was not confined to activities undertaken under the poverty cluster, and went beyond to embrace other clusters as well.10 This comprehensive approach was dictated by the recognition of two kinds of pluralities that are relevant in the context of poverty reduction. The first plurality refers to the multiplicity of channels through which interventions can affect poverty. Thus interventions in the areas of governance, energy and environment, crisis prevention and recovery, and gender equality – which do not normally fall in the poverty cluster – can also have a profound impact on poverty. The second plurality refers to the multidimensional nature of human poverty (as distinct from income poverty). While many of the activities undertaken by UNDP country offices under the poverty cluster directly address the income dimension of poverty, there are also other activities that have the potential to address non-income dimensions as well. Examples include downstream interventions in the areas of governance, gender, and HIV/AIDS and upstream activities involving policy advice, support to MDG-based planning, support to the preparation of National Human Development Reports (NHDRs), and so on. Only a comprehensive approach to evaluation can capture the dual pluralities of multiple channels and multiple dimensions of poverty. A pragmatic approach was taken to determine the period being examined based on the time and budget available, the importance of capturing key events that have influenced UNDP’s contribution and, most importantly, the availability of data. The evaluation focused on the period 2000-2011 in terms of accountability but has sometimes looked further back in terms of learning, for example, in an attempt to look at the long-term contribution, where appropriate and possible. The starting point of the selected period also broadly coincides with the introduction of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the MDGs.
Focusing on actual results at the country level, the evaluation draws largely on the evidence from existing evaluations. It should be noted that, as a result of this approach, the evaluation may not capture all the recent initiatives aimed at poverty reduction undertaken by UNDP. In some cases UNDP’s efforts to address an issue identified by the evaluation will be noted, as it signifies UNDP’s strategic intent, but will not be included in the evaluation findings if there is, as yet, no evidence of actual results. It should also be noted that the full scope of the evaluation is also determined by the evaluation questions and criteria described in the methodology section. The focus is also on systemic issues related to UNDP’s work in poverty reduction and not on whether UNDP performs better at one field of intervention rather than another.
1.3 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The overall approach can be defined as using evaluation criteria to make judgements on performance, as already noted, largely through using evidence from existing evaluations (data collection is discussed in the next section). The evaluators collected data within the defined scope and made assessments of UNDP’s performance according to the evaluation criteria. In so doing, they facilitated the accountability of UNDP to its stakeholders. At the same time, they identified the factors that influenced UNDP’s performance and therefore contributed to learning about why UNDP performed as it did and under what circumstances. It was then possible to draw conclusions about UNDP’s contribution to poverty reduction and to identify appropriate and implementable recommendations. The key evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria were used to make a judgement about UNDP’s performance and overall contribution. Each
10. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, UNDP’s strategic planning documents recognize the importance of these other areas for poverty reduction.
C H A P T E R 1 . introd u ction
3