Date: Thursday, October 23, 2025
Hello, I’m John Heath, an adjunct professor at American University, Washington, DC and formerly a staff member of the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group. My research in the World Bank Group Archives sheds light on an issue that bedevils all internal evaluation units in public sector organizations: How to strike the right balance between the accountability and learning functions of evaluation, and how this balance is mediated by the degree of independence of the unit.
Among staff in the World Bank’s evaluation unit it has long been the received wisdom that (a) independence is a prerequisite for sound evaluation and (b) independence, in the World Bank at least, was baked into the evaluation function from the start. A review of official memoranda and the recently-disclosed minutes of board meetings, dating back to 1973-1974, shows that “twas never thus”: a majority of senior World Bank Group managers (including President Robert McNamara), shareholders (i.e. the executive directors who make up the board), and even principals in the evaluation unit itself, was either opposed to, or lukewarm about, making the evaluation function independent—which would entail changing the reporting relationship of the evaluation unit from direct report to the president to direct report to the board. This change took place in 1974 as a result of pressure from without (from the U.S. government, the biggest shareholder) rather than demand from within.
Resistance to independence was founded on concerns that resonate to this day—concerns that are relevant to internal evaluation units in general, not just to the World Bank unit. First, there are more avenues for promotion in the wider organization than in the evaluation bailiwick, so the most talented tend to steer clear of the evaluation unit. In the World Bank, there was a concern that making the unit independent of operations would reduce the flow of staff between evaluation and operations, increase the perception that evaluation was a dead end street, and make it harder for the evaluation unit to recruit the best. Second, it is widely believed that there is a tradeoff between accountability and learning: the more an independent evaluation unit holds operations to account, the less likely it is that operators will cooperate with evaluators, and the more likely that they will resist any lessons drawn by the evaluators. Both concerns are regularly invoked to support the claim that independence may become tantamount to isolation.
An independent reporting relationship is not a guarantor of accountability. The principals to which the unit reports (e.g., the shareholders) need to have the qualifications, the information and the motivation (e.g., attention span) to hold the operations arm of the organization to account.
Evaluation recommendations need to be timely, few in number, and supported by well-defined and time-bound follow up. If the recommendations are too many and too diffuse it will be difficult to monitor compliance; and follow-up on compliance will become harder and less fruitful as time elapses.
In the absence of independent validation, self-evaluation by operators will not enhance accountability. Those responsible for project design and implementation have little incentive to “tell the whole truth” if their “homework subsequently goes unchecked.” Learning and accountability will be enhanced if summative evaluation is complemented by formative evaluation. Summative evaluation prioritizes accountability because it focuses on assessing whether objectives defined by operators were actually met. Formative evaluation prioritizes learning by promoting partnership between operators and evaluators in framing objectives, tracking progress, and making mid-course corrections.
The American Evaluation Association is hosting the American Journal of Evaluation (AJE). All posts this week are contributed by evaluators who work for AJE. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on theAEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org . AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.