Table 3 Framework development and proposed review processes

Danida (2012) [13]

Produced by the Foreign Ministry’s evaluation unit

Draws heavily on the OECD/DAC quality standards for development evaluation (2010), from which key statements are incorporated

“The guidelines will be updated as need arises, and comments and suggestions for improvements or clarifications are welcome”

Aspects may have been inspired by participation in peer reviews of other evaluation functions conducted by OECD/DAC and United Nations networks

Refers to its’ own study on conducting evaluations jointly with partner countries

May also learn from the Multilateral Organisations’ Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) and the multilateral development banks’ Common Performance Assessment System (COMPAS)

Refers to a small number of academic publications

This 2012 document is a revised version of a document published in 2006

Signposts material produced by various international development related networks and World Bank initiatives

Danida (2011) [14]

Not stated

Uses the OECD standard Managing for Development Results (MfDR) as its management strategy

Requests feedback from staff and external partners. Plans to review the performance measurement tools listed

This 2011 document replaces a document published in 2005

ESSENCE (2011) [11]

“Consultation, first between various ESSENCE members and secondly with a broader group of stakeholders (including African recipients of funding for health research)”

Five publications: one academic article; two reports related to other health RCS funder evaluation frameworks [TDR and IDRC]; two reports by independent policy/practice organisations

“The matrix is planned to be revised periodically. Funders are invited to adopt a learning attitude towards capacity strengthening and to contribute to the continuous improvement of the matrix, based on their own experiences with capacity strengthening Initiatives”

TDR (2011) [15]

Developed by internal working groups, consulting with internal and external stakeholders and advised by an external advisory group. External input was mainly from research institutions, research funding institutions, and development agencies

Fifteen “related documents” are listed. These were produced by other development-related organisations: OECD/DAC, various United Nations programmes and the World Bank

“This framework will need to be continuously reviewed and refined in order to address the Programme needs”

FIC-NIH (2005) [16]

Not stated

None

Not stated. This 2005 document is a revised version of an initial document published in 2002

WOTRO (2005)

Not stated

None

Not stated

IDRC (2005) [17]

Produced by two university-based international development consultants whose expertise included evaluation and monitoring

References a report on outcome mapping published by IDRC

Not stated

Based on a file review of capacity development in 40 IDRC projects

IDRC (2004) [18]

Developed by the Senior Management Committee and the Evaluation Unit

None

“CAF is an experiment … and will require refinement on an ongoing basis”

“The evaluation unit, policy and planning group, and senior management committee will periodically assess the utility of the CAF performance areas, and decide how to make appropriate modifications”

CIDA (2004) [19]

Prepared by the evaluation unit and an external consultant.

References documents drawn from government and other agencies in its own country, and OECD/DAC work

“We welcome any comments and/or suggestions that you may have” [email address provided]