J.24 Feed the Future Indicator Handbook.pdf

Feed the Future

Indicator Handbook

Originally published: March 2018 Revised version published: September 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Acronyms & Definitions 3

List of Indicators w/ hyperlinks to page locations 4

Introduction 8

Definition sheets (“Indicator Reference Sheets” or “IRS”) for all Indicators 27

53 Performance Indicators 27

25 Context Indicators 205

Appendix 1: List of Indicators by the FTF Results Framework 256

Appendix 2: List of Changes from the July 2016 version to the March 2018 version of the FTF Handbook

Appendix 3: List of Changes from the original March 2018 version of the FTF Handbook to this revised September 2019 version

ACRONYMS & DEFINITIONS

▪ BFS = Bureau for Food Security

▪ F = Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the Department of State

▪ FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions

▪ FTF = Feed the Future

▪ FTFMS = Feed the Future Monitoring System

▪ GFSS = Global Food Security Strategy

▪ HQ = Headquarters

▪ IM = Implementing Mechanism (equivalent to a project or activity outside of USAID)

▪ IRS = Indicator Reference Sheet (the definition of an indicator)

▪ M&E = Monitoring and Evaluation

▪ MEL = Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning

▪ OP = Operational Plan (annual budget planning document done in

FACTSInfo/NextGen)

▪ OU = Operating Unit (can be a USAID Bilateral Mission, Regional Mission, Headquarters Office, Country post team, regional post team, and/or Washington-based

Feed the Future interagency bureaus and offices)

▪ PIRS = Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

▪ PPR = Performance Plan & Report (annual performance reporting document done in

NextGen)

▪ TA = Technical Advisor

▪ USAID = United States Agency for International Development

▪ ZOI = Zone of Influence (targeted geographic area where we work)

LIST of INDICATORS & LOCATION of DEFINITION SHEETS

Indicator # Indicator TITLE & Link to Definition Sheet Page #

EG-c Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [ZOI-level]

EG-d * Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP [National-level]

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

EG-f * Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [National-level]

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

EG-h Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line [ZOI-level]

EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs [IM-level] 50

EG.3-10, -11, -12 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance [IM-level]

EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system ("Ag GDP+") [National-level] 60

EG.3-f Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index [ZOI-level] 62

EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system [National-level] 65

EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas [ZOI-level] 67

EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level] 72

EG.3.1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition [IM-level]

EG.3.1-c Value of targeted agricultural commodities exported at a national level [National-level] 75

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

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

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

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

EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance [IM-level] 105

EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance [IM-level] 110

EG.3.2-28 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USG assistance [IM-level]

CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [IM-level] 116

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

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

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

EG.4.2-a Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs [ZOI-level]

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

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

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

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

HL.8.2-5 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises [IM-level]

HL.8.2-a Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service [ZOI-level] 144

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

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

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

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

HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG- 160 supported programs [IM-level]

HL.9-a Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [ZOI-level] 162

HL.9-b Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [ZOI-level] 165

HL.9-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [ZOI-level] 168

HL.9-h * Prevalence of stunted (HAZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [National-level] 171

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] 177

HL.9.1-b Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [ZOI-level] 180

HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity [ZOI-level] 183

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

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

RESIL-a Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index [ZOI-level] 192

RESIL-b Index of social capital at the household level [ZOI-level] 196

RESIL-c Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses [ZOI-level]

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

FTF Context-1 Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative Wealth Index [National-level]

FTF Context-2 * Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator #2.3.2) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-3 * Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size (SDG indicator #2.3.1) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-4 * Percentage of 15-29 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) (SDG indicator #8.8.6) - [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-5 Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months) [National-level] 209

FTF Context-6 Depth of Poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line [National-level]

FTF Context-7 U.S. government humanitarian assistance spending in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises [Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National)]

FTF Context-8 Number of people in need of humanitarian food assistance in areas/populations subject 216 to recurrent crises [Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National)]

FTF Context-9 Percent of people who are ‘Near-Poor’, living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line [ZOI-level]

FTF Context-10 Risk to well-being as a percent of GDP [National-level] 223

FTF Context-11 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities [National-level] 225

FTF Context-12 Average Standard Precipitation Index score during the main growing season [ZOI-level] 227

FTF Context-13 Average deviation from 10-year average NDVI during the main growing season [ZOI-level]

FTF Context-14 Total number of heat stress days above 30 °C during the main growing season [ZOI-level]

FTF Context-15 * Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG indicator #2.4.1) [National-level]

[n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-16 Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months) [National-level]

FTF Context-17 Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age [National-level] 237

FTF Context-18 * Prevalence of undernourishment (SDG indicator #2.1.1) [National-level] [n/a]- SDG

FTF Context-19 Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet [National-level] 239

FTF Context-20 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age [National-level]

FTF Context-21 Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity [National-level]

FTF Context-22 Food security and nutrition funding as reported to the OECD DAC [Global-level] 247

FTF Context-23 Share of agriculture in total government expenditure (%) [National-level] 249

FTF Context-24 Proportion of total adult rural population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure [National-level]

FTF Context-25 Percent of women achieving adequacy across the six indicators of the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index [ZOI-level]

* Marks those that are also a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator – see details on SDG linkage below

Introduction The Feed the Future Indicator Handbook presents the set of performance management indicators for phase two of the U.S. Government’s (USG’s) Feed the Future initiative, guided by the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS). The set of indicators described in this Handbook are designed to measure progress against each result in the Feed the Future results framework (Figure 1). This results framework and the indicators identified at each level of this logic model help us monitor the causal flow from outputs to project outcomes to population - or system-level - outcomes to impacts, and supports our ability to assess the plausible contribution of our actions to the achievement of our impact. We will use indicator results, including from custom indicators, and performance narratives collected initiative-wide to monitor progress and system change along the impact pathway reflected in the Feed the Future results framework, to Feed the Future’s ultimate goal of sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition and poverty; and to support adaptive management, decision-making and resource allocation.

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 USG interagency partner that reports performance data for Feed the Future. OUs and their implementing partners (IPs) use the Feed the Future standard indicators, appropriate custom indicators, and performance narratives to manage, adapt and report on performance of individual implementing mechanisms (IMs)1 and to monitor progress towards applicable

1 An IM “is a means of implementing a project to achieve identified results, generally through the use of a legally binding relationship established between an executing agency (generally a U.S. Government agency like USAID or a host government agency) and an implementing entity (contractor, grantee, host government entity, public outcomes and impacts in country- and IM-specific impact pathways and logic models. 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.

At the goal level, we will measure hunger, malnutrition, and poverty among the population in Feed the Future target countries and in the Zone of Influence (ZOI). The ZOI is the targeted sub-national regions/districts where the USG intends to achieve the greatest household- and individual-level impacts on poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. In addition to tracking at the ZOI level, tracking goal level indicators at the national level helps capture our contributions to system-level change and better support partner countries in their attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). At lower levels of the results framework, indicators measure results at the national or ZOI population level, agriculture and food system level, and among project participants. Appendix 1 shows how the indicators are organized under the Feed the Future results framework.

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

Standard performance indicators Standard performance indicators measure results for which OUs are held accountable and against which annual or multi-year targets are set.

All standard performance indicators are required-as-applicable (RAA) to ensure consistency of reporting and meaningful aggregation of results. The impact indicators of the goal and three objectives of the Feed the Future Results Framework are applicable to and thus required for all Feed the Future target country OUs. In addition, all OUs receiving Feed the Future funding are required to report on all indicators at the intermediate result (IR) or cross-cutting intermediate result (CCIR) level to which a Feed the Future-funded project2 contributes results. In other words, if an OU expects a project to generate results that are measured by the indicator, the OU must establish a baseline, set targets, and report results for the indicator. (See Appendix 1 to identify which indicators are associated with the Feed the Future goal, objectives, IRs and CCIRs).

The standard performance indicators fall into three categories, based on the level at which data for the indicator are collected: (1) Implementing Mechanism (IM), (2) Zone of Influence (ZOI), and (3) National. (See Table 1 below.)

international organization, etc.) to carry out programs with U.S. Government funding. Examples of implementing mechanisms include contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, interagency agreements, bilateral project agreements, fixed amount reimbursement and performance agreements and cash transfers to host country governments, public-private partnerships, Development Credit Authority (DCA) agreements, and Development Innovation Venture (DIV) awards.” USAID Automated Directive System Chapter 201, Program Cycle Operational Policy, September 2016, page 142. See https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201, accessed 2/22/18.

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

https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201 https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201

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, as outlined in the forthcoming Feed the Future regional guidance, these IMs should be monitored using primarily custom indicators tailored to each OU’s and IM’s specific theory of change as articulated through a logic model, and therefore a set of standard regional indicators will not be developed at this time. The USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) can assist regional and Washington-based OUs in the development of logic models and identification of indicators as needed. If multiple OUs identify similar custom indicators, these may become standard indicators in future versions of this Handbook.

Implementing Mechanism-level Indicators. These 26 indicators monitor progress and results of specific IMs and represent results among the people and organizations who participate in the project’s interventions. IM-level indicators are collected by IPs and reported annually across all Feed the Future countries regardless of status. OUs should assign them to all IMs that are expected to produce results measured by that indicator. All IM-level indicators should only report results achieved in that reporting year; they are not reported cumulatively.

ZOI-level Indicators. There are 20 indicators that measure conditions among the population in the ZOI, collected in target countries through a population-based survey. These are reported at baseline and through interim surveys every three years thereafter. Ten of these indicators measure impacts (and an outcome in one case) at the goal or strategic objective levels, and thus are required for target countries because country plans require inclusion of all three objectives. The remaining 10 are RAA, required for target countries only if programming is relevant to the indicator. Aligned countries that choose to define a ZOI are encouraged to monitor, set targets, and report on all relevant ZOI-level indicators.

ZOI indicators are also collected in resilience focus areas subject to recurrent humanitarian crisis3, and by USAID’s Office of Food for Peace in development food security activity programming areas4. Both of these geographic areas might overlap in part or in whole with the target or aligned country ZOI, but a disaggregation of these areas is needed for other management purposes.

National Indicators. There are six indicators that represent national-level conditions. Four are applicable to target countries, and two are applicable for all Feed the Future countries. See Table 1. The four that are applicable only to target countries are only reported when data are

3 In 2019, the countries with resilience to recurrent crisis areas will be Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, S. Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

4 In 2018, Food for Peace development programs are implemented in the resilience zones in Ethiopia, Niger, Mali, and Uganda; and in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Haiti, Malawi, Madagascar, Nepal and Zimbabwe.

available from primary or secondary data sources. OUs are not required to directly fund data collection for national-level indicators, however, investment in strengthening national data systems capacity to collect timely and quality data is encouraged to support the country’s capacity to make informed policy, investment, and programmatic decisions.

Three national-level indicators are goal-level indicators of hunger, stunting, and poverty, and are required for all target countries. These three are also Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators, against which countries set targets and monitor progress. Feed the Future is designed to support countries in the achievement of their goals, and our targets for these indicators will be the same as the countries’ SDG targets. Also required for target countries is the value added in the agriculture and food system indicator. The employment indicator, however, is RAA. Both indicators will be computed by the BFS and provided to the target country OUs.

The final national-level indicator – exports of targeted commodities, and one multi-level indicator - milestones in improved institutional architecture, are RAA for all Feed the Future countries, and, if applicable, should be reported by Feed the Future OUs annually.

Linkage to the SDG Indicators. As referenced above, we have included several SDG indicators in the Feed the Future phase two set of indicators. An SDG indicator is defined as Tier one (“Tier I”) if a definition exists and data for the indicator are available. Tier II indicators have been defined, but data for them are not yet widely available. Tier III indicators still need to de defined. All of our goal level SDG indicators are Tier I, while the context SDG indicators are a mix of Tier I and Tier III. The metadata, i.e. PIRS, for Tier I and Tier II SDG indicators are available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/.

Table 1: Feed the Future Performance Indicators by Level: Zone of Influence, National, and Implementing Mechanism (53 total Performance Indicators)

Zone of Influence (20 of 53 indicators)5

● EG-c Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 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-h Depth of Poverty of the Poor: Mean percent shortfall of the poor relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line*

● EG.3-f Abbreviated Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index*

● EG.3-h Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas

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

● EG.4.2-a Percent of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs

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

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

5 ZOI indicators marked with an asterisk (*) are required for Feed the Future target countries; the remaining ZOI indicators are required-as-applicable.

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

● 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-d Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age*

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

● 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 six months of age

● HL.9.1-d Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity

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

● RESIL-b Index of social capital at the household level

● RESIL-c Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses

National (6 of 53 indicators)

● EG-d Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.90/day 2011 PPP

● EG-f Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale

(FIES)

● EG.3-e Percent change in value-added in the agri-food system ("Ag GDP+")

● EG.3-g Employment in the agri-food system

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

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

Multi-level (1 of 53 indicators)

● EG.3.1-d Milestones in improved institutional architecture for food security policy achieved with USG support

Implementing Mechanism (26 of 53 indicators)

● EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs

● EG.3-10,11,12 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance

● EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USG assistance

● EG.3.1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition

● EG.3.2-2 Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting non-nutrition-related food security training

● EG.3.2-7 Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of USG assistance

● EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance

● EG.3.2-25 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance

● EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance

● EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance

● EG.3.2-28 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USG assistance

● CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance t

● EG.3.3-10 Percent of female participants of USG nutrition-sensitive agriculture activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity

● EG.4.2-7 Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs

● EG.10.4-7 Number of adults with legally recognized and documented tenure rights to land or marine areas, as a result of

USG assistance

● EG.10.4-8 Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure with USG assistance

● ES.5-1 Number of USG social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets

● HL.8.2-2 Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance

● HL.8.2-5 Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises

● HL.9-1 Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs

● HL.9-2 Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs

● HL.9-3 Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs

● HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs

● GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources

● RESIL-1 Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans formally proposed, adopted, implemented or institutionalized with USG assistance

● YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15-29)

Standard context indicators Standard context indicators provide information that helps to interpret performance results.

They are only required for target countries, but aligned countries are also encouraged to track the population-level impact and outcome context indicators. Target country OUs are not held accountable for changes in these indicators and no targets are set for context indicators. Data should be reported as they become available from primary or secondary data sources; OUs are not required to collect primary data for context indicators. Context indicators will be used in standard processes like annual portfolio reviews and to interpret changes in the population-based survey data captured at the national or ZOI level.

There are 25 standard context indicators. They are measured at the global (one indicator), national (17 indicators), ZOI (five indicators) and resilience area/national (two indicators) levels. USAID’s Bureau for Food Security will track the global food security and nutrition official development assistance funding and ZOI-level agro-ecological indicators; all target countries should track the national- and remaining ZOI-level context indicators and report on them when data are available from primary or secondary data sources.

Two context indicators - of humanitarian need and assistance - are compiled by BFS and tracked by OUs in selected countries with areas and populations subject to recurrent humanitarian crisis, at the resilience zone level if data are available, otherwise at the national level. See Table 2.

Table 2: Feed the Future Context Indicators by Level: Global, National, Zone of Influence, and Resilience to Recurrent Crisis areas (25 total Context Indicators)

National (17 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-1 Percent of households below the comparative threshold for the poorest quintile of the Asset-Based Comparative Wealth Index

● FTF Context-2 ** Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator #2.3.2)

● FTF Context-3 ** Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size (SDG indicator

#2.3.1)

● FTF Context-4 * Percentage of 15-29 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) (SDG indicator

#8.8.6)

● FTF Context-5 Prevalence of wasted (WHZ < -2) children under five (0-59 months)

● FTF Context-6 Depth of Poverty of the poor: Mean percent shortfall relative to the $1.90/day 2011 PPP poverty line

● FTF Context-10 Risk to well-being as a percent of GDP

● FTF Context-11 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities

● FTF Context-15 ** Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG indicator #2.4.1)

● FTF Context-16 Prevalence of healthy weight (WHZ ≤ 2 and ≥-2) among children under five (0-59 months)

● FTF Context-17 Prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5) women of reproductive age

● FTF Context-18 * Prevalence of undernourishment (SDG indicator #2.1.1)

● FTF Context-19 Percent of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet

● FTF Context-20 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age

● FTF Context-21 Percent of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity

● FTF Context-23 Share of agriculture in total government expenditure (%)

● FTF Context-24 Proportion of total adult rural population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure

Zone of Influence (5 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-9 Percent of people who are ‘Near- Poor’, living on 100 percent to less than 125 percent of the $1.90 2011 PPP poverty line

● FTF Context-12 Average Standard Precipitation Index score during the main growing season

● FTF Context-13 Average deviation from 10-year average NDVI during the main growing season

● FTF Context-14 Total number of heat stress days above 30 °C during the main growing season

● FTF Context-25 Percent of women achieving adequacy across the six indicators of the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

Recurrent crisis areas (if data not available, National) (2 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-7 U.S. government humanitarian assistance spending in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises

● FTF Context-8 Number of people in need of humanitarian food assistance in areas/populations subject to recurrent crises

Global (1 of 25 indicators)

● FTF Context-22

Food security and nutrition funding as reported to the

OECD DAC

* Indicates an SDG indicator in TIER I status, i.e. a definition exists and data for the indicator are available.

** Indicates an SDG indicator in TIER II status, i.e. a definition exists but data are not regularly produced by countries.

Custom Indicators Feed the Future’s standard performance 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 performance indicators will be sufficient to monitor progress along that logic model, and to support learning and adaptation at an OU or 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 should also consider using ZOI-level indicators or proxies for those indicators as custom indicators to monitor key outcomes and impacts 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 IMs that are aiming to reduce poverty among participants. This can strengthen the plausible association between results among participants and changes measured at the ZOI level. Finally, OUs and IPs could use archived indicators from Feed the Future phase one; these indicators are listed in Appendix 2 for reference, and their definitions can be found in the old publication of the July 2016 version of the Handbook (https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions). The forthcoming guidance on monitoring for inclusive market system development will also contain a list of suggested custom indicators for market system facilitation activities.

https://www.agrilinks.org/library/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions https://www.agrilinks.org/library/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions

Data sources for ZOI indicators The preferred source of data for the ZOI population-based indicators is primary data collected via a representative population-based survey conducted in the ZOI6 using the Feed the Future ZOI Survey Guidance and Survey Methods Toolkit,7 hence collecting data for all applicable ZOI indicators in a single survey instrument.

Implementing Mechanism indicators (IM)

IM indicator universe is project participants 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.8 9 An individual or entity is a participant if she/he/it comes 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, she/he/it 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 who are not producers (e.g. other types of customers of assisted market actors that do not buy from or sell directly to producers). We direct IPs to take this approach in order to reduce their reporting burden in the already-

6 USAID's Office of Food for Peace development food security activity programming areas may or may not overlap in part or in whole with the target or aligned country ZOI.

7 See https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods.

8 The definition of the universe covered by IM-level indicators has not fundamentally changed from Feed the Future phase one. We changed from using the term project “direct beneficiaries” to using the term project “participants” to describe the universe captured by 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.

9 The exception are IM indicators that count results directly achieved by the project, e.g. EG.3.1-1 Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USG assistance, rather than results achieved with project participants.

https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-zoi-survey-methods 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, IM indicators only measure results for the participants in the household, not all of the 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.

Participants who train other participants Individuals who are trained by an IM as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy (e.g., cascade training) should be counted as participants of the activity—the capacity strengthening is key for sustainability and an important outcome in its own right. As these participants then go on to deliver services directly to individuals, or to train others to deliver services, the individuals who receive the services or training delivered by the original participants should also be considered participants (with the exception of the non-producer customers or suppliers in the market system strengthening project context mentioned above).

Counting individuals who participate in more than one Feed the Future project Individuals can benefit from more than one intervention under a Feed the Future project. For example, a producer who is purchasing inputs from an assisted firm may also be participating in community-level nutrition interventions implemented by an integrated agriculture-nutrition project. We expect IPs to track or estimate the number of individual participants across different interventions within their own project and to report numbers of participants under relevant indicators, not number of contacts with the project. Where multiple Feed the Future projects are reaching and reporting on the same population, OUs reporting aggregated OU-level results should track and/or estimate the extent of double-counting, and adjust the OU total prior to reporting.

We do not at this time have any recommended tools or approaches to eliminate double-counting of participants, other than that described in the HL.9-1 children under five reached by nutrition-specific interventions indicator PIRS. However, where an OU has activities that are targeting the same population, we would expect that they are co-locating and coordinating across work plans, and that there should be a good sense on the ground of the extent of overlap of participants, in part because it should be deliberate and planned for in the logic model.

Where IMs from more than one OU are targeting the same population, e.g. where a bilateral OU is funding a centrally-managed project to work with bilateral OU’s project, the bilateral OU could coordinate with the central OU and agree that the bilateral project will be responsible for collecting data and reporting on all of the farm-level indicators or disaggregates, and that the centrally-managed IM will restrict its reporting only on outputs and outcomes among actors with whom they work directly.

Indirect beneficiaries Spontaneous spillover of improved practices to neighbors does not count as a deliberate service delivery strategy; neighbors who apply new practices based on observation and/or interactions with participants who have not been trained to extend knowledge to others as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy are not considered participants and should not be included under IM-level indicators. This is because IM-level indicators do not measure results among the indirect beneficiaries of our activities. An indirect beneficiary is someone who does not have direct contact or interaction with the project or the actors whom the project is supporting, but still benefits. This includes the population that uses a new road constructed by the project, neighbors who see the results of the improved technologies applied by direct participants and decide to apply the technology themselves, or individuals who are only lightly touched by a project intervention, such as someone who hears a project-supported radio message but receives no training or counseling nor has any further interaction with the project or project-supported actors.

Accurate tracking of indirect beneficiaries is challenging by nature, despite the fact that spillover is a core component of the Feed the Future theory of change. In general, spillover is captured in Feed the Future through measuring changes in ZOI population-level indicators (e.g. Percent of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies) and through performance and impact evaluations. We also encourage the use of custom indicators to track changes specific to the project’s theory of change that go beyond direct participants. This may include using innovative primary or secondary data sources or methods.

Measuring results of market system strengthening projects Feed the Future, guided by the GFSS, places strong emphasis on inclusive and sustainable market system development to achieve its goal of sustainably reducing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Inclusive and sustainable market system development approaches work to improve three key components: a core market, supporting functions, and the formal and informal rules governing interactions. These facilitative approaches aim to address the underlying causes of poor performance in specific markets that matter to people living in poverty in order to create lasting changes that have a large-scale impact.

Inclusive and sustainable market system development presents challenges in monitoring for scale and breadth of impact. Oftentimes the producer we are aiming to assist (e.g. a smallholder farmer) is not the actor with whom we work directly (e.g. a manufacturer), although both are considered project participants. Rules of the market system are governed by the relationships and incentives of market players, and are dynamic, complex, and hard to quantify. Feed the Future indicators described in this handbook capture some of the outcomes of market system development. However, understanding the process of systemic change (the “how” to the “what”) is also critical to our learning and will require use of custom indicators.

As a result, Feed the Future is promoting a multi-pronged approach to monitor market systems change that provides the space and tools necessary to measure progress.

● We promote mixed methods monitoring to measure market system changes to accommodate the size, complexity, and context of the market system. To better understand the depth and scale of impact due to facilitated interventions in the market systems, programs are encouraged to look at qualitative methods, such as system mapping, outcome harvesting, and most significant change stories.

● The new set of indicators better reflects the results of some aspects of market systems development work. This includes a heavier focus on national-level indicators as well as other indicators that can help show the impact of some of the facets of a stronger market system.

● Adding custom indicators and indicator disaggregates will be necessary to track the specific results sought in a project’s theory of change. This is especially important since all projects should be designed to strengthen markets, and the set of standard indicators presented in this Handbook only capture a portion of the changes seen in a market system. BFS and the interagency are working on developing essential guidance and examples that will assist missions to measure market systems changes. This guidance will be made available later in the year.

Collecting indicator data on producer participants of market system strengthening projects Monitoring results for producer participants reached through market-strengthening projects can be particularly challenging. This is because IPs typically use a facilitative approach, where products and services are delivered to producers by assisted private sector firms. The firms are the logical source of information about the producers to whom they sell and from whom they purchase, but they may not have comprehensive customer or supplier lists or may not want to share the information. Building a loyal customer and supplier base, which is a profitability strategy promoted by many value chain activities, is greatly facilitated if a list of customers and suppliers is available. So helping assisted firms to set up and maintain such lists has both programmatic and M&E benefits and is encouraged. Data provision by assisted firms can be facilitated by entering into written agreements that include reporting and non-disclosure requirements10 and by helping assisted firms understand the business case for collecting the information.

10 Nondisclosure agreements must allow access to the data for USG-funded performance and impact evaluations.

Measuring results among producer participants should be more straightforward if the market-strengthening project is also facilitating extension strategies, e.g. assisting agro-dealer agents, who need to know where their customers live and farm. Extension and other customer outreach approaches are important to reinforce advice provided by the agro-dealer to her/his customers, or to provide the repeated contacts with smallholder producers needed for them to successfully apply the improved technologies and management practices promoted by the activity.

If collecting the data from assisted firms required for some indicators is not possible, IPs should consider the concept of a "market shed"11 or "catchment area" to identify the geographic area that defines the population to be reached by the market being strengthened, and then conduct a survey among that population of producers who are participating in the market, and thus would be considered project participants. For example, a project is encouraging agro-dealers to use community agents to bring fertilizers closer to the target population and thus expanding the market shed of these fertilizer suppliers. The project could define the geographic area as the expanded market to be reached over time, and use surveys to collect baseline and annual data for applicable producer-level indicators from the population in that geographic area.

Indicator Disaggregates Reporting of disaggregates is required for all indicators. Targets should be set for IM-level indicators at the overall indicator and the disaggregate level. Targets are not required for the ZOI-level indicator disaggregates; they are only required at the overall indicator level.

Geospatial data Geospatial data that identify the location of our activities are extremely useful for performance analysis, particularly for examining where results are or are not achieved, whether environmental or climatic factors are affecting performance, and how activity results compare to impact-level results in the ZOI. Use of custom location disaggregates allow OUs and IPs to understand the spatial distribution of indicator results. In addition, IPs are required to track and enter geocodes or geospatial coordinates for their activities in the Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS), as appropriate within security considerations. The location data component of FTFMS has greatly improved from previous years, in that it now allows for entry of location data down to the more-granular Admin 5 level, as well as lat/long coordinates, the ability to “bulk upload” several location data points at once through use of a standard template, and the ability to export all location data in machine-readable form for ease of pulling into a mapping platform, such as ArcGIS Online (“AGOL”), etc. Trainings on data entry and use of these new location features will be provided, including a “How to” video on the FTFMS Resources website (https://agrilnks.org/ftfms.

11 See, for example,…