PART ONE
CHAPTER 1. UNDP MISSION

UNDP has a challenging mission as an international organization of the United Nations system supporting development interventions: to contribute to the achievement of SHD. It has translated this mission into three corporate goals:

• to strengthen international cooperation for SHD and serve as a major substantive resource on how to achieve it;

• to help the United Nations family become a unified, powerful force for SHD; and

• to focus the strengths and resources of UNDP in order to maximize its contribution to SHD in the countries served.2

Through its network of country offices, UNDP collaborates with programme countries to develop national capacities for SHD. Most of the technical cooperation to develop capacity has been targeted at the public sector. This reflects the broad consensus among academics and practitioners that a capable government, responsible for establishing the framework for development, is a prerequisite for that development.3

Given the interests represented by civil society organizations (CSOs) (e.g., non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women's associations, human rights groups and academic and research institutions) as well as their potential as sources of insights into SHD, UNDP has involved a wide range of CSOs in its programmes.

UNDP development cooperation focuses on poverty eradication and sustainable livelihoods, gender in development, sustainable environment and sound management of natural resources in a context of sound governance (see box 1). These priorities reflect the effort of UNDP to identify areas of thematic focus in which it has a comparative advantage over other development partners.

As the unifying elements for all UNDP development interventions in programme countries, the organization's mission and areas of focus dictate the main parameters that need to be considered in establishing a framework for more responsive, results-oriented monitoring and evaluation activities.

2UNDP, The 1996-1997 UNDP Plan, OESP series: Managing Change, p. 23.

3 UNDP, BPPS, Capacity Development: Lessons of Experience and Guiding Principles, December 1994.

BOX 1. UNDP AREAS OF THEMATIC FOCUS UNDER THE SHD FRAMEWORK

• Poverty eradication and sustainable livelihoods.The first priority is to improve the situation of more than one fifth of the world's population, who live in extreme poverty, and empower them to realize their full potential through the establishment of progressive policy, strategy, planning and programme frameworks, increased access to productive assets and key social services, and the generation of opportunities for employment and sustainable livelihoods.

• Gender considerations in development. The goal is to ensure that women have the opportunity to develop and use their talents and skills and to participate in making decisions that affect their lives. UNDP supports gender-mainstreaming in programmes and projects and women's economic and political empowerment.

• Sustainable environment and sound management of natural resources. In realizing this objective, the emphasis is on preventive approaches in the management of natural resources so that those resources will sustain the livelihoods of current and future generations, especially those people living in poverty.

• Sound governance. The focus is the improvement of the legitimacy, accountability, competency and responsiveness of governing structures as well as private sector and civil society organizations, with priority given to interventions that enhance human rights and the rule of law in relation to the interests of those living in poverty, women and disadvantaged groups.

Sources: UNDP, BPPS, Classification Scheme for UNDP Areas of Focus: Conceptual Framework, December 1996; UNDP,

DPA, UNDP, October 1996; UNDP, OESP, The 1996-1997 UNDP Plan (OESP series: Managing Change).

PART ONE
CHAPTER 2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION POLICIES OF UNDP

On 6 June 1997, the UNDP Executive Committee approved the following monitoring and evaluation policies, which are elaborated in subsequent chapters of the present handbook.

1. General Policy Statements. Monitoring and evaluation are essential management functions that are interactive and mutually supportive. Monitoring and evaluation must be continuously strengthened to enable UNDP to respond to demands for: (a) greater accountability in the use of resources, (b) a clearer basis for decision-making, and (c) more practical lessons from experience to guide future development interventions. Monitoring and evaluation must be results-oriented and provide assessments of the relevance, performance and success of UNDP development interventions.

2. Monitoring Coverage. Monitoring and systematic reporting must be undertaken for all programmes and projects regardless of duration and budget.

3. Evaluation Coverage. Evaluation of programmes and projects will be undertaken selectively based on the following set of criteria:
   1. For mandatory evaluation
      
      • Scale of resources - large-scale programmes and projects, i.e., those with budgets of $1 million or more
      • Duration of technical cooperation - technical cooperation (channelled through various programmes and projects) that has been provided to a particular institution for ten years or more
        
   1. For non-mandatory evaluation
      • Nature of development intervention - innovative and strategic programmes and projects

4. Compliance with Mandatory Evaluations. Compliance with mandatory evaluations will be enforced and used as an indicator for assessing management performance. However, flexibility may be exercised as a management prerogative following guidance provided in Results-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation: A Handbook for Programme Managers (see paragraph 8). OESP will monitor and report on the compliance rate for mandatory evaluations to the Administrator who then reports it, as part of the annual report, to the Executive Board.

5. Tracking System for Evaluation. Management information systems must be able to track: (a) programmes and projects to be covered by evaluations, and (b) the implementation status of recommendations emanating from evaluations.

6. Institutional Memory on Lessons Learned. In support of organizational learning, UNDP will continue to maintain and ensure access of staff to its central evaluation database (CEDAB) as the institutional memory on lessons learned from programmes and projects that have been evaluated. Evaluators must submit, along with their evaluation reports, a project evaluation information sheet (PEIS) containing information to be entered into the database. In the event that no one from the evaluation team prepares the PEIS, the UNDP country offices or headquarters units that managed the evaluation must hire a person to do the task and the costs for this must be charged against their own budgets.

7. Funds in Association with UNDP. In line with the objective of harmonizing monitoring and evaluation policies within the UN system, funds in association with UNDP must follow UNDP policies and guiding principles on monitoring and evaluation. They should work in collaboration with OESP in determining the extent of flexibility that they would exercise to adapt the policies and guiding principles to their specific contexts and requirements.

8. Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation Policies. Guidance on the implementation of these monitoring and evaluation policies will be provided in Results-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation: A Handbook for Programme Managers. Operational procedures will be provided in the new UNDP Programme Manual.

PART ONE
CHAPTER 3. WHAT ARE MONITORING AND EVALUATION?

Monitoring and evaluation are management functions through which UNDP ascertains whether or not its technical cooperation programmes meet their objectives as well as support the UNDP mandate.

MONITORING
Monitoring is a continuing function that aims primarily to provide project management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing programme or project with early indications of progress, or lack thereof, in the achievement of programme or project objectives.

Monitoring enables a manager to identify and assess potential problems and success of a programme or project. It provides the basis for corrective actions, both substantive and operational, to improve the programme or project design, manner of implementation and quality of results. In addition, it enables the reinforcement of initial positive results.

Through monitoring, a manager is also able to determine whether or not a project continues to be relevant. In this context, relevance refers to whether or not:

• the programme or project supports national development priorities and UNDP thematic concerns;

• appropriate groups are being targeted; and

• the objectives remain valid in light of any changes in the programme or project environment.

The requirements for effective monitoring are baseline data, indicators of performance and results, and mechanisms or procedures that include such planned actions as field visits, stakeholder meetings and systematic reporting (see chapter nine). To emphasize monitoring as an essential management function, monitoring actions must be adequately planned (see chapters five and 17).

Monitoring actions must be undertaken throughout the lifetime of a specific programme or project. In addition, ad hoc studies may be carried out as needed, for example, when an unexpected problem arises for which planned monitoring activities cannot provide sufficient information. The results of such actions may lead to a timely solution rather than waiting for a formal evaluation. Like other monitoring activities, these studies must seek the views of target groups on how to improve the relevance and performance of the programme or project.

Post-programme or Post-project Monitoring
When a programme or project has terminated, the Government should continue (in the case of national execution), or assume responsibility for, monitoring the sustainability of results regardless of whether or not an ex-post evaluation is planned.

The main objectives of post-programme or post-project monitoring are to:

• assess the validity of the conclusions and recommendations of terminal reports;

• determine the extent to which the recommendations of the reports have been implemented; and

• assess the likelihood that the programme or project will produce and sustain a positive impact and identify any actions that may be necessary to help to ensure the sustainability of the results.

Post-programme or post-project monitoring can provide an additional basis for decision-making and learning, especially in certain cases. It is recommended for a cluster of programmes or projects with the same theme rather than for individual programmes or projects in order to test more systematically the validity and effectiveness of various approaches within a given context. It might also be particularly appropriate for sectors where a period of several years or even a generation is required to achieve the ultimate improvements in conditions and where such changes can be measured against widely accepted national indicators (e.g., the health and education sectors and interventions aimed at protecting or regenerating the environment).

EVALUATION
Evaluation is a time-bound exercise that attempts to assess systematically and objectively the relevance, performance and success of ongoing and completed programmes and projects. Unlike monitoring, which must be undertaken for all programmes and projects, evaluations are carried out more selectively for practical reasons. Programme or project managers have the flexibility to decide why and when an evaluation is needed based on a set of criteria (see chapter seven).

If an evaluation is conducted at the mid-point of a programme or project, it may serve as a means of validating or filling in the gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from monitoring. It may also assess early signs of programme or project success or failure. If conducted after the termination of a programme or project, an evaluation determines the extent to which that intervention is successful in terms of its impact, sustainability of results and contribution to capacity development.

As in monitoring, evaluation activities must be planned at the country (see chapters 17 and 22) and programme or project levels. Baseline data and appropriate indicators of performance and results must be established.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation differ yet are closely related. They are mutually supportive and equally important. Monitoring can provide quantitative and qualitative data using selected indicators, data that can serve as inputs to evaluation exercises.

Evaluation also supports monitoring. It can serve as a source of lessons that can be applied in the development of conceptual or methodological innovations for use in refining the monitoring function, e.g., devising appropriate indicators for future projects.

It may be argued that excellent monitoring precludes the need for evaluations. This is true only when the main objective is to obtain information on which to base improvements in a specific ongoing programme or project.

When a final judgement of the impact, sustainability of results and contribution to capacity development of an intervention is needed, an evaluation must be conducted because of the time factor: it takes a certain amount of time before sufficient evidence of results can be observed and attributed to that intervention. Moreover, when the objective is to draw generic lessons from the experience of a cluster of projects in a given sector or having a particular thematic focus, an evaluation is more appropriate because projects are monitored on an individual basis where as an evaluation can encompass one or many projects.

The relationship between monitoring and evaluation is best described as interactive. Neither function should be undertaken as a substitute for the other.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVALUATION AND AUDIT
An audit is an examination or review that assesses and reports on the extent to which a condition, process or performance conforms to predetermined standards or criteria.4 It is concerned with resource allocation, financial and general administrative management and, to a certain extent, substantive issues.

Like evaluation, an audit requires the assessment of effectiveness and efficiency and the formulation of recommendations to promote improvement.5 In appraising these elements, however, audit differs from evaluation in orientation or objective (see box 2).

BOX 2. EVALUATION, AUDIT AND RESEARCH

Learning + Accountability = Evaluation

Evaluation - Learning = Audit

Evaluation - Accountability = Research

An audit usually focuses primarily on compliance with existing rules and regulations rather than on establishing the relevance and determining the likely impact or sustainability of results of programmes or projects, which are the main concerns of evaluation. Notwithstanding this difference in focus, audit and evaluation are instruments through which management can obtain a critical assessment of the operation of the organization as a basis for instituting improvements.

4United Nations, Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), Glossary of Evaluation Terms (JIU/REP/78/5).

5UNDP, Office of the Administrator, Division for Audit and Management Review, Organization Handbook,

September 1993.