HOME / SERVICES / evaluation
Understanding the past to inform the future
Whether its a light touch assessment, an in-depth review or a formal evaluation we have the people skills, analytical edge and academic background to look back and tell you objectively but fairly what has been achieved. We will draw lessons from what we read and hear and help you reshape future direction.
Whether its a light touch assessment, an in-depth review or a formal evaluation we have the people skills, analytical edge and academic background to look back and tell you objectively but fairly what has been achieved. We will draw lessons from what we read and hear and help you reshape future direction.
featured article
Article
IMO Ambassador Scheme Evaluation (2019)
OpenCities was asked to carry out an independent evaluation of the IMO's ambassador scheme, the International Maritime Organization Goodwill Maritime Ambassador (IMO-GMA) Scheme, and produce a report.
all articles
A Mid Term Review: progress towards national and global efforts to transform food systems
In collaboration with Adam Smith International
Mid-Term Review of Investor Influence program on behalf of CERES of Norway International Climate and Forest Initiative
A portfolio review of 75 public-private partnerships delivering green growth across six countries in Africa, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
A Formative Evaluation (2022)
The ISA's contribution to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: a review (2021)
These findings are used to help the WBG improve how they integrate inclusion and sustainability dimensions into their programs and are also important in the preparation of a new CPF. Between 2014 and 2018, OpenCities have led the production of CLRs for Benin, Burundi, Chad, Guinea, Ghana, Mozambique, Niger, the Pacific Region, Tanzania and others.
a review of IMO’s existing evaluation manual and the development of a completely new Evaluation Policy and Guidelines - sitting alongside similar documents for all other UN agencies; and a formative evaluation of the IMO’s preparedness to contribute to the SDGs (due to be completed by 31 December 2018). OpenCities director Dr Stephens led a team of 4 consultants in a comprehensive review and evaluation of the IMO’s normative and technical assistance activities and their contribution to the MDGs. This included field missions to Thailand, Bangladesh and Seychelles. It was the most comprehensive evaluation ever undertaken at the IMO. He also led a team that completely modernised the IMO’s evaluation policies and guidelines. These are now in the process of being approved internally for ultimate endorsement by the IMO’s governing bodies. Dr Stephens also led a short formative/inception review of how well-prepared IMO is to contribute to the SDGs particularly in the maritime sector. This includes reviewing its early theory of change and making proposals for developing a tighter logframe and monitoring infrastructure including supporting members states to develop their own frameworks in the maritime sector.
OpenCities carried out a document review to help refine the objectives of the evaluation as well as design survey and interview questions. A survey with a mix of open and close ended questions was then sent out to 150 IMO-GMAs and other permanent representatives. Responses were analysed and charts created to show the trends and distributions of answers and allow comparisons between IMO-GMA responses and non-ambassador responses.
It was managed by the World Bank and designed to provide direct support to the private sector to promote enterprise start-up and growth to create sustainable employment and income opportunities. The Fund comprised an open, competitive scheme that co-financed business development services and physical and capital assets on a matching basis. In total 174 grants were awarded and US$9.2 million disbursed during 2013-14. The evaluation focused on the following questions: To what extent did the SBF contribute to building stronger, more sustainable markets? To what extent did the SBF achieve an equitable distribution of benefits? How robust were FMU marketing and application processes and which aspects could have been improved and how? How robust were FMU monitoring, disbursement and evaluation processes? What was the contribution of the governance arrangements (Project Steering Committee, Grants Advisory Panel, development partners) and how could this have been strengthened further?
