems conduct evaluation but not systematically. In
addition, in accordance with core principles of conducting evaluation in UN Women isthat evaluation should be country driven and nationally owned and led, it is importantfor UN Women support the development of capacity at the national level to conduct
evaluations that are responsive to gender equality and women’s rights. Evaluations ineach office should be developed based on participatory approach and mechanism with
National Partners, to ensure that it addresses national priorities and needs andprovides quality information for evidence-based planning and programming. To thisend, UN Women will work with parliamentarians and other strategic government
partners identified by (M)COs to support national evaluation capacity development.
B.1 Members of Parliament
Parliamentarians have a critical role in ensuring a demand for evaluations to thriveand evaluation evidence is used for strengthening decision-making for greater
development effectiveness and inclusive growth. One of the Parliamentarians’ roles
is to shape national evaluation policy, advocate for country led evaluation, and monitor
implementation.
UN Women ROAS and (M)COs work extensively with Parliamentarians across the
Arab States Region. Offices in the region have been working together to identify
Parliamentarians who are interested in engaging on evaluation as advocates for theuse and institutionalization of evaluation.
A core group of Parliamentarians has been established who are committed to greater
engagement on advocating for and advancing the institutionalization of evaluation in
their countries. These Parliamentarians came together in April 2014 to begin a regional
discussion amongst themselves and with the evaluation community in the Arab States
Region on the role of Parliamentarians as strategic advocates in promoting theevaluation of national and local programmes and policies to ensure that these
programmes and policies are gender responsive and promote inclusive growth.
As part of the regional evaluation strategy, UN Women ROAS and (M)COs will work
to expand this group so that it remains dynamic and inclusive. Offices will continue towork with Parliamentarians to:

support the regional exchange of experiences through a regional
Parliamentarians’ google groupsupport dialogue at the national level with other Parliamentarians and civilsociety and to continue the dialogue with members of the evaluation
communities in their respective countries
16




increase awareness on the differences between evaluation and audit/oversight
through training and capacity development on evaluation
assist Parliamentarians in identifying where evaluation issues can be integrated
into their existing networks/forums

ROAS in partnership with (M)COs will also explore how to make these efforts
sustainable at the national level through specific parliament units.
B.2 Government Partners
UN Women will also work with other governmental regional and national counterparts
to develop their capacity in GEHR evaluation in a manner which supports
sustainability. This will be done through evaluation workshops for national partners,
as well as the conduct of joint evaluation where possible with national counterparts.
Specifically,




V.

(M)COs will identify the relevant national entity(s) / counterparts for evaluation
capacity development efforts
ROAS will work collaboratively with (M)COs to identify, adapt and / or develop
relevant training materials for national counterparts
ROAS and (M)COs will identify a strategic evaluation with nationalcounterparts with which to pilot joint evaluations which include the full andactive participation of counterparts in all stages

Responsibilities for evaluation function

The UN Women Evaluation Policy outlines the roles and responsibilities of key
constituents of the organization in evaluation. This is further elaborated in theevaluation part of the Programme and Operations Manual (POM). The Regional
Evaluation Strategy will further reinforce systems for accountability particularly by
senior managers and those with programmatic, monitoring and evaluation functions.
Table II: Roles and responsibilities of the evaluation function in UN Women at
the decentralized level
Staff Position
Roles and Responsibilities
Multi-Country/Country
Representatives/Directors

 Assume overall accountability for evaluation function at countrylevel Appoint M&E officer and/or M&E focal point
 Institute measures to ensure that evaluations are strategicallyselected based on a set of criteria charted out in the Evaluation
Policy Ensure the timely development and implementation of
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research plans (MERP) Ensure appropriate allocation of the country office budget toevaluation
 Ensure that strategic notes, new programmes and initiatives aredesigned in a way that permits evaluation at a later stage
17

Staff Position

Roles and Responsibilities







Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E) Officers/Focal
Points













Regional Directors(founded on clear results statements and SMART indicators,
theory of change, baseline and target information, etc.)
Institute appropriate management arrangements described
below to ensure independence and quality of evaluations
according to the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)
norms and standards as provided in the UN Women Global
Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System(GERAAS)
Approves evaluation plans, evaluation reports and management
response in the GATE system
Ensure that evaluation findings are considered to improve
programming, learning and decision making
Ensure that management response to recommendations areprepared, and that appropriate management action is taken
Ensure that all programme staff have a foundational knowledgeof evaluation principles and types and ensure that new
appointments to monitoring and evaluation posts are madeagainst the UNEG evaluation competencies
Advise on evaluability by preparing the programme for futureevaluations
Provide technical advice in the planning, management,
dissemination and response to decentralized evaluations
Assume responsibilities as focal point for the GATE system:o upload, update and report on status of evaluation plans(i.e. evaluation section of the MER), completed evaluation
reports and ToRso support the monitoring of action plans of management
responses to evaluations, including providing quarterly
updates on status of implementation in the GATE system
Support the office in accurately tracking evaluation allocations
and expenditures
Support Senior Managers in developing management
responses to all evaluations and follow up timely approval byhead of the respective office
Individual capacity permitting, act as Evaluation Task Manager
Support the organization of Corporate Evaluation data collection,
including organizing case study missions, identify documents
and stakeholders to be consulted, design interview schedules,
organize feedback on the draft case study and management
response to the final case study, and provide logistical support
as required
Take part in system-wide UN coherence including representing
UN Women in inter-agency platforms on M&E at the countrylevel
Support efforts to enhance UN Women internal M&E capacityand national capacity on M&E with a focus on gender responsive
evaluation
Assume overall accountability for evaluation function in theregionEnsure country and multi-country offices’ compliance withevaluation-related accountability

18

Staff Position

Roles and Responsibilities






Regional Evaluation
Specialists












Ensure appropriate allocation of resources for evaluation (3% of
the total budget in the region)
Support and guide regional, multi-country and country offices
capacity in evaluation
Approve MERP, ToR, evaluation reports, and management
responses for the Regional Office
Ensure that evaluation findings are fully considered, thatmanagement response to recommendation are prepared, andthat appropriate management action is taken
Promote organizational learning through application ofevaluation findings and recommendations in the region
programming
Conduct and/or manage strategic decentralized regional andcountry-level evaluations
Support implementation of evaluation policies and strategies
Lead development of regional evaluation strategies and ensure
their implementation
Advise regional, multi-country and country directors on
evaluation issues
Provide technical support and oversight on the development of
MCO/CO’s MER plans, review of ToR, inception report, and draft
and final evaluation reports
Provide direct technical support and advice for decentralized
evaluations including UNDAF and other joint evaluation
processes from a gender equality and human rights perspective
Support evaluation capacity development through trainings andexchange of experiences and continuous learning on M&E
Provide technical assistance in the use of GATE, and track
management response to evaluations conducted by the ROs,
MCOs and COs
Represent UN Women in regional inter-agency M&E platforms
Support regional and national voluntary evaluation networks andassociations and national evaluation capacity development froma gender equality and human rights perspective

VI. Mechanism for monitoring implementation of the Strategy
Monitoring the implementation of the Strategy is an integral part of the Strategy. The
Strategy identifies the key results areas, indicators with baselines and targets for eachstrategic focus area to strengthen evaluation function in the region over the next four
years (2014-2017). It also lays out the overall accountability/responsibility for
implementation of the identified actions, the key milestones and the timelines fordelivering them. Moreover, progress on the key performance indicators of theevaluation function will be reported through the Global Evaluation Oversight System
Dashboard to the senior managers of the organization on a quarterly basis.
Periodic review will be conducted by the regional office to take stock of theperformance and make adjustments on the progress. All offices in the region willreport on country level key performance data (see Results Framework – Section VII
19below) through the GATE system, Altas and communication between the (M)COs andthe ROAS. The RES and IEO will analyse the data and report on it at the regional
level.
RES will hold quarterly meetings with M&E focal points to discuss progress as wellas conduct a joint annual review of the regional evaluation strategy with COs.

20

VII. Results Framework
Results

ReportingSource ofBaseline
TargetResponsible
Frequency
data
Result Area 1: Effective decentralized Evaluation System strengthened and implemented
A. Management attention% of evaluation expenditure
Annual
Atlas
0.3%
3%
RO & (M)COto decentralized
from the total expenditure in thefinancial officer
evaluation function isregionheightened% of Offices that have
Annual
(M)CO
100%
100%
RO & (M)CO
appointed M&E focal points orreportingHR
M&E Officers% of Offices in which
Annual
(M)CO
TBC
100%
RES & M&E
evaluation was discussed andreportingfocal points
integrated in annual retreats
B. Coverage of
Number of Offices that
AnnualGATE
TBC
80%
GATE focal
evaluations improved
conducted at least one
systempointsand maintained
evaluation over total number of
Offices
C. Implementation of
Number of evaluations
Quarterly
GATE
33%
90%
GATE focal
evaluations
completed, initiated, notsystemcompleted completed
pointsinitiated and cancelled in agiven year against total numberof evaluations planned
D. Quality and credibility% of decentralized evaluations
AnnualGERAAS
0%80%
IEO/ROof evaluation improved rated as “Good’ and above on
the GERAAS evaluation reportquality assessment scale.
% of COs that managed
Annual
(M)CO
NA13
100%
COs, RO, IEO
evaluation in a specific year
reportingcompliant with quality
assurance system in place
E. Evaluative evidence% of evaluation reports
Annual
GATE
100%
100%
M&E focal
generated is used anduploaded and made accessible
systempointssupports results andin the GATE system
13

Indicators

As the quality assurance was instituted in 2014 no baseline data is available.

21

Results
evidence based
programming

Indicators

Reporting
Frequency
AnnualSource ofdata
Strategic
Notes

Baseline

Target% of new Strategic Notes
TBC
100%
informed and made reference
to evaluative evidence% of decentralized evaluations
Quarterly
GATE
100%
100%
that have developed andsystemuploaded management
response in the GATE
% implementation of
Quarterly
GATE
94%14
90%
management response key
systemactions
F. Internal evaluation% of M&E specialists/focal
AnnualGlobal COP
TBC
90%
capacity enhanced topoints who are members of therecords /manage and use
Global M&E Community ofSurveyevaluations
practice% of M&E specialists/focal
AnnualRO training
0%80%
points trained in gender
records /responsive evaluation
SurveyResults Area 2: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
A. Inter-agency evaluation % of countries in which UN
AnnualSurveyTBC
80%capacity development,
Women is represented in interincluding regional level agency M&E working groups
networks and groups
supported
B. Gender equality% of offices that participated in
AnnualSurveyTBC
80%
integrated in UNDAF
UNDAF and Joint evaluations
and joint evaluations
Results Area 4: National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E system strengthened
A. Civil society capacity# of workshops on gender
AnnualRO
0
4
development on gender responsive evaluation
reportingresponsive evaluation
conducted at regional
strengthened
evaluation workshops/meetings# of materials/courses
AnnualRO
02
developed for the region byreporting
14

67% completed with an additional 27% initiatedResponsible
RO(M)COs, ROs,
IEO

(M)COs, ROs,
IEO
RO

RO

COs

(M)COs

RO/RES

RO/RES

Results

B. Government demand
and use of evaluation
increased

Indicators
national and or regional
evaluation networks in which
module on gender responsive
evaluation is integrated# offices conducting joint
evaluations with nationalcounterparts# trainings on GRE held forcounterparts# of countries withrepresentation in
Parliamentarians group on
Linking Evaluation to
Policymaking

Reporting
Frequency

Source ofdata

Baseline

TargetResponsible

Annual(M)COreporting /
MERP
RO &
(M)CO
reportingRO records
from google
group

TBC

2

COs

0

2

RO, (M)COs

6

10

RO

AnnualAnnualAnnex I: Theory of Change to strengthen UN Women Evaluation Function
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS










Awareness raising mechanisms:
Evaluation is discussed at high-levelmeetings (SMT, RO retreat, etc)
Oversight system: Dashboard with KPI is
produced and communicated regularly
Appropriate financial resources (3%) areallocated
UNEG/UN regional M&E groups:
mechanisms to ensure gender equality isreflected in UN system-wide evaluation
policies and guidance are in place
Innovative partnership with key external
stakeholders aiming at strengthening
gender-responsive national evaluation
policies and systems are developed














S
U
P
P
L
Y







ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT’S
ASSUMPTIONS+

Quality Assurance systems are enforced
Capacity Development systems,
including KM system and On-line
training, are in place and used
Technical Assistance is delivered
HR strategy to ensure M&E specialists
meet UNEG evaluation competencies
Mechanisms to strengthen technicalcapacities to implement UNEG norms
and standards on gender-responsive
evaluations are in place








Innovative partnerships to strengthen
technical capacities to implement
gender-responsive national evaluation
policies and systems facilitated

Adequate resources (financial and human) areensuredSenior management is supportive












Financial and programme monitoring systems arein place
Demand for gender-responsive evaluations exists
in UNEG and UN system-wide evaluation processes
Demand for gender-responsive evaluations exists
from national partners
Accountability mechanisms for the integration ofgender perspective in national M&E systems are inplace
Organizational culture supports gender equality

Managers understand the value of
evaluation and demand for strategic
evaluations
Managers develop good-quality
Management Responses
Managers use evaluation findings to
inform decision making, evidence-based
policy advocacy, and reporting
Managers are accountable for the
performance of the evaluation function
UN Managers promote gender-responsive
evaluations within UN
entities/UNCTs/UNDAFs
National managers/policy makers demand
for and use gender-responsive national
evaluation policies and systems
M&E specialists support COs in producing
high-quality MERPs= Internal
UN
Women
M&E specialists
managegood
quality= UN System and beyond
evaluations
UN M&E specialists implement genderresponsive evaluations in joint initiatives
with UN entities/UNCTs/UNDAFs
National M&E specialists implement
gender-responsive national evaluation
policies and systems

Assumptions:High rotation of staff does not undermine thesystemNational M&E specialists have knowledge andcommitment to gender equality
Culture and traditions do not create the major
barriers for gender equality and women’s rights= Internal UN Women

Increased use of evidence

UNWomen uses
evaluation findings to
inform decision making,evidence-based policy
advocacy, and reportingUN entities use findingsof gender-responsive
evaluations
National policy makers
use findings of genderresponsive evaluations

Improved evaluation practices







Evaluations are
strategically planned
Evaluations meet UNEG
evaluation standards
High-quality genderresponsive evaluations
are produced by the UN
systemHigh-quality genderresponsive evaluations
are produced by national
evaluation systems
Assumptions:

RBM Organizational culture exist
Ex. Board/donor demand for use ofevaluation

Member states implement
international and national
commitments on GE&W
Political systems and powerful actors
including civil society support
GE&WE= UN System and beyondGreater development effectiveness for
women

D
E
M
A
N
D

RESULTSINDIVIDUAL CAPACITIESAnnex II: Checklist for the Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized Evaluation
Name of Office:Region:Title of the Evaluation:
Name of Evaluation Task Manager:
Name of M&E Officer/focal point (if different from theEval. Task Manager):Year
Stage of the
Evaluation
Planning
Stage

Quality assurance process to be complied

Remark (if any)

Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Plans (MERP)The M&E officer/focal point develops the MER plan in
consultation with concerned programme officers andsenior managers

Yes
No

The draft plan is sent to the Regional Evaluation Specialist(RES) for review

Yes
No

The (M)CO Representative/Regional Director submits the
MER plan together with the SN/AWP for PRG’s review andApproval

Yes
No

The M&E officer/focal point uploads the evaluation sectionof the MER plan to GATE within one month of approval
Preparation
Stage

Status of complianceagainst set of quality
assurance processes

Yes
No

Terms of Reference (ToR)The M&E officer provides assistance in the developmentof the evaluation’s terms of reference. In the absence of an
M&E Officer, the evaluation task manager takes the leadin developing the ToR.
The draft ToR is sent to the RES for quality review

Yes
No
Yes
No
26

ConductStage

Final ToR is approved by the country representative /deputy representative
Selection of consultants
The M&E officer provides assistance in the selection of
the consultant used for the evaluation in consultation with
RES. For countries with no M&E officer, the evaluation
task manager plays a key role in the selection of
consultant/s.

Yes
No

The final selection of the consultant is approved by thecountry representative/deputy representative

Yes
No

Inception Report
The M&E Officer or the evaluation task manager takes theprimarily responsibility for quality assuring and approving
the inception report.

Yes
No

The draft and final inception report is sent to the RES for
quality review

Yes
No

Yes
No

Draft and final evaluation reports
The M&E officer provides assistance in ensuring thequality of the draft evaluation report. In cases where no
M&E officer is appointed, the evaluation task manager
should play the role of assuring the quality of the draft
and final evaluation report
The draft evaluation report is sent to the RES for quality
review

Use

Yes
No
Yes
No

The final report is approved by the country
representative/deputy representative

Yes
No

The M&E officer/M&E focal point uploads the final
evaluation report within six weeks of finalization to the
GATE

Yes
No

Management response27

The country representative/deputy representative leads
the development of the management response andensures timely implementation of key actions

Yes
No

The M&E officer/focal point uploads the management
response in the GATE system within six weeks offinalization

Yes
No

The country representative approves the MER plan, final
evaluation report and management response in the GATE
systemYes
No

28

Annex III: UN Women Global Evaluation Oversight System
Semester 2 – 2013
I.

Resources for Evaluation FunctionA.
Human Resources for Monitoringand Evaluation, 201315

3.0%

100%

2

1

2

80%
60%

4
10

6

10
5

5

34

2.5%
No M&E focal
point/specialist

2.0%

M&E focal point

1.5%

M&E
officer/specialist

1.0%

2.2%

9
20%

3

5
1

1

1

0.5%

17

0.6%

0.4%

0.3%

II. Evaluation
Planning
Implementation

4

6

2

3

3 19

60%
40%
20%
0%

7

6

4

6 10

6 39

80%

Offices that
conducted noevaluation over thelast three years(2011, 2012, 2013)

60%

1Country offices, multi-country offices and regional offices are included in theabove analysis. *AC (Americas and the Caribbean), AP (Asia and the Pacific), AS(Arab States), ECA (Europe and Central Asia), ESA (East and Southern Africa), andWCA (West and Central Africa)
Although some evaluations cover more than one country, the graph includes only
those offices that managed/commissioned the evaluation. Figures for 2011 and

1

1

1

1
1

3

ESA

WCA

Total

20%

5

5
4

4

4

1

2
7

1

2

40%

Offices that haveconducted at least
one evaluation overthe last three years(2011, 2012, 2013)

Source: UN Women Global Accountability and Tracking of
Evaluation (GATE) System

3

ECA

D.
Evaluation implementation rate,
2013
100%

1

AS

and

Evaluation Coverage (20112013)3

100%

AP

Source: 2013 figures are generated from Atlas by theDivision of Management and Administration andcomplemented by data obtained from Offices throughRegional Evaluation Specialists

Source: UN-Women Global Evaluation Oversight
System

80%

0.3%

0.0%
AC

C.

1.3%

1.1%

6

40%

0%

B.
Financial resources invested in
evaluation, 201316

13

Cancelled
Not initiated

8

3

2

27

Initiated
Completed

20%Source: UN Women Global Accountability and Tracking of
Evaluation (GATE) System

2012 should be understood in line with the changes introduced as part theconsolidation of the regional architecture.
16

The total percentage includes costs incurred by the IEO, HQ divisions andDecentralized Offices. It represents the total evaluation expenditure in theentire organization in 2013.
*
While it is likely that resources invested in evaluation fluctuate yearly, thiskey performance indicator provides an indication of the financial
commitment to the evaluation function.

29

III. Quality of Evaluations
E.

Quality of 2013 Evaluations

100%
1

1

1

1

4

80%
1

1

3

8

Unsatisfactory

60%
1
40%

3

3

Satisfactory

8

3

3

3

1

20%

Very good

7

1

0%

Good

Source: UN Women Global Evaluation Reports Assessment
and Analysis System (GERAAS)

IV. Use of EvaluationF.
2013 Evaluation Reports withManagement Response uploaded to the
GATE system
100%

1

1

80%

60%

4

4

1

2
4

6

100%

4

2

80%

40%

G. Implementation Status of 2012Management
Response/Key
Actions

23
2# of evals pendingMR60%# of evals with MR

40%

5

6
21

34
16

20
16

16 122

36

13

20%

20%

0%

0%

Source: UN Women Global Accountability and Tracking of
Evaluation (GATE) System

27

7
5

Initiated
67

34

No deadline
established
Not initiated

40

58
23

13

235

Completed

Source: UN Women Global Accountability and Trackingof
Evaluation (GATE) System

30

Annex IV: Planned Evaluations 2014-201717 - Arab States Region

Thematic Area

OfficeJoint
activity

Planned
Dates

Volunteerism initiative to enhanceyoung people perception on womenrights Project

Leadership & Political
Participation

Jordan &Syria COY

2014 (Q1)

Achieving E-Quality Project

Econ. Empowerment

Jordan &Syria CON

2014 (Q2-Q3)

Final Evaluation Support for Delivery ofJustice Services for Women

VAW

Palestine CON2014 (Q1-Q2)

Evaluation of the project “Support to a
local planning that is gender sensitiveand incorporates adaptation to climatechange concerns in Morocco”

Governance &National Planning

MoroccoMCO

Y

2014 (Q4)

AWP/SP OUTCOME Evaluation DRF 5

Governance &National Planning

Palestine COY

2014 (Q4)

Efficiency and effectiveness of genderunits in the ministries

Leadership & Political
Participation

Iraq COY

2015 (TBC)

Final Evaluation for the Citizenship,leadership and participation: newpathways for Arab womenLeadership & Political
Participation

Regional
OfficeY

2015 (Q1-Q2)

Evaluation of Women’s Political
Participation & Leadership Component

Leadership & Political
Participation

Jordan &Syria CO

External final evaluation of the project
women election watch

Leadership & Political
Participation

MoroccoMCO

N2015 (Q2-Q4)

Final Evaluation Socially Responsible
Development Planning: Women Run
School Canteen phase III

Economic
Empowerment

Palestine CON2015 (Q1-Q3)

Midterm Evaluation of the Safe Cities
project

VAW

Egypt CON

2015 (Q1-Q2)

Evaluation of Project Improve access to
judicial services for women and children
victims of human trafficking

VAW

MoroccoMCO

Y2015 (TBD)

Evaluation name
2014

2015

2015

17

Based on 2014 RO and CO MER Plans approved during the SN/AWP/MERP process. Note while all MER Plans
start in 2014, the end date varies depending on the country UNDAF. Egypt 2014-17, Iraq 2014-15, Jordan 2014-17,
Morocco 2014-17, Palestine

31

Thematic Area

OfficeJoint
activity

Planned
Dates

Regional Response
Plan 5/ Objective 2

Jordan &Syria CON

2015

AWP/SN OUTCOME EVALUATION DRF 1

Leadership & Political
Participation

Palestine COY

2016 (Q4)

Final Evaluation of the Spring Forward
Regional Programme

Leadership & Political
Participation
Econ. Empowerment

Regional
OfficeY

2016 (Q2-Q4)

Governance &National Planning

MoroccoMCO

N

2016 (Q3)

Econ. Empowerment

Iraq COY

2016 (TBC)

Evaluation of Thematic Impact Area 1
and 2 of Egypt AWP 2013- 2016

Leadership & Political
Participation
Econ. Empowerment

Egypt CON

2017 (Q1)

Final Evaluation of the Safe Cities project

VAW

N

2017 (Q3-Q4)

Regional Thematic Evaluation

TBD

Egypt CORegional
OfficeY

TBD

Evaluation nameStrengthened capacities for inclusive andeffective women’s (refugees and in the
hosting communities) and girls’
participation in decision making
processes affecting their lives
2016

Final evaluation of the GRB Center of
Excellence
Effectiveness of incubator project inKurdistan
2017

32

Annex V: Planned UNDAF Evaluations 2014-2017 – Arab States Region
Country
Algeria
Egypt
Iraq
JordanLebanonMoroccoPalestine
Saudi
ArabiaTunisia
Yemen

Document
Algeria - Cadre de Coopération
Stratégique 2012-2014
Egypt UNDAF (2013 - 2017)

Year
2012-2014

Evaluation
Final evaluation 2015 Q1

2013-2017

Mid-term review 2015 Q1
Final evaluation 2017 Q1UNDAF Iraq (2015-2019)
UNDAF Iraq (2011-2014)
Jordan UNDAF (2013 - 2017)
Lebanon UNDAF 2010-2014
Morocco - UNDAF 2012-2016

2015-20192011-20142013-20172010-20142012-2016

Final evaluation 2018 Q4
2014early 20162014
Mid-term evaluation 2014 Q2(if needed)
Final evaluation 2016 Q1

State of Palestine - UNDAF 20142016
Saudi Arabia - UNCCSF 2012-2016

2014-20162015

2012-2016

Mid-term evaluation 2014 Q4

Plan Cadre D'Aide au Développement
Tunisie 2015-2019 (Draft)
Yemen UNDAF 2012-2015

2015-20192012-2015201433