Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 6 |
Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.):
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 2: Policy process for evidence-based decision making related to food security increased |
Name of Indicator #6: Number of agriculture policy communications, developed and/or written for stakeholder consumption. |
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes
Type of Indicator: Output. Is this an “F” indicator: No |
DESCRIPTION |
Precise Definition(s): “Agriculture policy communications” means written, visual, or oral pieces intended to convey a message relating to a policy issue concerning the science, art, or occupation concerning the cultivation of land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, and raising livestock; “developed and/or written” means produced for dissemination; and “stakeholder consumption” refers to the intent to share the piece with a general or particular audience. One piece containing the same words or pictures per mode of communication (e.g. an oral speech given is then turned into a written article for publication constitutes two different pieces, and a picture derived as a frame from a video constitutes two different pieces). One piece tailored three times for three different audiences would be three pieces. |
Unit of Measure: Number |
Disaggregated by:
Type of communication (policy brief, newspaper article, white paper, radio program, television program); Main stakeholder group targeted (GOG, private sector, civil society); and Lead in producing the policy communication (GOG, USG, private sector, civil society). |
Rationale or Justification for indicator: Government policies are more effective when they have been formed after consideration of a multitude of perspectives, shared with a wide range of interested parties, and understood widely. |
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID |
Data Collection Method: Interviews, document reviews |
Data Source(s): Government, civil society, and private sector partners; activity records.
Because of the interventions of the project when working with a significant number of public and private stakeholders related to the agriculture sector, the project and its partners will be both producing technical and communicational material that accounts for this specific indicator. |
Reporting Frequency: In quarterly and annual reports. |
Responsible Individual USAID:
Activity technical team, communications specialist, and COP |
DATA QUALITY ISSUES |
Date of previous Data Quality Assessment: At the end of Quarter 2 |
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually, at work planning |
Known Data Limitations: Agriculture communications produced might not be brought to the awareness of the Activity.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The Communications and Media specialist will orient all partners and grantees about this indicator and routinely check with the partners to collect the data.
Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Random spot checks by the M&E Specialist to ensure that the evidence for the indicator is sufficient, e.g., that the main subject matter of the piece of communication is agriculture. |
TARGETS AND BASELINE |
Baselines: 0 |
Targets: 200 |
CHANGES TO INDICATOR |
Changes to Indicator: |
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES |
Year |
Target |
Actual |
Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY |
Notes |
Baseline |
0 |
|
|
|
FY2014 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
|
FY2015 |
50 |
119 |
119 |
|
FY2016 |
40 |
37 |
156 |
|
FY2017 |
80 |
70 |
226 |
LOA TARGET SURPASSED |
FY2018 |
30 |
|
|
|
LOA TARGET |
200 |
|
|
|
This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist |
|
| |
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 7 |
Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.):
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 #7: Number of activity supported advocacy campaigns that focus on the separate needs of men and women small holder farmers |
Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator: No
Type of Indicator: Outcome |
DESCRIPTION |
Precise Definition(s): “Activity supported” means any sub-activity enabled by the FtF APS. For example, a sub-activity directly funded by the Activity, or that came about as a result of Activity intervention. “Advocacy campaigns” are defined as actions and sub-activities that an organization plans or executes in order to influence policy and to raise awareness on a specific issue.” “Focus” means to pay particular attention to a specific issue. “Separate needs” refers to a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary by small holder farmers, with attention paid specifically to what men’s needs are and women’s needs are. “Men and women small holder farmers” are defined as male and females who make their living by growing crops or keeping livestock, and support a single family with a mixture of cash crops and subsistence farming. In this context, staff should only count Activity supported advocacy campaigns to avoid counting advocacy campaigns outside the agriculture policy realm. |
Unit of Measure: Number |
Disaggregated by: Type of campaign; Male, Female |
Justification & Management Utility: Smallholder farmers, particularly women, remain underrepresented in the policy making process. This indicator measures the extent to which the needs of smallholder farmers are included in public private dialogue. It ensures the needs of both men and women are reflected in sub-activities. |
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID |
Data Collection Method: Activity documents, partner records.
Counting the number of advocacy campaigns that address the needs of men and women smallholder farmers |
Data Source(s): Partner organizations, government counterparts |
Reporting Frequency: Quarterly / Annual and quarterly reports |
Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: M&E 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): The indicator does not measure the final outcome of the advocacy campaign, so while campaigns may address the needs of men and women smallholder farmers, there is no guarantee that these needs will be reflected in policies and/or regulations. There may be confusion as to what constitutes an “Activity supported” sub-activity and “smallholder farmer.” There may also be different interpretations about needs that address the agriculture sector as a whole, versus those that are specific to smallholder farmers.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Staff should monitor the results of advocacy campaigns to gauge their effectiveness. Results and/or limitations can be presented in activity reports. The M&E Specialist should ensure all staff have reviewed the indicator definition. Technical staff should determine based on knowledge of the sector and input provided to the campaign whether an issue is specific to smallholder farmers.
Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: The DQA will conduct a sampling of spot checks comparing the content of the advocacy campaign with the database record. |
TARGETS AND BASELINES |
Baselines: 0 |
Targets: 20
Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous year. Based on the number of NSAs that will be collaborating with the project on policy advocacy activities (seminars, workshops, trainings, institutional capacity building, etc.) it is expected that at least 20 of those efforts will advocate on the separate needs of men and women small holder farmers. |
CHANGES TO INDICATOR |
Changes to Indicator: |
Other Notes: |
|
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES |
Year |
Target |
Actual |
Cumulative Results at end of the FY |
Notes |
Baseline |
0 |
|
|
|
FY2014 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
FY2015 |
5 |
13 |
16 |
|
FY2016 |
5 |
9 |
25 |
|
FY2017 |
5 |
2 |
27 |
LOA TARGET SURPASSED |
FY2018 |
4 |
|
|
|
LOA TARGET |
20 |
|
|
|
This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017by APSP M&E Specialist |
|
| |
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 8 |
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 2: Availability of rigorous policy analysis capacity for evidence-based policy making increased |
Name of Indicator #8: Number of high quality research reports published |
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes
Type of Indicator: Output, Is this an “F” indicator: No |
DESCRIPTION |
Precise Definition(s): “High quality research reports” refers to reports of research that have a detailed description of the methods and statistics used in the study, such that replication of the study is possible; with findings that have statistical and clinical significance; noting the limitations of the methods used; with outcomes, interventions, and populations that are meaningful and useful; and conclusions that are carefully drawn and supported by the evidence presented.
If the report has not been peer-reviewed, it meets the previously listed criteria that would allow for peer review. “Published” means the report has been made available for public consumption. |
Unit of Measure: Number |
Disaggregated By: Topic, Target, and whether gender considerations are included. |
Rationale or Justification for indicator: The ability of the government, private sector, and civil society organizations to produce solid research and make the research available to the public for consideration and use is a central tenant of the activity’s objective. |
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID |
Data Source(s): Government, CSOs, private sector organizations; activity staff |
Method Of Data Collection and construction: Interviews and document reviews |
Reporting Frequency: In annual reports. |
Responsible Individual at USAID: Activity technical team and COP |
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): Activity might not be aware of research reports published; quality of research might be debatable. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Key counterparts and partners who would know of research will be interviewed regularly. Criteria for defining “quality research reports” will be written and available with each implementing unit conducting the research or producing the report. Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Research reports will be spot checked for compliance with quality standards. |
TARGETS AND BASLINE |
Baselines: 0 |
Target: Increased from 6 to 20 in December 2015
Counting total number of high-quality research reports published. “High quality” research peer-reviewed demands time and resources; therefore, there is a limited number of research papers that can be produced in a given period of time. The other issue of importance to have a limited number is the fact that funding of research will be based on priority needs set out by METASIP or other prioritization mechanisms. |
CHANGES TO INDICATOR |
Changes to indicator: The indicator target was increased in December 2015 from 6 to 20 to take into account the universe of potential proposals and other on-demand priorities that have emerged from engaging with the GoG units. The project expects a larger number than originally established of research reports that could be implemented. |
Other Notes: |
Changes to indicator in FY2018
Background: The indicator target was increased from 6 to 20, in December 2015, to consider the universe of potential proposals and other on-demand priorities that emerged from engaging with the GoG units.
However, new priorities have emerged in MOFA programming due to a change in government. The COR has therefore provided concurrence, when reviewing the FY2018 Annual Work Plan, to adjusting the LOA target for this Indicator to 15 to reallocate budget resources and hence, provide support to the GOG in the implementation of MoFA’s flagship policy program; namely, the Planting for Foods and Jobs program.
In order to keep on track to meeting the LOA target, APSP issued a tender to develop at least two new research studies and/or policy assessments, which will be completed by FY5 Q2, thus bringing the total number of research studies to 15 and therefore attaining the LOA Target. These changes are also reflected in the project’s FY2018 Work Plan, which has been approved by the COR. |
Year |
Target |
Actual |
Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY |
Notes |
Baseline |
0 |
|
|
|
FY2014 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
FY2015 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
|
FY2016 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
FY2017 |
11 |
10 |
13 |
|
FY2018 |
2 |
2 |
15 |
|
LOA TARGET |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reference sheet was last updated on OCTOBER 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist |
|
| |
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 9 |
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 2: Availability of rigorous policy analysis capacity for evidence-based policy making increased. |
Name of Indicator #9: Score, in percent of improved areas of policy research capacity in assisted research organizations and units. |
Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No. Type of Indicator: Outcome |
DESCRIPTION |
Precise Definition(s): “Score” is the total of points earned, with a point allotted per level of capacity shown; “policy research capacity” refers to the ability to respond to areas of demand-driven research or identify key areas relevant to agriculture policy, set objectives and priorities, produce research proposals that are adequate and sufficiency in methodology, carry out the research, draw reasoned conclusions, and present findings that are useable for a basis for policy decisions. “assisted research organizations and units” are those entities or divisions of entities that the Activity provides assistance |
Unit of Measure: Percent |
Disaggregated by: Type of capacity, type of organization, geographic location of organization |
Rationale or Justification for indicator: The ability of organizations to request, produce, review, and use relevant research for evidence in policy decisions is key to the success of the Activity. |
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USIAD |
Data Source(s): Scorecard generated by internal and/or external persons who are knowledgeable about the institution’s policy research capacities |
Method of Data Collection and Construction: Survey of institutional policy research capacities producing a scorecard; Expert opinion.
Review of scores for each factor rated, comparing subsequent assessment scores against the baseline. Each year’s indicator score will reflect the scores of those organizations completing a subsequent assessment. |
Reporting and Frequency of Data collection: Annually, by the project technical team leads for components 1 and 2 |
Responsible Individual at USAID: Technical team/M&E 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: Organization staff or identified expert might not know the requested information, might not feel free to openly assess their organization critically, might not understand the concepts.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Training of organization staff and any expert who participates in the rating exercise and facilitation by Activity staff at least for initial application.
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 BASLINE |
Baselines:44% (combined score of 1.75)
The project identified and completed policy research analysis survey among 13 public and private universities and research institutions to obtain a baseline score. |
Targets: 80% (combined score of 4) |
CHANGES TO INDICATOR |
Changes To Indicator: |
Other Notes: there has been on change to this indicator. |
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES |
Year |
Target |
Actual |
Cumulative Results to date (end of FY) |
Notes |
Baseline |
Score of 1.75 = 44% |
|
|
|
FY2014 |
N/A |
|
|
For FY14 and FY15 assessments were ongoing to establish a baseline score. |
FY2015 |
N/A |
44% (score of 1.75) |
|
Serves as Baseline. |
FY2016 |
N/A |
44% |
|
|
FY2017 |
60% |
62% |
Following recommendation from a project Mid-Term Assessment, the score was recalculated to reflect four selected research institutions that are direct beneficiaries of project assistance |
FY2018 |
80% |
|
|
|
LOA TARGET |
(Score of 4) 80% |
|
|
|
|
This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist |
|
| |
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 10 |
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 3: Voice of the private sector (including civil society, private associations, and media) in the public policy process clarified and amplified
|
Name of Indicator #10: Score, in percent, of the capacity of the private sector to advocate for pro-business agriculture sector reform in Ghana |
Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No. Type of Indicator: Outcome |
DESCRIPTION |
Precise Definition(s): The numerical rating assigned to an organization after they have completed the Advocacy Index Questionnaire, which analyzes five competency areas: coalition building, engagement with decision makers, outreach, data research/ analysis/ utilization, and policy development. The numerical rating will serve as a proxy for the skills and abilities of civil society, private associations, apex organizations, and media to influence agricultural policies that create a positive environment for businesses. Higher numerical ratings indicate stronger advocacy skills. “Pro-business agriculture sector reform” refers to efforts to engage the GoG to develop policies that enable private, for-profit enterprises to grow and accomplish their intended purposes. |
Unit of Measure: Percent |
Disaggregated by: Type of organization; sector; Advocacy Index competency areas |
Rationale or Justification for indicator: Building the capacity of the private sector to advocate for agricultural policy reform is crucial to sustainable development and improved policy-making. This indicator measures progress in the private sector’s ability to advocate for business friendly agricultural policies that will in turn promote private sector growth. |
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USIAD |
Data Source(s): Survey results, Organization members and activity staff conducting interviews. |
Method of Data Collection: Survey
Review of Advocacy Index competencies, comparing subsequent assessment scores against the baseline. Each year’s indicator score will reflect the scores of those organizations completing a subsequent assessment. |
Reporting Frequency: Annual, by the activity team, led by Component 3 |
Individual Responsible at USAID: Policy Advocacy Specialist, Capacity Building Coordinator, and M&E Specialist |
DATA QUALITY ISSUES |
Date of Initial 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: 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 |
Baselines 63% (2.50)
Project carried out an advocacy capacity assessment of 44 organizations and obtained an Advocacy Index score of 2.50 (i.e. 63%) as a baseline. |
Targets: Based on the baseline assessment of advocacy capacity, the project set a target to improve advocacy capacity among these organizations to of 80% |
CHANGES TO INDICATOR |
Changes to Indicator: |
Other Notes: Project will conduct a second round of advocacy capacity assessments (using ACAT) of NSAs. These will serve as post-capacity building assessments following extensive policy advocacy trainings delivered by APSP. |
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES |
Year |
Target |
Actual |
Cumulative Results to date (end of FY) |
Notes |
Baseline |
Score of 2.50 = 63% |
|
|
|
FY2014 |
N/A |
|
|
|
FY2015 |
ACAT Score of 2.50 |
ACAT Score of 2.50 63% |
|
Serves as Baseline |
FY2016 |
N/A |
63% |
|
No assessment done in 2016 |
FY2017 |
75% |
73% |
|
2nd round of ACAT score |
FY2018 |
80% |
|
|
|
LOA TARGET |
(Score of 4) 80% |
|
|
|
|
This reference sheet was last updated on October 2017 by APSP M&E Specialist |
|
