Development organisations set for themselves clear expected results measured by indicators aligned to the SDGs, and design and apply flexibly sound methodologies at corporate, portfolio, country, sector, programme and project levels to achieve these results.
OECD (2019[1]) Managing for Sustainable Development Results, Guiding Principle 1
Development challenges have become increasingly complex and intertwined, and development finance is under pressure. More than ever, effective steering from the top of governments and development organisations is needed to ensure all efforts are internally and externally coherent, and lead to sustainable impact. However, despite progress, most governments and development organisations still struggle to manage for results at this level, or to sufficiently integrate sustainable development into their results frameworks.
A results framework is developed to reflect the overall strategy of the government/organisation
Strategic planning is aligned to national/corporate objectives and the SDGs
Overarching (country and corporate) results frameworks are developed with sustainable development in mind
The indicator framework is aligned to the SDGs
Developing overarching results frameworks is crucial for both governments and development partners:
For governments, results frameworks provide a roadmap to align policies and initiatives with national development goals. They offer a structured approach to identifying, prioritising and tracking the impact of interventions, thereby promoting transparency, accountability and resource efficiency. These frameworks encourage evidence-based decision-making, leading to more effective, targeted and sustainable solutions for developmental challenges.
For bilateral and multilateral development co-operation agencies, such frameworks are equally important. They not only facilitate alignment with countries' priorities, but also promote coherence and synergies within the complex web of international development efforts. Results frameworks help these agencies demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of their aid, enhancing accountability to their stakeholders. Furthermore, they enable learning and improvement by providing valuable data on what does and does not work, ultimately contributing to the global knowledge base for effective development co-operation.
Introducing an overarching results framework has many proven benefits, but leadership may hesitate in order to avoid reputational risks associated with any potential shortfall. However, these overarching frameworks primarily serve as an opportunity to strengthen leadership credibility and promote a culture of transparency and accountability. First, they demonstrate a commitment to evidence-based decision-making, enhancing legitimacy by showcasing a strategic, disciplined approach to development. Second, they position leadership as proactive and responsive, willing to identify and address areas of improvement, thereby fostering trust among citizens and other stakeholders. Finally, they present an opportunity to celebrate successes and generate positive publicity. The adoption of an overarching results framework associated with a national development strategy or development co-operation policy signals a bold, forward-thinking approach to development that values learning and continuous improvement, ultimately leading to more impactful and sustainable outcomes that will be appreciated by the public and wider stakeholders alike.
Is there an overarching strategy in your government or organisation (such as a national development plan, a mid-term strategy or a corporate strategy)? If not, is there an alternative method for formulating medium-term strategic priorities?
Does your current situation allow leadership and management to sufficiently access the relevant information on performance and results that they need for learning, decision-making, and internal and external accountability and communications?
If there are information gaps, what are the main challenges that prevent addressing those gaps?
Both governments and development partners shall:
Establish a clear vision and objectives: Define the overarching goals and development priorities, ensuring alignment with national or organisational strategies.
Avoid: Setting overly ambitious or vague goals that could lead to confusion or lack of focus. Ensure the goals are realistic, clear and aligned with available resources.
Engage stakeholders: Consult and involve a diverse range of stakeholders, including government departments, other development partners, civil society and private sector representatives, to ensure a collaborative approach and broad ownership.
Avoid: Be cautious of selective or tokenistic engagement, which could undermine the legitimacy of the process and lead to a lack of buy-in or ownership among key stakeholders.
Develop an underlying logic for the framework, based on its intended use: Identify the outputs, outcomes and expected impacts (see the three-tier logic discussed in the Introduction for an example). Consider including inputs and activities necessary to assess organisational performance and to achieve stated objectives. While establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the elements in an overarching framework is more difficult, as these frameworks reflect complex and very diverse interventions across sectors, at a minimum, ensure that there is a logical connection between the indicators that are included.
Avoid: Resist the temptation to overcomplicate the framework with too many objectives or layers. It should be simple enough to facilitate understanding and use.
Define performance indicators: Select relevant, measurable and meaningful indicators to track progress and assess the impact of interventions. Our research shows that the number of indicators in overarching frameworks increases for each order of magnitude of the related budget (15-30 for budgets under one billion USD, 35-75 for budgets below 10 billion, and between 75 and 200 for larger budgets, such as those of national governments or multilateral development banks).
Avoid: Beware of choosing too many indicators, or ones that are difficult to measure or do not provide meaningful information about progress and impact.
Set targets and baselines: Establish realistic targets and baseline data to enable performance measurement and comparison over time.
Avoid: Setting arbitrary targets without considering baseline data, as this could lead to unrealistic expectations and discouragement.
Ensure data quality: Develop robust data collection, management and analysis systems to ensure reliable, timely, and accurate information for decision-making.
Avoid: Be aware of potential biases or errors in data collection and analysis, which could undermine the credibility of the results and decisions based on them.
Allocate resources: Allocate sufficient human, financial, and technical resources to support the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the results framework.
Avoid: Resist underestimating the resources required for effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This could lead to overburdened staff, delayed activities or incomplete data.
Establish a monitoring and evaluation system: Develop a systematic process for tracking progress, assessing performance and capturing lessons learned, to inform decision-making and enable continuous improvement.
Avoid: Beware of treating this as a bureaucratic exercise rather than a valuable tool for learning and improvement. It should provide useful, actionable insights (see Chapter 5).
Communicate results: Share progress and achievements with stakeholders and the public, promoting transparency, accountability, and learning.
Avoid: Sharing information selectively or in an overly technical manner. Ensure it is comprehensive, understandable and accessible to all stakeholders.
Review and adapt: Regularly review the results framework and make necessary adjustments based on new data, changing circumstances or emerging lessons, to ensure continued effectiveness and relevance.
Avoid: Resist sticking rigidly to the original plan when evidence suggests a need for change. Flexibility and responsiveness to emerging lessons and changing circumstances are key to success.
For most advanced governments and institutions, overarching results frameworks have become an instrument not just to track overall results, but to consolidate a process of organisational transformation that affects tangible and intangible elements. In particular, the introduction of these frameworks is used to foster six types of transformations:
Foster a culture of learning: The overarching framework, when supported and used by leadership to discuss progress, encourage a mindset that views failures and shortcomings not as pitfalls, but as opportunities for learning and improvement. For example, the MOPAN Assessment Report 2021 (Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN), 2021[2])praised UNICEF for its “continual learning” approach to organisational development supported by a robust culture of results and a strong results-based management system in place.
Promote cross-sectoral and cross-agency co-ordination: Overarching frameworks create incentives to break internal and external barriers and ensure that all efforts are co-ordinated to avoid duplication, promote synergies and enhance impact. They can act as a coherent anchor to improve the division of labour within an organisation, or at country level. Rwanda's Vision 2020 Umurenge Program, for example, was lauded for its effective co-ordination among different government departments, international development partners and NGOs, enhancing efficiency and impact.
Use technology for data management and visualisation: As an extension to these frameworks, some institutions employ digital tools for more efficient data collection, analysis and visualisation, to facilitate decision-making and communication. The World Bank's Development Impact Evaluation (DIME) initiative uses technology extensively to manage and visualise data from its complex impact evaluations, improving accessibility and understanding of results.
Incorporate gender and social inclusion considerations: The overarching results framework can be used to reflect the needs and perspectives of all segments of the population, including women, youth, and marginalised groups, across all the actions of government or the development organisation. It not only adds a quantitative, monitorable aspect to the theme, but it raises its political importance internally. Canada's Feminist International Assistance Policy is a good example, with its results framework explicitly focused on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls (see Chapter 7).
More advanced governments and development agencies are further leveraging their overarching results frameworks to increase agility, utility and capacity to navigate uncertainty by adopting adaptive management approaches and flexibility, utilising predictive analytics and scenario planning, integrating risk management mechanisms, investing in related capacity development across the organisation, promoting a culture of innovation and scaling, applying a systems perspective to developing this type of framework, and innovating on how they use these frameworks to strengthen accountability (e.g. to parliament) and communications (e.g. to the public) (see Chapter 6).
Overarching results frameworks are a critical tool to guide the investments of each development actor in a comprehensive way and offer a powerful instrument to mainstream sustainable development in policies and programmes. To that end, the frameworks need to reflect all dimensions of sustainable development in an integrated manner and harmonise how results are measured to better support collective efforts toward sustainable development.
Among other international frameworks of reference discussed in Chapter 2, the SDGs, universally adopted by all United Nations (UN) member states in 2015, offer a common platform that covers all three dimensions of development (economic, social, and environmental), with a set of commonly agreed goals, targets and robust indicators. Governments and their international development partners can draw on the SDG framework, as it provides a common language for sustainable development, helping to ensure that the efforts of all stakeholders are geared towards shared aspirations.
Sound development planning is a prerequisite for positive impact on sustainable development:
National development strategies can serve to highlight and prioritise development objectives for achieving the SDGs. They also serve as a rallying point for ministries, subnational governments, domestic actors and international development partners, promoting coherence. Informed by an inclusive and results-oriented process, quality national development strategies lead to better development plans with lasting impact, while enhancing legitimacy, strengthening accountability and providing a commonality of purpose as well as a space for development actors to engage.
Development co-operation policies and strategies used by development co-operation agencies can provide a medium-term vision on how the development co-operation portfolio will contribute to sustainable development. These should be geared towards clear intended results for sustainable development, such as the ones included in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The strategic results framework should reflect the priorities in the medium-term vision. In this way, it can help reconcile domestic and international commitments, including the SDGs, and integrate social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development under a common umbrella. It should clearly articulate how other sector and thematic strategies will contribute to the expected results.
In setting overarching objectives for their development strategies, ministries and development co-operation institutions need to reconcile national and corporate objectives with global agenda goals. While there are various global or regional agendas that can be referred to, the SDGs stand out as a universal results framework that provides all development stakeholders with a common roadmap for collaborative and comprehensive approaches towards sustainable development (see Chapter 2).
Is the national development plan or corporate development co-operation strategy geared towards clear, intended results that reflect the SDGs?
If not, what other reference frameworks are used to integrate sustainable development considerations?
Governments:
Foster an inclusive approach in defining national priorities for sustainable development. Engage national development actors – including civil society, private sector, parliamentarians and local governments in:
organising systematic opportunities to participate in planning dialogues,
communicating about these opportunities broadly and well in advance, and
addressing issues that may hinder inclusive participation, e.g. language, access to information and weak or missing representative institutions.
Draw on evidence, learning from past strategies and considering emerging issues and opportunities, to set strategic priorities and inform the development of the national framework for sustainable development.
Focus on sustainable development results:
Long-term sustainability: Define the long-term vision for national development with clear strategic priorities that are consistent with international agendas for sustainable development.
Outcome-orientation: Establish a country results framework that embeds sustainable development targets and indicators (reflecting outputs, outcomes and impacts) into national development planning documents.
Costing: Develop an integrated national financing framework (or similar instrument) that sets out how national development plans will be financed and implemented, and support the mobilisation and management of development resources.
Development partners:
Set the long-term vision for the development co-operation programme, its medium-term strategic priorities and its intended results, in line with international and domestic commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Set out a clear approach to poverty reduction, reducing gender inequalities, and leaving no-one behind, and covering the three dimensions of economic, social, and environmental development.
Define clear geographic, thematic, and sectoral priorities which draw on your strengths and are consistent with your policy commitments and strategic priorities.
Develop a cross-government policy for humanitarian assistance, respecting international agreements, and anchored in relevant legislation and accompanied by a realistic implementation plan.
Present a clear rationale for deciding where and how to engage at global, regional, and country levels - choosing appropriate channels, instruments and partners with which to engage.
Allocate geographic, thematic, and sectoral resources – globally, regionally and at country level – in a way that is consistent with your policy commitments and strategic priorities.
Use the SDGs as a critical lever to promote policy coherence for sustainable development: in paying greater attention to the impact that domestic policies have on other countries who are affected by those policy choices, policy coherence can increase the positive impacts of domestic policies, and avoid or mitigate the negative ones. The SDGs can enhance co-ordination mechanisms for identifying and managing transboundary impacts, supporting whole-of-government and whole-of-society commitments, and informing debate and follow-up at government level.
Enhance co-ordination within government to ensure all policies remain coherent with sustainable development objectives.
Enable continuous debate, putting policy challenges on the agenda of dialogue with all stakeholders at country level, based on insights from quality reporting and assessments.
Ensure readiness of line ministries, giving ministries clear responsibility, resources and capabilities to assess the direct and indirect effects of their policies on developing countries, combined with co-ordination and consultation mechanisms.
Strengthen connections between development co-operation and other policies at home to promote integrated approaches to development co-operation at country level e.g. developing a cross-government policy framework enabling a coherent, whole-of-government approach to all development co-operation activities.
Chimhowu A. O., Hulme, D. and Munro, L. T. (2019), The ‘New’ national development planning and global development goals: Processes and partnerships.
UNDP (2016), Citizen Engagement in Public Service Delivery The Critical Role of Public Officials.
World Bank (2011), Steps for designing a results-focused capacity development strategy : a primer for development practitioners based on the capacity development and results framework Washington, DC: World Bank.
GPEDC (2022), Geneva 2022 Effective Development Co-operation Summit Declaration (paras 23 and 24 on inclusive and participatory action dialogues at country level)
OECD/UNDP (2019), Making Development Cooperation More Effective: How Partner Countries are promoting effective partnerships; Part I of the Global Partnership 2019 Progress Report.
OECD (2022), Understanding the spillovers and transboundary impact of public policies. Consult chapter 3 on the path to policy coherence explores the untapped potential of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in articulating transboundary effects of domestic policies on developing countries.
OECD (2023), Using the SDG framework in results frameworks: An assessment and classification of SDG indicators.
A country results framework lays out the pathway of key deliverables leading to the achievement of the objectives set out in the national development strategy. It is also the basis upon which monitoring and evaluation systems will track progress. These frameworks include agreed objectives and set the milestones, targets and results indicators – at output, outcome and impact levels – to be met on the way to achieving them. Country results frameworks serve to focus development efforts on priority areas and ensure that success is defined by results achieved, rather than activities undertaken. Further, these frameworks bolster accountability among development practitioners and provide a basis for evidence-based dialogue on successes and challenges experienced in implementing development plans.
Development partners’ corporate results frameworks are the overarching frameworks that guide their development co-operation strategies, in articulating the way the strategy is expected to achieve its objectives. Corporate results frameworks are translated into flexible country-level results frameworks. Sector or thematic results frameworks can also be developed to ensure clear objectives, targets and indicators are set to measure the results of their respective interventions, which are programmed and managed at corporate level.
Aligning country and corporate results frameworks to the SDGs is the best way to ensure results frameworks are harmonised and aligned to countries’ development objectives.
Does the national development strategy or government strategic plan define development priorities, targets and associated results indicators? If targets and/or indicators are missing, can these be found in sector strategies and plans instead?
At which level do these results frameworks refer to the SDGs (goals, targets, indicators)?
Does your organisation have a corporate results framework in place?
To what extent does your results framework incorporate SDG results indicators?
While there is no standard format, frame the results framework in a way that illustrates how the strategies, plans, interventions, and resources will contribute to achieving the expected results, reflecting the causal relationships between each level of the results chain. See the Introduction.
Describe underlying (explicit or implicit) assumptions about the causal links between inputs, activities and results, as well as evidence and risks for these elements of the results chain.
Alongside the narrative and visualisation of the theory of change or logical model, design an indicator set or a performance measurement framework focusing on outcomes.
To incorporate the SDG targets and indicators in your results frameworks, take a three-step approach as follows:
1) Recognise links to the 2030 agenda in your strategic framework, e.g. by mapping your strategic priorities to SDG targets (where appropriate).
2) In designing country and corporate results frameworks, identify most relevant SDG targets and indicators (see Chapter 2).
3) Prioritise SDG indicators that reflect outcomes or impacts.
4) Try to align at the indicator level to maximise the potential of harmonised frameworks, rather than at goal or target level (Figure 3.1). Although aligning at the level of SDG indicators can be harder, it allows for the delivery of all the co-benefits that can stem from the four development effectiveness principles being implemented, contributing to SDG data availability as a public good, and collectively maximising the impact of development co-operation on achieving the SDGs.
Develop cross-sector approaches and include them in measurement, learning and reporting systems. Many development actors face difficulties in using the SDGs to their full potential through cross-sector approaches. Most governments and development agencies do not make use of integrated methodologies that are more demanding in terms of co-ordination due to their complexity. Avoiding sector silos and mainstreaming cross-cutting issues remains challenging.
Apply system-thinking approaches. This can be particularly useful in addressing complex crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The SDG framework offers a way to visualise the interconnectedness of the COVID-19 effects with other economic, social and environmental dimensions (avoiding sector-silo responses) so as to help countries prepare holistic responses to the triple health/economic/social crisis unleashed by such pandemics.
An example of effective practices in designing overarching results frameworks:
Finland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has created thematic theories of change for its priority areas, defining its contribution to Agenda 2030, with each expected outcome or output result linked to specific SDG targets. The consultative and reflective process that Finland undertook involved understanding its leverage and sphere of influence; in particular, how Finland could, through its development co-operation modalities, support the specific goals of the 2030 Agenda. This involved examining questions such as how Finland could influence the way in which job creation could support the decent work agenda as defined in the SDGs. This exercise helped clarify Finland’s specific contributions to the SDGs.
Finland’s theories of change are interlinked with the SDGs in many ways. Each priority area’s impact statement is connected to the specific SDG goal it is seen to contribute to. The outcome- and output-level result statements are also linked to the specific SDG targets to which they contribute. Moreover, the aggregate indicators developed on the basis of these theories of change are aligned with the SDGs and should be disaggregated according to sex, age and disability. An important assumption in taking this approach was that increased alignment of indicators with the SDGs would increase their usefulness. Linking the theories of change to the SDGs has also supported cross-sectoral approaches and identification of relevant SDG-aligned indicators.
Source: Virkkunen and Bruun (2022[3]), Thematic theories of change contributing to the Agenda 2030, https://eba.se/en/reports/thematic-theories-of-change-contributing-to-the-agenda-2030/19919/
EBA/Sweden (2022), An anthology of theories of change.
OECD (2022), Switzerland’s system for measuring results of development co-operation.
Examples of corporate results frameworks, EU Results Framework (EURF); Global Europe Results Framework (GERF), Asian Development Bank Results framework 2019-24.
OECD (2021), See how Finland uses thematic Theories of Change to promote cross-sectoral approaches and a visualisation of the interactions between SDGs (Box 3.1).
OECD (2023), Using the SDG framework in results frameworks: An assessment and classification of SDG indicators.
The SDGs offer a menu that all actors can use for their results frameworks, selecting and applying SDG targets and indicators in accordance with their respective priorities. Using the SDG framework can therefore help to reduce the proliferation of indicators, minimise the risk of parallel and costly reporting mechanisms, and contribute to bridging data gaps. While the alignment process takes time due to measurement and organisational constraints, an increasing number of development actors include SDG indicators as they develop or refine their results frameworks.
What is the share of official SDG indicators in your overarching set of indicators, and is this proportion increasing?
Identify the most relevant SDG indicators that fit with your goals, reflecting your objectives and sector/thematic priorities.
Assess relevance and cost of SDG indicators, noting that data availability for a specific indicator may vary depending on countries. Chapter 2 offers a series of criteria to assess the SDG indicators. An additional electronic annex based on relevant criteria for use.
Use alternative or proxy indicators when SDG indicators are not suitable for the particular situation:
Alternative indicators should: i) be directly related to SDG indicators, even if introduces slight adaptations (partially aligned or derived indicators) to target a specific population or geography, or to incorporate an additional issue; or ii) clearly address an SDG target substantively, as a substitute to the official SDG indicator (proxy indicator).
Avoid: Using the level of SDG “goals” as the main reference point for SDG alignment. The Goals are formulated in very broad terms and alignment to the Goals may not significantly different than former classifications by sectors. The transformative potential of using the SDG framework, with its integration of the various dimensions of sustainable development and its interlinkages, is only clearly manifested at the level of targets and indicators (see Figure 3.1).
Give preference to indicators that are already commonly used by governments and other development partners, to avoid the proliferation of indicators and minimise the risk of parallel reporting mechanisms.
Minimise the number of standard indicators that will be aggregated at the national or corporate level. This is important to avoid unnecessary and costly measurement requirements and focus on the quality of monitoring and evaluation. Alternatively, complement those standard indicator sets with a list of recommended indicators.
Focus on outcome-level indicators. This is important to give flexibility in aligning to specific contexts and evolving situations. In addition to standard indicators, optional output-level indicators can be selected by country offices or line ministries based on the national context and their need for learning and managing programmes (see Chapter 4).
Prevent measures from becoming targets. This is crucial for achieving desired outcomes. To achieve this, ensure a balance between the number and variety of indicators used in relation to the goals or targets they are designed to serve. Having too few indicators for a specific target can lead to an over-emphasis on those indicators and an increased risk of redefining the target to align with the indicators, rather than the other way around. (Rakhyun, 2023[4])
Provide precise indicator definition sheets and methodology notes for each standard indicator. This will facilitate aggregation at the corporate or national level.
The European Union’s structure of the Global Europe Results Framework and annexed methodological notes.
New Zealand’s use of the SDGs to support a country-focused results approach.
Switzerland’s balance of context-specific and standard indicators.
The Asian Development Bank’s approach to cascading standard results indicators across the organisation.
OECD (2023), Using the SDG framework in results frameworks: An assessment and classification of SDG indicators.
Examples of indicator sets, UNICEF Update of the Integrated Results and Resources of the Strategic Plan 2022-2025; Global Europe Results Framework (GERF).
UN (2023), List of SDG targets and indicators.
UN (2023), Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators as of 13 December 2023.
OECD (2018), The 2030 Agenda and Development Co-operation Results. See List of outcome-oriented SDG targets in Annex 2 and of Means of Implementation SDG targets and indicators are presented in Annex 4.
Kim (2023), On the unintended, adverse effects of measurement (including the Goodhart's Law that every measure which becomes a target ceases to be a good measure), see Rakhyun E. Kim Augment the SDG indicator framework, Environmental Science and Policy, Volume 142, April 2023, pages 62-67
Forthcoming, Towards a global database of indicators (see Box 3.2 below)
Many development organisations regularly produce lists and databanks of standard indicator sets (at corporate level, or for sectors, thematic initiatives, or specific countries/regions). Putting these indicator sets into a common, easily accessible bank will help stakeholders to identify the most typical ways of measuring certain results, as well as variations that may meet individual needs, and innovative ways that are being developed to measure less tangible results. In promoting the use of common indicators, such a database would facilitate harmonisation around results.
An analysis of 13 corporate and sector results frameworks and indicator sets of bilateral and multilateral organisations (AsDD, AfDB, EU, FAO, IaDB, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, UN Women, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, USAID) provides key considerations for the building of a global indicator database. Despite various differences in terminology, presentation and definition of terms and calculations, commonalities across frameworks nevertheless offer a common basis for a global indicator databank which could provide names of indicators, measurement units, types of disaggregation and data sources for measurements. SDG-tagging could state the degree of connection with particular SDG indicators.
Detailed descriptions of indicators should include a definition of terms, level of disaggregation, methodology of calculation to provide available information in a standardised way, baselines, targets and means of verification. The frequency of use of each indicator should be specified. Similar but not identical indicators should be clustered, specifying whether they are official SDG indicators, derived indicators, aligned indicators or proxy indicators.
Do you have evidence-based, broadly owned and long-term development priorities with clear overarching goals aligned with those priorities and international commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
Is there a results framework aligned to the overarching goals and explaining how specific outputs and outcomes will contribute to reaching those goals with underlying assumptions?
Is there a clear financing framework with resources commensurate to the goals and a rationale for allocating those resources across regions, sectors and themes in a way that is consistent with policy commitments and long-term development priorities?
Is there a select number of relevant, measurable and meaningful indicators with realistic targets and baseline data to track progress and assess the impact of interventions?
Are you using SDG indicators, or otherwise are your indicators directly or closely linked to SDG indicators, and are they commonly used by governments and development partners?
To what extent are you giving preference to outcome-level indicators?
Is there a clear rationale for identifying standard indicators that will be aggregated at the national or corporate level, and are there precise indicator definition sheets and methodology notes for each standard indicator?
Are you planning to review and adapt the results framework on a regular basis?
Do you have evidence-based, broadly owned and long-term development priorities with clear overarching goals aligned with those priorities and international commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
Is there a results framework aligned to the overarching goals and explaining how specific outputs and outcomes will contribute to reaching those goals with underlying assumptions?
Is there a clear financing framework with resources commensurate to the goals and a rationale for allocating those resources across regions, sectors and themes in a way that is consistent with policy commitments and long-term development priorities?
Is there a select number of relevant, measurable and meaningful indicators with realistic targets and baseline data to track progress and assess the impact of interventions?
Are you using SDG indicators, or otherwise are your indicators directly or closely linked to SDG indicators, and are they commonly used by governments and development partners?
To what extent are you giving preference to outcome-level indicators?
Is there a clear rationale for identifying standard indicators that will be aggregated at the national or corporate level, and are there precise indicator definition sheets and methodology notes for each standard indicator?
Are you planning to review and adapt the results framework on a regular basis?
[2] Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) (2021), MOPAN Assessment Report: UNICEF, https://www.mopanonline.org/assessments/unicef2020/MOPAN%20Assessment%20UNICEF%20web%20%5bfor%20download%5d.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2024).
[1] OECD (2019), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Guiding Principles, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/44a288bc-en.
[4] Rakhyun, K. (2023), “Augment the SDG indicator framework”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 142, pp. 62-67, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901123000370.
[3] Virkkunen, S. and A. Bruun (2022), Thematic Theories of change contributing to the Agenda 2030 | EBA, https://eba.se/en/reports/thematic-theories-of-change-contributing-to-the-agenda-2030/19919/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).