in capacity building interventions in evaluations funded and managed by international organizations dates back to the year 1999. a world bank review in the year 2000 found many examples where capacity building interventions undermined public management efforts. in these cases, public sector reform and institution-building were hindered.: 41 in 2005, the bank noted again in its evaluations that business practices to its capacity building work are not as rigorous as they are in other areas. for example, standard quality assurance processes were missing at the design stage. similar problems were reported by undp in 2002 when they reviewed their capacity building projects.: 8 effective evaluation and monitoring in 2007, specific criteria for effective evaluation and monitoring of the capacity building of ngos were proposed, though only in generalities without clear measures for the tool. the proposal suggested only that evaluating the capacity building ability of ngos should be based on a combination of monitoring the results of their activities and also a more open flexible way of monitoring that also takes into consideration, self-improvement and cooperation. other wishes were that monitoring for capacity building effectiveness should include an organization's clarity of mission, an organization's leadership, an organization's learning, an organization's emphasis on on-the-job-development, an organization's monitoring processes. in 2007, usaid published a report on its approach to monitoring and evaluating the capacity building. according to the report, usaid monitors program objectives, the links between projects and activities of an organization and its objectives, a program or organization's measurable indicators, data collection, and progress reports. usaid noted two types of indicators for progress: "output indicators" and "outcome indicators." output indicators measure immediate changes or results such as the number of people trained. outcome indicators measure the impact, such as laws changed due to trained advocates. both the "numbers of people trained" and "laws changed" are, however, just inputs or intermediate inputs and do not measure actual improvements in "performance" in terms of measurable outcomes of public agencies that are the definition of capacity building. despite these claims of existence of these evaluation approaches, there was little more than lists of inputs and outputs without use of professional management standards or any kind of real oversight, and a report for the world bank in 2009 noted that the failures were deep and systemic, where the measures used are "smile sheets", asking beneficiaries if they are "happy" or "better off" and measuring things like "raised awareness", "enhanced skills", and "improved teamwork" that are "locally driven", rather than on whether the underlying problems are solved, and refraining from asking whether there may be hidden agendas to buy influence, subsidize elites, and continue dependency.: 34 an independent public measurement indicator for improvement and oversight of the large variety of capacity building initiatives was published in 2015, with scoring, and based on international development law and professional management principles. this comprehensive indicator for capacity building was proposed as part of the elements codifying international development law in a treatise. it consists of 20 specific elements that apply law, administrative principles, social science concepts, and education concepts, to troubleshoot the actual problems that occur and to promote public oversight and accountability. the indicator has two sections: one with 11 questions to assure proper application of the five recognized principles of capacity building, analyzing their application in diagnosis and design of an intervention (7 questions), sustainability of reform (2 questions), and good governance (2 questions), and second, with 9 questions to assure professionalism and safeguards against conflicts of interest, unintended consequences, and distortion of public and private systems. this indicator is one of 13 that is part of the treatise of international development law and can be applied with the other indicators for specific sectors and development principles, as well as assurance of quality of evaluation systems. critique critique of capacity development has been centered on the ambiguity surrounding it in terms of its anticipated focus, its effectiveness and, the unwillingness or inability of public agencies to apply their own principles and international law. capacity building has been called a buzzword within development which comes with a heavy normative load but little critical interrogation and appropriate review. the term capacity building is usually "loaded with positive value". despite some 20 years recognizing the problems, practitioners continue to note that some capacity development projects are just "throwing money at symptoms with no logic or analysis". others are "disguised bribes to government officials and attempts to undermine entire government structures by setting up foreign run ministries and foreign influenced political parties or civil society to lobby for foreign interests" using the interventions as a form of "soft power". one common problem of interventions that focus on education and training of foreign government officials is that they are akin to trying to "teach elephants to fly" or to "teach wolves not to eat sheep" while avoiding the actual changes needed for impact. under international development law, there is also concern that much of the implementation of capacity building has been and continues to be in violation of existing international treaties such as the u.n. declaration against corruption and bribery, articles 15, 16, 18, and 19. examples below are examples of capacity building in developing countries: at state government level: in 1999, the undp supported capacity building of the state government in bosnia herzegovina. the program focused on strengthening the state's government by fostering new organizational, leadership and management skills in government figures, improved the government's technical abilities to communicate with the international community and civil society within the country. in india the sanitation capacity building platform (scbp) was designed to "support and build the capacity of town/cities to plan and implement decentralized sanitation solutions" with funding by the bill & melinda gates foundation from 2015 to 2022.