The document discusses exit strategies for development programs. It begins by noting there is no common definition of an exit strategy and explores definitions from business and military contexts. It then examines different types of exit strategies for development programs, including phasing down activities gradually, phasing out entirely by ending a program, and phasing over activities to local partners. The goal of an exit strategy is to ensure impacts are sustained after a program ends. Setting the timeline and establishing benchmarks and criteria for exiting are important to plan from the beginning. Ultimately, a successful exit strategy ensures activities and impacts continue in some form following the program's conclusion.

1. EXIT STRATEGY
IN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMME

2. INTRODUCTION:
Despite the phrase becoming
increasingly prevalent in development
discussions, there does not appear to
be a common definition for the term in
the literature, nor material addressing
the specifics of exit strategies. It seems
to have originated in business
terminology, moved to the military
and has more recently been applied to
humanitarian and development-
related third-party interventions,
specifically.

3. WIKIPEDIA says, an exit strategy is a means of
leaving one's current situation, either after a
predetermined objective has been achieved, or as
a strategy to mitigate failure. An organization or
individual without an exit strategy may be in a
quagmire (a situation that is hard to deal with or
get out of : a situation that is full of problems). At
worst, an exit strategy will save face; at best, an
exit strategy will peg a withdrawal to the
achievement of an objective worth more than the
cost of continued involvement.
Hence, one hypothesis could be that the generally
held perception of an exit strategy in development
PROGRAMME includes the agency removing
itself from the context where it was working.

4. SO, WHAT DO WE MEAN BY
PROGRAMME EXIT?
A PROGRAMME “exit” refers to the withdrawal
of all externally provided PROGRAMME
resources from an entire PROGRAMME area. A
PROGRAMME exit may refer to the withdrawal
of external support from an entire PROGRAMME
area, or it may address the withdrawal of support
from communities or districts within a
PROGRAMME area. It could also refer to the end
of a PROGRAMME funding cycle, with an
extension through a follow-on extended recovery
PROGRAMME or a longer-term development
PROGRAMME. And lastly, it may include a
combination of withdrawal, PROGRAMME
extension or transition.

5. WHAT IS A PROGRAMME EXIT
STRATEGY?
A PROGRAMME Exit Strategy is a plan describing
how the PROGRAMME intends to withdraw its
resources while ensuring that achievement of the
PROGRAMME goals (relief or development) is not
jeopardized and that progress towards these goals
will continue. The Exit Strategy may include
several scenarios or contingency plans that
address unknown factors, such as recurrent
droughts or the effects of a high prevalence of
HIV/AIDS. Contingency plans may also include
planning for further resources when it may not be
possible to exit entirely from PROGRAMME areas.

6. WHAT IS THE GOAL OF AN
EXIT STRATEGY?
The goal of an Exit Strategy is to ensure the
sustainability of impacts after a
PROGRAMME ends. It could also be defined
in a broader sense as a PROGRAMME’s
‘sustainability strategy’, which could be
accomplished through staggered graduation
from specific project areas, simultaneous
withdrawal from the entire PROGRAMME
area, or transitioning to associated
PROGRAMME in selected areas.

7. WHY ARE EXIT STRATEGIES
IMPORTANT?
Exit strategies, when planned with partners in advance
of close-out, ensure better PROGRAMME outcomes
and encourage commitment to PROGRAMME
sustainability. In addition, good Exit Strategies can
help resolve tension that may arise between the
withdrawal of assistance and commitment to achieve
PROGRAMME outcomes.4 Exit strategies can help
clarify and define a sponsor’s role to host countries and
local partners as being time limited, reducing the
potential for misunderstandings and future
dependency. Finally, they are critical to developmental
relief PROGRAMME as they inform a PROGRAMME’s
sustainability plan or planning for its next phase.
Conversely, without Exit Strategies, PROGRAMME
transitions and exits are likely to be more haphazard.

8. REMEMBER!
The purpose of an exit strategy is not
to hasten the exit – exit is not valuable
for its own sake – but to improve the
chance of sustainable outcomes for the
PROGRAMME.

9. BASIC
APPROACHES TO
EXIT STRATEGY
Three basic approaches to Exit Strategies
are outlined below. They are:
1) phasing down,
2) phasing out, and
3) phasing over.

10. 1. PHASING DOWN
Phasing down is a gradual reduction of
PROGRAMME activities, utilizing local
organizations to sustain PROGRAMME
benefits while the original sponsor (or
implementing agency or donor) deploys
fewer resources.6 Phasing down is often
a preliminary stage to phasing over
and/or phasing out.

11. 2. PHASING OUT
This refers to a sponsor’s withdrawal of involvement
in a PROGRAMME without turning it over to another
institution for continued implementation. Ideally a
PROGRAMME is phased out after permanent or self-
sustaining changes are realized, thus eliminating the
need for additional external inputs. It is recognized
that reaching a level of self-sufficiency through
behaviour change and asset creation activities (such
as crop diversification and nutrition education)
requires a long-term investment, and is unlikely to be
realized entirely during the term of a given project.
PROGRAMME can be designed from the onset to
inculcate knowledge, skills and tangible assets within
a fixed time period, and with funding cycles
considered in the planning of phase out timing.

12. NOTE!
Funding cycles don’t always coincide
with needs. Donor support and funding
cycles may impose artificial timelines on
PROGRAMME phase-out. For instance,
where harvest cycles may be an obvious
choice for timing a PROGRAMME
phase-out, the donor’s fiscal year and
other pre-determined timing
requirements for grant closeout may not
accommodate this.

13. 3. PHASING OVER
The third type of Exit Strategy approach
is ‘phasing over’.8 In this case, a
sponsor transfers PROGRAMME
activities to local institutions or
communities. During PROGRAMME
design and implementation, emphasis is
placed on institutional capacity building
so that the services provided can
continue through local organizations.

14. In developing phase over Exit Strategies, there
are several questions that must be considered:
• How strong is the community’s sense of ownership/commitment
to continue PROGRAMME activities?
• To what extent does the community value PROGRAMME
activities? What is the level of demand for the “phased over”
services?
• Do community members, groups and service providers have the
knowledge and skills needed to implement the PROGRAMME
activities?
• Do the local organizations implementing the phased over
activities have sufficient institutional and human resource
capacity?
• Are the organizations responsible for implementing phased over
PROGRAMMEs resilient to shocks and changes in the political
and social environment?
• Is there a viable plan to generate the consumable supplies (such
as the food or agricultural inputs) that are required to implement
activities?

15. EXIT CRITERIA: WHAT
DETERMINES WHEN TO EXIT
• 1. Time Limit: Relief, recovery and development PROGRAMMEs all
have time limits dictated by funding cycles. Time limits may increase a
PROGRAMME’s focus in establishing systems of sustainability or they
may impose artificial timing constraints.
• 2. Achievement of PROGRAMME impacts: Although achieving
the intended PROGRAMME impact is often difficult within a given
timeframe (and may even create perverse incentives12), indicators of
PROGRAMME impact can sometimes be used as exit criteria. Impact
indicators can be used to focus PROGRAMME “graduation” efforts on
the more self-reliant communities or the effective PROGRAMME
components. Lastly, impact indicators can help inform and guide the
Exit Strategy time line.
• 3. Achievement of Benchmarks: Benchmarks are defined as the
measurable indicators of identified steps in the graduation process of an
Exit Strategy. They are part of the Monitoring and Evaluation planning
matrix from the onset. Benchmarks should be linked to the graduation
process and to the PROGRAMME components to be phased out or over.

16. SETTING THE TIME FRAME
FOR PROGRAMME EXIT
• There are several considerations when establishing the
time frame for PROGRAMME Exit Strategies. Exit
Strategies should be built into the design of PROGRAMME
from the BEGINNING. This will encourage the
development of interventions that are sustainable, since an
Exit Strategy is, in essence, a ‘sustainability plan’.
• Establishing an exit timeline that is linked to the
PROGRAMME funding cycle, and is clearly communicated
to the community is essential. Since PROGRAMME
implementation will influence Exit Strategy activities, it is
important that the exit plan remains flexible with the
expectation that some of the exit criteria and benchmarks
may need to be modified during the PROGRAMME cycle.

17. • Further, implementing exit plans in a
gradual, phased manner is
recommended, as the staggered
graduation of project sites can
contribute to sustained outcomes by
applying lessons learned from earlier
sites to those that come later. Lastly,
after phase over or PROGRAMME
phase out is complete, continued
contact with communities will help to
support sustainability of outcomes.

18. MEASURES TO GAUGE THE
SUCCESS OF AN EXIT STRATEGY
1. If the PROGRAMME impact has been
sustained, expanded or improved after
PROGRAMME end;
2. If the relevant activities are continued
in the same or modified format; and
3. If the systems developed continue to
function effectively.

19. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The planning and implementing of Exit Strategies is
admittedly not an easy task. The relative newness of the
subject matter, particularly for an emergency context,
provides few lessons learned or better practices to apply.
Conversely, Exit Strategies are part of good
PROGRAMME planning and thus their basic premise
(promoting sustainable PROGRAMME outcomes) and
components should not be entirely foreign. With a bit of
practice, over time they can be “mainstreamed” into all
aspects of PROGRAMME from assessment, planning and
design to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. It
is hoped that this document will encourage and promote
that process among practitioners.