(Workload or unit produced.) Some examples of quantitative data at the output level include the number of diagnostic studies performed, number of civil servants trained in anti-corruption measures, or the number of administrative investigations performed.
(Effectiveness in meeting objectives.) Correlated with particular functions, examples include the quality and impact of developed policies, levels of compliance with regulations that the agency is responsible for enforcing, or levels of trust in the agency tracked in surveys. Outcomes should also be compared to studies and measurements conducted by other organizations.
Cost-effectiveness, ratio of input to output, unit costs. Regarding the monitoring and evaluation of the ACA’s work, U4’s global knowledge product developed in partnership with UNDP, “How to Monitor and Evaluate anti-corruption agencies,” provides technical, methodological and practical guidance for ACA staff and managers to initiate an internal process of monitoring and evaluation. The methodology is based on a mapping exercise of ACAs’ evaluations and provides directions for how such evaluations can be further improved. It recognizes the essential task of building an ACA’s internal monitoring systems and processes, and showing how it can be done in a cost-effective manner that facilitates the production of useful data. The methodology also recommends measuring ACA performance and impact in terms of what it can influence, going beyond output indicators and putting a greater focus on capacities and impact. It does not suggest one unified model, but rather a flexible approach where the agencies can choose indicators for outputs, outcomes and impact that match their mandate and the quality of available data.
10. Monitoring and evaluation processes