6. M&E Plan (SAMPLE).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- FTIF-DJI-FY17-01
- Issued by
-
Department of State
About this file
Sample M&IE Plan
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF424A-V1.0.pdf | ||
| SF424_Mandatory_1_2-V1.2.pdf | ||
| Mandatory_SF424B-V1.1.pdf | ||
| 9. SAM.GOV FOREIGN REGISTRANT PROCESS.PDF | ||
| 8. SAM.gov Registration Instructions.pdf | ||
| 7. Risk Analysis Program (SAMPLE).docx | DOCX document | |
| 5. Logic Model (SAMPLE).docx | DOCX document | |
| 2. Sample Budget Narrative (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| 1. Budget (SAMPLE).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Notice of Funding Opportunity - FTIF 2018 Djibouti Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| oppFTIF-DJI-FY17-01-cfda19.700-instructions.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Background
A monitoring and evaluation plan (M&E plan) is a systematic and objective approach or process for monitoring project performance toward its objectives over time. In general, INL prefers M&E plans with a robust set of indicators that measure program progress and impact of the program activities. While it is not necessary to have indicators for every program activity, the indicators should measure the major program activities that will contribute to the advancement of the strategic objectives as laid out in the grant agreement.
Each M&E plan should contain specific output- and outcome-based indicators with baselines and targets, data source, and frequency of data collection. However, there is not a standard template for the M&E plan that each DRL grantee must follow (e.g., each objective does not need to have 4 indicators with 2 of those indicators being outcome-focused). INL wants to afford grantees the flexibility to design an M&E plan that is customized to the specifics of the program. INL recognizes that sometimes it may be difficult for grantees to design truly results-oriented M&E plans, but we encourage grantees to develop an M&E plan that is as comprehensive, ambitious and creative as possible.
The M&E plan is meant to detail how the outputs and outcomes of program activities will be measured quantitatively. Yet, sometimes the results and impact of a program are more easily conveyed qualitatively. Grantees can describe how program impact will be assessed qualitatively at the end of the M&E plan. INL encourages grantees to provide success stories and anecdotal or other qualitative evidence of program impact in the quarterly progress reports, as well as showing how well the program is meeting the targets set in the M&E plan.
Below is one example of how the monitoring and evaluation plan can look.
Program Description
Free Democrastan Institute (FDI) will build the capacity of the judicial sector to ensure that the Democrastan citizens, especially detainees and those accused of crimes, are aware of and know how to defend their legal rights. This program has two strategic objectives: (1) to increase capacity of judicial police units, magistrates and court and prison clerks to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners and (2) to ensure that target communities, especially detainees and prisoners, are better informed about their legal rights. The project’s key activities include comprehensive training to judicial police units, magistrates to enhance their skills and knowledge on existing criminal procedure code provisions; management training to court and prison clerks to improve the implementation of the current prison case management system; and planning meetings with and implementing a public awareness campaign to mobilize and sensitize communities on the rights of prisoners and detainees as well as develop and implement an effective prison monitoring system.
| Strategic Objective 1: To increase capacity of judicial police units, magistrates and court and prison clerks to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners. | ||||
| Activity | Indicator | Output/Outcome | Baseline | Target/Benchmark |
chenky: chenky:
| Targets should be provided for each fiscal year, where relevant. | Data Source | Data Disaggregation | Frequency |
| Intermediate Results 1: The judicial sector is better equip to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners. | |||
| Ability of overall judicial sector personnel to show due process and protection of the rights of detainees and prisoners. |
chenky: chenky:
These indicators in light gray are higher-order indicators meant to meaure progress towards the program objectives.
chenky: chenky:
Targets should be provided for each fiscal year, where relevant. Outcome Baseline from needs assessment FY13: 25% increase above the baseline in judicial sector's ability to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners.
| FY14: 35% increase above the baseline in judicial sector's ability to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners. | Pre/post-program survey,focus groups and interviews with judicial police units, magistrates, court and prison clerks | By sex, type of judicial sector, and region | Bi-annual and final evaluation | ||
| Detainees and prisoners' level of confidence about the justice system effectively protecting their rights during their detention. | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: 15% increase above the baseline in detainee and prisoners' overall confidence level with the judicial system |
| FY14: 25% increase above the baseline in detainee and prisoners' overall confidence level with the judicial system | Pre/post-program survey, focus groups and interviews with detainees and prisoners | By sex and region | Bi-annual and final evaluation | ||
| Conduct training sessions for judicial police unit and magistrates on the rights of detainees and prisoners | Number of Judges and judicial personnel Trained with USG Assistance* | Output | 0 | FY13: 50 police and 10 magistrates trained (15 women) |
FY14: 50 police units and 30 magistrates (20 women)
| Cumulative: 100 police units and 40 magistrated trained (35 women) | Program monitoring and reports | By sex and region | Following training event | ||
| Percentage of unlawful detentions made | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: 10% decrease in unlawful detentions from baseline |
| FY14: 20% decrease from baseline | Interviews with participants | By region | Final evaluation | ||
| Number of bail requests granted | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: At least 30% increase in bail request grants that are above the baseline |
| FY14: At least 50% increase in bail request grants that are above the baseline | Interviews with participants | By institution | Final evaluation | ||
| Hold office management training to court & prison clerks on how to best practices of office management | Number of courts and prison clerks trained | Output | 0 | FY13: 20 clerks (8 women) trained |
FY14: 20 (same 20 clerks receives training in FY14)
Cumulative: 20 clerks (8 women) trained
| Program monitoring and reports | By sex and institution | Quarterly | ||
| Number of USG-assisted courts with improved case management systems* | Output | 0 | FY13: 0 |
FY14: 6 courts
| Cumulative: 6 courts | Program monitoring and reports | By region | Quarterly | ||
| Participants data entry skills | Outcome | Baseline from pre-test survey | FY13: Overall, participants show 60% improvement in data entry skills over the baseline |
FY14: N/A
| Pre- and post-test surveys of participants | By institution | Following training event | ||
| Level of knowledge on data management | Outcome | Baseline from pre-test survey | FY13: Overall, participants show 30% knowledge increase on data management above the baseline |
FY14: N/A
| Pre- and post-test surveys of participants | Following training event | |||
| Percentage of files available to public upon demand | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: 25% increase above baseline |
| FY14: 40% increase above baseline | Interviews from detainees, court clients and court staff | Bi-annual and in final evaluation | ||||||
| Strategic Objective 2: To ensure that target communities, especially detainees and prisoners, are better informed about their legal rights. | ||||||||
| Activity | Indicator | Output/Outcome | Baseline | Target/Benchmark | Data Source | Data Disaggregation | Frequency | |
| Intermediate Results 2.1: Detainees and prisoners know their legal rights. | ||||||||
| Level of knowledge from the prisoners and detainees about their rights. | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: NA |
| FY14: 50% increase above the baseline in the prisoners and detainees' knowledge on their rights. | Focus groups and interviews with prisoners and detainees | By sex and region | Project beginning and and final evaluation | ||
| Ability of prisoners and detainees to advocate for their rights when detained. | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: NA |
| FY14: 40% increase above the baseline in the prisoners and detainees' ability to advocate for their rights when detained. | Focus groups and interviews with prisoners and detainees | By sex and region | Project beginning and and final evaluation | ||
| Intermediate Results 2.2: The general public are more knowledgeable about the legal rights of detainees and prisoners. | |||||
| Level of knowledge from the public about the rights of detainees and prisoners. | Outcome | Baseline from needs assessment | FY13: NA |
| FY14: 35% increase above the baseline in the public's knowledge on the rights of detainees and prisoners. | Public opinion survey at the beginning and the end of the project | By sex and region | Project beginning and and final evaluation | ||
| Conduct training sessions for mayors and municipal council members on the rights of detainees and prisoners | Percentage of municipalities represented | Output | 0% | FY13: NA |
| FY14: At least 95% 0f municipalities represented | Program monitoring and reports | By municipality | Quarterly | ||
| Number of participants trained in the rights of detainees and prisoners | Output | 0 | FY13: NA |
FY14: 50 participants trained (20 women)
| Cumulative: 50 participants (20 women) | Program monitoring and reports | By sex and municipality | Following training event | ||
| Knowledge of participants on legal rights issues | Outcome | Baseline from pre-test survey | FY13: N/A |
FY14: Overall, participants show 50% increase in knowledge from the baseline
| Pre- and post-test surveys of participants | Following training event | |||
| No. of awareness initiatives implemented successfully | Outcome | 0 initiatives | FY13: 2 successful initiatives implemented |
FY14: 4 successful initiative implemented
| Cumulative: 6 | Interviews with participating mayors and council members | By municipality | Final evaluation |
| Convene awareness strategic planning meeting | Quality of strategic plan developed |
chenky: chenky:
Individuals evaluate terms, such as quality, differently. While in this M&E plan, the term "quality" was not defined, it is important to explain in the M&E plan how these terms will be defined and measured. The term "quality" was included to show just one example of an outcome indicator. Outcome 0% FY13: NA
| FY14: 80% of plan elements rated as "high " by community leaders | Interviews with mayors, council members, and community members | Following meeting report | |||
| No. of recommendations implemented at the provincial level | Outcome | 0 | FY13: NA |
| FY14: 45% of recommendations in the process of being implemented | Interviews with mayors, council members, and community members | Final evaluation | |||
| Train prison volunteers in criminal procedure | Number of prison volunteers trained in criminal procedures | Output | 0 | FY13: 60 participants trained (25 women) |
FY14: 80 participants trained (35 women)
| Cumulative: 140 participants (60 women) | Program monitoring and reports | By sex and municipality | Following training event | ||
| Participants’ knowledge on criminal procedures | Outcome | Baseline from pre-test survey | FY13: Overall, participants show 50% increase in knowledge from the baseline |
| FY14: Overall, participants show 50 increase in knowledge from the baseline | Pre- and post-test surveys of participants | Following training event | |||
| Ability to protect detainees | Outcome | 0% | FY13: NA |
FY14: 65% of participants use training to provide helpful information to detainees Interviews with participants and detainees Final Evaluation
* Denotes a Governing Justly and Democratically (GJD) Standard Indicator.
INL SAMPLE MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
&P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it.