This snapshot taken on 22/04/2009, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

DFID's multilateral effectiveness framework (MEFF): Frequently asked questions

Contents

What is the MEFF?

MEFF stands for Multilateral Effectiveness Framework. It focuses on organisational effectiveness and looks at eight organisational systems (corporate governance, corporate strategy, resource management, operational management, quality assurance, staff management, monitoring, evaluation and lesson-learning, and results reporting). Three perspectives are used to assess each organisational system: internal performance, the focus on country level results, and partnership.

The MEFF consists of three main instruments: 

  • A checklist in matrix form with some 72 questions or indicators; 
  • A scorecard, where the answers are scored using a traffic light system;
  • A summary report, which briefly sets out the organisations’ main strengths and weaknesses.

The MEFF provides a snapshot of where the multilateral is in terms of its current organisation and management. It provides useful information on its current organisational strengths and weaknesses and indicates where we should be focusing our attention to secure further improvements.

Why did you develop the MEFF?

For three reasons:

  • To strengthen DFID’s accountability to the UK Treasury under its Public Service Agreements (PSA) so helping to account for our use of taxpayers money
  • To provide inputs to DFID’s Institutional Strategies with multilaterals
  • To provide information for our future financing decisions

What is organisational effectiveness?

Organisational effectiveness refers to the corporate management systems that need to be in place to produce development results, i.e. the ways in which the multilaterals are organising themselves to improve their internal performance, their effectiveness at country level and their partnerships with other international organisations. We consider these organisational aspects to be necessary – but not sufficient – conditions for achieving actual results on the ground. However, a full analysis of effectiveness would require additional information on the quality of implementation of these management systems and the actual results achieved. The MEFF does not cover these other two aspects. Thus it covers only one aspect of effectiveness, but an important one.

Why did you adopt this approach?

This approach is drawn from Results-Based Management theory, which has demonstrated that organisations that adopt an explicit, integrated results focus into all their internal management systems do actually produce better results. The approach has been best demonstrated in the private sector, but it has also been extensively adopted in the public sector in many countries. In the UK, it has been promoted by the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit and the Public Service Agreement (PSA) system.

This approach also permits us to identify generic organisational characteristics that are common to all development organisations, multilateral and bilateral, regardless of different mandates and functions.

Why don’t you look at actual results?

There are three reasons why we have not looked at actual results:

  • There is very little information on results. Most aid agencies have been accustomed to report on their financial inputs and activities rather than the results achieved.
  • There are many actors involved (government, NGOs, donors), so it is difficult to attribute the results achieved to the actions of a single aid agency.
  • It is difficult to compare different types of results (e.g. inoculations, enrolments, civil service reform, policy advice).

We are working with the multilaterals and other bilaterals to improve results reporting generally.

Shouldn’t you focus on implementation of these systems?

Yes, ideally we should because there is often a gap between prescription and practice. However, it would require a more in-depth analysis of each organisation and would take far more time and resources to carry out. It is more appropriate for this kind of information to be gathered through formal evaluations by the organisation itself or externally. 

What plans do you have to investigate effectiveness on the ground?

We also conduct surveys of multilateral performance at country level through our country offices. We do this in-house for organisations such as the EC, but we also participate in a joint annual survey of multilateral partnership behaviour by nine bilateral donors. This survey is conducted by MOPAN (Multilateral Organisations Performance Assessment Network). It relies on the subjective judgements of the participants and focuses only on the multilaterals’ partnership relations with the host government and other development agencies. 

We also set specific objectives for change through individual partnership arrangements with each institution. These partnership arrangements are called Institutional Strategies and can be found in the Publications section of this website. These objectives can cover issues about internal performance, policy issues and specific targets for improved results. We monitor progress towards these objectives each year through an annual review of the Strategy.

We continue to request information on performance and results through our membership of the Boards and Governing Bodies of these organisations, many of whom are putting in place new systems which allow results to be tracked over-time.

How do you interpret high (green) scores? Are high scoring organisations more effective?

High scores tell us that most of the necessary results-based systems are in place, but they do not tell us how well they are being implemented by the organisations. Thus the scores only tell part of the story about their effectiveness. In most cases, the higher scores reflect the fact that these organisations have undergone radical reforms as part of a wider reform movement (e.g. the UN reform process), which we have been pressing for. 

How do you interpret low scores? Are low scoring organisations less effective?

Low scores tell us that not all the appropriate systems are yet in place. However, as very few organisations had any red scores, these scores reflect that improvements are underway, which we welcome. In many of these organisations the pace of reform is slower and more patchy than in the high scoring agencies. 

How have the assessed organisations reacted to the MEFF?

They appreciate the methodology and have welcomed the openness and transparency of our approach. However, some of them have resisted the publication of information that permits inter-agency comparisons. They recognise the need for external scrutiny of performance, effectiveness and results but they would like donors to do this together in order to reduce transactions costs. 

So, why did you publish the ‘league tables’?

Our primary focus is on each individual agency’s results, its current strengths and weaknesses and its progress over time. That said, we also wished to identify common patterns across all agencies to inform our general policy towards the multilaterals, so it became necessary to review all the results together. There was also a danger that once the individual results were publicly available, that other people would construct ‘league tables’ perhaps with erroneous data or interpretation. So we preferred to make our own analyses available, with the correct information and necessary caveats.

How will you use the results for financing decisions?

We do not have a performance based allocation model for funding multilaterals. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, in relation to a number of criteria, including effectiveness. Other criteria include our views about the appropriate role and size of the multilateral in the international architecture; its relevance for poverty reduction, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or humanitarian aid and its policy stance and instruments; 

The MEFF results may indicate where and how our money should be spent as well as the level of funding. We can use the information as an input to conditional financing, to targeted financial support to strengthen areas of weakness, or as a form of quality assurance to give us confidence that the money will be well spent. 

In light of recent reports on the UN’s Millennium Project and by the Commission for Africa, both of which call for the need for increased aid flows and the strengthening of African multilateral institutions, the MEFF information on where progress has been made and where further improvements are needed is welcome and timely.

How does the MEFF link up to DFID’s Institutional Strategies?

DFID’s Institutional Strategies (available from the Publications section of this website) provide the framework for our corporate engagement with the multilaterals. They set out our joint objectives and priorities, as well as the form and focus of our support. An IS may have objectives that relate to organisational effectiveness, but it may also have policy objectives. 

How does the MEFF feed into DFID’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) objectives for the international system?

One of the targets under DFID’s PSAPDF document(38 kb) objectives includes monitoring the effectiveness of 13 multilateral agencies. For this we have selected three specific areas for improvement for each institution, based on our MEFF assessment. This information is included in our Annual Performance ReportPDF document(610 kb) and the Departmental Report.

How has DFID benefited from the results of the MEFF?

The MEFF has greatly enhanced our understanding of the organisations we are supporting and of organisational effectiveness issues generally. It has enabled us to develop a more strategic, focused and differentiated approach to promoting organisational effectiveness and helped us identify where we should be working with agencies to improve progress. It also tells us where to focus our advocacy efforts with an organisation and on what issues we can join up with other donors. The MEFF has increased our accountability for DFID’s use of taxpayers money, helping us to make better decisions in our public service agreements and institutional strategies.

How often will you repeat the assessments?

A full revision is expected every three to four years (unless an agency requests one earlier). In the meantime, three focus areas will be tracked on an annual basis.

Why do you not conduct the MEFF with other bilateral donors and members of the organisations?

Initially, the work developed on an experimental, learning by doing basis, and it was conducted by DFID staff as part of our work with the multilaterals. At the outset, we were not entirely sure how it would evolve. However, we have shared the methodology with other donors as it has evolved. Now that the first baseline has been established, we are actively sharing the results with other donors.

What is your disclosure policy on the MEFF?

The two internal review papers, one on the results and one on the methodology, are available below in PDF format: 

The detailed agency assessments (checklists, scorecards, and summary reports) are not publicly available.

Last updated: 12 April 2005