Search

Content type
Content Type:Multimedia
Displaying 41 - 50 of 53

INFOGRAPHIC: Do Nutrition Benefits Last Beyond the First 1,000 Days?

Web Resource
INFOGRAPHIC: Do Nutrition Benefits Last Beyond the First 1,000 Days?
A vizualization of the importance of sustained nutrition throughout the First 1,000 days. A vizualization of the importance of sustained nutrition throughout the First 1,000 days.

INFOGRAPHIC: Impact of Interventions on Early Childhood Development Outcomes

Web Resource
INFOGRAPHIC: Impact of Interventions on Early Childhood Development Outcomes
See the impact of interventions on early childhood development outcomes. See the impact of interventions on early childhood development outcomes.

INFOGRAPHIC: Early Childhood Interventions - Where are the Knowledge Gaps?

Web Resource
INFOGRAPHIC: Early Childhood Interventions - Where are the Knowledge Gaps?
Find out how follow-up impact evaluations can stregthen evidence on the later-life effects of early childhood interventions. Find out how follow-up impact evaluations can stregthen evidence on the later-life effects of early childhood interventions.

The World Bank Group and the Electricity Access Challenge

Web Resource
The World Bank Group and the Electricity Access Challenge
Learn what the IEG recommends the World Bank Group do to help achieve Universal Electricity Access by 2030. Learn what the IEG recommends the World Bank Group do to help achieve Universal Electricity Access by 2030.

Reducing Maternal and Child Mortality

Web Resource
Reducing Maternal and Child Mortality
Since 1990, maternal and childhood deaths have fallen by 47 percent globally. There are a lot of great ideas on how to reduce maternal and childhood mortality. Some of them have been effective, many have not been. Dr. Jeff Tanner, an economist at the World Bank Group shares the findings of a study that reviewed what interventions work. Read the report   {"preview_thumbnail":"/sites/ Show MoreSince 1990, maternal and childhood deaths have fallen by 47 percent globally. There are a lot of great ideas on how to reduce maternal and childhood mortality. Some of them have been effective, many have not been. Dr. Jeff Tanner, an economist at the World Bank Group shares the findings of a study that reviewed what interventions work. Read the report   {"preview_thumbnail":"/sites/default/files/Data/styles/video_embed_wysiwyg_preview/public/video_thumbnails/0N-NIqzEmYI.jpg?itok=HezctepE","video_url":"https://youtu.be/0N-NIqzEmYI","settings":{"responsive":0,"width":"854","height":"480","autoplay":0},"settings_summary":["Embedded Video (854x480)."]}

2013 IEG Good Practice Awards

Web Resource
The IEG Good Practice Awards highlight exemplary design and implementation in World Bank projects and country programs, and excellence in self-evaluation in World Bank, IFC and MIGA operations. The purpose is to create incentives among staff for greater development effectiveness. 2013 IEG Good Practice Award Winners Country Program Award for a Fragile State (Specific Aspects)   Show MoreThe IEG Good Practice Awards highlight exemplary design and implementation in World Bank projects and country programs, and excellence in self-evaluation in World Bank, IFC and MIGA operations. The purpose is to create incentives among staff for greater development effectiveness. 2013 IEG Good Practice Award Winners Country Program Award for a Fragile State (Specific Aspects)  Afghanistan Country Program, Fiscal 2002-11 Country Program Award for Treatment of Governance and Anti-Corruption Issues Bangladesh Country Program, Fiscal 2006-10 Project Award Guatemala Financial Sector Project Award for Products with a Demonstrated Contribution Lending India Gujarat State Highway Project Non-Lending/AAA China 'Reducing Inequality for Shared Growth In China: Strategy and Policy Options for Guangdong Province' M&E Quality Award Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) analysis of outcome trends in investment lending projects over Fiscal 2000-10.   ICR Quality Award Serbia Real Estate Cadastre and Registration Project Implementation Completion Report (ICR) (Report No. ICR 2076) Benin Malaria Control Booster Program ICR (Report No. ICR 2042) XPSR Awards Endesa Brasil Stomana II (Bulgaria) Access GEM (Nigeria) PNOC (EDC) (Philippines) GeoPark (Latin America) PCR Awards BTC Advisory (Botswana) Zambia Kafue Gorge Lower Hydroelectric Power Plan XPSR Department Award Infrastructure and Natural Resources Department – Asia PER Award Botnia Uruguay Société Burkinabé de Promotion Hôtelière S.A. (Burkina Faso)  

What is Monitoring and Evaluation?

Web Resource
Monitoring can be defined as: "A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds". See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Glossary Show MoreMonitoring can be defined as: "A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds". See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management (Terms are presented in English, Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish). Thus monitoring embodies the regular tracking of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of development activities at the project, program, sector and national levels. This includes the monitoring of a country's progress against the millennium development goals (MDGs), or other national measures of development success. Evaluation can be defined as "the process of determining the worth or significance of a development activity, policy or program .. to determine the relevance of objectives, the efficacy of design and implementation, the efficiency or resource use, and the sustainability of results. An evaluation should (enable) the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of both partner and donor". Monitoring and evaluation are synergistic. Monitoring information is a necessary but not sufficient input to the conduct of rigorous evaluations. While monitoring information can be collected and used for ongoing management purposes, reliance on such information on its own can introduce distortions because it typically covers only certain dimensions of a project's or program's activities, and careful use of this information is needed to avoid unintended behavioral incentives. In contrast, evaluation has the potential to provide a more balanced interpretation of performance. But evaluation is a more detailed and time-consuming activity, and because of its greater cost it needs to be conducted more sparingly. One approach is to rely on monitoring information to identify potential problem issues requiring more detailed investigation via an evaluation. M&E can be conducted using a wide array of tools, methods and approaches. These include, for example: performance monitoring indicators; the logical framework; theory-based evaluation; formal surveys such as service delivery surveys, citizen report cards, living standards measurement surveys (LSMS) and core welfare indicators questionnaires (CWIQ); rapid appraisal methods such as key informant interviews, focus group discussions and facilitated brainstorming by staff and officials; participatory methods such as participatory M&E; public expenditure tracking surveys; rigorous impact evaluation; and cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Ten Key Issues for Diagnosis of a Government's M&E Systems

Web Resource
1. Genesis of the existing M&E system: role of M&E advocates or champions; key events which created the priority for M&E information (e.g., election of reform-oriented government, fiscal crisis).   2. The ministry or agency responsible for managing the M&E system, and for planning evaluations. Roles and responsibilities of the main parties to the M&E system — e.g., Show More1. Genesis of the existing M&E system: role of M&E advocates or champions; key events which created the priority for M&E information (e.g., election of reform-oriented government, fiscal crisis).   2. The ministry or agency responsible for managing the M&E system, and for planning evaluations. Roles and responsibilities of the main parties to the M&E system — e.g., finance ministry, planning ministry, president's office, sector ministries, parliament or congress. Incentives for the stakeholders to take M&E seriously — strength of demand for M&E information. Possible existence of several, uncoordinated M&E systems, at the national and sectoral levels. Importance of federal/state/local issues to the M&E system.   3.The public sector environment and whether it makes it easy or difficult for managers to perform to high standards, and to be held accountable for their performance. Are public sector reforms underway which might benefit from a stronger emphasis on the measurement of government performance, such as a poverty reduction strategy, performance budgeting, strengthening policy analysis skills, creation of a performance culture in the civil service, improvements in service delivery such as customer service standards, government decentralization, greater participation by civil society, or an anti-corruption strategy?   4. The main aspects of public sector management which the M&E system supports strongly, such as: (i) budget decision-making; (ii) national or sectoral planning; (iii) program management; (iv) accountability relationships (to the finance ministry, to the President's office, to parliament, to sector ministries, to civil society).   5. Actual role of M&E information at the various stages of the budget process — such as policy advising and planning; budget decision-making; performance review and reporting. Possible disconnect between the M&E work of sector ministries and the use of such information in the budget process. Existence of any disconnect between the budget process and national planning. Opportunities to strengthen the role of M&E in the budget.   6. Extent to which the M&E information commissioned by key stakeholders (e.g. the finance ministry) is used by others, such as sector ministries. If not, what are the barriers to utilization? Any solid evidence concerning the extent of utilization by different stakeholders (e.g., a diagnostic review or a survey). Examples of major evaluations which have been highly influential with the government.   7. Types of M&E tool which are emphasized in the M&E system: regular performance indicators; rapid reviews or evaluations; performance audits; rigorous, in-depth impact evaluations; other. Scale and cost of each of these types of M&E. Manner in which evaluation priorities are set — are they focused on 'problem programs', pilot programs, high-expenditure or high-visibility programs, or are they based on a systematic research agenda to answer questions about program effectiveness?   8. Who is responsible for collecting performance information, and for conducting evaluations (e.g., ministries themselves, or academia or consulting firms)? Any problems with data quality or reliability, or with the quality of evaluations which have been conducted. Strengths and weaknesses of local supply of M&E. Key capacity constraints and the government's capacity-building priorities.   9. Extent of donor support for M&E in recent years. Donor projects which support M&E at whole-of-government, sectoral or agency levels — provision of technical assistance, other capacity-building and funding for the conduct of major evaluations, such as rigorous impact evaluations.   10. Conclusions: overall strengths and weaknesses of the M&E system. Its sustainability, in terms for example of vulnerability to a change in government. How dependent is it on donor funding or other support? Current plans for future strengthening of the M&E system.

World Bank Group and Guarantees: Three Questions

Web Resource
Should the WBG be in the guarantee business? Guarantee instruments have been largely effective in supporting WBG strategic objectives. Across the WBG, guarantees have effectively promoted private investment. Guarantees have supported investment flows across a broad range of high-risk sectors and countries and for small and medium-size investments. More than 30 percent of IFC guarantees have Show More Should the WBG be in the guarantee business? Guarantee instruments have been largely effective in supporting WBG strategic objectives. Across the WBG, guarantees have effectively promoted private investment. Guarantees have supported investment flows across a broad range of high-risk sectors and countries and for small and medium-size investments. More than 30 percent of IFC guarantees have been used to support trade and investment flows in Africa. The WBG's additionality in risk mitigation derives from its relationship with governments and its contribution to broader development objectives. Each institution has issued a substantial proportion of its guarantees in high-risk countries. World Bank guarantees have helped further both policy reforms and the environment for private investment. IFC guarantees have supported financial innovation and capital market development by introducing new financial instruments to new classes of investors.   Have WBG guarantees been used to their potential? Whereas guarantee instruments remain an important tool for supporting WBG strategic priorities, the use of the instruments has fallen short of WBG expectations to varying degrees. Several factors contribute to the perception that there is significant unmet demand for WBG guarantee instruments: (1) Political risk is consistently ranked as a main constraint; (2) regulatory and contractual risks are perceived as the main reason for the growing investment gaps in infrastructure; (3) abundant liquidity in emerging markets calls for enhancements that can help deepen the market, extend maturities, lower spreads, and redirect resources to underserved market segments and new areas unfamiliar to financiers in emerging markets. Some external factors explain limited deployment. To some extent, the WBG has had overly optimistic expectations, particularly in the case of public-private partnerships across a range of infrastructure sectors based on rapid growth in the mid-1990s. Moreover, some studies indicate that 65 percent of investors self-insure rather than take third-party insurance, suggesting a more limited effective demand than expected. Private sector providers of risk mitigation products have expanded their coverage in terms of both products and markets. Liquid markets in the 2000s have reduced the demand for sovereign partial credit guarantees. Internal factors have also constrained the deployment of instruments. MIGA’s Convention and Operational Regulations limit its adaptability to new market trends. MIGA has also not been sufficiently aggressive in innovating within the flexibility allowed by current policies. Internal constraints to the deployment of Bank Group guarantees include the application of standards designed for public sector operations to private sector projects and lack of both internal and external promotion of the instruments. IFC has tended to apply a traditional project financier’s approach to guarantee-type instruments. It has taken an overly conservative stance toward risk-sharing facilities, which has constrained their utilization. Although some progress has been made in innovation, there has been limited replication and scaling up.   Is the WBG appropriately organized to deliver the range of guarantee products? There is an overlap in the provision of political risk mitigation (PRM) products within the WBG. Flexibility of policies and innovation in guarantee and nonguarantee products have expanded the scope for competition. In addition, several nonguarantee IFC products offer PRM to the market. The PRM products of the three WBG institutions serve the same broad group of clients, and there is evidence that these overlaps have caused confusion among clients and internal competition of the kind that often imposes additional transaction costs on clients and adds reputational risks for the Bank. At the same time, each institution’s products carry distinct attributes that help define market niches. Relationships of both substitutability and complementarily exist among the WBG PRM instruments, which implies both opportunities for cooperation and the need for coordination. Mechanisms to enhance coordination across the WBG have had varying degrees of effectiveness. More systematic consultations between MIGA and Bank country and sector departments have helped ensure that MIGA-supported projects are consistent with the Bank Group’s strategy in a country. But the principles that govern the relationship between MIGA and IFC products have been unclear. In some cases, informal information sharing about business opportunities has been effective in leading to actual guarantee projects. There is limited coordination within the WBG in developing new products and at the business development stage. Lack of staff incentives, inadequate skills, and poor familiarity with the products of the other institutions has prevented better exploitation of downstream synergies in marketing WBG products. Significant potential exists for more systematic links between Bank-IFC advisory services and the use of WBG risk mitigation instruments, particularly in infrastructure, keeping in mind the need to manage potential conflict of interest issues. In sum, opportunities exist for improvement, and maintaining the status quo should not be an option.

Evaluation Principles and Standards

Web Resource
Evaluation Standards IEG's Phase 2 Report of the Bank’s involvement in global programs recommended, among other things, that IEG should include global programs in its standard evaluation and reporting processes to the Board. This includes: Reviewing selected program-level evaluations conducted by Bank-supported global programs like IEG reviews other evaluations of Bank support at the Show MoreEvaluation Standards IEG's Phase 2 Report of the Bank’s involvement in global programs recommended, among other things, that IEG should include global programs in its standard evaluation and reporting processes to the Board. This includes: Reviewing selected program-level evaluations conducted by Bank-supported global programs like IEG reviews other evaluations of Bank support at the project and country levels. Working with the Bank’s global partners to develop consensus standards for the evaluation of global programs. IEG is implementing both components of this recommendation concurently, since they are complementary. Each is contributing to progress on the other. Guidelines for Global and Regional Program Reviews IEG has developed a set of guidelines for its own Global and Regional Program Reviews (GRPRs) in consultation with the Bank’s units involved with global programs, operations policy, and trust fund management. These guidelines – which presume the existence of a prior external evaluation commissioned by the governing body of the program being reviewed – draw upon the evaluation framework in IEG's Phase 2 Report, the three pilot GPRs which IEG completed in FY06 and the Sourcebook for Evaluating GRPPs. Indicative Principles and Standards for Evaluating GRPPs IEG made a presentation on this topic to the Fourth Meeting of the OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation in Paris on March 31, 2006. Attended by representatives from the evaluation units of 23 bilateral agencies and development cooperation ministries, and from the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and the International Monetary Fund, the meeting expressed broad support for developing principles and standards for evaluating GRPPs and requested that IEG play a leading role in doing so. The Sourcebook of Indicative Principles and Standards is the result of IEG's response to this request. An earlier draft of the Sourcebook was reviewed at a Stakeholder Consultative Workshop held for this purpose in Paris on September 28-29, 2006. The workshop validated the approach of producing a free-standing and comprehensive document that presents, synthesizes, applies, and elaborates on existing evaluation principles and standards for the particular benefit of the governing bodies and management units of GRPPs. Workshop participants also provided comments that substantially improved the operational relevance of the Sourcebook and called for the additional preparation of a companion document of guidance notes and good-practice examples for the particular benefit of evaluators of GRPPs. The workshop was attended by 51 representatives (not including the workshop organizers) of the following stakeholder groups: Bilateral donor agencies UN organizations MDBs Foundations Developing countries NGOs/private sector Global programs (management) Global program evaluators Evaluation associations   The present version of the Sourcebook, which incorporates the feedback received at the workshop, was presented to the Fifth Meeting of the DAC Evaluation Network in Paris on November 16-17, 2006. This meeting recommended a period of practical application, use, and review, rather than formal endorsement at this stage. It encourages the governing bodies and management units of GRPPs in which DAC members are involved to draw upon them in establishing their monitoring and evaluation policies and in conducting independent evaluations of their programs on a regular basis. It further encourages those who use this Sourcebook to provide feedback to IEG and the Network based on their experience, in order to inform and further improve the document for eventual formal endorsement by Network members.   Existing Evaluation Principles and Standards The World Bank is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites. * Note: All documents and websites will open in a new window. OECD/DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance (1991) OECD DAC Evaluation Quality Standards (2006) OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based Managment (2002) OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (2004) UN Evaluation Norms (April 2005) English | Spanish | French | Russian |Chinese | Arabic UN Evaluation Standards (April 2005) English| Spanish | French | Russian | Chinese | Arabic Evaluation Cooperation Group of the Multilateral Development Banks: Good Practice Standards Evaluation Cooperation Group of the Multilateral Development Bank: Template for Assessing the Independence of Evaluation Organizations Global Environment Facility: Monitoring and Evaluation Policy (February 2006) Development Grant Facility of the World Bank: Independent Evaluation: Principles, Guidelines (November 2003) The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation: Program Evaluation Standards (1994) African Evaluation Guidelines (2002) English | French American Evaluation Association Guiding Principles for Evaluators (Revised July 2004) Council on Foundations: Evaluation Approaches and Methods (2003)