Sample-Monitoring-and-Evaluation-Plan.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- SFOP0009543
About this file
Sample Monitoring Plan
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SFOP0009543 Q&A.pdf | ||
| Gender Analysis Questions .docx | DOCX document | |
| AQM Guidance for NCAGE-SAM.gov for Foreign Applicants Dec 2022.pdf | ||
| Budget Guidance-Template for Multi-Year Awards (FY23).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| NOFO - Fostering Human Rights-Centered Internet Governance.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
M&E Plan
| Activity | Indicator | Indicator Definition, | |||||
| Unit of Measure | Indicator Type and Source | Data Source, Disaggregation | Timing, Frequency or Schedule | Responsibility | Known Data Limitations | Baseline | Target |
| Goal: [State the project goal from the proposal narrative.] | |||||||
| Project Objective 1: [State the project objective here and divide the M&E plan by each objective. The Objectives should match the objectives in the logic model and proposal. Objectives are concrete and viewed as targets under the general goal.] | |||||||
| [List activities and match numbering from M&E plan (e.g. Activity 1.1, Activity 1b).] | [List all indicators for each activity.] | Definition: [Define how the indicator will be measured to ensure it is reliably calculated throughout the life of the project. For Standard Indicators where the definitions are broad, such as DR.6.1-2, the applicant should define how the indicator will be measured--i.e. what constitutes a full training cycle.] |
Unit: [What is the unit of analysis--individuals, specific groups, training days, policies?] Type: [Output or outcome?]
Source: [Standard Framework Indicator (e.g. DR.6.1-2) or Custom] Source: [Where will the information be sourced? What tool will be used to collect it?]
Disaggregation: [Additional levels of analysis that can be used for comparative purposes.] Collection: [Timing, frequency or schedule for data collection.]
Analysis: [Timing, frequency or schedule for data analysis.]
Reporting: [Timing, frequency or schedule for reporting.] Collection: [Who is responsible for data collection?]
Analysis: [Who is responsible for data analysis?]
| Reporting: [Who is responsible for reporting?] | Limitation: [Measures often include limitations, such as self-reporting bias, obtaining follow-up surveys, or determining demographic information from administrative files that are inconsistent in a country. Outlining limitations helps to understand the feasibility in collecting and measuring data and controlling for data quality.] | [Usual baseline values: TBD (Baseline assessment); 0 (prior to training)] | [Define targets for each activity to report against actual progress. If the indicator will be collected over multiple quarters or years, targets should be provided by quarter, by each fiscal year, and cumulatively.] | |
| Activity 1.1: Provide training to HRDs on digital security | 1.1.1: Number of human rights defenders trained and supported | Definition: Number of USG-supported human rights defenders attending a three-day training on physical and digital security. To be counted, participants will need to attend all training modules. |
Unit: Individuals Type: Output
Source: DR.6.1-2 Source: Training attendance sheets
Disaggregation:
1. Gender
2. Geography (region)
3. Type of human rights work conducted (issue) Collection: Data collected during training and input in database after training
Analysis: Monthly (internal progress reports), Quarterly (Quarterly Reports)
Reporting: Quarterly (Quarterly Reports) Collection: Project Officer
Analysis: M&E Specialist
Reporting: Program Manager and M&E Specialist Limitation: Demographic information (e.g. gender, geography, type of work conducted) relies on participants' self-identification. Participants may not provide identifying information for security reasons. 0 Q1: 25 HRDs
Q2: 30 HRDs
Q3: 30 HRDs 1.1.2: Percentage of human rights defenders with an improved understanding of digital security Definition: Assessed before training, to establish a baseline for each participant's knowledge of digital security procedures, and three months after training. The two measures will be compared to understand if knowledge has improved over time. Data on each training module will be compared to understand if certain subjects were taught more effectively than others. Changes in knowledge will be measured as a short-term outcome.
Unit: Individuals Type: Outcome
Source: Custom Source: Pre-test and follow-up survey
Disaggregation:
1. Gender
2. Geography (region)
3. Type of human rights work conducted (issue) Collection: Prior to training and three months after
Analysis: After training and three months after
Reporting: Quarterly Collection: Trainers
Analysis: Trainers and M&E Specialist
| Reporting: Program Manager and M&E Specialist | Limitation: | |||
| Collection: Responses for follow-up surveys may be difficult to obtain, especially in restrictive environments. Response rates may not be 100%. | TBD (Baseline assessment) | 75% of participants with improved knowledge | ||
| 1.1.3: Percentage of human rights defenders improving digital security practices | Definition: Assessed before training, to establish a baseline for each individual's digital security behavior, and six months after training. The two measures will be compared to understand if behavior has improved over time. An internal scoring sheet will be developed to measure improvement levels for various behaviors (based on training modules, e.g. encryption). Data on each training module will be compared to understand if certain subjects were taught more effectively than others. Changes in behavior will be measured as a medium-term outcome. |
Unit: Individuals Type: Outcome
Source: Custom Source: Pre-test and follow-up (Assessment Tool)
Disaggregation:
1. Gender
2. Geography (region)
3. Type of human rights work conducted (issue) Collection: Prior to training and six month after
Analysis: After training and six months after
Reporting: Quarterly Collection: Trainers
Analysis: Trainers and M&E Specialist
| Reporting: Program Manager and M&E Specialist | Limitation: | |
| Collection: Responses for follow-up surveys may be difficult to obtain, especially in restrictive environments. Response rates may not be 100%. | TBD (Baseline assessment) | 50% of participants improve digital security practice |
1.1.4: [Add rows as necessary to report on all output and outcome indicators.] Definition:
Unit: Type:
Source: Source:
Disaggregation:
Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Limitation:
Activity 1.2: [Add rows as necessary to report on all activities noted in the proposal narrative.] 1.2.1: [Add rows as necessary to report on all output and outcome indicators.] Definition:
Unit: Type:
Source: Source:
Disaggregation:
Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Limitation:
| Project Objective 2: [State the project objective here and divide the M&E plan by each objective. Objectives are concrete and viewed as targets under the general goal.] | |||
| Activity 2.1: [Add rows as necessary to report on all activities noted in the proposal narrative.] | 2.1.1: | Unit: Individuals | Type: |
Source: Source:
Disaggregation: Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Collection:
Analysis:
Reporting: Limitation:
PITT
| [Activity and indicator descriptions] | FY 2017 | FY 2018 | Cumulative | |||||||||||
| [Activity and indicator descriptions] | Qtr 1 | Qtr 2 | Qtr 3 | Qtr 4 | Qtr 1 | [Project Totals] | ||||||||
| Activity | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual |
| Project Objective 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Activity 1.1 | Indicator 1.1.1 Number of human rights defenders trained and supported | |||||||||||||
| Activity 1.2 | Indicator 1.2.1 | |||||||||||||
| Project Objective 2 | ||||||||||||||
| Activity 2.1 | Indicator 2.1.1 | |||||||||||||
| Activity 2.2 | Indicator 2.2.1 |
PITT Example
| [Activity and indicator descriptions] | FY 2017 | FY2018 | Cumulative | |||||||||||
| [Activity and indicator descriptions] | Qtr 1 | |||||||||||||
| 10/01/2016-12/31/2016 | Qtr 2 | |||||||||||||
| 01/01/2017-03/31/2017 | Qtr 3 | |||||||||||||
| 04/01/2017-06/30/2017 | Qtr 4 | |||||||||||||
| 07/01/2017-09/30/2017 | Cumulative | FY2017-FY2019 | ||||||||||||
| Activity | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Target | Actual | |
| Activity 1.1: Provide training to human rights defenders on digital security | Indicator 1.1.1: Number of human rights defenders trained on digital security practices | 0 (beneficiaries have not received any training prior to the project) | 25 | 23 | 30 | 20 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 100 | 200 | 103 | |
| Disaggregation: | ||||||||||||||
| Female | 13 | 11 | 16 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 60 | 110 | 47 | |||
| Male | 12 | 12 | 14 | 10 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 15 | 40 | 90 | 56 | |||
| Indicator 1.1.2: Percentage of human rights defenders improving digital security practices (reported six months after training) | 5% (5% of trainees were already employing adequate digital security practices—determined by pre-training test) | 80% (20/25 improve after six months | N/A (To be reported in Q3) | 80% (24/30) | Reported in Q4 | 80% (19/25) | 80% (19/25) | 80% (24/30) | 70% (21/30) | 75% | 75% | 72% (40/55) |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .