Align GAC implementation arrangements with Bank administrative and operational processes by: Consolidating current fragmented financing arrangements (that is, separate Bank budget and trust fund allocations) while improving monitoring of GAC activities. Rather than creating a separate cadre of GAC specialists, applying GAC competencies across existing Bank networks and career streams, and allow transferability of GAC-competent staff across networks. Streamlining specialized GAC institutional arrangements with a view to empowering line managers in VPUs to achieve GAC objectives. Supporting increased applied research on what works in various GAC areas. Developing a results framework that includes baseline indicators of Bank and country-level performance, sets targets, and integrates monitoring of GAC responsiveness into standard portfolio monitoring.
Original Response: Partially agreed. Management agrees that articulating a clear results framework for GACII is critical. GAC Phase II in particular will lay out a clear Bank-wide results framework, with realistic yet stretching targets which will include baseline indicators, and a functioning monitoring system. Management also agrees on the importance of applying GAC competencies across sectors, and on the importance of applied research to support learning and knowledge management. However, Management is of the view that line managers are already empowered to achieve GAC objectives, and that the competitive process for allocating GAC Trust Fund monies was effective and appropriate.
Set out as noted above a GAC results framework and monitoring system in the context of GACII.
Finish ongoing work on ï¾GAC competenciesï¾ and an associated training program and put them into use by FY13.
As noted above, the oversight and management arrangements for GACII will be revised.
Set out priorities for research in the context of GACII and monitor progress in the context of regular GAC reporting.
The latest progress update on the agreed actions on this recommendations is as follows:
(i) GAC results framework and monitoring system: The GAC results framework and monitoring system had been in place since FY14, when a major stocktaking exercise was conducted. The results framework laid out in the GAC Strategy Update was used as the baseline. However, there is no evidence that it is currently in use. The Updated GAC Strategy (2012) is live, but dormant. The creation of new GGP saw strategic restructuring, reorganization and reprioritization. A new Public Integrity and Openness (PIO) Directorate was established with responsibility for the GAC agenda. However, even that has seen a change and in the new Organogram for the GGP, the PIO Directorate has been transformed into a Solutions and Innovation in Procurement (SIP) Directorate. GAC is not a mandate of any specific Directorate of the GGP now, but responsibility of all.
(ii) Finish ongoing work on GAC competencies: The Governance Boot Camp training program is a useful tool for applying GAC competencies across other practices and streams. It was continued to be offered, with heavy demand from Governance staff. It is indeed a commendable step. Governance and corruption training has been integrated into training programs on Bank Operations, and in curricula for TTLs, procurement staff, and financial management. Concept Notes for the four rigorous impact evaluations of governance engagements have been developed and in the review process.
(iii) Revision of oversight and management arrangements for GACII: Oversight and management arrangements for GACII are not clear. With restructuring of the GGP, and transformation of PIO to SIP Directorate, it is unclear where the GAC agenda is currently housed. It is not clear how the GAC Council will adequately address strategic and operational issues, including institution-wide risk monitoring and results monitoring. Furthermore, while this system of deliberative decision making takes place under the GPP structure, it is unclear how other GPs will fit into the process to ensure systemic treatment of GAC across the Bank's portfolio.
(iv) Set out priorities for research: New research priorities have been identified relating to governance in fragile and conflict environments, domestic resource mobilization, illicit financial flows, and the use of information technology in confronting corruption.
The Governance Boot Camp training program continued to be offered, with heavy demand from Governance staff. Concept Notes for the four rigorous impact evaluations of governance engagements have been developed and in the review process. Governance and corruption training has been integrated into training programs on Bank Operations, and in curricula for TTLs, procurement staff, and financial management. New research priorities have been identified relating to governance in fragile and conflict environments, domestic resource mobilization, illicit financial flows, and the use of information technology in confronting corruption. The introduction of Volcker triggers into the Operational Portal as of FY'17 has increased staff attention to GAC issues in projects and represents an important step in enabling management to monitor the portfolio in a risk-based fashion.
The Boot camp training is a commendable step, and a useful tool for applying GAC competencies across other practices and streams. The support for applied research on what works in various GAC areas is also promising, along with the GAC results framework and monitoring system. Progress on other sub-recommendations is unknown, including consolidating fragmented GAC financing arrangements, and empowering line managers across VPUs to achieve GAC objectives. IEG looks forward to further progress in applying GAC competencies across global practices and career streams, and in enhancing coordination among global practices to improve governance results.
The GAC results framework and monitoring system has been in place since FYï¾14. The GAC competencies exercise fed into the development of a week-long Governance Boot Camp training program that was created and organized on 2 different occasions during FYï¾15. The course, which mainstreams corruption into the overall approach to governance, is the foundation for training all GGP staff and staff in other practices and stream. Rigorous impact evaluations (applying RCT methodologies) were initiated in four procurement engagements to advance understanding of what works in various GAC areas.
The GAC results framework and monitoring system is in place and a stock taking was carried out in FY14. 6 out of 13 indicators were rated successful and 7 were partially successful in FY12-13 GAC scorecard.
The adoption of GAC competencies and the associated training program, expected to be rolled out in FY13, is still being formulated. This work is centered in the GGP, and it is unclear how much it will be able to influence Bank-wide GAC competencies across other GPs and Cross Cutting Solutions Areas. Oversight and management arrangements for GAC2 are not clear (see IEG update on Action 0088). Research priorities and arrangements for monitoring of progress are being defined by the newly appointed Chief Institutional Economist.
The GAC results framework and monitoring system has been in place, and a major stocktaking exercise was conducted in FY14. The results framework laid out in the GAC Strategy Update was used as the baseline. The GAC competencies exercise will be subsumed within a broader exercise to analyze skills across the GGP. GGP management is currently reviewing how GAC will be structured under the new global practice, but the agenda will be housed in the Public Integrity and Openness Directorate. Research priorities are currently being defined by the new Chief Institutional Economist for the GGP.
Significant efforts are being made to replicate the QAG and IEG benchmarking efforts in line with the updated GAC results framework. It is envisaged that these data could inform GAC Council meetings and regularly portfolio monitoring of GAC in operations. As noted earlier, the GAC Council has been reorganized, although its membership is largely absorbed with the large Change Agenda. There is need to embed key GAC institution-wide risk and results monitoring efforts into the Bank's new management structures going forward.
Less progress has been made in ensuring the transferability of GAC competencies across networks rather than creating a self-standing GAC cadre that is separate from the public sector, FM, and procurement cadres of the Bank. Given the potential for a reconfiguration of the Networks under the Change Agenda, it is even more important to define Bank-wide GAC competencies across job classes and grades.
Finally, the GAC research agenda requires immediate attention particularly in context of the new President's focus on the "science of delivery" and evidence based approaches to behavioral change.The content of much of the Bank's GAC related research for the past two decades should inform how the Bank's new lexicon is interpreted. This will require the closer linkages with DEC, IEG, and outside research partners are established relatively quickly.
Update to Action 0089-01:The GAC monitoring framework has been established and a major monitoring exercise has been undertaken in the spring of 2013. The results will be presented to the GAC Council in September 2013.[LOA: substantial]
Update to Action 0089-02:Work on developing competencies has been put on hold pending the broader set of change management reforms that are currently being contemplated under the corporate change management process. They will be revisited once the broader parameters of the Bankï¾s HR policy reforms are clear.[LOA: medium]
Update to Action 0089-03:New TORs for the GAC Council were prepared and adopted in November 2012. A group of GAC Focal Points has been established at the working level to take forward the agenda.[LOA: substantial]
Update to Action 0089-04:Ongoing process. The GAC Council has not been directly involved in setting research priorities to date, which has taken place at the level of individual RVPs and MVPs.[LOA: medium]