The international community has identified a positive link between good governance and economic development. There is an increasing appreciation of the effective role that local policy research organizations (PROs) can play in providing evidence-based policy recommendations as the basis for sound legislation and in assessing the efficacy of existing programs. Capacity building programs for PROs are seen as a key component of growth strategies. The donor community has responded with support for such efforts, which take many forms. The evaluation of the impact of these capacity building and mentoring programs has been inadequate. This paper sets out some general points for the development of effective program evaluation and suggests concrete ways to measure two more important capacity building program outcomes: improved research capacity and greater effectiveness in the policy arena.
Bannock Consulting. (2004). Evaluation of the secretariat for institutional support for economic research in Africa. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Report to the International Development Research Centre.
2.
Beckett, M., Da Vanzo, J., Satry, N., Panis, C., & Peterson, C. ( 2001). The quality of retrospective data: An examination of long-term recall in a developing country. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 593-565.
3.
Blagescu, M., & Young, J. ( 2006). Capacity building for policy advocacy: Current thinking and approaches among agencies supporting civil society organizations (Working Paper 260). London, England: Overseas Development Institute.
4.
Brookings Institution. (2007). Transparency, accountability, and governance in the developing world: Re-visiting the analytic framework-What’s needed next and why. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Transparency and Accountability Project.
5.
Budlender, D. ( 2006). International budget project: Report on external evaluation . Cape Town, South Africa: Community Agency for Social Enquiry in South Africa.
6.
Committee on Evaluation of USAID Democracy Assistance Programs. (2008). Improving democracy assistance: Building knowledge through evaluations and research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
7.
deRenzio, P., & Krafchik, W. ( 2006). Lessons from the field: The impact of civil society budget analysis and advocacy in six countries. Washington, DC : International Budget Project.
8.
Gaskell, G.D., & Wright, D.B. ( 2000). Telescoping of landmark events: Implications for survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 77-89.
9.
Hird, J.J. ( 2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. The Policy Studies Journal , 33, 83-105.
10.
International Development Research Centre and Hewlett Foundation.The think tank initiative: Strengthening policy research for development. Ottawa, Ontario , Canada: Authors.
11.
International NGO Training and Research Centre. ( 1998). Survey of northern NGO approaches to capacity building . Retrieved from www.intrac.org/resources_database.php?id=88
12.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Lora, E., & Prichett, L. ( 2002). Growth with governance [with comments]. Economia, 3, 169-229.
13.
Kosack, S., Tolmie, C., & Griffin, C. ( 2010). From the ground up: Improving government performance with independent monitoring organizations. Washington, DC: Results for Development and Brookings Institution Press.
14.
Marsh, H.W., & Ball, S. ( 1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151-159.
Rebien, C.C. ( 1996). Evaluating development assistance in theory and practice . Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
17.
Rich, A. ( 2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Rivera-Batiz, F. ( 2002). Democracy, governance, and economic growth: Theory and evidence. Review of Development Economics, 6, 225-247.
19.
Robinson, M. ( 2006). Budget analysis and policy advocacy: The role of non-governmental public action, Working Paper 279. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
20.
Rossi, P., Freeman, H., & Lipsey, M. ( 1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Struyk, R. ( 2006). Managing Think Tanks. Budapest and Washington, DC: Open Society Institute Press and Urban Institute Press, 2nd edition.
22.
Struyk, R. ( 2008). Options for Supporting Independent Monitoring Organizations . Bethesda, MD: NORC report to the Brookings Institution, Transparency and Accountability Project, processed .
23.
Struyk, R. ( 2009). Assessment of the Think Tank Fund’s Grants to the Economic Research Center, Baku. Bethesda, MD: NORC Report to the Open Society Institute Think Tank Fund, processed.
24.
Struyk, R., Damon, M. & Haddaway, S. ( 2009a). Evaluation of the Transparency and Accountability Project: Baseline Report. Bethesda: NORC Report to Results for Development Institute, processed.
25.
Struyk, R., Damon, M. & Haddaway, S. ( 2009b). Evaluation of the "Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability Project: Baseline Report. Bethesda: NORC Report to Global Development Network , processed.
26.
Struyk, R., Kohagen, K., & Miller, C. ( 2007). Were Bosnian Policy Research Organizations More Effective in 2006 than in 2003? Did Technical Assistance Make a Difference?Public Administration and Development, pp. 426-38.
27.
van Zyl, A. ( 2009). Proposed methodology for IBP case studies. Washington, DC: International Budget Partnerships.
28.
Whitehurst, J. ( 1984). Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. American Psychologist, 39, 22-28.
