Approved USAID Mali Mission PMP January 2023.pdf

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

USAID/MALI

APPROVED/JANUARY 2023

Table of Contents and Modification Log

ACRONYMS 3

INTRODUCTION 5

USAID/MALI’S RESULT FRAMEWORK 6

LEARNING PRIORITIES 6

Understanding the impact, sustainability of the Mission’s program because of layering, sequencing, and integrating of humanitarian and development activities. 8

Understanding how better governance leads to peace, stability, and sustainable development. 9

Understanding the Operational Context to adapt the CDCS Goals and Objectives. 11

Understanding how to better integrate gender, youth, and other marginalized groups into activity design and implementation. 12

Understanding CDCS progress and continuous improvement towards results. 13

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 14

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE-MANAGEMENT TASKS AND ASSOCIATED RESOURCES 15

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INFORMATION FOR INTERMEDIATE RESULTS (IR). 15

EVALUATION PLAN 18

ANNEXES: 19

USAID/MALI MISSION INDICATORS TABLE 20

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES SCHEDULE 20

Modification Log

Mod. No. Type Description Completed by Date

1 Indicator update

2 Planned evaluation update

3 Learning Priority Update

4 Learning Questions Update

ACRONYMS

ADS: The Automated Directives System

ARTS: Assumptions Risk Tracking System

CDCS: Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CLA: Collaborating, Learning and Adapting

COR: Contracting Office Representative

DA: Development Assistance

DO: Development Objective

DQA: Data Quality Assessment

DIS: Development Information Solution

DDL: Development Data Library

DEC: Development Experience Clearinghouse

GFSS: Global Food Security Strategy

HA: Humanitarian Assistance

HDP: Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus

IR: Intermediate Result

LP: Learning Priority

LQ: Learning Question

MEL: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

PEAP: Post-Evaluation Action Plan

PD&L: Program Design and Learning

PIRS: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets

PMP: Performance Management Plan

PPL: Policy, Planning and Learning

PPR: Performance Plan and Report

PSR: Peace, Security and Recovery

PBS: Population Based Survey

PS: Peace and Security

OP: Operational Plan

RF: Results Framework

RDCS: Regional Development and Cooperation Strategy

SBS: Strategy Baseline Survey

SF: Strategic Framework

SpO: Special Objective

USG: United States Government

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

ZOI: Zone of Influence

INTRODUCTION

The PMP is a living tool that serves as the Mission’s compass for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL), and Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) efforts. The PMP seeks to improve the Mission’s adaptive management capabilities by enabling teams to assess progress and adapt interventions in a timely manner to ensure activities contribute to measurable CDCS results. This tool also promotes learning for staff and local partners by assisting teams in identifying learning opportunities and learning gaps to improve planning, procurement, and management processes.

The PMP was developed through a Mission-wide participatory process led by the Program Office with support from USAID’s Africa Bureau and Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) teams. The process included 1) a PMP road map describing the overall process and timeline; 2) the PMP learning sessions followed by work sessions to construct the key components of the PMP: Learning Priorities (LP), Learning Questions (LQ), Performance Indicators, Evaluations and Tasks Schedule. The PMP takes into consideration illustrative indicators and LQs included in the CDCS, among others.

The PMP consists of five main learning priorities, for which tailored approaches to Monitoring, Evaluation, and CLA are described. It also includes the following core sections: the Results Framework (RF),Adaptive Management, and the Schedule of Performance-Management Tasks and Associated Resources. Other supplemental resources are linked in the Annex section of the PMP. Through the life of the CDCS period, this PMP will remain a living document, with flexibility to adapt as needed to operational and contextual changes. By applying these monitoring, evaluation, and CLA approaches and resources toward these learning priorities, this PMP will generate useful information for the future development of USAID/Mali’s CDCS.

The PMP aligns with the Mission RF to ensure that programming achieves CDCS results despite a fluid and volatile operating environment. Overcoming the many challenges posed by Mali’s difficult and frequently impermissible operating environment, including highly restrictive travel limitations for USAID staff, the Mali Mission is using a creative and deliberate MEL approach that incorporates the use of appropriate performance outcome and contextual indicators.

Outcome indicators are identified at the Intermediate Results (IR) level (1-3 per IR) as part of this effort and considered as a core set of performance indicators to be measured through regular strategy surveys or other means. Tracking of these indicators will facilitate analysis and discussion of progress in achieving CDCS objectives during pause and reflect milestones such as portfolio reviews, CDCS midcourse-stocktaking, and partner meetings.

Contextual indicators are identified, measured, and analyzed as part of an Assumptions and Risk- Tracking System (ARTS). Tracking of these indicators allows the Mali Mission to monitor factors outside of USAID’s control that can have substantial effects on the viability of development assistance programming and beneficiary outcomes. Equally important, this PMP includes a robust list of evaluation and CLA plans to identify best practices, lessons learned, information gaps, and methods to capture critical knowledge and adaptive approaches.

The PMP is well integrated with a recently awarded MEL platform whose main objective is to support the PMP implementation through three major components: 1) a Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) mechanism; 2) an Evaluation, Survey and Services (ESS); 3) and, a CLA management and communication services. The PMP will be reviewed at least once per year and updated as appropriate.

USAID/MALI’S RESULT FRAMEWORK

USAID/Mali’s CDCS RF reflects the Mission’s overall development hypotheses, objectives, and guiding strategy. This RF communicates how the Mission expects to achieve lower-level results that will lead to the achievement of the Mission’s Development Objectives (DOs) and, ultimately, the goal of “a more stable, peaceful and resilient Mali leading its own development.” This goal is supported by two development objectives and one special objective:

● DO1: Improved governance for stronger democratic institutions

● DO2: Solidified and deepened development gains in targeted areas

● SpO: Improved outcomes across the humanitarian, development and peace nexus to save lives and increase resiliency.

The CDCS RF is the basis for the Mission’s performance management system and functions as an integral tool for results-based activity planning, facilitating communication regarding program intent and content, helping to spot emerging issues, and providing a structure for advancing learning and evaluation activities.

LEARNING PRIORITIES

Learning Priority What does the team need to know?

Learning Activities How will the team gather evidence?

Decision Point(s) By when does the team need it?

1. Understanding the impact, sustainability of the Mission’s program because of layering, sequencing, and integrating of HA and DA activities.

● Monitoring of assumptions, risks, and context within IR 3.1;

IR 3.2 and IR 3.3

● Quarterly learning events with implementing partners to review data

● Quarterly DO meetings on internal and external collaboration

● Portfolio review

● CDCS Baseline

Stocktaking/Mid- Course Stocktaking

2. Understanding how better governance leads to peace, stability and sustainable development.

● Monitoring IR level results within DO1

● Quarterly partner meetings

● Strategy level surveys

● Public Opinion Poll

● PSR Final Performance

Evaluation

● Portfolio review

● CDCS Baseline

Stocktaking/Mid- Course Stocktaking

3. Understanding the Operational Context to adapt the CDCS Goals and Objectives.

● Partner meetings

● ART monitoring system

● Portfolio Review

● Portfolio review

● CDCS Baseline

Stocktaking/Mid- Course Stocktaking

4. Understanding how to better integrate gender, youth and other marginalized groups into activity design and implementation.

● Internal processes (design, monitoring and evaluation) assessment

● Site visits

● Portfolio review

● CDCS Baseline

Stocktaking/Mid- Course Stocktaking

5. Understanding CDCS progress and continuous improvement towards results.

● Strategy level surveys

● GFFS mid-line survey

● Mid-term evaluation of

Sugu and Sene Yirwa

● Portfolio review

● CDCS Baseline

Stocktaking/Mid- Course Stocktaking

● Post-Evaluation Action Plans

Learning priorities identification and selection process

Across USAID/Mali’s programming there are endless opportunities for learning. Building from the illustrative learning questions identified during phase 2 of CDCS development, the Program Office facilitated a series of conversations and workshops with the DO/SpO teams during PMP development to prioritize a small number of learning priorities. These discussions resulted in the five learning priorities listed above, chosen because they represent areas where the Mission has made high-risk assumptions with significant potential to impact the achievement of development results. Isolating these five learning priorities enables us to strategically align USAID monitoring, evaluation, and CLA resources towards the areas of greatest learning value.

While the purpose of the conversations and workshops facilitated by the Program Office was to identify the most important strategic level learning priorities, during the process, staff members also proposed learning priorities that were more relevant to specific activities than to the Mission’s overall strategy.

These ideas were referred to technical offices for consideration at the activity level. In addition to the monitoring, evaluation, and CLA efforts dedicated to the learning priorities, the Mission will maintain a variety of complementary tasks not otherwise captured in the PMP, including:

● Maintaining PPR/Standard Indicators and corresponding data within an internal database, with the expectation of migrating them to the USAID portfolio performance management system called the Development Information Solution (DIS) in 2023. These data play a critical role in demonstrating USAID results to various stakeholders.

● Conducting remote or regular site visits by USAID staff and the USAID/MEL Platform as part of project and activity oversight and management. In addition to compliance with the Mission Order on Monitoring and ADS 201 requirements, these visits will provide utilization-focused learning that can be applied to activity management and future designs.

● Capturing IR level indicators within an Indicator Tracking Table for each DO. The DO Indicator Tracking Table captures performance and context indicators for each result in the Results Framework and annual progress toward the targets (based on the fiscal year cycle). All supplemental information, including PIRS, baselines, planned baseline collection, and targets are tracked in these DO tracking tables, which will be used to develop an annual data quality assessment schedule.

● Capturing the list of evaluations planned during the life of the CDCS in the Mission’s Evaluation Registry in the FACTS Info Next Gen system.

1. Understanding the impact, sustainability of the Mission’s program because of layering, sequencing, and integrating of humanitarian and development activities.

This learning priority seeks to understand if coordinating and integrating and development actions across the Humanitarian Development and Peace (HDP) nexus will lead to multiple effects: protect development gains; mitigate the humanitarian, development, and economic costs of shocks; and help people, households, and communities speed up their recovery once crisis conditions have passed. The assumption is that this approach will enhance development impact, cost effectiveness, sustainability, and learning in an area (92 communes) where USAID/Mali implements most of its annual Humanitarian Assistance (HA) programming.

Below are the key learning questions for this learning priority:

● Is the SpO functioning to better respond to humanitarian needs, advance development in conflicted areas, and maintain and improve resilience in target communities?

● Is there increased internal/external collaboration and information sharing that allows USAID/Mali to respond and pivot programming along the relief development continuum?

Monitoring

Through quarterly development objective (DO) meetings, the Mission will monitor key qualitative indicators on effective collaboration among the SpO team. The Mission will assess the creation of a SpO team whose function is to intensify collaboration among both internal and external HDP actors to help eliminate programmatic divides between Humanitarian Assistance (HA) and Development Assistance (DA). On the same token, the Mission will also monitor if all new awards include a crisis modifier and shock responsive programming that enable the Mission to better address urgent needs and complement humanitarian assistance in response to a crisis.

The Mission will also assess the existence and the functionality of an ARTS that will be designed and implemented by the USAID Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Platform.

Evaluation

The Mission does not intend to conduct a specific evaluation to answer the learning questions for this learning priority. Instead, the Mission plans to integrate aspects of this learning priority into performance evaluations as appropriate and necessary. Where monitoring efforts have highlighted an activity that merits further investigation, evaluation questions will be tailored to document evaluation data and formulate lessons learned.

CLA

One goal of this PMP is to institutionalize CLA as a tool for adapting programming in ever-changing circumstances as well as providing new knowledge and evidence for the future CDCS. For this learning priority, the Mission will prioritize CLA approaches that ensure effective collaboration with partners and other external stakeholders, and that maximize the learning potential of existing pause and reflect opportunities.

2. Understanding how better governance leads to peace, stability, and sustainable development.

This learning priority is strongly correlated with the Development Objective 1 (DO1) and seeks to understand the factors leading to better governance. The rationale behind this development hypothesis is that: addressing the drivers of conflict through civic engagement and community empowerment, strengthening the capacity of key sector institutions and organizations, and bolstering systems to enforce the rule of law, human rights, and anti-corruption will improve governance.

Below are the key learning questions for this learning priority:

● How can USAID best support the scale-up of governance-related best practices that build the capacity of selected institutions (national, regional, and local) in a more strategic and systematic way across sectors?

● What factors increase or decrease local government’s ability to be more responsive to citizen’s needs and provide essential social services?

Monitoring

The Mission will use regular partner meetings, quarterly reports, site visits, focus groups, beneficiaries’ surveys, and other stakeholder consultations to build a body of data to elucidate this learning priority.

Monitoring data will culminate in annual portfolio reviews that present monitoring data for Mission analysis and action. By taking a continuous and real-time approach to monitoring, the mission will better understand how to best support the scale-up of government-related best practices that build the capacity of national, regional, and local institutions in a strategic and systematic way. Other monitoring tools will include the following: 1) an annual public opinion poll; 2) a strategy level survey.

The public opinion poll will provide evidence on local factors that prevent the local government from being more responsive to citizen’s needs or to provide essential social services. This poll will help with tracking key governance performance and contextual indicators on an annual basis. Potential topics include civic engagement, trust in government institutions, satisfaction with public services, perspective on US Government (USG) assistance, and security and conflict. The poll will use a nationally representative sample of respondents, through a three-stage cluster-sampling approach, to help ensure that the views and perspectives of all social groups are included.

The strategy level survey's main objective is to track the success and progress of the CDCS at the Intermediate Result levels (IRs). Indicators for Intermediate Result (IR1.1; IR1.3; IR1.4) will be measured at the baseline, midline and endline phases of the Strategy Baseline surveys. The Mission will use a three-steps cluster sample to select a sample that is broadly representative of the Malian population who participate in USAID’s development and humanitarian assistance activities.

Evaluation

USAID/Mali will conduct at least one external performance evaluation to address the overarching question “What factors increase or decrease local government’s ability to be more responsive to citizen’s needs and provide essential social services?”. The final performance evaluation of the Peace, Security and Recovery (PSR) program, scheduled at the end of FY 2023, will include evaluation questions that will help understand the civic engagement process in Mali.

These evaluations will fulfill the evaluation requirement 1 in ADS 201: Each Mission with a CDCS or RDCS must conduct at least one evaluation per intermediate result (IR) defined in the Mission’s strategy. A complete list of evaluations planned during the life of the Mali CDCS is included in the Evaluation Registry in FACTS Info Next Gen.

CLA

As previously mentioned, USAID/Mali’s intent is to make CLA more intentional, systematic, and resourceful throughout the course of this current CDCS and use it to help improve development effectiveness. Learning questions addressing this learning priority will be reviewed and updated as part of the annual portfolio review, evidence reviews, informal learning events and other pause-and-reflect sessions such as baseline and mid-course stocktaking exercises.

As noted in the monitoring section above, the Mission will convene partners at regular intervals to identify and monitor critical assumptions, risks, and contextual factors related to phenomena outside of

USAID controls. The Mission will also use pause and reflect moments - like quarterly partner meetings and the scheduled portfolio review - to bring multiple perspectives to bear on these two important themes of the strategic framework. CDCS stocktaking exercises also offer an opportunity to reflect on critical assumptions built into the CDCS, verifying if changes in the country context require modification to the development hypothesis, Results Framework, DOs, IRs, program resources and priorities. These exercises can identify where USAID/Mali requires realignment of the new CDCS at baseline and mid-course points.

3. Understanding the Operational Context to adapt the CDCS Goals and Objectives.

During the term of this CDCS, it is envisioned that Mali will likely suffer from recurring severe climate events, political upheaval, conflict, population displacement, and outbreaks of disease. Under the current strategy, USAID will utilize a scenario-based program adaptation framework as the basis for monitoring and analyzing core contextual triggers and tipping points. This learning priority is set to inform Mission management at key decision points to adjust and adapt programming activities and resources.

Below are the key learning questions for this learning priority:

● Is the scenario-based program adaptation framework generating learning to inform and improve programming of activities and resources?

● How do USAID/Mali internal processes, systems and resources support or impede our programming to respond to new shifts in the operational context?

Monitoring

Taking advantage of the MEL platform, the Mission will make use of operational context indicators to track phenomena outside of USAID control that affect program results. To this end, the MEL platform will be using two monitoring tools: an annual public opinion poll and an ARTS.

The annual public opinion poll under the MEL Platform will facilitate USAID/Mali’s context monitoring by providing information about how USG assistance is perceived by citizens and by tracking progress from the CDCS and other relevant outcomes.

The ARTS will help the Mali Mission’s monitoring tool to track trigger indicators related to three scenarios – Mali’s political transition, crisis and resilience, and pandemic and socioeconomic conditions-and data related to CDCS assumptions. This requires examining data from the national to the commune level, using indicators that measure the state of wellbeing and reporting when communes are getting better or worse under each prioritized scenario. With this information, USAID/Mali will review its preparation and mitigation efforts taken to date through its programs and adjust and adapt efforts to better position activities to the changing situation and needs. Through a Mission-wide effort, technical teams and their partners will coordinate and collaborate across sectors by layering, sequencing, and integrating activities in the affected communes and complement it with robust monitoring, evaluation, and learning to continuously adjust and adapt interventions according to the situations.

Frequent context monitoring combined with other information will help the Mission understand the operational context. To this end, Mission offices will conduct quarterly partner meetings (as appropriate) that will review context, critical assumptions, and risks, ultimately culminating in an annual portfolio review that demonstrates trends or shifts that may warrant a management action or programmatic adaptation. Performance and context indicators aligned towards these risks and assumptions will serve as key evidence inputs for the quarterly partner meetings and future evaluations.

Evaluation

The Mission does not intend to conduct a specific evaluation to answer the learning questions for this learning priority.

CLA

This learning priority cuts across both DOs, the SpO, and all the Mission’s technical teams. Therefore, a primary focus of Mission CLA efforts in addressing this learning priority will be on facilitating internal and external collaboration and knowledge synthesis. The Mali Mission will accomplish this by: 1) discussing the public opinion poll results and the dashboard on trigger indicators that will be put in place by the MEL platform; 2) convening partners at regular intervals to monitor contextual factors outside USAID control that can impede USAID programming.

Additionally, the Mission plans to culminate all its learning activities during the CDCS mid-stocktaking review, which will be an opportunity to review monitoring and evaluation data and identify trends, best practices, and lessons learned to respond to new shifts in the operational context. The main outcome of this review will be decision points on whether to continue this “integrated” strategic approach in the development of USAID/Mali’s first full CDCS or to adapt and take on a different approach.

4. Understanding how to better integrate gender, youth, and other marginalized groups into activity design and implementation.

This learning priority is cross-cutting in the sense that it focuses on understanding the gaps in better integrating gender, youth, and other marginalized groups to optimize impact and achieve sustainable results.

Below is the key learning question for this learning priority:

● To what extent is our implementation approach more inclusive and locally led?

Monitoring

The monitoring efforts under this learning priority will attempt to track both key performance indicators, as well as context conditions, to better understand how to better integrate gender, youth, and other marginalized groups into activity design and implementation. The Mission will undertake a multi-faceted approach, including:

● Annual portfolio reviews;

● Activity MEL plans across both DOs that integrate performance and context indicators on gender, youth and marginalized groups, where opportunities for informing planned activities in evaluation and CLA may exist;

● Site visits that will include standardized questions and sections relevant to how to better integrate gender, youth and other marginalized groups into activity implementation and design. These site visits will provide utilization-focused learning that can be applied to both project management and future designs.

Evaluation

The Mission does not intend to conduct a specific evaluation to answer the learning question for this learning priority. Instead, the Mission plans to integrate aspects of this learning priority into performance evaluations as appropriate and necessary.

CLA

The Mission will use Mission Portfolio Reviews, Pause and Reflect sessions, Partner Meetings, and other regularly scheduled Mission learning events to integrate and streamline this learning priority, allowing for reflection and conversation on how to better integrate gender, youth and other marginalized groups into USAID programming and activity implementation. Where appropriate, the Mission will also identify learning gaps so that the approaches identified in this learning priority can be modified and augmented as appropriate. This may include updating Mission policy, realigning the Mission’s MEL support contract services, or future requirements in planned activity designs.

5. Understanding CDCS progress and continuous improvement towards results.

This learning priority seeks to understand factors that may hinder continuous improvement towards equitable access to qualify essential health, education, and social services if economic opportunities are supported. This learning priority is essentially linked to DO2 results: solidified and deepened development gains in targeted areas.

Below is the key learning question for this learning priority:

● What is enabling or hindering the achievement of results?

Monitoring

This learning priority will be addressed through the GFSS Population Based Survey (PBS) and the Strategy Baseline Survey (SBS):

1) The Mission will continue to track progress in achieving its Feed the Future’s high-level objectives through the Population Based Surveys (PBS). The first assessment of the Feed the Future baseline indicators values was done in 2019. A phase two of this assessment is currently (FY 2023) being implemented to assess short-term progress of the ZOI high-level indicators in Mali. A final assessment is scheduled for FY 2025 to assess the impact of both HA and DA activities in the population in Zones of Influence (ZOI).

2) The Mission will track the indicators for the Intermediate Results 2 (IR2.2 and 2.3) through the strategy baseline surveys.

Evaluation

USAID Mali will conduct at least two external performance evaluations and one impact evaluation to address the overarching question: “What is enabling or hindering the achievement of results?” These evaluations will contribute to an improved understanding of the factors hindering continuous improvement towards equitable access to qualify essential health, education, and social services.

CLA

As mentioned above, the Mission plans to culminate all its learning activities for the Mission’s portfolio during the CDCS mid-stocktaking reviews to review monitoring and evaluation data about health, education and global food insecurity to understand and identify trends, best practices, and lessons learned to adapt our future programming. As part of the CLA component, the MEL platform COR will organize after each evaluation a post-evaluation action plan to help ensure that institutional learning takes place and evaluation findings are used to improve development outcomes.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

USAID/Mali will use adaptive management to improve the relevance and effectiveness of its development programming. Where appropriate, all Mission staff (from both technical and support offices), implementing partners, development partners, and local stakeholders will be engaged in this process. The Mission uses several approaches to facilitate adaptive management during activity implementation, including, but not limited to rapid assessments, pause and reflect moments, annual portfolio reviews, and regular review of performance monitoring data. The goal of these efforts is to identify potential course corrections, to engage appropriate stakeholders, to communicate any shifts to current and future teams, and ultimately to build a body of evidence and best practices upon which future strategies and activities will be built. Where possible, USAID/Mali will continue to design flexible activities and mechanisms that foster rather than inhibit adaptation.

The following are examples of activities to support adaptive management at various points in the CDCS implementation process:

● The Mission will use complementary data analysis to remain aware of the current development context, identify potential risks and opportunities that could affect USAID/Mali programming, examine operational options, and adapt to changing conditions using adaptive management.

● In accordance with USAID policy, the Mission will host at least one portfolio review per year. Portfolio reviews serve a dual purpose in the MEL system to both facilitate discussions on activity implementation and to analyze progress on responding to learning questions.

● To help ensure that institutional learning takes place and that evaluation findings and recommendations are used in program design and management to improve development outcomes, technical offices, in collaboration with the program office, will develop a Post-Evaluation Action Plan (PEAP) after evaluation approval. The PEAP is a living document, to be updated as evaluation findings and recommendations are utilized to show how they have impacted decision-making or adaptive management.

● The Mission anticipates at least two stocktaking events during the life of its CDCS. One learning event will take place following the approval and start of the PMP and the other one during the CDCS mid-review in FY 2025. The first event will kick off stocktaking for the new CDCS while the other event will focus on reviewing existing data from the PMP, evaluations, and other sources to answer the learning questions.

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE-MANAGEMENT TASKS AND ASSOCIATED RESOURCES

Performance management is the responsibility of USAID, its implementing partners, and government counterparts (government-to-government agreements). As set forth in Agency policy guidance such as ADS 201, the Mission Program Office and technical offices will assume defined roles and responsibilities congruent with Mission orders and procedures currently in effect. The task schedule linked here provides a comprehensive schedule of all the monitoring, evaluation, and CLA tasks that should occur over the expected life of the CDCS to ensure effective performance management across the PMP.

Multiple positions throughout the Mission have MEL responsibilities as part of their day-to-day tasks, and two Program Office staff members are dedicated full-time to supporting sufficient MEL practices. A MEL Working Group, drawing members from each technical office, will be reinvigorated. Roles and responsibilities for the group will be aligned to ADS 201.3.5.11, as well as the USAID/Mali Mission orders on project design and implementation, performance monitoring, and evaluation.

The Mission currently has planned $21,517,786 in Program Design and Learning (PD&L) funds for MEL needs and an annual projected PD&L level of $4,102,828 for MEL from FY 2022 to FY 2027. Program Office, DO Leads, and the MEL Working Group ensure that Mission’s CLA activities are sufficiently resourced. Investments in key skills and capacities that leverage existing expertise in the Mission and agency, onboarding institutional contractors offering MEL services and capacity building, and drawing upon expertise in Washington in the form of short-term technical assistance, Temporary Duties (TDYs), and consultancies will be the continual efforts of the Mission to support the generation, synthesis, and application of knowledge and learning at strategy, project, and cross-project levels.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INFORMATION FOR INTERMEDIATE RESULTS (IR).

This section describes how Mission staff will monitor performance and context to determine whether CDCS implementation is on track, whether expected results are being achieved, and how risks are evolving, including external factors. USAID/Mali will assess progress at regular intervals, for example, during portfolio reviews and partner meetings. In addition, the Mission will analyze monitoring data at key points, such as when developing new activities and completing the annual Performance Plan and Report (PPR). This analysis will be used to inform strategic decision making, using evidence to improve and adapt Mission programming.

Under this CDCS, USAID/Mali shifted to an integrated strategy and management approach, driving the need for more integrated learning to monitor results more effectively. The Mission aims to put into place robust yet flexible MEL tools and approaches that not only track progress towards objectives for individual sectors but for the Mission’s integrated DOs and IRs. To this end, the Mali Mission has a MEL platform (awarded to Social Impact) that will monitor the success and progress of the CDCS at the Intermediate Result level through regular data collection methods such as surveys and/or public opinion polls. This integrated monitoring approach will also require that Mission activities integrate performance indicators from the PMP into their existing and new activity MEL plans as applicable. The Mission will then need to aggregate performance data from across activities to understand the overall Mission progress in achieving the integrated intermediate results.

USAID/Mali has identified a set of outcome-based performance indicators at the IR level to monitor strategic performance progress towards the objectives and to respond to the Mission learning agenda.

These indicators were selected in close coordination with technical offices and are based on the information available at the time of PMP drafting (i.e. expected scope of new activities and availability, frequency, and quality of data sources) and aim to capture the Mission-integrated monitoring approach.

This list of indicators will be reviewed annually and is expected to be adjusted, if/as necessary.

Performance monitoring indicators for each IR objective are included in the table below. Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) for each IR indicator will be developed after PMP approval and three months before data collection, as per ADS 201.3.5.6. Although sub-IR indicators are not included in the PMP, the DO teams will ensure that they are included in activity MEL plans. While the Mission currently uses an in-house developed Indicator Tracking Table, a transfer of data to the USAID portfolio performance management system called Development Information Solution (DIS) is expected in 2023.

In addition to performance indicators, USAID/Mali will use context monitoring to track external conditions and factors that are outside the Mission’s control but which could affect programming. This information will be used to monitor risks and assumptions and to adjust on-the-ground approaches accordingly. Context monitoring will help to identify new trends and conditions that affect implementation and performance, such as food insecurity, natural disasters, and crime rates. Context indicators will use secondary data sources and be monitored as these sources are updated. Sources include the Afrobarometer survey, World Bank, USAID International Data & Economic Analysis (IDEA) database, Demographic and Health Survey data, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, the ARTS and the annual opinion poll implemented by the USAID MEL Platform, among others. The indicators listed in Table 2 will be used to monitor progress towards achieving the IRs in the strategy’s results framework and the context in which programming will operate.

Table 2 – Performance and Context Indicators

Indicator Type DO1: Improved governance for strengthening democratic institutions to promote peace, stability, and sustainable development

IR 1.1: Increased targeted population's civic engagement and ownership Number of communal development plans that include proposed activities in the Water, Sanitation, and Health/Health sector.

Performance/Custom

% Households rating service delivery quality "very good" or "good" for services supported by the USG.

Performance/Custom

% Households accessing services supported by the USG. Performance/Custom % Respondents rating service delivery quality "very good" or "good" for government services.

Context

IR 1.2: Strengthened communities' human security through conflict prevention and resolution Number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions

Performance/Standard

Number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions

Performance/Standard

IR 1.3: Institutional capacity in key sectors to improve basic services % Citizens expressing confidence "Trust" in target institutions. Performance/Custom Value of annual transfers of decentralized funding for health facilities receiving USAID assistance.

Performance/Custom

IR 1.4: Strengthened rule of law % Citizens who say that they have access to court systems to resolve disputes

Performance/Custom

% Accused not represented at trial. Performance/Custom % Citizens who are satisfied with services provided at the court Performance/Custom Indicator Type DO2: Solidified and deepened development gains in targeted areas

IR 2.1: Improvement in Health Status Maternal Mortality Ratio Context Under-five Mortality Rate Context Infant Mortality Rate Context Modern method contraceptive prevalence Rate Performance/Standard IR 2.2: Inclusive and sustainable agricultural and economic growth strengthened Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance Performance/Standard Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance

Performance/Standard

IR 2.3 Equitable access to improved quality education services for children and youth enhanced

Number of learners in primary schools or equivalent non-school based settings reached with USG education assistance

Performance/Standard

Percent of individuals with improved soft skills following participation in USG-assisted workforce development program

Performance/Custom

Percent of learners who attain minimum proficiency in reading at the end of Grade 4

Performance/Custom

Indicator Type SpO: Improved outcome across the humanitarian, development and peace nexus to save lives and increase resiliency IR 3.1 Coordination and Collaboration between internal and external resilience, humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors increased Number of internal and external coordination bodies that are functional or reactivated due to USAID interventions

Performance/Custom

Number of partnerships formally established between USAID and other (bilateral, multilateral) HDP actors.

Performance/Custom

Percent of USAID funded-implementing partners having joint work plans session or coordination meetings to harmonize activities to ensure LSI between partners, synergy action plans, monitoring evaluation and learning activities, Performance/Custom

IR 3.2: Respond to humanitarian needs and reduce vulnerabilities for population most severely impacted by conflict and climate induced shocks and stresses Percent of (beneficiary) households who report being able to meet the basic needs of their households (all/most/some/none), according to their priorities

Performance/Custom

Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index Performance/Custom IR 3.3: Ability to maintain and improve resilience capacities in the face of shocks and stresses increased Adaptive Capacity Index Performance/Custom Absorptive Capacity Index Performance/Custom Transformative Capacity Index Performance/Custom

EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluations are important tools for documenting learning and evidence, verifying theories of change and assumptions and informing strategic decisions. Through the MEL Platform, USAID/Mali will be using independent, objective evaluation findings to inform decision-making, as a learning tool for adjusting current approaches, and for planning future programming. ADS 201.3.6.5 requires the Mission to conduct at least one evaluation for each activity with a total estimated cost over $20 million; at least one valuation per IR during the life of the CDCS; and impact evaluations, if feasible, of any new, untested approach anticipated to expand in scale or scope. As explained further below, the Mission has identified and plans to conduct several evaluations, including both performance evaluations for individual activities and a portfolio-wide survey through the life of this PMP. The Mission will explore additional potential evaluations to assess the integrated, cross-cutting nature of the CDCS. Additional management decision needs or changes in the operating environment in Mali may also trigger other evaluations, assessments, or studies.

USAID/Mali will work with the MEL Platform contractor to ensure that evaluation processes and procedures described in ADS 201.6.7 through 201.3.6.8 are applied to ensure that the data from evaluations is of good quality and used by the Mission and other relevant stakeholders. Also, as required by ADS 201.3.6.9, the Mission will conduct peer reviews of draft evaluation reports. Peer reviews will be organized by the Evaluation Point of Contact (POC) in the Program Office. This process is an opportunity to improve the overall quality of evaluations and to facilitate buy-in from internal stakeholders. Upon completing evaluation field work, the evaluation team will present the preliminary findings and recommendations to Mission staff. The contractor will upload final evaluation reports to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and datasets to the Data Development Library (DDL). As per ADS 201 3.6.10, upon completion of an evaluation, the Mission will develop a Post-Evaluation Action Plan, with a designated POC responsible for overseeing implementation of the action plan and maintaining an evaluation recommendations tracker.

The USAID/Mali evaluation plan is captured in its entirety within the NextGen Evaluation Registry. This evaluation plan is expected to evolve throughout the life of the current CDCS and will help lay the groundwork for future evaluation planning as well as activity design in the future. Hence, the Mission will review and update the evaluation plan on an annual basis, at least.

ANNEXES:

USAID/MALI MISSION INDICATORS TABLE

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES SCHEDULE

PMP Action Memorandum RK signed 20230127