Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 11

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 #11:  Number of public private advocacy dialogues focused on policy that supports private sector investment

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Number of times that private sector organizations (including CSOs, private associations, apex organizations, and media) and representatives from local or national government meet to discuss policies that facilitate investing money in for profit enterprises. A dialogue is defined as “a meeting that is scheduled in advance during which two or more parties (at least one of whom is a government representative and one of whom represents the private sector) come together to discuss a specific policy issue that has the potential to improve the enabling environment for private sector investment.” 

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated by:

Type of organization participating in the public-private dialogue, inclusion of gender considerations, geographic location

Rationale or Justification for indicator: Measures discussion and exchange of ideas between private sector organizations and government representatives. Interaction between the private sector and the government is critical if government policies are to be pro-business and reflect the needs of for-profit enterprises. 

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USIAD

Data Collection Method: Activity documents, partner records

Counting the number of times representatives from the private sector and government meet to discuss policy reforms related to improving private sector investment. Compare numbers to those from the previous quarter

Data Source(s):  Partner organizations, government counterparts

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly, led by Component 3

Individual Responsible at USAID: M&E Specialist

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of previous Data Quality Assessment:   

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

Known Data Limitations: Partners and counterparts may not report on every meeting. Participants may forget to sign attendance sheets. Exchanges that take place informally or outside normal working hours may not be counted. The indicator does not measure the quality or outcome of the dialogue.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Ensure activity staff, partner organizations, and counterparts understand how “meeting” is defined. Activity staff should attend meetings between the private and public sectors whenever possible to gauge productivity. Qualitative results from these meetings can be captured in activity report narratives.  

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  The DQA will conduct a sampling of spot checks comparing the meeting attendance sheets with the database record.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

BASELINE: 0

TARGETS:  Increased from 90 to 120, December 2015

Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous year. The project expects to assist in the organization of national, regional, district level public-private policy dialogues, and other initiatives that bring the public and private sector together. These activities could take place on a monthly basis nationwide

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: LOA Target was increased from 90 to 120 in December 2016. Targets for FY17 and FY18 were adjusted to 20 & 15 respectively to catch up with achieving the LOA target. 

However, in FY2017 the project surpassed the annual target of 20 to 28. This means that by the end of FY4 the project has progressed effectively towards attaining the LOA target of 120.

This accomplishment has been possible because of planned policy reform agenda activities and advocacy activities by CSOs who have received small-grants from the project and are implementing dialogues to discuss new laws/policies. Also, the formation and functioning of an umbrella organization representing the seeds sector has contributed to increasing the number of policy dialogues.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY

Notes

Baseline

0

FY2014

10

18

18

FY2015

40

40

58

FY2016

40

27

85

FY2017

20

28

113

FY2018

15

LOA TARGET

120

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

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 12

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: The voice of the private sector (including civil society, private associations, and media) in the public policy process clarified and amplified 

Name of Indicator #12: Percent of recommendations agreed upon during public private dialogues that are implemented

Type of Indicator: Outcome

Is this an “F” indicator: No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Recommendation is defined as “a suggestion or proposal put forward by an authoritative body (for example, a for-profit enterprise or the GOG).” Recommendations should be evidence-based, feasible, and realistic.  Agreed upon means that there is consensus amongst the parties present on how to proceed. A public private dialogue is defined as “a meeting that is scheduled in advance during which two or more parties come together to discuss a specific policy issues related to agriculture. The parties include representatives from civil society, private associations, apex organizations, and media and representatives from local or national government.” Implemented means that the proposal put forward is carried out. Activity staff should count recommendations individually, even if they arise from the same meeting. Activity staff should not count recommendations that are not fully implemented.  Percent is calculated by dividing the total number of recommendations by the number of recommendations that are actually implemented and multiplying by 100

Unit of Measure: Percent. 

Disaggregated by: Topic of recommendation, inclusion of gender considerations

Rationale or Justification for indicator: Measures the quality of policy discussions between the private and public sectors, and the ability of these sectors to put proposed recommendations and suggestions into action. To improve the policy environment, it is critical that the private sector not only has a voice, but that recommendations and suggestions are actually implemented.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USIAD

Data Source(s):  Activity documents, partner records, interviews

Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous year. Targets take into account policy reform process, as there is a gap in time between when a recommendation is made and when it’s actually implemented

Method of data collection and construction: Document review and interviews

Comparing percentage change each quarter. In all of the activities as per Indicator 11, there will be a number of issues discussed in those events. We expect that out of three issues agreed upon in the dialogues, one will be implemented.

[Percent is calculated by dividing the total number of recommendations by the number of recommendations that are fully implemented]

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly / Annual reports, led by Component 3

Responsible Individual at USAID: Policy Advocacy Specialist 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: Recommendations may be partially implemented. Local partners and particularly government counterparts may exaggerate the extent to which a recommendation has been implemented (or not implemented).

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Activity staff should verify with the relevant counterpart and partner that a particular recommendation has been implemented. Activity staff should compare the implemented recommendations to the original proposal or meetings notes to ensure the recommendation has been fully implemented.

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  Random spot checks by the M&E specialist to ensure policy recommendations are implemented.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline: 0

Targets: LOA target accounts for 30% of the basket of recommendations agreed upon will be implemented.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator:

Other Notes: 

• 10 out of 19 policy recommendations are being implemented.
• Project will track recommendations agreed upon with stakeholders at public-private policy advocacy dialogues, forums.  [Percent is calculated by dividing the number of recommendations that are fully implemented] by the total number of recommendations agreed upon

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY

Notes

Baseline

0

FY2014

0

0

FY2015

5% implemented

0

0

FY2016

10% implemented

10 out of a basket of 19 recommendations

53%

FY2017

20%

30 out of a basket of 51 recommendations agreed-upon implemented

59%

FY2018

30%

LOA TARGET

30% implementation

LOA target is that 30% of the basket of recommendations agreed-upon are implemented

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

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 13

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 #13: EG.3.2-4: (4.5.2-11) Number of for-profit enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance. (RAA) (WOG)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator: Yes, Also a FtF indicator, 4.5.2-11

Type of Indicator: Output

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Total number of private enterprises, producers’ associations, cooperatives, producers’ organizations, fishing associations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations, including those focused on natural resource management, that received USG assistance related to food security during the reporting year. This assistance includes support that aims at organization functions, such as member services, storage, processing and other downstream techniques, and management, marketing and accounting. “Organizations assisted” should only include those organizations for which implementing partners have made a targeted effort to build their capacity or enhance their organizational functions. In the case of training or assistance to farmer’s association or cooperatives, individual farmers are not counted separately, but as one entity.

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated by: New (receiving USG Activity assistance for the first time) and Continuing (received USG Activity assistance previously); type of organization

Rationale or Justification for indicator:  Tracks civil society capacity building that is essential to building agricultural sector productivity.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Method of data collection and construction: Document review and interviews

Counting of the number of organizations assisted by the Activity

Data Source(s):  Activity and grantee records

Reporting Frequency: In quarterly and annual reports.

Responsible Individual at USAID: Policy Advocacy Specialist, M&E Specialist and COP

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): Reliability: it might be unclear whether the Activity’s assistance or the organization falls within the definition and different staff may interpret the terms differently.

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Training on the definition for staff

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  Spot checking of documents that provide evidence for whether the Activity has provided direct assistance and whether the organization falls within the intended definition.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baselines: 0

LOA Target: Increased from 45 to 90 in December 2015.

Numbers in each year are cumulative of the previous years. Out of the training, capacity building and grant activities, we will derive the number of food security private enterprises for profit receiving USG support. The numbers of productive units to be supported are the members of the CSOs, FBOs and other NSAs working with the project.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator:

1. Indicator Target was increased from 45 to 90 in December 2015. By the end of FY2015, the project has progressed effectively in attaining over 50% of the LOA’s target for this indicator. Based on the tenders for grants aimed at strengthening the policy advocacy capacity of CSOs and the successful training programs implemented through local subcontractors, APSP managed to identify and support more organizations than initially expected. More stakeholders, such as members of the national seeds umbrella organizations will come on board going forward. The APS Project therefore proposes to double the number of organizations receiving support with USG assistance to a new LOA total of 90 organizations.
2. There has been a change in the name of the indicator which previously read:  4.5.2-11 Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and agribusiness associations (such as farmer based organizations), and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance.

Other Notes: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY

Notes

Baseline

0

FY2014

20

7

7

FY2015

30

43

50

FY2016

20

20

70

FY2017

15

45

115

LOA TARGET SURPASSED

FY2018

5

LOA TARGET

90

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

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 14

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 #14: Number of Local Entities receiving performance improvement assistance (disaggregated by type of entity – GOG, CSO, Private sector). Related to EG.3.2-4: (4.5.2-11) and 4.5.2-7 above

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): Precise Definition: “Local entities include government institutions, private sector businesses, civil society organizations, cooperatives, and associations. If a government ministry has 10 local branches and the project has assisted the main ministry plus all ten branches, the total would be 11. If an organization is an affiliate of an international organization, but is registered in your country and is staffed by host country nationals, please count that as a local organization. “Receiving …. Assistance” means the project has provided direct support to the entity, in the form of technical expertise, training, procurement, or any other means aimed to improve the entity’s ability to carry out its mission. “Performance assistance” means the entity’s ability to carry out its mission, through strengthened internal operations, ability to advocate, ability to deliver services, ability to serve its clients as it defines them, or other activity that enables it to better achieve the goal for which the entity was created to achieve.

Type of entities: government units, private sector businesses, civil society organizations, cooperatives, and associations

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated By:

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: 110

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: This indicator was introduced in FY15 as part of Chemonics internal Development Contribution Indicators (DCIs)

By definition, the indicator combines the results of indicator #5 and #13

Other Notes: this indicator is related to indicators #5 and #13 above.  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.

Other Notes: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Year

Target

Actual

Cumulative Results to date as at the end of FY

Notes

Baseline

0

FY2014

26

3

3

This indicator was introduced in FY15

FY2015

34

58

61

FY2016

24

24

85

FY2017

19

55

140

LOA TARGET SURPASSED

FY2018

7

LOA TARGET

110

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