8 minute read
organisation works towards results in areas within its mandate
Economy and the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, with workers’ and employers’ organisations”, as explained in the “Independent High-level Evaluation: ILO’s Strategy and Actions towards the Formalization of the Informal Economy, 2014-18”.
The capacity building of tripartite partners incorporates social dialogue, global partnerships, technical assistance and the use of knowledge products, as described in the evaluation reports. ILO South-South and triangular co-operation is an example where these elements are combined. The document reporting on its implementation (“ILO South–South and triangular cooperation and decent work: Recent developments and future steps”) highlighted that the ILO facilitates, among other things, “cooperation between trade unions and employers’ organisations from the Global South; in particular through technical support provided by the Global Labour University programme and the ILO Global Business and Disability Network”.
Advertisement
ITCILO provides tripartite partners with training to improve their capacity to design and implement interventions and strategies, according to the evaluation reports. It also builds the capacity of constituents to pass and implement legislative changes (see also MI 12.1 for capacity building and training). The “High-level evaluations of strategies and Decent Work Country Programmes 2018” to 2020 underline that training through the ITCILO is a core element of capacity building support to tripartite constituents.
Further examples of the ILO strengthening the role of social dialogue were presented across the range of evaluation reports. In Decent Work interventions in global supply chains (GSCs), for instance, the ILO helped improve social dialogue through linking it specifically to objectives and results: the high-level evaluation identified a small group of projects “that focused on improving social dialogue as a pathway to improved wages and conditions in two GSCs”. In a meta-analysis of evaluations of ILO interventions in Latin America, 44% of projects explicitly used social dialogue mechanisms in defining project objectives, activities and results.
The Annual Evaluation Report (2019-20) describes the extent to which development co-operation projects incorporated or strengthened social dialogue and tripartism based on meta-analyses. The report suggests missed opportunities to incorporate or strengthen social dialogue and tripartism in projects. A meta-analysis of DWCPs (2017-18) also pointed to missed opportunities. The Annual Evaluation Reports for the previous biennia found the integration of tripartism to be a weakness. The evolution of results, however, suggests some improvement over time. 12-13, 24, 26, 68, 164, 179, 183, 187, 189, 192193
MI 9.5 Evidence confidence High confidence
KPI 10: Interventions are relevant to the needs and priorities of partner countries and beneficiaries, as the organisation works towards results in areas within its mandate KPI score
Satisfactory 3.00
A sample of 39 evaluation documents was selected for review for ILO relevance to partner and beneficiary needs. These included 12 independent evaluations, “High-level evaluations of strategies and Decent Work Country Programmes” from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, as well as the Annual Evaluation Reports for the assessment period. The sample included four meta-analyses and one synthesis evaluation. Across all reports in the period 2017-20 reviewed for this assessment, the ILO’s relevance to country needs was recognised as an organisational strength. This was confirmed consistently across the three Annual Evaluation Reports and two ILO Programme Implementation reports during the assessment period.
The ILO maintains strong relevance to country needs, which was noted as a strength across all the evaluation reports and confirmed by annual performance data, the data in the dashboards and interviews. Throughout the evaluation reports, it was highlighted that the ILO works closely with workers and partners to build their capacity as part of legislative reform. Interviews
also noted relevance to country needs as a strength of the organisation. The ILO also maintains a responsive demand-driven approach to country needs, as seen across strategy, programming and evaluation documentation. Moreover, there is strong alignment with the UNDAF (now known as United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework [UNSDCF]) in the project countries, as evidenced in the evaluation reports and annual performance reporting. Interviews also confirmed efforts being undertaken in the ILO, such as in contracting, to ensure continued alignment with the UNDAF.
The ILO consults with beneficiaries to integrate relevance to their needs in interventions, such as the DWCPs, according to the evaluation reports reviewed. The evaluations suggested, however, that continued consultation with constituents and beneficiaries during implementation could be strengthened. The evaluation reports showed the ILO working through civil society partners to consult with beneficiaries where it does not have a country presence, which interviews also confirmed. The ILO has further shown its ability to adapt to the changing context and respond to the needs of beneficiaries in its COVID19 response, as seen in the relevant evaluation reports. The ILO staff interviewed stated that stronger linkages could be established with the needs of end beneficiaries through large amounts of consultation at the country level. However, resources are scarce to conduct such consultations, they noted.
MI 10.1: Intervention objectives and design assessed as responding to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies and priorities (inclusiveness, equality and “leave no one behind”), and continuing to do so where circumstances change Score
MI rating Satisfactory
MI score 3
4. Highly satisfactory: Systematic methods are applied in intervention design (including needs assessment for humanitarian relief operations) to identify target group needs and priorities, including consultation with target groups, and intervention design explicitly responds to the identified needs and priorities.
3. Satisfactory: Interventions are designed to take into account the needs of the target group as identified through a situation or problem analysis (including needs assessment for relief operations) and the resulting activities are designed to meet the needs of the target group.
2. Unsatisfactory: No systematic analysis of target group needs and priorities took place during intervention design or some evident mismatch exists between the intervention’s activities and outputs and the needs and priorities of the target groups.
1. Highly unsatisfactory: Substantial elements of the intervention’s activities and outputs were unsuited to the needs and priorities of the target group.
MI 10.1 Analysis
The ILO performs strongly in relevance to country needs, as confirmed across the evaluation reports, performance data (in the Annual Evaluation Reports and the Dashboards) and the interviews. The organisation employs a demand-driven approach to country needs, affirmed in the Strategic Plan and Programme and Budget for the biennium. Across all evaluation reports, the ILO is seen to be responsive to country-specific needs. The Annual Evaluation Report 2019-20 highlighted that “[t]he highest scores in 2019 relate to the relevance of project objectives to DWCP or country programme outcomes”. According to the report, the highest scores were also related to “support received from constituents in project formulation and implementation”, which led to addressing the decent work needs of countries. The ILO also maintains relevance to country needs through strong alignment with the UNDAF in the project countries.
The ILO is shown to be adapting to context, according to the evaluation reports. Its normative mandate, which requires longer time frames to reach consensus, can sometimes present a challenge for the ILO to adapt to context, as seen in a number of evaluation reports, including 10, 12, 15, 24, 26, 39, 41, 66, 68, 156, 164, 166, 179, 183, 189, 194
Source documents
the “High-level evaluations of strategies and Decent Work Country Programmes 2019” and the “Independent evaluation of the ILO’s strategy and actions for improved youth employment prospects 2012-2017” (see also MI 11.2). The absence of monitoring and reporting tools to help make decisions was identified in one evaluation as hindering adaptation to context. The ability to adapt to context is linked to capacity analysis and context analysis in intervention design (see also MI 5.2).
The ILO has demonstrated its ability to adapt to the changing context due to COVID-19, according to emerging results information. While it is too early for there to be evaluation studies on the COVID19 response, the range of knowledge products, human and financial resources, and operational management information produced by the ILO shows agility, flexibility and leadership from the organisation (see also MI 3.1). Interviews confirmed that in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the ILO repurposed a number of projects to respond quickly to different country requests, mostly for social protection and refugees. The respondents’ comments in the partner survey also highlighted the continued support of the ILO in the changing context.
A selection of evaluation report types (clustered evaluations, independent evaluations and highlevel evaluations) showed the ILO interventions (such as DWCPs) being designed in consultation with beneficiaries to respond to their needs. The evaluations suggested, however, that consultation with constituents and beneficiaries sometimes does not continue during the implementation phase of projects. The ILO often identifies the needs of the beneficiaries through constituents, but sometimes conducts workshops with beneficiaries, as explained by the interviewees. In the country context analysis, for instance, the ILO compiles research to identify issues then asks stakeholders and beneficiaries (for example, women and children) who would be affected by the proposed interventions to verify them, according to the interviews. Furthermore, gender specialists develop tools and undertake assessments jointly with women among beneficiaries.
At the country level, the ILO works closely with workers and partners to build their capacity as part of legislative reform, as seen in some of the evaluation reports and explained in the interviews. The interviews also indicated that where the ILO does not have a country presence, it works through civil society partners to consult with beneficiaries. In countries with a lack of trade union, worker and employer representation, the ILO aims to boost the representation of workers (for example, in Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia). The ILO is also making efforts to respond to the emerging needs of vulnerable workers in the COVID-19 context, such as disabled migrant workers. However, interviews suggested that links with ultimate beneficiaries need strengthening; for this purpose, large amounts of consultation are needed at the country level, but resources are scarce to conduct such consultations.
The ILO has a demand-driven approach to the needs and requests of constituents, particularly in the achievement of normative goals, as seen across evaluation reports including synthesis reviews, independent evaluations and high-level evaluations. The ILO is also working towards greater strategic integration of capacity building of constituents into results. In programme design and delivery there are numerous examples (across a wide variety of evaluation reports, including meta-analysis, clustered and independent evaluations, and across a wide geographical spread) of capacity building responding to the needs of vulnerable populations. 10, 12, 15, 24, 26, 39, 41, 66, 68, 156, 164, 166, 179, 183, 189, 194
