|
|  | The purpose of IFC’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is to strengthen accountability and enhance learning, thereby contributing to IFC achieving better development results. The mandate of the Independent Evaluation Group–IFC (IEG) includes assessing the quality and usefulness of IFC’s evaluation processes and products and participating in the formulation and improvement of evaluation policies, practices, and instruments. In fulfilling this role, IEG produces a Biennial Report on Operations Evaluation that assesses the adequacy, coverage, and quality of M&E in IFC and makes recommendations for improvement. |
Main Findings
IEG used a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis of self M&E systems regression analysis, feedback from IFC’s self-evaluation teams, feedback to IEG’s learning events, results from a survey to IFC staff on IFC’s own M&E system, and results from a survey of the Executive Directors of the World Bank Group.
The main findings of this review are:
- In the last three years, IFC has made advances in monitoring and evaluating its performance: (i) new M&E tools have been introduced to cover all active investments and advisory services operations; and (ii) the use of M&E results in informing IFC strategy and in linking incentives to project results has grown.
- IFC’s Development Outcome Tracking (DOTS) and Expanded Project Supervision Report (XPSR) systems complement each other: DOTS is a monitoring system and XPSR is an evaluation system. As such, DOTS has more breadth while the XPSR system has more depth of coverage.
- Some important gaps remain in IFC’s M&E activities, including: (i) shortcomings in the quality of advisory services self-evaluations and IFC’s development reach indicators; (ii) lack of systematic monitoring of IFC’s additionality; and (iii) underdeveloped systems and methods for assessing IFC’s effectiveness beyond the project level, particularly at the country or sector level.
- In light of IFC’s growing and changing business, IEG has: (i) increased the scope of its evaluation activities; (ii) enhanced the transparency of IFC’s performance through the disclosure of all IEG corporate, thematic, and sector evaluations; and (iii) made progress in assessing IFC’s additionality. IEG needs to work in closing some gaps going forward by: (i) better disseminating evaluation findings among staff in the field; (ii) lowering the transaction costs of joint evaluations; and (iii) completing its own results framework and related targets and benchmarks over the coming years.
Recommendations
Recommendations for IFC Management
- IFC should consider developing more robust and consistent metrics for monitoring and assessing its additionality and development impact at the sector and country level as IFC transitions to a more programmatic approach to interventions. To start with, IFC may wish to focus on sectors and countries in which it has taken a programmatic approach, and where there has been a critical mass of IFC activities.
- IFC should aim to expand the coverage of its portfolio in reporting on results. It should improve the portfolio coverage of reach indicators and report the development results of its entire mature portfolio.
- IFC should strengthen managerial oversight of M&E for data quality and ratings for both investments and advisory services with proper record-keeping functions. For advisory services in particular, in order to improve quality, IFC may need to introduce some minimal acceptance standards for PCRs.
Recommendations for IEG
- IEG should further develop its system for evaluating IFC’s additionality and development impact at the sector and country levels.
- IEG needs to complete its own results framework and develop a scorecard with related targets and benchmarks.
- IEG should continue its efforts to harmonize evaluation methodologies in the context of the Evaluation Cooperation Group’s Working Group on Private Sector Evaluation to enable comparability among MDBs and for enhanced benefits of joint evaluations, including with IEG-World Bank.
Email
Print