2014-2017
Regional Evaluation Strategy for
the Americas and the Caribbean

October 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTSABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………...2I.

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 4

II.

THE GLOBAL EVALUATION STRATEGIC PLAN (2014-2017) ..................................................... 5

III.

THE REGIONAL EVALUATION STRATEGY…………………………………………………………...6IV.

KEY RESULTS OF THE REGIONAL EVALUATION STRATEGY ................................................. 7

RESULT AREA 1: EFFECTIVE DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION SYSTEM STRENGTHENED AND
IMPLEMENTED ...................................................................................................................... 7
A. Management attention to decentralized evaluation function is heightened ................... 7
A.1 Investment in evaluation ........................................................................................ 7
A.2 Adequate and skilled human resources for Monitoring and Evaluation .................. 8
A.3 Reinforcing accountabilities for evaluation ............................................................. 9
B. Coverage of evaluations improved and maintained ...................................................... 9
C. Implementation of Evaluations ....................................................................................10
D. Quality and credibility of evaluations improved ............................................................11
D.1. Quality assurance system in evaluation processes ..............................................12
E. Evaluative evidence is used and supports evidence-based programming ...................15
E.1 Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use ..........................................15
E.2 Evaluation Management Response……………………………………………………15
E.3 Use of Evaluations Response…….……………………………………………………16
F. Internal evaluation capacities enhanced to manage and use evaluations ...................17
RESULTS AREA 2: UN COORDINATION ON GENDER RESPONSIVE EVALUATION PROMOTED .......18
A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development, including regional level networks andgroups supported ...............................................................................................................18
B. Gender equality integrated in UNDAF and joint evaluations ....................................1918
RESULTS AREA 3: NATIONAL EVALUATION CAPACITIES FOR GENDER RESPONSIVE M&E
SYSTEM STRENGTHENED ......................................................................................................19
A. Building National Evaluation Capacities ......................................................................19
B. Partnerships with Voluntary Organizations of Professional Evaluators (VOPEs) .........19V.

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EVALUATION FUNCTION .................................................................. 20

VI.

MECHANISM FOR MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY ............................ 22

VII.

RESULTS FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 23

Annex I: Theory of Change to strengthen UN Women Evaluation Function ...................................... 25
Annex II: Checklist for the Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized Evaluation ...................... 27
Annex III: UNDAF Roll-Out Countries in the AC Region ....................................................................... 29

1

Abbreviations

AC

Americas and the Caribbean

ACRO

Americas and the Caribbean Regional Office

AWP

Annual Work Plan

CLEAR

Regional Center for Learning on Evaluation and Results

CO

Country Office

DaO

Delivering as One

EB

Executive Board

EVALUN LAC

Network of UN M&E focal points in LAC region

GATE

Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation System

GEOS

Global Evaluation Oversight System

GERAAS

Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System

HR

Human Resources

IAWG

Interagency Regional Working Group

IEO

Independent Evaluation Office

IOCEInternational Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation

KM

Knowledge Management

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

MCO

Multi-Country Office

M&E

Monitoring & Evaluation

MER Plan

Monitoring Evaluation and Research Plan

MR

Management Response

NEC

National Evaluation Capacity

NEP

National Evaluation Policy

PMD

Performance and Management Development

PPGU

Planning and Programming Guidance Unit

2

POM

Programme and Operations Manual

PRG

Peer Review GroupPRODOC

Programme Document

RBM

Results-Based Management

REDLACME

Monitoring and Evaluation Network for Latin America and the
Caribbean

ReLAC

Latin American and the Caribbean Network for Monitoring,
Evaluation and Systematization

RES

Regional Evaluation Specialist

RO

Regional Office

SMART

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time boundSN

Strategic Note

SP

Strategic Plan

ToC

Theory of ChangeUN

United Nations

UNCT

United Nations Country Team

UNDAF

United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNEG

United Nations Evaluation Group

VOPEs

Voluntary Organizations of Professional Evaluators3

I.

Background and Justification

Within the framework of the Evaluation Policy, evaluation in UN Women is acomprehensive function that reinforces accountability, learning and oversight in order tosupport management decisions and enhance programme effectiveness on genderequality and the empowerment of women.
The work of UN Women is largely anchored in its Strategic Plan (SP) which is thecenterpiece for the organizational programming, management and accountability. The
SP 2014-2017 primarily guides the normative, operational and coordination role of UN
Women on gender equality and the empowerment of women which is largely driven bya longer-term vision, goals and results.
The Americas and the Caribbean (AC) region, comprising a majority of upper andmiddle income countries, has benefited from sustained economic growth and social
investment that have contributed to closing key gender gaps in education, labour market
and political participation, and in health and reproductive rights. Many countries haveinstituted constitutional reforms and progressive electoral mechanisms, which haveallowed some women to reach the highest leadership positions. On the other hand,significant gender inequalities continue to be compounded by other forms of inequalities
based upon race, ethnicity, geographical location, income, age, disability, HIV status,and sexual orientation.
UN Women operates in the Americas and the Caribbean Region through the Regional
Office in Panama City, which supports the Caribbean Multi-Country Office (Barbados)1,
9 Country Offices (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti,
Mexico and Paraguay) as well as countries where UN Women has a more limited
programmatic presence (Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay). The Americas andthe Caribbean Regional Office (ACRO), the Caribbean Multi-Country Office (MCO) andthe Country Offices (COs) have developed Strategic Notes (SN) covering the period
2014-20172 that set out the strategic direction and thematic priorities, Annual Work
Plans (AWP) and Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (MER) Plans.
A global UN Women Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) needs assessment carried out in2013 by the Evaluation Office revealed a number of major challenges with respect to
M&E capacity and knowledge amongst UN Women staff. The majority of the staff who
responded (60%) had not participated in any evaluation training. The biggest challenges
related to monitoring were the following, listed in order of priority: (1) staff knowledge
and expertise in monitoring; (2) staff time for monitoring, (3) clarity in responsibilities
and processes for monitoring, (4) lack of monitoring guidance and tools, and (5)financial resources for monitoring. The biggest challenges related to evaluation were (1)staff knowledge and expertise in evaluation followed; (2) staff time for evaluation, (3)clarity in responsibilities and processes for evaluation, (4) financial resources forevaluation, and (5) lack of evaluation guidance and tools.
1 Caribbean MCO covers 22 countries.
2 Durations of Country Office Strategic Notes are aligned with respective UNDAF at country level.

4

In 2014 UN Women Evaluation Office established a Global Evaluation Oversight
System (GEOS) with the purpose to provide transparent information on evaluation
performance at corporate and field level. The GEOS is based on a dashboard with 7
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for evaluation. Two KPIs have been added later in2014 to reinforce compliance with quality assurance standards for evaluation processes
and enhance the knowledge and skills required for managing gender-responsive
evaluations.
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 with Management Response uploaded to the GATE3
KPI 7: Implementation of previous evaluation management responses
KPI 8: Number of staff that have completed certification programme
KPI 9: Percentage of offices that managed evaluation in a specific year compliant
with QA standards
Performance based on the KPIs is presented to UN Women Senior Management Teambi-annually and to the UN Women Executive Board annually through the IEO Annual
Report. Although evaluation culture and capacities have been strengthened in the ACregion in the last years, through training courses, webinars, guidelines, etc., certain
areas continue to require improvement in particular with respect to human and financial
resources (KPI 1 and KPI 2), evaluation implementation rate (KPI 4) and quality ofevaluation reports (KPI 5).
In 2013 ACRO implemented a Results-Based Management (RBM) Integrated
Framework that emphasizes the importance of carrying out results-based planning,monitoring, reporting and evaluation. It provides the guiding principles to be applied andthe tools to be used. It also describes the key roles, responsibilities and timings at theregional, multi-country and country level. In the framework of this Strategy, ACRO willcontinue promoting a real RBM culture and strengthening capacities in the Offices.

II.

The Global Evaluation Strategic Plan (2014-2017)

A Global Evaluation Strategic Plan (2014-2017) was developed by the Independent
Evaluation Office (IEO). The Global Evaluation Strategic Plan is a comprehensive
framework that guides the entire organization at global, regional and country level tostrengthen the evaluation function. It is guided by a Theory of Change (ToC) based on asystem-approach to strengthen the institutional capability to better perform and deliver
expected results in line with the Evaluation Policy. The ToC aims to strengthen thecapability to demand and use evaluation by senior managers, as well as the capability

3 Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation System.

5

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).
Based on the Evaluation Policy, the evaluation function at UN Women focuses on thefollowing major key result areas:
Area 1: Effective Corporate Evaluation Systems implemented
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 Americas and the Caribbean Regional Evaluation Strategy is aligned with the
Evaluation Policy and the Global Evaluation Strategic Plan (2014-2017) while focusing
on the key results areas 2, 3 & 4. It aims to achieve an effective evaluation function thatprovides timely and credible evaluative evidence to inform and influence programmingand decision making at the regional, multi-country and country levels, and ultimately
make UN Women a more effective and efficient organization in the region.
III.

The Regional Evaluation Strategy

The main purpose of the Regional Evaluation Strategy is to provide a results-based
framework to strengthen the evaluation function in the AC region in the context of the
Evaluation Policy and UN Women 2014-2017 Strategic Plan. The eventual goal is tosupport UN Women’s mission and help the organization better serve gender equality
and women empowerment in the region.
This Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to sustain the gains achieved in improving theevaluation function in the AC region and to address remaining gaps identified in key
evaluation performance areas at the regional, multi-country and country level. It also
outlines key initiatives in the region with regard to UN coordination on genderresponsive evaluation and capacity building for national M&E systems.
The strategy is inclusive of the work of the Regional Office, Multi-Country and Country
Offices. It builds on the premise that senior managers assume overall accountability forevaluation in their respective offices, including adequate staffing, financial resource
allocation and quality assurance for evaluations.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy is framed around three strategic result areas:
1. Effective decentralized evaluation system strengthened and implemented
2. UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
3. National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E system strengthened
The Regional Evaluation Strategy outlines the rationale, purpose, strategic results,
quality assurance in evaluation processes, responsibilities, mechanisms for monitoring
implementation and a results framework.
6

IV.

Key Results of the Regional Evaluation Strategy

Result Area 1: Effective decentralized evaluation system strengthened andimplemented
A. Management attention to decentralized evaluation function is heightened
In accordance with the Evaluation Policy, the Regional Director and Multi-Country andCountry Office Representatives champion the use of all evaluations in the AC region
and ensure that adequate financial and human capacity is made available fordecentralized evaluation to ensure a fully effective and efficient function. They also
assume responsibility for creating an enabling environment for the strengthening of theevaluation culture in the area under their purview.
A.1 Investment in evaluation
Appropriate budget allocation is central in ensuring the quality, credibility, and utility ofevaluation. The Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to reinforce efforts to advocate forand secure the resources necessary to perform the evaluation function at the regional,
multi-country and country office levels.
A retrospective look at the investment on evaluation in the AC region in 2013 reveals
the function is under-resourced and with 0.4% far below the minimum level ofinvestment target of 3% set out in the Evaluation Policy:
Figure 1: Financial resources invested in evaluation, 20134

4 The total percentage includes costs incurred by the IEO, HQ divisions and Decentralized Offices. It represents the total

evaluation expenditure in the entire organization in 2013.
*While it is likely that resources invested in evaluation fluctuate yearly, this key performance indicator provides an indication of
the financial commitment to the evaluation function.

7

Source: 2013 figures generated from Atlas by Division of Management and Administration,complemented by data obtained from ROs.

All Offices in the region will be encouraged to set aside a reasonable amount of their
total budget for evaluation related activities. Given the financial resource constraints in
UN Women, the Regional Evaluation Strategy will take an incremental approach
towards increasing allocations for evaluation at RO, MCO and CO levels.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to ensure that:

Offices in the region increase gradually budget allocations towards UN Women
minimum requirements (3%) for evaluation related activities (decentralized
evaluations, capacity development and evaluation dissemination andcommunication) 5.

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 have been made to increase
capacity for monitoring, RBM and evaluation at the field level. Nonetheless, the majority
of UN Women offices in the region do not have specialized/dedicated monitoring andevaluation staff rather only have focal points for monitoring and evaluation functions. In
2013, only the Regional Office had a monitoring and evaluation specialist (the Regional
Evaluation Specialist, RES), while MCO and COs had appointed M&E focal points6:
Figure 2: Human resources for M&E in 2013

5 This includes appropriate costing of evaluations in MER Plan and GATE system.
6 In 2014, Colombia and Haiti COs have appointed M&E Officers.

8Source: UN Women Global Evaluation Oversight System.

While such an arrangement is understandable given the operational span and resourcebase of the Entity, the continued absence of such dedicated expertise will have asignificant bearing on the overall evaluative work of UN Women and its capacity topromote gender equality and human rights responsive evaluation in joint and/or systemwide evaluation at the country-level, including in evaluations of the United Nations
Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF).

The Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to ensure that:-

MCO and COs in the region ensure appointment of dedicated M&E officers or
M&E focal points.
RO, MCO and COs, with the support of the IEO, strengthen the capacity of staff
on the design, conduct and use of gender equality and human rights responsive
evaluations by means of trainings, e-learnings, webinars, guides and manuals.

A.3 Reinforcing accountabilities for evaluation
Ensuring the quality, credibility and use of evaluation is the responsibility of all
managers of 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 performanceappraisals 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 Regional
Evaluation Strategy aims to further mainstream the demand for evaluation particularly
among senior managers of the regional, multi-country and country offices.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy aim to ensure9-Integration of evaluation sessions in the agenda of main RO/MCO/COs
meetings, including annual retreats.
Where enough evidence is available from the body of completed evaluations in
the region, the RES, with the support of M&E officers/focal points, prepares aregional meta-synthesis of main conclusions, recommendations and lessons
learned of completed decentralized evaluations, to serve at the basis of
discussion in the strategic planning process.

B. Coverage of evaluations improved and maintained
The overall coverage of evaluation in the AC Region (2011-2013) is reasonably goodwith 7 offices having conducted at least one evaluation over the past 3 years (Figure 3).
However, due to various reasons including poor planning of the MER plans, quiteconsiderable number of evaluations were not conducted, delayed, postponed and/or
cancelled.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy will reinforce the existing systems to ensure that
evaluation plans are strategically designed, properly implemented and regularly
reviewed. The strategy will give particularly focus to those offices with limited
experience in conducing project/programme or country programme evaluations.
Figure 3: Evaluation Coverage (2011-2013)7

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

The Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to:-Reinforce systematic support by the RO to MCO/COs to ensure evaluations are
strategically planned, and carried out according to the evaluation plans, and areof high quality and can be used to improving learning, accountability andprogramming.

7 Although some evaluations cover more than one country, the graph includes only those offices that managed/commissioned

the evaluation. Furthermore, in this graph are not included other evaluations in which UN Women Offices participate (donors,
Fund for Gender Equality and EVAW Trust Fund, UNDAF, etc.).

10

-

-

Ensure timely review of the evaluation plans in line with the AWP planning andmake adjustment to the needs and priorities of the respective countries/offices.
Ensure all Offices in AC region conduct, at least, one evaluation during theperiod 2014-2017 and will support, as much as possible, other evaluations suchas donor, funds, joint and UNDAF evaluations.
Explore possibilities whereby RO and COs conduct thematic multi-country
evaluations (i.e. implementation of laws against femicide, UN Women support to
NWM, etc.).

C. Implementation of Evaluations
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 in agiven period allows more time to identify and recruit evaluation teams with the rightexpertise to maximize the potential of evaluations.
However, experience shows that considerable number of evaluations were not
implemented mainly due to over planning, limited financial and human resources andother competing priorities.
Figure 4 shows an evaluation implementation rate of 57% (4 out of 7) for AC region in2013:
Figure 4: Evaluation Implementation Rate 2013

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

In view of this evaluation implementation rate, senior management at country level needto pay special attention to increase evaluation implementation during 2014-2017. Inview of this, the Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to ensure:

11

-

-

Systematic follow up of the implementation of evaluation plans, quarterly tracking
in the GATE system as well as through the Global Evaluation Oversight System(GEOS) by the RO/RES.
MCO/COs provide quarterly updates of information on planned and ongoingevaluations in the GATE system.

D. Quality and credibility of evaluations improved
The Global Evaluation Reports Assessment and Analysis System (GERAAS) wasestablished by the IEO with the aim of improving the quality and use of decentralized
evaluations. The GERASS uses UNEG evaluation report standards as a basis forreview 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.
The 2013 GERAAS assessment shows the quality of evaluations in the region isreasonably positive. Out of the 4 evaluation reports assessed, only 1 had been rated as‘Unsatisfactory’:Figure 5: Quality of 2013 Evaluations

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

However, as more and more evaluations are planned to be undertaken in the span of
the SN cycle with a wider scope and coverage including country-level, joint and UNDAF
evaluations, consistent follow up and support is required to multi-country and country
offices to conduct high quality and credible evaluations. While many factors, including
limited financial and human capacity at field level account for the poor quality ofevaluations, the 2013 meta-analysis revealed majority of programmes lack explicit
12

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 a significant bearing on the quality and credibility of evaluations undertakenin the region. Therefore, the RO/RES, together with the IEO, will reinforce the quality
assurance mechanism in all evaluation processes at regional, multi-country and country
level through:--

Systematic review of all evaluation Terms of Reference, draft and final inception
and evaluation reports using the quality assurance standards/checklist
Support the evaluability of programmes to make sure that they are evaluableAs part of the GERAAS meta-evaluation, provide executive feedback and review
results of the individual evaluation reports to the RO/MCO/COs citing areas for
improvement and learning.
RES, with the support of M&E Officers and focal points, develop a roster of
evaluation experts, consultants and firms that have done good evaluations in theregion, in order to simplify selection processes and increase the quality of theevaluations.

D.1. Quality assurance system in evaluation processes
As outlined in the Evaluation Chapter of the Programme and Operations Manual (POM),
quality assurance for decentralized evaluations is a shared responsibility involving the
RO/MCO/COs and the IEO. Each office assumes a distinct role and responsibility.
Working together, they contribute to a coherent and effective evaluation function in UN
Women. The Regional Evaluation Strategy will enforce and strengthen the mechanism
for quality assurance at different stages of the evaluation process as outlined in the
Table 1.


Ensure 100% compliance with the quality assurance process for all evaluations
undertaken in the AC region. This indicator will be reported by respective offices
and monitored by the RO on a biannual basis. This will also form part of the
GEOS dashboard KPI to be reported to the SMT bi-annually by the IEO (UseAnnex II: Checklist for the Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized
Evaluation).

Table 1: Quality Assurance Process for Decentralized Evaluations
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 RES for review
The MCO/CO Representative/Regional Director submits the MER plan together with
the SN/AWP for Peer Review Group’s (PRG) review and approval
13

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 the evaluation’s
terms of reference. In the absence of an M&E officer, the evaluation task manager
takes the lead in developing the ToR
The M&E officer/focal point establishes a reference group for the evaluation thatprovides input to 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 evaluation 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, theevaluation task manager plays a key role in the selection of consultant/s.
The final selection of the consultant is approved by the country representative/deputy
representative
Inception Meeting and Report
The M&E officer/focal point or the evaluation task manager organize an inception
meeting with the selected consultant/s, as well as the reference group
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, as well as thereference group
Ensure data collection and analysis
The M&E officer/focal point or the evaluation task manager makes sure that theevaluation consultant/s collect valid and reliable data for the analysis
The evaluation consultant/s provide preliminary findings to the M&E officer/focal pointor the evaluation task manager when completing preliminary data collection andanalysis
The RES participates in the review, if requested by the RO/MCO/COs
Draft and final evaluation reports
The M&E officer provides assistance in ensuring the quality of the different draft
evaluation reports. In cases where no M&E officer is appointed, the evaluation task
manager should play the role of assuring the quality of the draft/s and final evaluation
report
The draft evaluation reports are 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 offinalization to the GATE and shares it with the main stakeholders
Management Response (MR)14

The M&E officer/focal point or evaluation task manager, in consultation with thecountry representative or deputy, develops the management response
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, TOR, final evaluation report andmanagement response in the GATE system
The country representative or deputy should ensure timely implementation of the key
actions
Knowledge Management (KM) and Lessons Learnt
The M&E officer/focal point or evaluation task manager, in consultation with
communication officer/focal point and RES, develops a KM strategy and dissemination
products
The M&E officer/focal point or evaluation task manager, in consultation with
communication officer/focal point and RES, strategically disseminates the final
evaluation report and KM products (i.e. evaluation briefs), by means of workshops,
seminars or webinars.
Senior Managers ensure the utility of the evaluation reports and incorporation of theevaluation findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned for policy andprogramme formulation, following a Results-Based Management (RBM) approach
E. Evaluative evidence is used and supports evidence-based programming
E.1 Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation Use (GATE)
The IEO has established the 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 ensures a follow-up mechanism torecommendations through a tracking system of actions. While the Evaluation Chapter of
the POM spells out user and approval rights of the GATE system, experience showsthat update of GATE information at country level continues to be a challenge. GATE
data entered at country level is the primary source of information for corporate reportingon Key Evaluation Performance Indicators (KPI), so it is essential that this information isreliable and updated on a regular basis.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy ensures that:- All offices appoint GATE focal points who are responsible for uploading andupdating evaluation information quarterly.
- RO provides oversight with respect to adherence to key corporate requirementsin the AC region.

15

E.2 Evaluation Management Response
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 each and every UN Women evaluation, including joint
evaluations in which UN Women participated. For decentralized evaluations, the country
representative or deputy is responsible for finalization, implementation and monitoring of
the management response. Development of management response to evaluations andimplementation of key actions is very positive in the region (Figure 6).
Figure 6: 2013 Evaluation reports with Management Response in GATE

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

The Regional Evaluation Strategy aims to further strengthen the responsibility for 100%
compliance for development and upload of management response for completed
evaluations in 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 accountability, inform
decision making and learning to improve performance and achievement of results. For
evaluations conducted in the AC region in 2013, 43% of the key actions have been
completed while 16% are under implementation and 6% not yet initiated.
Figure 7: Implementation Status of 2012 Management Response/Key Actions

16

Source: UN Women Global Accountability and Tracking of Evaluation (GATE) SystemRES systematically follow up on the implementation of key actions and reinforce
mechanism whereby all Offices provide quarterly updates on their status.

E.3 Use of evaluations
Whilst compliance with management response is generally 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.
As per UN Women Evaluation Policy, senior managers at the regional, multi-country
and country level 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.
To increase the utility of evaluation as an evidence-based programming tool, theRegional Evaluation Strategy will support establishment and enforcement mechanism
for reviewing and including references to evidence from evaluations of the preceding
programme/strategic note cycles in the SN/AWP and programme documents.
Proposed activities:- All Offices develop dissemination strategies and knowledge products of theirevaluations (evaluation final reports, evaluation briefs, webinars, learning events,etc.) to share with internal and external audiences.
- When the available evidence allows, RES leads preparation of a regional metasynthesis that aggregates emergent findings, conclusions, recommendations andlessons learned from completed decentralized evaluations.
- RO organizes a review session on evaluation findings at the regional retreat toimprove decision-making, programming and strategic planning.
- All Offices include finding and lessons learned from previous evaluations inprogramme documents and SN/AWPs as one of the main inputs in the planning
process.
17

F. Internal evaluation capacities enhanced to manage and use evaluations
In UN Women, evaluation capacity development is seen as a more deliberate process
whereby the abilities to design, manage and use gender equality and human rights
responsive evaluations are acquired, enhanced, and sustained over time. In thiscontext, enhancing capacities on evaluation will not only provide the impetus toeffectively design, manage and use evaluations but ultimately lead to generating
credible evidence and accelerating progress on gender equality and the empowermentof women in the AC region8.
For this reason, the Regional Evaluation Strategy will deploy different modalities thatcombine traditional onsite training with innovative approaches including peer learning,
online training9 and virtual learning communities. The Regional Strategy aims toreinforce mechanism whereby:--

All M&E officers, focal points, and relevant programme staff complete the UNWomen Evaluation Handbook e-learning course, equity focused and gender
responsible evaluation e–learning course and participate in the coaching
programme mainly provided by the RES and join the UN Women Evaluation
Community of Practice for information and knowledge sharing.
RO reinforces quality assurance and support mechanisms including technicalassistance, coaching, facilitating networking across the region, etc.
RO organizes annual combined learning workshops on RBM, M&E and KM.

Results Area 2: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted
A. Inter-agency evaluation capacity development, including regional levelnetworks and groups supported
The Interagency Regional Working Group (IAWG) on M&E was created in 2010 with theaim to coordinate joint actions and exchange information, knowledge, and know-how on
evaluation matters among regional agencies to provide support to M&E officers/focal
points in the AC region. It is composed of 9 agencies at regional level and UN Women(RES) is the Chair of the IAWG since 2013. The main activities of the IAWG include:

8 As part of its national evaluation capacity efforts, the Regional Office will also support efforts to strengthen the capacities of

Implementing Partners on evaluation design, management and use of projects financed by grant-making funds to generate
evidence on gender equality and women´s empowerment.
9 EvalPartners is offering a free e-learning course on development evaluation at http://www.mymande.org/elearning . It
includes the following 4 courses: Equity-focused and Gender-responsive Evaluations; National Evaluation Capacity Development
for Country-led Monitoring and Evaluation Systems; Emerging Practices in Development Evaluations; Introductory Course on
Evaluation for Latin America and the Caribbean (in Spanish). The UN Women Independent Evaluation Office is also in theprocess of developing an e-learning course based on the content of the UN Women online Evaluation Manual.

18a) Strengthen capacities and sharing experiences on evaluation through EVALUNLAC Network10;b) Promote experiences on national evaluation capacity development;c) Technical and methodological support on UNDAF and joint evaluations.
The RO/RES will continue to closely work with the Interagency Regional Working Groupon M&E to ensure that gender equality and human rights are addressed across UNevaluation work.
B. Gender equality integrated in UNDAF and joint evaluations
UN Women has a central mandate in supporting the integration of gender equality andwomen´s empowerment across UN interagency evaluation work. Annex III shows
UNDAF Roll-Out Countries in the AC Region (2014-2017)11. The Regional Evaluation
Strategy will further promote UN system coherence, coordination and accountability withrespect to gender equality and human rights responsive evaluations through.
--Increased engagement and participation of MCO/COs staff in UNDAF/M&E
Interagency Groups to ensure integration of gender equality and human rights
dimensions in Joint, UNDAF and DaO evaluations as well as in the UNDAF
results frameworks.
Increased participation and engagement of UN Women in joint evaluations atregional level (i.e. IADB impact evaluations on VAW prevention programmes) or
conduct joint evaluations with other UN Agencies (i.e. joint initiative with UNDP
on the implementation of EVAW national programmes).

Results Area 3: National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E
system strengthened
A. Building National Evaluation Capacities
Evaluating the performance of public policies and programmes is a fundamental
ingredient to foster accountability and good governance at national level. This highlights
the need to strengthen national, sub-regional and regional evaluation capacities andsupport the establishment of gender equality and human rights responsive national
M&E systems through working with national governments and civil society. In thissense, it would be also important to promote national gender responsive planning,
policies, budgeting, statistics and information systems.
10 The main objective of the EVALUN LAC Network (with almost 250 members) is strengthening of capacities on evaluation of

the United Nations System at inter-agency level, as well as sharing experiences and lessons learned amongst the different
agencies of the system throughout the region. EVALUN LAC has a virtual space in Teamworks and can be accessed in thefollowing link: https://undp.unteamworks.org/node/149963
11 In 2014, 5 countries are supposed to conduct UNDAF evaluations (Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Panama, and Uruguay).
Colombia UNDAF evaluation is completed and Panama and Uruguay UNDAF evaluations are initiated. IAWG on M&E issupporting technically these evaluations.

19

In 2013, in the framework of the consultancy ‘Strengthening institutional capacities in
evaluation in the Americas and the Caribbean region’, UN Women IEO elaborated the“Mapping of National M&E Systems in the AC region”. This was mainly undertaken to
divulge the experience in institutionalizing evaluation and the viability to integrate
gender equality, human rights and interculturality dimensions into these systems. As aresult of this process, UN Women, EvalPartners, IOCE (International Organization for
Cooperation in Evaluation) and ReLAC (Latin American and the Caribbean Network for
Monitoring, Evaluation and Systematization) established a Joint project to engendernational M&E systems in the AC Region, which main objective is to engender National
M&E Systems through provision of training on gender equality and human rights
responsive evaluation and technical and methodological support to integrate genderequality perspective in the evaluations of their public policies and programmes12.
Proposed activities:- RO/IEO will continue supporting national M&E systems in selected countries of
the AC region, through training courses, technical and methodological support.
- MCO/COs will strengthen partnerships with selected countries in the AC region
with the aim of supporting integration of gender equality and human rights
dimensions at country level and support south-south cooperation to facilitate
knowledge and information exchange on Gender Responsive Evaluations.

B. Partnerships with Voluntary Organizations of Professional Evaluators (VOPEs)
UN Women has been supporting the institutional capacity of following Voluntary
Organizations of Professional Evaluators (VOPEs) in the AC region: ReLAC,
REDLACME (Monitoring and Evaluation Network for Latin America and the Caribbean),
CLEAR Latin America (Regional Center for Learning on Evaluation and Results) as wellas sub-regional (Sub-Regional Caribbean Network) and national evaluation networks.
For instance, RES is part of the coordination of the ReLAC Working Group on Genderand Evaluation, which has more than 100 members.
UN Women ACRO will continue promoting the demand, supply and use of gender
responsive national M&E systems by supporting “EvalPartners”, the global partnershipon national evaluation capacity development initiatives13. UN Women AC will particularly
support the engendering of 2015 International Year of Evaluation and national M&E
policies and systems.
Proposed activities:- RES will continue supporting VOPEs in the AC region, among others, the ReLAC
Working Group on Gender and Evaluation.

12 There was a specific demand from three M&E national systems to pilot this initiative: the National Planning Department(SINERGIA, Colombia), the Ministry of Inclusion and Social Development (MIDIS, Peru) and the National Council for the
Evaluation of the Social Development Policy (CONEVAL, Mexico).
13 EvalPartners is currently co-chaired by UN Women. http://www.mymande.org/evalpartners

20

-

V.

M&E officers/focal points will participate in Voluntary Organizations ofProfessional Evaluators (VOPEs) at country level.
RO/MCO/COs support “EvalPartners” engendering the 2015 International Year of
Evaluation.

Responsibilities for evaluation function

The UN Women Evaluation Policy and the evaluation chapter of the POM outlines theroles and responsibilities for the evaluation function in UN Women. The Regional
Director and MCO/CO Representatives assume overall accountability for the evaluation
function at regional, multi-country and country level respectively and ensure that
adequate financial and human capacity is made available to ensure a fully effective andefficient evaluation function.
The Regional Evaluation Strategy will further reinforce systems for accountability
particularly by senior managers and those with programmatic, monitoring andevaluation functions. See Table 2 below on detailed roles and responsibilities.
Table 2: Roles and responsibilities of the evaluation function in UN Women at thedecentralized level
Multi-Country/Country
Representatives/Directors

 Assume overall accountability for evaluation function at country level 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 (founded on
clear results statements and SMART indicators, theory of change,
baseline and target information, etc.)
 Institute appropriate management arrangements described below toensure independence and quality of evaluations according to theUnited Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms and standards asprovided 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/strategic planning, 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 knowledge ofevaluation principles and types and ensure that new appointments tomonitoring and evaluation posts are made against the UNEG
evaluation competencies

21

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













Regional Directors









Regional
Specialists

Evaluation








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 ToRs
o 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 andexpenditures
Support Senior Managers in developing management responses toall evaluations and follow up timely approval by head of therespective office
Individual capacity permitting, act as Evaluation Task Manager
Support the organization of Corporate Evaluation data collection,
including organizing case study missions, identify documents andstakeholders to be consulted, design interview schedules, organize
feedback on the draft case study and management response to thefinal 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 andnational capacity on M&E with a focus on gender equality and humanrights responsive evaluation
Assume overall accountability for evaluation function in the region
Ensure country and multi-country offices’ compliance with evaluationrelated accountability
Ensure appropriate allocation of resources for evaluation (3% of thetotal 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, and thatappropriate management action is taken
Promote organizational learning through application of evaluation
findings and recommendations in the region programming
Conduct and/or manage strategic decentralized regional and countrylevel evaluations
Support implementation of evaluation policies and strategies
Lead development of regional evaluation strategies and ensure theirimplementation
Advise regional, multi-country and country directors on evaluation
issuesProvide technical support and oversight on the development of
MCO/CO’s MER plans, review of ToR, inception report, and draft andfinal 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

22








Support evaluation capacity development through trainings andexchange of experiences and continuous learning on M&E (i.e.
coordinate annual evaluation finding review session)
Provide technical assistance in the use of GATE, and track
management response to evaluations conducted by the RO/MCO
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 from agender equality and human rights perspective
Review programmes and plans to ensure evaluability
Elaborate a regional meta-evaluation annually

VI. Mechanism for monitoring implementation of the Strategy
Monitoring the implementation of the Strategy is essential for tracking progress andmaking adjustments to improve evaluation performance. The Strategy identifies the key
results areas, indicators with baselines and targets for each strategic focus area tostrengthen evaluation function in the AC 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 for delivering them.
Progress on the key performance indicators (KPIs) of the evaluation function will bereported through the Global Evaluation Oversight System (GEOS) Dashboard to the UN
Women senior managers bi-annually and to the Executive Board annually through the
IEO Annual Report.
Progress in the implementation of the AC Regional Evaluation Strategy will be
discussed annually at the regional retreat and summary of the progress will be featured
in the IEO annual reports. A participatory mid-term review will be conducted at the endof 2015 and a final review at the end of 2017 by the RO in close collaboration with
MCO/COs.

23

VII. Results Framework
Results

ReportingSource ofBaseline
TargetFrequency
data(2013)(2017)
Result Area 1: Effective decentralized Evaluation System strengthened and implemented
A. Management% of evaluation expenditure from the Once a year
ATLAS (Code 0.4%
2%byattention
to total expenditure in the region
023)
2015
decentralized3%
byevaluation function
2017
is heightened% of Offices that have appointed Once a year
Human
100%
100% (notM&E focal points or M&E Officers
Resources/(10
M&E only M&E
RES
focal points + focal
RES)
points but
also M&E
Officers)% of Offices in which evaluation was Once a year
Interview with TBD (2014)100%
discussed and integrated in annual
M&E officers/
retreats
focal points
B. Coverage
evaluations
improved
maintained
C. Implementation
evaluations

Indicators

of
and
of

D. Quality
andcredibilityofevaluation improved

E. Evaluative evidence
is used and supports
results and evidence
based programming% of Offices that conducted at least
one evaluation over total number of
OfficesOnce a year

Interview with
M&E officers/
focal points

63% (7 out of
11 offices)

80%

%
of
evaluations
completed,initiated, not initiated and cancelled
in a given year against total numberof evaluations planned.
% of decentralized evaluations rated
as “Good’ and above on the
GERAAS evaluation report quality
assessment scale.
% of COs that managed evaluation
in a specific year compliant withquality assurance system in place% of evaluation reports uploaded
and made accessible in the GATE
systemQuarterly
update (GATE)
Once a year
(report)Once a year

GATE/
Interview with
M&E officers/
focal points
GERAAS

57% (4 out of
7 completed)% of new Strategic Notes informed
and made reference to evaluative
evidence

Once a year

Quarterly
update (GATE)
Once a year
(report)Once a year

24

Interview with
M&E officers/
focal points
GATE

TBD (2014)

80%
2015
90%
2017
60%
2015
80%
2017
100%

100%

100%

Desk review

TBD

100%

0%

Responsible

RO/MCO/COs
IEO

Human
Resources/
RES

M&E officers/
focal points
RES
M&E officers/
focal points
RES

by
by

M&E officers/
focal points
RES

by

IEO

by
M&E officers/
focal points
RES
M&E officers/
focal points
RES
RO/MCO/COs
RES

% of decentralized evaluations thathave developed and uploaded
management response in the GATE
% implementation of management
response key actions

Number of regional meta-evaluations
elaborated annually
F. Internal
evaluation
capacity enhanced to
manage and use
evaluations

A. Inter-agency
evaluation capacity
development,
includingregionallevel networks andgroups supported
B. Gender
equality
integrated in UNDAF
and joint evaluations

Quarterly
update (GATE)
Once a year
(report)Quarterly
update (GATE)
Once a year
(report)Once a year

GATE

100%

100%

M&E officers/
focal points
RES

GATE

43%

90%

M&E officers/
focal points
RES

GATE
(evaluation
reports)
UN
Women
ICT

0

3 (1 eachyear)

M&E officers/
focal points
RES
M&E officers/
focal points
RES
M&E officers/
focal points
RES% of M&E specialists/focal points Once a year
TBD
who are members of the Global M&E
Community of practice% of M&E specialists/focal points Once a year
Interview with TBD
trainedingenderresponsive
M&E officers/
evaluation
focal points
Results Area 2: UN coordination on gender responsive evaluation promoted% of countries in which UN Women Once a year
Interview with TBD
is represented in inter-agency M&E
M&E officers/
working groups
focal points

90%

80%

M&E officers/
focal points
RES% of offices that participated in
UNDAF and Joint evaluations

80%

M&E officers/
focal points
RES
RES

Once a year

Interview with
M&E officers/
focal points
RES

TBD

80%

% of UNDAF evaluations supported Once a year
TBD
50%
by the Interagency Regional Working
Group on M&E
Results Area 3: National Evaluation Capacities for gender responsive M&E system strengthened
A. Building
National Number of National M&E Systems Once a year
RES
3 (Colombia, 5Evaluation
supported
Peru, Mexico
Capacities
2014)
B. Partnerships
with Number of regional, sub-regional Once a year
RES
3
(ReLAC, 5
Voluntaryand national evaluation networks
REDLACME,
Organizationsof supported
Sub-Regional
Professional
Caribbean
Evaluators (VOPEs)
Network)

RO/MCO/COs
RES
RO/MCO/COs
RES

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 manage good 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:Title of the Evaluation:
Name of Evaluation Task Manager:
Year
Stage of the
Evaluation
Planning
Stage

Preparation
Stage

Region:Name of M&E Officer/focal point (if different from the Eval.
Task Manager):

Quality assurance process to be complied

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

Yes
No

Terms of Reference (ToR)The M&E officer 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 indeveloping the ToR.
The draft ToR is sent to the RES for quality review

YesNo

Final ToR is approved by the country representative/deputy
representative

Yes
No

Selection of consultants

28

Yes
No

Remark (if any)

Conduct Stage

The M&E officer provides assistance in the selection of theconsultant 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 the country
representative/deputy representative

Yes
No

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

Yes
No

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

Yes
No

Draft and final evaluation reports

Use

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

Yes
No

The
final
reportisapproved
representative/deputy representative

country

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

by

the

Yes
No

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

Yes
No

The M&E officer/focal point uploads the management responsein the GATE system within six weeks of finalization

Yes
No

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

29

Annex III: UNDAF Roll-Out Countries in the AC Region (2014-2018)

201414
Argentina (2010-2014,
extended until Dec. 2015)

2015

2016

2017

2018

Barbados & OECS (2012-2016)

Bolivia (2013-2017)

Cuba (2014-2018)

Guatemala (2015-2019)

Belize (2013-2016)

Costa Rica (2013-2017)

Chile (2015-2018)

Paraguay (2015-2019)

Brazil (2012-2015, extended
until December 2016)

Nicaragua (2013-2017)

Ecuador (2015-2018)

Venezuela (2015-2019)

El Salvador (2012-2015)
Panamá (2012-2015)
Uruguay (2011-2015)
Colombia (2008-2012,extended until Dec. 2014)

Dominican Republic (20122016)
Guyana (2012-2016)
Honduras (2012-2016)
Jamaica (2012-2016)
Peru (2012-2016)
Suriname (2012-2016)
Belize (2013-2016)
Haiti (ISF: 2013-2016)14

Related to the evaluations, in 2014 Colombia UNDAF evaluation has been completed, Panama UNDAF evaluation is almost finished, El Salvador and Uruguay UNDAF
evaluations are in progress and Argentina is not going to conduct a final evaluation because they undertook an external Mid Term Review in 2013.

30