Empleo: Spanish & English speaking consultant required-for LAC TOR Evaluation COMPAL
Strategic implications for follow up
(work-in-progress draft extract from the evaluation report of the IAF and UCW projects)
1. Continue with the current impact assessment strategy
The most important finding of this evaluation is that IPEC’s overall approach to impact as-sessment, taking into account the complementarities of the two projects, represents ambitious, leading edge work. As indicated earlier, I am unaware of anything similar to the IA frame-work and toolkit elsewhere within the UN system.
Thus the most important strategic implication arising from this evaluation concerns the need to continue, and to build upon, the work represented by these two projects. By design, the fo-cus of both projects was initial development of a range of tools and approaches to IA.
(taking into account the expected outcomes of the UCW project when it will conclude) repre-sent work in progress. Follow-up activities of at least some sort will be essential in order to be able to capitalise on the work that has been funded and carried out by these two projects and to make this sustainable.
Both projects have built expectations that require efforts beyond the scope of the current fund-ing to be able to achieve. The UCW project in particular has investing considerable time and effort in seeking the cooperation and agreement of governments to the implementation of IE project which goes beyond the scope of current funding. There can be ethical questions raised if this is not carried through without good reason. ILO-IPEC, UCW, and inevitably the donor may look bad if work begun by both project is not continued in at least some way.
Following are ideas about potential follow-up steps that can build upon the work begun by these projects, in particular in order to result in actual use of IA tools and strategies by IPEC’s partners.
2. Engage partners in undertaking IA
By design, the IAF project focused on the development of concrete tools and approaches. With some exceptions, there was limited involvement of the intended users of these tools, in particular countries and other ILO-IPEC partners. Thus it is not yet clear how much interest these partners would have in engaging in IA work, the suitability and usability of the tools developed to date and what changes might be required, and the degree and forms of support that may be required. Feedback from IPEC field staff and from the expert meeting suggests that there likely will be a need for more specific guidance about how the tools can be used, perhaps some modifications to the tools themselves, and various forms of support. These par-ticular steps are highlighted below.
Thus an important follow-up step is for ILO-IPEC to engage with its partners to develop sup-port and buy-in to IA, and to identify how the IA framework might require some modifica-tion. There are a variety of ways in which this can be done. It is beyond the scope of this ev-aluation to consider these in any detail. Approaches may include a mix of the following, as well as related activities:
• Identify those partners who are interested and willing to try out tools that have been de-veloped. Then provide a vehicle where these actual experiences can be communicated with others.
• Use IPEC field staff to encourage and to assist their clients in undertaking IA. This in turn will require engaging field staff so that they themselves can appreciate the potential bene-fits of IA in order to act as ambassadors.
• Contacts with major INGOs, who in turn can then encourage their own staff and partners to get involved.
• Use regional gatherings, for example of governments and other partners.
Archivo :
