Unit of Measure. Number of forums Disaggregated by: Location; Theme Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow SADES-K to monitor the levels of effort towards consensus-building as well as where current efforts are being supported and to identify where there may be gaps. Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of forums based on source documentation Data Source: Activity Reports; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist and Internews M&E Team Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the themes and locations Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 24 consensus building forums. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 7 January 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.3): Informed and empowered citizens participate in county affairs Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Name of Indicator (13): Number of people participating in USG-supported events, training, or activities designed to build mass support for peace and reconciliation Unit of Measure: Number of Individuals Disaggregated by: Sex; Youth vs. Non-Youth; New vs. Continuing (Year to Year) Justification & Management Utility: For peace and democratic reforms to be effectively implemented, men and women at the community level need to be involved in the process. In addition, ensuring that the communities participate in the political process address a root cause of conflict and instability. Individuals participating in public fora supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ related to the democratic reform process will likely be counted here, to be determined in consultation with AOR. Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of individuals based on source documentation Data Source: Sign in Sheets; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on sex Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 9,280 individuals. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.2): Enabling environment for devolution strengthened Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Name of Indicator (14): Number of laws, policies or procedures drafted, proposed or adopted to promote constitutional reform at regional, county or national level which were supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ Unit of Measure: Number of laws, policies, or procedures Disaggregated by: Status (e.g. drafted, proposed, or adopted); Type (i.e. law, policy, or procedure) Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of changes based on source documentation Data Source: Reports from grantees that document changes to public policies; Advocacy Tracking Matrix: Policy Tracking Matrix Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the level of influence Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target will be 5 public policy changes. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 ANNEX 3: DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS Title of Performance Indicator: Indicator should be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Data Source(s): Information can be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Entity Who Provided the Data: It is recommended that this checklist is completed for each implementing partner that contributes data to an indicator Period for which the Data are Being Reported: Date(s) of Assessment: Assessment Team Members: Data Quality Assessment Methodology: Validity – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended results Reliability – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Cooperative Agreement
Unit of Measure. Number of forums representatives Disaggregated by: Location; Theme Respondent Sex; Youth vs. Non-Youth Respondent Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow SADES-K ▇▇▇▇▇-K to monitor the levels involvement of effort towards consensus-building as well as where current efforts are being supported some of the key stakeholders in the governance and to identify where there may be gapsdemocracy process within the project. Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of forums representatives based on source documentation Data Source: Activity Reports(training, workshop, form, mass media) reports; Grantee Workplans; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Annual Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist and Internews M&E Team Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the themes and locations location Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly annually in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator activity is 0. The LOP target is 24 consensus building forums. will be 150 representatives Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 7 January 19 February 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.3): Informed and empowered citizens participate in county affairs Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Area (3): Civic and democratic space protected Name of Indicator (136): Number of people participating in USG-supported events, training, assisted media-outlets and media-sector CSOs and institutions that serve to strengthen the independent media or activities designed to build mass support for peace and reconciliation journalists Unit of Measure: Number of Individuals CSOs and support institutions Disaggregated by: SexLocation; Youth vs. Non-Youth; New vs. Continuing (Year to Year) Justification & Management Utility: For peace and democratic reforms to be effectively implemented, men and women at the community level need to be involved in the process. In addition, ensuring that the communities participate in the political process address a root cause of conflict and instability. Individuals participating in public fora supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ related to the democratic reform process will likely be counted here, to be determined in consultation with AOR. Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of individuals based on source documentation Data Source: Sign in Sheets; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on sex Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 9,280 individuals. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.2): Enabling environment for devolution strengthened Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Name of Indicator (14): Number of laws, policies or procedures drafted, proposed or adopted to promote constitutional reform at regional, county or national level which were supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ Unit of Measure: Number of laws, policies, or procedures Disaggregated by: Status Entity Type (e.g. draftedCSO, proposedMedia Outlet, or adoptedInstitution); Type (i.e. law, policy, or procedure) Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of changes based on source documentation Data Source: Reports from grantees that document changes to public policies; Advocacy Tracking Matrix: Policy Tracking Matrix Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the level of influence Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target will be 5 public policy changes. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 ANNEX 3: DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS Title of Performance Indicator: Indicator should be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Data Source(s): Information can be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Entity Who Provided the Data: It is recommended that this checklist is completed for each implementing partner that contributes data to an indicator Period for which the Data are Being Reported: Date(s) of Assessment: Assessment Team Members: Data Quality Assessment Methodology: Validity – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended results Reliability – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Cooperative Agreement
Unit of Measure. Number of forums Disaggregated by: Location; Theme Sex Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow SADES-K intends to monitor the levels capture sustainability of effort towards consensus-building as well as where current Youth Lead efforts are being supported and to identify where there may be gaps. build youth community leadership Data Collection Method: Documenting the number Review of forums based on source documentation Internship Database and sign in sheets from trainings Data Source: Activity Reports; Grantee Reports Record review, sign in sheets Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist and Internews M&E Team Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Potentially low response rate, social desirability bias. Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The importance of participating in the survey will be emphasized to the participants while they are still part of the program to increase the response rate. Concrete examples will be solicited to verify self-reported level of engagement. Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel or Stata Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Youth Development and Capacity Building Name of Result Area (1): Result 1.2 Zambian youth in targeted learning institutions and communities equipped with leadership skills Name of Indicator (9): Number of youth who participate in civil society activities following social or leadership skills training or initiatives from USG assisted programs Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the extent to which the internship participants demonstrate active leadership in their communities following the completion of their engagement with Youth Lead Unit of Measure: # Disaggregated by: Sex Justification & Management Utility: This indicator intends to capture sustainability of Youth Lead efforts to build youth community leadership Data Collection Method: All youth implementing capstone programs in their communities will be counted under this indicator. In addition, youth completing the program but not participating in capstone projects will be surveyed after their participation of the program. Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Potentially low response rate, social desirability bias might be issues in the administration of the alumni survey. Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The importance of participating in the survey will be emphasized to the participants while they are still part of the program to increase the response rate. Concrete examples will be solicited to verify self-reported level of engagement. Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel or Stata Presentation of Data: Tables and graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported annually through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area (2): Result 2.1: Strengthened capacity of Zambian government entities, businesses, and civil society organizations to manage a youth internship program Name of Indicator (10): Number of organizations providing internships for youth Precise Definition(s): Number of organizations engaged by Youth Lead which provide a structured internship opportunity which meet the minimum criteria defined by the program. Unit of Measure: # Disaggregated by: Type of organization Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow Youth Lead to track the number and the type of organizations engaged to provide internships for youth Data Collection Method: Program will create a database of host organizations and their characteristics Data Source: Record review Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Organizations might feel incentivized to exaggerate the strengths of their internship opportunities Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Proper documentation will be required to support self-reported data Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area (2): Result 2.1: Strengthened capacity of Zambian government entities, businesses, and civil society organizations to manage a youth internship program Name of Indicator (11): Percentage of organizations, businesses, and government entities that meet minimum standards for structured internship Precise Definition(s): The percent of organizations that meet the minimum standards of what Youth Lead defines as a structured internship, such as formal announcement of internship opportunities, institutionalized role of an internship mentor, and other requirements as defined by the program Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: Type of organization Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow Youth Lead to identify organizations that require additional support in strengthening their ability to provide youth with structured internship opportunities Data Source: Assessment of host organizations Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Organizations might feel incentivized to exaggerate the strengths of their internship opportunities Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Proper documentation will be required to support self-reported data Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported annually through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area (2): Result 2.1: Strengthened capacity of Zambian government entities, businesses, and civil society organizations to manage a youth internship program Name of Indicator (12): Percentage of organizations, businesses, and government entities improving their internship program as a result of the Youth Lead activity Precise Definition(s): The percentage of organizations that demonstrate improvement in the structure of the internship program offered to youth Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: Type of organization Data Collection Method: Host organizations capacity to provide a structured internship program will be measured by a simple tool developed by Youth Lead Data Source: Assessment of host organizations Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Organizations might feel incentivized to exaggerate the strength of their internship opportunities Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Proper documentation will be required to support self-reported data. Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported annually through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area (2): Result 2.2: Strengthened capacity of youth-led organizations at the community level to lead civic engagement and advocacy initiatives. Name of Indicator (13): Number of USG-assisted organizations with increased performance improvement [IM-level] Unit of Measure: # Disaggregated by: Type of organization Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow Youth Lead to track the impact of its institutional strengthening activities Data Collection Method: Organizational capacity assessment (OCA) will be administered pre-and post-engagement with relevant CSOs Data Source: Organizational capacity assessment results Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): OCA might not sufficiently reflect the needs of the CSOs in the Zambia context Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Youth Lead will determine whether any adaptation and contextualization of the OCA tool will be necessary prior to administration. Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be stored and analyzed in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported annually through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: Other Notes USAID Development Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result: Youth development and capacity building & Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area: Result 1.2 Zambian youth in targeted learning institutions and communities equipped with leadership skills Unit of Measure: % Disaggregated by: Sex Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will demonstrate capacity building and opinion change on gender norms of leaders trained through the program, and will lead to a more inclusive Zambian society, and by proxy, increase opportunities for participation of both genders.. Data Source: Survey Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ME&L Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated stored and analyzed based on the themes and locations in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs annually through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 24 consensus building forums. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 7 January 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result (1.3): Informed Result: Youth development and empowered citizens participate in county affairs capacity building & Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Result 2.2. Strengthened capacity of Zambian government entities and civil society organizations to lead civic engagement and advocacy initiatives. Name of Indicator (1315): Number of people participating civil society organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in USG-supported events, training, or activities designed to build mass support for peace and reconciliation advocacy interventions Unit of Measure: Number of Individuals # Disaggregated by: Sex; Youth vs. Non-Youth; New vs. Continuing (Year to Year) Justification & Management Utility: For peace and democratic reforms to be effectively implemented, men and women at the community level need to be involved in the process. In addition, ensuring that the communities participate in the political process address a root cause of conflict and instability. Individuals participating in public fora supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ related to the democratic reform process will likely be counted here, to be determined in consultation with AOR. N/A Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of individuals CSOs based on source documentation Data Source: Sign in Sheets; Grantee Reports Record review, assessment of host organizations Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ ME&L Specialist; Internship Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint as part of the Youth Lead data management system where the PITT is stored Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD FY19 Q4 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Organizations might feel incentivized to exaggerate the strength of their advocacy opportunities Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Proper documentation will be required to support self-reported data. Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 C – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated stored and analyzed based on sex in Excel Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation graphs Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 9,280 individuals. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented Objective: DO 4: Improve development outcomes through the integration of DRG principles and practices across USAID’s development portfolio USAID Intermediate Result (1.2): Enabling environment for devolution strengthened Result: Youth development and capacity building & Institutional strengthening Name of Result Area: CrossResult 2.2: Strengthened capacity of youth-Cutting led organizations at the community level to lead civic engagement and advocacy initiatives. Name of Indicator (1416): Number of lawspublic policies introduced, policies adopted, repealed, changed or procedures drafted, proposed or adopted to promote constitutional reform at regional, county or national level which were supported by ▇▇▇▇▇-▇ implemented with citizen input DESCRIPTION Unit of Measure: Number of laws, policies, or procedures # Disaggregated by: Status Level of influence (e.g. draftedintroduced, proposedadopted, or adoptedrepealed, changed); Type (i.e. law, policy, or procedure) Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of changes based on source documentation Data Source: Reports from grantees that document changes to public policies; Advocacy Tracking Matrix: Policy Tracking Matrix Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: ▇▇▇▇▇-K ▇▇▇ Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the level of influence Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target will be 5 public policy changes. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 ANNEX 3: DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS Title of Performance Indicator: Indicator should be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Data Source(s): Information can be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Entity Who Provided the Data: It is recommended that this checklist is completed for each implementing partner that contributes data to an indicator Period for which the Data are Being Reported: Date(s) of Assessment: Assessment Team Members: Data Quality Assessment Methodology: Validity – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended results Reliability – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over timeSector
Appears in 1 contract