1. Annex C. Indicative Example of a Results Framework for SAI Capacity Development
Country Level Programs
The attached diagram illustrates a possible results framework for a capacity development program to support holistic development within an SAI. While it tries to cover the broad areas of SAI development, it is not intended to be comprehensive of all possible reforms. The diagram defines the results chain as: inputs-activities-outputs-outcomes, and SAI contribution towards impact. The diagram also recognizes the wider environment in which the SAI operates. Components of the results framework are:
Inputs: all inputs to the SAI capacity development, including internal efforts of the SAI, external assistance through global, regional and peer to peer support, as well as externally financed support and dialogue.
Activities: the way in which inputs are used to enhance institutional capacity, professional staff capacity, and organizational systems capacity.
Outputs: tangible results of capacity development activities, such as improved legislation and institutional status, trained staff in place, new or stronger systems, manuals and processes e.g. audit procedures manual.
Outcomes: these are the end results produced by the system or organization, which contribute to improved governance and public financial management, and the reduction of poverty. The attached diagram focuses on high-level outcomes. However, in many cases the chain between outputs and high-level outcomes will be long and the level of attribution limited. In order to ensure that initiatives can be monitored and evaluated effectively, it may be necessary to identify an intermediate outcome, which is attributable to the initiative and which contributes to achievement of the high-level outcome. Note that each initiative should have only one intermediate outcome and/or only one high-level outcome (e.g. improved SAI performance), though it may have a number of outcome indicators to measure this.
Intermediate Outcome: this is the outcome directly attributable to the initiative, which contributes to achievement of the high-level outcome. This is the level at which the performance of individual SAI capacity development initiatives (e.g. development of a strategic plan, legal reforms, a management development program) should be measured.
High-Level Outcome: the highest level of results attributable to the work of the SAI, including the quality and quantity of regularity (financial and compliance) and performance audits, the submission of reports to the legislature/judiciary, the publication of reports and findings, and the results of implementing audit recommendations. This is the level at which the performance of long term, holistic SAI reforms (or a collection of individual SAI capacity development initiatives) should be measured, noting that it may take 3-5 years to see any meaningful performance change at this level.
Impact: the SAI’s contribution towards stronger governance and public financial management, and ultimately the reduction of poverty. It is not possible to attribute changes at the impact level specifically to performance of the SAI, as these are influenced by many additional factors. This is the level at which the performance of national governance and public financial management (PFM) reform programs should be measured.
Performance indicators should be defined for key outputs and outcomes; baselines established; targets set; and progress monitored.
Regional and Global Programs
A similar approach to results frameworks can be used for regional and global programs. However, it will be necessary to distinguish between activities, outputs and outcomes at the regional and global level and those which take place at the country level within participating SAIs (and for the INTOSAI-Donor Cooperation, specifically SAIs in developing countries). Performance indicators for regional and global programs should focus on achievement of intended outputs and outcomes at the regional and global level, as well as within participating SAIs. Improved performance of a Regional Body should be identified as an intermediate outcome, contributing to a high-level outcome of improved performance of SAIs within the region.

2. Results Framework for SAI Capacity Development Programs
Purpose: Strengthen governance and public financial management through support to the Supreme Audit Institution
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
HIGH-LEVEL OUTCOMES
IMPACT
[SAI Contribution to:]
SAI Internal Resources
Auditor General leadership
Senior mgmt & reform units
Training infrastructure
SAI physical and financial resources
Parallel, Cooperative and Joint Audits
Independence & Legal Framework
SAI independence in legislation
Rules for appointing & removing AG
SAI budget approved & received
SAI autonomy in recruitment
SAI free to decide audit focus
Regularity Audit Results
Annual coverage of the audit client base
Aggregate Fiscal Discipline
Sovereign credit rating
Debt : export ratio
PEFA Performance Indicators:
1-Aggregate exp. vs. budget
3-Revenues vs. budget
4-Payment arrears
On the Job Training
Performance Audit Results
Number of reports published annually, meeting SAIs own quality standards
Peer Reviews
Drafting Legislation, Policies, Procedures & Guidance
Human Resources
Sufficient, trained regularity & performance auditors
HR policy & effective recruitment, retention & performance mgmt
Submission of Reports to Legislature/Judiciary
Quality & timeliness of submission of annual report
Timeliness of submission of audited financial statements
Efficient Resource Allocation
PEFA Performance Indicators:
2-Exp. vs. budget at Ministry / functional level
12(iii)-Strategy-budget link
INTOSAI Global and Regional Activities
Introduce and Implement Professional Standards
SAI Peer to Peer Support
Audit Standards & Methodology
Rolling audit plan
Audit standards (ISSAI framework)
Regularity & performance audit tools
Specialized audit tools (IT etc.)
Quality control system
Effective Service Delivery
Unit cost of cross-section of government services, e.g.
Cost per Km of road built
Cost per pupil completing primary education
Cost per passport issued
Donor Financed Support
Professional Staff Qualifications
Publication of Audit Findings
Public access to SAI reports
Dissemination of SAI findings and media coverage
Public perception of SAI
SAI-Government-Donor Dialogue
Governance & PFM reforms
Use of country systems
SAI role in managing fiduciary risk
SAI-led Training Activities
Governance & Corporate Support
Strategic & development action plan
Internal controls & financial mgmt
Quality assurance system
External Training, Secondments, Fellowship Programs etc.
Implementation of Audit Recommendations
Action taken on audit recommendations
Estimate of savings from audit work
Governance & Accountability
Worldwide governance indicator (WGI) Scores
CPIA 16 Score:
Transparency, accountability & corruption in the public sector
External Stakeholder Relations
Stakeholder relations policy
Relationship with legislature/judiciary
Relationship with audited bodies
Relationship with public & media
Source: Adapted from Lawson, A. and De Renzio, P, (September 2009), ’Approach & Methodology for the Evaluation of Donor Support to PFM Reform in Developing Countries: Part B’, DANIDA, Copenhagen.
Participation in Regional & Global Activities
Context: Institutional, Economic, Political, Technical, Social and Cultural