M e systems the case of chile
1 / 17

M&E Systems The Case of Chile - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

M&E Systems The Case of Chile. Boris De los Ríos. Chile - Structure of the Central Government. Organisms of the center of government with important functions (Political Coordination, Strategic planning, Coordination of Policy Design and Implementation) for M&E Systems. M&E instruments.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'M&E Systems The Case of Chile' - brier

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
M e systems the case of chile

M&E SystemsThe Case of Chile

Boris De los Ríos

Chile structure of the central government
Chile - Structure of the Central Government

Organisms of the center of government with important functions (Political Coordination,

Strategic planning, Coordination of Policy Design and Implementation) for M&E Systems.

Ex ante evaluation of public investments
Ex-ante Evaluation of Public Investments

  • In the 70s, the first steps towards systematic evaluations were brought about by the incorporation of the ex-ante evaluation of public investments.

  • This system is located within the Ministry of Social Development

  • Has been in operation for approximately 40 years, through various institutional arrangements.

  • According to the law:

    • Pre-investment studies and investment projects should include a report from the national or regional planning organization, and should be supported by an appraisal on the basis of cost-benefit analyses.

    • This are carried out with a clearly specified methodology including a shadow social price system and a social rate of discount.

    • Some investments are excluded from the system: public works put out for bid via the concessions system, Regional Development Funds for amounts less than USD 100,000, among others.

Ex ante evaluation of programs
Ex ante Evaluation of Programs

  • 2001, Ex ante Program Evaluation was incorporated for the first time into the budget formulation phase.

  • In the year 2008, ex ante program evaluation was carried out by DIPRES for all programs that were new, reformulated, or had been expanded.

  • Today the responsibility of Ex ante evaluations is distributed:

    • The Ministry of Social Development develops the ex ante evaluation for social programs.

    • DIPRES for the remaining programs.

Ex post evaluation
Ex post evaluation

Ex post Evaluation Instruments

  • Governmental Program Evaluation (Desk Evaluation): Since its creation, it has been based on a logical framework approach. This allows for evaluating the consistency of the program objectives and design, in addition to reviewing aspects of its organization, management and results at the product level.

  • Impact Evaluation: Impact evaluations started in 2001 as a complement to the EPG, with the objective of separating the effects of a program in a group of beneficiaries from all of the other effects derived from factors external to the program and that would have happened in any event.

Ex post evaluation1
Ex post evaluation

  • Evaluation of New Programs: Similar to Governmental Program Evaluation, however this type of evaluation favors the design of a future impact evaluation.

    Characteristics of Ex post Evaluations

  • DIPRES is responsible for the processes of evaluation.

  • The evaluations are developed by external consultants.

  • Each evaluation is then published on the website of DIPRES, and sent to the Congress.

Ex post evaluation2
Ex post evaluation

Monitoring instruments
Monitoring instruments

  • Performance indicators:

    • Performance indicators are introduced by a pilot plan in 1993.

    • They provide information regarding the success of delivering goods or services generated by public institutions.

    • Each public institution is required to define its performance indicators using a tool called Form H, and must report its compliance to the Budget Office. The indicators are defined in such a way as to make possible comparisons between years.

    • They are focused on agencies (1 agency – 1 Form H).

    • Different types of Indicators

      • Process

      • Product

      • Results

Monitoring instruments1
Monitoring Instruments

  • Presidential priorities: Since the year 2010, the Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (SEGPRES) has implemented a new strategic management system for presidential priorities. For this purpose, the Presidential Compliance Management Unit was created, whose objective is to ensure the achievement of the Government Program.

  • ChileGestiona: Plan initiated in 2011 and focused on management improvements. Undersecretaries were directed to take a larger role in the leadership of managing State services. Among other activities designed for this purpose, two levels of indicators were created in public services, including indicators for internal management and indicators for core activities, with the latter having a focus on outcomes.

Monitoring instruments2
Monitoring instruments

  • Monitoring of Social Programs - Integrated Social Programs Bank (BIPS):

    • Created with the law of the Ministry of Social Development.

    • Consists of a centralized registry of social programs.

    • The BIPS is a system that previously did not exist

    • Its first version, predicted to be complete and open to public this year, includes 411 social programs.

    • Before its release, the information is being used for the selection of programs to be evaluated.

    • A different approach to a public monitoring system was the Social Policy Report 2011-2012 (Ministry of Social Development)

Creation of the ministry of social development
Creation of the Ministry of Social Development

  • Promulgation of the law in 2011

  • Took over the responsibilities of the old Ministry of planning (Social programs a ex ante evaluation for public investments)

  • Add a collection of new responsibilities with respect to M&E.

    • With focus on social programs and policies

  • Since is creation the MDS’s work has been centered on the creation of various M&E tool in coordination with DIPRES.

    • And the integration with the budget cycle led by DIPRES

Increased focus on result based budgeting
Increased focus on result-based budgeting

  • “Review of selected Budgeting issues in Chile” (OECD, 2012)

  • This OECD report proposed that: “the framework of results-based budgeting in Chile is very advanced and is dealing with issues in which other OECD countries to date have not found clear solutions. Nevertheless, there is a series of areas where the good practices of other OECD countries could be of interest to Chile”.

  • Diagnosis:

    • The evaluation system is not focused exclusively or even predominantly on serving the budget.

    • Lack of priority analysis, which is inherently much more political, and Lack of a spending review mechanism

  • Some measures adopted

    • Previous categories for program evaluation results were “Minor or substantive adjustments are required”. Today are “Sufficient or insufficient performance”.

    • Permanent increase of performance indicators over process indicators.


  • The consistency between M&E instruments is important, plus the strategic role that each institution plays in the system. New actors must achieve effective coordination, avoiding the excess of M&E tools and possible function duplicities.

  • A knowledge management system is required.

  • For evaluations with budgetary purpose, the link between the results of the evaluation and the budgetary decision must be stronger.

  • Better linkage with the decision making process for policy improvement. This link should by particularly stronger with the Center of the Government.

  • A new agency for Evaluations: Several actors promote the creation of a new agency with bigger authority and responsibilities. However there is no agreement on the design of the new agency.

General challenges
General Challenges

Which is a better place for this agency?