Based on our assessment of effectiveness, we also examined the relationship between (relative) Program effectiveness and expenditure for each partner. We ordered partners into four groups according to the Program’s relative effectiveness and mapped each against expenditure estimates (see Figure 2). We recognise the approximate nature of the analysis, but the results do suggest two possible findings: Program expenditure does appear generally to be positively related with effectiveness, suggesting the Program has flexed support well in response to circumstances and opportunities;second, PCC, TCCI and VANGO could be seen as outliers in terms of ‘bang for buck’ achieved to date. We caution against drawing any crude, general conclusions from this analysis; opportunities for developmental change are inherently unpredictable and the Program’s partnerships may be better viewed as a range of ‘bets’, any one of which may provide small returns, but a few of which may generate significant pay-offs.6 But the analysis suggests potential value for the Program in developing more of a ‘portfolio perspective’ on its partnerships.
A couple of important points must be made about our assessment of Program effectiveness more generally. While the focus of this evaluation is on leadership effects, the Program’s contribution to ‘substantial’ gains in implementation capacity still represents an important achievement in effectiveness terms. Indeed, the Program’s success rate in capacity building more generally is all the more impressive, given the mixed experience of capacity building programs in the region.
