National Development Planning and Policy Training Course

Participants can define priority development problems using structured evidence and causal analysis.

• Problem trees distinguish root causes, service failures, and visible symptoms
• PESTLE scan identifies external drivers affecting development outcomes
• Descriptive statistics reveal disparities by geography, sex, age, and income
• Trend analysis separates cyclical movements from structural performance constraints
• Administrative data, surveys, censuses, and geospatial sources compared
• Diagnostic evidence translated into a concise national development problem statement

Participants can assess interests, incentives and political constraints affecting plan implementation.

• Stakeholder mapping rates influence, interest, incentives, and likely positions
• Political economy analysis identifies winners, losers, veto players, and rents
• Power-interest grids guide engagement, consultation, negotiation, and communication choices
• Citizen consultation plans define representation, feedback channels, and disclosure commitments
• Development-partner coordination aligns external assistance with nationally owned priorities
• Conflict-sensitive analysis tests how policies affect social cohesion and grievances

Participants can formulate a strategic direction and causal logic for priority national outcomes.

• Vision statements specify long-term wellbeing, prosperity, resilience, and inclusion
• Theory of Change links interventions to outputs, outcomes, and impacts
• Assumptions and causal pathways tested against diagnostic evidence and incentives
• Results chains distinguish attribution, contribution, and external influencing factors
• Strategic objectives framed as measurable changes rather than activity lists
• Draft national results architecture produced from priority development problems

Participants can select priority interventions and structure them within a results framework.

• Multi-criteria analysis ranks priorities using impact, feasibility, cost, and equity
• Criteria weights documented through transparent decision rules and stakeholder input
• Trade-off analysis compares universal services, targeted support, and infrastructure investments
• Results frameworks connect objectives, outcomes, outputs, indicators, and targets
• Outcome statements use population, direction of change, and timeframe
• Priority matrix records selected interventions, rationale, owners, and dependencies

Participants can test national plan ambitions against macroeconomic assumptions and fiscal constraints.

• Macroeconomic assumptions cover growth, inflation, exchange rates, and revenue
• Fiscal space analysis distinguishes committed expenditure, discretionary funds, and financing gaps
• Debt sustainability considerations shape borrowing limits and investment sequencing
• Cost drivers estimated using unit costs, coverage targets, and implementation phasing
• Scenario analysis tests baseline, optimistic, and adverse macro-fiscal conditions
• National plan ambitions reconciled with credible medium-term resource envelopes

Participants can align sector strategies, delivery models and cross-sector dependencies with national priorities.

• Sector strategies align policy objectives, service standards, and delivery models
• Education, health, agriculture, and infrastructure outcomes assessed through sector logic
• Cross-sector dependencies mapped for nutrition, employment, climate, and poverty reduction
• Sector working groups reconcile competing targets, costs, and implementation responsibilities
• Policy coherence checks identify contradictory incentives, mandates, and regulatory requirements
• National priorities translated into sector result statements and interventions

Participants can incorporate equity, territorial disparities and climate risks into planning choices.

• Spatial analysis identifies territorial disparities, service gaps, and investment locations
• Subnational plans align local priorities with national objectives and fiscal transfers
• Gender analysis identifies differential access, control, safety, and unpaid care
• Disability inclusion measures address accessibility, disaggregated data, and participation
• Climate risk screening tests infrastructure, livelihoods, health, and food security
• Leave-no-one-behind commitments converted into targeted actions and indicators

Participants can select policy instruments suited to objectives, target groups and administrative capacity.

• Policy instrument selection compares regulation, taxation, spending, information, and procurement
• Regulatory impact assessment defines problems, options, compliance costs, and benefits
• Public expenditure reviews connect spending patterns with service delivery results
• Behavioural insights inform communication, enrolment, compliance, and uptake interventions
• Delivery chains identify front-line processes, bottlenecks, and user experience failures
• Instrument mix documented against objectives, target groups, and administrative capacity

Participants can prepare implementation arrangements with clear sequencing, ownership and escalation routes.

• Implementation plans specify workstreams, milestones, owners, budgets, and dependencies
• RACI matrices clarify accountable executives, delivery teams, and consulted actors
• Critical-path analysis sequences approvals, procurement, recruitment, and construction activities
• Interagency coordination mechanisms define escalation routes and decision calendars
• Procurement planning links market readiness, lead times, and contract management
• Delivery dashboards track milestones, bottlenecks, corrective actions, and decisions

Participants can cost plan interventions and identify realistic financing sources and gaps.

• Programme costing separates recurrent costs, capital costs, and contingencies
• Medium-term expenditure frameworks connect policy ceilings with multi-year commitments
• Budget bids justify outputs, unit costs, and expected outcome contributions
• Domestic revenue measures assessed for yield, equity, compliance, and administration
• Public-private partnership options screened for value, risk allocation, and affordability
• Financing plans identify funding sources, gaps, conditions, and disbursement timing

Participants can establish a monitoring framework with clear indicators, responsibilities and review processes.

• Results-based management assigns indicators, baselines, targets, and reporting responsibilities
• Logical framework matrices test vertical logic, assumptions, and verification sources
• Performance questions distinguish implementation monitoring from outcome and impact evaluation
• Monitoring plans schedule collection, analysis, review, and management response
• Indicator reference sheets define purpose, formula, source, frequency, and owner
• M&E governance establishes data approval, escalation, and reporting protocols

Participants can specify useful indicators and set defensible baselines and targets.

• Indicator selection tests validity, reliability, feasibility, sensitivity, and usefulness
• SMART indicators specify numerator, denominator, unit, disaggregation, and direction
• Baseline studies establish starting values before interventions alter conditions
• Target-setting methods use trends, benchmarks, capacity, and resource assumptions
• Disaggregation plans cover sex, age, disability, location, and income
• Indicator dictionary records definitions, calculations, limitations, and responsible custodians

Participants can design data arrangements that produce reliable, timely and protected performance information.

• Data collection methods compare administrative records, surveys, observation, and registers
• Data quality assessments test accuracy, completeness, timeliness, integrity, and confidentiality
• Sampling frames, sample sizes, and nonresponse risks documented for surveys
• Digital data workflows define capture, validation, storage, access, and retention
• Data protection controls address consent, minimisation, access rights, and breaches
• Data-quality improvement plans assign corrective actions and verification dates

Participants can commission and use evaluations that answer priority planning and delivery questions.

• Evaluation questions focus inquiry on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability
• OECD DAC criteria adapted to the national plan's intervention logic
• Evaluation designs compare experimental, quasi-experimental, theory-based, and mixed-method approaches
• Terms of reference specify scope, methods, governance, deliverables, and independence
• Contribution analysis examines plausible causal claims where attribution remains infeasible
• Evaluation management responses assign actions, owners, deadlines, and follow-up evidence

Participants can identify delivery risks, monitor assumptions and prepare proportionate contingencies.

• Risk registers record likelihood, impact, triggers, owners, and treatments
• Assumption monitoring identifies early signals that threaten planned results pathways
• Scenario planning develops responses to fiscal shocks, disasters, and political disruption
• Contingency reserves and decision thresholds support timely corrective action
• Risk appetite statements distinguish tolerable exposure from unacceptable delivery threats
• Business continuity arrangements protect essential services during major disruptions

Participants can run performance reviews and convert findings into accountable corrective actions.

• Quarterly performance reviews compare actual results against milestones and targets
• Variance analysis separates data anomalies, implementation delays, and design weaknesses
• After-action reviews capture decisions, evidence, lessons, and revised commitments
• Adaptive management protocols authorise changes while preserving accountability and audit trails
• Performance dashboards present exceptions, trends, disaggregation, and management actions
• Learning agendas prioritise unanswered questions with decision relevance and owners

Participants can communicate plan choices and performance evidence to decision-makers and citizens.

• Policy briefs frame evidence, options, fiscal implications, and recommended decisions
• Cabinet memoranda present choices, risks, legal issues, and implementation arrangements
• Public reporting calendars set publication dates, audiences, formats, and approvals
• Citizen feedback mechanisms combine grievance channels, surveys, hearings, and response tracking
• Open data publication balances transparency, confidentiality, metadata, and reuse conditions
• Accountability forums connect performance evidence with parliamentary and public scrutiny

Participants can review plan quality, assess implementation readiness and prepare approval pathways.

• Plan quality reviews test coherence, cost realism, measurability, and implementability
• Readiness assessments examine mandates, staffing, systems, procurement, and financing
• Peer review protocols challenge unsupported claims, gaps, and inconsistent assumptions
• Approval roadmaps map technical clearance, political endorsement, publication, and launch
• First-year action plans convert strategy into funded milestones and accountabilities
• Annual planning cycles link performance findings to budget and policy revisions

Participants can build, review and present a complete costed national development planning and M&E package.

• Capstone brief defines a priority problem, sponsor, scope, and planning horizon
• Diagnostic evidence, stakeholder analysis, and political economy findings synthesised
• Results framework, Theory of Change, indicators, and targets completed
• Costed implementation plan assigns financing, milestones, risks, and accountabilities
• M&E plan specifies data sources, reviews, evaluations, and management responses
• Peer review applies plan-quality criteria before executive presentation and revision
• Executive presentation defends priorities, trade-offs, evidence, and delivery arrangements