While countries are increasingly adopting strategic frameworks to counter fraud, many still lack well-defined monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the contribution of counter-fraud efforts and determine whether existing measures are effective. Monitoring frameworks often remain focused on administrative reporting and activity tracking rather than assessing whether interventions are reducing fraud risks or strengthening control systems. In parallel, evaluation practices are frequently inconsistent or absent, limiting the ability of governments to assess effectiveness, demonstrate results, or generate lessons for future policy cycles. As a result, strategy updates are not always grounded in robust evidence or systematically informed by emerging fraud risks.
The report finds that monitoring and evaluation systems are most effective when they are designed early in the strategy cycle, linked to a clear intervention logic, and supported by measurable indicators and reliable baseline information. Countries with robust monitoring systems combine qualitative and quantitative methods, rely on regular and proportionate reporting arrangements, and include mechanisms for independent validation of implementation progress. Such systems can enable continuous feedback on implementation progress, identify delays and bottlenecks, highlight emerging fraud risks, and support timely adjustments to anti-fraud action plans.
Evaluation plays a distinct but complementary role by assessing the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of anti-fraud strategies. Mid-term evaluations are particularly important for informing corrective adjustments during implementation, while end-term evaluations are essential for extracting lessons and informing the design of subsequent strategy cycles. However, in many contexts, evaluations are not systematically planned, and their findings are not consistently integrated into decision-making processes.
Beyond technical design, effective monitoring and evaluation of anti-fraud strategies also depend on clear governance and institutional arrangements. The report highlights the importance of empowering a central co-ordinating body – often the AFCOS or equivalent institution in EU Member States – with responsibility for overseeing implementation, consolidating information from implementing entities, validating data, preparing monitoring and evaluation reports, and facilitating strategic updates. At the same time, implementing authorities should retain ownership of day-to-day implementation and reporting responsibilities through designated focal points and structured reporting mechanisms.
The report further finds that participatory and inclusive approaches can significantly strengthen anti-fraud monitoring and evaluation systems. Engaging civil society organisations, academia, media, private sector actors and citizens can broaden ownership, improve the quality of analysis, strengthen accountability and generate additional information on fraud risks and implementation challenges. Participatory monitoring mechanisms, citizen feedback tools and public reporting platforms can complement government-generated data and help reinforce public trust in anti-fraud efforts.
Communication is another central pillar of effective anti-fraud strategies. Transparent communication of monitoring and evaluation results enhances accountability, supports organisational learning and increases the credibility of anti-fraud reforms. However, anti-fraud messaging must be carefully designed to avoid unintended spill-over effects. Messaging that overemphasises the prevalence of fraud may inadvertently normalise such behaviour or foster public apathy. Instead, communication strategies should focus on clear, credible and constructive messaging, tailored to different audiences and linked to concrete reform actions and accountability mechanisms.
Finally, the report underscores the importance of ensuring strategic continuity and learning across anti-fraud strategy cycles. Monitoring data, evaluation findings, and fraud risk assessments should systematically inform updates to anti-fraud strategies and action plans. Such revisions may involve adjusting strategic or operational objectives, revising indicators and timelines, reallocating resources, introducing new measures to address emerging fraud risks, or strengthening co-ordination arrangements. Ultimately, countries that invest in evidence-based monitoring and evaluation systems, structured learning processes, and transparent communication will be better positioned to strengthen resilience against fraud, improve the integrity of public governance systems, and sustain public trust over time.
