Discussions

Highlights from the American Evaluation Association Annual Conference

By: Robert (Woody) Navin, PPC/DEI
rnavin@usaid.gov

I'd like to share some of the highlights of my 1½ days at the six day American Evaluation Association annual conference. To corral the 1500 attendees, there were 32 Topical Interest Groups. I attended those entitled "International and Cross-cultural Evaluation," and "Non-profit and Foundations Evaluation."

The international group spent some time coming up with ideas to make international work more prominent in the overall conference. This year there were people from 28 different countries (Brazil and Russia had strong representation). But there is more that can be done to help U.S. groups share/sell their expertise abroad (since the U.S. is recognized as the world leader in evaluation methodologies, particularly in the social sciences). Also, many foreigners would be interested in joining the American Association if their participation could be facilitated.

Two new international evaluation associations are worthy of USAID attention since they are fostering improved M&E worldwide. Prior to 1995, there were only five regional and national associations of evaluators. Today there are more than 50. One is an association of associations - the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation (IOCE). Members include, for example, a former Soviet Union association, the African Evaluation Association, and the Network for M&E in Latin America and the Caribbean (ReLAC) located in Sao Paulo. The other group, the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS), is for individuals.

The best discussion session dealt with the extent to which donor requirements and objectives pervert local development and disempower those we claim to be helping. Some NGOs from Namibia along with a PhD dissertation based on work in South Africa presented forceful case studies showing the harm that at least some donors inflict when they impose their own objectives over those of local partners/beneficiaries, and when external evaluators trash programs in large part due to a failure to understand the local context and longer term goals. They sited an example of a donor's interest in promoting bio-diversity vs. a rural Namibian province's desire to promote employment and eco-tourism. The donor wanted to measure the local equivalent of snail-darters (at huge expense), while the Namibians already had in place a system for monitoring springbok numbers. If the local groups took the donor funding, they would have to change their own objectives, or simply lie to the donor. In one case study, the locals sent the donor packing; thus achieving a lose-lose situation.

The GAO presented an interesting paper "Oversight, Insight, and Foresight" that captures the three things that evaluations can do. Where organizations are weak is in producing foresight—an assessment of future program risk, long term implications, and early warnings that a crisis may be looming.

Finally, I was a panelist at a session for those seeking employment. With what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, I detected a lack of interest in going abroad at this time.