. .

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 11

IR 1a:  Increased access to Savings and Credit among Target Households

(11) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.1.3: Cumulative Amount Saved by informal Savings and lending (VSLA) Group members

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  This indicator represents the total amount contributed by savings group (VSLA) members. This includes returns, social funds and dividends by members of savings and loans groups.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number (Currency) -  Ghana Cedis converted to USD

Savings groups contribute in local currency, data collection and reporting tools utilize local currency figures which will then be converted to USD.

DISAGGREGATED BY:  DISAGGREGATE BY: Location: District

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE: Food insecurity is often a result of financial shocks that may come from both agricultural production as well as loss of property or sickness or death of a household family member. Having a financial reserve in a savings account with a VSLA as a means to buffer a household against these types of financial shocks that could leave the individual/household food insecure. Savings groups are a means to establish savings habit and emergency reserves to deal with shocks.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: DATA SOURCE: District Records from monitoring visits to VSLA groups.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity Level; those supported by scope of USG activity (VSLA groups)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Recorded Group formation process

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: ongoing, reported quarterly

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:  Data stored in SAVIX VSLA MIS program and value calculated by SAVIX. District Staff responsible for VSLA activity, reviewed by RING project staff; calculations computed by SAVIX program

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 12

IR 1a:  Increased access to Savings and Credit among Target Households

(12) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.1.4: Amount of funds loaned annually by informal savings and lending groups

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  This indicator represents the total value of loans made by VSLA groups. This does not include any interest or other returns. Amounts will be reported on an annual basis. For loan cycles that straddle two program years, amounts will be counted in the program year when the loan cycle ends.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  UNIT:  Number (Currency, Ghana Cedis converted to USD)

DISAGGREGATED BY:  DISAGGREGATE BY: Location: District

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE:

Food insecurity is often a result of financial shocks that may come from both agricultural production as well as loss of property or sickness or death of a household family member. Having access to funds or financial reserve in a savings account with a VSLA as a means to buffer a household against these types of financial shocks that could leave the individual/household food insecure. Savings groups are a means to establish savings habit and emergency reserves to deal with shocks. Loans repayments, including interest, are the primary way groups generate return on savings for their members.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Original information kept in VSLA ledger/member passbooks.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity Level; those supported by scope of USG activity (VSLA groups).
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Routine Monitoring visits by district staff reviewing passbooks and ledgers, data entered in to SAVIX, SAVIX MIS will perform calculations to generate reports.
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annually
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:  MMDAs Staff responsible for VSLA activity, district staff collect information and enter in to SAVIX database, reviewed by RING project staff;

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 13

SPS LOCATION: Program Area EG.3: Agriculture

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR1: Improved Agricultural Productivity

(13)INDICATOR TITLE: EG.3-1 Number of households benefiting directly from USG assistance under Feed the Future (RAA)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

DEFINITION:

A household is benefiting directly if it contains at least one individual who is a direct beneficiary. An individual is a direct beneficiary if s/he comes into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the activity. Individuals who receive training or benefit from activity-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration or another type of good.

 

The intervention in which the individual participates needs to be significant, meaning that if they are only contacted or touched by an activity through brief attendance at a meeting or gathering, that intervention is not significant and s/he should not be counted as a direct beneficiary.

 

An indirect beneficiary who does not have direct contact with the activity and does not directly receive goods or services from the activity should not be counted even if he/she still benefits. This includes a neighbor who sees the results of an improved technology applied by a direct beneficiary and decides to apply it himself/herself or an individual who hears a radio message but does not receive any other training or counseling from the activity.

 

This indicator is intended to capture all beneficiary households of Feed the Future (FTF) Activities. However, care must be taken to eliminate double counting. Households that have more than one direct beneficiary household member should be counted only once.

 

Households benefiting from FTF interventions in agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture and nutrition can be included under this indicator.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number

DISAGGREGATE BY: Duration: New, Continuing

Households reported as benefiting should be those benefiting in the current reporting year. Any households that benefited in a previous year but were not benefiting in the reporting year should not be included. Any household that benefited in the previous year and continues to benefit in the reporting year should be counted under “Continuing.” Any household that benefited for the first time during the current reporting year should be counted under “New.” No household should be counted under both “Continuing” and “New.”

Location: Rural, Urban/peri-urban.

Note: The definition of “rural” and “urban/peri-urban” should be the definition used by the national statistical service.

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE: Ensuring adequate coverage and scale of FTF activities is essential for the results achieved with direct beneficiaries to make a meaningful contribution to reductions in poverty and hunger among the population in the Feed the Future Zones of Influence. On the FTF Results Framework, this indicator is located under IR 5: Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households, but it is relevant across the Results Framework.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Implementing partners will collect this indicator through activity records, surveys, training participant lists, etc.

 

MEASUREMENT NOTES:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity-level, direct beneficiaries, attributed to USG programs

 

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Through census or sampling of participating firms/farms, depending on size; firm/farm records

 

  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATORImplementing partners

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  2-28-2017

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 14

IR 1b: Increased diversification of income throughout the year among target households

(14) INDICATOR TITLE:  1.1.2.1: Percentage of households who state they are more financially secure (custom indicator)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  This is a proxy indicator to measure increased economic resilience.  As part of a household survey, households will be asked the question "Is your household more financially secure than 12 months ago?" (or other more empirical question) Households will be counted as stating they are more secure if they answer either “Much More Secure" or "More Secure" on a scale of options which also includes "No Change," "Less Secure" and "Much less Secure." Only households who have participated in RING activities will be sampled.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Percentage based on sample

Numerator:  is number of households replying affirmatively that they are more or much more secure

Denominator:  is total number of households in sample

DISAGGREGATED BY: Gendered Household type: Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults (M&F), Child No Adults (CNA)

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE:  Food insecurity is often a result of financial shocks that may come from both agricultural production as well as loss of property or sickness or death of a household family member. Having a financial reserves is a means to buffer a household against these types of financial shocks that could leave the individual/household food insecure.

                  PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Household survey

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Households benefiting from livelihood interventions
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Household survey
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Mid-Term and End line
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING M&E staff or external survey firm.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 15

SPS LOCATION:  Program Element 3.2: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

(15)INDICATOR TITLE: EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance (WOG) (RAA)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator measures the total number of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers (of food and non-food crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products), as well as individual processors (not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource managers, etc. that applied improved technologies anywhere within the food and fiber system as a result of USG assistance during the reporting year. This includes innovations in efficiency, value-addition, post-harvest management, marketing, sustainable land management, forest and water management, managerial practices, and input supply delivery.    Technologies and practices to be counted here are agriculture-related, including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation (including, but not limited to, carbon sequestration, clean energy, and energy efficiency as related to agriculture). Significant improvements to existing technologies and practices should be counted.

Examples for listed technology type disaggregates include:

  • Crop Genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or drought tolerant maize, or stress tolerant rice) and/or more resilient to climate impacts; improved germ plasm.
  • Cultural Practices: e.g. seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density, molding; mulching. –
  • Livestock Management: e.g. improved livestock breeds; livestock health services and products such as vaccines; improved livestock handling practices.
  • Wild Fishing Technique/Gear: e.g. sustainable fishing practices; improved nets, hooks, lines, traps, dredges, trawls; improved hand gathering, netting, angling, spearfishing, and trapping practices.
  • Aquaculture Management: e.g. improved fingerlings, improved feed and feeding practices, fish disease control, pond culture, pond preparation, sampling & harvesting, carrying capacity & fingerling management.
  • Pest Management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management, improved insecticides and pesticides, improved and environmentally sustainable use of insecticides and pesticides.
  • Disease Management: e.g. improved fungicides, appropriate application of fungicides.
  • Soil-related Fertility and Conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter); improved fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; erosion control.
  • Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation, irrigation schemes.
  • Water Management -non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting, sustainable water use practices, improved water quality testing practices.
  • Climate Mitigation or Adaptation: e.g. conservation agriculture; carbon sequestration through low- or no-till practices; increased use of climate information for planning, risk reduction, and increasing resilience; increased energy efficiency; natural resource management practices that increase resilience to climate change.
  • Marketing and Distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices, improved input purchase technologies and practices, improved commodity sale technologies and practices, improved market information system technologies and practices.
  • Post-harvest -Handling & Storage: e.g. improved packing house technologies and practices, improved transportation, decay and insect control, temperature and humidity control, improved quality control technologies and practices, sorting and grading.
  • Value-Added Processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including biodegradable packaging, food and chemical safety technologies and practices, improved preservation technologies and practices.
  • Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation, non-market-related information technology, improved record keeping, improved budgeting and financial management.

Note there is some overlap between the listed disaggregated here and those listed under 4.5.2(2) Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance.  This overlap is limited to the technologies and practices that relate to activities focused on land.  The list of disaggregates here is much broader because with this indicator we are aiming to track efforts focused on individuals (as opposed to land area) across the value chain in land and non-land based activity.

For the Sex disaggregate and the Total with one or more improved technology/practice disaggregate category, a beneficiary is counted once regardless of the number of technologies applied during the reporting year.  If more than one beneficiary in a households applying improved technologies, count each beneficiary in the household who does so.

However, under the Technology Type Disaggregation, if the beneficiary applied more than one improved technology, count the beneficiary under each technology type (i.e. double-count).  In addition, count the beneficiary once under the total w/one or more improved technology category. Since it is very common for Feed the Future activities to promote more than one improved technology, not all of which are applied by all beneficiaries at once, this approach allows Feed the Future to accurately track and count the uptake of different technology types, and to accurately count the total number of farmers applying improved technologies.   See 4.5.2(2) for an example of how to double-count hectares and farmers.

If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once in the reporting year, s/he should be counted once under each type of technology if s/he applied the improved technology during any of the production cycles during the reporting year.  S/he should not be counted each time the same improved technology is applied. For example, because of new access to irrigation as a result of a Feed the Future activity, a farmer can now cultivate a second crop during the dry season in addition to her/his regular crop during the rainy season.  If the farmer applies Feed the Future promoted improved seed to her/his plot during one season and not the other, or in both the rainy season and the dry season, s/he would only be counted once under the Crop Genetics technology type disaggregate category. However, the area under improved seed should be counted each time it is cultivated under 4.5(16,17,18) Gross margin per unit of land and 4.5.2(2) number of hectares of land under improved technologies. Beneficiaries who are part of a group and apply improved technologies on a demonstration or other common plot with other beneficiaries, are not counted as having individually applied an improved technology The group should be counted as one (1) beneficiary group and reported under 4.5.2(42)Number of private enterprises, producers organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved technologies.  The area of the communal plot should be counted under 4.5(16,17,18) Gross margin per unit of land and 4.5.2(2) Number of hectares of land under improved technologies.

If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g. a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the beneficiary farmer should be counted under this indicator, and the area of the demonstration plot counted under 4.5(16) Gross margin per unit of land, if applicable and 4.5.2(2) number of hectares of land under improved technologies. However, if the demonstration or training plot is cultivated by Extension Officers or Researchers, e.g. a demonstration plot in a research institute, neither the area nor the Extension Officers or Researchers should be counted under the respective indicators.

This indicator, 4.5.2(5), counts individuals who applied improved technologies, whereas indicator 4.5.2(28)Number of private enterprises, producers organizations…and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved technologies or management practices counts firms, associations, or other group entities applying association- or organization-level improved technologies or practices.   4.5.2(5) Number of farmers and others applying technologies/practices individual-level indicator should not count all members of an organization as having applied a technology or practice just because the technology/practice was applied by the group entity.  For example, a producer association implements a new computer-based accounting system during the reporting year.  The association would be counted as having applied an improved technology/practice under 4.5.2(42)Number of private enterprises, producers organizations…applying indicator, but the members of the producer association would not be counted as having individually-applied an improved technology/practice under

4.5.2(5) Number of farmers and others applying technologies/practices individual-level indicator.  However, there are scenarios where both the group entity and its members can be counted, the group counted once under 4.5.2(42) and individual members that applied the technology/practice under 4.5.2(5). For example, a producer association purchases a dryer and then provides drying services for a fee to its members. The producer association can be counted under 4.5.2(42) and any association member that uses the dryer service can be counted as applying an improved technology/practice under 4.5.2(5).

Please refer to the Feed the Future Agricultural Indicators Guide (http://agrilinks.org/library/feed-the-future-ag-indicators-guide) for additional guidance on collecting and interpreting the data required for this indicator.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Value chain actor type:

-Producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and non-food crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products)

-Others (e.g. individual processors (but not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource managers, extension agents). Technology type (see explanation in definition, above): Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Livestock management, Wild fishing technique/gear, Aquaculture management, Pest management, Disease management, Soil-related fertility and conservation, Irrigation, Water management-non-irrigation based, Climate mitigation or adaptation, Marketing and distribution, Post-harvest – handling & storage, Value-added processing, Other; Total w/one or more improved technology/practice. Sex: Male, Female

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE:

Technological change and its adoption by different actors in the agricultural supply chain will be critical to increasing agricultural productivity, which is the Intermediate Result under which this indicator falls.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

Data Source: Implementing Partners   (Program monitoring reports / district household enrollment lists and district activity reports)

Method of data collection and construction: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Sample survey of direct beneficiaries, activity or association records, farm records
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annually reported

 

  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Implementing partners

 

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 16

IR 1c:  Increased availability of affordable, diverse plant and animal foods throughout the year among target households

(16)INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.3.1: Percentage of target households reporting use of techniques to reduce post-harvest loss in target communities

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  The indicator measures the number of target households who are using project-supported techniques to reduce post-harvest loss and is a proxy measure of reduced risk of loss of RING-supported produce due to spoilage or any other cause that renders it unusable either for sale or for household consumption. 

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Percent

Numerator is RING beneficiary households confirming use of appropriate loss reduction techniques

Denominator is total number of RING beneficiary households

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Location: MMDAs

TYPE: OUTPUT/OUTCOME

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE:

High post-harvest losses due to poor harvesting, transportation and storage practices significantly undermine the benefits of agricultural productivity in target communities and can leave households dependent on agriculture food insecure. 

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Survey of farmers

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Survey of farmers
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: midline and end line
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Survey contractor

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 17

IR 1c:  Increased availability of affordable, diverse plant and animal foods throughout the year among target households

(17) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.3.2: Percentage  of target households reporting a shorter lean season

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  This is a proxy indicator for improved household resilience related to food security. Each household will vary in the resources available and thus lean seasons may be highly personal. This indicator asks if the lean season experienced by a household was shorter relative to last year.  A household will be counted positively if they respond that it was SHORTER or MUCH SHORTER from a list of options that also includes “the same”, longer and much longer. The sample will be taken from any household that ever participated in a RING activity.  The survey questionnaire should be structured to investigate not only duration of the lean periods but also how declining stocks over the year affected the quantity and variety in the meals in the household. Lean period should be properly defined to ensure understanding—e.g. periods when household went to bed without food, or when they progressively reduced the quantity and variety of their meals etc.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Percent

Numerator is total number of households responding affirmatively that the lean season was shorter or much shorter.  Denominator is the total number of households in the sample.

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Location:  District

Gendered Household type: Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults (M&F), Child No Adults (CNA).

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is better

RATIONALE:  Households with insufficient surplus harvests and money to maintain adequate family diets throughout the year are susceptible to nutrition-related health problems. Shorter lean seasons indicate that family resources have smoothed and households can adequately provide for basic needs throughout the year.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Household Survey

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Survey conducted by RING or firm engaged by RING
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annually
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING M&E staff or external survey firm

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 18

IR 1c:  Increased availability of affordable, diverse plant and animal foods throughout the year among target households

(18) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.3.3: Percentage of target households using improved practices in horticulture, small animal husbandry, and  other alternative livelihoods  

 

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  This indicator reflects percentage of beneficiary households participating in alternative activities designed to improve livelihoods through RING supported livelihood interventions. These activities include, but are not limited to, horticulture, small animal husbandry, Poultry, Groundnuts, Shea nuts, community grinding/milling, etc.  This do not include VSLA since the strategy is to reach all RING beneficiaries with VSLA intervention. This therefore means counting VSLA beneficiaries under this indicator could be potential duplicates.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number: Percentage

Numerator is total number of households using any one (1) of the following improved practices in; horticulture, small animal husbandry, Poultry, Groundnuts, Shea nuts, community grinding/milling or other alternative livelihoods.

 

Denominator is total number of households reached within the reporting period as in indicator number 13

 

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Gendered Household type: Adult Female no

Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult

Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults

(M&F), Child No Adults (CNA)

 

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

 

RATIONALE:

Food insecurity is often a result of financial shocks that may come from both agricultural production as well as loss of property or sickness or death of a household family member. Having income from alternative income generating activities can provide additional, more reliable financial reserves.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: District Household Enrollment Forms and Activity Monitoring Sheets

 

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity level; those supported by scope of USG activity  (households)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: MMDAs and RING Staff Monitoring visits

 

  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: ongoing, reported quarterly

 

  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:  MMDAs Staff and RING staff validation

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): 

 

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016

 

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 19

SPS LOCATION: Program Element EG.3.2: 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

19)INDICATOR TITLE: EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices with USG assistance (WOG) (RAA)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Total number of private enterprises (processors, input dealers, storage and transport companies) producer associations, cooperatives, water users associations, fishing associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs), including those focused on natural resource management, that applied improved technologies or management practices at the organization level during the reporting year. Organization-level technologies and management practices include those in areas such as management (financial, planning, human resources), member services, procurement, technical innovations (processing, storage), quality control, marketing, etc. as a result of USG assistance in the current reporting year. Only count the entity once per reporting year, even if multiple technologies or management practices are applied.

 

Count the organization (enterprise, association, cooperative or CBO) applying an improved technology or management practice as one entity, and not as the number of employees or membership. For example, if a farmers' association incorporates improved maize storage as a part of member services, the application is counted as one association and not multiplied by the number of farmer-members. However, if individual direct beneficiaries then use the association's maize storage service to improve the post-harvest handling of their production, they can be counted under EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others applying improved technologies.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Type of organization (see indicator title for principal types)

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: This indicators tracks private sector and civil society behavior change to increase agricultural sector productivity and aligns with Intermediate Result (IR) 1 Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.1 Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity in the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Implementing partner observation, activity records, etc.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity-level, direct beneficiary organization
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Observation, activity records, etc
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annually reported
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Implementing partners

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 20

 IR1c: Increased Availability of Affordable, Diverse plants and animals Foods throughout the Year

(20) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.1.3.4: Number of small ruminants distributed to beneficiaries as a result of USG assistance (Custom indicator)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator represent the actual initial starter stock given to direct beneficiaries, this does not include births and deaths.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (small ruminants)

DISAGGREGATED BY NUMBER: MMDAs

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: Food insecurity is often a result of financial shocks that may come from both agricultural production as well as loss of property or sickness or death of a household family member. Having a small ruminants serve as a means to buffer a household against these types of financial shocks that could leave the individual/household food insecure.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs households small ruminants distribution form

 

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (DADU)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Counting the number of small ruminants distributed to beneficiaries at the activity level
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION : on-going, reported quarterly
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: DADU staff review by RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): 

 

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  7-08-2016