Aleph Notes #1: Insights from an Anti-Corruption Programme Evaluation
During emergencies, governments often loosen standard procurement regulations to deliver immediate recovery responses. Such was the case three years ago during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with unprecedented access to money available to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, rates of corruption increased. Aleph was commissioned to undertake an evaluation of an anti-corruption programme, developed in response to heightened corruption in public-procurement.
Three key insights emerged from this work:
Adaptive MEL framework. A sound MEL framework in place to monitor progress is crucial for all programmes. Levers of change need to be continuously tracked using appropriately defined indicators. In rapidly changing contexts, programmes may require operational agility. MEL frameworks must be open to iterations, in a way that allows testing indicators and assumptions and adjusting activities, outputs and outcomes based on programme needs and contextual fluctuations.
Attribution versus contribution. Attribution can be difficult to prove at a higher-level – for example, when government agencies implement accountability measures or when effects of advocacy campaigns materialise. It can be difficult to demonstrate the causal link between an advocacy measure carried out by a grassroots civil society organisation and change in legislation or even governments’ receptivity to it. This is especially true in the context where multiple interventions by more than one donor/implementing agency are being executed. Moreover, the challenge of attribution worsens if there is lack of adequate monitoring data. Contribution might be an easier way to demonstrate impact.
Most Significant Change. When attribution claims may not be easy to hold, Most Significant Change can be a useful M&E tool to show outcomes of an anti-corruption programme in different contexts. Change can look different in varying contexts. In some corruption contexts, receiving a positive response from members of the Parliament following advocacy measures may be the most significant change achieved over a specified time period. In others, local municipalities improving accountability mechanisms can be the most significant change – making it almost a best-case scenario. The bottom line is that no impact of any intervention must be ignored.