COMPAS Guidance Note Template
Country Strategies
1. Number and percentage of completed MDB country strategies independently evaluated/reviewed in the
reporting year which received “satisfactory or better” ratings.
Data Required
Definition
# - Overall number of
completed strategies
independently reviewed in
the reporting year which
received “satisfactory or
better” ratings.
Country strategies are assessed against particular criteria that will vary across
MDBs.
Independent means third party with no operational responsibility.
Sources: Country strategy evaluations and final review validation reports,
produced by third party evaluation including offices and departments of
evaluation.
% - Division of the number
rated “satisfactory [or
equivalent rating] or better”
by the total number of
completed strategies
independently review or
evaluated.
2. Number and percentage of MDB country strategies approved in the reporting year that include an explicit
strategy to promote private sector development (PSD).
Data Required
Definition
# - Overall number of
strategies reviewed in the
reporting year
% - Division of the number of
strategies deemed to have
included PSD by the total
number of strategies
Explicit strategy means a defined and labeled section or sub-section within a
country strategy document.
PSD and promotion is defined by each MDB considering their context. For
example, PSD may occur through public sector operations.
Sources: Various
Project Cycle
3. Number and percentage of projects approved in the reporting year whose design quality was reviewed at
arms-length (e.g. quality-at-entry reviews) and which received “satisfactory or better” ratings.
Data Required
Definition
# - Out of the overall number
of approved projects
reviewed at arms-length, the
number that received
“satisfactory [or equivalent
rating] or better” ratings.
Projects are public sector.
Projects are assessed against particular criteria that will vary across MDBs
Arms-length means reviews by a group that is not the direct project proponent.
Sources: Various
% - Division of the number
rated “satisfactory [or
equivalent rating] or better”
by the total number of
approved projects reviewed
at arms-length.
4.
Number and percentage of projects in execution at the end of the reporting year with unsatisfactory
implementation progress and with development objectives not likely to be achieved.
Data Required
Definition
# - Overall number of
projects that were under
implementation and not
closed at the end of the
reporting year with
unsatisfactory
implementation progress.
Projects are public sector.
Projects are assessed against particular criteria for implementation progress that
will vary across MDBs.
Sources: Various
% - Division of the number of
projects, not closed, rated
unsatisfactory, by the total
number of ongoing projects.
5. Number and percentage of project completion reports evaluated during the reporting year whose quality of
documentation was reviewed at arms-length and rated “satisfactory or better”.
Data Required
Definition
# - total number of project
completion reports with a
rating of “satisfactory of
better [or equivalent]” on the
quality of documentation
from a process of armslength review.
Projects are public sector.
Completion report types and rating criteria will vary across MDBs.
Arms-length means reviews by a group that is not the direct project proponent.
Sources: Various
% - Division of the number of
completion reports armslength rated “satisfactory of
better” for quality of
documentation, by the total
number of completion
reports arms-length rated in
the reporting year.
6. Number and percentage of projects independently reviewed ex-post in the reporting year, which received
“satisfactory or better” ratings with respect to achievement of development objectives.
Data Required
Definition
# - Total number of projects
with a rating of “satisfactory
of better [or equivalent]” on
achievement of development
objectives from a process of
arms-length review.
% - Division of the number of
projects independently rated
“satisfactory of better” for
achievement of development
objectives, by the total
number of projects
independently rated in the
reporting year.
Projects are public sector.
Projects are assessed against particular criteria that will vary across MDBs.
Independent means third party with no operational responsibility.
Sources: Project evaluations and review reports produced by third party
evaluation including offices and departments of evaluation.
7.
Number and percentage of technical assistance (TA) and advisory services projects completed in the
reporting year rated satisfactory or better.
Data Required
Definition
# - Total number of TA /
advisory services projects
with a rating of “satisfactory
of better [or equivalent]”.
Projects are public sector.
Projects are assessed against particular criteria that will vary across MDBs.
Source: TA completion / advisory services reports.
% - Division of the number of
TA / advisory services
projects independently rated
“satisfactory of better”, by
the total number of TA /
advisory services projects
rated in the reporting year.
Corporate Results Management
8. What innovations/changes/improvements have you introduced in your RMF in the last 1-2 years?
Definition
Changes could include:
 Structure of RMF (ex. Levels)
 Content of RMF (ex. Indicators)
 Use and application of RMF within the organization (ex. Cascading)
Private Sector Operations
9. Provide the latest compliance score with good practice standards (GPS) for evaluation of private sector
investment operations. Describe gaps and how they are being addressed.
Data Required
Definition
% - adoption of GPS
Compliance score with GPS refers to two different measures: 1) adoption and 2)
adoption and substantially full application
% - adoption and
substantially full application
of GPS
Source: Evaluation Cooperation Group’s most recent benchmarking.
10. Reported share of success ratings (%) for private sector operations independently reviewed for development
/transition outcome and ratings on all four GPS criteria (financial performance, economic performance,
environmental & social performance, and private sector development impact).
(i) Success Standards for Development Outcomes (Institutions with ECG rating scale: AsDB, AfDB, IADB, IIC, IFC)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with high ratings
Percentage of projects with high ratings (i.e. typically the top half of the rating
scale) compared to the total number of rated projects.
# - total number of rated
projects
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution.
(ii) Success Standards for Financial Performance
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with high ratings in financial
performance
Percentage of projects with high ratings in financial performance (i.e. typically the
top half of the rating scale) compared to the total number of rated projects for this
performance area.
# - total number of rated
projects for financial
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution.
performance
(iii) Success Standards for Economic Performance
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with high ratings in
economic performance
Percentage of projects with high ratings in economic performance (i.e. typically
the top half of the rating scale) compared to the total number of rated projects for
this performance area.
# - total number of rated
projects for economic
performance
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution.
(iv) Success Standards for Environmental and Social Performance
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with high ratings in
Environmental and Social
Performance
Percentage of projects with high ratings in Environmental and Social Performance
(i.e. typically the top half of the rating scale) compared to the total number of
rated projects for this performance area.
# - total number of rated
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution.
projects for Environmental
and Social Performance
(v) Success Standards for Private Sector Development Impact
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with high ratings in Private
Sector Development Impact
Percentage of projects with high ratings in Private Sector Development Impact (i.e.
typically the top half of the rating scale) compared to the total number of rated
projects for this performance area.
# - total number of rated
projects for Private Sector
Development Impact
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution.
11. Number and percentage of private sector investment projects for which clear development objectives
(according to the GPS evaluation framework) are:
(i) Defined at approval (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with development results
objectives defined at
approval
Number (and %) of projects with development results objectives clearly specified
ex-ante in the Board and other approval documents with mandatory indicators for
each of the 4 GPS performance areas (financial, economic, private sector
development impact, environmental & social). Clear objectives will typically
require a specific indicator, a target, and a timeline by when the objective is to be
achieved.
# - total number of projects
approved/committed.
Source: Internal monitoring and evaluation system of the institution; additional
sources as relevant
(ii) Tracked during supervision (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
whose development results
objectives are tracked during
supervision
Number (and %) of projects whose development results objectives tracked during
supervision.
Source: Internal monitoring and evaluation system of the institution; additional
sources as relevant
# - total number of projects
in supervision
(iii) Assessed at evaluation (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
whose development results
objectives are assessed at
evaluation
Number (and %) of projects whose development results are independently
assessed at evaluation.
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution
# - Total number projects
assessed at evaluation
12. Number and percentage of private sector Technical Assistance (TA) and advisory services projects for which
clear development objectives are:
(i) Defined at approval (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
with development results
objectives defined at
approval
Number (and %) of projects with development results objectives clearly specified
ex-ante in the Board and other approval documents (for specific TA and advisory
services). Clear objectives will typically require a specific indicator, a target, and a
timeline by when the objective is to be achieved.
# - total number of projects
Source: Internal monitoring and evaluation system of the institution; additional
approved.
sources as relevant
(ii) Tracked during supervision (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
whose development results
objectives are tracked during
supervision
# - total number of projects
in supervision
Number (and %) of projects whose development results objectives tracked during
supervision.
Source: Internal monitoring and evaluation system of the institution; additional
sources as relevant
(iii) Assessed at evaluation (%)
Data Required
Definition
% - percentage of projects
whose development results
objectives are assessed at
evaluation
Number (and %) of projects whose development results are independently
assessed at evaluation.
Source: Independent Evaluation Group of the institution
# - Total number projects
assessed at evaluation
13. Comprehensiveness of external results reporting (check all that apply):
Results reporting is based on:
Data Required
(a) Entire Portfolio
(b) Random Sample
(Describe Selection)
(c) Other (Describe
Selection)
(d) No reporting
Definition
Not Applicable.