CODE of ETHICS for EVALUATORS Draft Version, Including Explanatory Notes (Appendix)

Development of a Professional Evaluation Community RO/2005/017-553.05.03

CODE OF ETHICS FOR EVALUATORS [Draft Version, including Explanatory Notes (Appendix)]

Preamble: This document sets out a code of ethics for evaluators of public interventions (hereinafter the ‘Code’) Chapter I: General Dispositions Art. 1 – Objective The Code lists the principles and rules of behaviour pertaining to the professional activities of evaluators of public interventions. Art. 2 – Subjects All evaluators of public interventions shall observe the provisions of the Code. It applies to all such evaluators whether or not they be members of a Romanian network of evaluators or the professional community of evaluators in Romania as may recognised or regulated by law. Evaluators are all natural or legal persons – whatever their profession, duties, responsibilities or statutes – carrying out evaluations of public interventions. Art. 3 – Purpose The purpose of this Code is to establish an ethical framework for carrying out evaluations of public interventions under conditions of transparency, impartiality and efficiency, thus enhancing the credibility and public acceptance of such evaluations. Chapter II: Principles and Rules of Behaviour Art. 4 –Principles Evaluators of public interventions shall be guided by the following principles: a) independence; b) competence; c) integrity; d) objectivity; e) transparency; f) confidentiality; g) neutrality; and h) protection of the public interest. Art. 5 – Independence Evaluators shall be independent from any professional and financial interest incompatible with their integrity and objectivity. Evaluators shall ensure that they are perceived to be independent by any reasonable observer. A reasonable observer for the purposes of this Code shall be considered any third party without malice and without a direct interest in the findings of the evaluation. Art. 6 – Skills deployment Evaluators shall possess and apply the experience, knowledge and skills required for the evaluation work they engage in. Where the required experience, knowledge and skills are established by legislation, or by the statutes of a Romanian evaluators network, evaluators shall observe the provisions of such legislation or statutes.

Deloitte / SAR / SNSPA Page 1 of 7 Development of a Professional Evaluation Community RO/2005/017-553.05.03

Art. 7 – Integrity Evaluators shall disclose – on an ex ante basis or, in any case, as soon as they become aware of it – any functions or relationships they have that might pose a conflict of interest or create, in the opinion of a reasonable observer, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Evaluators shall carry out their evaluation work with due diligence and report on their findings honestly and in an unbiased manner. Art. 8 – Objectivity Evaluators shall ensure that their findings, conclusions and recommendations have a factual base in documentation generally available, documentation made available to them for the purpose of the evaluation or interviews with stakeholders, without fear or favour of external influences. In their reporting, evaluators shall avoid recommendations unsupported by conclusions, as well as conclusions unsupported by the findings of the evaluation or its factual basis. Art. 9 – Transparency The methodology and results of evaluations of public interventions, as well as the final reporting of such evalutions are in the public domain, in a format at the discretion of the responsible authority. Art. 10 – Confidentiality Notwithstanding the above transparency principle, evaluators shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that evaluation findings and conclusions, as well as the information and documentation these are based on, cannot be traced to individuals or individual representatives of entities with a stake in or consulted during the evaluation. Art. 11 – Neutrality Evaluators shall exercise their professional duties as evaluators in a manner that is politically neutral and independent from any kind of political influence and shall not manifest, explicitly or implicitly, any political convictions. The neutrality principle does not preclude membership of any political party on the part of the evaluator. Art. 12 – Protection of the Public Interest Evaluators shall be motivated and guided by the desire to protect the public interest, taking into account and balancing the diversity of interests and values encountered and related to the evaluation.

Chapter III: Final Dispositions Art. 13 – Monitoring Observance Monitoring evaluators’ observance of the Code shall be the responsibility of a natural person, an association of natural persons, or a legal person appointed by the Minister of …... , by [which instrument?]. Art. 14 – Sanctions Infringement of the provisions of the Code shall be subject to one the following sanctions, at the discretion of the natural or legal person referred to in Art. 13: a) written reprimand; Deloitte / SAR / SNSPA Page 2 of 7 Development of a Professional Evaluation Community RO/2005/017-553.05.03

b) temporary suspension from evaluation activities; or c) exclusion from the professional evaluation community. The precise form of these sanctions shall be determined by the Minister of …., through [which instrument?].

APPENDIX – EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE ETHICS CODE

The present Appendix aims to provide clarification on the principles and rules of behaviour listed in Chapter II of the Ethics Code. Where applicable, examples are provided which may serve to illustrate the practical application of those principles and rules. It is to be noted that the Code applies only to natural or legal persons carrying out evaluations and not to evaluation managers. The latter, typically being public servants, are governed by applicable civil service legislation. Naturally, evaluation managers should observe the spirit of the Code. Independence Independence on the part of the evaluator means inter alia that an evaluator cannot carry out any kind of evaluation of a public intervention in which he/she has had involvement at the design, planning or implementation (including audit and financial control) stage. Independence on the part of the evaluator further means that an evaluator should not let his/her findings be influenced by any potential or real gain (in monetary or other terms) now in or in the future. It is therefore inadvisable that an evaluator accepts an assignment pertaining to an entity he/she has worked for in the past. A minimum period of two years should elapse before accepting any such evaluation assignment. Evaluations and evaluators tend to attract criticism. This is natural, but it has to be recognised that such criticism is often be voiced by parties with an interest in the findings and recommendations of a particular evaluation. Those parties cannot be considered ‘reasonable observers’. In high-profile cases, the press may take an interest in the outcome of the evaluation. Laudable as the efforts of the press may be when it comes to exposing malfeasance, not all members of the press can be considered ‘reasonable observers’. It follows that accusations with regard to a lack of independence on the part of evaluators must be dealt with in a serious manner, but also with caution and circumspection. Competence There exists – as yet – no profession designated ‘evaluator of public interventions’1 under Romanian legislation. Even if that were the case, evaluations will be mostly carried out by professionals with experience, qualifications and skills from a large variety of fields, rather than ‘full-time’ evaluators. This is partly because the range of public interventions is very large in terms of the qualifications needed. In addition, most experts able to carry out evaluations do this in addition to their normal work. Very few professionals will be able to rely on evaluation work only to fill their work calendar. Moreover, many professionals wish to limit evaluation work in order not to loose touch by applying their skills in practice. It follows then, that selecting the right kind of qualified professional for evaluation work can be difficult for evaluation managers. Conversely, evaluators must satisfy the evaluation manager that they have the experience, knowledge and skills required for a particular assignment. If the evaluator has only part of these, he/she should not accept the assignment or suggest that the evaluation manager engage supplementary experience. If supplementary experience is not available or considered too costly by the evaluation manager, the evaluator is bound to recuse him or herself.

1 Romanian legislation uses the term ‘evaluator’, but this term applies to what in other jurisdiction would be called ‘valuer’, ‘assessor’, ‘examiner’, ‘broker’ and similar functions. Deloitte / SAR / SNSPA Page 4 of 7 Development of a Professional Evaluation Community RO/2005/017-553.05.03

Integrity Prior to accepting any assignment, evaluators are bound to consider whether they may be in a situation of conflict of interest because of past, present or future functions or relationships. Such functions and relationships may include but not be limited to: (a) involvement (as owner, employee or sub-contractor) in (securing) the financing, design, planning and implementation of the intervention to be evaluated; (b) membership of an entity involved in commissioning, approving or otherwise regulating the intervention under evaluation; (c) having the status of ‘public employee’ in any capacity directly or indirectly related to the project; and (d) in some cases, involvement in prior monitoring of the intervention concerned. Where the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, evaluators must recuse themselves. Evaluators should do their work using a minimum of resources, using all skills and qualifications at their disposal. Evaluators shall take care that their reports are submitted to the client within contractual deadlines. Evaluators should further perform their fact finding and formulating conclusions and recommendations without fear or favour, neither omitting potentially unwelcome findings, conclusions or recommendations, nor presenting these in a more favourable or positive manner than is warranted by the facts. Objectivity A common failing of experts engaging in evaluations is that they are being led by their own past experience. They project their own knowledge and experience into their assessment of a given intervention. This should be avoided, because the circumstances surrounding public interventions may differ very much. Evaluators should carefully examine the documentation relevant for a proper understanding of the intervention, including (successive drafts of) design and planning documents, applicable contracts (including the specific and general conditions of contract), the procurement modalities underlying the intervention (including applicable procurement legislation), terms of reference, technical specifications, as well as any strategic and policy background documentation. In many cases, not all relevant documentation can be made available to evaluators at reasonable cost. In those cases, evaluators should include this fact in their reporting. Whenever possible within the budget and time limitations of the evaluation assignment, evaluators should test their correct understanding by cross-checking between different, independent sources of information on the same issue (i.e. through ‘triangulation’). Evaluators should ensure balance in their research, taking special care to take into account and document any opposing views on the part of stakeholders. Balance in research and recording findings does not mean that evaluators should also be ‘balanced’ in their conclusions and recommendations. Quite the opposite in fact, because evaluators should wherever necessary and possible formulate corrective action or remedies. This implies making choices which may not be shared by all stakeholders. Evaluators should ensure that their reporting establishes a clear and traceable link between evaluation findings, the conclusions and the recommendations. Each recommendation should be based on a conclusion. Each conclusion should have a basis in documented fact. This does not mean that evaluators cannot draw inferences when the factual base is less than solid. In those cases, evaluators should point out the failings of the factual base and adequately set out the arguments underpinning those inferences.

Transparency Evaluators should be aware and make their stakeholders aware that the findings, conclusions and recommendations of evalutions are – in principle – in the public domain and should therefore be accessible to the general public, including the press. In practice, the evaluation manager will wish to determine in which form and to what extent the findings, conclusions and recommendations of any given evaluation be made public. It follows that evaluators should not, without the explicit consent of the evaluation manager, make public any evaluation findings, conclusions or recommendations. Evaluators are not the ‘guardians’ of transparency and may not set their own criteria of transparency.2 In cases where the evaluation manager and stakeholders resist making evaluation findings, conclusions or recommendations public for improper or illegal reasons, evaluators have recourse to the ‘whistle-blower’3 procedures in place. Confidentiality Well-founded evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations can only be achieved if stakeholders providing evaluators with information can be assured of their comments being treated confidentially. Specifically, evaluators should take care that specific statements in evaluation reporting (both written and verbal) cannot be attributed to any person or entity. It may be necessary for evaluators to share information enabling specific statements to be traced to a particular person with other persons within their own or host organisations (e.g. secretarial or managerial staff). The same confidentiality obligation pertains those persons. Evaluators failing to maintain confidentiality may be liable to legal sanction and payment of damages in accordance with applicable legislation. The obligation to maintain confidentiality does not expire upon conclusion of an evaluation assignment. Confidentiality should thus be maintained for the minimum period established by applicable legislation. Neutrality Evaluators shall not let their political convictions or membership of any political party influence their approach to any evaluation assignment or their findings, conclusions and recommendations. Allowing this to happen will damage evaluators’ personal reputations and the reputation of the evaluation profession at large. Evaluators should recuse themselves if the object, subject, scope or methodology of any evaluation assignment may give a reasonable observer reasons to conclude that a conflict on grounds of political affiliation or conviction exists. Evaluators should take particular care that their findings, conclusions and recommendations are not influenced by any discrimination on the grounds of nationality, gender, race, religion, family descent or any other characteristic protected by law.

2 According to some, evaluators should have be obliged to go public with their findings where the public interest is at stake. However, this would go against the principle of pacta sunt servanta under which evaluators are bound by their contractual obligations with regard to confidentiality. Of course, evaluators are always free - as private citizen ‘whistle-blowers’ - to draw attention to weighty issues involving illegal behaviour. 3 ‘Whistle-blowers’ are persons who, having found out about illegal practices in for instance their place of work, inform the relevant authorities of these practices directly, i.e. by-passing their management when they fear repercussions for reporting malfeasance. The acquis communautaire contains regulations protecting the identity and status of ‘whistle-blowers’. Deloitte / SAR / SNSPA Page 6 of 7 Development of a Professional Evaluation Community RO/2005/017-553.05.03

Protection of the Public Interest Evaluators perform a public service under the terms of the evaluation related regulatory framework in place. This service pertains in particular to obligations on the part of Romania under the so-called acquis communautaire, especially where sound financial management of publicly funded interventions is concerned. It follows that the interests pertaining to evaluation work may exceed that of the entity contracting any evaluation assignment or the entity or entities subject to evaluation. Evaluators shall make an effort to develop a view of the public interest involved in any evaluation assignment and base their evaluation approach on this view. Evaluators shall state their view on the wider public interest of any evaluation in the preamble of the chapter on the background of the evaluation in their reporting. Evaluators are obliged to balance the interests of, respectively, the evaluation manager for the evaluation, the subjects of the evaluation and their view of the wider public interest. Where necessary, evaluators should discuss any conflicts between these interests with the evaluation manager in an effort to acknowledge the existence of any conflicts in evaluation reporting.

Deloitte / SAR / SNSPA Page 7 of 7