Reports
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/27948
Our work is intended to support and improve M&E, contributes to enhance governance and improved development outcomes across the continent.This is linked to a deliberate research and learning agenda. Our reports includes project reports, situational analyses and annual reports.
Browse
19 results
Search Results
Item African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Workshop Report(CLEAR-AA, 2012-09) CLEAR-AADPME In partnership with the CLEAR Center for Anglophone Africa hosted the workshop to which four senior officials from each of the six participating countries were invited. Using open dialogue techniques, delegates delegates able to reflect on the African Monitoring and Evaluation Systems case studies, analyse M&E within their own country in terms of what was working well, and identify potential areas for learning and improvement. The workshop was attended by senior monitoring and evaluation officials from seven African case countries, as well as by experts from Colombia, Malaysia, theWorld Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Evaluation Association (AfrEA) and the German Development Cooperation (GIZ). The workshop was facilitated by professional process consultants (Indigenous Peoples Knowledge).Item Evaluation in Africa: Database and Survey Report(2017-03-01) Evaluation Research AgencyThe primary goal with the development of the African Evaluation Database (AfrED) is to capture, clean and present – in a user-friendly manner – information on evaluation projects, studies, agencies and actors in Africa. The database captures basic bibliographic and other related metadata on selected country papers, terms of reference, presentations, journal articles, conference proceedings/papers/presentations and reports with respect to evaluations for the period 2005 – 2015. The geographical scope currently covers 12 sub-Saharan Anglophone countries.Item Situational Analysis of the role of DPME and others(CLEAR-AA, 2017-12-08) CLEAR-AAThe aim of the study was to determine the extent to which selected national agencies/departments that have mandates to support local government promote evaluation practice, provide support to municipalities for the institutionalisation of evaluation and engage in evaluation capacity development with municipalities. The principal national agencies involved in supporting municipalities are the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCOG, part of the Ministry of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), National Treasury and South African Local Government Association (SALGA). DPME aims to use the findings to identify opportunities and gaps in the existing institutional support system to metros. Further, the DPME will use the information to structure its own response to the increasing interest from metros in institutionalising evaluation.Item ETDP SETA Synthesis Report(CLEAR-AA, 2017) CLEAR-AAThe overall objective of this evaluation was to established the extent to which the ETDP SETA funded programmes implemented between 2011 and 2016 were effective. This means that the purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether the programme outcomes have been achieved, to assess the quality and relevance of the programmes and their efficiency. The first method of this evaluation applied in each phase was a graduate tracer study which sought to (a) locate graduates and establish from them the actual and perceived achievements of the programmes; and (b) determine what the outcome of the programmes have been for participants as well as the sectors where graduates are located. This evaluation was commissioned by the ETDP SETA for use in programme improvement, and to provide evidence toward policy recommendations in the future restructuring of the SETA.Item PRiME: Progress Index for Monitoring & Evaluation(CLEAR-AA, 2017) CLEAR-AAMonitoring and evaluation systems in Africa are growing rapidly, but it has been difficult to understand the nature of this growth. This is in part because there are so many different ways to understand the components of a monitoring and evaluation system, and much more research is needed to better understand the causal factors driving change. The Progress index is making a first attempt at grappling with these definitional elements, by beginning to systemically track progress around certain components of national monitoring and evaluation systems in key countries in the region. The Progress Index for Monitoring and Evaluation is designed to capture progress on the development of country monitoring and evaluation systems in selected countries within Africa.Item COMPASS: Tracking monitoring and evaluation developments in Anglophone Africa(CLEAR-AA, 2018) CLEAR-AAMuch of the existing literature around M&E and evaluation systems is based on European, North American and Latin American theory and practice, with little written about African M&E systems. For example, a study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2016) explores evaluation systems in development cooperation focusing on 37 members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet) and nine multilateral organisations, including six development banks, the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Another example is Rosenstein’s (2015) Mapping the Status of National Evaluation Policies in South Asia. The Compass offers a snapshot of developments in M&E in Anglophone African countries and is designed to inform CLEAR-AA and development partners’ understanding of M&E systems and planning for capacity development interventions in these countries, as well as contribute to public debate on the development of national M&E systems, institutionalisation of evaluation, and use of M&E evidence in the larger African context.Item Socio Economic Rights Institute (SERI) Evaluation Report(2017-12) Dr Smith, Laila; Dr Gotsch, PeterDespite great achievements in the delivery of housing in 23 years since the end of apartheid (including more than 3.7 million housing subsidies provided1 through the South African reconstruction and devel-opment programme) poverty and socio-spatial segregation continue to grow in South Africa (SA), and there is a tendency of the apartheid patterns being perpetuated by the dynamics of new markets ideo-logies and politics. Indeed, a rising backlog in housing (2.1 million in 2016), together with a perpetuation of informal settlements (2 600 settlements that house 13% of SA’s households) and the prevalence of hundreds of “illegally” occupied inner city buildings (such as in Johannesburg) illustrates the limited ca-pacity of the government to provide the poor and vulnerable in the country with adequate solutions. While South Africa is a country with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and a pro-gressive and innovative policy framework, the problem mainly lies in their implementation on the ground. Within this context, the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI) is a non-profit human rights organisation trying to address the gap between policy and implementation by working with communities, social movements, individuals and other non-profit organisations to develop and implement strategies to challenge inequality and realise socio-economic rights for the vulnerable and poor. The organisation was founded in 2010 and provides legal advice and representation, research services and advocacy support to its clients and partners.Item Evaluation of Limpopo Enterprise Development Programme(CLEAR-AA and Wits Business School (WBS), 2018-10-25) Mr Tsotsotso, Khotso; Dr Thanti, Mthanti; Mr Sibiya, Siyabonga; Ms Fish, TebogoThis report is a result of an Evaluation commissioned by the Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET), which is intended to assess the quality of implementation and effectiveness of institutional arrangements, to deliver Limpopo Enterprise Development Programme. The Evaluation was granted to an Evaluation team from Wits Enterprise, consisting of sector experts from Wits Business School (WBS) and M&E technical Specialists from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results – Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA).Item 2017 CSI Handbook – 20th Edition(Trialogue Publication, 2017)Chapter 4: Local and global perspectives Criteria for determining strategic CSI and a profile of the recipient of the Trialogue Strategic CSI Award 2017, insights from The Trialogue Business in Society Conference 2017, key findings from CSI research conducted in Ghana and Kenya, and trends in global corporate giving.Item Demand for and supply of evaluations in selected Sub-Saharan African Countries(CLEAR-AA, 2013) Stephen, Porter; Osvaldo, FeinsteinThis study argues that the political economy of a country conditions the opportunities for evaluation to be used in policy processes. Consequently, evaluation capacity development practices need to be undertaken in a manner that works towards development with the prevailing political economy. Political economy issues become less evident as analysis moves from the policy space towards technical delivery, but still impacts upon the way evaluation processes unfold. This argument has been developed through synthesising findings from the case studies in five African countries; namely, Ghana, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia. These studies mapped evaluation demand and supply with consideration for the political economy. In undertaking the mapping, this study found that there is potential rather than actual technical capacity to manage, undertake and demand evaluations. This is a major constraint on the use of evaluation. High-quality evaluations are more often commissioned and managed by development partners than government, which means that they are less likely to be used in policy. There are, however, some notable examples development partner led evaluations being used. In some cases universities, think tanks and civil society actors in the country have some good technical capacity and can navigate the political context in a manner that promotes development rather than self-interest. Such technically good and politically savvy evaluation actors offer entry points to evaluation capacity development efforts.