Feed the Future Indicator Handbook 2023.pdf

Feed the Future Indicator Handbook

November 2023

Table Of Contents

Navigation 1: By Level of Collection 2

Navigation 2: By Indicator Code 7

Acronyms and Definitions 11

Introduction 13

Feed the Future Phase Three Indicators 14

Standard Performance Indicators 14

Indicators for Regional and Global Projects 14

Standard Tracking Indicators 16

Custom Indicators 22

Data Sources for Zone of Influence Indicators 22

Activity/Implementing Mechanism (IM) Indicators 24

Activity/Implementing Mechanism Indicator Universe Is Project Participants 24

Participants Who Train Other Participants 25

Counting Individuals Who Participate in More than One Feed the Future Project 25

Indirect Beneficiaries 25

Measuring Results of Market System-Strengthening Projects 26

Collecting Indicator Data on Producer Participants of Market System Strengthening Projects 27

Indicator Disaggregates 28

Geospatial Data 30

Feed the Future Reporting in the DIS System 31

Transitioning to the Feed the Future Phase Three Indicators 32

Foreign Assistance Standard Indicator and Performance Plan and Report Reporting (USAID Only) 33

Indicators and Measures Under Development 34

Definition Sheets for Tracking and Performance Indicators 35

Feed the Future Handbook Appendices 286

Appendix 1: Performance Indicators by the Feed the Future Results Framework 287

Appendix 2: Changes from the September 2019 Handbook to this November 2023 Handbook 294

Navigation 1: By Level of Collection

Level of Collection

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

ZOI EG-e Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ZOI level]

ZOI EG-g Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the asset-based Comparative Wealth Index [ZOI level]

ZOI EG-i Prevalence of near-poor: Percent of people who are “Near-Poor,” living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

ZOI EG-j Prevalence of poverty: Percent of people living on less than $2.15/day 2017 PPP [ZOI level]

ZOI EG-k Depth of poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

ZOI EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities [ZOI level] 54

ZOI EG.3-i Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) score for women [ZOI level]

ZOI EG.3.2-a Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.8.2-a Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.8.2-b Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9-a Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9-b Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9-i Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥ -2) among children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

ZOI HL.9.1-a Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9.1-b Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [ZOI level]

ZOI HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (“MDD-W”) [ZOI level]

ZOI RESIL-a Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index [ZOI level]

Activity/IM EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM

EG.3-10,

-11, -12

Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.1-15 Value of new private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-2 Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security training [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-7 Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agriculture and food system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-25 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

Activity/IM EG.3.3-10 Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.4.2-7 Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.5-2 Full-time equivalent employment of firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.10.4-7 Number of adults provided with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.10.4-8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM EG.11-4 Amount of investment mobilized (in U.S. dollars (USD)) for climate change adaptation as supported by USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM ES.5-1 Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM GNDR-a

Percentage of women with inadequate achievements in control over the use of income (based on the Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index) [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.8.2-2 Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

Activity/IM HL.8.3-3

Number of water and sanitation sector institutions strengthened to manage water resources or improve water supply and sanitation services as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.8.4-1 Value of new funding mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.9-1 Number of children under five (0–59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.9-2 Number of children under two (0–23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.9-3 Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-d Percent of participants with access to informal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-e Percent of participants with access to formal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-f Percent of participants actively contributing to local government/community decision-making with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-g Percent of participants who have prepared for future shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-h Number of participants who obtained insurance to mitigate the effects of shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-i Index of social capital at the participant level [activity/IM level]

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

Activity/IM RESIL-j Percent of participant households that have diversified their livelihood risk with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-k Percent of participants with access to key information about risks with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-L Percent of participants who have worked together with their community for the benefit of the community with USG support [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-1

Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented, or institutionalized with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM RESIL-2 Percent of participants receiving USG assistance who feel their households are able to recover from shocks and stresses [activity/IM level]

Activity/IM YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15–29) [activity/IM level]

National EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system (“AgGDP+”) [national level]

National EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system (“AgEMP+”) [national level]

National EG.3.1-c Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [national level]

Multi-level EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support [multi-level]

Navigation 2: By Indicator Code

Indicator Number

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

EG-e Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ZOI level]

EG-g Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the asset-based Comparative Wealth Index [ZOI level]

EG-i Prevalence of near-poor: Percent of people who are “Near-Poor,” living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

EG-j Prevalence of poverty: Percent of people living on less than $2.15/day 2017 PPP [ZOI level]

EG-k Depth of poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system (“AgGDP+”) [national level]

EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system (“AgEMP+”) [national level] 271

EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities [ZOI level] 54

EG.3-i Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) score for women [ZOI level] 59

EG.3-2

Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs [activity/IM level]

EG.3-10, -11,

-12

Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.1-c Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [national level]

EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support [multi-level]

EG.3.1-15

Value of new private sector investment leveraged by the

USG

to support food security and nutrition [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-a Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies [ZOI level]

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

EG.3.2-2

Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security training [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-7

Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-24

Number of individuals in the agriculture and food system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-25

Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-26

Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.2-27

Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.3.3-10

Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity [activity/IM level]

EG.4.2-7

Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs [activity/IM level]

EG.5-2

Full-time equivalent employment of firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.10.4-7

Number of adults provided with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.10.4-8

Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

EG.11-4

Amount of investment mobilized (in U.S. dollars (USD)) for climate change adaptation as supported by USG assistance [activity/IM level]

ES.5-1

Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets [activity/IM level]

HL.8.2-a Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service [ZOI level] 71

HL.8.2-b Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [ZOI level]

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

HL.8.2-2

Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

HL.8.3-3

Number of water and sanitation sector institutions strengthened to manage water resources or improve water supply and sanitation services as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

HL.8.4-1

Value of new funding mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

HL.9-a Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

HL.9-b Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

HL.9-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [ZOI level]

HL.9-i Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥ -2) among children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

HL.9-1

Number of children under five (0–59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

HL.9-2

Number of children under two (0–23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

HL.9-3

Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

HL.9-4

Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

HL.9.1-a Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [ZOI level]

HL.9.1-b Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [ZOI level]

HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (“MDD-W”) [ZOI level]

CBLD-9

Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [activity/IM level]

Indicator Title and Link to Definition Sheet Page

Number

GNDR-a Percentage of women with inadequate achievements in control over the use of income (based on the Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index) [activity/IM level]

GNDR-2

Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources [activity/IM level]

RESIL-a Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index [ZOI level] 94

RESIL-d Percent of participants with access to informal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-e Percent of participants with access to formal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-f Percent of participants actively contributing to local government/community decision-making with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-g Percent of participants who have prepared for future shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-h Number of participants who obtained insurance to mitigate the effects of shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-i Index of social capital at the participant level [activity/IM level] 239

RESIL-j Percent of participant households that have diversified their livelihood risk with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-k Percent of participants with access to key information about risks with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-L

Percent of participants who have worked together with their community for the benefit of the community with USG support [activity/IM level]

RESIL-1

Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented, or institutionalized with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

RESIL-2

Percent of participants receiving USG assistance who feel their households are able to recover from shocks and stresses [activity/IM level]

YOUTH-3

Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15–29) [activity/IM level]

Acronyms and Definitions

AgEMP+ = Measures of Agri-food System Employment

AgGDP+ = Measures of Agri-food System Gross Domestic Product

AGOL = ArcGIS Online

AO = Agreement Officer

AOR = Agreement Officer’s Representative

APG = Agency Priority Goal

BHA = Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance

BMI = Body Mass Index

CCIR = Crosscutting Intermediate Result (part of the GFSS Results Framework)

CO = Contracting Officer

COR = Contracting Officer’s Representative

DIS = Development Information Solution (the web-based results reporting platform owned by USAID and used for Feed the Future and other reporting)

DNA = Disaggregates Not Available

F = Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the Department of State, also “State/F”

FACTSInfo = Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System Info

FIES = Food Insecurity Experience Scale

FY = Fiscal Year

GAFSP = Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

GFSA = Global Food Security Act

GFSS = Global Food Security Strategy

HAZ = Height-for-Age Z-Score

IAF = Inter-American Foundation

IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development

IM = Implementing Mechanism (generally equivalent to an Activity at USAID or a project outside of

USAID)

IP = Implementing Partner

IR = Intermediate Result (part of the GFSS Results Framework)

IRS = Indicator Reference Sheet (the definition of an indicator, e.g., Performance Indicator Reference

Sheet (PIRS) or Tracking Indicator Reference Sheet (TIRS))

LSMS = Living Standards Measurement Survey

MCC = Millennium Challenge Corporation

MDD-W = Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women

MEL = Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

MIL = Master Indicator List (the list of STANDARDFA indicators managed by State/F and used in the

PPR for OUs to report their annual performance)

OP = Operational Plan (annual budget planning document done in FACTSInfo/NextGen system)

OU = Operating Unit (can be a USAID bilateral Mission, regional Mission, headquarters office, country post team, regional post team, or Washington-based Feed the Future interagency Bureaus and offices)

PBS = Population-Based Survey

PIRS = Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

PPL = Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning

PPR = Performance Plan and Report (annual performance reporting document done in the

FACTSInfo/NextGen system)

Pro-WEAI = Project-Level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

RAA = Required-As-Applicable

REFS = Bureau for Resilience, Environment, and Food Security

SDG = Sustainable Development Goal

STANDARDFA = Standard F Indicators, also referred to as “F indicators” or “PPR indicators”

TIRS = Tracking Indicator Reference Sheet

TP = Total Production

UP = Units of Production

USADF = U.S. African Development Foundation

USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development

USD = U.S. Dollars

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

USG = U.S. government

WASH = Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

WEAI = Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

WHZ = Weight-for-Height Z-Score

ZOI = Zone of Influence (the targeted, subnational regions/districts where the U.S. government hopes to see the greatest household- and individual-level changes in poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition)

Introduction

The Feed the Future Indicator Handbook presents the set of performance and tracking indicators for phase three of the U.S. government’s Feed the Future initiative, guided by the revised U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2022–2026 (GFSS-R). The set of indicators described in this handbook are designed to help monitor progress against each result in the GFSS Results Framework (Figure 1). We use indicator results, including from custom indicators, and performance narratives collected initiative-wide to monitor and report on progress and system change along the impact pathways reflected in the GFSS Results Framework to Feed the Future’s ultimate goal of sustainably reducing global poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition; and to support adaptive management, decision-making, and resource allocation.

Figure 1: U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy Results Framework.

Country post teams, regional post teams, and Washington-based Feed the Future interagency Bureaus and offices are all referred to as Operating Units (OUs), and are “housed” under each U.S. government interagency partner that reports performance data for Feed the Future. OUs and their implementing partners (IPs) use the Feed the Future standard performance indicators, appropriate tracking and custom indicators, and performance narratives to manage, adapt, and report on the performance of individual activities/implementing mechanisms (IMs) at the GFSS Results Framework intermediate result (IR) level among project participants, and to monitor progress toward applicable higher-level outcomes and impacts in country- and activity/IM-specific results pathways. In addition, OUs and IPs use impact and performance evaluations to complement the monitoring tools above as a vital component of the Feed the Future monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) framework. Evaluation is not discussed in this handbook.

https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/us-government-global-food-security-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/us-government-global-food-security-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Global-Food-Security-Strategy-FY22-26_508C.pdf#page=28 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Global-Food-Security-Strategy-FY22-26_508C.pdf#page=28

At the goal level, we track changes in poverty, food insecurity, and stunting among the population in Feed the Future target countries and in the zone of influence (ZOI). The ZOI is the targeted, subnational regions/districts where the U.S. government hopes to see the greatest household- and individual-level changes in poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition. In addition to tracking at the ZOI level, tracking goal-level indicators at the national level can reflect our contributions to system-level change, and better support partner countries in their attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). At the strategic objective and IR levels, we track changes in the agriculture and food system, and, within the ZOI, changes in women’s empowerment, resilience, malnutrition, and children’s diets, among other outcome indicators. The one exception to the set of ZOI tracking indicators relates to women’s diets, which we define as a performance indicator. Appendix 1 shows how the performance and tracking indicators are linked to the Feed the Future Results Framework.

Feed the Future Phase Three Indicators

The Feed the Future phase three indicators include two categories of indicators: standard performance indicators and standard tracking indicators.

Standard Performance Indicators Standard performance indicators measure results for which OUs and IPs are held accountable and against which OUs and IPs set annual or multiyear targets.

All standard performance indicators are required-as-applicable (RAA) to ensure consistency of reporting and meaningful aggregation of results. All OUs and IPs receiving Feed the Future funding are required to report on all indicators at the IR or crosscutting intermediate result (CCIR) level to which a Feed the Future-funded activity/IM or project1 contributes results. In other words, if an OU or IP designs an activity to generate results that are measured by the indicator, the OU or IP must establish a baseline, set targets, and report results for the indicator. A few standard performance indicators include additional criteria to determine whether the indicator is applicable, which are described in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS)2. See Appendix 1 to identify which indicators are associated with which Feed the Future IRs and CCIRs.

The standard performance indicators fall into three levels at which data for the indicator are collected:

1) activity/IM level, 2) multi-level, and 3) ZOI level (see Table 1).

Indicators for Regional and Global Projects While some standard performance indicators are relevant to regional and global Washington-based investments and should be adopted as appropriate, many are not. Given the unique nature of regional and global investments, these activities/IMs should be monitored using primarily custom indicators

1 The term “project” is used broadly in this document, and includes what is called an “activity” in USAID.

2 This “additional applicability criteria” exists for indicator EG.3.3-10 and the suite of new resilience indicators linked to IR 6 of the GFSS Results Framework.

tailored to each OU’s and IM’s specific theory of change, and, therefore, Feed the Future has not identified a set of standard regional or global indicators. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Resilience, Environment, and Food Security (REFS) can assist regional and Washington-based OUs in the development of logic models and identification of indicators, as needed.

Activity/Implementing Mechanism-Level Indicators. These 38 indicators monitor progress and results of specific activities/IMs and represent results among the people and organizations who participate in the project’s interventions. Activity/IM-level indicators are collected by IPs and reported annually across all Feed the Future countries. OUs should assign them to all activities/IMs that are designed to produce results measured by that indicator. All activity/IM-level indicators should only report results achieved in that reporting year, i.e., a “snapshot in time”; they are not reported cumulatively.

As a result of changes to the GFSS Results Framework under the revised GFSS FY 2022–2026, we have added 15 performance indicators to the list of activity/IM-level indicators. Eleven of these are brand-new indicators created specifically to fill gaps in our ability to report against the new GFSS Results Framework, and four are existing Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the Department of State (F) standard indicators (also called “STANDARDFA” indicators) that we are “adopting” into the Feed the Future family. Ten of the new indicators are resilience indicators that are only required for activities that are: 1) working in a Feed the Future Target Country or Resilience Focus Country, 2) intentionally seeking to strengthen resilience among participants, and 3) generating results that can be measured by the indicator. In Table 1, the 15 added indicators are marked with an asterisk (*) for brand new indicators and two asterisks (**) for those adopted into Feed the Future.

Multi-level Indicators. One multi-level indicator, EG.3.1-d: Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support, is RAA for all Feed the Future countries, and, if applicable, should be reported by Feed the Future OUs, as well as by IPs, where relevant, annually. We have updated the template for reporting on EG.3.1-d to reflect the following key areas: climate adaptation and mitigation, digital technology, food safety, and food loss and waste.

Zone of Influence-Level Indicators. While the majority of ZOI-level indicators are defined as standard tracking indicators, we define one ZOI-level IR indicator as a performance indicator and use it to establish baselines and performance targets at the ZOI and initiative level to meet legislative requirements. This indicator is HL.9.1-d: Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (“MDD-W”). We identified this indicator as a ZOI-level performance indicator because it reflects three important Global Food Security Act (GFSA) and GFSS priorities: 1) strengthening the agriculture and food system’s ability to provide diverse, affordable, nutritious foods at the local level within the ZOI in target countries; 2) increasing household income; and 3) increasing women’s empowerment and equity, as we know that increased women’s empowerment has a positive and significant effect on the women’s dietary diversity.3

3 Kassie, M., M. Fisher, G. Muricho, and G. Diiro. 2020. “Women’s Empowerment Boosts the Gains in Dietary Diversity from

Agricultural Technology Adoption in Rural Kenya.” Food Policy 95.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919220301615 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919220301615

Standard Tracking Indicators We track changes at the goal and strategic objective levels of the Feed the Future Results Framework at the national and ZOI level, and at the IR level within the ZOI. Tracking indicators are well-being outcomes that Feed the Future aims to help improve, but for which we cannot hold ourselves directly accountable. While it is important to be able to communicate to our stakeholders how things are changing at the national and ZOI level in our target countries, we recognize that, by and large, these outcomes are beyond the direct manageable interest of Feed the Future, and, in the absence of rigorous impact evaluations that document otherwise, changes in these outcomes are not directly attributable to Feed the Future activities.

The standard tracking indicators fall into two categories, based on the level at which data for the indicator are collected: 1) ZOI level, and 2) national level. We do not set targets for tracking indicators.

Zone of Influence-Level Indicators. There are 17 indicators that track conditions among the population in the ZOI in target countries. These indicators are quantified using primary or secondary data from a population-based survey. These indicators are reported every three to five years, based on data availability. Ten of these indicators measure changes at the goal or strategic objective levels, and the remaining six measure changes at the IR level.

ZOI indicators may also be collected in resilience focus areas subject to recurrent humanitarian crises,4 and by USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) in resilience and food security activity programming areas,5 both of which might overlap in part or in whole with the target country ZOI.

National Level Indicators. There are three indicators that represent national-level conditions, two of which are tracked only for target countries, and look at the value added in the agriculture and food system (AgGDP+) and employment in the agriculture and food system (AgEMP+). OUs should track the third national-level indicator—EG.3.1-c: Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [National-level]—if country programs are supporting activities designed to increase exports of targeted commodities (see Table 1). We report these three national-level indicators when data are available from primary or secondary data sources.

Target country OUs are not required to directly fund data collection for national-level indicators;

however, we encourage OUs to invest in strengthening national data systems’ capacity to collect timely and quality data to support the country’s capacity to make informed policy, investment, and programmatic decisions. REFS and bilateral and multilateral development organizations co-created the 50x2030 initiative to increase country capacity to generate and apply data to decisions in the agricultural sector that support rural development and food security. The 50x2030 initiative’s main focus is on scaling up national annual agricultural surveys. The 50x2030 initiative can also integrate the World Bank’s

4 In FY 2023, the countries with resilience to recurrent crises areas are Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

5 In FY 2023, BHA resilience and food security activities are implemented in the resilience zones in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, DRC, Haiti, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique (not yet implemented), Niger, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

national panel Living Standards Measurement Survey—Integrated Surveys on Agriculture in countries with these panel surveys. OUs can find additional information on the 50x2030 initiative, how OUs can help strengthen country data systems, and the benefits of doing so for the OU in the fact sheet (for USAID staff only).

Table 1: Feed the Future Standard Performance and Standard Tracking Indicators by Level of Collection: ZOI, National, Multi-level, Activity/IM

ZOI Level (18 of 60 total indicators)

Performance (1 of 60 total indicators is a performance indicator at this level)

● HL.9.1-d: Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (“MDD-W”) [ZOI level]

Tracking (17 of 60 total indicators are tracking indicators at this level)

● EG-j: Prevalence of poverty: Percent of people living on less than $2.15/day 2017 PPP [ZOI level]

● EG-e: Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ZOI level]

● EG-g: Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the asset-based Comparative Wealth Index [ZOI level]

● EG-k: Depth of poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

● EG-i: Prevalence of near-poor: Percent of people who are “Near-Poor,” living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line [ZOI level]

● EG.3-h: Yield of targeted agricultural commodities [ZOI level]

● EG.3-i: Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) score for women [ZOI level]

● EG.3.2-a: Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies [ZOI level]

● HL.8.2-a: Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service [ZOI level]

● HL.8.2-b: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [ZOI level]

● HL.9-a: Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level] https://docs.google.com/document/d/186iO0ZPqzbgftjiNfwgG7TKOlJwLL5ZoJ4qapnUcSok/edit?usp=sharing

● HL.9-b: Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

● HL.9-d: Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [ZOI level]

● HL.9-i: Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥ -2) among children under five (0–59 months) [ZOI level]

● HL.9.1-a: Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [ZOI level]

● HL.9.1-b: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [ZOI level]

● RESIL-a: Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index [ZOI level]

National Level (3 of 60 total indicators)

Performance (none are performance indicators at this level)

Tracking (3 of 60 total indicators are tracking indicators at this level)

● EG.3-e: Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system (“AgGDP+”) [national level]

● EG.3-g: Employment in the agri-food system (“AgEMP+”) [national level]

● EG.3.1-c: Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [national level]

Multi level (1 of 60 total indicators)

Performance (1 of 60 total indicators is a performance indicator at this level)

● EG.3.1-d: Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support [multi-level]

Tracking (none are tracking indicators at this level)

Activity/IM Level (38 of 60 total indicators)

Performance (38 of 60 total indicators are performance indicators at this level)

● EG.3-2: Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs [activity/IM level]

● EG.3-10, -11, -12: Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program

Tracking (none are tracking indicators at this level) participants with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.1-15: Value of new private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-2: Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security training [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-7: Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-24: Number of individuals in the agriculture and food system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-25: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-26: Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.2-27: Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.3.3-10: Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity [activity/IM level]

● EG.4.2-7: Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs [activity/IM level]

● EG.5-2: Full-time equivalent employment of firms receiving USG assistance [activity/IM level]**

● EG.10.4-7: Number of adults provided with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.10.4-8: Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● EG.11-4: Amount of investment mobilized (in U.S. dollars (USD)) for climate change adaptation as supported by USG assistance [activity/IM level]**

● ES.5-1: Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets [activity/IM level]

● HL.8.2-2: Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● HL.8.3-3: Number of water and sanitation sector institutions strengthened to manage water resources or improve water supply and sanitation services as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]**

● HL.8.4-1: Value of new funding mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance [activity/IM level]**

● HL.9-1: Number of children under five (0–59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

● HL.9-2: Number of children under two (0–23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

● HL.9-3: Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

● HL.9-4: Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs [activity/IM level]

● CBLD-9: Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [activity/IM level]

● GNDR-a: Percentage of women with inadequate achievements in control over the use of income (based on the Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index) [activity/IM level]*

● GNDR-2: Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources [activity/IM level]

● RESIL-d: Percent of participants with access to informal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-e: Percent of participants with access to formal safety nets with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-f: Percent of participants actively contributing to local government/community decision-making with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-g: Percent of participants who have prepared for future shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-h: Number of participants who obtained insurance to mitigate the effects of shocks with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-i: Index of social capital at the participant level [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-j: Percent of participant households that have diversified their livelihood risk with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-k: Percent of participants with access to key information about risks with USG support [activity/IM level]*

● RESIL-L: Percent of participants who have worked together with their community for the benefit of the community with USG support [activity/IM level]* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GLdgzxmI_JJEZV0r0HvumqfI5iL6QqBklHGp5EbV8Pg/edit#bookmark=id.23ckvvd

● RESIL-1: Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented, or institutionalized with USG assistance [activity/IM level]

● RESIL-2: Percent of participants receiving USG assistance who feel their households are able to recover from shocks and stresses [activity/IM level]*

● YOUTH-3: Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15–29) [activity/IM level]

*New standard Feed the Future indicator in this handbook.

**Existing STANDARDFA indicator adopted into Feed the Future.

Custom Indicators Feed the Future’s indicators are designed to capture key steps in the theory of change, as reflected in the Feed the Future Results Framework, with an emphasis on outcome and impact indicators. However, each OU should have its own prospectively designed and continuously updated detailed logic model that clearly articulates how its activities lead to the desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts. It is unlikely that the set of standard Feed the Future indicators will be sufficient to monitor progress along that logic model, and to support learning and adaptation at an OU or activity/IM level; therefore, custom indicators should be used.

Custom indicators and custom disaggregates under standard indicators will likely be needed to capture key steps in the OU’s context- and intervention-specific logic model, although each step does not necessarily require an associated indicator. OUs and their partners can develop new custom indicators.

They can also consider using ZOI-level indicators or proxies for those indicators as custom indicators to monitor key outcomes among project participants. For example, a poverty assessment tool based on population-based poverty data could be used to quantify a proxy indicator for poverty prevalence for activities/IMs that are aiming to reduce poverty among participants. IPs and OUs implementing market systems development activities will find the new guidance on assessing system change useful in thinking through custom monitoring approaches for such activities.

Data Sources for Zone of Influence Indicators Data for the ZOI population-based indicators come from a combination of secondary data and primary data collected via a representative population-based survey (PBS) conducted in the ZOI. Survey implementers conducting primary ZOI PBS data collection must use the Feed the Future ZOI Survey https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/media/file/MSD%20in%20MEL%20Brief%201_Practitioners%20Guidance%20to%20Assessing%20Systems%20Change_508..pdf https://agrilinks.org/activities/feed-future-zone-influence-survey-methods-toolkits

Guidance and Survey Methods Toolkit to ensure high-quality and comparable data collection. Table 2 lists the ZOI indicators and data sources for each.

Table 2: Data Sources for ZOI Indicators

Primary Data from a ZOI PBS

● EG-j: Prevalence of poverty: Percent of people living on less than $2.15/day 2017 PPP

● EG-e: Prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food

Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

● EG-g: Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the asset-based Comparative Wealth Index

● EG-k: Depth of poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $2.15/day

2017 PPP poverty line

● EG-i: Prevalence of near-poor: Percent of people who are “Near-Poor,” living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $2.15/day 2017 PPP poverty line

● RESIL-a: Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index

● EG.3-i: Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) score for women (5DE)

● HL.8.2-a: Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service

● HL.9.1-d: Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (“MDD-W”)

Secondary Data from the DHS If Data Were Collected within Two Years Prior or One Year After the ZOI PBS Field Data Collection (if not available, primary data from a ZOI PBS)

● HL.9-a: Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months)

● HL.9-b: Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0–59 months)

● HL.9-i: Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥ -2) among children under five (0–59 months)

Secondary Data from the DHS If Data Were Collected within Two Years Prior or One Year After the ZOI PBS Field Data Collection (if not available, not quantified for that PBS round)

● HL.9-d: Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age

● HL.9.1-a: Percent of children 6–23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet

● HL.9.1-b: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 months of age

● HL.8.2-b: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises

Secondary Data from an Annual Agricultural Survey or Periodic Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) Panel Survey If Data Were Collected within Two Years Prior or One Year after the ZOI PBS Field Data Collection (if not available, not quantified for that PBS round)

● EG.3-h: Yield of targeted agricultural commodities

● EG.3.2-a: Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies

Activity/Implementing Mechanism (IM) Indicators

Activity/Implementing Mechanism Indicator Universe Is Project Participants Activity/IM-level indicators measure results obtained with participants, defined as individuals, enterprises, organizations, and other entities that participate in Feed the Future projects, including those reached directly, those reached as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy, and those participating in the markets we strengthen.6,7 An individual or entity is a participant if they come into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided or facilitated by the project. The intervention or set of interventions needs to be significant. An intervention is significant if one can reasonably expect, and hold OUs and IPs responsible for achieving, measurable progress toward changes in behaviors or other outcomes for individuals or entities receiving or accessing the goods or services provided by the intervention. As an example, producers with increased access to goods, services, and markets for their products and who purchase from or sell to market actors that have been strengthened as a result of our projects are considered to have received a significant intervention, and, therefore, are considered participants of market-strengthening projects. However, if a person or entity is merely contacted or touched by a project or activity through attendance at a meeting or gathering, they should not be considered a participant.

IPs must consider as participants and report results for the producers who directly interact with the firms assisted by the project (e.g., the producers who are customers of an assisted agro-dealer, the producers from whom an assisted trader or aggregator buys). IPs are not required to monitor and report on customers or suppliers of assisted market actors who are not producers. We direct IPs to take this approach in order to reduce their reporting burden in the already-challenging market system facilitation project monitoring context. However, we still want to capture information on the group—producers—that is critical to reach and about which we are most concerned on our likely pathways to impact. We recognize that allowing for the exclusion of other types of customers and suppliers from our reporting may underestimate our total impact.

In cases where projects work with multiple individuals in a household, activity/IM indicators only measure results for the participants in the household, not all members of the household. The only exception is in the case of sanitation services and family-sized rations, where all members of the household receiving the sanitation facility or ration are considered project participants.

6 The definition of the universe covered by activity/IM-level indicators has not fundamentally changed from Feed the Future phase one or phase two. We changed from using the term project “direct beneficiaries” to using the term project “participants” to describe the universe captured by activity/IM-level indicators to better align with market system-based approaches. The revised terminology also more clearly communicates that those with whom we work are active participants in their country’s development journey, to their own and others’ benefit.

7 The exceptions are activity/ IM indicators that count results directly achieved by the project, e.g., EG.3.2-7: Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance, rather than results achieved with project participants.

Participants Who Train Other Participants Individuals who are trained by an activity/IM as part of a deliberate service…