Attachment J.8 - 2015 - 2020 USAIDDRC Performance Management Plan.pdf

Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Fiscal Year 2015 – 2019

Performance Management Plan

October 2016

USAID/DRC Performance Management Plan October 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

The Performance Management Plan PMP Content, Format and Timing DRC CDCS Results Framework USAID/DRC CDCS Integration Approach

II. PMP INDICATORS

Indicator Development and Selection Criteria Performance Indicator Reference Sheets USAID/DRC Mission-wide PMP Data Collection Plan Baselines and Targets Data Quality Assessment Table of Goal/DO/TO Indicators

III. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND CLA PLAN

A. Monitoring

1. Monitoring and Analysis of Key Performance Data

2. Reviewing and Reporting Results

B. Mission Approaches to Evaluation C. Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

1. Collaborating and Coordination

2. Learning

3. Adaptive Management

III. ANNEXES

Annex 1. DETAILED DO/TO RESULTS FRAMEWORKS

DO 1 Detailed Results Framework DO 2 Detailed Results Framework TO 3 Detailed Results Framework

Annex 2. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA TABLES Annex 3. CONTEXT INDICATORS Annex 4. PMP CHANGE TRACKER TABLE Annex 5. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK SCHEDULE Annex 6. PERFORMANCE MONITORING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Annex 7. DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST AND RECOMMENDED

PROCEDURES

DQA Checklist Recommendations for Conducting Data Quality Assessments

Annex 8. STANDARD QUARTERLY/ANNUAL REPORT ANNEXES Progress Summary—Quarterly Progress Summary—Annual CDCS Results Framework-Activity Crosswalk

Annex 9. SITE VISIT PLANNING AND REPORTING A. Site Visit Team Composition B. Schedule for Site Visits D. Site Visit Data Collection Methodologies D. Site Visit Documentation E. Site Visit Template

Annex 10. EVALUATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE Annex 11. EVALUATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Annex 12 . PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADS Automated Directives System

AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative

AM Activity Manager

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

CSO Civil Society Organization

DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse

DO Development Objective

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

DQ Data Quality

DQA Data Quality Assessment

GDRC Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

IM Implementing Mechanism

IP Implementing Partner

IR Intermediate Result

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MECC Monitoring, Evaluation, and Coordination Contract

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PICAL Participatory Institutional Capacity Assessment and Learning

PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

PMIS Performance Monitoring Information System

PMP Performance Management Plan

PPR Performance Plan and Report

RF Results Framework

SOW Scope of Work

TO Transition Objective

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USG U.S. Government

I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

The Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for the DRC was approved in June 2014 and effective as of January 1, 2015. The CDCS will guide USAID investments of an estimated $1.2 billion in new resources over the next five years.

Transformational change in the DRC will require long-term investment and focus. USAID’s 20-year vision is of a country where the Congolese take charge of their future to manage and sustain growth with their own human, natural, and financial resources. The CDCS and its subsequent projects have identified opportunities to accelerate achieving this vision. USAID will capitalize upon these opportunities, while working towards the vision, through the five-year goal of a long-term transition to more effective and empowering development in the DRC supported. In order to achieve this, USAID will support three Objectives under this CDCS:

Development Objective (DO) 1: Selected national-level institutions more effectively implement their mandates.

Development Objective (DO) 2: Lives improved through coordinated, sustainable development approaches in select regions.

Transition Objective (TO) 3: Foundation for durable peace strengthened in eastern DRC.

Highlights from the New Strategy:

● Country ownership of development solutions, particularly through institution-strengthening, is a key component of the strategy across all objectives. Not only will this involve public institutions, but civil society and the private sector will also play critical roles in defining development challenges and implementing solutions.

● Strengthening the social compact between citizens and the state so that the state is seen as responsive to citizen needs is a renewed focus in this strategy. In particular, it will be critical for women and youth to have a voice in directing this process.

● Interventions are implemented in priority areas. In Kinshasa, USAID/DRC works with national-level institutions. In the provinces, there are two priority areas: one priority area consists of a corridor from Kasai Oriental to Kasai Central, and another a corridor from the Zambian border through Haut Katanga and into Lualaba. The second priority area is the conflict-affected areas of eastern DRC: North and South Kivu, northern Katanga, and parts of Maniema and Orientale. Finally, DO 2 activities will address the large urban centers of Kinshasa and Lubumbashi. As a cross-cutting strategy, interventions to achieve DO/TO results are implemented across the priority areas.

● As a cross-cutting strategy, USAID’s 2014-2019 CDCS increases collaboration among technical sectors. For example, democracy and governance work will support gains in health and education. One way to do accomplish this is to develop public-private partnerships that will support a holistic development approach that addresses multiple technical areas.

USAID/DRC will not only demonstrate cross-sector coordination in project design and implementation but will also seek opportunities for Mission-wide learning so that challenges faced by one sector inform programming in other sectors.

● USAID staff will increasingly influence and collaborate with other development actors— including other donors, the private sector, and the Government of the DRC.

● USAID/DRC will invest in strategic learning approaches, such as Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA), and correct course as appropriate.

USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Geographic Target Map. Source:

USAID/DRC, 2013.

The Performance Management Plan

This Performance Management Plan (PMP) is the tool that USAID will use to manage progress toward achievement of CDCS results accomplished through the implementation of the three Mission projects and their associated mechanisms. These three projects address the CDCS Development/Transition Objectives (DO/TO). Consistent with CDCS guidance, this PMP will enable the Mission to monitor and manage a core set of performance indicators that reflect appropriate targets, baselines, and data collection and analytic approaches. The performance management cycle will include ongoing project monitoring, semi-annual Mission Portfolio Reviews, annual reporting on indicators and outputs, periodic evaluations/assessments, and other strategic learning activities. The PMP incorporates GIS technology as a component of the performance management system.

The PMP was developed with the support of Washington staff from the bureaus for Africa and Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL). Through a series of facilitated DO/TO Team meetings, the Mission identified a list of PMP indicators and evaluation questions associated with each CDCS result, which the Mission proposes to use to track performance and to determine project effectiveness. The PMP is intended to measure the combined results of the Mission’s three projects, and therefore will have a lifespan longer than the Mission’s CDCS.

The USAID/DRC CDCS Results Framework is included later in this section and a detailed Results Framework is found in Annex 1. For additional information on the CDCS development hypothesis or other elements of the strategy, please review the CDCS document itself, which is available online:

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/USAID%20DRC%20CDCS%202014%20Fi nal%20Public%20Version%20new%20Cover.pdf

The PMP is intended to be a living document. Indicators; Roles and Responsibilities; and the Monitoring, Evaluation, and CLA Plans will be updated after the Bi-Annual Portfolio Reviews. Any PMP changes that have the potential to cause the CDCS to be amended will be reviewed and approved by the Mission Director while routine changes will be approved by the Program Office in collaboration with the DO/TO teams. A PMP Change Tracker Table has been included as Annex 4 to ensure that all changes are documented.

The Mission will also update indicator reference data, evaluation plans, and the task schedule as part of its Portfolio Review and Performance Plan and Report (PPR) processes, or as needed to reflect changes in the CDCS. As part of these processes, USAID/DRC will revisit the learning agenda as well as illustrative questions contained in the evaluation plan to ensure they are relevant for the coming year and to add any additional planned evaluations. The Program Office will ensure that the latest version of the PMP is stored in a common location.

PMP Content, Format and Timing

This PMP content and format are based on current USAID guidance, including the PMP Toolkit, and were informed by working meetings with staff from each of the Mission’s technical offices and the Program Office. The PMP includes content describing how USAID/DRC will approach monitoring, evaluation, and learning; and delves into the roles, timing, and management procedures needed to undertake these tasks. In order to link the PMP to project-level performance management, the PMP includes indicators that measure CDCS results at the Goal, Development Objectives, Intermediate Results, and sub-Intermediate results level. The PMP also includes a number of templates and tools for data collection, analysis, and planning, including:

● An integration approach to performance management: USAID/DRC has developed a cross-sectoral CDCS, which works to advance the Agency’s integrated approach to development.

The PMP reflects this integration in a deliberate way through the indicators, management plan, and learning approaches. A separate section on USAID/DRC’s approach to integration is included in this PMP to ensure integrated monitoring and learning across the CDCS.

● Data collection plan: The data collection plan outlined in this PMP identifies indicators that require additional primary data collection and identifies potential methodologies and resources to support that data collection.

● An evaluation plan: The evaluation plan outlined in this PMP identifies the current and planned evaluations that will be conducted over the lifetime of the PMP. It is expected that the evaluation plan will be updated on an annual basis.

● A Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Plan: This PMP includes a CLA Plan aimed at identifying specific opportunities to utilize a CLA-approach.

The PMP Task Schedule is provided in Annex 5.

DRC CDCS Results Framework

USAID/DRC CDCS Integration Approach

USAID’s Operational Policy the Automated Directive System (ADS) supports a cross-sectoral (or integrated) approach to strategic planning, stating that “… all DOs and intermediate results (IRs) should be designed to be mutually reinforcing, where possible.”

USAID/DRC’s CDCS supports integration both through housing activities under various Objectives and by including IRs that support each other. There are several ways the USAID/DRC’s CDCS emphasis on integration is supported through the PMP process:

● Integrated Results Statements: These results statements include not only Objective-level results, but also IR statements and sub-IR statements (see Annex 1 for detailed results frameworks that articulate how the sub-IRs contribute to the IRs and objectives). These deliberately integrated results statements demonstrate USAID/DRC’s cross-sectoral CDCS and an understanding of the interrelated impact of the Mission’s development activities at both the national and sub-national levels. Since the development of the CDCS, the Mission has refined its thinking on the Results Framework (RF) through the project design and PMP development processes. The detailed RFs in Annex 1 reflect the changes made (primarily to the sub-IRs) as a result.

● Cross-cutting Approaches and Indicators: A number of themes, including the use of partnerships, capacity building, and resilience to achieve sustainable results, are present throughout the CDCS and PMP. In this PMP, there are two types of cross-cutting indicators.

First, the F Standard Indicators include a series of cross-cutting indicators that measure performance related to Capacity Building, Gender, and Public/Private Partnerships. Second, within the CDCS’ integrated framework, there are cross-cutting indicators that measure results that in turn feed into the achievement of more than one objective in the CDCS.

● Links between Results Statements: As a cross-cutting strategy, some activities under a particular DO/TO contribute to achievements of cross-cutting results. To illustrate, improving access to service delivery under DO2 contributes to both decreasing the barriers to accessing services and strengthening resilience through increasing health services accessibility in a community. Similarly, improved capacity of national-level organizations is mentioned under DO 1, but is also intended to help improve service delivery sub-nationally, which will positively impact results under DO 2 and TO 3.

II. PMP INDICATORS

Indicator Development and Selection Criteria

Through a series of facilitated Development/Transition Objective and Intermediate Results team meetings, the Mission compiled a list of PMP indicators associated with each CDCS result and assumption. These indicators are intended to track performance and to determine programmatic effectiveness over the life of the strategy. The Mission worked to ensure that each indicator met the five USAID quality standards of validity, integrity, precision, reliability, and timeliness as described in ADS 201.3.5.8. The Mission selected a mix of both context and performance indicators as well as standard and custom indicators to measure progress toward CDCS results.

Performance Indicators: The Mission has included a number of performance indicators measuring particular characteristics or dimensions of each results statement. These indicators serve as the basis for observing progress and measuring actual results compared to expectations. Based on the current context, needs, and resources available to the Mission, output- and outcome-level indicators were also selected. See Annex 2 for a full list of PMP performance indicators.

Context Indicators: The Mission has also included context indicators measuring conditions or assumptions relevant to the performance of projects and programs. These indicators will be collected and evaluated under the Mission’s Monitoring, Evaluation, and Coordination Contract (MECC) on an annual basis. By measuring factors that are beyond the Mission’s management control, the Mission can determine whether the country’s context changes such that a project or strategy must be adapted in order to be successful. See Annex 3 for a full list of PMP context indicators.

Monitoring context can help USAID staff understand how programming will be affected by actors and conditions outside of USAID’s control. For instance, changes in key assumptions relevant to achieving expected results may necessitate changes to programming. Context monitoring can also inform USAID when and how it may be important to engage with other donors working in the same context. USAID/DRC will monitor broad contextual conditions that may indirectly affect programming processes and outcomes (such as macro-economic, social, or political conditions).

DO/TO teams may also monitor operational contexts that may directly affect programming processes and outcomes (such as projects within the same sector of USAID programming that are funded by other donors).

Performance Indicator Reference Sheets

Following indicator selection, the Mission focused on completing a detailed Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) for each indicator to promote data quality and consistency, as described in ADS 201.3.5.7. PIRSs are intended to be useful as standalone resources for the Mission, implementing partners (IPs), stakeholders, and potential auditors. See Annex 12 for the full list of PIRS for PMP indicators.

USAID/DRC Mission-wide PMP Data Collection Plan

The CDCS PMP includes indicators that will be collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

Primary Data Collection: Primary data is collected directly by USAID/DRC or independent entities contracted specifically for this purpose, such as the MECC. Primary data collection methodologies can include surveys, polls, focus groups, trials, interviews, and the Participatory Institutional Capacity Assessment and Learning Index (PICAL), which was developed to support and measure institutional capacity strengthening efforts. The Mission will engage data collection experts with relevant experience with the proposed methodologies to collect primary indicator data.

Secondary Data Collection: Secondary data is collected by implementing partners and external stakeholders. Most output level secondary data will be provided by implementing partners.

Tertiary Data Collection: Tertiary data sources are collected by other entities and are typically not under USAID control. Tertiary sources include data from government ministries, research institutions, financial institutions, and international donors. USAID does not necessarily know the quality of this data or have control over this information. Most context indicators will be collected through tertiary data collection.

Some primary and secondary data will require development of new data collection tools, including household and perception surveys. USAID/DRC will collaborate with data collection experts, implementing partners, and external partners to help develop and finalize these tools. The Agreement Officer’s Representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative/Activity Managers (AOR/COR/AM) will ensure that if multiple implementing partners are collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the same indicators, that each partner uses the same data collection tools. These requirements will be included in the awards, including requirements for the type of expertise needed to help develop these data collection tools.

Baselines and Targets

Because a majority of the Mission’s performance indicators rely on new or to be developed data collection methods, and/or require establishing baselines after project mechanisms are awarded, most of the initial performance indicators are missing baselines and targets. All perception data indicators will be tracked through the use of surveys. Although these surveys will not provide a true baseline, they will present the Mission with an opportunity to effectively track its performance over time. Where data already exists (for example, much data for tertiary sources is available on identified websites), baselines have been set and the rationale for targets has been included. As the remaining data collection efforts are finalized and implementation begins, the Mission will update the PMP, including relevant PIRSs.

Data Quality Assessment

High quality data is the cornerstone of evidence-based decision-making. USAID/DRC will use consistent data quality assessment (DQA) procedures to verify and validate the measured values of performance data. These assessments are essential to understand data quality strengths and weaknesses, and are based upon ensuring standard and consistent uses of definitions, data collection methods, and calculation techniques by USAID/DRC and all of its partners. As required by the ADS, USAID will ensure that all indicators reported in the PPR have had a DQA conducted within the 12 months prior to new indicator data being reported externally and every three years thereafter. The Mission will use the DQA Checklist (see Annex 7) to ensure that performance data reasonably meets these five standards of data quality:

1. Validity: data clearly and adequately represents the intended result;

2. Reliability: data reflects stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time;

3. Integrity: data collected has safeguards to minimize the risk of transcription error or data manipulation;

4. Precision: data has a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision-making;

and

5. Timeliness: data is available at a useful frequency, is current, and is timely enough to influence management decision-making.

CORs/AORs/AMs, with guidance from the Program Office, will work with the Office of Assistance and Acquisition (OAA) to ensure that all contract and grant awards include language on data quality.

CORs/AORs/AMs will also have the primary responsibility for conducting DQAs on all indicators being reported with support from the Program Office. The DO/TO Teams Leaders are responsible for ensuring the comparability of data for the same indicator collected by different mechanisms.

DQAs must be completed every three years. As DQA dates must be recorded in the PPR, they must be completed prior to the December PPR deadline. All DQAs will be stored in a central location.

The Mission practices for DQAs are outlined in Annex 7.

Table of Goal/DO/TO Indicators1

GOAL: Long-term transition to more effective and empowering development in the DRC supported.

Indicator Type of indicator2

Reported in 2016

PPR

Data Source3

Percent of the population who are satisfied with government services Custom MECC Survey

DO 1: Selected national-level institutions more effectively implementing their mandates.

PICAL scores of national-level institutions assessed for institutional capacity

Custom

Participatory Institutional

Capacity Assessment and Learning

(PICAL)

IR 1.1: Capacity to identify constraints to development and propose solutions increased.

Average score of national-level institutions assessed for use of evidence-based decision-making processes to address identified constraints with USG assistance

Custom PICAL

Number of solutions proposed by selected institutions to address identified constraints Custom IP report

Sub-IR 1.1.1: Improved data collection and data management processes.

Average score of national-level institutions assessed for information management to monitor and inform their strategies Custom PICAL

Sub-IR 1.1.2: Improved monitoring, evaluation, and research planning.

Average score of national-level institutions assessed for use of monitoring, evaluation, and research to inform decision-making and implementation

Custom PICAL

Average score of national-level institutions assessed for use of inclusive stakeholder feedback to inform decision-making and implementation Custom PICAL

IR 1.2: Capacity to create policy and legal framework in targeted sectors improved.

Average score of institutions assessed for capacity to create national-level legal frameworks and/or operational policies Custom PICAL

1 This table is updated annually. Indicators marked in red/underlined are crosscutting indicators that contribute to achievement of results across DO/TO.

2 Standard indicators or “Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators” are required of all State and USAID Operating Units that program U.S. foreign assistance.

Custom indicators are those performance indicators that are not included in the list of “Standard Foreign Assistance Framework” indicators. These indicators are identified and developed to measure achievement of results where standard indicators are not useful or applicable for decision-making, or where substantive changes are needed in the standard indicator’s name and definition in order to make the indicator applicable to the Mission’s context.

3 Complete list of third-party context indicators are found in Annex 3.

Number of laws and regulatory frameworks adopted and/or improved at the national level as a result of USG assistance Custom IP report

Number of policy reforms/regulations/administrative procedures drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation as a result of USG assistance (2.3.1)

Custom X IP report

Sub-IR 1.2.1: Strengthened relationships among policy stakeholders.

Percent of stakeholders who agree that their views are reflected in planning/policy processes Custom MECC survey

Number of coalitions or networks strengthened to fulfill their mandate as a result of USG assistance Custom IP report

Sub-IR 1.2.2: Non-governmental actors empowered to influence laws and official policy.

Number of civil society organizations engaged in advocacy interventions as a result of USG assistance

Standard DR.4.2-2 X IP report

Sub-IR 1.2.3: Institutional policy formation strengthened.

Number of institutions/organizations making significant improvements based on recommendations made via USG supported assessments Custom X IP report

IR1.3: Capacity to implement selected policies, laws, and programs enhanced.

Percent of selected institutions that strengthened implementation of targeted laws, policies, and/or programs based upon institution-specific core services, using USG assistance

Custom IP report

Sub-IR1.3.1: Strengthened relationships among sector unit stakeholders.

Percent of USG-assisted consensus-building processes (multi-party, civil/security sector, and /or civil/political) held that result in an agreement (3.1.3)

Standard DR.3.1-1 IP report

1.3.2: Regulatory oversight strengthened.

Average score of institutions assessed for accountability mechanisms through USG assistance Custom PICAL

1.3.3: Ability to provide technical and managerial support strengthened.

Percent of sub-national staff satisfied with targeted national-level service performance Custom MECC survey

Number of person-days of USG-supported technical or managerial training and/or mentoring provided by national-level technical units to sub-national entities

Custom IP report

IR1.4: Congolese resources made available for selected sectors.

Amount of Congolese non-government funding resources made available for targeted sectors as a result of USG activities (2.1.3) Custom IP report

1.4.1: Increased transparency, financial resource collection, allocation, and use.

Average score of institutions assessed for financial management Custom PICAL

Average budget execution rates for selected institutions (2.1.3) Custom IP report

1.4.2: Oversight capacity increased.

Number of CSOs using accountability tools (such as scorecards and audit reports) to monitor and/or demand improvement of financial management and/or service delivery (2.3.2 and 3.1)

Custom IP report

1.4.3: Human and material resource management capacity improved.

Average score of national-level institutions assessed for resource management monitoring systems Custom PICAL

Average score of institutions assessed for ensuring high-quality staffing Custom PICAL

DO2: Lives improved through coordinated, sustainable development approaches in select regions.

Number of new cases of tracked diseases in children under 5 (malaria, diarrhea, & ARI) Custom IP report

Number of adults and children currently receiving antiretroviral therapy Custom IP report

Number of adults and children initiating TB treatment as a result of USG assistance

Custom IP report

Percent of learners who demonstrate reading fluency and comprehension of grade level text at the end of grade 2 with USG assistance

Standard ES.1- 1 X IP report

IR2.1: Local service delivery institutions strengthened.

Average score of selected local-level institutions assessed for institutional capacity Custom PICAL

Number of health care facilities supported and/or rehabilitated (3.3) Custom IP report

Sub-IR2.1.1: Improved quality of services in targeted sectors.

Percent of select local-level institutions that improved quality and equity in service provision with USG assistance (3.2) Custom MECC survey

Sub-IR2.1.2: Service availability expanded.

Percent of population who use selected facilities Custom MECC Survey

Percent of population reporting improved availability of selected services Custom MECC survey

Number of learners enrolled in primary schools and/or equivalent non-school based settings with USG support (3.2.2)

Standard ES.1-

X IP report

Percent of health centers implementing a minimum package of activities in target health zones (3.2.2)

Custom IP report

Number of USG-assisted organizations and/or service delivery systems strengthened who serve vulnerable populations (3.3.3) Custom IP report

Sub-IR2.1.3: Increased local resources made available for service delivery.

Percent of annual provincial budget allocated to targeted local administrative entities

Custom IP report

Targeted tax revenue collected Custom IP report

Targeted tax revenue allocated Custom IP report

Amount of Congolese non-government funding resources made available Custom IP report for targeted sectors as a result of USG activities (1.4)

Average budget execution rates for selected institutions (1.4.1) Custom IP report

IR 2.2: Citizens empowered to access quality services.

Percent of households in target communities who participate in provincial/local governance/decision-making processes/meetings (3.2.1)

Custom MECC survey

Number of out-of-school girls, boys, and youth who gain access to primary or secondary school (or non-formal equivalents of primary or secondary school) through USG support

Custom IP report

Percent of households in target communities with improved knowledge, attitudes and practices of key issues, by sector Custom MECC survey

Sub-IR 2.2.1: Increased citizens’ awareness to access quality services.

Percent of target female and male populations who have understanding of minimum availability standards for basic services Custom MECC survey

Percent of target populations who have an understanding of appropriate quality standards Custom MECC survey

Sub-IR 2.2.2: Barriers to accessing services mitigated.

Number of citizens participating with CBO/CSO service access advocacy groups Custom IP report

Percent of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment)

GNDR-2

X IP report

Percent of target population who report that they are able to access the basic services available to their community (3.2.2) Custom MECC survey

IR 2.3: Provincial and local stakeholders develop common goals and agenda for accountable governance.

Percent of CSOs/Advocacy groups that report that key local government budget/planning/procurement documents reflect the community/stakeholder input

Custom IP report

Percent of stakeholders who agree that their views are reflected in planning/policy processes (1.2.1 and 3.2)

Custom MECC survey

Sub-IR 2.3.1: Strengthened collaboration between targeted GDRC entities, civil society, and private sector actors.

Number of consensus building forums (multi-party, civil/security sector, and/or civil /political) held with USG assistance

Standard

DR.3.1-3

IP report

Number of policy reforms/regulations/administrative procedures drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation as a result of USG assistance

Custom IP report

Sub-IR 2.3.2: Improved community oversight of service delivery.

Number of CSOs using accountability tools (such as scorecards and audit reports) to monitor and/or demand improvements of financial management and/or service delivery (1.4.2 and 3.1)

Custom IP report

TO 3: Foundation for durable peace strengthened in eastern DRC.

Change in public perceptions in target communities of security, justice, social cohesion, health, political and economic progress Custom MECC surveys

IR 3.1: Practical solutions to specific drivers of conflict identified and accepted.

Number of community development plans integrating equitable, locally-produced solutions to resolve conflicts Custom IP report

Number of new groups or initiatives created through USG funding, dedicated to resolving the conflict or the drivers of the conflict

Standard PS.6.2-1 X IP report

Number of CSOs using accountability tools (such as scorecards and audit reports) to monitor and/or demand improvements of financial management and/or service delivery (1.4.2 and 2.3.2)

Custom IP report

Sub-IR 3.1.1: Strengthened capacity of Congolese organizations to conduct policy-oriented operations research.

Number of publications or conference presentations produced by Congolese researchers as a result of USG assistance on the subject of conflict resolution

Custom IP report

Sub-IR 3.1.2: Increased context-specific data, analysis, and research on drivers of conflict in target areas.

Number of participatory community conflict analyses conducted Custom IP report

Sub-IR 3.1.3: Improved mechanisms to agree on proposed solutions to drivers of conflict

Percent of USG-assisted consensus building processes (multi-party, civil/security sector, and/or civil/political) held that result in an agreement (1.3.1)

Custom IP report

IR 3.2: Promising interventions to establish or solidify peace implemented.

Percent of stakeholders who agree that their views are reflected in planning/policy processes (1.2.1 and 2.3) Custom MECC survey

Percent of citizens reporting improvement and equity in service delivery of local-level institutions with USG assistance Custom MECC Survey

Sub-IR 3.2.1: Increased community engagement in conflict resolution, recovery and peace building.

Number of community development projects implemented Custom IP report

Number of community structures with conflict resolution activities to support female and male citizen engagement in local governance or services

Custom IP report

Percent of households in target communities who participate in provincial/local governance/decision-making processes/meetings (2.2) Custom MECC Survey

Sub-IR 3.2.2: Strengthened resilience through increased availability of services and enhanced economic activity

Number of learners enrolled in primary schools and/or equivalent non-school based settings reached with USG education assistance (2.1.2)

Standard

ES.1-3

X

Percent of health centers implementing a minimum package of activities in target health zones (2.1.2)

Prevalence of stunted children under five years of age Custom IP report

Number of farmers who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance

Standard

EG.3.2-17

IP report

Number of mine sites validated and certified Custom IP report

Depth of poverty Custom MECC Survey

Percent of target population who report that they are able to access the basic services available to their community (2.2.2) Custom MECC Survey

Sub-IR 3.2.3: Increased women’s participation developing and implementing solutions for peace and security.

Number of local women participating in a substantive role or position in a peace building process with USG assistance

Standard

GNDR-10

IP report

Percent of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities

GNDR-4

X

IR 3.3: Humanitarian and protection services provided.

Number of internally displaced, refugee and host population beneficiaries provided with basic inputs for survival, recovery, or restoration of productive capacity

Custom IP report

Percent of target population that views Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) as less acceptable after being exposed to USG programming

Standard

GNDR-7

MECC survey

Sub-IR 3.3.1: Life-saving assistance delivered to newly displaced persons

Number of health care facilities supported and/or rehabilitated (2.1) Custom IP report

Number of children treated for acute malnutrition Custom IP report

Sub-IR 3.3.2: Early recovery activities provided to restore livelihoods and basic living conditions of conflict-affected populations in target areas of eastern DRC.

Number of people assisted through livelihood restoration activities Custom IP report

Number of people benefiting from food assistance and seed protection rations to facilitate returns Custom IP report

Sub-IR 3.3.3: Strengthened community-based prevention of and response to sexual and gender-based violence.

Number of USG-assisted organizations and/or service delivery systems strengthened who serve vulnerable populations (2.1.2)

Standard ES.4-3 X IP report

Number of vulnerable people benefiting from USG-supported social services

Standard ES.4-1 X IP report

Number of people reached by a USG-funded intervention providing GBV services

GNDR-6 IP report

III. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND CLA PLAN

A. Monitoring

1. Monitoring and Analysis of Key Performance Data

There are three main levels of monitoring and analysis for USAID/DRC, and specific roles and responsibilities related to each level.

● Activity/Implementing Mechanism

● DO/TO Projects

● Strategy/CDCS Results Framework

Activity/Implementing Mechanism Level

AORs/CORs/AMs monitor the quality and timeliness of key outputs and outcomes, assess data quality, approve Activity Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Plans, and assist in technical monitoring through site visits. The AOR/COR/AM’s primary role is to ensure and verify that:

● Activity-level performance data (typically outputs, but potentially outcomes) is accurate. The AOR/COR/AM must review the implementing partner’s periodic performance reporting, compare the actuals to the baseline and target, and review the data against the activity’s PIRSs from the Activity M&E Plan and/or the Mission’s PIRS included in the Mission-wide

PMP.

● Reported data meets minimum data quality standards. The AOR/COR/AM will ensure that any data reported by the implementing partner has been the subject of a data quality assessment before the performance data is reported in the Performance Plan and Report (ADS 201.3.5.8) or has been reviewed for data quality prior to reporting to any external audience (ADS 578.3.1).

● Data collection methods are appropriate (and match the PIRS requirements).

● Baselines and targets are consistent with M&E Plans and PIRSs.

● Actuals reported by the partner meet, do not meet, or exceed the target. If a performance indicator’s actuals do not meet or exceed the target, the AOR/COR/AM will identify the reasons that the targets were not met, and will determine whether the targets are appropriate and relevant, whether implementation changes have affected performance, and/or whether the indicator itself needs to be revised.

● The implementing partner reports performance data—including all relevant PMP indicators—to USAID in accordance with contractual requirements and the activity M&E Plan. To facilitate the collection of performance data, partners should append two annexes to quarterly and annual reports: Annex A: Quarterly/Annual Progress Summary and Annex B:

CDCS Results Framework Activity Crosswalk (included as Annex 8 of this PMP).

DO/TO Project

The key monitoring and analysis value added by the DO/TO teams is to assess achievement across the relevant Objective-level results statement(s) using activity-level output and outcome data collected outside of the Activity M&E Plan. Because certain data is often reported by multiple implementing partners, the DO/TO team will also review aggregated data or other data that requires calculation in order to determine the extent to which targets have been met. With the support of MECC, the DO/TO team will collect additional performance data, including data for context indicators, and information on critical assumptions and risks. The DO/TO team is responsible for managing the analysis of all performance data at the IR and DO/TO levels, and for understanding the breadth of data limitations for all relevant performance data. Taken together, the DO/TO team’s role is to assess:

● Whether progress is being made toward each of the Objective-level results statements (IR-and DO/TO-level). All of the indicators that measure a single result statement should be assessed together to determine whether they are meeting, exceeding, or not meeting their targets. Based on the analysis of these indicators, the team should make a judgment on whether each result statement is being achieved.

● Whether any portion of the results framework at the IR-level or below should be re-examined to ensure achievement of CDCS results. All sub-IR results statements should be assessed, individually and as a group, to determine whether they are supporting the achievement of the IR. Similarly, any relevant context indicators at this level will be analyzed to determine whether or not assumptions are holding true.

● In the case of individual results assessed to be under-performing, the DO/TO team should determine whether the targets have been appropriately set, whether context data can help explain performance at the results level, or even whether the indicators might be the wrong ones to measure the results. If the team determines that the data is “not good enough”, they may need to determine whether any activity-level or development hypothesis changes need to be taken.

Strategy/CDCS Results Framework Level

The Program Office will monitor and analyze progress towards achieving the CDCS goal—the highest level of possible achievement of the Mission’s strategy. This responsibility includes monitoring the performance data of high-level critical assumptions, risks, and context indicators through Portfolio Reviews. The Program Office will also help integrate individual DO/TO-level monitoring and analysis across the Mission to identify commonalities among the DO/TOs, analyze cross-cutting issues, assess the relative weights of DO/TO-specific assumptions and risks, and assess the contributions of individual DO/TO results to the achievement of the CDCS Goal. The Program Office will use a learning-based approach towards monitoring the CDCS and will ensure that any learning is used to help inform programmatic adjustments or future strategies.

USAID/DRC’s MECC will support the Mission’s M&E and coordination needs in relation to the CDCS. The MECC will support data collection and analysis, design of evaluation scopes of work (SOWs), and training of staff and other stakeholders.

Additional information on roles and responsibilities is included in Annex 6.

2. Reviewing and Reporting Results

The main opportunities for reviewing performance data Mission-wide are the bi-annual Portfolio Reviews, preparation for the Performance Plan and Reports (PPRs), conducting data quality assessments, and a Mid-Course CDCS Stocktaking. Through these opportunities, Mission staff will review evidence of what works and does not work, assess progress on project implementation and the achievement of CDCS results, and ultimately use that information to inform decision-making.

Furthermore, to the extent possible performance data will be overlaid with GIS and location-specific data to analyze and report on performance. The incorporation of location-specific information will be used to better understand contextual and geographic factors, as well as present a visual representation of the Mission’s integrated approach, which can influence the achievement or non-achievement of results.

Performance against selected standard and custom indicators is reported in the first quarter of the fiscal year as part of the Mission’s annual PPR. DO/TO teams will encourage IPs to schedule their surveys and other data collection efforts to assess activity and project outcomes during the last quarter of the year (to the extent this complements program implementation schedules) so that key performance data can also be reported to USAID. USAID strongly encourages partners to append the Standardized Quarterly/Annual Reporting Annexes (included as Annex 8) to their annual and quarterly reports. DO/TO teams will work with the Program Office and third parties, including the MECC, to implement these important data collection efforts on the appropriate schedule.

AORs/CORs/AMs will work with their implementing partners to append the Standardized Quarterly/Annual Report Annexes to their reporting.

The Mission’s adaptive management approach stresses the use of monitoring data to learn and adapt programming. This focus on learning will enable the Mission to make better use of data, improve impact, and increase adaptability. Performance and context monitoring data will be reviewed during opportunities such as portfolio reviews, quarterly implementing partner meetings, Mission retreats, etc., to re-examine the Mission CDCS and DO/TO theories of change with the understanding that the country context changes can drastically affect the assumptions outlined in the theory of change.

PMP Indicator Review and Refinement

As decisions to adapt the Mission’s programming are made, performance indicators will be further refined and new indicators added or dropped. The PMP will be updated periodically to account for such changes.

Modifying the PMP also entails reviewing the indicator reference sheets and updating them as necessary. During the first quarter of each fiscal year, the Mission will designate the PMP indicators it plans to use in the PPR. Any changes or modifications to indicators reported in the PPR or included in the Mission-wide PMP must be cleared by the Program Office. The Mission will update indicator reference data as part of its Mission Portfolio Review and PPR processes, or as needed to reflect changes in the CDCS Results Framework. The Program Office will ensure that these changes are documented and stored in a common location.

The Program Office oversees and guides the process of entering performance indicator data and information into a performance monitoring information system (PMIS). Performance indicator data reported to the Mission, as well as data collected directly by the Mission, will be updated in the system regularly, as it becomes available (typically quarterly, semiannually, or annually). Activity Managers, other DO team members, and the Program Office all have responsibilities for updating the PMIS with relevant performance indicator data.

Site Visits to Monitor Activities and Results

USAID/DRC will schedule regular site visits to activity, beneficiary, and/or stakeholder locations. A key purpose of these monitoring visits is to verify information provided to USAID/DRC by implementing partners and other development partners about the performance of the activities or about reported progress in implementation and impact of activities. Site visits are also an important opportunity for learning about what is working and what is not, if there are any important changes in the implementation context, and if any activities are appropriate for replication or scale-up.

Site visits can assess whether performance reports received by the Mission accurately reflect what is happening at the activity level. A site visit report will be completed following any site visit and will identify and mitigate risks, document compliance with USAID/DRC Mission Order requirements, and monitor the status of Mission-supported activities. (See the USAID/DRC Mission Order on Performance Monitoring for more information pertaining to the site visit report and specific requirements for conducting site visits). Oversight will focus on:

● Comparing grantee/agency/contractor performance data reported in quarterly and annual (or other) required reporting to USAID, which encompass both IP (and other development partner) central office and field site records.

● Conducting meetings or interviews with grantees/agencies/contractors to gauge the data’s accuracy and reliability.

● Inspecting equipment or commodities purchased through IPs and other development partners for activities, as per ADS 324.5.4 on Arrival and Disposition of Commodities.

A site visit template is included in Annex 9.

B. Mission Approaches to Evaluation

Consistent with USAID’s Evaluation Policy, the Mission will perform a series of impact and performance evaluations encompassing different technical areas, which will include questions for each DO and TO, as appropriate. These will be predominantly performance evaluations due to the complexity and higher cost of impact evaluations. Evaluations will be implemented at different levels, and will be selected by identifying the most important issues and key questions that need to be answered within the activities under respective IRs. These evaluations will examine whether interventions are achieving the intended results and will generate learning opportunities that will inform program management and future program designs. The Mission will update the evaluation implementation plan annually. The CDCS identified illustrative evaluation questions for the DOs and TO covered by the strategy, and USAID/DRC will return to these questions periodically and while developing/revising the evaluation plan to identify those that will be most relevant each year.

USAID/DRC is committed to using evaluation to enhance accountability and learning within the Mission. This is in line with USAID’s ADS and Evaluation Policy, which work to build evaluation into project and activity designs, decrease bias, increase utilization, and enhance the level of rigor used in decision-making for both performance evaluations as well as impact evaluations.

USAID/DRC’s Mission Order on Evaluation, as well as a number of How-To Notes and Technical Notes, include further guidance for staff regarding evaluation triggers, best practices, Statements of Work for Evaluation, and adoption of USAID guidance to the Mission’s context. These tools should be used to plan, manage, and use evaluation throughout the life of the CDCS.

Each technical team is responsible for developing and regularly updating an evaluation plan for all required and optional evaluations of their portfolio. All large projects and innovative/pilot projects are required to undergo an evaluation, while others will be undertaken when a need for data is identified.