March 2006 | Stabilization and Reconstruction Series No. 1
Craig Cohen
Measuring Progress in Stabilization and Reconstruction
Download full PDF report
Summary and Recommendations
- The success of efforts to stabilize and reconstruct failed states and war-torn societies is
heavily dependent on proper assessment tools and reliable measures of progress. Previous
interventions have been severely hampered by faulty initial analysis that has overlooked
the entrenched drivers of conflict and instability. Lofty goals are rendered unattainable
by unrealistic time frames, inadequate resources, and constrained authorities. Progress
is judged on the basis of programs that have been implemented rather than on actual
results.
- Establishing an objective process for evaluating the challenges involved and evaluating
progress toward stabilization is vital for success in these interventions. To bring goals
and resources into balance, policymakers must take stock of the challenges to stabilization
before intervening, determine whether stabilization is being achieved, and make
midcourse corrections, if necessary. Indicators must measure outcomes essential to
stabilization.
- The main barrier to measuring progress is political, not conceptual. Pressures exist for
official pronouncements to declare that policy objectives have been obtained; therefore,
claims of success may be merely political spin. Individual agencies are inclined to report
their success at implementing programs rather than their impact on stabilization. A
system of metrics, or measurable indicators of progress, should provide the ability to
confront facts on the ground.
- A system for measuring progress requires clear and well-integrated goals that are based
on an accurate baseline assessment and are directly linked to strategic planning. Measurement
must be tied to a clear baseline assessment that is derived from an initial
analysis of the conflict. This should guide the establishment of mission goals and determine
the level of international commitment that will be required to successfully attain these goals. Measurement should be directly linked to planning and should integrate
the various plans that are guiding the intervention.
- Progress in stabilization and reconstruction efforts should be based on the mission's
ability to reduce the means and motivations for violent conflict in a society and to
build local and state capacity to sustain peace. Progress should be measured in terms
of outcomes. Indicators should focus on measuring outcomes or processes leading
directly to these outcomes, as opposed to assessing the number of products and services
delivered or the amount of resources consumed. Indicators should draw on an
appropriate mix of data sources, including quantitative data and local perceptions.
- The following steps should be taken to build the U.S. government's
measure progress in stabilization and reconstruction operations.
- The U.S. government should invest in developing the capacity to measure progress in
all stabilization and reconstruction operations.
This study presents a model that can be used to measure progress across vital areas
of stabilization and reconstruction. It breaks the mission goal into core outcomes,
central tasks, and measurable indicators that can be aggregated into numerical
indexes or disaggregated according to geography, gender, or group identity.
This model constitutes a rudimentary framework for the development of a comprehensive
metrics system for stabilization and reconstruction. Additional work is
required to establish a fully articulated set of indicators that would provide the
basis for initial baseline assessments and measures of progress for the core outcomes
involved in stabilization and reconstruction.
- Measures used to assess progress should be public and transparent, and the task
of measuring should fall to a combination of independent external actors and an
internal metrics office that is attached to mission planning. The metrics office should be empowered to solicit information from a variety of
sources within the mission area and from international organizations involved in
stabilization and reconstruction. It should be an integral component of strategic
planning and its assessments should be used to inform the decisions of senior
policymakers. External auditors should be brought in on a regular basis to work
with the metrics office to perform independent assessments of progress to ensure
objectivity.
- Decision makers must allocate adequate resources for assessing progress and integrate
the results into their planning process.
Resources earmarked specifically for measuring progress must be allocated from
the initial assessment phase through the life of an intervention. Senior mission
leaders must periodically review progress toward mission goals and take corrective
action as required, otherwise the metrics process will quickly become an empty
exercise.
About the Report
This report is based on a series of consultations under
the auspices of the Working Group on Measuring
Progress in Stabilization and Reconstruction, chaired
by Frederick Barton, senior advisor and codirector of
the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, and Michael
Dziedzic, senior program officer in the United States Institute of Peace's Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations and the strategic
planner who drafted both the Mission Implementation
Plan for the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia
and the December 2003 "Standards for Kosovo" for the
UN Mission in Kosovo.
The Working Group on Measuring
Progress is part of the USIP's Filling the Gaps series of
working groups, which aims to systematically address the
causes of failure in specific areas in reconstruction and
stabilization operations and to generate policy options
for those in the U.S. government and elsewhere who lead
and staff these missions. Filling the Gaps is directed by
Daniel Serwer and managed by Beth C. DeGrasse of the Institute.
About seventy decision makers, practitioners, and
scholars met during 2004 and 2005 to define the major
requirements and make recommendations for those who
strive to measure progress in war-torn, weak, and failed
states. The findings are also based on supplementary
interviews; an analysis of existing models to measure
progress; and research into more than fifty books, reports,
and articles. Craig Cohen, fellow in the International
Security Program of the Center for Strategic International
Studies' Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, coordinated
the working group and drafted the report.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policy positions.
Of Related Interest
See our complete list of reports.
