Table 12: Component 4 scorecard DAC Criterion 2013 Justification Comments Investment in policy processes remains highly relevant but ACDP’s Relevance 4 relevance will be undermined if/where of opportunity’ are ‘windows missed. Not infrequent replacement of consultants Efficiency 3 Delays to submissions Variable quality of reporting ACDP should consider options to better bundle The long lifecycle of many ACDP activities is seemingly inconsistent findings, i.e. so evidence is provided by theme and with the political realities of decision-making Effectiveness 4 not just by report-by-report Nevertheless, examples of evidence utilization can be cited, e.g. ACDP 001. ACDP’s six-monthly reports benefit from Likelihood is unknown and depends on a number of factors. As such, it improved tracking/reporting of post-report is very difficult to provide an accurate, defensible score measures and results. The likelihood of a number of ACDP outputs having impact-level Impact TE POM’s upcoming evaluation study will support benefits is very uncertain but should one have a direct, significant and understanding of policy processes and ACDP’s meaningful effect on a key policy the impact of the ACDP could be impact in that regard. significant. The modality the ACDP delivery vehicle will not Sustained benefits will accrue should key report recommendations be – – be sustained and is not expected to out-live the EP. implemented. The extent to which benefits (e.g. changes to policy Insufficient routine capture, tracking and reporting of changes to the content and subsequent implementation) are likely policy environment completion of individual activities limits the to continue after ACDP closure depends, in part, on extent to which POM can state with confidence that (specific) Sustainability 4 the extent to which ACDP and its individual sustained benefits are likely. activities have successfully ushered in improved understanding of and attitudinal change and created for meaningful policy-related ‘space’ discussion about the issues.
Table 12: Component 4 scorecard DAC Criterion 2013 Justification Comments Relevance 4 Investment in policy processes remains highly relevant but ACDP’s relevance will be undermined if/where ‘windows of opportunity’ are missed. Efficiency 3 Not infrequent replacement of consultants Delays to submissions Variable quality of reporting Effectiveness 4 The long lifecycle of many ACDP activities is seemingly inconsistent with the political realities of decision-making Nevertheless, examples of evidence utilization can be cited, e.g. ACDP 001. ACDP should consider options to better bundle findings, i.e. so evidence is provided by theme and not just by report-by-report Impact TE Likelihood is unknown and depends on a number of factors. As such, it is very difficult to provide an accurate, defensible score The likelihood of a number of ACDP outputs having impact-level benefits is very uncertain but should one have a direct, significant and meaningful effect on a key policy the impact of the ACDP could be significant. ACDP’s six-monthly reports benefit from improved tracking/reporting of post-report measures and results. POM’s upcoming evaluation study will support understanding of policy processes and ACDP’s impact in that regard. Sustainability 4 Sustained benefits will accrue should key report recommendations be implemented. Insufficient routine capture, tracking and reporting of changes to the policy environment completion of individual activities limits the extent to which POM can state with confidence that (specific) sustained benefits are likely. The modality – the ACDP delivery vehicle – will not be sustained and is not expected to out-live the EP. The extent to which benefits (e.g. changes to policy content and subsequent implementation) are likely to continue after ACDP closure depends, in part, on the extent to which ACDP and its individual activities have successfully ushered in improved understanding of and attitudinal change and created ‘space’ for meaningful policy-related discussion about the issues.
2013-indonesia-education-annual-partnership-performance-report.docx