Annex 3: RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS
- International Monetary Fund
- Published Date:
- July 2005
Following the introduction of a formal process of evaluation of JSA-funded technical assistance projects by the beneficiaries, evaluation questionnaires have been returned by beneficiary authorities for a total of 89 projects. This represents a response rate of 70 percent, which is considered relatively good. Because questionnaires in a number of cases are sent to more than one agency or country, reflecting the institutional realities of the individual projects, more than one questionnaire per project is sometimes received. To date, 105 questionnaires have been received.
Overall, the responses show that the authorities are highly satisfied with JSA-funded technical assistance. As shown in Table 10, answers indicate that the beneficiary authorities are satisfied with the terms of reference for the expert. Although 92 percent of respondents expressed that the terms of reference reflected their needs, 19 percent indicated that they were not or not fully consulted on the terms of reference prior to arrival of the expert. Beneficiaries were also satisfied with the selection of the expert used under the project. Almost all respondents (91 percent) viewed the qualifications and experience of the expert as appropriate. Cooperation between the expert and counterparts was also considered good by 87 percent of respondents. The responses were slightly lower (82 percent) regarding the usefulness of the expert’s advice in terms of the reform efforts. On a question regarding skills transfer, 73 percent of respondents indicated that the expert paid sufficient attention to training and capacity building, 22 percent indicated that skills transfer was only partially sufficient, and another 4 percent felt it had been inadequate. Respondents were satisfied (82 percent) with the ongoing supervision by IMF headquarters. Not surprisingly, given the tasks at hand in most countries and the complex realities of reforming economic and financial management practices and building institutional and human capacities, as well as constraints on TA resources, 20 percent of respondents felt that there were relevant issues or tasks that were not addressed by the expert. Overall, 58 percent of respondents indicated that they were highly satisfied with the overall progress made during the project and another 40 percent indicated that they were satisfied. Only one respondent was unsatisfied with the progress.
|1. Did the terms of reference for the expert reflect your needs?||92||6||1||1|
|2. Were you consulted regarding the expert’s terms of reference before his/her arrival?||81||9||9||1|
|3. Were the expert’s qualifications and experience, in your view, appropriate?||91||8||0||1|
|4. Did the expert cooperate well with his counterparts?||87||13||0||0|
|5. Was the expert’s advice useful in supporting reform?||82||18||0||0|
|6. Did the expert pay sufficient attention to training and capacity building?||73||22||4||1|
|7. Were all relevant issues or tasks addressed by the expert?||80||0||20||0|
|8. To your knowledge was the expert adequately supervised by Fund headquarters?||82||11||1||6|
|9. How would you rate the overall progress of this assignment?||58||40||1||1|