How Performance and Effectiveness is Managed in Country Programs

1. How Performance and Effectiveness is Managed in Country Programs Christopher Nelson Manager Performance and Effectiveness AusAID Philippines

2. What are AusAID’s M&E arrangements and how have they changed? What is current practice M&E at the country-level? an overview of AusAID’s M&E Approach What have we learnt and what is the unfinished agenda? M&E at AusAID – a new agenda?

3. Annual State of the Sector Reports OGDAnnualReports AidWorks Performance Assessment Framework AusAID Annual Report ARDE Annual Review of Development Effectiveness Accountability APPU Annual Program Performance Update Quality Reporting System Policy and management Results Quality White Paper implementation Country Strategy Performance Framework OGD Programs Program Fund Program Fund Program Fund Program Fund Global Programs Country Strategy

4. Australia’s Aid to the Philippines • For the past decade, ODA has totalled about A$570 million • A$100.6 million ODA for 2007-2008 • The Philippines is Australia’s fourth largest development partner after Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands • Australia is among the top five bilateral grant aid donors to the Philippines

5. Country Program Strategy Country Strategy Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) Annual Program Performance Update (APPU) Initiative Level Assessments Quality Ratings System (QAE, QAI, QAC) Country Program Advisory Group Country Program Performance Instruments

6. Draws on an ODE review and analysis of previous strategy Highlighted limitations of M&E – poor information and analysis to draw on Provides focus and contains program – previous issue with disbursed program Consultative process involving Whole of Government and Philippines government engagement Country Program Strategy

7. Framework to assess performance of the country strategy Key instrument is the PAF Matrix – a collection of high level objectives; outcomes; indicators; and instruments for data collection Multiple responsibilities for framework – delivery partners, government, AusAID Mechanism to assess program on more regular basis – how are we tracking? Country Strategy Performance Assessment Framework (PAF)

8. To inform the Annual Review of Development Effectiveness; and A tool to help the program manage from results Advisory group engagement and strategic level decisions within the agency APPU – Annual Program Performance Update

9. Enthusiasm for process External input well received and applause for general approach Peer review of ratings – good results as regards feedback and useful commentary Ratings and performance assessment – accurate and honest Has had consequences regarding higher level agency engagement – can we be truthful? APPU Peer Review – General Response

10. Need to outline what we want from these issues – anti-corruption, environment, gender Transition of the program – how is this managed? Mix of funding allocation – how things are managed and whether these are the right choices for existing modalities? Working to fit cross cutting issues into assessment – What are the mechanisms for reporting? APPU Outcomes – Cross cutting issues

11. STRIVE Education Program (MDI) Philippines Australia Local Sustainability Project (PALS) – ACIL Mindanao Commission for Women (MCW) NEDA – Philippines Government Economic Development Agency Southern Philippines Roads Program (SMRP) – WB, ADB and bi-lateral components Initiative Level Assessments

12. Need to look at how we use the rating process Preparing for December review (second time around) Linking work-plans to the review process Evidence that ‘action to improve’ has been acted upon – including partner engagement QAE – getting design right QAC – better use of lessons learnt Being clear on the reporting approach Quality Ratings Systems – QAI, QAE & QAC

13. Meets in October for first time Eminent group of Philippines and Australia academics and significant observers to review country strategy Feed-back and critical review of how we are going in current context Country Program Advisory Group

14. Development of the information reporting system – standardized information collection process Review of Government Reporting Systems – looking at current systems and how these can fit into our performance requirements Review Calendar – pipeline planning for next 12 months (choice consultants) Devolved responsibility for performance and quality Role of Program Officer – Performance and Quality

15. Building capacity – management demand & staff knowledge & skills Ensuring adequate budget for initiative M&E arrangements Improving the accountability & learning balance Building consensus on quality M&E amongst stakeholders Integrating initiative-level systems with other levels/systems Clarifying the language Building and using sustainable partner M&E systems What is the Unfinished agenda?