Results Action Plan
1. DFID needs to make a step change in our use of information. We need to use
evidence more effectively in order to ensure we are achieving the maximum impact
from our development assistance. We also need to be able to demonstrate its
effectiveness more clearly.
2. The aim of this paper is to establish DFID as a model of good practice and to drive
reform across the international system to realise ‘a world in which evidence is used
effectively to improve development and poverty outcomes’. This will require better
quality statistics and information, a stronger commitment to evidence-based policy
making and robust systems for monitoring and evaluation. It also requires
strengthening the demand for evidence of results, by improving the systems which
hold governments and donors to account.
3. The paper presents an action plan in three parts, covering actions within DFID, in
country and internationally. These aim to embed results into DFID culture and
systems, encourage partner countries to monitor and account for their poverty-
reducing policies and programmes, and establish an international system with a
clear focus on the impact of its policies and interventions on the poor.
4. From a large number of actions involving many different players, ten priority actions
have been identified as being catalytic in speeding up progress across the
organisation. These are:
• More use of quantitative information to improve decision-making;
• Further strengthened performance and results frameworks for country
• Improved communication to the UK public on the results of development
• Review of people management systems to encourage a stronger focus on
• Independent Advisory Committee for Development Impact established to
strengthen the independence of the evaluation function;
WITH PARTNER COUNTRIES
• Investment in statistics through internationally coordinated funding;
• Support accountability mechanisms to scrutinise governments’ and donor
• Support an internationally coherent approach to impact evaluation;
• Promote new international mechanisms for mutual accountability between donors
and partners, and seek agreement at the Ghana High Level Forum in 2008;
• Promote new international mechanisms for assessing agency effectiveness, and
seek international agreement at the Ghana High Level Forum in 2008.
5. The development industry needs better evidence-based decision making and
monitoring of results. Managing for results is not new: development agencies, and
other public and private sector organisations, have for a long time sought to link the
activities they undertake to performance, efficiency and intended results.
Approaches like the logical framework were ideally suited to project interventions.
6. But development has changed. There has been a move from project-based
assistance to programme aid, sector wide approaches and budget support, country-
owned development strategies and influencing activities. The volume of aid has
risen and new donors and funds have increased the fragmentation of aid. This
complexity has heightened the challenge, while the demand to achieve against key
development objectives such as the Millennium Development Goals has increased
the urgency of the task. Over the last few years there has been an increasing focus
on results both within DFID and internationally.1
7. This plan sets out a broad and ambitious approach to results. Our vision is “A world
in which evidence is used effectively to improve development and poverty
outcomes”. We aim to establish DFID as a model of good practice and as a driver of
reform across the whole development system.
What is managing for results and why is it important?
8. Managing for results means focusing on outcomes (what is being achieved) as well
as outputs (what is being produced) and inputs (how much money is being spent). It
means being able to make the links between all of these stages.
9. The Paris Declaration defined ‘managing for development results’ as:
• managing and implementing aid in a way that focuses on the desired results
• using information to improve decision making.2
10. There is a strong international consensus on the Millennium Development Goals as
the key measure of development results. But we need to deliver other results too.
We need to determine how our work impacts on the poorest, excluded and most
vulnerable groups. We need to measure the success of activities to promote public
goods such as good governance, women’s rights, human security, pro-poor growth
and action on climate change and global drivers of fragility. More widely, everyone
in DFID should be able to measure whether they have successfully achieved what
they set out to do, including where they are aiming to influence others.
11. As the Paris Declaration definition makes clear, managing for development results
means basing decisions on evidence. We need to know what works, what doesn’t,
where and why. We need to base policy and programme management decisions on
sound evidence to maximise the impact of our development assistance. This is
particularly important as we seek to achieve more with lower administrative costs.
This was driven internally by the 2005 commitments and the determination in the 2006 White Paper to
demonstrate results from the rising development budget. Internationally the agenda for results has been
set by the Managing for Development Results (MfDR) Roundtable in Marrakech in 2004, the Paris
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005 and the recent MfDR Roundtable which took place in Hanoi in
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness para 43. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf
12. In line with the principles of the Paris Declaration, we need to support partner
country governments to use results in their decision-making. This means aligning
with their plans and focusing efforts on using and strengthening country systems as
opposed to imposing new ones.
13. As the UK scales up its contribution to international development, it is essential that
the UK public – which pays for these programmes - is provided with transparent and
clear evidence of its effectiveness and impact. Our accountability, however, is not
only to the UK public but also to the recipients of the assistance, by increasing the
availability of information about provision of basic services and the results achieved.
14. We need to be realistic about our ability to attribute partner country results to DFID’s
work. The 2002 NAO report on managing programme performance in DFID
recognised that firm attribution of outcomes to DFID’s inputs is not possible.3 We
should instead be clear about what outcomes we want to achieve and what
contribution DFID is making, and be able to measure the effect of that contribution,
insofar as is possible.
What is required for measuring results?
15. Both donors and partner countries need good quality statistics and information on
which to base decisions, robust systems for monitoring and evaluation and the right
skills mix to be intelligent customers. It also requires integrated budgeting and
planning so that policies and resource allocations can be based on sound evidence.
In many low income fragile states it is particularly difficult to gather data and develop
reliable systems, and donors need to invest more in building these systems. We also
need to encourage the demand for evidence by ensuring that donor agencies and
political leaders demonstrate strong commitment to evidence-based decisions.
16. A culture change on use of evidence will be more likely if governments and donors
are held accountable for the delivery of results. Donors and partner countries need
to focus in a more systematic way on the promotion of domestic institutions which
hold governments to account for their performance and impact on the poor. These
include audit, parliaments, media, the judiciary, research institutions, civil society
and citizens, including poor and excluded groups. There is also a need to
strengthen the mechanisms for donors to be accountable to partners, and to each
other, for the delivery of agreed commitments.
What is the current situation in DFID?
17. DFID’s corporate systems already encourage an emphasis on results. Our
objectives and targets are based on the MDG targets which are globally agreed and
measurable. These are cascaded down to divisional, team and personal objectives
with success criteria which should focus on outcomes. DFID’s project management
systems are based on a results framework, with the development of logical
frameworks and indicators at the outset of projects and programmes and annual
reviews of progress.
18. DFID systems, however, do not generate enough information in a way that can be
easily used for decision-making and to communicate what development assistance
has achieved. There are a number of reasons for this:
• Monitoring outcomes is much harder than monitoring inputs.
• Data quality and availability is poor in many developing countries, particularly in
• Attribution to individual or collective action is very difficult, especially when so
much of our work is about influencing and advising and collaborating with others.
• The shift from project-based assistance to programme aid, sector wide
approaches and budget support.
19. The Capability Review4 noted DFID’s international reputation for the quality of its
analytical skills and ability to produce and use good quality evidence. It
recommended that DFID needs to articulate how it will be able to sustain progress
towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals through its increasing focus on
fragile states, where conditions might make poverty reduction harder to achieve. It
also said that DFID should revise its approach to reviewing divisional plans, in order
to increase the level of challenge and improve accountability for delivering against
20. We recognise we can do more to be a model of good practice by:
• rigorously collating and communicating information and evidence including
disaggregated data (by sex, ethnicity, caste, etc);5
• use more quantitative information to inform our decision making;
• use more distributional impact analysis, such as Poverty and Social Impact
Analysis, in policy development;
• developing a clearer definition of activities outside the MDG framework – but
essential to it – such as governance and influencing activities;
• improving project documentation6;
• strengthening monitoring and evaluation through national systems.7
The country and international situation
21. The 2005 Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) Approach8 found that
the PRS approach and other initiatives have improved country governments’ focus
on results, but that more is needed.
“The PRS approach has created a substantial incremental demand for data,
underscoring the need for effective national monitoring systems. However,
Published 28/3/07. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/pressreleases/capability-review.asp
DFID’s Gender Equality Action Plan strongly emphasises the need for greater evidence and results on
gender equality to determine our choices, assess our performance and to help support faster progress
towards gender equality. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/gender-equality-plan-2007.pdf
Recent reviews have highlighted the need for more project logical frameworks to be clear and SMART
and to improve the way project documentation is held on DFID systems.
One of the findings from the 2005/6 Synthesis of DFID’s Country Programme Evaluations was that “All
the country programmes have faced a significant challenge in measuring development progress and
2005 Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Approach: Balancing Accountabilities and Scaling Up
Results, prepared by the staffs of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
significant challenges remain in developing well coordinated monitoring systems,
with quality information that is accessible to various stakeholders…In particular,
most countries continue to have difficulties in tracking and measuring the
effectiveness of pro-poor spending.”
22. The results of the 2006 Paris Declaration Baseline Survey underline the need to pay
much more attention to managing for development results9. This is measured by
indicator 11 in the Paris Declaration and the findings were based on World Bank
sources10. They showed that only 2 out of 29 countries in the survey have achieved
good practice in using performance assessment frameworks to monitor and manage
necessary improvements in the quality of their development programmes. The
survey findings underline the need to pay much more attention to managing for
23. According to the OECD-DAC 2006 Development Cooperation Report11 “Donors
spend much time and money on country and sector analytical work, on pre-feasibility
and feasibility studies, on appraisal and on monitoring and evaluation systems.
What is often missing is an authentic domestic system for assessing policies,
programmes and projects against the evidence”.
24. There are many examples of the weak statistical capacity of poor countries. In
Africa, countries comprising almost half the population of sub-Saharan Africa did not
conduct a census during the period 1996 and 2005, despite censuses being
fundamentally important for good government and decision making.12 In 2005 55
countries lacked information on the share of their population living in poverty, ie
subsisting on less than US$1 dollar a day. Nearly double that number of countries
(100) had no data on poverty trends, so that progress towards the first MDG could
not be tracked directly over time.13
25. In many low income populous fragile states, it is particularly difficult to gather data
and develop reliable systems. However, the extent of the needs makes it all the
more important that significant efforts are made to build these systems.
Available on the OECD-DAC website www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/monitoring
The Comprehensive Development Framework Progress Report 2005 and the World Bank Aid
Effectiveness Review 2006.
World Bank Statistical Capacity Improvement in IDA Countries- Progress Report May 2006
Measuring Up to the Measurement Problem Paris 21 January 2005
26. Box 1 sets out what multilateral and other bilateral organisations are doing to
become more results-focused.
Box 1 – How other organisations are establishing a results-based focus
The Multilateral institutions
One key effort is the Common Performance Assessment System (COMPAS) which seeks
to increase the results focus of the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). It harmonises
approaches to, and drives improvement in, results management among the MDBs across a
range of activities and processes. Progress varies however. The African Development Bank
has fully integrated its Results Based Management into IT-compatible business planning. In
the Asian Development Bank a concern for results has led to improving project quality over
the last decade in some, but not all, sectors. The European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) probably has the most advanced results management processes of the
regional banks. In addition to project-based results management, the EBRD uses a
scorecard to capture results for its own institutional performance and budgeting.
World Bank institutions are widely seen as the most advanced. It has a suite of results-based
management processes and tools. The World Bank’s International Development Association
(IDA) introduced the Results Measurement System in 2005 to track i) trends in ‘big picture’
outcomes at the country level and ii) IDA’s focus on results. Progress at country level tracks
fourteen MDG linked indicators. The second tier monitors IDA’s contribution to country
outcomes using indicators for country programmes, and aggregate outputs. IDA also
committed to implementing results frameworks for all IDA projects and programmes.
United Nations institutions are also making efforts. United Nations Development Programme
has put improved Results Based Management systems in place in recent years and reports
annual to the Executive Board through these systems. UNICEF has made progress in
developing its results-based systems, particularly through the strengthening of its framework,
the Medium Term Strategic Plan.
Other development agencies
Many of DFID’s peers share common approaches to results. Almost all development
agencies have results frameworks at project level but making the connection between project
level and country programme impact continues to challenge most aid agencies. The
contribution of a country programme of assistance to a country’s overall development
progress remains an elusive concept and yet is increasingly what is required to report
effectively on the impact of development assistance. Use of integrating frameworks to track
results from strategy to individual performance is a challenge, but the majority of partner
organisations are evolving towards this.
A vision for results
27. Our vision is not only for DFID to become more results focused but that we
encourage partner country governments and the whole international system too. The
translation of our overarching vision to three separate goals, within DFID, in partner
countries and internationally is set out in figure 2.
Figure 2 – A vision for results
A VISION FOR RESULTS
A world in which evidence is used effectively to
improve development and poverty outcomes
Senior management actively championing a results-oriented culture
within DFID, in international fora and in partner countries, through their
commitment and support to evidence-based decision making. They
challenge poor practice and establish incentives to monitor outcomes.
DFID DFID A
A MODEL DRIVER
OF GOOD OF
GOALS GOALS GOALS
WITHIN DFID WITH PARTNER INTERNATIONALLY
• DFID uses Partner country An international
evidence to governments plan, development system
implement policies monitor and account (multilaterals,
and programmes for publicly for their bilaterals and
poverty reduction. poverty reducing private foundations)
policies and with a clear focus
• All DFID staff are programmes. Their on the impact of
able to measure the citizens and its policies and
success of their institutions hold interventions on
work. them to account. the poor.
28. The realisation of these goals will require:
• the embedding of the right incentives,
• effective accountability systems,
• the availability and use of better quality statistics and evidence,
• improved national planning and budgeting processes, and
• better monitoring and evaluation based on national systems.
Our implementation plan is based around these five themes, for each of the three
corporate, country and international strands. Aims for these areas are set out in table 1.
Table 1 What will success look like?
WITHIN DFID INTERNATIONALLY
Demand for results
and reported at all
Donors and Improved international
levels of the
governments are mechanisms for
Incentives and performance system
more accountable to monitoring and holding
their own citizens and accountable donors
to each other for and multilateral
development results. organisations
the link between its
aid and development
Improved availability, International institutions
Improved quality of quality and use of for statistics, research
Statistics and DFID’s internal information on the and impact evaluation
evidence statistics and impact of aid through generate adequate
evidence long-term sustainable evidence and data to
country systems support decisions
Supply of results capabilities
Rigorous quantitative National
information is used in governments make
Better informed funding
Planning and allocation decisions better use of analysis
budgeting and project design, and information in
appraisal and planning, policy and
scrutiny budgeting processes
Quality and coverage of
Partner countries bilateral and multilateral
The quality and
have functioning agencies’ own
coverage of DFID’s
Evaluation and monitoring and monitoring and
monitoring evaluation systems to evaluation systems
assess impact on form a reliable basis for
poor people’s lives providing support
29. Key to success is commitment from senior management and the establishment of
the right incentives. These should not be prescriptive, since we do not want to
encourage perverse incentives (only achieving what is measurable) or stifle
innovation and risk-taking. Corporately, our performance systems need to
encourage the identification of measurable and outcome-focused objectives at the
outset of a piece of work, and appropriate monitoring over time in a changing
30. We also need to be able to demonstrate more clearly the benefits of a results-based
approach. Identifying what we are trying to achieve and measuring progress
towards it may require a change of approach but provides clear goals and improved
information. There is evidence from the recent review of project documentation
that the clarity and simplicity of targets leads to improved performance. Box 2 sets
out the motivations for DFID Nigeria to develop a comprehensive performance
Box 2 What motivates DFID staff to focus on outcomes and impact?
DFID staff are highly motivated to see the results of their efforts. But they are concerned
about managing impact along complex results chains, over short timescales, in volatile
environments, where DFID’s contribution amongst multiple partners is often relatively small.
In DFID Nigeria the main motivation for developing a performance system was to focus staff
time on strategic concern for impact, above the level of activities. Good operational systems
were already in place to match activities and finances but there was no mechanism for
DFIDN were asking themselves, if poverty reduction in Nigeria is the “bottom line” of our
• Are we being effective? How do we know?
• We are doing a lot, but so what?
• How can we adjust to maximise impact?
• Can we tell our partners what we are trying to do and how effective we are being?
• Are we getting the evidence for making tough strategic choices as the Nigerian
The comprehensive performance framework system was seen as an opportunity to answer
these questions. It is a quarterly reviewing mechanism with each outcome team using a
specific monitoring form with traffic lights to indicate progress. This allows groups of staff to
review changes in the country context in which DFID is operating and then records changes to
the risk status of achieving the planned outcomes. DFID Nigeria holds Quarterly Strategic
Review Team Meetings where the senior managers concentrate on the progress of the whole
of the office towards its intended outcomes, which assists strategic decision-making.
It was developed over a six month period with outside assistance and is now being used and
found sufficiently valuable to begin to influence the World Bank’s monitoring practice as part of
the joint donor partnership in Nigeria.
Delivering the vision
31. We propose a comprehensive set of actions, organised in three strands: within
DFID, with partner countries and internationally. The plan is underpinned by
detailed action matrices which are living documents, updated over time.14
ACTIONS WITHIN DFID
32. We will enhance our use of quantitative information to improve decision-
making. DFID systematically uses logframes to ensure clear outputs and outcomes
for all its financial commitments. But, as our work has moved progressively away
from discrete project investments towards programme-based approaches and
capacity-building, we have made less use of tools such as cost-benefit analysis. We
have now started a programme of work to investigate how DFID can make more
systematic use of quantitative information, including by more rigorous quantification
of outputs along the delivery chain supported by our assistance. This will lead to
improvements in the efficiency of our investments, the transparency of our decision
making and our ability to report on achievements. A new e-enabled financial and
performance reporting system, ARIES, will be in place by 2009. This will improve
the supply of financial data for management decisions across DFID.
33. Country programme management and results frameworks will be strengthened
to improve allocation decisions. A core set of standardised indicators will be
developed to collect consistent information from country programmes on key
34. Finance and Corporate Performance Division will coordinate work across the
organisation to improve both the quality of project design and the accuracy and
robustness of project monitoring. This will include the introduction of
an Investment Committee to review new projects, an increased level of independent
monitoring and peer review, together with further guidance and training. A ‘policy
dialogue’ pilot will develop and test new processes for managing and monitoring
DFID’s policy dialogue/influencing activities.
35. Results will be embedded into DFID individual and corporate performance
processes. DFID has agreed a 3-year joint Public Service Agreement (in
partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Treasury, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform) covering the years 2008-11, which sets out DFID’s
expected contribution towards the MDGs. This is being translated into a
performance framework for the DFID as a whole and for Divisions and country
offices. All staff have individual performance objectives – the process of setting and
managing these objectives will be reviewed and the demonstration of outcomes will
be built into revised promotion, recruitment and deployment systems. To reflect that
it is everyone’s responsibility to move us forward a new objective for results is being
introduced for the Senior Civil Service and A band Head of Offices.
36. Stronger communication of results is integral to the DFID Communications
Strategy. DFID is now working to set out a clearer public narrative on what has
been achieved with our assistance, and on the systems we have for ensuring the
Available on request from the public enquiry point firstname.lastname@example.org
effectiveness of aid. External communication will increasingly be in the form of
themed campaigns, targeting specific audiences with specific messages. This will
bring focus to the requirement for evidence of impact.
37. A virtual results network is proposed to promote results and share knowledge and
expertise and training on results-related skills will be rolled out across DFID. A new
information system to bring together national and international development
information (known as the ‘portal’ for development indicators) will be explored with
international partners with the aim of developing a system for use by all. The
feasibility of a model to link aid allocations with results will be explored and best
practice in linking the management of aid instruments to results will be established.
38. The independence of evaluations assistance will be strengthened through an
Independent Advisory Committee on Development Impact. The current state of
monitoring and evaluation in DFID will be assessed through an audit and an
evaluation strategy will be developed, including training. The number of
independent evaluations will be scaled up.
ACTIONS WITH PARTNER COUNTRIES
39. One of the ways to improve incentives for results in partner countries is the
strengthening of domestic accountability mechanisms to hold governments to
account for their performance in reducing poverty. The plan proposes more support
for parliaments, formal institutions, civil society and citizens including poor and
excluded groups to monitor government impact. In fragile states this may involve
encouraging the setting up of monitoring and results frameworks for specific policies
that the government is committed to, for example the Orphans and Vulnerable
Children programme in Zimbabwe.
40. Transparency and access to information will be encouraged. Lessons from the
current DFID-led OECD-DAC evaluation of citizens’ voice and accountability will
inform decisions on this. The plan also aims to increase the incentives for partner
country governments to achieve and assess results through the encouragement of
Managing for Development Results Action Plans and Communities of Practice.
41. The World Bank has proposed a process known as "Results and Resources"
which is now being developed by Sweden and the Netherlands. This initiative aims
to harmonise donors around a small set of results identified by the government,
based on its Poverty Reduction Strategy or similar strategy and donor projections of
aid flows. Progress towards the targets and impacts on the MDGs will be monitored
to ensure accountability. DFID will explore how we can support this approach and
align with it through Development Partnership Agreements.
42. Crucial to much of the action plan is the availability of good quality statistics and
information at country level, including disaggregated data (for example gender,
ethnicity, caste). Country office accountability to the centre on development
progress and the reporting of information on the country’s capacity to monitor
progress should be at the heart of assistance strategies and should be determined
locally. Country offices should increase their dialogue with partner governments
about what evidence is available on progress against development outcomes
including poverty/distributional impacts through Poverty and Social Impact Analysis.
43. Support to statistical capacity building will be evaluated and the collection, analysis
and dissemination of socially disaggregated information will be encouraged. Partner
country governments will be supported to improve their results focus through the
development of a common framework for assessment of Managing for Development
Results activities, based on existing tools. This should include the extent to which
evidence is used to inform policy and budgets and will be a useful mechanism for
channelling multi-donor support. Their monitoring and evaluation systems will be
supported through technical and financial support, in line with recommendations
from the Paris Declaration baseline survey report.
44. Donors and governments must be held to account for their performance, and we will
negotiate an agreement on the country and global architecture for mutual
accountability and agency effectiveness for the High Level Forum in Ghana in
2008. The surveys which monitor progress towards the DAC Paris Declaration will
continue to encourage a focus on results, while a joint evaluation of the Paris
Declaration will raise the profile of aid effectiveness and guide future monitoring and
45. International efforts to increase the amount of statistics and evidence must be
coordinated and aligned to country needs. DFID will support the development of a
system-wide approach for statistics to address the shortfall in resources
(including for the 2010 census round) and the fragmentation and duplication of donor
activities. This should be linked to countries' National Statistics Development
Strategies. Preliminary work with Paris 21 will clarify current funding and technical
assistance in each country and identify gaps. We will also press for the funding to
be linked to a joint donor representative in country to assist governments to identify
their requirements and facilitate harmonisation, and identify the most appropriate
mechanism for supply of statistical skills at country level.
46. We will support the development of co-ordinated international approaches to
impact evaluation, to carry out a programme of impact evaluations, draw out
lessons to close gaps in knowledge and enhance the evidence base on what kind of
development interventions are effective.
47. We need better information on the effectiveness of multilaterals so that decisions
to support are based on evidence. Fourteen multilateral effectiveness summaries
will be published and we will work through evaluation networks to strengthen
capacity. We will develop options for better international arrangements for
assessing agency effectiveness, to be agreed at the High Level Forum in Ghana in
What are the main priorities?
48. The action plan contains many different actions. All are important but we have
identified ten priority actions (table 2) which will be catalytic in speeding up our
progress towards becoming a results-based organisation. They are actions which
we believe will have a high impact, and which will increase the impact of the
remainder of the plan. They cover the three areas: within DFID, with partner
countries and internationally.
Table 2 – Priority actions
WITHIN DFID Monitor/evaluation
1. More use of quantitative information to improve Report with recommendations on making more use of
quantitative information in decision making across the
decision-making bilateral aid programme produced in early 2008.
To improve processes to quantify outputs and outcomes of DFID
2. Further strengthened performance and results Review completed by March 2008, with updated guidance
produced for CAPS from 2008/9.
frameworks for country programmes
To improve allocation decisions within country programmes and
Review CAPs and implementation of updated guidance in
generate better information on what is being achieved by development
3. Improved communication to UK public on the 2007-2010 ONS Omnibus Survey on public attitudes to
international development show increased awareness of
results of development assistance DFID’s role. Baseline: In 2007, 22% of respondents said
We need to communicate more effectively what is being achieved
they had heard of DFID; 72% were concerned with
through UK development assistance in order to retain the support of
poverty in developing countries; but 75% agreed with the
the UK public. The set of indicators collected from country
statement that ‘most financial aid is wasted as there is
programmes will be a fundamental data source for this.
often corruption in poor country governments’
4. Review of people management systems to Reviews completed by end 2007, recommendations
encourage a stronger focus on outcomes
To ensure that evidence and outcomes are more firmly embedded into
the organisation, and that appropriate incentives are in place.
5. Independent Advisory Committee on Committee established by end of 2007.
Development Impact established
To guarantee independence of DFID’s evaluation function.
WITH PARTNER COUNTRIES
6. Investment in statistics through internationally Funding mechanism agreed and in place by March 2008.
coordinated funding Decrease in no. of countries with no MDG data. Measure
To agree a coordinated approach to statistical support and information to be developed, eg for 13 of 25 PSA countries there
capacity, led by country needs and including disaggregated data such was no data on MDG1 available for 1997 and 2005.
as by sex, ethnicity, caste, geography etc.
7. Support accountability mechanisms to scrutinise Increase in no. of countries with mechanisms for mutual
assessment of progress (ind. 12 of Paris Declaration). In
governments and donor performance 2006 baseline survey, 16 of 26 (inc Yemen) PSA
To hold governments and donors to account for their performance.
countries were included: 10 have mechanisms in place, 6
8. Support an internationally coherent approach to Establishment of an independent organisation for impact
evaluation by end 2007/8.
impact evaluation Increasing number of joint impact evaluations, from
To learn what works, where and why.
9. Promote new international mechanisms Agreement at HLF in Ghana in Autumn 2008
for mutual accountability between donors and
partners, and seek agreement at the Ghana High
Level Forum in 2008.
To hold governments and donors to account for their performance.
10. Promote new international mechanisms for Agreement at HLF in Ghana in Autumn 2008
assessment of agency effectiveness, and seek
agreement at the Ghana High Level Forum in 2008.
To make better informed allocation decisions.
49. Realising the vision will depend on partner countries, multilaterals and other donors.
We need to continue to influence by demonstrating the benefits of evidence-based
decision making and the communication of the results of development assistance.
50. Implementing results in fragile states is a major challenge, but particularly important
for maintaining the political support for DFID’s increased engagement in such
countries. We need to recognise that all countries have different institutional
structures and capabilities and that some are further along the road than others. Not
all the actions will be appropriate in all country contexts, and some need to be taken
(for example improvements in basic statistics) before others (such as integrating
planning and budgeting).