PRM Performance Indicator Reference Definition Sheets (PIRS) FY 23- Draft 4 508 Compliance - Accessible 09-05-2023.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE / BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, & MIGRATION

Table of Contents

PRM NGO Performance Indicator Reference & Definition Sheets (PIRS) – FY 2023

Mandatory Indicators for All Programs Regardless of Sector

PRM-1. Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding

PRM-2. Amount of PRM humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD)

PRM-3. Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner

Capacity Strengthening

PRM-CS3. Number of government staff trained through PRM funding (Output)

PRM-CS4. Number of NGO/CBO staff trained through PRM funding

Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)

PRM-CV1. Number of individuals receiving Cash and Voucher Assistance through PRM funding

PRM-CV2. Total USD value of Cash and Voucher Assistance transferred to PRM program participants

Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities

PRM-D1. Number of individuals with disabilities reached through PRM funding

Education

PRM-E1. Number of individuals reached with education programming through PRM funding

PRM-E3. Percentage of school-age children enrolled in formal or informal education

Food Security

PRM-F1. Number of individuals participating in food security activities through PRM funding

PRM NGO Performance Indicator Reference & Definition Sheets (PIRS) – FY 2023

U.S. DEPARTMENT of STATE

Health

PRM-H1. Number of health care centers supported with supplies, equipment, and/or training assistance through PRM funding

PRM-H2. Number of total health consultations conducted with PRM funding

PRM-H9. Percentage of individuals with access to health services

Health: Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH)

PRM-SRH1. Number of individuals receiving sexual and reproductive health services through PRM funding

Livelihoods and Economic Empowerment

PRM-L1. Number of individuals participating in livelihood and economic empowerment activities through PRM funding

PRM-L3. Percentage of individuals (working age) who are unemployed

Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS)

PRM-M1. Number of individuals (community-level) receiving MHPSS services through PRM funding

PRM-M3. Number of individuals trained in MHPSS through PRM funding

Nutrition

PRM-N1. Number of individuals through PRM funding participating in nutrition activities 52

PRM-N4. Percentage of children 6-59 months of age with acute malnutrition (MAM or

SAM)

Protection

PRM-P1. Number of individuals participating in general protection activities (training on protection concepts, advocacy, monitoring) through PRM funding

PRM-P5. Percentage of individuals who report an improved sense of safety and well-being at the end of the program

Protection: Legal

PRM-PL1. Number of individuals receiving legal assistance through PRM funding

Protection: Socio-Cultural Inclusion and Social Cohesion

PRM-SC1. Number of individuals reached with socio-cultural and social cohesion activities through PRM funding

Protection: Child Protection

PRM-CP1. Number of children under 18 reached with child protection services through PRM funding

PRM-CP2. Number of adults reached with child protection activities through PRM funding

Protection: Gender-Based Violence (GBV)

PRM-GBV1. Number of individuals reached with gender-based violence prevention and training activities through PRM funding

PRM-GBV2. Number of gender-based violence survivors receiving services through PRM funding

Core Relief / Non-Food Items (NFIs)

PRM-NFI1. Number of individuals receiving core relief/non-food items (NFIs) through PRM funding

PRM-NFI5. Percentage of households that report having minimum household items that allow all the following: comfortable sleeping, water and food storage, food preparation, cooking, eating, lighting, and clothing

Shelter

PRM-S1. Number of individuals who received shelter assistance through PRM funding

PRM-S4. Percentage of households that report living in a shelter that has all the following:

adequate space, feels safe, feels private and protected from the weather

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)

PRM-W1. Number of individuals reached with WASH activities through PRM funding

PRM-W4. Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service (latrine/toilet)

PRM-W10. Percentage of households using basic drinking water services

Mandatory Indicators for All Programs Regardless of Sector

PRM-1. Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding.

Indicator Definition: This indicator captures the total unique number of individual people

(without double counting) who participate in PRM-funded activities. Implementing partners should track the number of individual participants across different interventions within their own program without counting individuals more than once if they receive multiple interventions.

“Individuals”: People who participate in or benefit from the program activities. This includes

PRM’s populations of concern (refugees, asylees, IDPs, stateless people, returnees, other vulnerable migrants, and non-migrants including host community members and conflict victims). It also includes other types of stakeholders who might be targeted by interventions, such as local/national government staff, health clinic staff, community volunteers, or NGO or IO staff that receive trainings or other capacity building as part of program activities. However, the implementing partner’s own paid staff and sub-contractors should NOT count towards this figure.

“Directly reached”: An individual is counted if they come into direct contact with the activity’s intervention. The intervention needs to be significant, meaning one can reasonably expect – and hold the implementing partner responsible for – achieving progress toward changes in behaviors or other outcomes for these individuals based on the level of services and/or commodities provided or accessed. In most cases partners should NOT count the following types of interventions towards this indicator: attendance at one-time mass events (community theatre performances, mass messaging campaigns), estimated reach of radio programs, participation in meetings that don't have a training/capacity-building objective, anonymous website use, or resource downloads.

If an individual directly benefits from an intervention, their household members may also be counted ONLY IF the intervention is specifically designed for the household unit. Examples of interventions that are usually designed for household—wide use include household latrine construction, shelter construction, family-size food rations, etc. Examples of interventions that would generally count only for the individual include trainings, cash-for-work, counseling, etc.

Note on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities: Any activities that specifically target persons with disabilities must include indicator PRM-D1. Number of individuals with disabilities reached through PRM funding (Output).

Health services and WASH infrastructure present unique challenges for this indicator. In the case of health activities, service usage is often anonymous so the total number of consultations or facility users during the reporting period can be used as a proxy for number of individuals reached (even though there will be some inherent double counting). In general, partners should not use the entire health facility catchment population for this indicator.

For WASH infrastructure interventions, determining the number of users reached can be challenging in the field. Beyond documentation of the infrastructure improvements, any of the following methods is acceptable to account for the number of individuals reached:

• Household surveys asking whether the household uses the new/improved WASH infrastructure and environmental interventions, and extrapolating the results to calculate total number of users across the target population;

• Direct observation of WASH infrastructure use over the course of one or several days, and extrapolating the results across the reporting period;

• For facility-level WASH infrastructure (e.g. latrines, water points, handwashing stations, waste management, fecal sludge management, environmental health infrastructure

(drainage/vector control) in schools/hospitals/other institutional buildings such as community and collective centers), the total number of facility users during the reporting period may be used as a proxy.

In general, the community population as a whole (such as from official camp/shelter population data, where available and reliable) should not be used as a proxy for WASH users reached unless 1) the PRM-funded infrastructure is the only working/available infrastructure in that community; and 2) the infrastructure can reasonable accommodate all of the users in the community (i.e., a water source must produce enough output according to SPHERE standards to reach all counted community members).

Table PRM-1: Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding.

Type Output

Sector N/A

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement Required for all PRM Programs

Unit of Measure Number

Calculation This is a count of the total number of unique individual people participating in the PRM programs.

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The annual and end-of-program cumulative values should be unique, meaning each individual reached should be counted only once even if participating in multiple program activities over multiple years

Direction of Changes +

Dissagregation PoC (refugees/asylees, IDPs, stateless, returnees, other vulnerable migrants, other conflict-affected, host-community members); Non-PoC (government staff, NGO staff, health professionals, etc.)

Sex (male, female, and other/non-binary if applicable)

Age (0-4.9, 5-17.9, 18-49.9, 50+)

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring. The data sources generally include program activity records such as registration forms, attendance sheets, distribution records, cash transfer records, etc.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set at zero

PRM-2. Amount of PRM humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD)

Indicator Definition: In line with Grand Bargain commitments, this indicator intends to measure the amount of PRM funding that is received and controlled by local and national non-state actors. The amount should reflect the total (in U.S. Dollars) of any sub-programs, grants, or contracts for program implementation with local, national, or refugee-led organizations. It does not include expenditures on transactional procurements from local businesses for supplies, event space, equipment, or other goods in-kind.

The IASC provides a working definition of “local” and “national” organizations as follows:

Local and national non-state actors are “Organizations engaged in relief that are headquartered and operating in their own aid recipient country and which are not affiliated to an international

NGO”. Local and national non-state actors include:

• National NGOs/civil society organizations (CSOs): National NGOs/CSOs operating in the aid recipient country in which they are headquartered, working in multiple subnational regions, and not affiliated to an international NGO. This category can also include national faith-based organizations.

• Local NGOs/CSOs: Local NGOs/CSOs operating in a specific, geographically defined, subnational area of an aid recipient country, without affiliation to an international

NGO/CSO. This category can also include community-based organizations and local faith-based organizations.

• Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies: National Societies that are based in and operating within their own aid recipient countries.

• Local and national private sector organizations: Organizations run by private individuals or groups as a means of enterprise for profit, that are based in and operating within their own aid recipient countries and not affiliated to an international private sector organization.

PRM also includes refugee-led organizations in this indicator. UNHCR defines refugee-led organizations as “An organization or group in which persons with direct lived experience of forced displacement play a primary leadership role and whose stated objectives and activities are focused on responding to the needs of refugees and/or related communities.”

Table PRM-2: Amount of PRM humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD).

Type Output

Sector N/A

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirment Required for all PRM programs

Unit of Measure U.S. Dollars

Calculation If the prime applicant is a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should put the full proposal budget total as the target value; for achieved value, they should put the final budget spent for the program.

If the prime applicant is not a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should sum the total of all funds provided to local actors through sub-programs, grants, or contracts (per the definitions above).

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (overlife of program)

The cumulative total should be the sum across all reporting periods.

Direction of Change: N/A

Disaggregation Partner, country, and when possible by refugee-led, IDP-led, stateless-led

Data Collection Method & Source

Budget and payment records

Minimum Frequency of reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set as zero

Additional Information If the prime applicant is a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should put the full proposal budget total as the target value. If applicant is not a local organization and does not plan to share or distribute funds with any local organization, they should put a target of zero. Applicants may not omit this indicator from the indicator table.

PRM-3. Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner

Indicator Definition: The purpose of this indicator is to operationalize four elements of protection mainstreaming and Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP). The goal is to provide ongoing data that is used to determine how well partners are meeting PRM's AAP policy objectives, identify protection issues, and quickly adjust programming, if needed. This indicator is used across humanitarian donors including DG ECHO, USAID BHA, and several UN agencies.

“Safe”: Assistance prevents and minimizes as much as possible any unintended negative effects of the intervention which can increase people’s vulnerability to both physical and psychosocial risks.

“Accessible”: Aid agencies arrange for people’s access to assistance and services–in proportion to need and without any barriers (e.g. discrimination); and pay special attention to individual beneficiaries and groups who may be particularly vulnerable or have difficulty accessing assistance and services.

“Accountable”: Aid agencies use power responsibly through an active commitment to include the people affected by humanitarian crises in decision-making. Agencies establish appropriate mechanisms through which affected populations can measure the adequacy of interventions and address concerns and complaints.

“Participatory”: Beneficiaries and affected populations have been involved in the different stages of the activity, including needs assessment, activity design, response, and monitoring;

specific mechanisms are in place to enable beneficiaries and affected populations to provide feedback and complaints. Assistance supports the development of self-protection capacities and assists people to claim their rights.

The indicator is measured using the following eight questions. The recommended response categories include “Yes, completely or mostly”, “Not really or at all”, or “Don’t know.”

• SDH. 1. Did you feel safe at all times travelling to receive the assistance/service (to/from your place), while receiving the assistance/service, and upon return to your place?

• SDH. 2. Did you feel that the implementing partner staff treated you with respect during the intervention?

• MEA. 1. Are you satisfied with the assistance/service provided?

• MEA. 2. Do you know of people needing assistance/services who were excluded from the assistance/service provided?

• ACC. 1. If you had a suggestion for, or a problem with the assistance/service, do you think you could channel the suggestion or lodge a complaint?

• ACC. 2. To your knowledge, have suggestions or complaints raised been responded to or followed up?

• PEM. 1. Were your views taken into account by the organization about the assistance you received?

• PEM. 2. Did you feel well informed about the assistance/service available?

SCORING: A response of “yes, completely or mostly” gets a score of 1 for all questions except

MEA.2 (exclusion), for which a response of “Not really or at all” gets a score of 1. All other responses are scored as 0. If a respondent has a score of 8 / 8, that means they felt the assistance was safe, accessible, accountable, AND participatory.

There are also standard follow-up probes for each question, but these are not scored (see resource links below).

Note: The indicator and associated definitions are adapted from the DG ECHO Protection

Mainstreaming Indicator technical guidance, with slight additions from the Core Humanitarian

Standard and the Global Protection Cluster Protection Mainstreaming Toolkit.

Survey questions: Use the eight mandatory questions as identified on p. 5 of the DG ECHO

Protection Mainstreaming Indicator technical guidance. The DG ECHO toolkit can help with collecting the responses and calculating the indicator.

https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/ https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/ https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/ http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/gpc-pm_toolkit-2017.en.pdf http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/aors/protection_mainstreaming/gpc-pm_toolkit-2017.en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/document/download/de35034f-1663-407e-96cb-c9b1202cfbb2_en

Table PRM-3: Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner.

Type Outcome

Sector N/A

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement

Required for all PRM programs

Unit of Measure Percentage

Calculation See “scoring” in the definition above. Each of the eight questions allows for one single answer. To calculate the final indicator, follow the steps below:

1. Convert each response into a score of 1 or 0. A response of

“yes, completely or mostly” gets a score of 1 for all questions except MEA.2 (exclusion), for which a response of “Not really or at all” gets a score of 1.

2. Create a new variable in the dataset that sums the score across each of the 8 questions.

3. Calculate the percentage of all respondents who scored 8 out of

8 across all the questions.

Numerator: The total number of respondents whose total score was 8.

Denominator: The total number of respondents in the dataset.

Calculation instructions adapted and somewhat simplified from the guidance and toolkit

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The cumulative value at the end of the program should be the most recent survey value collected. For example, if a multi-year program measured this indicator every year using an annual survey, the final cumulative value at the end of the program would be the value from https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg_echo_protection_mainstreaming_indicator_-_technical_guidance.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/echo/document/download/de35034f-1663-407e-96cb-c9b1202cfbb2_en the final annual survey. Do not average or otherwise try to combine values across reporting periods.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation No disaggregation is required by PRM for reporting purposes.

However, PRM encourages partners to consider analyzing the data by sex, age, disability status, and other characteristics to determine whether certain groups have more difficulty accessing and participating in assistance than others. This information can be used to adjust programming.

Data Collection Method & Source

Participant-based survey (PDM, baseline/endline), exit interviews, etc.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Recommended collection and reporting is at least bi-annual

Baseline Value Information

Not applicable (N/A). This indicator will not have a baseline value in most cases, since assistance has not started yet and therefore beneficiaries cannot have an opinion on the quality of assistance.

Additional Information

See additional DG ECHO resources linked above. This definition is mostly aligned with USAID BHA indicator “M03: Percent of beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner”.

Capacity Strengthening

PRM-CS3. Number of government staff trained through PRM funding (Output)

Indicator Definition: This indicator counts the number of individual government staff who have completed training as a result of PRM funding. Training references an activity designed for the purpose of strengthening knowledge, institutional capacity, skills, relationships, and resources to help national or local governments achieve agreed goals. This indicator captures training as well as other approaches to local capacity strengthening (see below).

Training under this indicator includes new training or re-training, and the training must be conducted according to national or international standards, when these exist. Trainings must have specific learning objectives, a course outline or curriculum, and expected knowledge, skills and/or competencies to be gained by participants. Only participants who complete a full training course should be counted.

In alignment with the IASC Guidance Note on Capacity Strengthening for Localization, applicants are encouraged to explore innovative and non-traditional capacity strengthening methodologies, such as shadowing and mentoring initiatives that allow a more organic process of peer-to-peer learning, and secondments, that could allow more two-way learning.

Government officials involved in these forms of capacity strengthening methodologies should be counted in this indicator.

PRM acknowledges various capacity strengthening methods may be necessary to help local actors reach their performance goals and contribute to positive change in their communities and societies. Therefore, approaches should be fit-for-purpose and co-created with local actors, taking into account the aspirations, goals, and needs of each local actor and the rules and resources of the local system. Methods could include accompanying local actors to learn by doing through participatory methods, creating peer-to-peer learning opportunities, and facilitating relationship brokering and network strengthening.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0

How to count the number of individual government staff trained:

● If a training course covers more than one topic, individual government staff should only be counted once for that training course.

● If a training course is conducted in more than one session/training event, only individual government staff who complete the full course should be counted; do not sum the participants for each training event.

● If individual government staff are re-trained within the reporting period, having received training prior to the activity or reporting period, they should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

● If individual government staff receive multiple, different trainings in the reporting period, they should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

If individual government staff participate in innovative and non-traditional capacity strengthening methodologies, such as shadowing and mentoring initiatives that allow a more organic process of peer-to-peer learning, and secondments should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

Table PRM-CS3: Number of government staff trained through PRM funding (Output)

Type Output

Sector Capacity Strengthening

Sub-Sector Local Governments

Level of Requirement

Required (if proposing activities under the Local Governments sub-sector)

Unit of Measure

Number of individual government staff members

Calculation This is a count of individual government staff trained as a result of PRM funding.

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The annual and end-of-program cumulative values should be unique, meaning each individual government staff member reached over the life of the program should be counted only once even if participating in multiple program activities over multiple years.

LOA values are the reported values at the end of the award counting only the unique number of government staff, without double counting, who completed training.

Direction of Change

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring; attendance/registration records

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set at zero

Additional Information

This indicator is adapted from USAID D06, which was adapted from HA.2.1-

1. It was informed by the IASC Guidance Note on Capacity Strengthening for Localization and the USAID Local Capacity Strengthening Policy.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/LCS-Policy-2022-10-17.pdf

PRM-CS4. Number of NGO/CBO staff trained through PRM funding

Indicator Definition: This indicator counts the number of individual NGO/CBO staff trained as a result of PRM funding. Training references an activity designed for the purpose of strengthening knowledge, institutional capacity, skills, relationships, and resources to help non-governmental or civil society organizations achieve the organization’s goals. This indicator captures training as well as other approaches to local capacity strengthening (see below).

In alignment with the IASC Guidance Note on Capacity Strengthening for Localization, applicants are encouraged to explore innovative and non-traditional capacity strengthening methodologies, such as shadowing and mentoring initiatives that allow a more organic process of peer-to-peer learning, and secondments, that could allow more two-way learning.

Government officials involved in these forms of capacity strengthening methodologies should be counted in this indicator. applicants are encouraged to explore innovative and non-traditional capacity strengthening methodologies, such as shadowing and mentoring initiatives that allow a more organic process of peer-to-peer learning, and secondments, that could allow more two-way learning. Government officials involved in these forms of capacity strengthening methodologies should be counted in this indicator.

PRM acknowledges various capacity strengthening methods may be necessary to help local actors reach their performance goals and contribute to positive change in their communities and societies. Therefore, approaches should be fit-for-purpose and co-created with local actors, taking into account the aspirations, goals, and needs of each local actor and the rules and resources of the local system. Methods could include accompanying local actors to learn by doing through participatory methods, creating peer-to-peer learning opportunities, and facilitating relationship brokering and network strengthening. \

Training under this indicator includes new training or re-training, and the training must be conducted according to national or international standards, when these exist. Trainings must have specific learning objectives, a course outline or curriculum, and expected knowledge, skills and/or competencies to be gained by participants. Only participants who complete a full training course should be counted.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0

How to count the number of individual NGO/CBO staff trained:

● If a training course covers more than one topic, individual NGO/CBO staff should only be counted once for that training course.

● If a training course is conducted in more than one session/training event, only individual

NGO/CBO staff who complete the full course should be counted; do not sum the participants for each training event.

● If individual NGO/CBO staff are re-trained within the reporting period, having received training prior to the activity or reporting period, they should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

● If individual NGO/CBO staff receive multiple, different trainings in the reporting period, they should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

If individual NGO/CBO staff participate in innovative and non-traditional capacity strengthening methodologies, such as shadowing and mentoring initiatives that allow a more organic process of peer-to-peer learning, and secondments, should be included in the count once in the reporting period.

Table PRM-CS4: Number of NGO/CBO staff trained through PRM funding.

Type Output

Sector Capacity Strengthing

Sub-Sector Non-Governmental Organziations / Community-Based Organizations (NGO/CBO)

Level of Requirement Required (if proposing activites under the NGO/CBO sub-sector)

Unit of Measure Number of individual NGO/CBO staff members

Calculation This is a count of individual NGO/CBO staff trained as a result of PRM funding.

How to Count Cumulative

The annual and end-of-program cumulative values should be unique, meaning each individual NGO/CBO staff member reached

Achievement (over life of program) over the life of the program should be counted only once even if participating in multiple program activities over multiple years.

LOA values are the reported values at the end of the award counting only the unique number of government staff, without double counting, who completed training.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation International NGO staff, Local NGO or CBO staff, Other, Male, Female

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring; attendance/registration records

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set at zero

Additional Information This indicator is adapted from USAID D06, which was adapted from HA.2.1-1. It was informed by the IASC Guidance Note on Capacity Strengthening for Localization and the USAID Local Capacity Strengthening Policy.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finteragencystandingcommittee.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FGuidance%2520note%2520on%2520capacity%2520strengthening%2520May%25202020.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CKeeneLE%40state.gov%7Caea36869100d499d854008dac3f62934%7C66cf50745afe48d1a691a12b2121f44b%7C0%7C0%7C638037759271009046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GaFaduMysFzcXNJXyueZTjbVYrSng1VYGZuucMhIRPY%3D&reserved=0

Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)

PRM-CV1. Number of individuals receiving Cash and Voucher Assistance through

PRM funding

Indicator Definition: This indicator counts all individuals who receive cash and/or voucher assistance on a PRM program. If the cash or voucher is explicitly intended to meet the needs of a whole household (ex. for household food needs, household shelter), all members of the household may be counted towards this indicator. However, if the cash or voucher is designed for individual or organizational needs (ex. school fees, GBV response, cash-for-work, business grants) only the individual recipient should be counted.

“Cash” includes any sort of money, regardless of transfer mechanism, such as physical currency, checks/money orders, or electronic transfers such as direct deposits, ATM cards, or mobile money.

A “voucher” is a paper, token, or electronic instrument that can be exchanged for a set quantity or value of commodities at participating vendors. This includes value vouchers as well as commodity vouchers:

● Value vouchers have a designated monetary value that can be exchanged for an array of commodities or services up to that amount.

Commodity vouchers are valid for a fixed quantity and quality of specific commodities or services at pre-negotiated prices.

Table PRM-CV1: Number of individuals receiving Cash and Voucher Assistance through PRM funding.

Type Output

Sector Cash and Voucher Assistance

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement

Required (if proposing activities under this sector, or any activities using cash or voucher modalities)

Unit of Measure Number

Calculation This is a count of individual beneficiaries

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The cumulative value at the end of the program should count only the unique number of individuals who receive cash and voucher assistance, without double counting. Each individual should be counted only once even if they receive multiple payments over multiple reporting periods.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation Cash, Voucher

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring, using program records such as registration lists, service provider transfer records, post-distribution monitoring, etc.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set at zero

Additional Information

This is a Grand Bargain indicator required for PRM to report on.

Definition is aligned with USAID/BHA’s similar keyword indicators:

K01: Total USD value of cash transferred to beneficiaries and K02:

Total USD value of vouchers redeemed by beneficiaries

PRM-CV2. Total USD value of Cash and Voucher Assistance transferred to PRM program participants

Indicator Definition: “Cash” includes any sort of money, regardless of transfer mechanism, such as physical currency, checks/money orders, or electronic transfers such as direct deposits, ATM cards, or mobile money.

A “voucher” is a paper, token, or electronic instrument that can be exchanged for a set quantity or value of commodities at participating vendors. This includes value vouchers as well as commodity vouchers:

● Value vouchers have a designated monetary value that can be exchanged for an array of commodities or services up to that amount.

● Commodity vouchers are valid for a fixed quantity and quality of specific commodities or services at pre-negotiated prices.

“USD” value refers to the United States dollar (USD), which must be converted using the exchange rate at the time of the transfer (do not use purchasing power parity prices).

“Total” refers to the sum of the total value of each transfer.

This indicator should only reflect the amount going directly to program participants. Do not include transfer fees, service charges, or other organizational or service provider costs.

Table PRM-CV2: Total USD value of Cash and Voucher Assistance transferred to PRM program participants.

Type Output

Sector Cash and Voucher Assistance

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement

Required (if proposing activites under this sector)

Unit of Measure

Number (amount in U.S. Dollars)

Calculation This is the sum of values for all cash transfers and vouchers during the reporting period.

How to Count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The cumulative value is the total sum of all cash transfers across the reporting periods.

Direction of Change

Disaggregation Cash, Voucher

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring, using activity records, ledgers, electronic records, cell phone records, electronic service providers, vendor records, post distribution monitoring, etc.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set at zero

Additional Information

Definition is aligned with USAID/BHA’s similar keyword indicators: K01:

Total USD value of cash transferred to beneficiaries and K02: Total USD value of vouchers redeemed by beneficiaries.

This is a Grand Bargain indicator required for PRM to report on.

Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities

PRM-D1. Number of individuals with disabilities reached through PRM funding

Indicator Definition: This indicator captures the total unique number of individual persons with disabilities who participate in PRM-funded activities (without double counting). Any activities that specifically target participation by persons with disabilities must include this indicator.

“Individuals”: People who participate in or benefit from the program activities. This includes

PRM’s populations of concern (refugees, asylees, IDPs, stateless people, returnees, other vulnerable migrants, and non-migrants including host community members and conflict victims). It also includes other types of stakeholders who might be targeted by interventions, such as local/national government staff, health clinic staff, or NGO or IO staff that receive trainings or other capacity building as part of program activities. However, the implementing partner’s own paid staff and sub-contractors should NOT count towards this figure.

“with disabilities”: Partners are required to use the “Washington Group on Disability Statistics” questionnaire to identify persons with disabilities within their programs whenever possible. All question sets, translations, and analysis instructions can be found on the Washington Group website.

The Washington Group Short Set of questions includes the following, which partners may want to incorporate into program registration forms as appropriate. The questions are designed for individuals aged 5 years and above, with a proxy respondent providing information for children.

Interviewer read: “The next questions ask about difficulties you may have doing certain activities.”

VISION

VIS_SS [Do/Does] [you/he/she] have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses? Would you say…

[Read response categories] https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/ https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

HEARING

HEAR_SS [Do/Does] [you/he/she] have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid(s)? Would you say… [Read response categories]

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

MOBILITY

MOB_SS [Do/Does] [you/he/she] have difficulty walking or climbing steps? Would you say…

[Read response categories]

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

COGNITION (REMEMBERING)

COG_SS [Do/does] [you/he/she] have difficulty remembering or concentrating? Would you say… [Read response categories]

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

SELF-CARE

SC_SS [Do/does] [you/he/she] have difficulty with self-care, such as washing all over or dressing? Would you say… [Read response categories]

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

COMMUNICATION

COM_SS Using [your/his/her] usual language, [do/does] [you/he/she] have difficulty communicating, for example understanding or being understood? Would you say… [Read response categories]

1. No difficulty

2. Some difficulty

3. A lot of difficulty

4. Cannot do at all

Analysis of these questions can vary based on program design and activities. But in general the

Washington Group’s recommended disability marker cut-off point is if any single domain/question is coded A LOT OF DIFFICULTY or CANNOT DO AT ALL. If the participant answers with either of these responses for any of the six domains above, they should be categorized as “disabled.”

Table PRM-D1: Number of individuals with disabilities reached through PRM funding.

Type Output

Sector Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement Required (if proposing activities under this sector, or if proposing activities in any sector that specifically target participation by persons with disabilities)

Unit of Measure Number

Calculation This is a straightforward count of individual persons with disabilities reached through programming. When using the Washington Group questions during program registration, count all individuals who responded “a lot of difficulty” or “cannot do at all” for at least one of the six functional domains.

How to count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The annual and end-of-program cumulative values should be unique, meaning each individual reached over the life of the program should be counted only once even if participating in multiple program activities over multiple years.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation Male, Female

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitering, for example program registration forms.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set a zero

Additional Information PRM requires the use of guidance from the Washington Group on Disability Statistics for measuring this indicator. UNHCR, IOM, and many other UN and NGO partners also endorse the Washington Group questionnaires and guidance.

https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/

Education

PRM-E1. Number of individuals reached with education programming through PRM funding

Indicator Definition: This indicator captures the total unique number of individuals (without double counting) participating in PRM-funded formal or nonformal education activities.

Examples of such interventions include:

a) Activities designed to improve children’s equitable access, enrollment and retention in early childhood education, primary education, and secondary education.

b) Programming that facilitates mainstreaming into local schools including supporting teachers and/or supplies in those schools, school fees, transportation costs or other related fees in order to facilitate access to local schools.

c) School building so long as any schools built with PRM funding conform to applicable national government guidelines regarding school infrastructure and comply with host country or regional standards for accessibility in construction.

d) Activities that seek to improve learning outcomes, including teacher training, access to examinations, community/caregiver engagement, catch up and/or remedial education.

e) Alternative education to include accelerated learning to support out of school and/or overage learners. Alternative education should conform to national standards and ensure clear pathways back to formal education or other vocational opportunities.

“Individuals”: People who participate in or benefit from the program activities. This includes

PRM’s populations of concern (refugees, asylees, IDPs, stateless people, returnees, other vulnerable migrants, and non-migrants including host community members and conflict victims).

For the purposes of this indicator, other types of stakeholders such as local/national government staff, health clinic staff, or NGO or IO staff are not counted. However, they would still count towards PRM-1. “Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding” and any applicable capacity strengthening indicators.

Table PRM-E1: Number of individuals reached with education programming through PRM funding.

Type Output

Sector Education

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement Required (if proposing activites under this sector)

Unit of Measure Number

Calculation This is a straightforward count of people participating in education activites.

How to count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The annual and end-of-program cumulative values should be unique, meaning each individual reached over the life of the program should be counted only once even if participating in multiple program activities over multiple years.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation Formal, Informal, Children (under 18), Adults (18+), Male, Female

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring, for example through education training attendance records, educational program attendance records, etc.

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Quarterly

Baseline Value Information

Set a zero

Additional Information N/A

PRM-E3. Percentage of school-age children enrolled in formal or informal education

Indicator Definition: This indicator measures the proportion of all school-age children who regularly participate in educational activities.

“Formal education” includes local government schools, private schools, or other established educational institutions.

“Nonformal education” or alternative education includes accelerated learning to support out of school and/or overage learners. Alternative education should conform to national standards and ensure clear pathways back to formal education or other vocational opportunities

Table PRM-E3: Percentage of school-age children enrolled in formal or informal education.

Type Outcome

Sector Education

Sub-Sector N/A

Level of Requirement Required (if proposing activites under this sector)

Unit of Measure Percentage

Calculation This indicator is a percentage, so it is calculated by dividing the numerator by the denominator. These will differ based on whether the data source is routine monitoring or a participant-based survey.

Numerator

If using routine monitoring via school/program records, the numerator would be: “Number of children enrolled in formal or informal education activities”

If using a participant-based survey to calculate this indicator, the numerator would be: “Number of surveyed school-aged children who are enrolled in formal or informal education activities"

Denominator

If using routine monitoring via school/program records, the denominator would be “Total number of school-age children in targeted communities”

If using a participant-based survey, the denominator would be:

“Number of school-aged children surveyed”

How to count Cumulative Achievement (over life of program)

The cumulative value at the end of the program should be the most recent percentage value collected via survey, government records, etc. For example, if a multi-year program measured this indicator every year using an annual community survey, the final cumulative value at the end of the program would be the value from the final annual survey. If the data source is government education records, use the latest statistics provided. Do not average or otherwise combine values across reporting periods.

Direction of Change +

Disaggregation Male, Female

Data Collection Method & Source

Routine monitoring (via school enrollment records or education program records) or annual participant-based survey

Minimum Frequency of Reporting

Annual

Baseline Value Information

Set using existing data or baseline study

Food Security

PRM-F1. Number of individuals participating in food security activities through PRM funding

Indicator Definition: This indicator captures the total unique number of individual beneficiaries

(without double counting) participating in PRM-funded activities with a food security purpose.

Examples of interventions that should be tracked may include ones that aim to improve: food availability; food safety; food access; utilization of food; and reliability or stability of access to food over time.

Examples of such interventions include:

a) Household-level food assistance, i.e. if households receive family-sized rations. (In these activities, every household member should be counted under this indicator).

b) Provision of training, resources, or other services to farmers or other agriculture producers (e.g. irrigation training, agricultural financing, and distribution of drought-tolerant seeds).

c) Individual-level food assistance, including adults and children that receive in-kind, non-therapeutic food, cash or voucher transfers to buy food…