1. From Project Outputs to Outcomes
Abdulla Gozalov, UNSD
Country Directors’ Meeting
New York, October 2014

2. UNSD-DfID Project Objectives
Improve the coherence and clarity of dev’t indicators
Improve coordination in the NSS
Collate development data in 1 place/database
Explain differences between intl. & nat. data
Improve accessibility and visibility
Make access to national data easier
Draw attention to wider set of indicators
Reduce data request burden
Enhance knowledge
Strengthen IT support
Use of latest IT software & practices
Training & skills development

3. Project Outputs Centralized National Repository for dev’t indicators
Established or improved in all project countries
Morocco’s database is still offline but will be in production soon
In many cases data is still out of date, published with significant delays
In some countries, the database is still often offline
International Data Platform
CountryData web site has been in operation since late 2011
Has evolved through several versions
Now integrates project countries’ data with those obtained from MDGLabs, for over 100 countries total

4. Project Outputs (cont.)
Automated Data and Metadata Exchange
Data exchange has been established between CountryData and all 11 project countries, as well as 4 additional countries
Automated metadata exchange established with 4 project countries; non-automated exchange with most others
Metadata and Discrepancy Information
Some metadata has been obtained from 8 countries (except Ghana, Liberia, Morocco)
Quantity and quality is often still an issue
Discrepancies have been analyzed for all countries

5. Assessing Project Outcomes
While project outputs are certainly used to measure success of the project, it is achieving favorable outcomes that is the ultimate goal.
There is evidence of positive outcomes in many of the project countries.
Other outcomes are more long-term but we can analyze if the project has made an influence.

6. More Coherent Dev’t Indicators
Has the project helped improve the uniformity of development indicators at national level?
In Rwanda, project consultant helped identify and address issues with development indicators produced by different agencies of the National Statistical System.
Launch events for dissemination databases
Rwanda, Uganda, Cambodia
Consultations with users
Rwanda, Burundi

7. Increased Collaboration Within NSS
Has the level of cooperation between NSO and Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs) improved as a result of the project?
NSO meetings with MDAs; focal points established
Lao, Viet Nam, Uganda
Most project countries have developed data and metadata templates for use with MDAs.
In some cases, efforts to increase cooperation within the NSS were met with significant resistance or inertia.

8. Improved Understanding of Discrepancies
Has the project helped improve understanding and therefore reduce the number of discrepancies between national and international indicators?
The number of discrepancies on CountryData has gone down
Cambodia, Uganda, Thailand
Some of these are due to database cleanup efforts, others due to harmonization at national level

9. Improved Understanding of Data
Has the project helped users to better understand and choose indicators and data sources?

10. Improved Evidence-Based Policy-Making
If the project improved the accessibility and quality of development indicators, has this improved the policy-making?
In Cambodia, senior staff from the Ministry of Planning expressed their appreciation of the improved CamInfo database and their willingness to use it in their activities.

11. Reduced Data Request Burden
Has the project reduced the data request burden? Do project countries have plans for data exchange automation outside the project?
The project minimized its own data request burden through data exchange automation using SDMX.
Thailand participates in a UNESCAP/ADB project to pilot National Accounts data exchange through SDMX.

12. Thank You!