New Zealand Aid Tools Annex 2: Decision Process for Release of Review, Evaluation and Research Reports 

Annex 2: Decision Process for Release of Review, Evaluation and Research Reports

Annex 2: Decision Process for Release of Review, Evaluation and Research Reports

click here to save this template to edit as your submission document, then delete all instructions
typed in blue.

 

Background/context

With respect to making review, evaluation and research reports available externally, the overall principle adopted by the Evaluation and Research Committee is:

To release review, evaluation and research reports unless there is reasonable cause to withhold

This principle is consistent with the Official Information Act (OIA, 1982), evaluation/research ethics and with NZAID’s wider principles of protecting and promoting human rights, a strategic approach to poverty elimination, sustainability, equity, partnerships, participation, coordination, access and accountability.

The Evaluation and Research Committee (ERC) has agreed to make summaries of review, evaluation and research reports on the NZAID website, and consequently, to release full reports in the event of a request. The publication of summaries rather than full reports is consistent with New Zealand eGovernment guidelines.

The publication of report summaries on the web is likely to result in a higher number of requests (including OIA requests) for full reports and other related documents (e.g. scoping, design) requiring NZAID to develop appropriate processes and decision-making criteria.

This policy places extra emphasis on the importance of partner involvement in the design and appraisal of reviews and evaluation.

The process outlined below does not necessarily apply in full to reports that were originally commissioned by a partner.  Where possible, links will be made from the NZAID website to the report on a partner’s website, or on the NZAID website if agreed by the partner.  NZAID may also include summary information on the NZAID website.  The NZAID staff submitting such a report to the Evaluation and Research Committee should seek the commissioning partner’s permission for the release of the report.  Staff should also be aware that the Official Information Act applies to all information held by NZAID, whatever its origin.

Back to top

Process

The process shown in Figure 1 has been agreed for assessing whether there are grounds for withholding a full report, and consequently whether or not to make a summary of the report available on the website. It begins with an assessment of the full report by the Programme Team (including SAEG advisers) against a checklist of grounds for withholding information from 1) legal; 2) NZAID policy and 3) other/general perspectives. The assessment is carried out as a step in preparing a submission to the ERC. Based on this assessment, the Programme Team makes a recommendation to the ERC. The process also places responsibility with the ERC for determining whether there are any reasonable grounds for withholding the report. If the Programme Team and the ERC disagree, the decision on whether to withhold the report and its summary goes to AIDMGMT.

Summaries for all the evaluation and review reports commissioned during each calendar year are currently prepared as part of NZAID’s Annual Evaluation Summary Report. This means that there may be a gap of several months between the assessment of a particular report against the checklist and the preparation of a summary of that report. Once the report summaries become available, those corresponding to full reports that were approved for release are circulated back to the relevant Programme Teams to make sure they are acceptable. On approval by the Programme Team, the summary is made available on the website.

This process assumes that consultants carrying out reviews/evaluations have been provided with the NZAID Guideline on the Structure of Review and Evaluation Reports and instructed to place sensitive material in an annex  marked ‘in-confidence’.

Back to top

Criteria for assessing whether there are reasonable grounds to withhold Review, Evaluation and Research Reports

In developing these criteria the following key documentation has been reviewed: The Office of the Ombudsmen’s Practice Guidelines on Official Information, Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the OIA (on reasons for withholding official information) and MFAT’s Guide to Handling Official Information Act Requests (2004), and the Privacy Act.

The Ministries of Social Development, Justice and Education were contacted regarding any policies or practice guidelines they may have in place around publication of reviews and evaluations. These are government agencies that produce many evaluation and research reports. None of them have particular policies or guidelines in place. These have not been seen as necessary given that, subject to provisions for withholding information, all information is discoverable under OIA.

Reasonable causes for deciding not to make the summary of a report available on the website can be grouped into three categories: legal, agency policy and general/other.

Back to top

Legal reasons

The OIA and the Privacy Act2 outline the grounds for withholding information from a legal perspective.

The practice guidelines from the Office of the Ombudsmen cite the following Conclusive Reasons to withhold information (refuse an OIA request) based on section 6 of the OIA:

  1. Security or defence of NZ or international relations
  2. Information entrusted to the Government of NZ on a basis of confidence
  3. Maintenance of the law
  4. Endangering the safety of any person
  5. Serious damage to the NZ economy

Section 7 of OIA cites several Special Reasons for withholding official information related to the Cook Islands, Tokelau, Niue (and the Ross Dependency) that would:

  1. Prejudice their security or defence
  2. Prejudice relations between the governments of NZ, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue
  3. Prejudice the international relations of the Cook Islands or Niue

Section 9 of OIA and the Office of the Ombudsmen’s guideline cites the following Other Reasons which may justify withholding information.

  1. Protection of privacy of natural persons (9.2.a)
  2. Protection of trade secrets and commercial positions (9.2.b)
  3. Protection of information subject to an obligation of confidence (9.2.ba)
  4. Avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public (9.2.c)
  5. Avoid prejudice to the substantial economic interests of New Zealand (9.2.d)
  6. Avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public (9.2.e)
  7. Maintain constitutional conventions including the confidentiality of advice tendered by ministers and officials (9.2.f)
  8. Maintain effective conduct of public affairs through free and frank expressions of opinion and protection from improper pressure or harassment (9.2.g)
  9. Maintain legal professional privilege (9.2.h)
  10. Enable a minister department or organisation holding information to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage (9.2.i)
  11. Enable a minister, department or organisation holding the information to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage (9.2.j)
  12. Prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or advantage (9.2.k)

According to MFAT’s Guide on Handling OIA Requests, when applying the Section 9 grounds of the OIA there is a need to balance these reasons against countervailing public interest considerations. According to MFAT’s OIA guide, the Ombudsman has made it clear that rigorous scrutiny will be applied to any invocation of these sections (9.2.f and 9.2.g) relating to “confidentiality of advice” and the “free and frank expression of opinions,” and that

“Neither political sensitivity nor potential embarrassment to Ministers or officials is a reason for withholding information under the OIA.”

Although review, evaluation or research reports are not exempt from OIA, the following are thought to be the most likely of those grounds for an NZAID decision to withhold a report:

  • Protection of privacy (9.2.a)
  • Protection of commercial positions (9.2.b)
  • To avoid compromising our ability to advise ministers (9.2.g)

Application of section 9.2.g relating to the “free and frank expression of opinions” by or between or to Ministers and departments, could influence the timing of publication of a Report on the website. (e.g. where there is good reason to develop a policy response to a particular review or evaluation prior to releasing details).

Back to top

Reasons related to NZAID policy

The following additional reasons, related to NZAID policies, may provide grounds for deciding against publication of a Report summary on the website, although the information contained in the report itself would still be discoverable under OIA.

  1. There has been prior agreement with stakeholders not to publish (for example in the case of the KOHA/PICD institutional reviews)
  2. Release of the evaluation would breach evaluation ethical standards by disrespecting a request for anonymity or confidentiality or otherwise damaging the rights or welfare of participants in the evaluation.

Point 2 is based on point 7.13 of the DAC Evaluation Quality Standards, which NZAID is presently applying as part of a three-year testing phase

General/Other Reasons

  1. The quality of the report is such that it was rejected and/or contract money withheld.

 

2  The Privacy act deals with “personal information” or information about identifiable individuals held by private and public sector agencies. Under the OIA, “personal information” includes information about corporations and bodies of persons as well as identifiable persons including deceased persons. The Privacy Act has withholding grounds that do not completely coincide with those in the OIA. In relation to the privacy issue and its bearing on both Acts the Ombudsman has confirmed that good reason for withholding information under the privacy grounds of section 9 of OIA exists only when the necessity to protect the privacy of the person outweighs the countervailing public interest considerations favouring disclosure. The Ombudsman’s view is that the release of information in good faith under the OIA will not breach any provisions of the Privacy Act (MFAT, 2004) back

 

3 DAC Quality Standards 7.1: Evaluation conducted in a professional and ethical manner
The evaluation process shows sensitivity to gender, beliefs, manners and customs of all stakeholders and is undertaken with integrity and honesty. The rights and welfare of participants in the evaluation are protected. Anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants should be protected when requested and/or as required by law. back

 

 

Back to top