Institutionalization of an M&E system can be said to have occurred when it produces monitoring information and evaluation findings which are judged valuable by key stakeholders, when this information is used to improve government performance, and when there is sufficient demand for the M&E function to ensure its funding and its sustainability for the foreseeable future. The growing body of country experience is analyzed in How to Build M&E Systems to Support Better Government.

There are many potential uses of M&E information by a government and by civil society --see Priority for Government M&E Systems. For this potential to be achieved, it is important that the conduct and use of M&E be made systematic. This ensures the regular flow of M&E information to support ongoing government processes such as the budget cycle, the management of government programs and projects, and regular reporting of government performance to the parliament or congress.

Most governments already conduct a range of M&E activities, such as ministry data systems. But these are often -- and perhaps typically -- uncoordinated, with the result that a single ministry can possess several such systems, each with their own data definitions, data sources, periodicity of collection, and quality assurance mechanisms (if any). National statistical offices draw on the data produced by sector ministries, and they also add to the supply of information through, for example, household surveys, industry surveys and population censuses. A case study from Uganda illustrates the problems which arise from excessive data collection. There are at least 16 M&E systems within the government, and a review of the management information systems in 3 sector ministries discovered that they alone comprise nearly 1,000 performance indicators, requiring 300,000 data entries by government agencies at the district level each year. Most of these indicators focus on spending, on activities, and the state of physical facilities; there is little focus on the outputs or outcomes which are produced. This situation can be described as “too much data, not enough information”. (See The Development of Monitoring and Evaluation Capacities to Improve Government Performance in Uganda, Annex E. This paper is also available in French; in Spanish.) In this type of situation, the data can be of poor quality and are likely to be substantially underutilized -- a chicken-and-egg problem. A diagnosis of data systems and capacities provides a starting point for rationalizing data collections and improving their quality.

Evaluations are less frequently conducted by governments; most evaluations are carried out by donors. These are often in the nature of rapid reviews or, less commonly, rigorous impact evaluations (see also IEG’s Impact Evaluation website).

Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches

The supply side tends to be emphasized by those who view M&E in technocratic terms, as a stand-alone technical activity. But the supply side of producing M&E information is less important than demand. If demand for M&E is strong then it is relatively straightforward to improve supply in response (e.g., via M&E training, preparation of manuals and guidelines, and identification of good M&E consultants); the converse does not hold, however. Demand from governments is crucial for the utilization of M&E information and for the ongoing funding of M&E activities. Thus it is necessary to secure the buy-in of key stakeholders such as government ministers or finance ministries if substantive effort is to be put into strengthening M&E functions and funding them -- reliance on donor funding and on donor M&E activities is not sustainable.

However, it is often difficult to strengthen government demand. A barrier to demand is lack of knowledge about what “M&E” actually encompasses. So, there is frequently another chicken-and-egg problem: a lack of government demand for M&E because of lack of understanding of M&E and what it can provide; lack of understanding because of lack of experience with it; and lack of experience because of weak demand. The way around this conundrum is to try to increase awareness of M&E -- its range of tools, methods and techniques -- and of its potential uses. Demand can also be increased by exposing key stakeholders in a government to examples of highly cost-effective M&E activities, and when they are made aware of other governments which have set up M&E systems and which value them highly. It can be persuasive to point to the growing evidence of the high returns to investment in M&E.

Influential Evaluations: Evaluations that Improved Performance and Impacts of Development Programs

Country Case Studies These include a number of countries which have succeeded in institutionalizing their M&E functions in support of sound governance.

Lessons from Experience >