[INSERT THE NAME OF THE ACTIVITY] ACTIVITY MONITORING

[INSERT THE NAME OF THE ACTIVITY]

ACTIVITY MONITORING,

EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLAN

(AMELP)

Cover photo by: John Doe – Rural Institutions Activity (Perú, 2014). [Cover photo and this reference are for

demo purpose only. Please replace or leave blank.]

All photos are the property of USAID and Partner unless otherwise specified.

GUIDANCE OF THE AMELP

This document gives USAID/Colombia Implementing Partners (IPs) guidance on the content

expected for each one of the sections of the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

Plan (AMELP) and indicates relevant references to be consulted during its construction.

Attached to this document, USAID will include the template of the AMELP to be filled

according to the guidance. The reference sheets and illustrative tables included in this

document will also be provided as attachments.

When using this document as template the final content of the AMELP should not include the

guidance narratives provided.

While there is no contractually required format for partners to use in constructing the

AMELP, this template can help USAID and its IPs ensure this plan meets the standards of

USAID monitoring, evaluation and learning policies and directives.

[INSERT THE NAME OF

ACTIVITY]

ACTIVITY MONITORING,

EVALUATION, AND LEARNING

PLAN (AMELP)

Draft or Final Version

Date: [January 2019]

This publication was produced and reviewed by the joint participation of the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) and the Ipartner Inc., through XXXXXX USAID Activity Contract

No. AID-xxx-C-yyy-000000.

Prepared by: John Doe (Imp. Partner MEL Specialist), Adriana Adrian (COP) & Milly Moe

(USAID/Col M&E Specialist)

Principal Contacts: Mark Marcus – COP / Program Manager

m.marc[email protected]

Elizabeth Elli – Chief Operations Officer

[email protected]

Jhon Doe – Ipartner M&E Specialist

[email protected]

ACRONYMS

ADS Automated Directives System

AMEP Activity M&E Plan

AOR Agreement Officer Representative

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

COP Chief of Party

COR Contract Officer Representative

DO Development Objective

DQA Data Quality Assessment

GIS Geographic Information System

GOJ Government of Vietnam

IM Implementing Mechanism

IPs Implementing Partners

IR Intermediate Result

LF Logical Framework

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MIS Management Information System

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

PMP Performance Management Plan

RF Results Framework

SOW Statement of Work

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 3

1.1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 3

1.2. Activity Theory of Change and Results Framework ............................... 3

1.3. Relationship to mission CDCS .............................................................. 5

2. MONITORING SECTION.............................................................................................. 5

2.1. Monitoring Approach ............................................................................. 5

2.2. Performance Monitoring ........................................................................ 5

2.3. Context monitoring .............................................................................. 12

2.4. Complementary Monitoring Approaches ............................................. 13

3. EVALUATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 13

4. LEARNING PLAN ...................................................................................................... 14

5. MANAGING DATA SECTION ..................................................................................... 16

6. ROLES AND responsibilities SECTION ....................................................................... 18

7. ACTIVITY PIRS AND CIRS .......................................................................................... 19

8. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 19

1. OVERVIEW

Guidance: This section is composed of an introduction; the presentation of the theory of

change; the results framework of the Activity; and the relationship to the USAID/Colombia

Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

Note A: In USAID, the term “Activity” refers to the entire intervention of an awarded

implementing mechanism. Hence along the AMELP, avoid using the terms “project” or

“program” when referring to the whole implementing mechanism.

1.1. Introduction

Guidance: In maximum two pages, this section should provide clear and precise

descriptions on the following topics:

 Intended purposes and uses of this plan: The foremost purpose of the AMELP is

to serve as a tool for both USAID and the IP to know whether the Activity is making

progress toward stated results. This topic embraces also how data and information

proposed in the plan is intended to be managed, maintained and available for use.

 Succinct description of the Activity: This topic refers to the main objectives of the

Activity; how it is relevant and contributes to the USAID Objectives

; the starting and

ending dates; the timeline and intended geographic scope (map suggested); a brief

description of the intended relationship with the official entities of the Government of

Colombia (national, regional and/or local), as well as civil society organizations, and

the private sector.

 Succinct description of the context in which the Activity starts operating: This

topic refers the context in which the Activity takes place, composed by factors and

conditions out of the direct control of USAID or the IP but directly affecting the

development of the implementation.

Note B: The AMELP should be revised as needed in response to changes in the Activity or context

that occur during the life of the activity. Changes of the AMELP must be agreed with the AOR/COR of

the Activity who will approve them.

1.2. Activity Theory of Change and Results Framework

Guidance: In maximum four pages, this Section should provide clear and precise

descriptions of the following elements of the Activity:

 The Theory of Change (TOC): The TOC is a narrative description on how and why

the purpose of the Activity will be achieved in its particular context. It is based in a

development hypothesis grounded on a development theory, practice, literature, and

experience. It explains why and how the proposed investments from USAID and

others collectively contribute to or lead to the achievement of the Activity’s purpose.

 The Results Framework (RF): The RF is a predominant logic model that represents

the TOC of the Activity. It shows the results the Activity expects to contribute to, or

achieve, during its implementation. It diagrams the development hypotheses,

outlining the logic for achieving the objectives over time. It shows the cause and

effect relation between the different levels of objectives or intended results of the

This may be a general reference to what will be exposed in sub-section 1.3

Activity (purpose, components o intermediate results, etc.). Chart 1 illustrates an

example of a simple RF.

 Landscape of key assumptions: This landscape exposes, explains and qualifies

relevant critical assumptions and risks linked to the achievement of the Activity’s

objectives in the frame of the RF. Assumptions and risks lye beyond the IP or

USAID’s control. Key assumptions must be linked in a logic manner to the different

levels of expected objectives. Qualitative PESTLE Analysis

and “game changing”

scenarios are recommended as starting point when constructing the landscape of

key assumptions.

The process of developing the theory of change should be a participatory process involving

broad engagement with local stakeholders and if possible with potential beneficiary

communities. It also implies a series of dynamic critical-thinking exercises to examine the

body of evidence, draw out different viewpoints, and reach consensus on the best possible

approach given the available information.

Logic consistency going through each level of the RF should be checked from base to top.

Each lower level result presented should have both the necessary results and meet the key

assumptions to cause expected progress advancing to the next higher level. The results

included at each level of the activity should be written in appropriate “results” language

(simple assertive past tense). The results statement should express an outcome

opposed to describing actions or processes to achieve them. They should be clear, specific

and precise, describing a single and measurable discrete result.

Chart 1: Illustrative Diagram of a Results Framework

The RF is not a complete representation of the full Activity. It is a snapshot to be used for

purposes of planning, implementation, and communication that are supported by

accompanying narratives of the TOC and development hypotheses on which the Activity is

constructed. On the other hand, in agreement with the AOR/COR of the Activity (and in

frame of the contract/ agreement/grant), the Results Framework may be updated during

implementation to respond to new evidence or changes in context.

PESTLE is an acronym standing for: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental variables likely

affecting the execution of a strategy. The effect is scored based on the risk or likelihood as high, medium, or low.

Outcomes refers to behaviors and conditions of people, systems and institutions or high-level achievements of performance

such as efficiency

Purpose:

At-Risk Youth

Stay in School

Component A:

At-Risk Youth

Benefit from Tutoring

Student-Friendly

Tutoring Curriculum

Developed

Tutors Trained to

Reach At-Risk Youth

At-Risk Youth

Recruited

Component B:

Attitudes Towards Dropping

Out Changed

Student Designed

Anti-Drop Out

Campaigns

Implemented

Intensive Out-Reach

to Leaders of High-

Risk Social Groups

Completed

Component C:

Drug Use Declines

Increase police

surveillance of drug

hotspots

Anti-drug use

campaign

implemented

1.3. Relationship to mission CDCS

Guidance: In no more than two pages, this section should include:

 Succinct narrative: A brief description of how results of the RF contribute to the

USAID/Colombia/CDCS. The activity and its intended results should be easily

understood within the strategy context and intended results. Thus the Activity should

be analyzed in the context of the relevant Mission Development Objective (DO),

Intermediate Results (IRs) and Sub-IRs (where applicable) of the USAID/Colombia

CDCS. The emphasis should be done at the linkage of the Activity’s objectives, with

the relevant strategy Intermediate Result(s) the Activity is framed into.

 Graphic representation of the alignment or linkage between the Activity’s Objectives

at all levels and the relevant Intermediate Results(s).

Example of narratives to start off this section:

“The <Activity name> is expected to contribute to USAID’s Development Objective #<X>: Inclusive Economic

Development Accelerated.” (Explain here which CDCS Intermediate Results (IRs) are equivalent to the

activity/project of the Activity). “In particular, it will contribute to IR1.1 “Private sector competitiveness increased.”

In general, this Activity contributes to the overall USAID/Colombia Strategy (CDCS) by […] helping to a more

inclusive development for a sustainable peace”.

2. MONITORING SECTION

Monitoring is the ongoing and systematic tracking of data or information relevant to the

Activity. This section should describe and explain how the IP will monitor the performance

and context of the Activity.

2.1. Monitoring Approach

Guidance: This introduction section should explain succinctly what type of data and

information will be collected and used for monitoring the Activity and for what purpose. The

following is an illustrative text for this introduction:

“Quantitative performance indicators and context indicators will be collected in a quarterly

and annual basis. Performance economic and demographic indicators as well as context

indicators will have a baseline collected during the first two quarters of implementation. Also

a combination of qualitative and quantitative information will be collected and used regarding

the perception of satisfaction from beneficiaries. This data will be collected through panel

data in annual surveys. Results of surveys will be presented annually but outside of the

Annual Report”.

2.2. Performance Monitoring

Performance monitoring is the ongoing and systematic collection of performance indicator

data and other quantitative or qualitative information to reveal whether implementation is on

track and whether expected results are being achieved.

Guidance: This section must include the indicators used for performance monitoring. The

data offered by these performance indicators is the cornerstone of the plan because it

supports adaptive management and decision-making and it is the backbone of the

accountability structure of USAID. It provides the public and external stakeholders with

information on the progress USAID is making and it delivers Washington the information

needed to inform high-level decision-making.

Performance indicators are metrics that track progress toward the intended objectives of the

Activity. The following are the definitions of the two types of performance indicators used by

USAID:

 Output indicators: They measure changes of outputs that are produced as a direct

result of inputs. Outputs are the tangible, immediate, and intended products or

consequences of an Activity within USAID’s control or influence. Examples are number

of people trained, number of new hectares of crops supported and number of equipment

installed as a result the assistance provided.

 Outcome indicators: They measure changes of behavior and conditions of people,

systems and institutions or high-level achievements of performance such as efficiency.

Outcomes are any result higher than an output to which a given output contributes but

for which it is not solely responsible. Outcomes may be intermediate or end outcomes,

short-term or long-term, positive or negative, direct or indirect. Outcome indicators

indicate progress or lack of progress toward the achievement of high-level objectives.

Examples are trust in institutions, the value of sales and travel reductions in time or

costs.

Changes on output indicators included in the AMELP should be within the control of the IPs

and changes in outcome indicators are expected to result from the combination of these

outputs and other factors. IPs should be accountable for changes on both output and

outcome performance indicators proposed.

The performance indicators included in the AMELP should be linked to the RF

described in the overview chapter. The main objective (or goal) and the higher-level

objectives/results (or components) of the RF should be aligned with at least one outcome

performance indicator used to measure it. Usually, the objectives/results in the bottom of the

RF have output indicators associated to them. However, all the objectives/results at the

different levels of the RF can include output indicators to track its progress. Every result in

the RF should have at least one performance indicator associated to it

Besides output and outcome performance indicators, impact indicators can also be included.

These last indicators describe the ultimate attributable goal or benefit to which the Activity is

contributing. Examples are income, wellness, awareness and economic growth. Changes on

them are not directly attributable to the Activity. They can be affected by the interventions of

the Activity in the frame of a much wider convergence of other agents’ interventions,

phenomenon and assumptions. USAID and its Implementing Partners should not be

accountable for changes on those indicators.

Note C: Criteria of utility, validity, reliability, timeliness, precision, integrity, cost and disaggregation

must be used for selecting indicators. Please refer to the USAID Monitoring toolkit for selecting

performance indicators and the USAID Performance Monitoring indicator criteria checklist.

The entire life of the activity should be considered when selecting indicators. Usually some outcome

and impact-level indicators do not become relevant until near the end of implementation, such as

those indicators monitoring higher-level results.

All the performance indicators selected must have baselines. The indicator baseline is the

value of an indicator before major implementation actions of the Activity. Baselines must be

collected before the implementation of an intervention

. For some indicators, the baseline

value may be zero when the Activity by itself produces entirely the effects linked to the

Take into account that a single performance indicator may account for more than one result.

If baseline data cannot be collected until later in the course of a strategy, project, or activity, the indicator’s PIRS

should document when and how the baseline data will be collected.

indicator (trainings, meetings, leveraged funds, etc.). For more detail on this topic please

refer to USAID guidance on Performance Indicators Baselines.

All the performance indicators selected must have targets. The indicator target is the

specific planned level of result to be achieved within a specific timeframe with a given level

of resources. Targets should be ambitious but achievable given USAID IPs inputs. For more

detail on this topic please refer to USAID guidance on Performance Indicators Targets. It is

expected each performance indicator will have defined yearly targets adding up to a Life-Of-

Activity (LOA) target.

Disaggregates are useful sub-categories of performance indicators. Every indicator

measuring person-level data must be disaggregated by sex

. At a minimum, all indicators

that could have gender aspects should be sex-disaggregated in their data collection and

reporting. This is, in the first instance, anything having to do with people involved in the

activities as beneficiaries, farmers, owners, workers, students, trainees, heads of household,

etc. When the indicator is linked to interventions affecting ethnic communities,

disaggregation must be also done so results can be identified for these population groups.

Each disaggregate of a performance indicator must have a calculated baseline. All the

performance indicators included in the AMELP and reported to USAID/Colombia, should be

disaggregated by geography (department and municipality). Other dis-aggregations are

encouraged such as “vereda” and geographic coordinates when possible. For more detail on

this topic please refer to USAID guidance Additional Help Dis-aggregating Monitoring Data.

Foreign Assistance Performance Indicators (F indicators) are standardized performance

indicators used by USAID and the Department of State to collect and analyze data coming

from countries abroad where the U.S. Government provide development assistance. F

indicators should be included in an AMELP and reported as long as the Activity does

interventions that report on them. USAID/Colombia MEL Staff will provide the updated list of

these indicators, so the IP can select those F indicators that are applicable. F indicators

should be selected over other selected indicators if those are very similar in nature. If F

Indicators are used, their ID codes assigned should also be displayed besides the ID code

assigned by the Activity into this plan. Be aware that there are specific F indicators on topics

such as Gender

The AMELP should also include existing Mission wide USAID/Colombia indicators linked

to the current CDCS and other Missions’ basic crosscutting and strategic indicators, as long

as the Activity does interventions that can report on them. USAID/Colombia MEL Staff will

also provide the updated list of these indicators.

Note D: The following are examples of these types of indicators:

 Value of mobilized funds (Ym)

 Value of leveraged funds (Yl)

 Number of Public-Private Partnerships created

 Number of organizations (public, private, or CSO) supported or strengthened as a result of the USG assistance

 Number of individual direct beneficiaries (or direct households benefited) supported by the intervention as a result of the

USG assistance

Note E: Codes should be used as part of the full name of the indicators in order to help proper

identification in all documents, charts, tracking systems and databases. Sometimes the name of two

or more indicators may look the same at glance. Therefore, including program’s and standardized

codes as part of the full name is a useful practice to reduce mistaking. Besides the sole numerating

Sex is the biological condition: Male / Female. In contrast, gender is a personal option.

Additional to those gender specific F indicators, there are other covering this topic which apparently do not have to see with it

but incorporate sex-disaggregates such as the indicators “EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares under improved technologies or

management practices with USG assistance” which ask for the amount of hectares managed by each respective category.

function of the code, it should also include a short acronym of the Activity as a prefix: for example

PMA for the “Producers to Markets Activity”. Afterwards it should be added a shortened “nomen”

corresponding to the main objective (component) under which the indicator makes part: for example

Ob1 for Objective 1 or MI for Market Integration; or CC for cross-cutting, etc. Finally, a numerating

integer should be added: for example 001, 012, etc. The following is an illustrative example:

PMA-MI-004 Number of firms receiving USG assistance that have obtained certification with an

international quality control institution meeting minimum product standards

The indicators selected should be presented in a table describing the relationship to each of

the objectives and sub-objectives proposed in the RF. It should also present the main

characteristics of the performance indicators selected (codes, types, source, frequency,

etc.). An example is illustrated in Table 1. The dis-aggregates, baselines, and targets of the

performance indicators should be also presented in a table. An example is illustrated in

Table 2.

Table 1. Summary Descriptive Table of Performance Indicators

Code

Indicator name

Class

Type

Units of

Measurement

Disaggregates

Source of

Data

Reporting

frequency

Main Goal: Improved competitiveness of rural agricultural producers

ACT-P-01

Number of households benefiting directly

from USG assistance (EG.3-1)

F Standard

Output

Households

Duration: New, Continuing

Location: Rural, Urban/peri-

urban

ACT –

Smallholder

beneficiaries

Quarterly

ACT-P-02

Value of incremental net income (Custom)

Custom

Outcome

US$ Million

Commodity

ACT –

Smallholder

beneficiaries

Annually

ACT-P-03

Value of targeted agricultural commodities

exported with USG assistance (EG.3.2-23)

F Standard

Outcome

US$ Million

Commodity

ACT –

Supported

exporters

Annually

Component 1: Increased Market Integration

ACT-SP1-01

Value of smallholder incremental sales

generated with USG assistance (EG.3.2-19;

CDCS)

F Standard

Outcome

US$ Million

Commodity

ACT

beneficiaries

Annually

1.1: Increased Profile of Regional Products in Marketplaces

ACT-SP1-02

Number of firms receiving USG-funded

technical assistance to export (EG.2.2-1)

F Standard

Output

Firms

Duration: New, Continuing

ACT –

Supported

firms

Annually

1.2: Increased Compliance with Market Standards and Regulations

ACT-SP1-03

Number of firms receiving USG assistance that

have obtained certification with (an)

international quality control institution(s) in

meeting minimum product standards (EG.2.2-

F Standard

Outcome

Firms

None

ACT –

Supported

firms

Quarterly

1.3: Expanded Market Integration

ACT-SPI-04

Number of firms receiving USG-funded

technical assistance for improving business

performance (EG.5.2-1)

F Standard

Output

Number of firms

Type of Firm: Formal, Informal

Duration: New, Continuing

ACT

Supported

firms

Quarterly

Table 2: Baseline and Targets Table of Performance Indicators

Code

Indicator name

Units

Baseline

date

Baseline

value

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

LOA

Main Goal: Improved competitiveness of rural agricultural producers

ACT-P-01

Number of households benefiting directly from

USG assistance (EG.3-1)

Households

09/2016

321

7,500

18,750

26,25

11,250

75,000

ACT-P-02

Value of incremental net income (Custom)

US$ Million

05/2016

TBD

ACT-P-03

Value of targeted agricultural

commodities exported with USG

assistance (EG.3.2-23)

Acai

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

2.6

2.2

7.7

5.2

5.5

0.8

Tea

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

5.3

6.8

0.5

7.1

7.8

2.8

Cocoa

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

0.3

6.2

2.8

4.7

3.3

4.1

Palm heart

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

2.5

0.9

8.1

0.5

9.0

9.6

Banana

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

5.0

7.8

1.2

5.7

9.1

7.6

Component 1: Increased Market Integration

ACT-SP1-

Value of smallholder incremental

sales generated with USG

assistance (EG.3.2-19; CDCS)

Acai

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

0.47

1.71

5.31

9.49

0.00

9.49

Tea

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

0.88

3.17

9.87

17.62

0.00

17.62

Cocoa

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

0.48

1.74

5.42

9.68

0.00

9.68

Palm heart

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

0.08

0.29

0.91

1.63

0.00

1.63

Banana

US$ Million

N/a

0.00

TBD

1.1: Increased Profile of Regional Products in Marketplaces

ACT-SP1-

Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical

assistance to export (EG.2.2-1) -Cumulative

Firms

08/2016

123

160

166

165

For each of the performance indicator selected in the AMELP, Performance Indicator

References Sheets (PIRS) must be constructed. These are charts describing in detail the

most relevant structural and methodological features to collect, validate and use data of

performance indicators. Because charts altogether may occupy a considerable space in the

plan, all PIRS should be placed in a separate section at the end of the AMELP (see last

section PIRS and CIRS).

The template and guidance of the PIRS will be provided by USAID as an attachment to this

document. Table 3 shows and illustrative example of the PIRS for a particular performance

indicator.

Table 3: Example PIRS

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS)

Name of Indicator: CNG-003 Value of smallholder incremental sales generated with USG assistance (EG.3.2-19)

Name of Development Objective: DO3 – Improved conditions for Inclusive Rural Economic Growth

Name of Intermediate Result: IR3.2 Increased public and private investment in the rural sector

Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: Sub IR 3.2.2 Increased private sector investment in target rural; communities

Indicator Class/Type: Standard (SPSD) / Outcome

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):

This indicator collects both volume (in metric tons) and value (in US dollars) of sales of targeted commodities from smallholder

direct beneficiaries for its calculation. This includes all sales by the smallholder direct beneficiaries of the targeted

commodities), not just farm-gate sales. Only count sales in the reporting year that are attributable to the Activity investment, i.e.

where the program assisted the individual farmer directly. Examples of the assistance include facilitating access to improved

seeds, other inputs, extension services, markets and other activities that benefited small holders.

The value of incremental sales measures the value (in USD) of the total amount of targeted agricultural products sold by small-

holder direct beneficiaries relative to a base year and is calculated as the total value of sales of a product (crop, animal, or fish)

during the reporting year minus the total value of sales in the base year.

The number of direct beneficiaries of the Activity often increases over time as the activity rolls-out. Unless an activity has

identified all prospective direct beneficiaries at the time the baseline is established, the baseline sales value will only include

sales made by beneficiaries identified when the baseline is established during the first year of implementation. The baseline

sales value will not include the “baseline” sales made prior to their involvement in the Activity by beneficiaries added in

subsequent years. Thus the baseline sales value will underestimate total baseline sales of all beneficiaries, and consequently

overestimate incremental sales for reporting years when the beneficiary base has increased. To address this issue, the Activity

requires reporting the number of direct beneficiaries for each value chain commodity along with baseline and reporting year

sales. The Activity may use the baseline sales and baseline number of beneficiaries to establish average sales per beneficiary

at baseline. The number of beneficiaries multiplies the average sales per beneficiary in each reporting year to create an

adjusted baseline sales value. To accurately estimate out-year targets for incremental sales, targets for number of beneficiaries

are also required.

It is absolutely essential that a Baseline Year Sales data point be entered. The Value of Incremental Sales indicator value

cannot be calculated without a value for Baseline Year Sales. If data on the total value of sales of the value chain commodity

by direct beneficiaries prior to the Activity implementation started is not available, do not leave the baseline blank or enter ‘0’.

Use the earliest Reporting Year Sales actual as the Baseline Year Sales. This will cause some underestimation of the total

value of incremental sales achieved by the Feed the Future activity, but this is preferable to being unable to calculate

incremental sales at all.

Unit of Measure: Dollars of the United States of America (USD)

Data Type: Currency (no decimal places)

Disaggregated by:

 Geography (custom): Department; municipality; hamlet –vereda-.

 Market (custom): local sales; exports.

 Commodity (Standard): Animal products; other.

Justification/Utility for Indicator:

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Implementing partners report this indicator with data collected via direct methods (for example employee

records) or cartographic methods. Methodology for data collection must be explicit in the project objectives.

Method of Data Collection and Construction:

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Activity’s A/COR

Individual(s) Responsible at the Activity:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline value:

Date of Baseline:

Life of Activity Target (LOA):

Fiscal Year Targets:

FY2019:

FY2020:

FY2021:

FY2022:

Notes on baseline and targets: (Example: LOA target will be determined based on the assessment of the baseline)

DATA QUALITY

Known Data Limitations: sales accounted at farmer’s door and those at marketplace may be different; method of collection

should be consistent as much as possible.

Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): TBD

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator:

Other notes:

This PIRS was last updated in October 01- 2017 by Jane Doe (KFV MEL Specialist)

Note E: The name of F standard indicators as well as those used or created by USAID/Colombia

must not be changed. The classification under which the F indicators are named is the Standardized

Program Structure and Definitions (SPSD). Change and modifications to standard or official

definitions stated in PIRS should be notified and agreed with USAID; such changes or modifications

are possible as long as they do not avoid the quality standards, hence making unsuitable an official

indicator to aggregate and report outside the boundaries of the Activity.

2.3. Context monitoring

Context monitoring is the systematic collection of information about conditions and external

factors relevant to the implementation and performance of the Activity. This includes

information about local conditions that may directly affect implementation and performance

or external factors that may indirectly affect implementation and performance.

Guidance: This sub-section should describe the efforts that the Activity will undertake for

context monitoring. Based on external factors affecting the Activity’s Theory of Change and

RF described in the Overview section, context indicators should be selected to track the

most relevant assumptions and/or risks identified. The metrics selected may be analyzed in

order to form judgments about how actors and conditions outside the control of USAID may

affect the Activity. Some of them may also reveal the unintended consequences of the

Activity. At least one of the indicators selected should be climate-related, in order to comply

monitoring toward “Climate Risk Management” (see the Mandatory reference 201mal). The

selection of context indicators may take into account that the collection effort not surpasses

the utility of the information.

Context indicators do not have a baseline but a value of reference recorded in a specific

date. Context indicators do not have either a target, but a (optional) threshold or level at

which an alert for a managerial action is triggered.

The indicators selected should be presented in a table describing their main features (units

of measure, sources, frequency, etc.). An example is illustrated in Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of Context Indicators

Code

Indicator name

Units of

Measurement

Source of

Data

Reporting

Frequency

Reference

Value

Reference

Timeframe

Threshold

Value

ACT-Cx-01

Average monthly potential

evaporation

mm/month

IDEAM /

Inirida

Quarterly

120

Feb/2019

244

ACT-Cx-02

Number of homicides per 100,000

inhabitants

Number

CNP / DIJIN

Annually

Dec/2018

ACT-Cx-03

Value of public investment per capita

in social infrastructure at rural

municipalities

USD

HRT sub-

contractor

Annually

8,000

Sept/2017

5,000

For each of the performance indicator selected in the AMELP, Context Indicator

References Sheets (CIRS) must be constructed. Because charts altogether may occupy a

considerable space in the plan, all CIRS should be placed in a separate section at the end of

the AMELP (see last section PIRS and CIRS). The template and guidance of the CIRS will

be provided by USAID as an attachment to this document.

2.4. Complementary Monitoring Approaches

If needed, this plan may look beyond indicators, incorporating other monitoring approaches,

to complement the quantitative information provided by the metrics. This may entail

especially the systematic collection, analysis, and reporting of complementary qualitative

data.

On the other hand, if some of the interventions of the Activity develop in situations where

results are difficult to predict due to dynamic contexts, unclear cause-and-effect relationships

or a complex environment additional monitoring approaches can be used such complexity-

aware approaches. This may also apply when there is substantial uncertainty on expected

results or the causal model cannot be defined. For more reference of this method promoted

by USAID please refer to ADS 201sad, Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note.

3. EVALUATION PLAN

In general, while performance monitoring responses “what” results are achieved by an

Activity, the evaluation methods look for providing information about “why or how” those

results are achieved. According to USAID guidance and policies, evaluation is the

systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics of activities

conducted as a basis for judgments to improve effectiveness, and timed to inform decisions

about current and future programming. The purpose of evaluations is twofold: to ensure

accountability to stakeholders and to learn to improve development outcomes.

USAID categorizes evaluations as impact or performance evaluations depending on the

purpose, evaluation questions, and the corresponding design. These two main classes of

evaluation encompass most of the existing quantitative and semi-quantitative types of

evaluations. Impact Evaluations measure the change in a development outcome that is

attributable to a defined intervention. This type of evaluations are based on models of cause

and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual to control for factors

other than the intervention that might account for the observed change. Performance

Evaluations encompass a broad range of evaluation methods. They often incorporate

before–after comparisons but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual.

Performance evaluations may address descriptive, normative, and/or cause-and-effect

questions. For more information regarding evaluations at USAID please refer to USAID

Evaluation Policy.

Note F: The following are the two types of Evaluations that can be developed for USAID Activities:

USAID-led evaluations: These are external evaluation commissioned directly by USAID (funded with

funds different from those of the Activity) at any time of the implementation either to comply with

USAID evaluation requirements or when new information arises indicating that an evaluation is

appropriate for accountability or learning purposes. USAID may select to conduct and/or commission

a baseline, midterm, final and/or ex-post evaluation on an Activity, either as an Activity-specific or as

part of a larger portfolio evaluation.

Internal evaluations: These are evaluations conducted or commissioned by an IP concerning their

own activity. Funding may be dedicated within an Activity design for implementing partners to engage

in an internal evaluation for institutional learning or accountability purposes.

Guidance: This section may include any plans for internal evaluations. It should include

the type of evaluation (performance or impact) to be developed, possible evaluation

questions, estimated budget, planned start date, and estimated completion date.

Although internal evaluations do not count toward USAID evaluation requirements, to the

extent possible, internal evaluations should follow the same USAID processes and

procedures as described in sections ADS 201.3.5.15 through ADS 201.3.5.18. Internal

evaluations are subject to the same evaluation report requirements and quality criteria as

external evaluations as described in ADS 201.3.5.17. For internal performance evaluations

USAID guidance on constructing evaluation questions will be helpful. Please refer to TIPS

for developing good evaluation questions (for performance evaluations).

USAID may initiate an external performance evaluation at any time of the implementation. In

this case, the Activity will collaborate with USAID and/or the external Evaluation Team as

required. Hence, the Activity MEL Plan should also include descriptions for ensuring that any

planned external USAID-led evaluations will have access to appropriate data collected by

the implementer, such as performance monitoring data. It is envisioned that the major

collaboration tasks would include but are not limited to providing valuable insights on the

Activity concept and its achievements and lessons learned; providing inputs/comments to

the evaluation scope of work and/or the draft report; providing support to validate the

data/information collected by the Evaluation Team; and sharing ideas on recommendations

for modifications of the Activity as appropriate. USAID through the AOR/COR will actively

engage with implementing partners of activities being evaluated to ensure partners and

external evaluators are collaborating productively. AORs/CORs should inform implementing

partners as early as possible if their activity will be evaluated and must share the draft and

final evaluation design completed by the evaluation team. AORs/CORs will also ensure

implementing partners are facilitating access to data, documentation, personnel, and key

stakeholders as appropriate for the completion of an external evaluation.

Note G: Do not include into this section any planed assessment, informal review or stocktaking either

internal (conducted by the Implementing Partner) or external (conducted by a third-party contracted

for the purpose). If these types of studies or plans are planned they may be included in the Learning

Section.

4. LEARNING PLAN

Learning consists in augmenting the intention and consciousness about development

interventions. Experience and lessons learned by the Activity should be constantly used to

adjust and improve the USAID implementation cycle (adaptive management). Although this

process might be incorporated already in the management of the Activity, the learning plan

should document it and make it more systematic.

Sources for learning include data from monitoring, portfolio reviews, findings of research,

evaluations, analyses conducted by USAID or third parties, knowledge gained from

experience, and other sources. These sources should be used to develop plans, implement

projects, manage adaptively, and contribute to USAID’s knowledge base in order to improve

development outcomes

Guidance: This section must include a learning plan based on the performance and context

monitoring and evaluation data collected and analyzed, as well as ad libitum observations

and experience on developing the intervention. It should include also any planned survey,

study, assessment, informal review, workshop, or stocktaking done for learning purposes.

The following are learning actions to consider when this section (as suggested per ADS

201):

 Meeting with partner(s), sector experts, donors, and the host government to share

monitoring information as well as reviewing activity progress.

 Analyzing performance and context monitoring information to inform management and

adapt interventions.

 Analyzing performance monitoring indicator data to identify any gender gaps.

 Identifying knowledge gaps in the theory of change and RF.

 Identifying gaps on technical knowledge and identifying and implementing ways to fill

these gaps.

 Planning for and engaging in regular opportunities for partners to reflect on progress,

such as partner meetings, portfolio reviews, and after-action reviews. These

opportunities may focus on challenges and successes in implementation to date,

changes in the operating environment or context that could affect programming,

opportunities to better collaborate or influence other actors, and/or other relevant topics.

 Encouraging or requiring partners under a project to collaborate, where relevant.

Collaboration activities may include joint work planning, regular partner meetings that

facilitate knowledge sharing, and/or working groups organized along geographic or

technical lines. These activities require time and resources, and implementing partners

should have the appropriate resources separated for these initiatives.

 Involving sub-implementing partners in the learning activities, such as portfolio reviews

or stocktaking efforts, as appropriate.

 Using the knowledge and learning gained from implementation, opportunities to reflect

on performance, monitoring data, evaluations, knowledge about the context, and other

sources to adjust interventions and approaches as needed.

For more USAID guidance on learning, collaboration and adapting please review the USAID

guidance Incorporating CLA in Activity Management.

Note H: This section should take into account the “Communications Strategy” of the Activity. It may

take into consideration how the qualitative information and success stories not covered by the

indicators reported contribute to building experiences and lessons learned throughout the

implementation. Such information complements data from Performance and Context Monitoring. The

learning plan may identify mechanisms so such body of knowledge might be systematically

documented and shared to reflect about it.

5. MANAGING DATA SECTION

Guidance: This section should explain how it intends to manage data at all stages, from

collection to reporting. It will do a full description of how the data and information will be

collected, analyzed, and used, based on data quality standards. This section should include:

1) Data collection methods

2) Data quality procedures

3) Data storage procedures

4) The formats in which data will be held and shared

5) Data security protocols

6) Data protocols for analysis and use

If several organizations are jointly managing the Activity, this section of the AMELP should

touch on how data will be consistently handled across the partners to ensure the quality of

the aggregated data.

USAID/Colombia utilizes MONITOR, an on-line management information system, to track

mission-funded Activities. USAID IPs should provide, report and update performance

information into MONITOR (including, but not limited to, indicator data and performance

results). Among the descriptions to include in this section, are all the previous procedures

the IP will use for preparing the data to report in MONITOR.

The AMELP is not intended for issuing reporting. However the plan may establish some

tools and methods to report data under the Quarterly Performance Reports and Annual

Performance Reports of the Activity. The Performance Tracking Table (PTT) below (Table 6)

may be included in those periodical reports to present updated performance data.

Note I: The data contained in the PPT at quarterly reports should be the same displayed in

the USAID/Colombia web-based tracking platform “MONITOR.

This section must also include a preliminary identification of the Open Datasets to be

collected and submitted in USAID’s open data portal (www.usaid.gov/data) according to the

ADS-579

. If all the datasets cannot be identified to the moment of the AMELP approval, it

must include provisions on future collection and submission in compliance with references of

the ADS-579, such as incorporation of metadata and standards for geographic (consult

mandatory references 579mab and 579saa to ADS 579 regarding geo-location and how to

report it). Datasets submitted to the DDL

must also be accompanied by supporting

documentation, defining the fields within the Dataset and any categories or labels within the

Dataset that may require explanation to an individual not familiar with the data. This may be

accomplished through the submission of a codebook or data dictionary. When available,

scopes and methodologies, such as survey protocols and instruments used to collect and

analyze the data must also be submitted to the DDL, along with annotations to inform the

general public of any known data quality issues. Datasets must be accompanied by

metadata as required by Project Open Data and other metadata assigned by USAID. This

may be accomplished by following the instructions at www.usaid.gov/data.

This section should also mention that training-related information should be reported in

TraiNet.

USAID will provide a suggested template to document the metadata (data dictionary) to be attached to each respective

dataset.

DDL: USAID Development Data Library. It is a repository of open data sets from development interventions.

Table 5: Tracking Table for Reporting Performance Indicators

Code- Indicator Name Abbr.

Previous FY

Current Year (FY 19)

Activity Total Progress

Observations

FY 18

Actual

FY18

Target

Actual

Target

Prog.

Total

Prog

LOA

Target

Total

Prog %

Act-003 # people benefitted social

programs (EG.3.5-11)

7,350

7,000

405

682

1,115

1,000

111,5%

120,966

45,000

268.80%

Spectacular

achievements

to 3

quarter

were due to

unexpected

willingness of

communities.

Act-009 # CSO members supported

(Custom)

1,464

900

280

193

473

800

59.10%

9,198

3,000

306.60%

A boom of

CSO has

erupted out

the renewed

Bajo Cauca

region

Note J: Do not report anything to this table in the AMELP. This table should be used at performance reports. It is included in the AMELP for

reference. Any change in the PPT template here in the plan should be reflected at performance reports

6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION

Guidance: This section should provide clear and precise descriptions on the Activity’s

MEL structures, functions, and capabilities. It should mention which staff/position(s) will

have responsibilities for MEL at the different implementation levels and their

competencies. It should incorporate a plan for staff MEL capacity strengthening and

collaboration/partnership with MEL organization(s) to strengthen the MEL system or fill

gaps, etc.

Example of the Activity’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) structures, functions,

and capabilities narratives:

Implementing the AMELP

At the start of the project, the MEL Specialist will be the person responsible for implementing the

AMELP. He/she will also be responsible for building the capacity of all program staff, reporting

and supervising general monitoring and evaluation approaches, practices, and tools. The MEL

Specialist also cooperates with the project on the technical level, ensuring that indicators and

information are reported as needed by USAID and the COR/AOR.

Information Management

With reference to ADS 203.3.3.1 g), the XX Activity supports the Mission’s efforts to maintain a

performance monitoring information system that holds performance indicator including data

collected by this AMELP.

Strong suggestion: Add here a diagram showing the flow of the information/data since the

collection in the field or in third-party sources to the performance reports, including other

management task such as internal data quality routines, storage, etc.

Reporting

The MEL Specialist is in charge of producing the MEL reports on time, and in a technically valid,

high quality, and policy-relevant manner, with the purpose of providing firm grounds for

management decisions. He/she is responsible for developing the protocols and standard

procedures to ensure that data is gathered in a technically sound manner, is consistent and can

be compared throughout the years. He/she must make judgments with respect to whether or not

data meets quality standards.

MEL Oversight

The Chief of Party (COP) will have responsibility for overseeing MEL, assuring that the work of

the MEL Specialist(s) meets overall project needs and responds to Mission requests for

information. Missions in high-visibility locations such as Colombia have frequent “data calls” and

information requests, so assuring that the Activity’s responses are policy and decision relevant is

an important role.

Home Office Support

The XX Activity receives technical support from the home office (HO) MEL staff. [Name of IM

awardee] has assigned a long-term M&E expert to the project. His/her most essential services or

responsibilities will be to ensure that high standards are maintained and activities are consistent

with best practices in the field. From project start-up, the HO provides specialized assistance in

finalizing the AMELP and offer specialized training to the MEL team, when needed.

This section should also provide a Performance Reporting Schedule (a Gantt-chart is

recommended) indicating the planed tasks, frequency, timeline, responsible persons,

etc., for performance monitoring. Discuss relevant database systems for MEL, including

databases, USAID’s TraiNet, etc. The section may also mention that the Activity will

cooperate with non-scheduled requests for specific MEL data updates.

Sample Performance Reporting Schedule narrative:

Activity will produce monthly and annual reports. Every third month – or quarterly – Activity will

collate and update the performance data and review this with the COR/AOR. This will provide

significant input to the quarterly update of the work plan schedule as activities planned for the

following quarter.

Activity will provide quarterly Performance Summaries for the Mission. At the end of the fiscal

year, the activity will submit an annual performance report including a compilation of the year’s

actual indicators results versus its corresponding targets as well as explanatory narratives. All

reports are presented in draft to the COR/AOR before final submission.

Note K: IPS should allocate enough financial and human resources for implementing all of what

is proposed in the AMELP.

7. ACTIVITY PIRS AND CIRS

Guidance: This section should include the PIRS and CIRS of all the indicators selected

for this plan.

8. ANNEXES

Guidance: Annex may include all detailed descriptions of topics and elements of the

AMELP such as data collection instruments for surveys, key informant interviews or

focus groups used along the implementation of the AMELP. It may include

methodological approaches and descriptions of data sources.