CAP-Scan in Mauritania Evaluation of MfDR Capacities Description of the exercise.

CAP-Scan in MauritaniaEvaluation of MfDR Capacities

Description of the exercise

Introduction : General context

Why CAP-Scan ?

What is the CAP-Scan ?

CAP-Scan process

CAP-Scan in Mauritania

Contents

2

This document is the final compilation of all other CAP-Scan presentations describing the process in Mauritania

Its objective is to serve as a guide and toolbox for the next CAP-Scan exercise

It should be used with complementary documents including:• Excel tools• Methodology• CAP-Scan report, July 2008

Note

3

CAP-Scan in MauritanieEvaluation of MfDR Capacities

Introduction – General Context

A framework on development performance

Evidence-based decision-making tool

Simple and practical tool for strategic planning, risk management, and monitoring and evaluation of results

Approach that seeks to have a long term impact.

General Context (1/2) – MfDR framework

5

The CAP-Scan was developed by the Joint Venture Managing for Development Results (JV MfDR), of the OECD’s Development Assistance Community (DAC).

The CAP-Scan Working Group included :• UNDP• Inter-American Development Bank• Asian Development Bank• Canadian International Development Agency • Millenium Challenge Corporation• World Bank

Mauritania is the first country to implement the CAP-Scan in this pilot phase. It will share this experience at the Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, September 2008.

General context (2/2) – CAP-Scan approach

6

CAP-Scan in MauritaniaEvaluation of MfDr Capacities

Why CAP-Scan?What is the CAP-Scan?

The Triennial Development Plan for 2008-2010 identified capacity building as a long-term goal:• In particular decision-making, strategic planning and

program management capacities Inter-sectoral charater of capacities adds

complexity to the search for solutions The CAP-Scan is an opportunity to develop an

improvement plan• Self-assessment by senior government officials• Cross-cutting groups• Setting capacity building priorities• Concrete action plan that integrates existing

efforts

Why CAP-Scan?

8

Focus on result : priorities, action planning Factual data : scores based on facts Monitoring and evaluation : a monitoring

mechanism to adapt and improve capacities Appropriation : self-assessment and adaptation of

methodology Transparency : framework and process

What is the CAP-Scan?1. MfDR principles

Five « pillars » : for self-assessment

Macro-level evaluation Integrated vision for the 5

pillars : understanding interactions and dependancies as important as identifying actions

Each piliar is divided into evaluation criteria : the dimensions

Dimensions are the base of priorities and actions

10

CAP-Scan

What is the CAP-Scan?2. An integrated approach

What is the CAP-Scan?3. A framework and self-assessment methodology

Through self-evaluation the country positions itself at a point along the development capacity change for each dimension

12

What is the CAP-Scan?3. Framework and self-assessment methodology (continued)

4321

4

3

2

1

Score of self-assessment

Pri

ori

ty =

com

bin

ais

on Im

port

ance

, Fe

asi

bili

ty, U

rgence

What is the CAP-Scan?4. Methodology and analysis of priorities

Budget reflects National priorities

Management of change

Public access to information

Data quality assessment

Commitment

MfDR informs policy

« Quick win » ?

Action requested

No urgent action needed

Efforts without significant

returns

What is the CAP-Scan?5. Concrete results : self-assessment, priorities, action plan


Process1. Self-assessment

Pill

ars

divi

eded

in d

imen

sion

s =

crit

eria

Leadership

Capacity Development

Monitoring and Evaluation

Accountability

Budget Process

Statistics

Self-assessment Structure

Self-assessment : positioning each dimension

17

Collecting data, position, visualization

Journal : Framework data

Visualisation: MfDR profile

Mauritania’s Approach

Sector materials •Group Discussion •Self-assessment

Adaptation

•Consolidation and synthesis

Working Sessions

• Self-assessment• Priorities• Action Plan• Monitoring

21

3 stages :• By departement : Group review and evaluation• Synthesis : Points of convergence and divergence• Full group discussion

Mauritania CAP-Scan – Framework• Self-assessment framework: Engage group in discussion. One questions

per dimension, responses correspond to each stage of development

• Pillars and dimensions : Synthesis viewpoint of group

• Stages of development capacities : General definitions

• Correspondance : matrix showing dimensions (based on existing CAP-Scan documents)

Mauritania CAP-Scan– Journal• Journal : Recording ofdiscussion and arguments

Mauritania CAP-Scan - Synthesis• Self-assessment 1 : July 2008 results

• Self-assessment 2 : results of next cycle

• Self-assessment - Pillars : averages per pillar

• Self-assessment - Dimensions : Diagram showing dimensions

Self-Assessment Tools

Vue synthétique des piliers / dimensions / questions clés1. Leadership 2. Suivi et Evaluation 3. Redevabilité et contrôle 4. Processus budgétaire 5. Statistiques

Engagement 1.1. Quel est le niveau de l'engagement du Gouvernement dans une démarche de gestion axée sur les résultats de développement ?

Capacité en suivi et

évaluation

2.1 Dans quelle mesure le Gouvernement dispose-t-il des compétences adéquates pour assurer un suivi et une évaluation des politiques publiques ?

Indépendance de la Justice et

des Hautes Institution de

Contrôle

3.1 Dans quelle mesure les institutions de contrôle et le pouvoir judiciaire exercent-ils leur action en indépendance par rapport au pouvoir exécutif ?

Le budget reflète les priorités

nationales

4.1 Quel est le lien entre le CSLP, le CDMT et la LdF? Dans quelle mesure la LdF reflète-t-elle les priorités établies dans le CDMT et le CSLP?

Stratégie et dispositif

5.1 Quel est le niveau de mise en oeuvre de la stratégie nationale en termes de statistiques ?

Clarté et articulation de

la vision

1.2 Dans quelle mesure la planification nationale présente-t-elle clairement les objectifs de développement et constitue-t-elle le cadre de référence de l'action gouvernementale ?

Système d'information

et outils d'aide à la décision

2.2. Dans quelle mesure le Gouvernement dispose-t-il des outils adéquats, informatique en particulier, pour assurer un suivi et une évaluation des politiques publiques et utiliser des données factuelles dans les décisions ?

Rôle du Parlement dans le contrôle de

l'action gouvernementa

le

3.2 Quel est le niveau d'implication du Parlement dans le contrôle de l'action du Gouvernement, notamment au niveau des politiques économiques et des allocations budgetaires?

Elaboration budgétaire

basée sur les objectifs et

résultats

4.2 Dans quelle mesure la vision objectifs et résultats constitue-t-elle une base d'allocation des ressources budgétaires ?

Désagrégation des données

5.2 Quel est la capacité du Gouvernement en termes de désagrégation des données ?

Implication des acteurs non

gouvernementaux

1.3 Dans quelle mesure le Gouvernement arrive à impliquer les organisations de la société civile et le secteur privé comme partenaires dans l'atteinte des résultats de développement ?

Planification nationale

orientée vers les résultats de développement

2.3 Les politiques publiques sont-elles soumises à un processus de suivi et d'évaluation de manières régulière et soutenue permettant des ajustements dans un objectif de performance ?

Indépendance des médias

3.3 Dans quelle mesure les médias dans leur globalité (publics et privés) peuvent-ils constituer un contre-pouvoir effectif ?

Participation des acteurs

non gouvernementa

ux à la planification et

l'élaboration budgétaire

4.3 Dans quelle mesure les autres acteurs (société civile, parlement) participent-ils au processus des allocations budgétaires et dans l'évaluation des résultats?

Évaluation de la qualité des

données

5.3 Quels sont les moyens consacrés par le Gouvernement à l'amélioration de la qualité des données statistiques ?

Responsabilisation et

délégation

1.4 Les pratiques de gestion des cadres de l'Administration encouragent-elles le développement, l'implication et la motivation des fonctionnaires ?

Performance de

l'administration orientée vers

les résultats de développement

2.4 Dans quelle mesure une information factuelle de suivi et évaluation est-elle utilisée comme moyen d'améliorer le fonctionnement de l'administration pour de meilleurs résultats de développement ?

Accès du public aux

informations

3.4 Le Gouvernement dissémine-t-il de manière systematique l'information sur son action au public ?

Coordination interne dans le département

4.4 L'élaboration budgétaire au sein d'un département suit-elle une déclinaison logique des objectifs aux différents niveaux ?

Capacité à mener des enquêtes

5.4 Le Gouvernement a-t-il la capacité de mener des enquêtes de niveau national ?

Coordination des bailleurs et alignement sur

priorités nationales

1.5 Dans quelle mesure la coordination au sein du Gouvernement assure-t-elle l'alignement des partenaires extérieurs sur les priorités nationales ?

Système de mesure de la satisfaction des usagers

2.5 L'administration a-t-elle mis en oeuvre des moyens de mesure de qualité des services au service de l'atteinte des résultats ?

Coordination inter sectorielle

4.5 Dans quelle mesure la coordination sur base des objectifs intersectoriels est-elle prise en compte dans l'élaboration budgétaire ?

Intégration de la dimension

décentralisation

1.6 Dans quelle mesure les niveaux central et local sont-ils intégrés dans un cadre cohérent pour l'atteinte des résultats de développement ?

Harmonisation des demandes d'information des bailleurs

de fonds

2.6 Quel est le niveau de préparation et d'influence de l'administration dans la discussion d'harmonisation des processus de suivi ?

Gestion du changement

1.7 Dans quelle mesure le Gouvernement s'est-il donné les moyens de traiter le développement de capacités comme un vrai projet de changement profond de l'Administration et de ses pratiques ?

Gestion des ressources humaines

1.8 Quel est le niveau de moyens mis en place pour l'implication individuelle des fonctionnaires dans la gestion axée sur les résultats de développement ?

Pillars and dimensions

Stages of capacity development

Onglet «Stades de dév. de capacités » du cadre de référence

CAP-Scan Column descriptors

Awareness Exploring Transition Full Implementation

The organization is aware of, but not committed to, MfDR. People in the organization recognize that what they have been doing is inadequate and that there must be a better way of proceeding. Managers may express a broad commitment to MfDR, saying that they wish to be in line with broader public policy, but their statements lack conviction. This stage can involve a sense of fear, guilt and unhappiness with past performance. It can also lead to attempts to place blame, as various organizational stakeholders become frustrated with parts of the organization that do not implement MfDR-related practices. With increased exposure to the idea of managing for results, groups become more open to the possibility of change, leading to the next stage.

The organization begins to commit to MfDR and explores different approaches. During this stage, people begin to pick up on new ideas from a variety of sources. The exploration may take the form of learning groups, benchmarking studies and pilot projects. One problem at this stage is that people may prefer one technique or system over others, without having given them a full trial. Another problem may be that too many different ideas are tied at once, resulting in practices that are never fully explored. During the exploration stage, enough people across the organization develop a sense of the benefits of MfDR and at to explore it in a broader context. This willingness leads to the next stage.

The organization has committed itself to MfDR and attempting to make the transition from previous systems. People being to make a commitment to the new practices required. They drop old practices in favor of new ones because the old practices can no longer solve the organization’s day-to-day problems. This stage can be characterized by hard decisions on what to keep and what to discard in terms of MfDR strategies. For example, the conversion to a set of results-oriented measures is likely to mean that some old measures need to be dropped. As more people see the benefits provided, MfDR becomes more widespread throughout the organization.

The organization fully implements MfDR in all areas. Groups across the organization begin to begin to see and look forward to the real benefits of the new management approach. Resources are allocated and plans are designed to support new practices, not to maintain old and outdated ones.

Basis : synthesis of sectoral self-assessments Review of differences with a view to reaching

consensus It is your assessment The score is less important than the

arguments! Roles :

• Moderator : …• Facilitator : …• Time-keeper : …

Presentation of Working Sessions


Process2. Identifying priorities

Criteria 1 : Must be done• Group work -- consensus• Only those dimensions considered indispensible are kept for further analysis• Others are ranked as lowest priority

Criteria 2&3 : feasibility and urgency• Discussion in full group

Identifying priorities• Full group discussion• Urgent and Feasible = 1• Priorities 2 and 3 discussed in group

Evaluation• Implicit in the analysis of Feasibility / Urgency• Visualize on Evaluation x Priority table and validate final priorities

Note : the number of levels of priorities is not important (3 or 4 in general). The critical point is reaching consensus on the 5-6 dimensions of priority 1.

Identifying priorities : Criteria

Indispensable In the short term

Critical

Important

Useful

Not useful in the short term

Budget reflects national prioritiesChange Management

Access to public information

Evaluation of data quality

Commitment

Clarity and articulation of

vision

Level 1 Analysis : importance by dimension

4

3

2

1

0

Activity 1 (1hr)• Objective : position dimensions on the vertical axis measuring

importance• All dimensions are important : must define relative importance

and think in sequential terms• 2 working groups, 1 rapporteur for each group (NB : the group

of rapporteurs convene on day 2) Group work : 20 min Restitution : 10 min per group Discussion / full group validation : 20 min

• Roles : Moderator : … Facilitator : …

Working Session Activities

Urgence

Level 2 Analysis : feasibility x urgency

Budget reflects national priorities

Change Management

Evaluation of data quality

Commitment

Clarity and articulation of

vision

Feasi

bili

ty

Ch

Activity 2 (45 min)• Objective : identify priority dimensions and develop action plan• Second iteration of first group of priorities to determine results

and introduce two addtional varieables : urgency and feasiblity• Think sequentially in timeframe of 6 months – 1 year• Full group work to set the first group dimensions on the table:

urgency x feasibility• Roles :

Moderator : … Facilitator : …


4321

4

3

2

1

Score of self-assessment

Pri

ori

ty =

com

bin

ais

on Im

port

ance

, Fe

asi

bili

ty, U

rgence

Identify priorities and final analysis

Budget reflects National priorities

Management of change

Public access to information


Commitment

MfDR informs policy

« Quick win » ?

Action requested

No urgent action needed

Efforts without significant

returns

Activity 3 (30 min)• Objective : Full group validates priorities for action (around 5)• Full group plots the dimensions on a table measuring

assessment x priorities• Priorities are defined in activities – Concentrate on high levels!• Take an step in advance : review and correlate 5-6 priority

dimensions • Conclusion of first day• Roles :

Facilitator : …

Working Sessions Activities


Process3. Developing an Action Plan

Developing an action plan is one step in improving the methodology

Observations :• Formulate objectives based on priority dimensions, define

actions• First meeting in small group (of focal points) to develop a first

draft of the action plan for review by the full group

In all cases, share adaptations with the MfDR Secretariat

Note

Principles

Activity 1 (1hr30) : 2 working groups• Objective : propose an action plan for priority dimensions (priority

1)• Additional rules :

Prohibited words : « apply », « reinforce », « assist » Additional pillar required: Monitoring CAP-Scan / communication Each group has the right to revise 1 dimension among the priorities and

propose complementary actions for group validation

• Indications / questions to validate an action : Is it possible to define the result in 6 months to a year? Is it possible to measure the results with indicators? Is responsibility for actions clear?

• Tools : Results from day 1, Action planning • Roles :

Facilitators : … (1 per group)

Working Sessions Activities

2 Activities (1hr30)• Objective : Develop first draft of workplan• Actions must address criteria :

Concrete results in 6 months – 1 year and associated indicators Clear responsibilities

• Group Work 15 per group Discussion : 1hr

• Roles : Moderator : … Facilitator : …

• If differences persists at the end of the morning: arbitration committee during the afternoon (3-4 representatives from each groups, facilitators)


3 Activities (1hr)• Objective : Finalize Action Plan• Additional Information :

Responsabilities Indicators, baselines and targets Resources Ties to other initiatives / programs

• Full Group Work• Roles :

Moderator : … Facilitator : …


4 Activities (1hr)• Objectives

Finalize analysis of CAP-Scan pillars and communicate Action Plan Proposing Post-Accra mechanisms

• Additional Information : Responsabilities Ties to other initiatives / programs

• Full Group Work• Roles :

Facilitator : …



Process

Sector Meetings •Self-Assessment•Group Discussion

Preparation for Working Sessions

•Consolidation and synthesis

Working Sessions

• Self-Assessment• Priorities• Action Plan • Monitoring

Launch

June 30 - July 8 July 6 – 11 July 12 & 15

42

CAP-Scan ProcessPlanning 2008

Opening

Self-assessment

Schedule 9h – 11h30 12h00 – 13h30 14h45 – 16h00 16h15 – 17h30

Self-assessmentIdentifying priorities

Identifying priorities

Report from first day

Action Plan

Action Plan Action Plan

Monitoring and next steps

End day

CAP-Scan ProcessWorking Session Agenda 2008

CAP-Scan ProcessInter-sectoral Group

CAP-Scan ProcessSelf-assessment : results by pillar

Average per pillar

0 1 2 3 4

Leadership

Monitoring and Evaluation

Accountability and Partnerships

Planning and Budgetting

Statistics

Jul-08

CAP-Scan ProcessSelf-assessment : Results by dimension

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

Survey capability


Data Disaggregation

Statistics strategy

Inter-sectoral Coordination

Internal Coordination

Performance based budgeting

Budget reflects national priorities

Public access to results

Independent media

Legislative Oversight

Judicial Independence

Reporting harmonization

Data management capability

Government performance is oriented toward results

Data management capability

Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity

National Development Plan evaluation systems

Human Resource Management

Change Management

Linking the field and the capital

Donor coordination and alignment with national priorities

Accountability and Delegation

Involvement of Non governmental stakeholders

MfDR informs policy

Commitment

Statistiques

Processus budgétaire

Redevabilité et contrôle

Suivi et Evaluation

Leadership

CAP-Scan ProcessLively discussions…

CAP-Scan ProcessPriorities

Priorité 1

4.1 The budget reflects national priorities

1.1 Commitment

2.1 National Development Plan evaluation systems

1.2 MfDR informs policy / national planning

2.2 Monitoring and evaluation capacity

2.3 Data management capability

2.4 Government performance focus on MfDR

Priorité 2

1.8 Human Resource

Management

1.7 Management

of Change

1.5 Donor coordination 3.2 Legislative oversight

3.1 Judicial independence

3.3 Independence of the media

5.2 Etendue et désagrégation des données

5.4 Data quality assessment

Priorité 3

1.4 Responsibility and delegation

1.6 Integration of decentralize

d actors

3.4 Public access to results1.3 Involvement of non

governmental stakeholders5.1 Statistics strategy

2.5 Client satisfaction

systems

2.6 Reporting

harmonization

4.2 Performance based budgeting

4.4 Coordination inter sectorial

4.3 Internal coordination

5.4 Capacity to do questionnaires

1 2 3

CAP-Scan ProcessAction Plan (partial)

Dimension

Programmed actions Indicator/Monitor-ing

Referencesituation

Target situation Schedule

Financing Resp. Exec.

Prep-

aration

Exe-cution

Prior-ity

Comment/Connec-tion with existing

action

Obtain-ed

Obtain-

able

Source

Leadership

Commitment CAP-Scan

3.0 1

1.1.1 Promulgate law organizing the monitoring and evaluation system of the CSLP

Law adopted

TO + 6 month

s

MEF

1.1.2 Extend the sector CDMST: MFPMA, MPEFP, MC

No. depts. CDMT

7 10 toTO + 1

yr

MEF/other

depart-ments

1.1.3 Study of capacity-strengthening needs of the coordination structure for governmental action (DG of Interministerial Coordination) to ensure performance of the coordination, facilitation and support roles at the interministerial level.

MEF for

submiss-ion to

PM

1.1.4 General introduction of a specialized body or unit responsible for strategic programming in the MPM and MC.

% direct/Dept

60% 100% by TO

+ 6 month

s

Ministry

submits to PM

Adjustment of organization charts

Clarity and articulation of vision CAP-Scan

3.0 1

1.2.1 Make the different programming tools consistent: analysis to harmonize terminology, structure and actions.

TO + 6 month

s

MEF/

DGCI

MEF/DGCIM

Human Resource Management CAP-Scan

1.25 2

1.8.1 Establishment of performance-evaluation tools for civil servants and government employees: pilot perimeter on the staff of the M&E units in the DEPs.

3-Year Plan indicator: % of officials evaluated

100% on the perimeter

by TO + 1 yr

MfDR Website : www.mfdr.org

African Community of Practice : http://www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/group/mfdrfrancophone

Annex : Links

50

http://www.mfdr.org/

http://www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/group/mfdrfrancophone

CAP-Scan in Mauritania Evaluation of MfDR Capacities Description of the exercise.

Documents

Transcript of CAP-Scan in Mauritania Evaluation of MfDR Capacities Description of the exercise.