|
Indicator 11 assesses the degree to which partner countries have results-oriented frameworks. Like for Indicator 1, the scores for Indicator 11 for the 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration are derived from the World Bank’s Aid Effectiveness Review (AER), “Results-Based National Development Strategies: Assessment and Challenges Ahead.” The scores are based on aid effectiveness profiles that update to beginning-2007 those prepared for the World Bank’s 2005 Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) Progress Report, which contributed scores for the 2006 Survey.
Presented below is a short description of the criteria and methodology used to assess Indicator 11. The aid effectiveness profiles and the AER “Results-Based National Development Strategies: Assessment and Challenged Ahead,” which includes more information on the assessment criteria and methodology, the country scores, good practice examples and recommendations to partner countries and their development partners toward making further progress are available at www.worldbank.org/aer.
For questions, please contact: Janet Entwistle at jentwistle@worldbank.org or Filippo Cavassini at fcavassini@worldbank.org.
Assessment Criteria:
The AER refers to a results-oriented framework as a country-level results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that, building on sound statistical data and open access to information, produces data on progress toward desired inputs, outputs, and outcomes that are identified in the national development strategy.
Three criteria are used to assess whether a country has such a framework:
1. Quality of development information: the country’s development data are timely, relevant, and comprehensive and are generated by a lead statistical institution.
2. Stakeholder access to information: information on the national development strategy and the budget, and statistical and other monitoring data are widely accessible within the country.
3. Co-ordinated country level monitoring and evaluation: the country’s system integrates statistical and monitoring data produced by line ministries and local governments to monitor outcomes, outputs, and inputs; this monitoring and evaluation system is used by both country policymakers revising strategy and assigning budget allocations and by external development partners in reporting to their headquarters.
Assessment Methodology:
1. Documentation: The AER team updated the profiles that were prepared for the 2005 CDF Progress Report.
2. Country Review: The aid effectiveness profiles were reviewed by partner countries and staff of development assistance agencies based in each participating country.
3. Scoring the Assessment Criteria: Based on the final aid effectiveness profiles, the AER team scored each assessment criteria using the LEADS methodology according to the guidelines presented below.
4. Overall scoring: To consolidate the individual assessment criteria into an overall score, the review team averaged the scores for the assessment criteria.
5. Paris target score: An overall score of D has been used to indicate a level of progress satisfactory to meet the Paris Declaration target.
LEADS METHODOLOGY
|
L
|
Little action (1): Due to a wide variety of circumstances, including political developments, capacity constraints and unforeseen events, action has remained at a virtual standstill.
|
|
E
|
Elements exist (2): There is some basis for making progress, either through what already exists, or definite plans.
|
|
A
|
Action taken (3): Progress is being made, although not yet enough, and the basis exists for even more substantive progress.
|
|
D
|
Developed (4): Significant action taken already, although further action is needed.
|
|
S
|
Sustainable (5): There are no warning signs of possible deterioration, and there is widespread expectation that the progress achieved is sustainable.
|
Guidelines used to score progress toward developing a results-orientated framework
|
Assessment Criteria
|
|
Score
|
Quality of development information
|
Stakeholder access to information
|
Coordinated country-level monitoring and evaluation
|
|
L
|
Data collection is sporadic and outdated. Data have little relation to tracking the goals and targets in the long-term vision and medium-term strategy.
|
Little information on the long-term vision or medium-term strategy is available publicly, either in hard copy or electronically.
|
The government does not have a strategy or an action plan to develop a country-level M&E system. M&E is still largely fragmented, supported largely by external partners at the project level.
|
|
E
|
Data collection is improving but largely restricted to limited geographic or sectoral areas. Data may not cover key goals and targets in the long-term vision and medium-term strategy.
|
Some information on the long-term vision or medium-term strategy is available publicly, but may not be updated regularly or widely accessible.
|
The government has begun developing an M&E strategy and action plan to work toward the development of a country-level M&E system. M&E is still largely fragmented, supported largely by external partners at the project level.
|
|
A
|
Data collection has become more systematic and efforts to extend its geographic or sectoral scope are underway. Data are increasingly related to tracking goals and targets in the long-term vision and medium-term strategy.
|
Some information on the long-term vision or medium-term strategy and some public expenditure data are publicly available and regularly updated. Efforts may be underway to actively disseminate information.
|
A country-level M&E system has been at least preliminarily designed and its action plan is in the early stages of implementation but may be without fully coordinated support. The system is not yet functioning at all levels of government or sectors. There may be parallel country-level systems housed in different institutions.
|
|
D
|
Data are generally timely and comprehensive, and directly related to tracking the achievement of country goals and targets identified in the long-term vision and medium-term strategy. There is coordinated and systematic data gathering and analysis.
|
Information on the long-term vision and medium-term strategy, and progress in implementation, including public expenditure data, is made systematically available, including in local languages and through various media.
|
Implementation of an action plan for a country-level M&E system is well underway. This system tracks a manageable number of input, output and outcome indicators identified in the medium-term strategy, and produces unified reports used by country policymakers and external partners. Institutional responsibilities for M&E across government are clear.
|
|
S
|
There are no warning signs of possible deterioration, and there is widespread expectation that the progress achieved is sustainable.
|
|
