Country Assistance Strategies Become “Results-Based”
Bank teams have always striven for results in Country Assistance Strategies (CAS), but preparing a results-based CAS helps them select the most relevant and effective forms of Bank support and how to be specific about how results will be achieved. While CASs are generally aligned to national goals, the results-based CAS goes a step further by asking clients and country teams to be more explicit about the outcomes that will be influenced by Bank-supported activities. A results-based CAS envisions better monitoring and evaluation and greater emphasis on strengthening country capacity to manage for results. With a results-based CAS, outcome-focused management is better able to steer toward results and better evaluate success during the CAS period.
Results-based CASs build on national systems, providing a framework for designing the strategy and implementation plans around specific and measurable outcomes, building synergies between lending and non lending activities, and leveraging opportunities where the Bank’s interventions can have the greatest impact.
Bank management is putting a premium on strengthening the results focus of CASs to achieve longer-term payoffs in terms of poverty reduction at the country level.
Main Features of the Results-Based Country Assistance Strategy (CAS)
Results Framework
The results framework is a planning and management tool that defines the links between strategic development goals, outcomes that are directly influenced by the Bank’s program, key results that are necessary to reach those outcomes and the mix of Bank support (program/project, policy dialogue and partnerships). At the CAS design stage use of the framework forces questioning of the strategy and increased selectivity, during implementation the framework is used for management purposes — to help the country and the team assess if implementation is on track and if not why not. The results framework is not a tool to declare “attribution and accountability”. Rather, it is a tool to improve strategy design, management decisions, and ultimately results on the ground. By clearly setting out the intentions of the portfolio in support of Government and the associated management process over the period of implementation, future evaluations or “accountability exercises” can be better informed. The framework is not an afterthought, an add on or an annex, but a fundamental tool to use from the very beginning of CAS design.
Monitoring and Evaluation System
The M&E system for the results based CAS
is embedded in the framework, where measurable indicators are specified. These indicators are not parallel to the government’s system, but consistent with it. In some cases deficiencies in the country system become evident when attempting to define indicators to measure progress against outcomes. When this occurs, the conversation with government can address how more appropriate indicators would be useful for the government’s. In some countries the Bank and its partners will need to work with the government to determine the reliability of baselines and possibly assess the overall data quality and government’s M&E capacity. Finally, the process of designing the M&E system aims to harmonize donors’ M&E requirements at the country level and lowering the burden on country capacity.
CAS Completion Report (CASCR) and Progress Report
A systematic assessment of the past CAS can bring to the forefront critical issues that might otherwise not be considered in the design of a new CAS. The CASCR is designed to answer a range of questions: (a) Was the past strategy relevant to the goals and country conditions?
Has this changed? (b) What outcomes are being delivered through the on-going portfolio and can these be scaled up? What is working? What is not is not and why? (c) How did the Bank performe during the CAS period and how can the Bank do better going forward? A key challenge that teams face is how to undertake a backward looking review evaluating outcomes when the past CAS was not designed using a results-based approach, and data collection did not revolve around outcomes directly influenced by the Bank’s program. Most, outcome information relies heavily on national statistics for macro-level indicators, or on outputs, leaving the thrust of time-bound CAS results largely unaccounted for.
The Results-Based Country Assistance Strategy as Knowledge Builder
As more results-based CASs are developed, there is a growing pool of experiences from which to draw lessons learned and build up a knowledge base to enhance the Bank’s own performance in support of poverty reduction and capacity building at the country level. This knowledge base will include the traditional areas of Bank support–macroeconomic framework, macroeconomic and sectoral links, growth strategy, infrastructure and rural development, and human development. It will also shed new light on Bank coverage of cross-cutting issues –gender, governance and corruption, environment, financial sector, and the private sector. This knowledge building is helped by several key factors that are implicit in the Results Framework. The Results-based CAS framework:
§ emphasizes measurement and management,
§ advocates for a strong M&E architecture,
§ makes a case for better use of progress reports,
§ proposes a more systematic, “take-stock” self-evaluation approach to CAS completion reports,
§ encourages a participatory approach to CAS design, and
§ promotes dialogue and consultation with clients, other donors, and civil society in countries around outcomes.
Potential Trade-offs Between Uses Can Emerge When Using the Results Framework.
These tradeoffs are considered when deciding to use the framework as a management improvement versus an accountability tool. The shift of management focus from inputs and outputs to outcomes, can be facilitated when the Results Framework is weighted toward promoting learning about the implementation process, about the results being achieved and the factors affecting these results. An accountability focus, on the other hand, may encourage a shift to outputs, which are more within the control of managers and can be more easily attributed to specific activities. The choice of an accountability reporting versus management improvement focus has implications for the type of data that need to be collected. Concerns over attributing outcomes to specific interventions will imply extensive attention to data quality, validity, and reliability, and to independent verification. On the other hand, a management improvement approach would tend to emphasize more rapid and low-cost data collection and appraisal techniques, with data of sufficient quality for decision-making needs.
Considerations in applying the Results-based CAS Framework
Several teams are successfully using the results-based CAS for design and many lessons are being generated from this experience. Some of the experience is showing that:
§ Country teams need supporting tools (i.e. operational guidelines; best practice examples, process guides, etc.) and can benefit from technical assistance from experienced practitioners.
§ The time to properly prepare a results-based CAS should be considered by the team. The participation of the entire country team is critical as is a more detailed discussion with government about expected results. In IDA-eligible countries it is important to assess the consistency of the results based CAS with the PRS.
This note was prepared by Elizabeth M. White, Sr. Specialist — Results, and Rosalia Rodriguez-Garcia.Questions may be referred to Elizabeth White (OPCRX) or Tevfik Yaprak (OPCCS).