also contextual and depend on several factors, most importantly, the previous WBG country engagement. Typical in-country partners are members of civil society, of associations of excluded groups, and of private sector organizations. While time and resources are often constrained in the SCD process, a few meetings and field visits to consult with communities and other partners can go a long way in anchoring the SCD to reality. Such efforts should ideally include core members of the SCD team, and may be linked to ongoing projects, so as to minimize transaction and other costs.

5. **Ensuring thorough reviews of extant material** . Reviews of the existing literature that also taps into the country discourse is an essential step to a robust diagnostic. If this step is incomplete or narrow, it will color the extent to which social inclusion is integrated into the SCD. If done well on the other hand, it will help to answer many questions. Such a review also helps to build in-country partnerships that provide invaluable support to the SCD and the CPF process.

6. **Using mixed methods and multi-disciplinary perspectives** . There are several ways of identifying and understanding exclusion. Analysis of survey data is often an essential step in framing the questions. But it is often qualitative data, derived from focus groups, consultations or interviews with key stakeholders, which provides a granular understanding. A task team may also use other innovative tools. Some SCDs covered by this review, for example, have used methods like client satisfaction surveys or surveys of subjective well-being, that reveal the underlying causes of exclusion, including the less discernible ones such as lack of trust, feelings of stigmatization, stereotyping and discrimination. The Lesotho SCD, for example, draws on client satisfaction surveys to explain why the utilization of health facilities is low despite the high prevalence of HIV infections, citing provider problems such as a lack of medicines and supplies, absent and disrespectful doctors, and long waiting times at facilities as main reasons for dissatisfaction.

7. **Identifying gaps in data and knowledge** . While issues of social inclusion are acknowledged as being important in most macro level analyses such as the SCD, gaps in data and knowledge can prevent an empirically grounded narrative; in turn keeping them outside the purview of prioritization. Not only it is essential to do a thorough review of the extant literature and to undertake creative, inter-disciplinary analysis of data, but it is also important to highlight areas where data gaps prevent relevant issues from being addressed. Examples are data on disability, knowledge base on sexual orientation, and gender disaggregated data across a number of outcomes. There is now increasing empirical evidence on processes of social exclusion – such as on stigma, stereotyping and overt or covert discrimination. Often, small tweaks to survey questions can yield significant results in terms of data and knowledge and if highlighted in the SCD, the proposed changes are likely to get greater policy traction in the country.

8. **Going beyond the “who” and “how” questions to asking “why** ”. As pointed out earlier, the “why question” is an essential step towards designing the right policies and programs for social inclusion. It helps in figuring out what to do by identifying 26