Evaluation of UNDP Contribution to anti-corruption and governance integrity in a development context
The evaluation assessed UNDPs contribution to strengthening national capacities in anti-corruption and governance integrity. This included an assessment of UNDPs contribution to global and regional level debates and advocacy. In making the overall assessment of UNDP's contribution, the evaluation, assessed relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability at the country level as against the expectations in the Strategic Plans in term of a) changes in macro policies and awareness; b) changes in capacities of state and non-state actors; and c) improved governance quality.
The purpose of the evaluation was to:
- Strengthen UNDP accountability to global and national development partners, including Executive Board
- Support development of corporate programme strategies
- Support organizational learning
The evaluation categorizes UNDPs anti-corruption and governance integrity related support broadly into the three following streams of activities:
a. Strengthening anti-corruption policies and institutions;
b. Addressing drivers of corruption; and
c. Bringing changes in governance practices.
The types of services provided included:
- Meta-synthesis of 95 UNDP global programme evaluations,
- Interviews (UNDP programme units; UNODC; UN agencies; UN missions in NY, donors in HQ, NGOs, ThinkTanks)
- Outcome evaluations of the regional programme
- Country level thematic evaluations on anti-corruption and governance integrity support
- Country Studies, Global and Regional analysis
- Assessment of Development Results (ADRs).
The meta-analysis used a set of parameters in drawing information related to UNDP support and contribution; and analysed evaluations since 2008.
Specific tasks of the Meta-synthesis Consultant:
- Mapped outcome conditions (context) and mechanisms used by UNDP;
- Summarized the evidence of UNDPs contribution to anti-corruption and governance integrity outcomes and factors affecting contribution. In doing so the consultant used systematic rating of performance based on the extracted narrative evidence;
- Tested the theory and hypothesis developed for the evaluation to assess UNDPs contribution and the factors influencing the contribution of UNDPs programmes;
- The consultant prepared a report of main findings.