stakeholder analysis to support implementation of

This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared independently by EnCompass LLC for the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for Sustainability (MELS) Contract (No. 72052719D00001). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION FUNCTIONS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU

April 2020

PHOTO | PRESIDENCY OF PERU, NATIONAL AGREEMENT

i | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

ABSTRACT The report presents an analysis of government sector actors that guide the implementation of Peru’s monitoring and evaluation functions. The study was carried out with qualitative techniques such as documentary review and in-depth interviews, analyzing all the ministries, regional governments, and a sample of decentralized public organizations. The study concludes that there is a favorable political and regulatory environment for developing monitoring and evaluation capacities and progress in organizational structures for their implementation, especially in national entities. It identifies limitations such as the absence of a leading entity in these matters and an unsatisfied demand in monitoring and evaluation capacity building.

RESUMEN El informe presenta un análisis de actores del sector gubernamental que orientan la implementación de las funciones de seguimiento y evaluación en Perú. El estudio se realizó con técnicas cualitativas como la revisión documentaria y las entrevistas en profundidad, analizando la totalidad de los ministerios, gobiernos regionales y una muestra de organismos públicos descentralizados. El estudio concluye que existe un entorno político y normativo favorable para el desarrollo de las capacidades de seguimiento y evaluación, así como un avance en las estructuras organizativas para su implementación, especialmente en las entidades de carácter nacional. Identifica limitantes como la ausencia de una entidad rectora en estos temas y una demanda insatisfecha en el desarrollo de capacidades de seguimiento y evaluación.

ii | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ V

STUDY PURPOSE AND STUDY QUESTIONS........................................................................................ 1 Study Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3

STUDY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................. 4

FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Political and Regulatory Environment ........................................................................................................................... 5 Relationships and Influence ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Monitoring and Evaluation Capacities ......................................................................................................................... 17

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................27

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................29

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................30

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................33 ANNEX A: Resumen Ejecutivo .................................................................................................................................... 33 ANNEX B: Evaluation Team ......................................................................................................................................... 37 ANNEX C: Information Sources ................................................................................................................................. 39 ANNEX D: USAID MELS Results Framework ......................................................................................................... 40 ANNEX E: M&E-Related Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 41 ANNEX F: M&E Standards or Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 49

iii | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AN National Agreement

CEPLAN National Center for Strategic Planning

COR Contracting Officer's Representative

DEVIDA National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs

DO Development Objective

DPO Decentralized Public Organizations

ENAP National School of Public Administration

GOP Government of Peru

INEI National Institute of Statistics and Informatics

MCLCP Roundtable for the Fight against Poverty

MEL Monitoring, evaluation, and learning

MELS Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning for Sustainability (project)

MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance

MESA Monitoring and Evaluation Strategic Actors for Sustainability

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MIDIS Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion

MINAM Ministry of the Environment

MINEDU Ministry of Education

MINSA Ministry of Health

MIMP Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture

MVCS Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation

NGO Nongovernmental organization

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PAC Personnel Assignment Chart

PCM Presidency of the Council of Ministers

PDC Integrated Development Plan

PEDN National Strategic Development Plan

PEI Institutional Strategic Plan

PESEM Multi-Year Sectoral Strategic Plans

POI Strategic Operating Plan

PRODUCE Ministry of Production

PROMUDEH Ministry of Women and Human Development

REDPERUME Peruvian Monitoring and Evaluation Network

ROF Regulations of Organization and Functions

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

iv | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

SIAF Integrated Financial Management Systems

SIGA Integrated Administrative Management System

SERFOR National Forest and Wildlife Service

SERVIR National Authority for Civil Service

USAID United States Agency for International Development

v | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning for Sustainability (MELS) Activity, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacities and functions among USAID/Peru partners to generate and use evidence in decision making to support the achievement and sustainability of development results. In addition to USAID's bilateral portfolio, MELS supplies monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) services to the South American portfolio and USAID missions in Brazil and Paraguay.

Additionally, USAID MELS provides an opportunity to support the Government of Peru (GOP) in modernizing the public sector by strengthening M&E systems and practices for effective and transparent management of public programs, and facilitate the country's admission to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND QUESTIONS As part of its mission, the MELS Activity aims to enhance the M&E functions and capacities of the GOP's institutions to help strengthen the effectiveness, transparency, and sustainability of public programs.

An initial activity in the MELS framework included this stakeholder analysis, which was intended to serve as input for the project team, laying the foundations of its scope and defining the activities' focus under MELS' third component, which strives to support the Peruvian public sector.

These results will be key in fine-tuning and giving meaning to MELS strategy known as Monitoring and Evaluation Strategic Actors for Sustainability (MESA). MESA will recruit strategic stakeholders across public and private sectors to jointly promote local solutions, as well as adaptation and innovation of approaches to ensure activities MELS envisages are appropriate for the Peruvian and regional context, and contribute to increased use of evaluation and evidence in programmatic decision-making activities.

The following questions guided the study:

1. What is the policy and regulatory environment that influences the evidence-based monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making capacity of government institutions?

2. What is the type of relationship and influence between organizations and decision-making bodies?

3. What is the organizational structure and conditions under which monitoring and evaluation are carried out?

4. What is the capacity available to carry out monitoring and evaluation activities?

METHODOLOGY The stakeholder analysis comprised two stages, which were carried out from September to December 2019. The first stage, involving a review of secondary information available in online and print media, included presentations of preliminary results (first to USAID, then to a general audience during the Evidence Week held in November 2019), and a subsequent joint prioritization with USAID of possible

vi | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

GOP institutions USAID MELS may work with. The second stage included information gathering through open interviews with key informants to fill in knowledge gaps identified in stage one.

FINDINGS

POLITICAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 1. International agreements Peru entered into are an opportunity to develop M&E systems.

2. The country has developed a mandatory regulatory framework to implement M&E in connection with policies and programs.

3. Lack of coordination at the planning levels is an obstacle for M&E development in public institutions.

LIAISON AND INFLUENCES 4. Institutions governing M&E activities are the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Presidency

of the Council of Ministers (PCM), and the National Center for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN).

5. There are three intersectoral linkage mechanisms for M&E and use of evidence that the public sector participates in.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 6. There are different institutional arrangements for M&E in public institutions.

7. Implementation of general M&E regulations shows varying levels of progress in government institutions.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION CAPACITIES 8. Personnel of government institutions have an unmet demand for training on specialized M&E

topics to fulfill their functions.

9. The budget allocated for M&E is insufficient when compared to the demands for functions.

10. The use of information technologies for M&E is not widespread.

11. The M&E capacity among public institutions is varied, with some leaders standing out.

12. The National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs (DEVIDA), the National Forest and Wildlife Service (SERFOR), and the Regional Government of Ucayali are USAID-supported public institutions with M&E capacity. The Ministry of Environment (MINAM) does not have M&E capacity, but is supported by USAID projects.

CONCLUSIONS 1. The political and regulatory environment is favorable for the development of evidence-based

monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making capacities in government institutions. It is framed in the Government's modernization policies and its international commitments.

vii | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

2. A factor that drives M&E development in public institutions is the current Government's focus on accounting for progress in implementation of priority government policies. A strong limiting factor is the lack of coordination at the strategic planning levels, which leads to duplication of M&E systems.

3. There is no M&E governing entity in the country, but pursuant to their mandates, PCM, MEF, and CEPLAN influence the development of these processes within public institutions.

4. Inter-institutional mechanisms engaging the public sector are an opportunity to generate an M&E culture in a society that is not fully exploited.

5. Little progress is observed in the development of M&E organizational structures in public bodies, which is in contradiction to the obligations established in the regulations. The few existing structures demonstrate varied progress in implementing concrete M&E actions, which reflects different degrees of institutional capacity.

6. The unfulfilled demand for M&E capacities can be an opportunity to articulate interests among the governing institutions (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) and those responsible for training public servants (National School of Public Administration [ENAP] and CEPLAN).

7. Given the relationship with USAID and the institutional capacity for M&E within DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali, these organizations present an opportunity for MELS' intervention. MINAM is another good venue for an intervention due to the high number of projects it is connected with.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Promote discussion, analysis, and exchange around possible meeting points among the different

levels of the M&E regulatory framework in the public sector. These interventions can help bridge the gap between bodies related to the M&E functions and the use of evidence, and support the efforts to make positive use of the favorable policy and regulatory environment.

2. Align the MESA efforts to mobilize the potential of multi-sectoral spaces (with the presence of the public sector) and governing entities (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) in favor of M&E implementation and use of evidence.

3. Support existing formal and informal inter-sectoral spaces where M&E and use of evidence are promoted, seeking to create synergies among MELS objectives and activities and other similar projects.

4. Promote the association among governing entities (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) and ENAP/SERVIR to strengthen M&E training focused on public servants' demand. To this end, ENAP/SERVIR could find the required experts to better fulfill its mission, and the governing entities might broaden their scope in response to the increased demand for support.

5. Focus direct interventions in M&E capacity building toward MINAM, DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali. These institutions are close to USAID because of their relationship with USAID-supported projects, and have a basis on which to work. They are also leading institutions that can set an example and influence their peers.

See Annex A for Executive Summary in Spanish.

1 | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

STUDY PURPOSE AND STUDY QUESTIONS

STUDY PURPOSE As part of its mission, the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning for Sustainability (MELS) Activity aims to enhance the M&E functions and capacities of the Government of Peru (GOP) institutions to strengthen the effectiveness, transparency, and sustainability of public programs.

In the framework of MELS' initial actions, this stakeholder analysis was scheduled to provide input for the Activity's implementation team to lay the foundations of its scope and define the activities' focus under MELS third component aimed at supporting partners in the Peruvian public sector and leading entities in M&E.

Likewise, these results will be key to fine-tuning and informing the MELS strategy, known as MESA. MESA will recruit strategic stakeholders from multiple public and private sectors to jointly promote local solutions and adaptive and innovative approaches to ensure activities MELS envisages are appropriate for the Peruvian and regional context and contribute to increased use of evaluation and evidence in programmatic decision making.

The audiences for this study are the Activity team, USAID, and external entities, such as government institutions, networks of M&E professionals, academic institutions, international partners, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), among others, which are interested in understanding how M&E functions are carried out in the public sector and the opportunities for strengthening them.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS MELS proposed the study's guiding questions in a concept note, which was prepared based on the Activity contract requirements and shared with USAID in September 2019. Questions were subsequently refined with contributions from the USAID MEL team. The questions were as follows:

STUDY QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS

1. Which is the political and regulatory environment that influences the evidence-based monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making capacity of government institutions?

1.1 What is the political and regulatory environment for M&E within institutions?

1.2 How do institutions' M&E efforts respond to the Government's priorities?

1.3 What factors drive or limit the implementation of M&E activities and the use of evidence?

Study Objectives

a) Understand the political, regulatory and institutional context where M&E processes are carried out in the Peruvian Government.

b) Understand the conditions and key stakeholders in the public sector to advance in the improvement of M&E capacities.

c) Explore the capacity-building needs for M&E and generating the use of evidence from prioritized government institutions.


STUDY QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS

2. What are the types of relationships and influence among organizations and decision-making bodies?

2.1 What are the key institutions in the Government and other sectors (private, civil society, academia) involved in M&E activities the institutions interact with?

2.2 Who are the key stakeholders that drive the improvement of M&E capacity and the use of evidence in the public sector?

3. What are the organizational structure and conditions under which monitoring and evaluation are carried out?

3.1 What are the organizations/units or areas that conduct and/or support internal M&E in organizations?

3.2 Under what conditions is the current M&E regulation implemented in institutions?

3.3 What progress and difficulties have institutions had in carrying out M&E functions?

4. What is the capacity available to carry out M&E activities?

4.1 How many partners are fulfilling the M&E functions according to the regulatory instruments (Regulations of Organization and Functions [ROF], Personnel Assignment Chart [PAC], guidelines)?

4.2 What do partners require the most to strengthen their M&E capabilities?

4.3 What technical resources (platforms, software, packages, etc.) do partners have to carry out M&E tasks?

4.4 What other resources are partners considering in the future?


PROJECT BACKGROUND The USAID MELS Activity, implemented by EnCompass LLC with the support of partner All In for Development, seeks to enhance M&E capacities and functions among USAID Peru partners to generate and use evidence in decision making, strengthening achievement and sustainability of development results. In addition to USAID's bilateral portfolio, MELS supplies MEL services to the South American portfolio, and USAID missions in Brazil and Paraguay.

Additionally, USAID MELS provides an opportunity to support the GOP in modernizing the public sector to strengthen M&E systems and practices needed for effective and transparent management of public programs, and facilitate the country's admission to the OECD.

The work to be carried out by USAID MELS between July 2019 to June 2024 is organized under four components:

Component 1. Studies and evaluations to inform decisions: MELS will use participatory and appreciative approaches to design, conduct, and disseminate relevant, high-quality evaluations and studies. MELS will help USAID and its partners improve the use of evidence and learning for decision making by convening learning and outreach events, and supporting evidence-based planning.

Component 2. Strengthening M&E capacity of USAID/Peru and its implementing partners: MELS will conduct M&E capacity assessments and produce plans for improvement, workshops, online training, and training focused in M&E, development of templates and guidelines on best practices in M&E, among other technical assistance activities.

Component 3. Strengthening M&E capacity in GOP institutions: MELS will also support strengthening public sector institutions' capacity to monitor, design, and carry out evaluations and use findings for ongoing learning, decision making, and public accountability in government programs.

Component 4. Collaboration, learning, and knowledge management for sustainability: MELS will provide services to USAID, its partners, and other key stakeholders to support learning, adaptive management, and knowledge transfer with a focus on sustainability. MELS will facilitate the development of learning agendas, support improvements in knowledge management, collect and disseminate evidence on learning topics, and convene learning events.

Annex D includes the USAID MELS Results Framework, which presents the objectives, their components, and how they relate to each other.


STUDY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The design of the stakeholder analysis was based on the requirements set out in the Activity contract, following the guidelines USAID provided, as well as best practices at EnCompass and partner All In for Development. The original proposal was enriched with contributions from USAID/Peru M&E specialists.

This study is an exploratory, qualitative design aligned with the proposed objectives.

In October 2019, USAID MELS presented the preliminary findings based on a document review to the Activity Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) at USAID/Peru. The feedback received allowed the team to readjust and finalize the study design. The study team is in Annex B.

The stakeholder analysis comprised two stages, carried out from September to December 2019:

a) The first stage, a review of secondary information available in virtual and printed media, included presentations of preliminary results (first to USAID, then to a general audience during Evidence Week held in November 2019), and subsequent prioritization with USAID of possible GOP institutions MELS might work with.

b) The second stage included information gathering through interviews with key informants, in which gaps identified in the previous stage were filled.

SAMPLE In the first stage of the study, a sample was taken from executive branch public institutions, including all ministries, USAID decentralized public organizations of interest, and all regional governments, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Sample

TOTAL SAMPLE

National Government

Ministries 19 19

Decentralized Organizations 73 5

Regional Government 26 26

In the second stage of the study, where primary data were collected, the sample corresponds to a qualitative and intentional study and is focused on stakeholders from national government institutions based in Lima. Respondent selection was guided by an initial document review, ease of access to the contacts made, and suggestions received from USAID. The list of stakeholder interviewees is presented in Annex C.


STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS The study USAID MELS carried out provides an up-to-date overview of the environment in which M&E functions are carried out in the public sector, within the Activity framework. It draws on both primary and secondary data, and the expertise of the USAID MELS team comprised of M&E experts from Peru.

The scope of the study was mainly focused on central and sub-national government institutions, with special emphasis on the institutions that match the strategic interests of the USAID/Peru. The analysis also included the governing bodies of the GOP structure that plan, direct, and control matters related to tax policy for financing public administration, such as MEF, the administration of the Public Management and Government Modernization System through sectors such as the PCM, and the governing, guiding, and coordinating body of the National Strategic Planning System, such as CEPLAN. Throughout this report, these bodies will be referred to as governing entities of the national government structure.

The following were the study limitations: (1) the scope was only national because primary data could not be obtained from regional governments and did not cover all decentralized agencies assigned to the ministries; and (2) the lack of availability in virtual and public media of information about M&E elements in the analyzed institutions.

FINDINGS

POLITICAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

FINDING 1 The international agreements Peru entered into are an opportunity to develop M&E systems.

The country has signed different bilateral and multilateral international agreements that cover various topics, sectors, commitments, and periods. However, it is important to highlight two recently signed agreements because they imply changes in public policies, including M&E systems.

Question 1. What is the political and regulatory environment that influences the evidence-based

monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making capacity of government institutions?

Summary of Findings

• The international agreements Peru entered into are an opportunity to develop M&E systems.

• The country has developed a mandatory regulatory framework to implement the M&E of policies and programs.

• Lack of coordination at the planning levels is an obstacle for M&E development in public institutions.


In 2015, the GOP declared it of national interest that the country join the OECD through Executive Order 086-2015-PCM, whereby commitments were made in different fields, including governance and public policies. In this framework, the Country Program established a cooperation instrument through which the OECD analyzed and proposed improvements in public policies, including a planning and M&E system (OECD, 2016a). A study OECD carried out (2016b) shows the progress in the planning processes, but mentions the lack of coordination between the planning instruments led by CEPLAN and MEF due to the differences in timelines. The following is one of the proposed recommendations:

"Strategic planning should be based, more systematically, on solid evidence and analysis. While the Government is improving the use of evidence in decision-making efforts, progress remains slow, especially given the lack of a whole-of-government approach for generation and use of evidence, including performance and liaison of budget to planning, by using a common multi-year framework. There is consensus among senior officials and observers on the need to improve evaluation culture in public administration, especially through better training and further dissemination of performance - evaluation methodologies throughout the Government." (OECD 2016 a, p.11).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations General Assembly approved in September 2015, was signed by the Peruvian Government. Although this statement is not binding, the Peruvian Government decided to implement the 2030 Agenda with the updated Strategic National Development Plan (PEDN) with a timeframe of 2030. CEPLAN promoted development of the country's vision for 2030 and the process of formulating PEDN, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Since 2016, it has promoted the alignment and articulation of the SDGs and the Government's general policy with sector plans.

To achieve this, CEPLAN established a new strategic planning framework comprised of four phases: (1) comprehensive understanding of the current reality, (2) the desired future, (3) coordinated policies and plans, and (4) M&E for continuous improvement in accordance with the 2030 Agenda and OECD recommendations (CEPLAN 2017). To monitor the 2030 Agenda, a monitoring system for SDGs was created under the responsibility of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI).

Another example of an international agreement is the Paris Agreement on climate change, which Peru ratified on July 22, 2016. Peru is addressing climate change by formulating goals around adaptation and mitigation expressed in the Nationally Determined Contributions, involving different sectors and stakeholders around common objectives for the country's sustainability. These goals must be reported and updated every 5 years, and this entails the development of M&E guidelines (MINAM 2020)

FINDING 2 The country has developed a mandatory regulatory framework to implement the M&E of policies and programs.

Since the early 2000s, the Peruvian Government has aimed at revamping public management; within this framework, the need has arisen to establish M&E of public policies. Although there are no specific national standards to develop or guide M&E systems, there is a guiding regulatory framework that mandates that all public sector entities develop M&E processes (Annex E contains a compilation of relevant regulations over the past 20 years).

In 2002, with the enactment of the Legal Framework for Government Modernization (Act 27658), an important milestone was achieved in the process of institutionalizing the evaluation of results-based


management. In the same year, the Organic Regional Governments Act (Act 27867) was issued, which incorporates M&E functions exercised in the regions under their jurisdiction.

Subsequently, the focus of public budget management oriented toward efficient, effective, economical, and quality results was incorporated into the General 2004 National Budget System Act, which began a new form of budget management.

With this progress, a second milestone was marked in 2006, with the enactment of the Public Sector Budget Act for tax year 2007 (Act 28927), which established the application of results-based budget management. This initiated a change in the way the public budget was prepared, introducing the results-oriented programming methodology and forcing the inclusion of goals and indicators, as well as progress reports. This process has been maintained to date and most of the budget is results-oriented, using a tool called Budget Programs. There are currently 149 budget programs that represent 66.2 percent of the national budget.

A third milestone was the incorporation of public policy evaluation functions in executive branch government institutions through the Organic Act of the Executive Power (Act 29158).

The same year, 2007, for the first time in the country, the Peruvian Government instituted a set of mandatory policies establishing that different sectors had to report progress on a quarterly basis (SD 027-2007-PCM), which forced public institutions to set up mechanisms for data gathering and reporting (they were entrusted to senior management advisers or were assumed by some line management). This law was repealed in 2018.

In 2013, the National Policy for Public Management Modernization to 2021 (SD 004-2013-PCM) was approved; it constitutes the main guiding instrument for modernizing public management in Peru. It establishes the vision, principles, and guidelines for a coherent and effective performance of the public sector at the service of citizens and country development. In addition, it defines five pillars and three strategic axes. The fifth pillar is the Information, Follow-up, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Knowledge Management System.

In 2018, the General Government Policy to 2021 (SD 056-2018-PCM) and its regulations were enacted; they guide the development and updating of national policies, plans, and government interventions. Mandatory compliance and progress reporting by public institutions within the executive power were established, as well as CEPLAN's M&E. It also assigned the PCM Office for Sectoral Compliance and Innovation with the responsibility of monitoring compliance with the Government's priorities (mainly in the following sectors: health, water and sanitation, formalization, security, education, anti-corruption, and infrastructure).

This general regulatory framework has allowed some institutions to make changes in their organizational structure to incorporate specific requests for M&E functions. It is also a guiding framework to develop specific instrumental regulations for implementation of M&E activities, as seen below.

The interviewees considered that the existing regulatory framework was a facilitating factor for institutionalization of M&E because it facilitated strengthening the institutional framework through public management instruments for monitoring.


FINDING 3 Lack of coordination at the planning levels is an obstacle for M&E development in public institutions.

M&E processes in the country are not aligned at the planning level. CEPLAN is responsible for strategic planning and MEF is responsible for financial programming. In addition, the PCM monitors government policies. These processes are not coordinated, which complicates M&E activities in public institutions.

As seen in Exhibit 1, CEPLAN proposes four levels of public policy planning: the highest level includes the Strategic Plan for National Development with a time frame through 2030. The lowest hierarchical levels contain the national policies, the Multi-Year Sectoral Strategic Plans (PESEMs), the Integrated Development Plans (PDCs), and the Institutional Strategic Plans (PEIs). The scope of these plans varies by sector, and across regional and local governments and institutions, respectively.

CEPLAN regulations assign the public institutions' strategic planning bodies with the responsibility for monitoring national policies, PESEMs, PEIs, and Strategic Operational Plans (POIs). CEPLAN is responsible for evaluating the design of national policies, PESEM, PDC, and PEI, while the public entities are responsible for evaluating performance.

On the other hand, MEF assigns the responsibility for monitoring the physical and budgetary goals of the Budget Programs to ministries. MEF conducts performance and impact assessments as independent evaluations.

Additionally, ministries are responsible for monitoring and evaluating their programs and services or some projects. They are also accountable for compliance with government policies.

In other words, the lack of coordination in planning results in various M&E actions ministries and other public institutions must comply with to respond to the multiple needs of the governing institutions.

Further, divisions within public institutions that report to CEPLAN, MEF, or PCM are not the same. Planning offices report to CEPLAN, while programming and budget offices prepare monitoring reports related to physical and financial goals for the MEF. The M&E offices (in absence thereof, this role is mostly assumed by the technical directorates) carry out M&E of government policies.

Interviewees stressed that diffusion and disconnection between M&E systems generate excess work. They also pointed out that the lack of unified information systems with relevant, timely, and quality data complicates the preparation of reports.


Exhibit 1. Planning, M&E levels

Source: Guevara, 2019

Inputs

Projects

Evaluation

Monitoring

Services Priority Goals

Products Specific Products

Final Results Activities Budget

Programs

National Goals

Specific Goals Strategic Actions

Territorial Strategic Goals

Territorial Strategic Actions

Sectorial Strategic Goals

Sectorial Strategic Actions

Institutional Strategic Actions

Institutional Strategic Goals

Operational Activities

Inputs Activities Products Initial Results

Intermediate Results

Final Results

Aggregate Impact

MINISTRIES

NATIONAL POLICIES


RELATIONSHIPS AND INFLUENCE

FINDING 4 MEF, PCM, and CEPLAN are the institutions that govern M&E activities.

In accordance with institutional structuring and mandates, three key institutions with M&E responsibilities are the PCM, MEF, and CEPLAN.

The PCM monitors government policies and the policy of public management modernization through the Office for Sectoral Compliance and Innovation and the Public Management Secretariat, respectively. It is important to note that the latter approves the proposals for core structure reforms in public institutions. Consequently, the Secretariat approves the creation of an M&E unit, which involves changes in the organizational and functional structure.

Exhibit 2. Key Public Institutions for M&E

INSTITUTION M&E ROLE SUBJECT MATTER

PCM

Office for Sectoral Compliance and Innovation

Monitoring Government Policies

Public Management Secretariat Monitoring Modernization Policy

CEPLAN M&E Guidelines M&E

National Policies Strategic Management in Government

MEF M&E Guidelines M&E

Budget Programs Public Budget

Source: Compiled by author

Another key institution is CEPLAN, which within its role in planning the development of national policies (at various levels), provides guidelines for their M&E. As stated above, CEPLAN is in a process of reviewing the policies for their alignment with the 2030 National Strategic Development Plan. CEPLAN is also responsible for coordinating with the government entities to develop the M&E of the GOP's strategic management, which includes plans and policies, objectives, programs and projects (SD 046-2009-PCM. CEPLAN Regulations of Organization and Functions, article 17.)

Question 2. What are the types of relationships and influence between organizations and decision-

making bodies?

Summary of Findings

• MEF, PCM, and CEPLAN are the institutions that govern M&E activities.

• There are three mechanisms for M&E inter-sectoral relationships and use for the public sector to take part in.


Finally, MEF has general and specific duties for monitoring and evaluating the public budget. Namely, the Public Budget Quality Directorate, which belongs to the General Directorate of Public Budget, has specific responsibility to carry out evaluations of the performance and achievement of results in public-sector entities and propose related guidelines, as well as to establish and conduct mechanisms to monitor the quality of public spending (MEF's Regulations of Organization and Functions, article 117, paragraphs b and c).

There is consensus among interviewees with regards to recognizing the management role of these three institutions, as well as expectations regarding their leadership in promoting improvements in M&E capacity and use of evidence in the public sector.

FINDING 5 There are three mechanisms for M&E inter-sectoral cooperation and use of evidence for the public sector to take part in.

Since the early 2000s, two inter-institutional mechanisms that integrate the Government and civil society were established in the country—the National Agreement (AN) and the Coordination Roundtable for the Fight against Poverty (MCLCP).

The MCLCP was established in 2001 (SD 001-2001-PROMUDEH) with the intent to coordinate social policies; achieve greater efficiency in the execution of programs; institutionalize citizens' participation in the design, decision making, and oversight of the Government's social policy, and maximize transparency and integrity in management of anti-poverty programs. In this context, MCLCP establishes "governance agreements" with the different political forces at the national, regional, and local levels, then monitors these agreements (MCLCP, 2020).

The MCLCP has conducted jointly agreed monitoring activities of different government programs and it issues warnings. In recent years, monitoring efforts have focused on the Maternal Neonatal Program and the Articulated Nutritional Program. Recently, CEPLAN consulted MCLCP on the preparation of the Country's Vision (CEPLAN 2017).

The AN is a tripartite forum made up of the Government, civil society, and political parties. It was established in 2002 with the aim of promoting and monitoring government policies. It defined 34 government policies grouped into four axes: (1) strengthening democracy and rule of law, (2) equitable and socially just development, (3) promotion of the country's competitiveness, and (4) creation of an efficient, transparent, and decentralized government. In 2011 and 2016, proposed government plans were analyzed in relation to government policies. The AN includes, among its actions, drafting monitoring reports, which appear to have been set aside since 2014 (AN 2020).

In summary, both MCLCP and AN are key spaces for convening stakeholders and include some policy monitoring activities, although they are carried out only partially (not inclusive of all sectors) and not continuously.

These two inter-sectoral spaces are an opportunity for inter-institutional collaboration, but interviewees did not highlight them when asked about the institutions they interact with in their M&E activities; they mainly focused on the relevant inter-institutional relations within the same public sector.

The Evidence Week has worked as an articulating space around M&E and use of evidence over the last 4 years. This is a collaborative initiative, as a decentralized festival of events, which started in 2016 promoted by the Peruvian Alliance for the Use of Evidence. From its beginning to 2019, four


conferences have been held, one per year, which have called for the active participation of public stakeholders (such as the Ministries of Development and Social Inclusion, Production, and the Ministry of Education, and the Regional Government of Ucayali) and private stakeholders (such as Universidad del Pacífico and ESAN, the NGO Soluciones Prácticas), as well as specialized national networks, the Network of Peruvian Monitoring and Evaluation (REDPERUME) of public sector professionals, and EvalPerú, made up of professionals from different sectors (Evidence Week 2020). In this framework, the example of the Regional Government of Ucayali stands out, because their participation was institutionalized in Regional Resolution 0884-2017.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FINDING 6 Different institutional arrangements are in place for M&E in public institutions.

Over the 18 years since the Act for Public Management Modernization was enacted, progress has been slow in establishing a body responsible for implementing M&E functions (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3. M&E Organizational Structures

• Seven (7) out of 19 ministries have a specific area to implement M&E (MIDIS, MIMP, MINAGRI, VIVIENDA, MINEDU, PRODUCE, and TRANSPORTE)

• Two (2) out of 26 regional governments have bodies devoted to M&E (Piura and Ucayali regional governments)

• Three out of five selected public organizations have an M&E area (DEVIDA, SERFOR, and CEPLAN)

Question 3. What is the organizational structure and conditions under which M&E are carried out?

Summary of Findings

• Different institutional arrangements are in place for M&E in public institutions.

• The implementation of general M&E regulations shows different progress in the government institutions.

Yes No

Ministries RG DPO



The institutional M&E structure is established in the Regulations of Organization and Functions of each entity, and approved through specific Executive Orders for decentralized ministries and public bodies and Regional Ordinances for Regional Governments (Exhibit 4).

The M&E bodies have a different organizational level and, therefore, perform different functions (Exhibit 5). Some of them are supervisory and "exercise substantive functions in the entity and may be of a technical-regulatory nature or related to the provision of goods and services," others are advisory bodies, which are a part of the internal administration bodies "in charge of advising or supporting the entity in the fulfillment of its functions" (SD 054-2018-PCM dated 05.17.2018, which approves the government organizational guidelines). Thus, two out of the seven ministries with an organizational M&E structure are supervisory and five are advisory bodies.

The Regulations of Organization and Functions stipulate the general and specific functions of the M&E bodies. As seen in the table below (Exhibit 5), there are basic functions common to most of the bodies, such as drafting guidelines and implementing M&E activities. Data management activities take place to a lesser extent, because the statistics may be separate from knowledge management. Only the Regulations of Organization and Functions for MIDIS, MIMP, MINEDU, and SERFOR were found to contain a specific function to promote the use of information and M&E.

It is important to note that, although DEVIDA has a Sub-Directorate in charge of monitoring, the evaluation function is assigned to other technical divisions.

Exhibit 4. M&E Bodies

INSTITUTION YEAR ESTABLISHED

SUPERVISING BODY

ADVISORY BODY

MIDIS 2011

MIMP 2012

MINAGRI 2014

VIVIENDA 2014

MINEDU 2015

PRODUCE 2017

TRANSPORTE 2018

CEPLAN 2008

DEVIDA 2014

SERFOR 2013

GORE Ucayali 2018

GORE Piura 2018



Exhibit 5. M&E Body and Functions

INSTITUTION MIDIS MIMP MINAGRI VIVIENDA MINEDU PRODUCE TRANSPORTE CEPLAN DEVIDA SERFOR GR UCAYALI

GR PIURA

Establish M&E guidelines

Establish M&E methodologies

Manage statistical data/information systems

Draft studies and researches

Carry out evaluations

Propose indicators

Design monitoring systems

Carry out monitoring

Draft monitoring reports

Promote the use of information

Mange knowledge

Source: Compiled by author based on a ROF from each institution


FINDING 7 The implementation of general M&E regulations shows different progress among government institutions.

The bodies devoted to M&E drafted specific guidelines approved by Ministerial or Headquarters Resolutions. Eight (8) out of 19 ministries have M&E guidelines (including MINSA, which has guidelines but not operational procedures connected to these guidelines). No specific regulations have been identified in the M&E procedures of the regional governments. Recently, CEPLAN developed guidelines for drafting policies that, while not specific to M&E, include M&E aspects and the assignment of people responsible for M&E.

The instrumental regulations define the institutional processes for implementation of the M&E functions, staff responsible, timelines for activities, and definitions of M&E-related terms, among others. The list of regulations is presented in Annex F.

When reviewing the instrumental regulations, three sets of aspects are observed: general aspects, monitoring guidelines, and evaluation guidelines. The following table (Exhibit 7) presents the main contents of the guidelines.

Exhibit 7. Content of M&E Guidelines

CONTENT CONTAINS DOES NOT CONTAIN

General aspects

Defines concepts 7 0

Strengthening of institution and people capacities 1 6

Evaluation culture 1 6

Evidence management 2 4

Monitoring

Identifies “purpose” 3 4

Establishes processes 4 3

Establishes processes to identify indicators and goals 3 4

Incorporates instruments 3 4

Links monitoring with information system 1 6

Establishes processes to disseminate results 4 3

Establishes processes for the use of results 2 5

Yes, 8

No, 11

Exhibit 6. M&E Guidelines in Ministries


CONTENT CONTAINS DOES NOT CONTAIN

Evaluation

Identifies “purposes” 1 6

Establishes processes 4 3

Establishes processes to identify indicators and goals 2 5

Incorporates instruments 2 5

Establishes processes to disseminate results 2 5

Establishes processes for the use of results 1 6

Incorporates quality elements for reports 3 4

Source: Guevara, 2019

In general, public institutions carry out monitoring actions in response to PCM, CEPLAN, and MEF mandates. Public institutions must periodically report the progress on the General Government Policy to PCM. Annually, public institutions report progress of the PEI and POI implementation to CEPLAN. On a monthly basis, institutions report to MEF the physical and financial progress of the budget programs.

In addition to these actions, institutions that have M&E procedures prepare, on an ongoing basis, reports on the progress of implementation of policies, programs, and projects to account for their management. Only a few report these progresses through the institutional website, as seen in the next section.

Regarding the evaluation function, only 4 of the 19 ministries have conducted performance and impact evaluations (MEF, MIDIS, MIMP, and MINEDU). Generally, these evaluations are external and the high cost involved is a limitation to develop them.

Interviewees identified three types of constraints in M&E implementation: institutional, personnel, and M&E systems.

1. The location of the authority performing the M&E was identified as an institutional limitation. A supervisory authority has greater influence over the fulfillment of M&E functions throughout the institution. In the case of an advisory authority, the M&E leadership is weak or absent (except in MINEDU). Likewise, duplication of M&E functions was identified in planning or other technical areas, which leads to an inefficient use of information.

2. Limitations related to personnel refer to little or low training of personnel in specific M&E topics, high personnel turnover, and the workload for small teams that carry out these functions. Another limitation is the null or low evaluation culture in other institutional units, which makes it difficult to perform the functions.

3. The limitations of M&E systems were: disconnection and lack of integration between the various monitoring systems (CEPLAN, MEF, PCM, and their own systems), scattered data collection systems, low quality of data, and focus on monitoring activities, with the exception of evaluation of the public policy cycle. Likewise, there is little experience in


monitoring multi-sector plans where institutions from other Government branches intervene.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION CAPACITIES

FINDING 8 There is demand for training on specialized M&E topics by personnel of government institutions to fulfill their functions that does not appear to be met.

As observed above, the M&E functions established are highly specialized and staff need different skills to fulfill them, in addition to knowledge about public management. Interviewees believe that the knowledge and skills of public servants performing these functions are varied, and range from highly trained people to those at a more beginner level. They also perceive that this variation exists between officials in managerial positions and public servants, and weaknesses are usually exacerbated by high turnover.

There are different demands for strengthening the M&E capacities of civil and public servants. A study conducted on graduates with an M&E diploma (Bucheli 2017) allows us to estimate the training needs among those who have concluded their courses. Considering only the opinion of people working in government management and are engaged in M&E, the study identified five training needs more than half of respondents prioritized—three relate to assessment, baselines, and impact assessment; and two to M&E plans or systems and instruments.

Exhibit 8. Public Sector M&E Professionals' Training Needs

TOPICS RESPONSES (%)

M&E plans/systems 59.1

Information measurement, collection, and analysis instruments 59.1

Program or project evaluation 59.1

Question 4. What is the capacity available to carry out M&E activities?

Summary of Findings

• There is demand for training on specialized M&E topics by personnel of government institutions to fulfill their functions that does not seem to be met.

• The budget allocated for M&E is limited when compared to the demands for functions.

• The use of information technologies for M&E is widespread.

• There is variable M&E capacity among public institutions, with some leaders standing out.

• DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali are USAID-supported public institutions with M&E capacity. MINAM does not have M&E capacity, but is closely related to USAID projects.


TOPICS RESPONSES (%)

Program or project baselines 54.5

Impact assessment 54.5

Project design (includes theory of change/logic framework and indicators) 45.5

Systematization of experience and knowledge management 36.4

Strategies for use of evidence in political advocacy 36.4

Project monitoring 36.4

Implementing computerized systems 18.2

Capacity building in M&E 13.6

Source: Bucheli 2017.

The interviews conducted indicate some characteristics of demands for improved M&E capacities:

a) M&E content should be tailored toward specific needs of institutions. For example, SERFOR considers it necessary to strengthen its team in M&E and knowledge management methodologies in forestry. MEF and CEPLAN require methodologies for public policy M&E, not just programs and projects.

b) M&E capacity building must cut across all management professionals from different institutions to generate a demand for M&E and encourage its use.

c) M&E capacity building should include interaction of bodies and institutions to understand and internalize the results of these processes. For example, regional governments need to strengthen their capacities in these areas.

d) Training requirements are diverse and vary from the need for soft skills (insight, strategic thinking, proactivity, etc.) to technological aspects (development of integrated M&E systems, data visualization, and programming for management of various databases).

e) M&E capacity building should recognize that the existing educational offerings in M&E have increased and are mainly directed toward programs and projects, but are not geared toward public policies, national, and multisectoral plans or public budgeting.

With regard bodies with the mandate to train public servants (SERVIR and ENAP), interviewees mentioned different needs to fulfill their functions:

• Generally, they cannot cope with the amount (approximately 1.5 million)1 of public servants who requiring training

• They need the support of academic experts in M&E of human resources training impact

1 In 2017, the public sector had about 1 million, 422,000 public servants, of which 47% were women at all three levels of government, national, regional and local (SERVIR, 2019).


• They require identifying M&E experts for their training and performance management programs

• They are building partnerships with public and private universities to facilitate training of public servants at the national level

On the other hand, some interviewees recognize their growing need for advice or mentoring from public policy governing bodies, such as PCM, MEF, and in some cases, CEPLAN, as people in charge of planning with systematic inclusion and guidance of M&E to operate public policies. This support is not always sufficient or timely.

FINDING 9 The budget allocated for M&E is limited when compared to the demands for functions.

To estimate the public budget allocated to M&E processes, a review of 2019 public budget was conducted. According to the calculations, 0.9 percent of the budget (equivalent to S/ 1,712,250,312) was intended for the role of government planning (actions inherent in the formulation, approval, and M&E of results, policies, plans and programs, according to the MEF 2) of the three levels of Government. If the public information function (0.2 percent of the total) is added to this, the budget for M&E is just 1 percent.

FINDING 10 The use of information technologies for M&E is not widespread.

Two basic M&E elements are methodical data collection and communication processes. Information and communication technologies play an important role in these processes, because they enable timely, accessible, and quality data.

Government institutions use two data sources for monitoring:

1. National survey for budget programs, annually implemented by INEI. Data generated by this source present various challenges: "… the high cost of implementation, a greater use of technology for data collection in person (use of tablets) and/or virtually (use of social networks), the effects on the quality of the increasing rejection of interviewees, either by mistrust or because of the difficulty to access certain areas due to the incidence of criminality, the cartographic update due to urban growth, the weight of the burden of information requested on the informant for the execution of large multipurpose surveys, among others" (Moncada 2019, p.6).

2. Administrative records produced by public entities. In 2018, the Digital Government Act (Legislative Decree No. 1412) was passed, establishing the digital government governance framework relating to data governance. It states that "Public Administration entities manage their data as a strategic asset, ensuring that they are collected, processed, published, stored and made available for as long as necessary and where appropriate, taking into account

2 Monitoring of Budget Execution (Friendly Consultation) - https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/seguimiento-de-la-ejecucion-presupuestal-consulta-amigable

https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/seguimiento-de-la-ejecucion-presupuestal-consulta-amigable

https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/seguimiento-de-la-ejecucion-presupuestal-consulta-amigable


information needs, risks and current regulations on digital governance, digital security, transparency, personal data protection and any other binding one" (Article 23.2).

However, data from this source present challenges: "… insufficient conceptual frameworks, methodologies and technology to define standards and integrate records with each other and with other sources, evaluate the quality of primary data, manage data confidentiality and security, define protocols for electronic data exchange, and for data processing. One factor that stands out is the lack of human resources trained to handle new sources of information. On the institutional side, the limiting factor that it highlights is the absence of legal frameworks that ensure the collection of private data for statistical purposes, and that facilitate access to record data sources" (Moncada 2019, p.10).

With regard to the use of information technologies, significant progress has been made in the country in the development of technological tools to support administrative processes, within the framework of the Act for Public Management Modernization. The software used for administrative management are the Integrated Administrative Management System (in Spanish: SIGA,) that allows monitoring through consultations and reports, and the Integrated Financial Management Systems (in Spanish: SIAF) that automates the financial procedures necessary to record public resources collected from the public sector, such as a control instrument.

The use of technology for M&E has not made a similar progress in information and communication technologies. Most public institutions use MS Office Excel to track goals or implementation of activities, and few have technologies to disseminate M&E results: 4 out of 19 ministries, 2 out of 26 regional governments, and 3 out of 5 selected decentralized public bodies have some M&E communication system (see box).

While the platforms are not similar and their content is different, they allow observation of indicator progress through dashboards and georeferenced maps, statistics from administrative records, evaluation reports, and regulations on the subject.

One opportunity to develop specific M&E software is the standards issued in recent years. In 2018, the Digital Government Act (Legislative Decree No. 1412) was passed, establishing the digital government governance framework for proper management of digital identity, digital services, digital architecture, interoperability, digital security, and data. It also defines the legal framework for the cross-cutting use of digital technologies in the digitization of processes and the provision of digital services by public administration entities at all three levels of Government. In addition, data governance is established by stipulating that "Public Administration entities manage their data as a strategic asset, ensuring that data is collected, processed, published, stored and made available for as long as necessary and where appropriate, taking into account information needs, risks and current regulations on digital governance, digital security, transparency, personal data protection and any other binding one" (Article 23.2).


Digital M&E Platforms

• Ministry of Economy and Finance

o Monitoring the Performance of Budget Programs – Performance Indicators of RESULTA Budget Programs - https://apps4.mineco.gob.pe/resulta2

o Monitoring the Financial and Physical Implementation of Budget Programs - https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-por-resultados/instrumentos/seguimiento/211-presupuesto-publico/presupuesto-por-resultados/5352-seguimiento-de-la-ejecucion-financiera-y-fisica-de-los-programas-presupuestales

o Monitoring Specific Topics on Public Budget - https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-por-resultados/instrumentos/seguimiento/211-presupuesto-publico/presupuesto-por-resultados/5353-seguimiento-a-temas-especificos-en-presupuesto-publico

• Ministry of Education

o MINEDULAB - http://www.minedu.gob.pe/minedulab/

o Semáforo Escuela - http://www.minedu.gob.pe/semaforo-escuela/

o Educational Quality Statistics - ESCALE - http://escale.minedu.gob.pe/

• Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion

o EVIDENCIA - http://evidencia.midis.gob.pe/

• Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations

o Office of Policy Monitoring and Evaluation - https://www.mimp.gob.pe/omep/

• National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs - DEVIDA

o DEVIDA Monitoring System http://www.simdev.gob.pe/

o Indicator Monitoring System http://www2.simdev.gob.pe/Ie/Inicio.asp

o PPER Monitoring System http://www2.simdev.gob.pe/Pper/Devida/s_login.aspx

• National Institute of Statistics and Data Processing - INEI

o Indicator Monitoring and Follow-Up System for Sustainable Development Goals http://ods.inei.gob.pe/ods/

• Regional Government of San Martín

o Regional Integrated System – SIRSAM - https://web.regionsanmartin.gob.pe/SIRSAM/

• Regional Government of Ucayali

o Monitoring and Evaluation System - http://monitoreo.regionucayali.gob.pe/

https://apps4.mineco.gob.pe/resulta2

https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-por-resultados/instrumentos/seguimiento/211-presupuesto-publico/presupuesto-por-resultados/5352-seguimiento-de-la-ejecucion-financiera-y-fisica-de-los-programas-presupuestales



https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-por-resultados/instrumentos/seguimiento/211-presupuesto-publico/presupuesto-por-resultados/5353-seguimiento-a-temas-especificos-en-presupuesto-publico



http://www.minedu.gob.pe/minedulab/

http://www.minedu.gob.pe/semaforo-escuela/

http://escale.minedu.gob.pe/

http://evidencia.midis.gob.pe/

https://www.mimp.gob.pe/omep/

http://www.simdev.gob.pe/

http://www2.simdev.gob.pe/Ie/Inicio.asp

http://www2.simdev.gob.pe/Pper/Devida/s_login.aspx

http://ods.inei.gob.pe/ods/

https://web.regionsanmartin.gob.pe/SIRSAM/

http://monitoreo.regionucayali.gob.pe/


FINDING 11 The M&E capacity is variable among public institutions, with some leaders standing out.

To generally estimate the M&E capacity, based on secondary information, the presence of the following criteria between ministries, OPD, and regional governments was analyzed: (1) has an M&E body, (2) has M&E functions, (3) has M&E guidelines, (4) develops M&E products, and (5) has digital platforms that support M&E.

Exhibit 9 shows the results and highlights the leading institutions, including some of these criteria: 9 out of 19 ministries, 4 out of 5 decentralized public agencies, and 3 out of 24 regional governments.

Exhibit 9. M&E Capacity in Public Institutions

INSTITUTIONS M&E BODY M&E FUNCTIONS

M&E GUIDELINES

M&E PRODUCTS

DIGITAL PLATFORMS

MINISTRIES PCM CULTURA MEF MINAGRI MINAM MINCETUR MINDEF MINEDU MIDIS MINEM MININTER MINJUSDH PRODUCE MIMP MRE MINSA MTPE MTC VIVIENDA

OPD CEPLAN SERFOR INEI DEVIDA SERVIR

REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS

Amazonas Ancash Apurímac


INSTITUTIONS M&E BODY M&E FUNCTIONS

M&E GUIDELINES

M&E PRODUCTS

DIGITAL PLATFORMS

Arequipa Ayacucho Cajamarca Cusco Huancavelica Huánuco Junín La Libertad Lambayeque Lima Loreto Madre de Dios Moquegua Pasco Piura Puno San Martín Tacna Tumbes Ucayali Callao

Source: Compiled by author based on standards, guidelines, and web pages.

Note: Has Does not have

It is necessary to point out that some institutions receive technical assistance from international organizations for strengthening M&E systems, as shown in the Exhibit 10. These include bilateral cooperation institutions (UK-AID cooperation, GIZ Germany, and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), multilateral cooperation bodies (International Fund for Agricultural Development, UNAIDS); development banks (World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Development Bank of Latin America); institutions linked to Spanish cooperation (International and Ibero-American Fund for Administration and Public Policies) and Canadian cooperation (International Institute for Sustainable Development - IISD); as well as private organizations (Innovation for Poverty Action and Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab).


Exhibit 10. International Institutions that support M&E

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

MINISTRIES

PCM UK-AID

MEF GIZ/FIAPP

MINAGRI FIDA

MINAM IISD – Canada/GIZ/SDC

MINEDU World Bank/BID/JPAL/IPA

MIDIS JPAL/IPA

MIMP JPAL/IPA

MINSA ONUSIDA

HOUSING CAF

OPD

AURORA Program JPAL/IPA

SERNANP GIZ

Source: Compiled by author based on interviews

FINDING 12 DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali are USAID-supported public institutions with M&E capacity. MINAM does not have M&E capacity, but is closely related to USAID projects.

As part of the stakeholder analysis, USAID implementing partners were asked to identify institutions in different sectors they are the most connected to, in addition to the type of relationship that connects them. As shown in Exhibit 11, four institutions interact with the largest number of projects: MINAM is connected to seven USAID projects that address Development Objective (DO) 3 (environment and natural resource management). DEVIDA is connected to five projects—four working under DO 1 (alternative development) and one under DO 2 (public integrity). SERFOR is connected to five projects under DO 3, and the Regional Government of Ucayali is connected to four projects (one under DO 1 and three under DO 3).

Institutions such as DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali also have some M&E capacity (see Exhibit 9), and have been identified as potential candidates for MELS capacity-building activities. MINAM has no identified M&E capacities, but has the highest number of relationships established with USAID interventions.


Exhibit 11. Relationship between USAID Projects and Public Institutions

Institution

DO1 DO2 DO3

No. of USAID

projects it relates to

Institutional

Streng-thening Partner-ship for DEVIDA

Alliance for

Digital and

Financial Services (CR3CE)

Peru Cacao

Alliance, "Phase II"

(PCA)

USAID Coffee Alliance for Exce-

llence (CAFE)

Cacao Food Safety Assist-ance

Human Traffi-

cking in the

Peruvian Amazon

Citizen Engage-

ment for a Transpa-

rent Reconstru-

ction Activity

Fisheries Conflict

Mitigation in the

Marañon and Ucayali

Basins in Loreto,

Peru

USAID Securing a Sustainable, Inclusive and

Profitable Forest Sector in Peru (Pro-

Bosques)

The Amazonian Center for

Environmen-tal Research

and Sustainability

Project (CINCIA)

Forest Oversight and Re-sources

Strengthen-ing

(FOREST)

Forest Alliance

Reducing Impact of Pollution on Marine

and Coastal

Biodiversi-ty of the

Mar Frio in Peru

Silvacar-bon

Natural Infrastruc-ture for Water

Security (NIWS) project

Ministry of the Environment (MINAM)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs (DEVIDA)

1 1 1 1 1 5

National Forest and Wildlife Service (SERFOR)

1 1 1 1 1 5

Regional Government of Ucayali (GOREU)

1 1 1 1 4

Ombudsman's Office 1 1 1 3

Authority for Reconstruction with Changes (ARCC)

1 1 2

Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI)

1 1 2

Ministry of Culture (MINCU) 1 1 2

Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations (MIMP)

1 1 2


Institution

DO1 DO2 DO3

No. of USAID

projects it relates to

Institutional

Streng-thening Partner-ship for DEVIDA

Alliance for

Digital and

Financial Services (CR3CE)

Peru Cacao

Alliance, "Phase II"

(PCA)

USAID Coffee Alliance for Exce-

llence (CAFE)

Cacao Food Safety Assist-ance

Human Traffi-

cking in the

Peruvian Amazon

Citizen Engage-

ment for a Transpa-

rent Reconstru-

ction Activity

Fisheries Conflict

Mitigation in the

Marañon and Ucayali

Basins in Loreto,

Peru

USAID Securing a Sustainable, Inclusive and

Profitable Forest Sector in Peru (Pro-

Bosques)

The Amazonian Center for

Environmen-tal Research

and Sustainability

Project (CINCIA)

Forest Oversight and Re-sources

Strengthen-ing

(FOREST)

Forest Alliance

Reducing Impact of Pollution on Marine

and Coastal

Biodiversi-ty of the

Mar Frio in Peru

Silvacar-bon

Natural Infrastruc-ture for Water

Security (NIWS) project

Supervisory Agency for Forest and Wildlife Resources (OSINFOR)

1 1 2

Regional Government of Piura

1 1

Source: Compiled by author based on responses from USAID implementing partners.


CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1

The political and regulatory environment is favorable for the development of evidence-based monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making capacities in government institutions. It is framed in the Government's modernization policies and its international commitments.

Related Findings

• Finding 1

• Finding 2

Conclusion 2

A factor that drives M&E development in public institutions is the current Government's focus on accounting for progress in implementation of priority government policies. A strong limiting factor is the lack of coordination at the strategic planning levels, which leads to duplication of M&E systems.

Related Findings

• Findings 2

• Finding 3

Conclusion 3

There is no M&E governing entity in the country, but pursuant to their mandates, PCM, MEF, and CEPLAN influence the development of these processes within public institutions.

Related Findings

• Finding 4

Conclusion 4

Inter-institutional mechanisms engaging the public sector are an opportunity to generate an M&E culture in a society that is not fully exploited.

Related Findings

• Finding 5

Conclusion 5

Little progress is observed in the development of M&E organizational structures in public bodies, which is in contradiction to the obligations established in the regulations. The few existing structures demonstrate varied progress in implementing concrete M&E actions, which reflects different degrees of institutional capacity

Related Findings

• Finding 6-11

Conclusion 6

The unfulfilled demand for M&E capacities can be an opportunity to articulate interests among the governing institutions (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) and those responsible for training public servants (ENAP and CEPLAN).

Related Findings

• Finding 8

Conclusion 7

Given the relationship with USAID and the institutional capacity for M&E within DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali, these organizations

Related Findings

• Finding 11


present an opportunity for MELS' intervention. MINAM is another good venue for an intervention due to the high number of projects it is connected with.

• Finding 12


RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are intended to guide the possible actions of the MELS project in the context described in this document.

1. Promote discussion, analysis, and exchange around possible meeting points among the different levels of the M&E regulatory framework in the public sector. These interventions can help bridge the gap between bodies related to the M&E functions and the use of evidence, and support the efforts to make positive use of the favorable policy and regulatory environment.

2. Align the MESA efforts to mobilize the potential of multi-sectoral spaces (with the presence of the public sector) and governing entities (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) in favor of M&E implementation and use of evidence.

3. Support existing formal and informal inter-sectoral spaces where M&E and use of evidence are promoted, seeking to create synergies among MELS objectives and activities and other similar projects.

4. Promote the association among governing entities (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) and ENAP/SERVIR to strengthen M&E training focused on public servants' demand. To this end, ENAP/SERVIR could find the required experts to better fulfill its mission, and the governing entities might broaden their scope in response to the increased demand for support.

5. Focus direct interventions in M&E capacity building toward MINAM, DEVIDA, SERFOR, and the Regional Government of Ucayali. These institutions are close to USAID because of their relationship with USAID-supported projects, and have a basis on which to work. They are also leading institutions that can set an example and influence their peers.


REFERENCES Acuerdo Nacional, 2020. Página web https://acuerdonacional.pe/

Bucheli, Brenda, 2017. Diagnóstico de la oferta y demanda de formación en monitoreo y evaluación de proyectos en Perú. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.

Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico – CEPLAN.

2018. PERÚ. Informe Anual 2018 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Lima.

2017. Perú: Informe Nacional Voluntario sobre la implementación de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Lima.

Guevara, Susana, 2019. Marco Normativo para la Evaluación y Uso de la Evidencia en el Sector Público: oportunidades y desafíos. USAID/Perú MELS (ppt). Ponencia Semana de la Evidencia. 18 de noviembre, Lima, Perú.

Mesa de Concertación de Lucha contra la Pobreza, 2020. Página web https://www.mesadeconcertacion.org.pe/

Moncada, Gilberto, 2019. Retos de la Estadística Oficial: El Uso de Registros Administrativos. En: INEI. Economía, sociedad y estadística. Revista del Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo del INEI. Nro.7. Lima, julio.

OCDE

2010 Glosario de los principales términos sobre evaluación y gestión basada en resultados

2016 a. Programa País. Resúmenes ejecutivos y principales recomendaciones.

2016 b. OECD Public Governance Reviews: Peru: integrated Governance for Inclusive Growth, OECD Publising, París.

Semana de la Evidencia, 2020. Página web https://semanadelaevidencia.org/

SERVIR, 2019. La mujer en el servicio civil peruano.

Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros – PCM. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=145#.XqeezGj0nIV

Ministerio de Cultura – CULTURA. Portal de transparencia: http://transparencia.cultura.gob.pe/

Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas – MEF.

Portal de transparencia: http://www.mef.gob.pe/es/?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=101731

Presupuesto público: https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-publico-sp-18162

https://acuerdonacional.pe/

https://www.mesadeconcertacion.org.pe/

https://semanadelaevidencia.org/

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=145#.XqeezGj0nIV

http://transparencia.cultura.gob.pe/

http://www.mef.gob.pe/es/?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=101731

https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/presupuesto-publico-sp-18162


Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego – MINAGRI. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=136&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxQmj0nIU

Ministerio del Ambiente – MINAM. Portal de transparencia: http://www.minam.gob.pe/portal-de-transparencia-estandar-pte/

Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo – MINCETUR. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=138#.XqgyJmj0nIV

Ministerio de Defensa – MINDEF. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=10011&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyQ2j0nIW

Ministerio de Educación – MINEDU. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=133&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyaGj0nIU

Ministerio de Inclusión y Desarrollo Social – MIDIS.

Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14145#.XqgzHWj0nIV

Evidencia: http://evidencia.midis.gob.pe/

Ministerio de Energía y Minas – MINEM. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=137#.Xqgzy2j0nIU

Ministerio del Interior – MININTER. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=132#.Xqgz7mj0nIU

Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos – MINJUSDH. Portal de transparencia: http://sistemas3.minjus.gob.pe/transparencia2/transparencia.htm

Ministerio de la Producción – PRODUCE. Portal de transparencia: http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=139#.Xqg0PWj0nIW

Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables – MIMP. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=142#.Xqg0lGj0nIV

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores – MRE. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=140&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg1l2j0nIV

Ministerio de Salud – MINSA. Portal de transparencia: http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=143#.Xqg1v2j0nIX

Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo – MTPE. Portal de transparencia: http://www2.trabajo.gob.pe/portal-de-transparencia/

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=136&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxQmj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=136&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxQmj0nIU

http://www.minam.gob.pe/portal-de-transparencia-estandar-pte/

http://www.minam.gob.pe/portal-de-transparencia-estandar-pte/

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=138#.XqgyJmj0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=10011&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyQ2j0nIW

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=10011&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyQ2j0nIW

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=133&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyaGj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=133&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgyaGj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14145#.XqgzHWj0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14145#.XqgzHWj0nIV

http://evidencia.midis.gob.pe/

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=137#.Xqgzy2j0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=132#.Xqgz7mj0nIU

http://sistemas3.minjus.gob.pe/transparencia2/transparencia.htm

http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=139#.Xqg0PWj0nIW

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=142#.Xqg0lGj0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=140&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg1l2j0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=140&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg1l2j0nIV

http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=143#.Xqg1v2j0nIX

http://www2.trabajo.gob.pe/portal-de-transparencia/


Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones – MTC. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=144&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2Dmj0nIU

Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento – VIVIENDA. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11476&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2MWj0nIV

Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico – CEPLAN. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=13103#.Xqg2k2j0nIV

Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre – SERFOR. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14282&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxtGj0nIW

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática – INEI. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=4&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg3kmj0nIU

Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo y Vida sin Drogas – DEVIDA. Portal de transparencia: http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11793&id_tema=1&ver=D#.WOUAT_mGOM8&

Autoridad Nacional del Servicio Civil – SERVIR. Portal de transparencia: http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=13687#.Xqg3_Gj0nIU

Portal de transparencia de Gobiernos Regionales

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=144&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2Dmj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=144&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2Dmj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11476&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2MWj0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11476&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg2MWj0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=13103#.Xqg2k2j0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=13103#.Xqg2k2j0nIV

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14282&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxtGj0nIW

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=14282&id_tema=1&ver=D#.XqgxtGj0nIW

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=4&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg3kmj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=4&id_tema=1&ver=D#.Xqg3kmj0nIU

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11793&id_tema=1&ver=D#.WOUAT_mGOM8&

http://www.transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=11793&id_tema=1&ver=D#.WOUAT_mGOM8&

http://transparencia.gob.pe/enlaces/pte_transparencia_enlaces.aspx?id_entidad=13687#.Xqg3_Gj0nIU


ANNEXES

ANNEX A: RESUMEN EJECUTIVO El Proyecto Monitoreo, Evaluación y Aprendizaje para la Sostenibilidad (MELS, por sus siglas en inglés) ejecutado por encargo de la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID), busca fortalecer las capacidades y funciones de monitoreo y evaluación entre los socios de USAID Perú, a fin de generar y usar la evidencia en la toma de decisiones, reforzando el logro y la sostenibilidad de los resultados de desarrollo. Además del portafolio bilateral de USAID, MELS también presta servicios en monitoreo, evaluación, y aprendizaje al portafolio de Sudamérica, y a las misiones de USAID Brasil y Paraguay. Adicionalmente, USAID MELS presenta una oportunidad de apoyar al Gobierno del Perú en la modernización del sector público, para fortalecer los sistemas y prácticas de monitoreo y evaluación necesarios para una gestión efectiva y transparente de los programas públicos, y facilitar la admisión del país en la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos.

PROPÓSITO Y PREGUNTAS DE EVALUACIÓN Como parte de su misión, el Proyecto MELS apunta a fortalecer las funciones y capacidades en seguimiento y evaluación de las instituciones del Gobierno de Perú para ayudar a reforzar la efectividad, transparencia, y sostenibilidad de los programas públicos.

En el marco de las acciones iniciales de MELS se programó este análisis de actores, que servirá de insumo para que el equipo ejecutor del Proyecto siente las bases de su alcance y defina la orientación de las actividades bajo el tercer componente de MELS, dirigido a apoyar al sector público peruano.

Asimismo, estos resultados serán claves para afinar y dar sentido a la estrategia de MELS llamada MESA por sus siglas en inglés (Actores Estratégicos de Monitoreo y Evaluación para la Sostenibilidad), con la cual atraerá a actores estratégicos de múltiples sectores, entre públicos y privados, para promover conjuntamente soluciones locales y la adaptación e innovación de enfoques, a fin de asegurar que las actividades previstas por el Proyecto sean apropiadas para el contexto peruano y regional, y contribuyan a incrementar el uso de la evaluación y evidencias en la toma de decisiones programáticas.

Las preguntas orientadoras del estudio fueron:

1. ¿Cuál es el entorno político y normativo que influye en la capacidad de seguimiento, evaluación, y toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia de las instituciones gubernamentales?

2. ¿Cuál es el tipo de relacionamiento e influencia entre organizaciones e instancias de decisiones?

3. ¿Cuál es la estructura organizativa y condiciones bajo la cual se ejerce el seguimiento y evaluación?

4. ¿Con qué capacidad se cuenta para el ejercicio del seguimiento y evaluación?

METODOLOGÍA El análisis de actores comprendió dos etapas, que se realizaron entre setiembre y diciembre del 2019. La primera etapa, de revisión de información secundaria disponible en medios virtuales e impresos, incluyó


presentaciones de resultados preliminares (ante USAID primero, y luego a una audiencia general durante la Semana de la Evidencia realizada en noviembre del 2019), y una posterior priorización conjunta con USAID de posibles instituciones de Gobierno de Perú con las que USAID MELS podría trabajar. La segunda etapa, incluyó la recolección de información mediante entrevistas abiertas a informantes clave, con los que se cubrieron algunos vacíos identificados en la etapa previa.

HALLAZGOS

ENTORNO POLÍTICO Y NORMATIVO 1. Los acuerdos internacionales que tiene el Perú son una oportunidad para desarrollar los

sistemas de seguimiento y evaluación.

2. El país ha desarrollado un marco normativo de carácter obligatorio para la implementación del seguimiento y evaluación de las políticas y programas.

3. La descoordinación de los niveles de planeamiento representa una limitante para el desarrollo del SyE de las instituciones públicas

RELACIONAMIENTO E INFLUENCIA 4. Las instituciones rectoras de las actividades de SyE son el MEF, PCM y CEPLAN.

5. Hay tres mecanismos de vinculación intersectorial alrededor del SyE y uso de evidencias donde participa el sector público.

ESTRUCTURA ORGANIZATIVA 6. Existen diferentes arreglos institucionales para realizar el seguimiento y evaluación en las

instituciones públicas.

7. La implementación de las normativas de SyE generales tienen diferente avance en las instituciones gubernamentales.

CAPACIDADES PARA EL SEGUIMIENTO Y EVALUACION 8. Hay una demanda en temas especializados en SyE por el personal de las instituciones

gubernamentales para cumplir sus funciones que no parece estar satisfecha.

9. El presupuesto asignado para el SyE es restringido frente a las exigencias de las funciones.

10. El uso de tecnologías de información para el SyE no es difundido.

11. La capacidad para el SyE entre las instituciones públicas es variada y destacan algunos líderes.

12. Las instituciones públicas con capacidad para el SyE que se relacionan con USAID son DEVIDA, SERFOR y el Gobierno Regional de Ucayali. El MINAM no tiene capacidad para el SyE, pero tiene una alta relación con los proyectos de USAID.


CONCLUSIONES 1. El entorno político y normativo es favorable para el desarrollo de las capacidades de

seguimiento, evaluación y toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia de las instituciones gubernamentales. Se enmarca en las políticas de modernización del estado y los compromisos internacionales asumidos.

2. Un factor que impulsa el desarrollo del SyE en las instituciones públicas es la priorización del gobierno actual de dar cuenta en el avance de la implementación de las políticas de gobierno priorizadas. Un fuerte factor limitante es la descoordinación de los niveles de planificación estratégica lo cual conlleva a la duplicación de sistemas de seguimiento y evaluación.

3. En el país no existe una entidad rectora del SyE, pero como consecuencia de sus mandatos, las instituciones que ejercen influencia para el desarrollo de estos procesos en las instituciones públicas son la PCM, MEF y CEPLAN,

4. La existencia de mecanismos interinstitucionales en los que participa el sector público representa una oportunidad para generar una cultura de SyE en la sociedad que no está siendo aprovechada totalmente.

5. Se observa poco avance en el desarrollo de estructuras organizativas para el SyE en las entidades públicas, lo cual es una contradicción respecto a la obligatoriedad del tema establecido en la normatividad. Las pocas que existen muestran avances diferenciados en la implementación de acciones concretas de SyE lo cual refleja diferentes grados de desarrollo de las capacidades institucionales.

6. La demanda insatisfecha sobre capacidades en SyE puede ser una oportunidad para articular intereses entre las instituciones rectoras (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) y las encargadas de formación de servidores públicos (ENAP y CEPLAN).

7. Dada la relación con USAID y la base de capacidades institucionales para el SyE que tienen DEVIDA, SERFOR y el Gobierno Regional de Ucayali, estas organizaciones representan una oportunidad para la intervención del Proyecto MELS. MINAM constituye una oportunidad por el alto número de proyectos con los que se relaciona.

RECOMENDACIONES 1. Fomentar la discusión, el análisis, e intercambio alrededor de posibles puntos de encuentro

entre los distintos niveles del marco normativo para el SyE en el sector público. Con estas intervenciones se puede contribuir a tender los puentes entre las instancias relacionadas con las funciones de SyE y uso de evidencia, y apoyar los esfuerzos por aprovechar positivamente el entorno político y normativo favorable.

2. Alinear los esfuerzos de MESA para movilizar el potencial de espacios multisectoriales (con presencia del sector público) y de las entidades rectoras (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) a favor de la implementación del SyE y uso de la evidencia.

3. Apoyar a espacios intersectoriales formales e informales existentes, donde se promueva al SyE y uso de la evidencia, buscando hacer sinergias de los objetivos y esfuerzos de MELS con otros similares.

4. Propiciar el encuentro entre las entidades rectoras (PCM, MEF, CEPLAN) y ENAP/SERVIR para potenciar la oferta formativa en SyE dirigida hacia la demanda de servidores públicos. Con ello


ENAP/ SERVIR podría hallar los especialistas que requiere para cumplir mejor con su misión, y las entidades rectoras podrían ampliar su alcance ante el incremento de la demanda por su apoyo.

5. Orientar las intervenciones directas en fortalecimiento de capacidades en SyE hacia MINAM, DEVIDA, SERFOR, Gobierno Regional de Ucayali. Estas instituciones son cercanas a USAID por su relación con los Proyectos que esta institución apoya, y tienen una base sobre la cual se puede trabajar. Son además instituciones líderes que pueden constituirse en ejemplo e influir en sus pares.


ANNEX B: EVALUATION TEAM

EVALUATION TEAM Susana Guevara, team leader

Jenny Menacho, technical support

Adriana Torres, technical support

Victoria Alegre, technical support

Brenda Bucheli, general review.

TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Susana Guevara, Evaluation and Inclusion Specialist, USAID MELS Project, team leader

Sociologist with a master's degree in public policy evaluation and a master's degree in social management. She has more than 25 years of experience in project design and development of monitoring and evaluation systems in social programs, sexual and reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, gender equality, and human rights. She has designed and directed performance, impact, and process evaluations, as well as gender evaluations and analyses, emphasizing participatory and utilization-focused approaches. She has worked with government and international institutions, NGOs, and USAID partners.

Jenny Menacho, Capacity Development and Learning Specialist, USAID MELS Project, technical support

Social Worker and Ph.D. in Sustainability; master's degree in Social Management. She has more than 20 years of working in project design and management, with an emphasis on strengthening capacities for monitoring and evaluating social programs in different sectors (including environment, livelihood, education, gender, and inclusion). She has led research teams for work strategies and strengthening of indigenous populations in Peru and Latin America, with international and public institutions. Postgraduate teacher at Peruvian universities.

Adriana Torres, Performance Monitoring Specialist, USAID MELS Project, Technical Support.

Business Administrator, with a diplomat in Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Projects at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Currently studying for a master’s in Information and Knowledge Management. She has 15 years of experience in M&E, research, systematization, capacity development in M&E, and the elaboration of tools for monitoring. She has working experience with government institutions, international cooperation agencies, NGOs.

Victoria Alegre, Consultant, Technical Support

Peruvian environmental engineer with two master's in Environment and Development, and Political Sciences. Experience of 9 years in sustainable development, including design, implementation, and adapting systems and performance measurement tools. Experience with several actors, including key


ministries inside the Peruvian Government, as well as international agencies like World Bank, United Nations, private sector, and NGOs.

Brenda Bucheli, Chief of USAID MELS, general review.

Peruvian Social Psychologist, with a master's in Human Resources and Knowledge Management. Specialist in project planning, monitoring and evaluation, capacity development, and information and knowledge management. Over 25 years of professional experience at the national and international level, in several sectors (emphasizing environment and livelihoods), with different kinds of public and private institutions, and performing different management and technical roles. An active participant in professional evaluation networks. Founding partner of EvalPeru and former president between 2017 – 2019. Since 2006, she has been a postgraduate teacher.


ANNEX C: INFORMATION SOURCES

STAKEHOLDER GROUP AREA LOCATION

CEPLAN National Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate. Lima

DEVIDA Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning. USAID/FID.

ENAP National School of Public Administration Lima

ENAP Academic Program for Monitoring and Knowledge Management.

Lima

ENAP International Cooperation. Lima

MEF Spending Quality Directorate. Lima

MINAM Directorate-General for Natural Resource Strategies.

Lima

MINAM Directorate-General for Environmental Management Policies and Instruments.

Lima

PCM Office of Government Compliance and Sector Innovation.

Lima

SERFOR Directorate-General for Knowledge Management in Forestry and Fauna.

Lima

SERVIR Civil Service Capacity Development and Performance Management

Lima

SERVIR Training Implementation Lima


ANNEX D: USAID MELS RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Goal: Effective, evidence-based development programs that meet the actual needs of the Peruvian people.

Component 1: Increased use of evaluations and study results for programmatic decisions

between USAID and external stakeholders.

Component 2: Increased use of monitoring data between USAID and implementing partners for program decisions.

Component 3: Strengthening government’s M&E capacity for learning and accountability.

Component 4: Strengthened and sustainable collaboration, learning, and knowledge management for greater sustainability of results.

Objective 2.1: Support USAID and partners in implementing PMP and

PMELP mission, including the use of

DIS/GIS tools.

Objective 2.2: Strengthen

USAID/Peru's MEL team.

Objective 2.3: Improve M&E capacity from 8 to 10 USAID/Peru implementing

partners.

Objective 3.1: Sustainably improve

M&E capacities of GoP partners and key

stakeholders.

Objective 3.2: Support GoP institutions to

promote the use of M&E and strengthen public sector’s M&E capacity.

Objective 4.1: Strengthen USAID/Peru's ability to be more effective through collaboration,

learning and knowledge transfer by ensuring sustainability of results.

Objective 1.1: Support the programmatic decision-making of USAID and external stakeholders

through the generation and dissemination of high-quality

evidence.

IR 1.1.3 USAID and its partners access evidence on results and context to inform strategical decisions.

IR 1.1.2 USAID and its partners identify means of publication and events for widespread dissemination

IR 2.1.2 USAID relies on training, tools and guidance to improve practices that lead to relevant and high-quality monitoring.

IR 2.3.2 Partners access monitoring data to make decisions.

IR 2.1.1 USAID knows how to design and implement effective MEL practices.

IR 2.2.1 USAID relies on MELS training and guidance to improve practices that lead to relevant and high-quality M&E data.

IR 2.3.1 Partners turn to MELS training, tools and guidance to improve practices that lead to relevant and high-quality monitoring data.

IR 3.1.1 GoP strengthens M&E systems for learning and accountability of programs.

IR 3.2.1 The GoP advocates and implements rigorous, useful and context-relevant M&E activities.

IR 4.1.1 USAID, partners and local development professionals collaborate to generate and share evidence and transfer knowledge.

IR 1.1.1 USAID and its partners guide and participate in the generation and exchange of evidence.


ANNEX E: M&E-RELATED REGULATIONS 2002-2019 National legal rules governing monitoring and evaluation processes in public entities

No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL

RULE NAME NUMBER TEXT

1 Act 27658 01.29.2002 Legal Framework for Government Management Modernization

Article 5 Institutionalization of the evaluation of managing for results through the use of modern technological resources, strategic and coordinated planning, public and periodic accountability and transparency to ensure channels that allow control of state actions.

2 Act 27867 11.08.2002 Organic Act on Regional Governments

Article 8, Section 3

Policy guiding principles and regional management: Modern management and accountability: The regional public administration is oriented under a modern management system and subject to a performance evaluation. Regional governments will incorporate into their action programs specific mechanisms for accountability to citizens on the progress, achievements, difficulties, and prospects of their management, including public hearings. The holders of the regional public administration are managers of people's interests and are subject to the responsibilities established by law.

Article 33 Administration, management, and supervision: Regional administration is exercised under a management system and based on strategic planning, organization, management, execution, evaluation, and control, within the framework of the rules issued by national administrative systems. The directorate of the regional Government is under the purview of the regional presidency, and the executive and administrative functions are the responsibility of the regional general manager and regional managers, as established in this Organic Act and the Regulations of Organization and Functions approved by the Regional Council. The supervision of administration or administrative acts performed by regional governments in accordance with national administrative systems under the national Government is governed by the legal provisions of the corresponding system.


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL



Compliance of sectoral policies and general functions: Supervision, evaluation, and control function: Monitoring regional administrative management, compliance with standards, regional plans and the quality of services, encouraging the participation of civil society.

Article 47, Sub-sections a, g, p

Functions in education, culture, science, technology, sports and recreation. a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate and manage regional education, culture, science and technology, sports and recreation policies in the region. g) Implement and evaluate, in conjunction with local governments, literacy programs within the framework of national policies and programs. p) Regularly and systematically evaluate the region's achievements in education and support the evaluation and measurement actions developed by the Ministry of Education, as well as contribute to the development of the policy of educational quality accreditation and certification within its area of competence.

Article 48, Sub-section a

Functions in work, promotion of employment and small-sized and micro-sized enterprises: Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage policies on work, promotion of employment and promotion of small-sized and micro-sized enterprises, with general government policy and sectoral plans.

Article 49, Sub-section a, o

Health functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage health policies in the region in line with national policies and sectoral plans. o) Regularly and systematically evaluate the region's health achievements.

Article 50, Sub-section 1

Population functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, direct, evaluate and control population programs at the regional level, in line with the national population policy and plan, in coordination with Local Governments.


Agricultural functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage the region's agricultural policies and plans in line with national policies and sectoral plans and promotional proposals for rural development by rural municipalities.


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL



Fishing functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage the region's fisheries and aquaculture production plans and policies.


Environmental and territorial planning functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage environmental and territorial planning and policies, in line with Local Government plans.


Industry functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage industry plans and policies in the region, in line with national policies and sectoral plans.


Trade functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage the region's trade policies and plans, in line with national policies and sectoral plans, in coordination with relevant public sector entities.


Transport functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage the region's transport policies and plans, in accordance with national policies and sectoral plans.


Telecommunications functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage the region's telecommunications policies and plans, in accordance with national policies and sectoral plans.


Housing and sanitation functions: a) Formulate, approve and evaluate regional housing and sanitation policies and plans, in line with local government development plans, and in accordance with national policies and sectoral plans.


Energy, mine and hydrocarbon functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, supervise, direct, control and manage the region's energy, mine and hydrocarbon policies and plans, in accordance with national policies and sectoral plans.


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL


Article 60, Sub-sections a, b

Social development and equal opportunity functions: a) Formulate, approve and evaluate social development and equal opportunity policies within their area of competence, in line with the general policy of the national Government, sectoral plans and respective programs of Local Governments b) Supervise and evaluate local government implementation compliance with sectoral policies and the functioning of Government's poverty and social development programs, with an emphasis on quality of services, equal opportunities with gender equity and strengthening the regional economy.


Civil defense functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage Civil Defense policies, in line with the general government policy and sectoral plans.


State-owned land administration and allocation functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage State-owned land administration and allocation policies, in accordance with existing legislation and the national assets system.


Tourism functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage regional tourism activity development policies, in line with the Government's general policy and sectoral plans.


Handicraft functions: a) Formulate, approve, implement, evaluate, direct, control and manage craft development policies, in line with the Government's general policy and sectoral plans.

3 Act 28411 12.06.2004 General Act on the National Budget System.

Article X Efficiency in the implementation of public funds Public expenditure policies linked to the Government purposes should be established taking into account the economic and financial situation and the fulfilment of macro-tax stability objectives, which will be implemented through


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL


the management of public funds, oriented to results with efficiency, effectiveness, economy and quality.

4 Act 28927 12.12.2006 Public Sector Budget Act for tax year 2007.

Article 10 From the Implementation of Results-based Budget It establishes the implementation of results-based budget management, promoting, during its stage of incorporation, instruments such as strategic budget programming, physical targets, performance indicators and the development of pilot evaluation tests.

5 Act 29158 12.19.2007 Organic Act of the Executive Branch and its amendments.


Plan, regulate, direct, implement and evaluate national and sectoral policies in accordance with Government policies.

6 DS No. 004-2013-PCM

01.08.2013 National Policy on modernization of public management.

Objective 6 Monitor and evaluate efficiency and effectiveness in the transformation of inputs, in the products and results that citizens demand.

Objective 7 Develop a knowledge management system integrated into the follow-up, monitoring and evaluation system of public management, which allows obtaining lessons learned from successes and failures and establishing best practices for a new management cycle.

Component f Monitoring, evaluation and management of knowledge An essential element of results-based management is the continuous data collection and analysis process aimed at following up and monitoring input, process and product indicators, as well as evaluating the results and impacts of activities, programs and projects developed by an entity with the purpose of improving or ensuring the provision of products or services to citizens.

7 DS No. 056-2018-PCM

05.23.2018 Government General Policy as of 2021.

Final supplementary provision 3.

Third: Follow-up of Government commitments The Office of Government Compliance and Sectoral Innovation of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers is responsible for monitoring compliance with a prioritized subset of priority guidelines of the General Government Policy, as entrusted by the President of the Cabinet, for which it will provide analyses for the detection of hotspots affecting the delivery of results to citizens for a timely decision-making.


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL


8 DS No. 029-2018-PCM

03.19.2018 Regulations ruling National Policies.

Article 26 Monitoring 26.1 The National Center for Strategic Planning - CEPLAN is responsible for centralizing information on the fulfilment of national policy objectives for proper monitoring. 26.2 For such monitoring, that entity coordinates with the Ministries, which are responsible for collecting and systematizing information on national policies under its guidance or application, as set out in Appendix 1, Number 6. 26.3 The National Center for Strategic Planning - CEPLAN issues the appropriate provisions for the best implementation of the provisions of this article.

Article 27 Evaluation

National policies are evaluated in their design, implementation and result, and, as appropriate, may be the subject to impact assessments that determine their effects on the well-being of citizens.

Annex 1 -

Number 6 Monitoring and evaluation It makes the governing or guiding Ministry responsible for collecting and systematizing information regarding the fulfilment of objectives. In case of a multisectoral national policy, the Ministry coordinates with the other ministries the fulfilment of their objectives, within the framework of their competences and functions without requiring to set up a commission.

9 Act 30879 11.30.2018 Public Budget Act for tax year 2019.

Article 23 Independent evaluation measures for Tax Year 2019 23.1. Be it established that the Directorate-General for Public Budget approves the timetable for independent evaluations for 2019, which is published on the website of the Ministry of Economy and Finance no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the entry into force of this law. For that purpose, the Directorate-General assesses the continuity of the evaluations provided by previous Annual Budget laws. 23.2. Be it established that the Directorate-General for Public Budget approves prioritized performance improvement commitments, corresponding to the matrices of commitments signed between 2012 and 2018, which are published on the website of the Ministry of Economy and Finance no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the entry into force of this law.


No. RULE CODE

DATE OF APPROVAL


23.3. Compliance with prioritized commitments referred to in Number 23.2, as well as performance improvement commitments signed during this tax year, is a condition for the evaluation of the request for resources during the budget formulation phase corresponding to the Public Sector Budget for Tax Year 2020. In the case of requests for greater resources, during the implementation phase in this tax year, which are linked to actions subject to performance improvement commitments, they cannot be granted if no progress is made in the compliance with commitments. 23.4. During Tax Year 2019, the entities responsible for public interventions that have been the subject to independent evaluations, within the framework of results-based budget, have a period of up to five (5) months to define and validate the matrix of performance improvement commitments, counted from the date on which the Ministry of Economy and Finance forwards the final report of that evaluation to the respective responsible entity. Such matrix is signed by the holders of the documents responsible for the public intervention evaluated, or by those to whom they may delegate, and by the Directorate-General for Public Budget. 23.5. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), during Tax Year 2019, enters into agreements with international agencies that finance the development of independent evaluations of public programs and interventions that the MEF may determine.

Article 24 Performance indicator monitoring measures for budget programs. 24.1. Be it established that the entities responsible for budget programs submit to the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI), the technical data sheets of performance indicators and databases used for generating them, in accordance with the guidelines approved for this purpose by the Directorate-General of Public Budget, through directorate resolution. The submission of those technical data sheets shall be made no later than sixty (60) calendar days from the date of issue of such directorate resolution. This provision involves permanent access by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and INEI to the databases and applications used for the generation and/or monitoring of performance indicators.


No. CODE APPROVAL

RULE NAME NUMBER TEXT RULE DATE OF

24.2. Compliance with the provisions set forth in Number 24.1. of this article is a condition for the budget allocation of resources to be allocated in the budget programs associated with the performance indicator, in the programming and budgetary formulation phases corresponding to the Public Sector Budget for Tax Year 2020. In addition, compliance with the above-mentioned numeral of this article is a condition for granting greater resources in the implementation phase of this tax year.

Source: Guevara 2019.


ANNEX F: M&E STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES

INSTITUTION RULE CODE APPROVAL DATE RULE NAME MINSA RM No. 654-2008-MINSA 09.25.2008 Procedures for monitoring and evaluating health interventions

MIDIS RM No. 192-2012-MIDIS 10.23.2012 Guidelines for the evaluation, monitoring and management of evidence of policies, plans, programs and projects of the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion

MIMP RM No. 142-2016-MIMP 06.27.2016 Monitoring and evaluation standards in the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations – MIMP

MINAGRI RM No. 365-2015-MINAGRI 07.14.2015 Guidelines for monitoring, impact assessment and evidence management of national and sectoral policies, sectoral plans, standards and objectives of special programs and projects

VIVIENDA RM No. 325-2019-VIVIENDA 10.15.2019 Guidelines for the evaluation of results and impacts of public interventions of the Ministry and Housing, Construction and Sanitation

MINEDU General Secretariat Resolution No. 282-2016-MINEDU

06.23.2016 Provisions for the monitoring and evaluation of educational policy interventions of the Ministry of Education

PRODUCE RM No. 608-2017-PRODUCE 12.13.2017 Guidelines for the evaluation of programs, projects or other interventions carried out by the production sector

MEF Directive No. 009-2008-EF/76.01 amended by Directorate Resolution No. 023-2012-EF/50.01

09.26.2012 Directive for independent evaluations in the national public budget system within the framework of results-based budget

CEPLAN Board of Directors' Presidency Resolution No. 00057-2018/CEPLAN/PCD

11.14.2018 National Policy Guide


stakeholder analysis to support implementation of

Documents