REGIONAL EVALUATIONSTRATEGY
2018–2021

Eastern and Southern Africa Region

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background and Purpose........................................................................... 3
2. Review of 2014-17 Evaluation Performance in ESA region................ 5
KPI 1: Human Resources for Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................... 6
KPI 2: Financial resources invested in evaluation......................................................... 6
KPI 3: Evaluation coverage...................................................................................................... 6
KPI 4: Evaluation delivery..........................................................................................................7
KPI 5: Quality of evaluation reports.....................................................................................7
KPI 6: Evaluation reports and management response uploaded to GATE.... 8
KPI 7: Implementation of management responses..................................................... 8
KPI 8: Use of evaluations to inform programming...................................................... 8
KPI 9: M&E officers/focal points who complete the E-learning course on
gender responsive evaluation................................................................................................ 9

3. Key results of the ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy......................... 9
RESULT AREA 1: Decentralized evaluation systems strengthened.................... 9
RESULT AREA 2: UN coordination on gender-responsive evaluation
promoted......................................................................................................................................... 12
RESULT AREA 3: National evaluation capacities for gender-responsive M&E
systems strengthened...............................................................................................................13

4. Responsibilities for evaluation at regional and country level.........14
Annex 1: Theory of Change to Strengthen UN Women Evaluation Function.....16
Annex 2: Evaluation Quality Assurance Checklist....................................................... 17
Annex 3: List of completed evaluations and quality ratings in ESA region during
2014-2017..................................................................................................................................19

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 2

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Within the framework of the UN Women
Evaluation Policy the purpose of evaluation in UN
Women is to reinforce accountability, learningand oversight in order to support management
decisions and enhance programme effectiveness on gender equality and the empowermentof women. The UN Women global “2018-21
Evaluation Strategy to Transform Women’s andGirls’ Lives” articulates the strategic directionof the overall UN Women evaluation function
and outlines the proposed approach to provide
evaluative evidence for a more relevant, effective and efficient UN Women with greater
impact on the lives of the women and girls. The
global Evaluation Strategy is driven by a Theoryof Change around the following three longterm outcomes:
1.

Improved use of gender-responsive evaluation by UN Women and its partners forlearning, strategic decision-making, policy
and programme development;
2.

Timely and relevant evaluative evidence on

3.

Increased demand and conduct of GRE to

UN Women’s contribution to development
and organizational effectiveness and efficiency results; andsupport accountability for gender equalitycommitments in SDGs and beyond.

Theory of Change to strengthen UN Women Evaluation Function

STRATEGIC
FOCUS

LONG -TERM
OUTCOMESIMPACT

IMPACT

UN Women Global and Regional Evaluation Strategy

More relevant, effective and efficient UN Women with greater impact on the
lives of the women and girls it serves

Timely and relevant evaluative
evidence on UN Women’scontribution to development

CORPORATE

Improved use ofgender-responsive
evaluation by UN Womenand its partners

DECENTRALIZEDThis 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy isanchored in the global Evaluation Strategy andsets the direction for ongoing evaluation quality
improvement and for further strengthening
evaluation culture and capacities in UN Women
offices and amongst partners in the Easternand Southern Africa Region (ESAR). The ESAR
covers 22 countries with UN Women presencein the following 13 countries: Burundi, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia
1

Until July 2016 Democratic Republic of Congo was part of ESAR.

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 3

USE

Increased demand and conductof gender-responsive evaluation
to support gender equalitycommitments in SDGs and beyond

UN
COORDINATIONNATIONAL EVALCAPACITY(Country Programme) South Africa (Multicountry Office), South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zimbabwe1. The UN Women
Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(ESARO) 2018-2021 Strategic Note highlightsthat evaluations will continue to be genderand human-rights responsive, systematic andimpartial, providing reliable evidence-based
information on progress towards results on
GEWE.

They will be carried out based on UN Evaluation(UNEG) Group Norms and Standards for
Evaluation and UNW Evaluation Guidance, inparticular the Evaluation Handbook ‘How toManage Gender-Responsive Evaluation’ and the‘Country Portfolio Evaluation Guidance’. In linewith the global Evaluation Strategy UNW will
use evaluation evidence to inform programme
and management decisions by focusing on thefollowing three result areas:1.

Decentralized evaluation systems strengthened to improve coverage, timeliness,quality and use of evaluations. This will
be achieved through evaluation technicalsupport, evaluation quality assurance andevaluation oversight. It includes co-management of Country Portfolio Evaluations(CPEs) in the region by Country Offices(COs) and the Regional Office (RO).
2.

UN Coordination on gender-responsive evaluation promoted through support to UNDAF

evaluations, UN joint evaluations and other
UN inter-agency M&E platforms. It includes
support to strengthening UN inter-agency
capacity on gender-responsive evaluation
3.

National evaluation capacities for gender-responsive M&E systems strengthened in thecontext of SDGs. This includes support
to national evaluation societies andassociations (also known as Voluntary
Organizations of Professional Evaluators,
VOPEs), the African Parliamentarian’s
Network on Development Evaluation(APNODE) and the African Evaluation
Association (AfrEA).

Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities
The Strategy is inclusive of the work of theRegional Office, Multi-Country and Country
Offices and based on the premise that senior
management assumes overall accountability
for evaluation in their respective offices. This
includes adequate staffing for M&E, financial
resource allocation for evaluation and ensuringhigh-quality planning, management and useof evaluations for effective evidence-based

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 4

programming. The Regional Evaluation
Specialist (RES) based in the Regional Officeassumes a key role in providing evaluation
technical support, guidance and advice as well
as evaluation quality assurance. Further details
are provided in below Section 3. ‘Responsibilities
for evaluation at regional and country level’.

Monitoring Evaluation Performance in
ESA region
The Strategy includes a mechanism for monitoring implementation and progress throughthe following corporate Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for evaluation:
KPI 1

Human resources for M&E
KPI 2

Financial resources invested in
evaluation
KPI 3

Evaluation coverage
KPI 4

Evaluation implementation rate
KPI 5

Quality of evaluation reports
KPI 6

Evaluation Reports withManagement Response uploaded
to the GATE system
KPI 7

Implementation of previous evaluation management responses
KPI 8

Use of evaluations to inform
programming
KPI 9

M&E officers/ M&E focal points
who complete the e-learning
course on GRE

Figure 1: Monitoring of Evaluation Performance inUN Women

Offices plan,manage and use
evaluations

Offices update
evaluation
information in
GATE

Quarterly,
annualmonitoring ofevaluation
performance
based
on KPIsThe KPIs for evaluation are monitored by UNW
HQ through the Global Evaluation Oversight
System (GEOS) which utilizes data from the
UNW Global Accountability and Tracking
of Evaluation Use (GATE) system. The UNW
Independent Evaluation Service (IES) in HQ
provides quarterly feedback on evaluation
performance to all offices and reports the sameto the UNW Executive Board on an annual
basis. The process for monitoring evaluation
performance in UNW is visualized in Figure 1.
The (ESARO) 2018-2021 Strategic Note (SN)provides for a thematic regional evaluation to
be carried out in the last year of the SN to informthe development of the next SN. The themeand scope of this evaluation will be determinedin consultation with Country Offices. Progresson the Regional Evaluation Strategy will be
discussed and presented in Regional Office andIndependent Evaluation Office Annual Reports.
Evaluation performance data from ESA during
2018-21 will also inform the final evaluationof the 2018-21 Africa Strategy. The final Africa
Strategy evaluation will rely on completed
evaluations of programmes under the Africa
Strategy outcome pillars and complement thedata from specific areas not covered in existingevaluations.

2. REVIEW OF 2014-17 EVALUATION PERFORMANCEIN ESA REGION
The 2018-2021 Regional Evaluation Strategy isinformed by the review of the previous 20142017 Regional Evaluation Strategy and an
extensive consultation process with country
offices, including a survey to all UN Women
offices in ESAR in late 2017 to collect inputs
for the 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy.
This section presents a summary of evaluation
performance in ESAR during the period 20142017 based on key data from the Evaluation KPIs.

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 5

It illustrates a number of challenges related toeffective evaluation planning, management
and use as follows: a) Evaluation funding andresources, b) UNW staff capacity in terms ofexpertise and time, c) Ensuring management
support for evaluation, d) Finding qualified
evaluation consultants, e) Communicating
evaluation findings and f) Ensuring effective
stakeholder participation.

KPI 1: Human Resources for

Monitoring and Evaluation

Figure 2: Human Resources for M&E(Source: Global Evaluation Oversight System GEOS)

2
0
1
4

2
0
1
5

2
0
1
6

2
0
1
7

M&E officers

5

7

8

7

M&E Focal Point

10

8

8

8

M&E staffing at office level often fluctuates
due to the nature of M&E staff contracts andthe available financial resource base. In addition, job profiles vary from country to country
and the position related to M&E in most cases
also includes other responsibilities e.g. related
to planning, reporting, knowledge management etc. This has a significant bearing on thecapacity to deliver quality evaluations in ESAR
and can impact negatively on the capacity topromote gender responsive evaluation in joint
and system-wide evaluations at country-level,
including in UNDAF evaluations. Offices in the
ESA region over the period 2014-17 have madevaried progress to increase capacity for M&E at
CO level. As described in Figure 2 in 2014-2017
about 50% of the Offices had an M&E focal
point and 50%had dedicated M&E officers.
KPI 2: Financial resources

invested in evaluation

The UNW Evaluation Policy stipulates a targetof a minimum 3% allocation of programme
expenditures for evaluation related activities2.
The measurement of KPI 2 is based on global
figures on total evaluation expendituresfrom Annual Reports on the UNW Evaluation
Function. As described in Figure 3 the global
trend during 2014-17 was positive towards
approaching the 3 target. It should be notedthat comparison of figures before and after
2016 is challenging due to differences in thecalculation methodology3 .

Figure 3: Evaluation expenditures (USD) (Source: Annual Reports on UNW Evaluation Function)
2014

2015

2016

2017

Total UN-Women expenditure

270,537,900

315,101,084

254,413,520

249,447,953

Total expenditure on evaluation

5,917,163

6,272,545

7,391,573

6,714,506

Headquarters

4,499,942

4,621,818

5,377,637

4,208,814

Decentralized evaluations

1,417,221

1,650,727

2,013,936

2,505,691

Total evaluation expenditure (%)

2.2

2.0

2.9

2.7

KPI 3: Evaluation coverage
To ensure minimum evaluation coverage the
UNW Evaluation Policy requires each officeto evaluate at least one third of the overall
office portfolio during the Strategic Noteperiod. During 2014-2017 a total of 24 evaluations were completed in ESAR. As illustrated in
2
3

below Figure 4 all offices in the region except
Somalia and Burundi conducted at least 1
project or programme evaluation during thisperiod. Annex 3 provides further details on allcompleted evaluations in ESAR including their
quality ratings.

The 3% can include funding for the following: (a) conduct of evaluation, (b) capacity development on evaluation, (c) M&E staff cost, and (d) communication and dissemination of evaluation products
For details on calculation of evaluation expenditures see ‘Report on the evaluation function of UNW, 2017 (UNW/2018/4)’

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 6

Figure 4: Number of evaluations completed in ESA region during 2014-17(Source: Annual Reports on UNW Evaluation Function)
Number ofevaluations

OfficeNumber ofevaluations

OfficeNumber ofevaluations

OfficeBurundi0

Mozambique

1

South Sudan

1

Ethiopia3

Rwanda

1

Sudan

2

DRC 4

1

Regional Office1

Tanzania

2

Kenya

4

Somalia0

Uganda2

Malawi3South Africa 52

Zimbabwe

1

Total

24

KPI 4: Evaluation delivery
The review of the 2014-17 period shows that a
considerable number of planned evaluations
in ESAR were not implemented, delayed and/or cancelled in a given year. This was due to a
mix of factors including poor evaluation planning, limited financial and human resources,
competing office priorities, challenges in
identifying qualified evaluation consultants
etc. There are also examples of evaluations“surfacing” without prior planning because ofurgent requirements. Figure 5 below indicatesan evaluation delivery between 27% and 59% in
ESA during the period 2014-17.

Figure 5: Number of evaluations planned/
completed in ESA region during 2014-17(Source: Annual Reports on Evaluation Function)
2
0
1
4

2
0
1
5

2
0
1
6

2
0
1
7

Evaluations planned

12

11

16

17

Evaluations completed

6

3

5

10

Evaluations initiatied

2

3

7

1

Cancelled/Postponed

4

5

4

6

Evaluations delivery

50%

27%

31%

59%

KPI 5: Quality of evaluation

reports

UNW follows a systematic process to assess thequality of all completed evaluations on a yearlybasis. This external quality assessment is basedon the ‘Global Evaluation Report Assessment
and Analysis System’ (GERAAS) and closelyaligned with UN Evaluation Group quality
standards. It applies a 4-point rating from ‘VeryGood’ to ‘Unsatisfactory’ and includes regularfeedback of the evaluation quality assessment
to Senior Managers, Programme Units andthe Executive Board. The system is designed

45

Until July 2016 Democratic Republic of Congo was part of ESAR, now it is part of WCARSouth Africa MCO also managed an evaluation in Namibia

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 7

to increase the consistent use of quality evaluation methods and ultimately improve thequality of evaluation reports.
During the period 2014-17 a total of 24 evaluations were completed in ESAR and out ofthese, based on GERAAS 25% (6) were rated asvery good, 54% (13) good, and 21% (5) satisfactory.
Annex 3 provides details on quality ratings
for all completed evaluations in ESAR during
2014-17Figure 6: Quality of evaluations in ESA region during 2014-17(Source: Annual Reports on UNW Evaluation Function)
Evaluation quality

2014

2015

2016

2017

Total

Very good

17%

33%

40%

20%

25%

Good

50%

33%

60%

60%

54%

Satisfactory

33%

33%

0%

20%

21%

Unsatisfactory

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

TOTAL evaluations completed

6

3

5

10

24

KPI 6: Evaluation reports andmanagement response uploaded
to GATEKPI 7: Implementation ofmanagement responses

The Global Accountability and Tracking of
Evaluation (GATE) system provides the corporate online platform for making all completed
evaluations available to the public, and forfacilitating follow-up to evaluation recommendations through the management responses.
GATE data constitutes the primary source of
information for reporting on Evaluation Key
Performance Indicators. The Section ‘Evaluation
Use and Follow up’ in the UNW Evaluation
Handbook p. 101 – 110 explains UNW responsibilities and the role of partners in developing
the evaluation management response. The
Head of Office is ultimately responsible fordevelopment, approval and implementation of
the management response.
While 100% of completed evaluations including
their management responses in ESA are now
publicly available on GATE experience showsthat timely update of GATE data at country
level remains a challenge. The completionof the management response action plan inparticular continues to be weak and reflects
management commitment to organizational
learning. From the 77 committed management

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 8

response actions in ESA towards the end of 2017
only 22% were completed, 74% were ongoingand 4% were not initiated.
KPI 8: Use of evaluations to

inform programming

The 2017 Annual Report on the UNW Evaluation
Function indicates a steady increase in UN
Women’s commitment to using evaluation
for accountability, informed decision-making
and learning. The use of evaluations was introduced as new KPI in 2015. For the year 2017 12
out of 14 offices in ESA region reported using
insights and lessons from evaluations todevelop new Strategic Notes and to strengthen
programming.
A comparison however between geographicalregions in the 2014-2017 Quality Assessmentof UN Women’s Strategic Notes and Annual
Reports shows the ESAR region lagging behindwith regard to using lessons and evaluations
to inform programming. Offices in ESAR only
scored 4.9 points on a scale with a maximum of
9 points. Following the above it becomes clearthat work to improve learning from evaluations
and the use of evaluations for programmingshould be one of the priority areas for theperiod 2018-21.

KPI 9: M&E officers/focal points

who complete the E-learning
course on gender responsive
evaluation

In 2016 the free eLearning course ‘How toManage Gender-Responsive Evaluation’ wasrolled out as part of a global professionalization
initiative to strengthen the evaluation function
in UNW. The eLearning aims at increasing theskills and expertise of M&E staff, colleagues
and partners. This eLearning course is mandatory for all UNW colleagues who are managing

an evaluation. To complement the eLearning
UNW has put in place a one-on-one coaching
programme with the Regional Evaluation
Specialist during which the knowledge
acquired from the virtual learning is applied inan actual evaluation process. In ESAR currently
all but 2 offices (Sudan, Somalia) have M&E
officers or M&E focal points who completed
the eLearning course on Gender-Responsive
evaluation.

3. KEY RESULTS OF THE ESA REGIONALEVALUATION STRATEGYThis section presents the key results and targetsof the 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy
based on global and regional priorities. It
outlines the approach for addressing challenges
mentioned above during the previous 2014-17
Regional Evaluation Strategy and provides
implementation targets that are aligned withthe 2018-21 UNW Global Evaluation Strategy.
The section is structured around the following
3 results areas:

The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:1.

systems•

2. UN coordination on gender-responsive
evaluation (GRE) promoted

COs appoint dedicated and qualified
full-time M&E Officers who assume
responsibility for GATE•The RO will continue to support COs in
the recruitment of qualified M&E officers
including the development of TOR, participation in interview panels etc.

•

COs make sure that own M&E staff
complete the eLearning course ‘How toManage Gender-Responsive Evaluation’

Decentralized
strengthened

evaluation

3. National evaluation capacities forgender-responsive
M&E
systems
strengthened
RESULT AREA 1: Decentralized

evaluation systems
strengthened

This section outlines how the decentralized evaluation system in ESA region will bestrengthened through investment in humanand financial resources and continuous
improvement of evaluation planning, implementation and follow up.

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 9

KPI 1

Human resources for M&E
TARGETAt least 1 M&E focal person/
officer per office

KPI 2

Financial resources invested in
evaluation
TARGET

Minimum 3% of programmebudget allocated for evaluation
activities

The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:••

The 3% allocation can include the following
items: (a) conduct of evaluation, (b) capacity
development on evaluation, (c) M&E staff
cost, and (d) communication and dissemination of evaluation products

Evaluation Coverage
TARGETAt least 1 evaluation per Strategic
Note Cycle
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:

•

•

•

Evaluation Implementation rate

COs reinforce efforts to increase annual
budget allocations for evaluation activities
towards 3% UNW minimum requirements.

KPI 3

•

KPI 4

Following UNW Evaluation Policy COs
ensure that at least one third of the overall
office portfolio is evaluated during theStrategic Note period
COs with support from the RO undertake
effective evaluation planning and –delivery
according to UNW evaluation policy
requirements and quality standards
The Monitoring, Evaluation and Research
Plan (MERP) which includes the evaluationbudget is used as tool for evaluation planning. During the Annual Work Planning
process the final evaluation plan is
uploaded in GATE and in the Results
Management System (RMS)
COs through the M&E focal person ensure
timely update of evaluation informationin GATE including evaluation plan, evaluation report and evaluation management
response

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 10

TARGET

85% Evaluation delivery
Senior Management at RO and CO shouldtake effective measures for boosting evaluation delivery and ensuring timely completionof planned and ongoing evaluations. This is
critical for making quality evaluation evidence
available on time for programming anddecision-making.
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•COs ensure adequate human and financial
resources for timely planning and management of evaluations•

COs engage with the RO for evaluation
quality assurance purposes from the
beginning of the evaluation planningstage. Details on the UNW evaluation
quality assurance process are provided in
Annex 2.

•

RO provides support in identifying qualified evaluation consultants e.g. throughdeveloping a consultant roster•

RO provides continuous technical supportin evaluation planning, management andfollow-up

KPI 5

Quality of evaluation reports
TARGET

85% of completed evaluation reports
are rated ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’As outlined in the UNW Policy, Procedureand Guidance Framework (PPGF) Evaluation
Section quality assurance for decentralized
evaluations is a shared responsibility involving
both the CO and the RO. The UNW Evaluation
Handbook includes a tool on Evaluation ProcessStandards for Decentralized Evaluations whichexplains roles and responsibilities during eachstage of the evaluation process. The UNW
Evaluation Process Standards are also provided
in Annex 2 of this document.
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

COs and RO ensure close collaboration
during evaluation planning, management
and follow-up and comply with UNW
evaluation process standards. This includes
effective stakeholder engagement andevaluation team management during theentire evaluation process•

COs and RO apply the GERAAS methodology for quality assurance of evaluation
reports•

COs and RO engage in follow-up discussions on GERAAS evaluation quality
ratings to learn from previous evaluations
and further strengthen staff capacity for
quality evaluation management

KPI 6

Evaluation reports with management response uploaded to GATETARGET

100% completed evaluation
management response in GATE

KPI 7

Implementation of evaluation
management responses
TARGET

80% of management responses’
follow-up action are implemented
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

Offices upload completed evaluations
on GATE and upload the management
response within six weeks of finalizing theevaluation report

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 11•

Offices ensure timely implementation of
the management response action plan andupdate the action plan status in GATE. It
should be clarified that UNW is responsiblefor implementing its own, not partners’
management response action plan•

RO provides support to COs with GATE
follow up

KPI 8

Use of evaluations
TARGET

90% of Strategic Notes and Annual
Workplans include evidence on
evaluation use’
The job of evaluation is not done with thecompletion of a report. Reaching the rightpeople with the right information at theright time in the right format is essential toensure lessons can be absorbed and applied.
Entry points for improving the use of evaluations include planning for relevant timing ofevaluations, deliberate sharing of evaluation
insights to enhance learning and ensuring thefollow-up to evaluation recommendations.
Another enabling factor for facilitating theuptake and ownership of evaluation recommendations is a participatory evaluation
approach that allows for effective stakeholder
engagement from the beginning of the evaluation process. The Evaluation Handbook ‘How
to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation’ p.
45-53 provides details on managing evaluation
stakeholders and provides guidance on how
to address potential challenges during theprocess.
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

The timing of evaluations is better alignedwith strategic planning cycles to make evaluation evidence available for programming•

COs make sure to use evaluation evidence
in the development of Strategic Notes,

Annual Workplans and in Strategic Notes
Midterm Reviews•

UNW evaluations systematically follow
a participatory approach that facilitates
ownership of evaluation recommendations•

COs implement action plans based on evaluation management responses•

There is systematic collaboration between
Evaluation, Knowledge Management andCommunication functions at office levelto identify good practices on ‘What works’and share evaluation evidence for better
programming

•

•

•

•

COs develop internal and external dissemination and communication strategies fortheir evaluations
Evaluation communication strategies
include the production of evaluation briefs
and innovative evaluation knowledge
products e.g. brochures and evaluation
videos. Various channels should be used todisseminate evaluation findings via email,newsletter, Blogs, or Social media
COs organize learning events in staff
retreats, brown-bag sessions, webinars,
workshops etc. to discuss evaluation
findings
RO continues the development of regional
Evaluation Knowledge Products andorganizes webinars to share and discuss
evaluation findings

KPI 9

M&E officers/focal points complete
the E-learning course on GRE
TARGET

80% of M&E officers/ focal persons
receive certification on GRE eLearning
The strengthening of internal capacities tomanage and use gender-responsive evaluations is fundamental for effective evaluationdelivery and quality at office level. The different
modalities for building UNW staff capacities

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 12

on evaluation include face to face internal andexternal trainings, online and virtual training
platforms, blended learning approaches andthe engagement in evaluation communities ofpractice.
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

Face to face training events on Planning,
Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and RBM•

Offices make sure that all M&E staff andfocal persons complete the UNW eLearningon Gender-Responsive Evaluation.

•

RO will continue with managing the evaluation coaching programme•

M&E staff and focal persons to join the
UNWomen Evaluation Community ofPractice•

UNW staff engage in detail M&E assignments and south-south collaboration•

RO provides evaluation technical supportand evaluation quality assurance•

RO provides individual tailored country-specific support on a needs basis andcapacity permitting
RESULT AREA 2: UN coordination

on gender-responsive evaluation
promoted
KEY RESULT

UN coordination on gender-responsive
evaluation promoted
TARGET

All COs engage in M&E inter-agency groups
UNW plays a lead role in system-wide coordination with respect to GEWE and this applies
to the entire programme formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation cycle.
Active contribution to the UN M&E group atcountry level is fundamental for ensuring that
GEWE is being addressed in the UNDAF formulation processes e.g. by engendering UNDAF
results and indicators. When it comes to UN

interagency (e.g. Joint Programme and UNDAF)
evaluations the UN M&E group again plays acritical role in safeguarding a gender-sensitive
evaluation process. As explained in the UN
Evaluation Group Guidance on Integrating
Human Rights and Gender Equality in
Evaluations a gender-responsive evaluation
should go beyond sex-disaggregated datacollection and follow principles of inclusion,
participation and fair power relations. The UN
Evaluation Group has also issued comprehensive guidance on UNDAF evaluations whichshould guide the preparation and management for all UNDAF evaluations.
Another important UN coordination mechanism is the Regional UNDG for ESA which
provides technical support to UN Country
Teams, particularly through the Peer Support
Group on Quality Support and Assurance(PSG-QSA)The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

Active engagement of UNW staff in M&E
working groups at country and regional
level, including allocation of sufficient time
for inter-agency coordination•

Strengthening inter-agency capacity ingender-responsive monitoring and evaluation, including support to regional
networks and groups•

Integration of GEWE in UNDAF and joint
UN evaluations•

The RO will support COs in identifying entry
points for promoting UN Coordination ongender-responsive evaluation

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 13

RESULT AREA 3: National

evaluation capacities forgender-responsive M&E systems
strengthened
KEY RESULT

National evaluation capacities for gender-responsive M&E systems strengthened
TARGETAt least 2 countries undertake initiatives toengender national M&E policies and systems

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
calls for follow-up and review processes thatexamine progress towards achieving the
SDGs. They should include country-led evaluations that examine the implementationof national policies and programmes anddetermine whether progress is equitable
and sustainable. Similarly national policy
and legislation making processes should be
informed by evidence about the effectivenessof government programmes and utilization of
public funds. Evaluation in this context is an
important instrument that provides necessary
evidence for policy decision-making and good
governance.
Against this background the strengtheningof national evaluation capacity and theestablishment of gender responsive national
M&E systems are fundamental for assessing
SDG progress and for informing national
policy making processes. Building national
M&E systems should be based on a systemic
approach that looks at both the demand forand supply of evaluation evidence in a country.
This implies working with national governments and national evaluation societies andassociations to increase awareness and knowledge about the potential use of evaluations in
the policy-making process.

The work on strengthening national evaluation capacities will be done in collaboration
with strategic partners e.g. the regional Center
for Learning on Evaluation and Results (CLEAR)
and the Twende Mbele Initiative in South
Africa, UNICEF and UNDP. At the Africa regional
level the African Parliamentarian’s Network forDevelopment Evaluation (APNODE) and respective national APNODE chapters play a key rolein enhancing the capacity of Parliamentarians
to improve their oversight and policy making
role through use of evaluation evidence.
The 2018-21 Regional Evaluation Strategy aims
to ensure that:•

Strengthen the capacity of national partners (CSOs, Government, Implementing
Partners etc.) in gender-responsive M&E•

Support the analysis and development of
national M&E policies and systems from agender equality perspective•

Strengthen partnerships with other actors
involved in developing national evaluation
capacities, and with national evaluationsocieties and associations•

Support the African Parliamentarian’s
Network for Development Evaluation(APNODE) and national APNODE chapters

4. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EVALUATION AT
REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELThe UN Women Evaluation Policy and the
Evaluation Handbook ‘How to Manage
Gender-Responsive Evaluation’ p. 17-20 outline
the responsibilities for the evaluation function
in UN Women. The Regional Director and CO
Representatives assume overall accountability
for evaluation at regional and country level

respectively and ensure that adequate financial and human capacity is available to ensurea fully effective and efficient evaluation function in their office.
See the Table below on detailed roles andresponsibilities:

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES•Assume overall accountability for evaluation function at country level•Appoint M&E officer and/or M&E focal point•

Ensure that evaluations are strategically selected based on a set of criteria charted out in the
Evaluation Policy•

Develop and implement Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research plans (MERP) in a timely manner•

Allocate appropriate country office budget resources to evaluation•

Design strategic notes, new programmes and initiatives in a way that permits evaluation at alater stage

Multi-Country/Country •Representatives or
Directors

Ensure appropriate management arrangements to ensure independence and quality ofevaluations 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•

Incorporate and utilize evaluation findings to improve programming, learning and decision
making•Ensure that management response to recommendations are prepared, and that appropriate
management action is taken•

Ensure that all programme staff have a foundational knowledge of evaluation principles andtypes and ensure that new appointments for M&E positions are made against the UNEG
evaluation competencies

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 14

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESMonitoring and
Evaluation (M&E)
Officers/Focal Points

Regional Directors

Regional Evaluation
Specialists

6•

Advise on evaluability6 by preparing the programme for future evaluations•

Provide technical advice in the planning, management, dissemination and response to
decentralized evaluations•

Assume responsibilities as focal point for the GATE system:•

upload, update and report on status of evaluation plans, completed evaluation reports andmanagement response•

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 tracking evaluation allocations and expenditures•

Support Senior Managers in developing management responses to all evaluations and ensure
timely approval by Head of the respective office•

Act as Evaluation Task Manager•

Support the organization of Corporate Evaluation data collection, including organizing casestudy 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 country level•

Support efforts to enhance UN Women internal M&E capacity and national capacity on M&E
with a focus on gender responsive evaluation•

Assume overall accountability for evaluation function in the region•

Ensure compliance of country and multi-country offices with evaluation-related accountability•

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 management response to recommendations are prepared and that appropriate
management action is taken•

Promote organizational learning through application of evaluation recommendations in regional
programming•

Conduct and/or manage strategic decentralized regional and Country Portfolio 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 incl. evaluation quality
assurance•

Provide technical support and oversight on the development of MER plans, review of ToR,
evaluation inception report, draft and final evaluation reports•

Provide support and advice for UNDAF and other joint evaluation processes from a genderequality and human rights perspective•

Support evaluation capacity development through trainings and exchange of experiences andcontinuous learning on M&E•

Provide technical assistance in the use of GATE and track management response to evaluations•

Represent UN Women in regional inter-agency M&E platforms•

Support national evaluation capacity development and regional and national voluntaryevaluation networks and associations

OECD DAC definition of Evaluability: Extent to which an activity or project can be evaluated in a reliable and credible manner

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 15

ANNEX I

THEORY OF CHANGE TO STRENGTHEN UN WOMEN EVALUATION FUNCTION

LONG -TERM
OUTCOMESIMPACT : More relevant, effective and efficient UN Women with greater impact on the lives of the women and girls it serves

Improved use of gender-responsive evaluation by UN Women and its partners for learning, strategic decision-making, policy & programme development
Timely and relevant evaluative evidence on UN Women’s contribution todevelopment and organizational effectiveness and efficiency results

CONTEXT

Increased demand and conduct of GRE to support accountability for
GE commitments in SDGs amd beyond

INTERMEDIATEOUTCOMESSTRATEGIC
FOCUS

CORPORATEDECENTRALIZEDStrengthened UN system-wide
environment & capacity for GRE

Programming and management decisions in UN Women are informed byevaluative evidence

NATIONAL EVALCAPACITYUN
COORDINATION

USEStrengthened national context& capacity to conduct GRE for
meeting GE commitments & SDGs

ASSUMPTIONS

Planet50/50

SDGs

Evaluation use facilitated through effective evaluation communication,advocacy and knowledge management

OUTPUTS

QCPR
Coverage, timelines and quality of evaluations maintained and improved
Evaluation oversight and quality assurance systems stregthened to support UN Womenaccountability and learning
Innovative methodologies enhance for high quality and credible evaluations
Internal capacities strengthened to manage and use gender-responsive evaluations

KNOWLEDGE HUB

Greater integration of GRE perspective
in UNEG policies & practiceGreater integration of GRE perspective innational M&E systems, policies & practiceStrengthened accountability for
GRE in the UN (UN SWAP)

Increased awareness and support ofnational decision-makers for GRE

UN interagency capacity on
GRE supported

Technical assistance provided at regionaland national level on conduct of GRE

INNOVATIONd r i v e r so f

c h a n g e

PARTNERSHIPS/NETWORKS

UN reform

ANNEX II: QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
Evaluation Stage
1. Planning Stage

2. Preparation Stage

Quality assurance process to comply with

Status of complianceagainst set of quality assurance processes

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

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 and Approval

Yes

No

The M&E officer/focal point uploads the evaluation section of the MER plan to GATE
within one month of approval. The country representative approves the management
response in GATE.

Yes

No

Yes

No

The M&E officer/focal point establishes a reference group for the evaluation that provides input to the TOR

Yes

No

The draft ToR is sent to the RES for quality review

Yes

No

Final ToR is approved by the country representative/deputy representative

Yes

No

The M&E officer provides assistance in the selection of the consultant used for theevaluation 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 the country representative/deputy
representative

Yes

No

2.1 Terms of Reference (ToR)The M&E officer provides assistance in the development of the evaluation’s terms ofreference. In the absence of an M&E Officer, the evaluation task manager takes thelead in developing the ToR.

2.2 Selection of consultants

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 17

Remark (if any)

3. Conduct Stage

3.1 Inception Report
The M&E Officer or the evaluation task manager takes the primarily responsibility for
quality assuring and approving the inception report. The RES as necessary supports
the M&E Officer/focal point in managing the evaluation consultant(s).

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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 shouldplay the role of assuring the quality of the draft and final evaluation report

Yes

No

The draft evaluation report is sent to the RES for quality review

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. The country representative approves the report in GATE

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

The M&E officer/focal point uploads the management response in the GATE system
within six weeks of finalization. The country representative approves the management
response in GATE

Yes

No

The M&E Officer/focal point prepares the dissemination plan for the completed evaluation, with support from the RES

Yes

No

3.2 Draft and final evaluation reports

4. UseESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 18

Management responseANNEX III: LIST OF COMPLETED EVALUATIONS AND QUALITY RATINGSIN ESA REGION DURING 2014-2017
OFFICEEVALUATION TITLEQUALITY

2014 (6 evaluations)
Sudan

UN-Women Programme: “Consolidating efforts that contribute to gender equality
and women’s empowerment in Sudan”

Very good

DR Congo

Projet d’appui à la législation sensible au genre et promotion du leadership féminin à
l’est de la République démocratique du Congo

Good

Ethiopia

Joint UN-Women/UNFPA programme on ending violence against women

Good

Kenya

UN Joint Programme on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

Good

Namibia

Pro poor governance, gender equality and women’s empowerment in Namibia

Satisfactory

MCO South Africa

Women entrepreneurs project in South Africa

Satisfactory

2015 (3 evaluations)
Mozambique

Strategic Note Mozambique 2012-15 (Country Portfolio Evaluation)Good

Malawi

Gender and Agriculture Programme

Satisfactory

UgandaJoint Programme for Gender Equality

Very Good2016 (5 evaluations)
Ethiopia

Country Portfolio Evaluation

Very Good

Tanzania

Country Portfolio Evaluation

Good

South Sudan

Midterm Evaluation South Sudan Strategic Note 2014 - 2016

UgandaPeace Building and Enhancing Protection Systems (Gender Promotion Initia-tive)Good

Zimbabwe

Joint Programme on Prevention of Gender Based Violence Against Young Women andAdolescent Girls

Good

Very Good2017 (10 evaluations)
Ethiopia

Joint Programme on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

Good

Kenya

Midterm Strategic Note Evaluation

Good

Kenya

Engaging Women in Preventing and Countering Extremist Violence

Good

Kenya

Integrating Gender in Peace Support Operations

Good

Malawi

Gender-based Governance

Good

MalawiCountry Portfolio Evaluation

Very Good

Regional office

Regional Evaluation on Capacity Development initiatives during Strategic NoteperiodSudanCountry Portfolio Evaluation

Very Good

Tanzania

Wanawake-Wanaweza Project on Women Leadership and Political Participa-tion

Satisfactory

RwandaThe National Scale Up of the ISANGE One Stop Center Model

Satisfactory

ESA Regional Evaluation Strategy • p. 19

Good

UN WOMEN IS THE UN ORGANIZATION
DEDICATED TO GENDER EQUALITY
AND THE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN. A
GLOBAL CHAMPION FOR WOMEN AND
GIRLS, UN WOMEN WAS ESTABLISHEDTO ACCELERATE PROGRESS ON
MEETING THEIR NEEDS WORLDWIDE.
UN Women supports UN Member States as they set global standards
for achieving gender equality, and works with governments and civilsociety to design laws, policies, programmes and services needed
to implement these standards. It stands behind women’s equal
participation in all aspects of life, focusing on five priority areas:
increasing women’s leadership and participation; ending violenceagainst women; engaging women in all aspects of peace andsecurity processes; enhancing women’s economic empowerment;
and making gender equality central to national development
planning and budgeting. UN Women also coordinates and promotes
the UN system’s work in advancing gender equality.