. .

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 1

Name of Result Measured:

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 4.5.1: Agricultural Enabling Environment

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION:  Feed the Future – IR 1:  Improved agricultural productivity/Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity.

Activity Objective: Increased capacity of the Government of Ghana, private sector, and CSOs to implement evidence-based policy formation, implementation, research, and advocacy and perform rigorous M&E of agriculture programs implemented under the METASIP

Activity Intermediate Result 1: Policy process for evidence-based decision making related to food security improved

Type of Indicator: Outcome

Name of Indicator #1: CBLD-5: Score, in percent, of combined key areas of organization capacity amongst USG direct and indirect local implementing partners (S)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator: Yes, under cross-cutting indicators, CBLD 5 (no longer a FtF indicator)

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): 

The reporting of the combined key area score will represent the capacity of Feed the Future-assisted local organizations measured across key capacity areas using the Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) tool. The key capacity areas could include:  Governance, Administration, Human Resources Management, Financial Management, Organizational Management, Program Management, and Project Performance Management.

 

The result entered for this indicator is calculated using the following numerator and denominator. 

Numerator: the total number of points scored. 

Denominator: the total number of points possible, which may vary depending on the inclusion of optional OCA sections where relevant. (e.g. the sub-grant management section may or may not be relevant to the organization depending on program) 

Operating units should record score data for each organization in their performance management plan files so changes in scores for each organization can be monitored over time (it is not necessary to report each organization’s score in the PPR). In addition, each operating unit must include in their performance management plan files: the assessment tool used, a description of the methodology employed for its implementation, and the data source identified as the basis for the rating of each factor. 

For purposes of indicator reporting, at the time of the award a “local organization” must, 

  • Be organized under the laws of the recipient country; 
  • Have its principal place of business in the recipient country; 
  • Be majority owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the recipient country or be managed by a governing body, the majority of whom are citizens or lawful permanent residents of a recipient country; and 
  • Not be controlled by a foreign entity or by an individual or individuals who are not citizens or permanent residents of the recipient country. 

The term “controlled by”, means a majority ownership or beneficiary interest as defined above, or the power, either directly or indirectly, whether exercised or exercisable, to control the election, appointment, or tenure of the organization’s managers or a majority of the organization’s governing body by any means, e.g., ownership, contract, or operation of law. “Foreign entity” means an organization that fails to meet any part of the “local organization” definition.  Government controlled and government owned organizations in which the recipient government owns a majority interest or in which the majority of a governing body are government employees, are included in the above definition of local organization.  For regional platforms the definition of a local organization can be expanded to include regional organizations that meet the following criteria: 

  • Be organized under the laws of a country in the region served by the platform; 
  • Have its principal place of business in the region; 
  • Be majority owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the region or be managed by a governing body, the majority of whom are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the region; and 
  • Not be controlled by a foreign entity or by an individual or individuals who are not citizens or permanent residents of the region.  

Both direct and indirect awardees should be included. 

Regional platforms and bilateral missions also may include obligations or sub-obligations to international organizations composed principally of countries to which membership is limited to countries within the region, provided the funds are to be implemented directly by or through the regional international organization. 

Note: If an operating unit wishes to use an alternative assessment tool, for example one generated through the human and institutional capacity development (HICD) methodology or the IDF tool, it should at a minimum include the factors identified in the OCA.

Unit of Measure:  Percent, with the result entered for this indicator is calculated using the following numerator and denominator.

Numerator: the total number of points scored.

Denominator: the total number of points possible, which may vary depending on the inclusion of optional OCA sections where relevant. (e.g. the sub-grant management section may or may not be relevant to the organization depending on program)

Disaggregated by: Type of organization, geographic location of organization’s main office, OCA subcategories

Rationale or Justification for Indicator (Optional):  Building the capacity of local institutions is crucial to sustainable development and long-lasting changes in a community. This indicator measures progress in actual local capacity development and will be used by USAID management to report on progress towards achieving USAID local capacity development objectives.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Collection Method: Surveys using OCA tools.

Data Source(s):  Organization members and activity staff generating a scorecard.

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: annual or bi-annual, depending on organization and comprehensiveness of assessment. Because organizations targeted for activity assistance in organizational capacity could be added throughout the year, baselines of those added in the first six months of the activity’s first will be included in this year’s baseline, while organizations added in the latter six months of each activity year will be rolled into the year two score.

Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: medium, if consultant time is needed to facilitate application of OCA; otherwise, low

Responsible Individual at the Activity:  Capacity Building Coordinator

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:  Before annual reporting each year

Data Analysis: Review of OCA scores for each factor and sub-factor, comparing subsequent assessment scores against the baseline. Each year’s indicator score will reflect the scores of those organizations completing a subsequent assessment.

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  Annually

Known Data Limitations: Organization staff might not know the requested information, might not feel free to openly assess their organization critically, and might not understand the concepts.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Training of organization’s staff who will be involved in the OCA and facilitation of the process by activity staff for at least the initial application, along with DQA reviews. Changes in categories will be made only when necessary and with USAID approval.

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  Checking the rating levels against the evidence cited, reviewing the composition of the organization’s team involved in the rating for their knowledge of the areas and OCA training

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baselines timeframe (Optional): Baselines will be determined when identified organizations agree to participate in the activity and complete an OCA as an initial activity. Targets will be set once baselines are determined.

Reporting of Data: Annually to USAID COR

Rational for Targets (Optional)

Changes to Indicator: Review of Data: Annually, by the activity team, led by components 1 and 2

Other Notes: The project’s Policy Advocacy Team carried out Organizational Capacity Assessment of 42 NSAs using the OCA tool in FY1. The assessment covered eight capacity areas including: governance, management practices, human resources management, financial management & funding, organizational management, program management, performance management, external relations and policy advocacy. The combined score was 2.83 which serves as the baseline for the indicator. 

Based on capacity gaps that were identified from the OCAT assessment, the project engaged two subcontractors to build capacity of 45 organizations in FY2 and FY3. The project Policy Advocacy Component team again began post training review and follow-up visits to these organizations in FY3. A second round of OCAT will be administered in FY4 to measure the new score of organizational capacity.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date (end of FY)

Notes

Baseline

Score of 2.83 = 71%

 

 

 

FY2014

N/A

 

 

 

FY2015

71%

 

 

Serves as Baseline

FY2016

N/A

 

 

 

FY2017

75%

 

 

2nd round of OCAT assessment

FY2018

80%

 

 

 

LOA TARGET

80%

 

 

 

 

This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist

 

 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 2

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 4.5.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future –  IR 1:  Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

Activity Objective:  Increased capacity of the Government of Ghana, private sector, and CSOs to implement evidence-based policy formation, implementation, research, and advocacy and perform rigorous M&E of agriculture programs implemented under the METASIP.

Name of Indicator #2: 4.5.2(7)   Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (RiA) (WOG)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes, Output; Is this an “F” indicator: No, but it is a FtF indicator, no. 4-5-2.7

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): 

The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted.   The indicator includes farmers, ranchers, fishers, and other primary sector producers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc.  It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and training to extension specialists, researchers, policymakers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and natural resources and water management.  

There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could translate into action.  Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received during the reporting year and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization meetings or one-off informational trainings. In-country and off-shore training are included.  Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments as they relate to agriculture resilience, but should not include nutrition-related trainings, which should be reported under indicator #3.1.9(1) instead.  Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension methods as well as technical assistance activities. An example is a USDA Cochran Fellow.  

Unit of Measure:  Number.

Disaggregated by:

Type of individual:

-Producers (farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.)

-People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers)

-People in private sector firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)

-People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, CBOs, CSOs, research and academic organizations)

Sex:        Male, Female

Rationale or Justification for indicator: 

Measures enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security, policy formulation and/or implementation, which is key to transformational development.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source(s):  Activity training records - training sign-in sheets

Data Collection Method: Document review. Counting of total number of persons attending activity-sponsored trainings and counting the total numbers in each of the disaggregated categories.

While producers are included under MSMEs under indicators 4.5.2(30) and 4.5.2(37), only count them under the Producers and not the Private Sector Firms disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count them under the Private Sector Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to avoid double-counting.

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly. In quarterly and annual reports to USAID COR.

Individual Responsible at USAID:  Technical team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of previous Data Quality Assessment and name of reviewer:  Activity technical team and COP.

The DQA will conduct a sampling of spot checks comparing the activity training sign-in sheets with the database records.

Known Data Limitations: Double-counting the same individual who attends more than one training; persons attending training might not all sign in on the activity record sheet. Transcription errors can occur in automating information taken from paper.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The M&E Specialist will set up a database for training participants including a unique identifier for all individuals that will be collected on training sign-in sheets. Technical staff and grantees overseeing training events will ensure all attendees sign in on the activity record sheet.  Spot checks will be done to assess accurate transcription of information.

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  Annually, at work planning

TARGETS AND BASELINE

BASELINE: 0

Rationale for Target: 5,000

Notes on Baselines/Targets:  Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous year. The number of individuals in private-sector organizations, and staff of the targeted MoFA units and the projected number of beneficiaries from the private sector organizations, both at the national, regional and districts levels, define the number of individuals who will be receiving USG training ST support.  

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

 

 

The target for this indicator was increased from 650 to 5,000 in December of 2015.

 

Justification: In setting the target of 650, APSP envisaged working with a limited number of public and private organizations, in the absence of specific information on individual’s needs. However, by FY2 this target had already been exceeded due to engagement with other stakeholders such as: District Assemblies and district-level staff, Civil Society Organizations, FBOs, private sector firms, and, in general, other non-state actors. The project envisaged that engagements with new grantees, other NSAs, and even other new public sector individuals from other MDAs will result in a larger number of individuals trained. The project requested and received USAID approval to increase the LOA target to 5,000 (five thousand) in December 2015.

 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date (end of FY)

Notes

Baseline

0

 

 

 

FY2014

200

208

208

 

FY2015

2,200

2,708

2,916

 

FY2016

1,600

1,849

4,765

 

FY2017

900

345

5110

Targets reduced for Y4 and Y5 to reallocate resources to achieve other targets.

LOA TARGET SURPASSED

FY2018

100

 

 

 

LOA TARGET

5,000

 

 

 

This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist

 

 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – for the new indicator #3.

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 4.5.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR 3 Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 3.2: Improve the Capacity of the Private Sector to Advocate for Pro-Business Agricultural Sector Reforms in Ghana

Activity Objective:  The voice of the private sector (civil society, private organizations, farmer associations and media) in the public policy process clarified and amplified.

Activity Intermediate Result 3: Policy process for evidence-based decision making related to food security improved

Type of Indicator: Outcome

NEW Indicator #3: “Number of organizations focusing on women in agriculture policy advocacy, demonstrating knowledge of sources and use of gender disaggregated statistics/data on agriculture.”

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes, Impact.

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):

“Organizations focusing on women in agriculture” refers to CSOs and Apex FBOs that champion and advocate for gender considerations in food security, nutrition, and agriculture policy issues; increasing opportunities for women to participate in agriculture policy decision making; engaging with women only farmer-based organizations. Raising the voices of women to participate in policy formation and implementation for, food security, nutrition and food safety. “Food security and agriculture policy issues” refers to any policy or regulation that addresses the availability of food and access to it, and/or the production of crops, livestock, or poultry. “Gender-sensitive, disaggregated data” is defined as facts and statistics, that recognizes the differences, inequalities and specific needs of women and men, and collected together for reference or analysis. “Use” means data that are used to reach a conclusion or resolution in order to contribute to agriculture policy formulation or advocacy.

Sources of data on women in agriculture includes, but not limited to: sources of published research on women in agriculture; data from local sources such as GSS, MOFA (SRID, WIAD), ISSER, MOFAD, Ghanaian universities, think-tanks, PSOs, CSOs, etc.; data and research from international organizations such as FAO, IFAD, IFPRI, SIDA, USDA, UNDP, World Bank, ECA, etc.”

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by: Type of organization,

Rationale or Justification for indicator: This indicator measures knowledge & use of gender disaggregated data among CSOs/NSAs engaged and agriculture policy advocacy as it affects inequalities and specific needs of women

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source(s): Survey of partner organizations engaged in women in agriculture policy advocacy; Examples: 1. Civil Society coalition on Land (CiCOL), 2. Syecomp Ghana Ltd., 3. AgriHub Ghana Knowledge Space, 4. Global Youth Innovation Network (GYIN), Ghana, 5.African Youth Initiative on Climate Change, Ghana; 6. Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG); 7. The Association of Church-based Development NGOs (ACDEP); 8. Savannah Integrated Rural Development Aid (SIRDA); 9. Women in Law and Development in Africa, (WILDAF), 10. Women Support and Activist Group (WOSAG), 11. Rural and Urban Women’s Association (RUWA), 12. ABANTU for Development; 13. Centre for Women Opportunities (CENWOPP); 14. ModernGhana Online; 15. Community Life Improvement Programme (CLIP); 16. GUZAKUZA; etc.

Data Collection Method: A survey and Key Informant Interviews of heads of NSAs / CSOs engaged in women and agriculture policy advocacy. Partner organizations that show evidence of knowledge and use of disaggregated information/data from any credible source will qualify to be counted.

 

To capture Indicator #3, the project will utilize the standard OCAT (Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool) but adapted it into an “Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool”. APSP is currently using this adjusted OCAT to compile information for Indicator #10. To this adjusted tool, APSP has added Section XII on “Evidence on the Use of Gender Disaggregated Data”. The structure of Section XII is as follows:

 

  • The organization can identify reliable sources (national & international) of relevant statistics/data on gender issues
  • The organization is using reliable, relevant statistics/data in its gender advocacy campaign or messages
  • The organization uses reliable, relevant statistics/data as a basis for its procedures and can match the data with the particular procedure(s) influenced
  • The organization uses reliable, relevant statistics/data as a basis for its policies and can clearly identify the data with particular policies influenced.

This section will allow the project to capture information on the extent to which an organization demonstrates knowledge of sources and use of gender disaggregated data on agriculture, and that the organization can point to the incorporation of such evidence into specific advocacy, messaging, procedures or policies. 

In order to isolate other factors influencing the advocacy capacity of organizations (intuition, political relationships, corporate relationships, etc.) only the average numerical score obtained by CSOs in Section XII will determine if the organization will be counted as contributing to Indicator #3.

Lower numerical scores indicate strong knowledge and use of gender disaggregated data. An average score of 2.5 or lower will qualify the Organization to be counted as demonstrating knowledge of sources and use of gender disaggregated data on agriculture.     

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual Responsible at USAID: Annual to USAID COR

Reporting of Data: Technical team /M&E Specialist, Gender Specialist

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of previous Data Quality Assessment:  After initial data collection

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  Annually, at work planning

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Organization staff might not know the requested information, might not feel free to openly assess their organization critically, and might not understand the concepts.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Training of organizational staff who will be involved in the survey and facilitation of the process by activity staff for at least the initial application, along with DQA reviews.

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: M&E Specialist will check the methodology (survey instrument) for measuring Knowledge and Use of disaggregated data. Checking the rating levels against the evidence cited, reviewing the composition of the organization’s team involved in the rating for their knowledge of the competency areas

TARGETS AND BASELINE

BASELINE: 0  

Targets: 10 (Organizations)

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

  1. Changes to Indicator:  The old indicator was “Percent change of key decision-makers reporting that activity-supported data to inform their decisions related to food security and agriculture policy issues contain gender sensitive data.”
  2. Justification for Replacing the Previous Indicator: In the initial survey to establish a baseline for this indicator, 50 GOG officers were targeted. 35 officers responded but this did not produce useful data for analysis. Further, the indicator is dependent on gender-sensitiveness of APSP “activity-supported data” and related to decisions taken by the individual officer regarding “food security and agriculture policy issues”. Both attributions proved to be a challenge to isolate and measure. 
  3. The new indicator seeks to build the organizational capacity of CSOs who are engaging in gender advocacy for the special needs of women farmers.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date (end of FY)

Notes

Baseline

0

 

 

 

FY2014

N/A

 

 

 

FY2015

N/A

 

 

 

FY2016

N/A

 

 

Indicator created in FY 2016

FY2017

5

2

2

 

FY2018

8

 

 

 

LOA TARGET

10

 

 

 

This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist

 

 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 4

Name of Result Measured:

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 4.5.1: Agricultural Enabling Environment

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR 1:  Improved Agriculture Productivity / Sub IR 1.3: Improved Agricultural Policy Environment

Objective:  Increased capacity of the Government of Ghana, private sector, and CSOs to implement evidence-based policy formation, implementation, research, and advocacy and perform rigorous M&E of agriculture programs implemented under the METASIP.

Intermediate Result 1: Policy process for evidence-based decision making related to food security improved

Name of Indicator #4: EG.3.1-12: (4.5.1-24) Number of agricultural and nutritional enabling environment policies analyzed, consulted on, drafted or revised, approved and implemented with USG assistance (RAA).

Type of Indicator: Output (stages 1-2), Outcome (stages 3-5); Is this an “F” indicator: No, but it is a FtF indicator, 4.5.1-24

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): 

Number of agriculture- and nutrition-enabling environment policies in the areas of institutional architecture, enabling environment for private sector investment, trade, inputs, land and natural resource management, and nutrition:  

  1. Underwent analysis (review of existing policy and/or proposal of new policy). 
  2. Underwent public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy. This could also include proposed repeal of an existing policy.
  3. Were newly drafted or revised.
  4. Received official approval (legislation/decree) of the new, revised, or repealed policy by the relevant authority (legislative or executive body).
  5. Were fully and effectively implemented by the relevant authority (this includes USG support to implementing the effective repeal of a policy).

Policies can include laws, legal frameworks, regulations, administrative procedures, or institutional arrangements. 

Note that the indicator has been revised to acknowledge that these processes are not always linear: Newly drafted laws can be defeated by a legislative body and require redrafting or new analysis; approved regulations can prove difficult to implement and may need to be revised.

Because of this non-linear approach, double-counting is no longer a concern and is in fact appropriate: Operating units should indicate if multiple processes/steps were completed in a given year, as this more accurately represents work under a given activity. The disaggregate “Total policies passing through one or more processes/steps of policy change” will count the total number of policies that completed any process/step, regardless of the number of processes/steps each policy completed during the reporting year.

Full and effective implementation must meet the following criteria: (1) The policy must be in force in all intended geographic regions/locations and at all intended administrative levels with all intended regulations/rules in place (“full”); (2) Any ongoing activities or tasks required by the policy (e.g., various kinds of inspection, enforcement, collection of documents/information/fees) are being executed with minimal disruptions (“effective”). For example, a new business registration procedure that has been rolled out to just four of six intended provinces would not meet these criteria (not full), nor would a new customs law that is on the books but is not being regularly enforced at the border (not effective).

For regional missions, approval (step 4) counts any regionally agreed policies that have been regionally approved (i.e., reached the minimum number of signatory countries to be passed) during the reporting year. Full and effective implementation (step 5) would count any regionally agreed policy for which all countries falling under the policy’s jurisdiction have fully and effectively implemented the policy. To capture individual countries’ progress toward full and effective implementation of regional policies, please use new indicator 4.5.1 (TBD9).

 

Unit of Measure:  Number

DISAGGREGATE BY: 

Policy area:

  • Institutional architecture for improved policy formulation
  • Enabling environment for private sector investment
  • Agricultural trade policy
  • Agricultural input policy (e.g. seed, fertilizer)
  • Land and natural resources tenure, rights, and policy
  • Resilience and agricultural risk management policy
  • Nutrition (e.g., fortification, food safety)
  • Other

Process/Step:

  • Analysis 
  • Stakeholder consultation/public debate
  • Drafting or revision 
  • Approval (legislative or regulatory)
  • Full and effective implementation

 

Total policies passing through one or more processes/steps of policy change

Rationale or Justification for indicator:  The indicator measures the number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures in the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment for agriculture whose sub-elements are specific policy sectors. This indicator is easily aggregated upward from all operating units.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source(s):  Government records, government officials

Data Collection Method: Observation, document review, interview

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Responsible Individual at USAID: COR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of previous DQA and name of reviewer:  After initial data collection

Data Analysis: Adding the numbers of policies, regulations, and administrative procedures meeting the above definition.

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  Annually, at work planning

Review of Data:  Annually, by COP and technical staff

Known Data Limitations: One regulation might pertain to more than one policy; procedures might have multiple sub-steps.  

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Regulations and procedures will not be double-counted if they pertain to more than one policy, activity staff will count each regulation once; procedures will not count the multiple steps involved in one procedure. We will not “double-count” policies that passed through several stages during the reporting year. Report only the highest stage completed during the reporting year, e.g. of a policy was analyzed then presented for stakeholder consultation, report one policy at Stage 2. We will clearly describe each policy/regulation in the title/description in the system to assist the USAID mission in avoiding double counting by multiple partners collecting this data.  Activity staff will discuss and agree on counting when unusual policies, regulations, or procedures appear.

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  Spot check of various policies, regulations, and administrative procedures for appropriate counts.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baselines timeframe (Optional):

Targets: The numbers at each stage of the policy process are based on the followings sources:

  1. Policy priority areas as indicated in the METASIP document
  2. The understanding of immediate priorities during its interaction with MoFA and other private sector stakeholders.
  3. The Policy Matrix coming out of the Joint Sector Review and of the Agriculture Sector Working Group
  4. The priorities set out at the public-private dialogue forums

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: There has been a change in the indicator name (FtF Indicator Handbook, September 2016) which previously read:

  1. (4.5.1-24) Number of Policies/Regulations/Administrative Procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG assistance in each case: Stage 1 of 5: Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures analysed; Stage 2 of 5: drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation; Stage 3 of 5: presented for legislation/decree; Stage 4 of 5: passed/approved; Stage 5 of 5: passed for which implementation has begun
  2. Indicator Targets: APSP has examined the policy environment and the priorities from MoFA and other MDAs in terms of agriculture policy reform and implementation. A common understanding agreed with MOFA is to revise existing laws to make them private-sector friendly rather than developing new laws.  At the same time, APSP’s approach to support a policy reform agenda is to proactively respond to the policy environment stemming from both GOG and USAID priorities.  As such, the number of new policies/regulations, and administrative procedures to be developed during the LOA will respond to these priorities. The targets for the stages of development for the indicator was amended as follows:

Old LOA Target

New LOA Target

Stage 1 - 40

Stage 2 - 35

Stage 3 - 20

Stage 4 - 10

Stage 5 -  5

Stage 1 - 20

Stage 2 - 15

Stage 3 - 10

Stage 4 -  5

Stage 5 -  3

 

 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Cumulative Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to Date (End of FY)

Notes

Baseline

0

 

 

 

FY2014

Stage 1 - 5

Stage 2 - 3

Stage 3 -  2

Stage 4 -  0

Stage 5 -  0

Stage 1 -  0

Stage 2 -  0

Stage 3 -  0

Stage 4 -  0

Stage 5 -  0

Stage 1 -  0

Stage 2 -  0

Stage 3 -  0

Stage 4 -  0

Stage 5 -  0

 

FY2015

Stage 1 - 10

Stage 2 -  7

Stage 3 -  4

Stage 4 -  1

Stage 5 -  1

Stage 1 -  6

Stage 2 -  3

Stage 3 -  0

Stage 4 -  1

Stage 5 -  1

Stage 1 - 10

Stage 2 - 4

Stage 3 -  1

Stage 4 -  1

Stage 5 -  1

 

FY2016

Stage 1 - 15

Stage 2 - 11

Stage 3 -   7

Stage 4 -   3

Stage 5 -   2

Stage 1 -   3

Stage 2 -   1

Stage 3 - 12

Stage 4 -   1

Stage 5 -   6

Stage 1 - 20

Stage 2 - 17

Stage 3 - 16

Stage 4 -   4

Stage 5 -   6

Cumulative result means 20 policies in total have been handled by the project from stage 1, 17 of them have reached stage 2, 16 reached stage 3, 4 have reached stage 4, and 3 have reached stage 5.

FY2017

Stage 1 – 18

Stage 2 - 14

Stage 3 -  10

Stage 4 -   4

Stage 5 -   3

Stage 1 -   3

Stage 2 -   1

Stage 3 - 12

Stage 4 -   3

Stage 5 -   7

Stage 1 - 22

Stage 2 - 17

Stage 3 - 16

Stage 4 -   7

Stage 5 -   7

LOA TARGET SURPASSED AT THE END OF FY4

FY2018

Stage 1 – 20

Stage 2 - 15

Stage 3 - 10

Stage 4 -   5

Stage 5 -   3

 

 

 

LOA TARGET

Stage 1 – 20

Stage 2 - 15

Stage 3 - 10

Stage 4 -   5

Stage 5 -   3

 

 

This LOA target means that by LOA 20 policies in total would have passed through stage 1, 15 of them to stage 2, 10 to stage 3, 5 to stage 4 and 3 would reached the highest stage 5.

This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist

 

 

 
 
 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 5

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 4.5.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future –  IR 1:  Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

Activity Objective:  Increased capacity of the Government of Ghana, private sector, and CSOs to implement evidence-based policy formation, implementation, research, and advocacy and perform rigorous M&E of agriculture programs implemented under the METASIP.

Activity Intermediate Result 1:  Policy process for evidence-based decision making related to food security improved.

Name of Indicator #5: 4.5.2-7 Number of government units or divisions that have received short-term training

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? Yes, but it is also FtF indicator, 4.5.2-7. Type of Indicator: Output

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): “Government units or divisions” refer to a subsection of a government entity that is formally recognized within the institution as a unit or division; “training” means significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills. There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could translate into action.  A government unit or division is counted to have received short-term training if any member of that unit or division has participated in activity-sponsored training.

In-country and off-shore training are included. Training could include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments as they relate to agriculture resilience.

Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension methods as well as technical assistance activities. An example is a USDA Cochran Fellow.

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated by:

New - (receiving USG assistance for the first time under this Activity); and

Continuing (received USG assistance in the past under this Activity); unit or division; institution

Rationale or Justification for indicator:  Measures enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security, policy formulation and/or implementation, which is key to transformational development. A variety of government units must have enhanced human capacity for systemic changes to occur.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Collection Method: Document review. Counting of total number of government units or divisions represented by persons attending activity-sponsored trainings and counting the total numbers in each of the disaggregated categories.

Data Source(s):  Activity training records - training sign-in sheets

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly. In quarterly and annual reports to USAID COR

Individual Responsible at USAID: Activity technical team and COP. Technical team/M&E Specialist

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:  After the end of Quarter 2 as it is not anticipated that training will be done before then.

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  Annually, at work planning

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Double-counting the unit or division that has individuals who attend more than one training; persons attending training might not all sign in on the activity record sheet or indicate which unit or division where they work. Transcription errors can occur in automating information taken from paper.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The M&E Specialist will set up a database for training participants including a unique identifier for all individuals that will be collected on training sign-in sheets. All training sign-in sheets will require specification of the unit or division where the trainee works and technical staff and grantees overseeing training events will ensure all attendees sign in on the activity record sheet.  Spot checks will be done to assess accurate transcription of information.

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  The DQA will conduct a sampling of spot checks comparing the activity training sign-in sheets with the database records.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baselines: 0

Targets: Increased from 10 to 20

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Increase in indicator target in December 2015

In setting this target, the APS Project planned to work solely with MoFA and MoFAD Directorates. However, the project also engaged with other MDAs in activities that contribute to improve the business enabling environment for increasing private sector investments in agriculture and food security such as: Ghana Irrigation Authority, Regional and Districts departments of Agriculture, Ghana seed inspection Division, Ghana Standards Authority, Agribusiness Unit at MOF, MOTI, Lands Commission, etc. Therefore, the project revised this target up from 10 to 20 government units or divisions.

Other Notes:  Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous year. The number is confined to the targeted GOG’s units that will be receiving ST technical support, including MoFA’s, MoTI’s, MoF, GSS and SADA.

 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY

Notes

Baseline

0

 

 

 

FY2014

5

3

3

 

FY2015

5

9

12

 

FY2016

4

4

16

 

FY2017

4

9

25

LOA TARGET SURPASSED

FY2018

2

 

 

 

LOA TARGET

20

 

 

 

This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist