ILO

Back to index

SKILL-UP Global (Upgrading Skills for the changing world of work) - Final Evaluation

eval_number:

2934

eval_url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/eval/2934

lessons_learned:

themes:

theme:

Results-based management

category:

Organizational issues

---

comments:

ILO and ILO funding parties.

challenges:

The outcome-based funding can have disadvantages. Several respondents from the ILO cautioned, for instance, that this kind of approach can result in fragmentation as a result of constituents’ requests and affect coherence of a programme. Striking a good balance between responding to the needs that constituents and beneficiaries voice, seizing opportunities where they arise, shifting attention towards another activity rather than sticking with one when it stalls – these ambitions all reinforce the importance of a clear ToC that holds things together (see Recommendation 1). In terms of effectiveness and efficiency the approach requires to reflect changes in the M&E system. It generates transaction costs when budgets are shifted or when additional funding is released during programme implementation.

success:

The interviewed representatives of the ILO and Norway generally hold the view that the outcome-based funding approach is an asset. The donor is of the opinion that advantages typically associated with earmarking (for example more control, visibility, goal orientation) can be sufficiently achieved with the outcome-based funding too. Unlike more prescriptive modalities, the approach leaves the ILO the opportunity to design the programme responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries and emerging issues in skills development, leveraging its expertise and outreach. Other advantages relate to the flexibility that the approach allows because, as one interviewee put it, it is “easier to reallocate funds if [the ILO] see things being stalled” and that administrative overhead can be reduced. These views were shared by interviewees from the ILO, stating that it is more difficult to balance the needs and priorities of countries and constituents if the donor is more prescriptive. It was also indicated that in the SKILL-UP Programme, the ILO could focus on those countries that had indicated that skills development is a priority and then had the space to respond to specific needs. Others argued that an arrangement with more earmarking might have stifled creativity. Both Norwegian and ILO interviewees see the long-term partnership that builds on shared objectives as an asset and pre-condition for the “lightly earmarked partnership”.

context:

The ILO receives “voluntary non-core contributions [that] support specific global, regional and national programmes. This includes earmarked project-based funding with a clear timeline and pre-defined geographic focus and lightly earmarked funding for broader ILO global or country outcomes.” I As part of its Results Based Management the ILO reports on its different funding sources.

description:

The outcome-based funding approach (alternatively referred to as “lightly earmarked partnership”) makes it easier to responding to constituents’ requests flexibly but needs to be managed to minimise the risk of fragmentation. It can also contribute to reducing administrative overhead.

administrative_issues:

See above comment on the need for a strong programme-wide ToC (including Recommendation 1)

url:

https://webapps.ilo.org/ievaldiscovery/lessons/239858

---

location:

country:

Inter-Regional

region:

Inter-Regional

---

eval_title:

SKILL-UP Global (Upgrading Skills for the changing world of work) - Final Evaluation