Corporate-level Evaluation of IFAD’s
Decentralization Experience
ECG Meeting, London, 1-2 December 2016
IFAD’s decentralization journey
Key milestones
2003
Field Presence Pilot Programme (FPPP). Evaluated in 2007
2007
Activity plan for IFAD’s country presence
2011
IFAD Country Presence Policy and Strategy
2013
IFAD Country Presence Strategy (2014-2015)
2016
IFAD Corporate Plan for Decentralization - December
Current situation
40 country offices (39 oper. in mid-2016), cover 78% IFAD’s ongoing
financing
2
Country Presence at IFAD Configurations
1. Absence of country office
2. Country office led by a national officer
3. Country office led by an out-posted international
staff member
4. Sub-regional hub supporting multiple countries
5. Regional Office (Nairobi)
3
4
Evaluation objectives and criteria
To evaluate IFAD’s decentralization
experience and efforts, including the
underlying assumptions
Relevance
To evaluate the contribution of IFAD’s
decentralization for better operational
performance and development results
Effectiveness
To evaluate the costs of the
decentralization process in relation to
the results achieved
Efficiency
5
Evaluation Methodology
• Formative and summative evaluation
• Mixed methods for data collection:
IFAD’s
available
quantitative
data
Electronic survey
(1,200
respondents)
13 Country case
studies
Key informant
interviews
Documents
review
4 Regional
workshops
Findings
&
Recommendations
Comparator
organizations
6
Evaluation Methodology - 2
• Elaborated a “results chain”
• Quantitative analysis: test of significance of differences: (i) with
vs. without country office; (ii) before vs. after country office
 Indicators of project performance
 Indicators of development results
 Caveat: concomitant factors
• Triangulated with other sources of evidence
• Comparisons between country presence modalities
7
Findings - Relevance
 Objectives for the decentralization process were overall valid
 Some assumptions not realistic:
− Cost neutrality and “light touch” approach vs. broad range
of expectations for country offices
− Leeway to experimenting country presence but little
analysis of needs, costs and performance
− Initially, focus on country presence but less attention to
reorganizing headquarters
8
Findings - Effectiveness
1. Operational effectiveness:
− Better strategy and project design (country context)
− Enhanced IFAD implementation support (problem solving)
2. Development results. Significant rating differences (with/without)
− Impact on: (i) household’s income, assets; (ii) food security
− Gender equality
− Sustainability of benefits
3. Mixed contribution to non-lending activities
− Stronger partnerships with Governments and donors; but uneven
effects on knowledge management and policy dialogue
− Limited resources and varying interest and experience of staff
9
Findings - Efficiency
 Difficult to reconstruct costs of decentralization due to
accounting system
 IFAD managed to contain costs associated with country
presence
 However, not all cost reducing options pursued. E.g., readjustment of HQ staffing (same as in 2008)
 Strategic and cost-efficiency advantages of sub-regional
hubs not fully brought to bear
 A number of organizational issues. E.g.
 Delegation of authority
 Orientation and training, career opportunities for national staff
10
Key recommendations
1. Consolidate country presence and enhance cost-efficiency
 In the field: build “critical mass” upon advantages of sub-regional hubs
 Re-organize staff between headquarters and country offices, based on
functional analysis exercise
2. Non-lending activities. Differentiate expectations by type of
country office. Establish dedicated budget line in country offices
3. Enhance delegation of authority: budget holding, communication
4. Enhance staff incentives and capacity to operate in a
decentralized environment
5. Improve the quality of data, monitoring and self-assessment
11