Post on 19-Apr-2022
July 2008 1
CIVIL SOCIETY: MUTUAL
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
(CS:MAP) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
(MEL) Plan
First Approved Date: July 1, 2016
Revised Date: August 31, 2017
Cooperative Agreement Number: AID -367-A-16-00007
Activity Start Date and End Date: April 4, 2016 to April 3, 2021
Submitted by: Bishnu Sapkota, Chief of Party
Civil Society: Mutual Accountability Project (CS:MAP)
FHI 360
GPO Box 8803, Gopal Bhawan
Anamika Galli, Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: 977.1.4437173
Email: bsapkota@fhi360.org
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). It was prepared by FHI 360’s CS:MAP. The contents of this document
do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
List of Abbreviation
AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative
CBO Community Based Organization
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CDO Chief District Officer
CIAA Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority
CoJE Code of Journalistic Ethics
COR Contract Office’s Representative
CS:MAP Civil Society: Mutual Accountability Project
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSOSI Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index
DG Democracy & Governance
DO Development Objective
DQ Data Quality
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EA Equal Access
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
GGB Good Governance Barometer
GON Government of Nepal
GIS Geographic Information System
HICD Human and Institutional Capacity Development
ICNL International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IR Intermediate Result
ISO Intermediary Service Organization
IVR Interactive Voice Response
KII Key Informant Interview
LGBTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex
MEL Monitoring Evaluation and Learning
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non-Government Organization
NTTP Nepal Transition to Peace
OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment
OD Organizational Development
OPI Organizational Performance Index
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PITT Performance Indicators Tracking Table
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PPWGs Public-Private Working Groups
RLGs Radio Listener Groups
SMS Short Message Service
ToC Theory of Change
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
2. Guiding Principles ......................................................................................... 2
3. Theory of Change ......................................................................................... 2
4. Monitoring and Evaluation Approach.................................................. 7
4.1 Monitoring and evaluation structures and functions .......................................... 7
4.2 Indicators, baseline and targets .................................................................................... 9
4.3 Data collection and management ............................................................................. 14
4.4 Data quality assurance .................................................................................................... 15
4.5 Data analysis and reporting .......................................................................................... 16
4.6 Coordination with others .............................................................................................. 16
4.7 Capacity building ............................................................................................................... 16
4.8 Learning and adapting ..................................................................................................... 17
4.8.1 Overall approach and learning questions .............................................................. 17
4.8.2 Plan for special reviews, evaluations and studies ............................................... 18
4.9 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning budget ....................................................... 18
5. Annexes .......................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Annex 1: Summary of Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT) . 20
5.2 Annex 2: MEL Tasks Calendar .................................................................................... 30
5.3 Annex 3: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets ......................................... 32
5.4 Annex 5: Data Quality Assessment Checklists ................................................ 116
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
CS:MAP is a five-year USAID-funded project designed to contribute to USAID/Nepal’s Country
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective 1: More Inclusive and
Effective Governance, with the goal of fostering a more legitimate, accountable, and resilient Nepali
civil society that is capable of advancing the public interest. CS:MAP will achieve its goal through the
following four objectives:
• Objective 1: Strengthened enabling environment for civil society and media
through grants and technical assistance (TA) that support CSOs and media at the national
level to contribute to the adoption or amendment of five key laws, a 30 percent increase in
citizens’ positive perception and understanding of CSOs and media; and a 20 percent increase
in satisfaction from GON stakeholders regarding CSO and media self-regulation. As a result
of these activities, CSOs and media across the country will operate in an environment more receptive to the citizen voices they represent, while simultaneously being better able to
engage those voices in reform.
• Objective 2: Improved civil society and media capacity for effective policy
advocacy and government engagement through grants and TA contributing to 80 Sajha
Sabhas convening CSOs, media, and government (provincial and local); and a 20 percent
improvement in the research capacity of CSOs with at least 10 studies on issues affecting
marginalized people. As a result of these activities, CSOs and media in 20 CDCS and 14
earthquake-affected districts will work with citizens to encourage greater public
accountability from the GON and to advocate for policies and services that benefit all of
Nepal’s citizens.
• Objective 3: More coordinated and effective civil society and media oversight of
public resource use and public service delivery through grants and TA that support a
20 percent increase in citizens’ satisfaction with regard to government (provincial and local)
service delivery across a set of common standards; a 25 percent increase in citizen awareness
of social accountability mechanisms; and a 30 percent increase in Nepali citizens, including
women and minorities, using Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for
oversight. As a result of these activities, CSOs, media, and citizens will have the resources
they need to ensure the government delivers on its development promises for all of its
citizens.
• Objective 4: Strengthened organizational capacity and sustainability of selected
CSOs working in USAID priority sectors to advance local solutions through work
with intermediary service organizations (ISOs) that support 20 CSOs and media organizations
in all CS:MAP districts to increase their organizational development scores by an average of
15 percent; have a total of 40 new instances of receiving funds; and update their policies,
governance practices, and programming to be more inclusive of women, youth, and
marginalized populations. As a result of these activities, CSO- and media-led advocacy and monitoring activities will be planned and implemented by credible organizations with strong,
inclusive systems and staying power.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 2
The activities designed under CS:MAP contribute to United States Government (USG) Foreign
Assistance Objective 2 Governing Justly and Democratically under Program Areas 2.2 Good
Governance and 2.4 Civil Society while achieving the following objectives and intermediate results
of USAID’s CDCS result framework:
Development Objective (DO) 1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance
Intermediate Result (IR) 1.2: Accountability of Selected Institutions Strengthened;
Intermediate Result (IR) 1.3: Civic Participation and Advocacy Increased;
Intermediate Result (IR) 1.4: Public Policy and Performance Improved.
2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is an integral part of the Monitoring and Evaluation system
under CS:MAP. It will serve to establish and strengthen linkages between effective program
implementation and the achievement of results, while making CS:MAP information available for
its stakeholders in a timely and reliable manner. It is guided by FHI 360’s monitoring and
evaluation strategies and principles (e.g. transparency, accountability, participation etc.) and will
help provide feedback to project managers during project implementation and provide a
comprehensive and coherent information base that can be used to assess its outcomes. This
document has been prepared with the aim of maintaining transparency and accountability on
the project and to ensure participation of all program stakeholders including implementers,
beneficiaries, youth, women, GON officials and CSOs and media representatives.
The purpose of this M&E Plan is to describe how FHI 360 in partnership with EA and ICNL will
monitor and evaluate CS:MAP. This M&E Plan clearly proposes indicators against each of the
expected results of the project. It also describes the processes that we will use to perform
M&E throughout the life of the project. It serves as an instrument to operationalize the result framework of CS:MAP. It is a dynamic and living document which will be continuously revised
and updated based on the periodic review of the effectiveness of the M&E system in: existing
monitoring activities and results, the validity of the underlying assumptions, and the usefulness
of the indicators to test pre-identified assumptions, and monitor both outputs and impacts of
CS:MAP.
3. THEORY OF CHANGE
The following statement represents the CS:MAP theory of change (ToC):
If Nepali civil society and media organizations actively participate in organizational and technical
capacity-building efforts to improve their legitimacy, accountability and resilience, then they
would be able to advance the public interest.
The CS:MAP ToC follows from the problem statement and the root causes underlying the
problem - all of which were identified during the design stage of the project:
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 3
Problem Statement: The Nepali civil society and media lack the desired legitimacy,
accountability and resilience required to effectively advance the public interest.
Root Causes for Lack of Desired Legitimacy:
Politicization: political party agendas, as opposed to public needs, drive advocacy agenda and
media reporting public does not perceive civil society and media as sufficiently legitimate;
Inability to influence public policy due to 1) lack of access to decision-makers; 2) lack of
skills, such as ability to formulate and articulate policy recommendations based on evidence; 3)
lack of coordination Government of Nepal does not perceive civil society and media as
sufficiently legitimate; and
Lack of representation and inclusion of marginalized communities in project activities and
internal policies Marginalized communities do not perceive CSOs and media as sufficiently
legitimate.
Root Causes for Lack of Desired Accountability:
- Lack of internal self-regulation and governance mechanisms that contributed to politicization
of the civil society and media sector that are then beholden to political party and donor
agendas rather than to the constituents they represent.
Root Causes for Lack of Desired Resilience:
- Heavy reliance on donor funding;
- Lack of institutional capacity to effectively manage projects and resources, and affect change in
their communities; and
- Regulatory frameworks that often constrain civil society and media activities.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 4
CS:MAP Results Framework:
The Results Framework is explained in the diagram below:
USAID/Nepal DO 1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance
IR 1.3: Civic Participation
and Advocacy Increased
IR 1.2: Accountability of Selected
Institutions Strengthened
IR 1.4: Public Policy and
Performance Improved
CS:MAP GoalTo foster a more legitimate, accountable, and resilient Nepali civil society that is capable of advancing the
public interest.
Objective 1:
Strengthened enabling
environment for civil
society and media
Objective 2: Improved civil
society and media capacity
for effective policy advocacy
and government engagement
Objective 3: More
coordinated and effective civil
society and media oversight
of public resource use and
service delivery
Objective 4: Strengthened
organizational capacity and
sustainability of CSOs
working in USAID priority
sectors
IR 1.1: Improved legal and policy
framework, based on international
standards, that leads to better
operating environment and
strengthened capacity for civil
society.
IR 1.2: Improved public
understanding and confidence in the
role of CSOs and media
IR 1.3: Improved self-regulation of
the sector and internal governance
of CSOs and media
IR 2.1: Strengthened CSO initiatives to
coordinate with the GON and to
implement constructive advocacy
strategies.
IR 3.1: Improved capacity of local CSOs,
media and community-based organizations
to monitor and report on cross-sectoral
public service delivery, based on common
standards applicable to each sector
IR 3.2: Improved bottom up coordination
between community, district, and national
formal and informal CSOs engaged in public
service oversight
IR 3.3: Improved citizen use of available
GON social accountability mechanisms
IR 3.4: Improved citizen engagement in
media and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) tools to strengthen public
participation and oversight
IR 4.1: Improved institutional
governance of selected CSOs and media
organizations
IR 4.2: Improved capacity of select
CSOs and media organizations to
mobilize social and financial resources
for sustainability
IR 4.3: Improved capacity of CSOs and
media organizations to advance local
solutions on priority development issues
across sectors and to promote peer-
learning opportunities
IR 2.2: Improved coalition-building
between local and national CSOs, and
between CSOs and the media that leads
to joint actions undertaken on selected
policy priorities across sectors.
IR 2.3: Improved CSO and media
capacity to conduct participatory and
evidence-based research on issues, policy
and enforcement in order to benefit
marginalized groups
Planned Interventions to Address Lack of the Desired Legitimacy, Accountability
and Resilience:
Objective 1: Strengthened enabling environment for civil society and media.
Result 1.1: Improved legal and policy framework, based on international standards that leads to
better operating environment and strengthened capacity for civil society.
Result 1.2: Improved public understanding and confidence in the role of CSOs and media.
Result 1.3: Improved self-regulation of the sector and internal governance of CSOs and media.
Major Interventions:
o Rapid assessment of existing CSO and media legal frameworks, stakeholder
consultations, and formulation of recommendations
o Research and stakeholder consultation results summarized and disseminated for action
o Grants to fund advocacy efforts focused on improving enabling environment
o Support a CSO Coalition
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 5
o Support a Media Coalition
o Assessment of public perception about CSOs and media
o Outreach campaign to improve public understanding and confidence in CSOs and media
o Community Scorecards to measure CSO and media performance
o Joint workshops to improve CSOs and media relations
o Improving institutional governance (e.g. self-regulation) of the CSO sector
o Improving institutional governance (e.g. self-regulation) of the media sector
Objective 2: Improved civil society and media capacity for effective policy advocacy
and government engagement.
Result 2.1: Strengthened CSO initiatives to coordinate with the GON and to implement
constructive advocacy strategies.
Result 2.2: Improved coalition-building between local and national CSOs, and between CSOs
and the media that leads to joint actions undertaken on selected policy priorities across
sectors.
Result 2.3: Improved CSO and media capacity to conduct participatory and evidence-based
research on issues, policy, and enforcement in order to benefit marginalized groups.
Major Interventions:
o CSOs and media organizations identified to coordinate with the GON and implement
constructive advocacy strategies
o Advocacy and government engagement capacity of 14-district based CSOs and media
organizations strengthened
o Public-Private Working Groups (PPWGs) formation
o Sajha Sabhas, or Public Forums
o Coalitions and networks strengthened to undertake joint advocacy actions on policy
priorities across sectors
o Shreejanshil Shakhas (innovation hubs) identified to serve as CSO-media collaboration
hubs
o Research capacity building for CSOs and media organizations
o Study visit for media partners in Kathmandu for investigative journalism
o Research fellowship for CSO partners at one of the Research Centers of the Tribhuvan
University
o Advocacy and Monitoring/Oversight Training for media organizations
o Investigative Journalism Training for media organizations
o Journalist Safety and Security Training media organizations
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 6
Objective 3: More coordinated and effective civil society and media oversight of
public resource use and public service delivery.
Result 3.1: Improved capacity of local CSOs, media, and community-based organizations to
monitor and report on cross-sectoral public service delivery, based on common standards
applicable to each sector.
Result 3.2: Improved bottom-up coordination between community, district, and national formal
and informal CSOs engaged in public service oversight.
Result 3.3: Improved citizen awareness and use of available GON social accountability
mechanisms.
Result 3.4: Improved citizen engagement in media and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) tools to strengthen public participation and oversight.
Major Interventions:
o Apply Good Governance Barometer (GGB) tool in selected gaunpalikas
o Coalition and networks strengthened for public service delivery and public resource use
oversight
o Bi-annual Summits of CSOs and media grantees
o Social Accountability Trainings
o Radio programming to raise citizen awareness of social accountability mechanisms
o Radio Listener Groups (RLGs) to engage citizens in social accountability
o Youth engagement in social accountability
o Annual SMS My Lawmaker campaigns
o Public service delivery photo exhibits
o Online collaboration platform (MeroReport)
Objective 4: Strengthen organizational capacity and sustainability of CSOs working
in USAID priority sectors to advance local solutions delivery.
Result 4.1: Improved institutional governance of selected CSOs and media organizations.
Result 4.2: Improved capacity of select CSOs and media organizations to mobilize social and
financial resources for sustainability.
Result 4.3: Improved capacity of CSOs and media organizations to advance local solutions on
priority development issues across sectors and to promote peer-learning opportunities.
Major Interventions:
o Set capacity building expectations
o Conduct organizational capacity assessments with selected organizations
o Develop customized organizational improvement plans
o Train and provide technical assistance and coaching to selected CSOs and media
organizations
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 7
o Develop Financial Sustainability Plans
o Bi-annual group trainings in financial sustainability
o Technical assistance on volunteer engagement
o Open houses to expose CS:MAP grantees to new donors
o Training and TA to selected CSO and media grantees to improve technical and
organizational development (OD) capacities
o Strengthen the local marketplace of capacity development services
o Peer learning among partner CSOs and media organizations
o Strengthen institutional governance of selected CSOs/Media
4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION APPROACH
4.1 Monitoring and evaluation structures and functions
The CS:MAP will implement a 3-level participatory monitoring approach
(as shown in the picture): 1) monitoring of activities by program
beneficiaries through the local Public-Private Working Groups (PPWGs)
and Sajha Sabhas; 2) monitoring of progress, effectiveness and results at
the project grantees’ level; and 3) output and outcome level monitoring
by CS:MAP. Monitoring activities in CS:MAP include periodic progress
review and reflection, field visits, sample survey, joint monitoring along
with CSOs and ISOs; and field verification of program activities records
etc.
CS:MAP’s monitoring and evaluation unit will have the sole responsibility of maintaining
records, and collect, collate and analyze data periodically. Central database management and
data automation system will be established that will provide both output and outcome level
monitoring results. Orientation sessions on handling the database management system will be
conducted as needed. The CS:MAP Data Flow Structure presented below clearly outlines the
flow of data generated at different levels; and how the analyzed data and reports will be shared
with USAID/Nepal.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 8
CS:MAP Data Flow Structure
USAID/NepalAPRO –
FHI 360
HQ –
FHI 360
CS:MAP
Central database
system(M&E Manager)
CS:MAP
FHI 360
Nepal
CDCS districts’Grantees
Earthquake-
affected
districts’
Grantees
Activity Activity Activity Activity
Grantees-led activities at community level
Activity Activity Activity Activity
Grantees-led activities at community level
Reporting Formats:- Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR);
- AIDTracker Plus;
- Annual Reports;
- Special reports (i.e. success stories,
research reports etc.)
Reporting Formats &
Requirements:- Quarterly Progress
Reports (QPR);
- Annual Reports;
- Special reports as and
when applicable (i.e.
success stories, events
reports etc.)
- Database updates.
Reporting Formats &
Requirements:- Quarterly Progress
Reports (QPR);
- Annual Reports;
- Special reports as and
when applicable (i.e.
success stories, events
reports etc.)
- Database updates.
Reporting Formats &
Requirements:- Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR);
- Annual Reports;
- Special reports as and when
applicable (i.e. success stories, events
reports etc.)
- Database updates.
Responsibility:
CS:MAP FHI 360
Nepal:- COP
- DCOP
CS:MAP Central
Database
Management System:- M&E Manager
CS:MAP International
Partner EA:- Media Director;
- M&E Focal Person
CS:MAP International
Partner ICNL:- Legal and Policy Advisor
CS:MAP Grantees:- Project Coordinator
- M&E Focal Person
Equal Access
(EA)
International
Center for Not-
for-Profit Law
(ICNL)
** Reporting from Grantees working at CDCS and Earthquake-affected districts will pass through screening from following personnel:
Civil Society Director; GESI Advisor; Governance Advisor; Capacity Building Manager
Reporting
Gateways**
Reporting Formats &
Requirements:- Quarterly Progress Reports (QPR);
- Annual Reports;
- Special reports as and when
applicable (i.e. success stories, events
reports etc.)
- Database updates.
Further, public perception surveys will be conducted along with a baseline study at the
beginning; with a mid-term survey in year three and with the endline survey in year five to:1)
gauge public perceptions of civil society’s and media’s role; 2) assess confidence in transparency,
effectiveness, and governance; 3) measure the extent to which women and minority groups feel
that civil society represents them; and 4) examine perceptions of media, building on a
foundation of existing research.
Major M&E activities to be performed by CS:MAP M&E unit include the following:
• Establish the M&E system including preparation of the M&E Plan;
- M&E Plan Development;
- Conduct baseline and perception survey;
- Mid-term survey and public perception survey;
- Endline and public perception survey;
• Central level Database Management system;
- Database Management System establishment;
- Orientation sessions on database management system and M&E data requirements;
- Quarterly database updates;
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 9
• Facilitate for periodic review and reflection sessions on progress, issues and challenges
while implementation the project activities;
- Quarterly progress reporting; - Quarterly review reflection meetings;
- Annual progress reporting;
- Annual review and reflection workshop;
• Collaborate for periodic evaluation (including external mid-term and final evaluations;
research/studies, outcome monitoring etc.;
• Regular field monitoring;
- Joint monitoring visits; - Ensure data quality across reporting chains
• Facilitate for M&E capacity development of team members and relevant stakeholders;
- Orientation sessions on database management system and M&E data requirements;
• Facilitate/lead for capturing and applying learning and ensuring knowledge management;
- Learning assessment/studies;
• Facilitate the implementation of tools like OCA, Advocacy Readiness Index (ARI), Good
Governance Barometer (GGB) etc.
- OCA of CSOs and media grantee;
- ARI of CSOs and media grantees;
- GGB monitoring and reporting;
4.2 Indicators, baseline and targets
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
Goal: To foster a more legitimate, accountable, and resilient Nepali civil society that is capable
of advancing the public interest.
G1 CSO Sustainability Index Score1
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP Context
Indicator 1.3-2)
4.2 (2015)
(USAID/Nepal)
3
G2 Percent of respondents who
report that services received
satisfactorily respond to their
need2
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.4.2-2)
Baseline value will be
considered as of the
USAID Do1 survey
results
13% in USAID
Districts (2015)
16.9%
(30% increase in
baseline value)
Objective 1: Strengthened enabling environment for civil society and media
1 CS:MAP will use USAID CSOSI data as the baseline value and for tracking progress. Although, USAID CSOSI is
conducted on a national scale and may not accurately represent the progress attributable to CS:MAP, it is assumed
here that CS:MAP will have contributed significantly to the national data as it is being planned and implemented
across 34 districts. 2 CS:MAP will use USAID DO1 survey data as the baseline value and for tracking progress. Although, USAID DO1
survey is conducted on a national scale and may not accurately represent the progress attributable to CS:MAP, it is
assumed here that CS:MAP will have contributed significantly to the national data as it is being planned and
implemented across 34 districts.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 10
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
IR 1.1: Improved legal and policy framework based on international standards, that leads to
better operating environment and strengthened capacity for civil society.
IND 1.1.1 Number of USG-assisted civil
society organizations that
participate in legislative
proceedings and/or engage in
advocacy with national legislature
and its committees (USAID/Nepal
DO1 PMP 1.3.3-3)
0 (2016) 10
IND 1.1.2 Number of public policies
introduced, adopted, repealed,
changed or implemented
consistent with citizen input
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.4.1-1)
0 (2016) 5
IND 1.1.3 Numbers of
Policies/Regulations/Administrative
Procedures in each of the
following stages of development as
a result of USG assistance in each
case: Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2:
Stakeholder consultation/public
debate; Stage 3: Drafting or
revision; Stage 4: Approval
(legislative or regulatory); and
Stage 5: Full and effective
implementation.
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.4.1-2)
0 (2016) 5
IR 1.2: Improved public understanding and confidence in the role of CSOs and media
IND 1.2.1 Number of CSOs-driven initiatives
that resolved public interest issues
aimed at improving public
perception
0
(2017)
16
IND 1.2.2 Percentage change in public
understanding of the role of CSOs
and media
Level of public
understanding –
42.4%
(2017)
55.1%
IND 1.2.3 Percentage change in public
confidence in the role of CSOs
and media
Level of public
confidence – 37.2%
(2017)
48.4%
IND 1.2.4 Number of CSOs-driven initiatives
that deal with public interest
issues aimed at improving public
perception
0 (2016) 32
IR 1.3: Improved self-regulation of the sector and internal governance of CSOs and media
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 11
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
IND 1.3.1 Number of CSOs and media
organizations participating in a
self-regulatory and institutional
governance initiative
0 (2017) 500
IND 1.3.2 Percentage change in GON
stakeholder satisfaction with CSO
and media self-regulation
Level of GON
stakeholder
Satisfaction – 34.4%
(2017)
41.3%
IND 1.3.3 Number of USG-assisted media-
sector CSOs and/or institutions
that serve to strengthen the
independent media or journalists
0 (2016) 6
Objective 2: Improved civil society and media capacity for effective policy advocacy and
government engagement
IR 2.1: Strengthened CSO initiatives to coordinate with the GON and to implement
constructive advocacy strategies.
IND 2.1.1 Number of CSOs receiving USG
assistance engaged in advocacy interventions
(USAID Standard Ind. 2.4.1-9;
USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-1)
0 (2016) 22
IND 2.1.2 Number of instances of contact
between USG-supported CSOs
and government officials (e.g.
phone calls, emails, personal visits)
with the intention to (1) advocate
on policies; (2) request
information with which to hold
government officials accountable
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.3-2)
0 (2016) 300
IND 2.1.3 Number of civil society
organizations that report being
routinely consulted by
policymakers on policies relevant
to their constituencies
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.3-1)
0 (2016) 178
IND 2.1.4 Number of “Policy Advocacy,
Government Engagement and
Oversight” grantees that
demonstrate increased Advocacy
Readiness Index Scores
0 (2017) 14
IND 2.1.5 Number of public forums resulting
from USG assistance in which
national legislators and members
0 (2016) 300
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 12
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
of the public interact
(USAID Standard Ind. 2.2.1-6;
USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.2.2-2)
IND 2.1.6 Average Advocacy Readiness
Index (ARI) Score of “Policy
Advocacy, Government
Engagement and Oversight”
grantees
0.87 (2017) 3
IR 2.2: Improved coalition-building between local and national CSOs, and between CSOs and
the media that leads to joint actions undertaken on selected policy priorities across sectors
IND 2.2.1 Number of USG-assisted
coalitions between national and
local CSOs working together for
common issues and policy
priorities
0 (2016) 4
IND 2.2.2 Number of newly established
Shreejanshil Shakhas (innovation
hubs) that allow CSOs and media
to coordinate their respective
work and act jointly
0 (2016) 34
IND 2.2.3 Number of joint actions
undertaken by CSO – media
coalitions on cross-sectoral policy
priorities
0 (2016) 510
IR 2.3: Improved CSO and media capacity to conduct participatory and evidence-based
research on issues, policy and enforcement in order to benefit marginalized groups
IND 2.3.1 Number of participatory and
evidence-based research conducted by USG-assisted CSOs
and media on marginalized people
related public policies and services
0 (2016) 168
IND 2.3.2 Number of CSOs/Media using
gender and caste, ethnicity disaggregated evidence for policy
advocacy
0 (2016) 14
Objective 3: More coordinated and effective civil society and media oversight of public
resource use and service delivery
IR 3.1: Improved capacity of local CSOs, media and community-based organizations to monitor
and report on cross-sectoral public service delivery, based on common standards applicable to
each sector
IND 3.1.1 Number of USAID-supported
CSOs and community
management entities engaged in
public expenditure tracking
0 (2016) 21
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 13
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
IND 3.1.2 Percentage of respondents
satisfied with government service
delivery at gaunpalikas level
through the use of the GGB
TBD 20% increase in
baseline value
IND 3.1.3 Number of USG-funded
organizations representing
marginalized constituencies trying
to affect government policy or
conducting government oversight
(USAID Standard Ind. 2.4.1-11)
0 (2016) 14
IND 3.1.4 Number of issue-specific groups
formed that utilize the MeroReport
web-portal as a platform for
cross-sectoral oversight and
sharing of results of such oversight
(e.g. GGB results)
0 (2016) 4
IR 3.2 Improved bottom up coordination between community, district, and national formal and
informal CSOs engaged in public service oversight
IND 3.2.1 Number of USG-assisted
coalitions between national and
local CSOs engaged in effective
public service oversight
0 (2016) 4
IR 3.3: Improved citizen use of available GON social accountability mechanisms
IND 3.3.1 Percent of respondents having
used social accountability
mechanisms in past 12 months
15.6% in CS:MAP
districts
19.5% in CS:MAP
districts
IR 3.4: Improved citizen engagement in media and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) tools to strengthen public participation and oversight
IND 3.4.1 Percent of citizens, including
women, youth and minorities,
using ICT for oversight
49.6% (2017) 64.5%
IND 3.4.2 Number of USG-assisted CSOs
using ICT for monitoring and
oversight of public service delivery
and public resource use
0 14
Objective 4: Strengthened organizational capacity and sustainability of CSOs working in USAID
priority sectors
IR 4.1: Improved institutional governance of selected CSOs and media organizations
IND 4.1.1 Percent of local organizations with
improved capacity and/or
performance scores
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-2)
0 (2017) 90%
IND 4.1.2 Local Organizational Capacity 2.2 (2017) 3.5
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 14
No. Indicator Baseline value and
data sources
Overall (Life of
Activity) Target
Assessment Score
IND 4.1.3 Number of CSOs and media
organizations apply improved self-
regulatory and institutional
governance standards (developed
under IND 1.3.1)
0 27
IR 4.2: Improved capacity of select CSOs and media organizations to mobilize social and
financial resources for sustainability
IND 4.2.1 Number of USG-supported CSO
reporting new funding sources
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-4)
0 (2016) 14
IR 4.3: Improved capacity of CSOs and media organizations to advance local solutions on
priority development issues across sectors and to promote peer-learning opportunities
IND 4.3.1 Percent of USG assisted
CSOs/Media conducting peer
learning practices
0 (2017) 90%
IND 4.3.2 Number of cases that advance
local solutions
0 (2016) 60
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Component – some additional
indicators
GESI 1 Number of organizations that
develop and practice GESI policies
and standards
5 (2017) 14
GESI 2 Percent of leadership positions in
USG-supported community
management entities that are filled
by women or member of a
vulnerable group
35.9% (2017) 45%
4.3 Data collection and management
Developing data collection and processing mechanisms: Data collection and recording
instruments in appropriate formats will be developed after a quick data needs assessment; and
such formats will be tested and refined. In order to have efficient data processing system,
CS:MAP will establish a data automation system at the beginning of the project execution. The
CS:MAP M&E unit will handle the overall process of data collection, recording and processing
in coordination with the project team, ISOs and CSOs etc.
The methods and tools for monitoring, evaluation and learning will be both qualitative and
quantitative. Information will be gathered from an appropriate mix of internal reports and
records and external surveys. These methods will be applied in such a manner that the
qualitative MEL effort supplements the quantitative data. Quarterly reports will be prepared for
internal use that will track stated objectives, provide a qualitative narrative, and track
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 15
quantitative indicators listed in Annex 5.1. MEL task calendar mentioned in Annex 5.2 will also
guide program monitoring.
Tracking progress of M&E indicators: The indicators in the M&E plan will be tracked
periodically as per the frequency mentioned in the plan. There will be some specific activities to
review the progress of the M&E plan implementation, preferably on a semi-annual basis. These
include bi-annual review meetings among CS: MAP consortium partners and periodic review of
DQA plan as outlined in section 4.4 and Annex 5.4.
Field visits for monitoring of progress at field: Periodic field visits will be made by CS: MAP
staff members in order to monitor the status of activity implementation and processes followed
at the implementation level. Field visits/monitoring check-lists will be designed and filled out in
order to maintain uniformity and align results. Besides, joint monitoring visits by political
leaders, GON officials, and CS: MAP senior management team members, will also be conducted
as an important means of monitoring progress on project activities and generating feedback for
improvement.
Level of data disaggregation: In compliance with USAID requirement, and to the extent possible, CS:MAP will ensure disaggregation of data collected by sex, caste/ethnicity, age and
geography. As per the USAID/Nepal’s policy requirement, all person-level indicators for which
data are collected will be disaggregated by sex, age, and caste/ethnicity. Accordingly, CS:MAP
will ensure data disaggregation by caste/ethnicity in the following categories: Dalit, Muslim,
Brahmin/Chhetri, Newar, Janajati, Madhesi (will be sub-categorized as per GON’s standard
practices) and Others; while data pertinent to age will be disaggregated by the following five-
year groupings: 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34 etc. As required, data will be recorded to register
people with disabilities and those belonging to LGBTI communities as well. As required and to
the extent possible, CS: MAP will coordinate with existing Geographic Information System
(GIS) units to input GIS data and other information to create relevant maps and infographics.
4.4 Data quality assurance
One of the tools for analysis and learning is the measurement of efficiency of the outputs –
qualitative and quantitative – in relation to the inputs. Timely achievement of results with least
cost is one way of measurement. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to
achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
Another is cost effectiveness analysis that seeks to identify the least expensive way of realizing a
certain level of benefits, or a way of maximizing benefits per unit cost.
The DQA will follow the checklist provided in Annex 5.4, and will assess five aspects of data
quality (validity, reliability, timeliness, precision, and integrity) and provide a convenient manner
in which to document the findings. CS:MAP will ensure high degree of data quality through both
the internal and external validation and assessments. The procedure and frequency for DQA to
be conducted by CS:MAP will be ascertained in consultation with USAID/Nepal.
However, in the case of our grantees, CS:MAP M&E unit will take a lead to conduct at least one
DQA every six months. This unit also ensures data quality by preparing standard recording and
reporting guidelines providing orientation and coaching to the staff involved in data collection.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 16
4.5 Data analysis and reporting
Data collected by the CS: MAP will be processed and synthesized into meaningful information
to be used for improved decision making, and enhanced understanding of the situation and
results of the program. As part of demonstrating its accountability, CS:MAP will also share the
information generated to wider audiences including donors, Government of Nepal, relevant
stakeholders, partners and the communities using various network forums. This project will
also document and disseminate learning in a systematic manner, following USAID
recommendations and suggestions. Appropriate communication related materials will be
produced by CS:MAP for dissemination among wider audiences.. These include fact sheets,
radio episodes, research reports and success stories that will be disseminated through the
MeroReport online portal, IVR/SMS system, stakeholder’s listserv, FM radio broadcasts and the
Sajha Sabhas.
4.6 Coordination with others
Coordination and Collaboration with GON: From the beginning, arrangements will be made
to introduce CS:MAP and discuss key issues with Parliament and relevant Ministries; promote its activities and engage the GON champions early on in the interventions. It will use different
fora and measures to continuously engage the GON bodies and secure buy-in for CS: MAP’s
activities.
Coordination and Collaboration with USAID and other donor-funded projects: CS: MAP
staff will attend USAID D&G Partners’ Forum, and provide USAID updates and analyses on an
ongoing basis. As and when required, FHI 360 will organize an implementers’ meeting with
participation of USAID and other donor-funded projects working in democracy and governance
and other priority sectors to build synergies, exchange lessons learnt, and identify existing
interventions that are aligned with CS:MAP objectives. CS:MAP will continue to hold these
coordination meetings on a periodic basis; that includes COPs and other project staff from
Sajhedari Bikaas, Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral, and Legislative Processes, Nepal
Transition to Peace (NTTP) Institute, and others; to ensure ongoing learning, avoid duplication
of effort, leverage resources across USAID- and other donor-funded projects, and inform
subsequent CS:MAP Work Plans.
4.7 Capacity building
All intervention and efforts of CS:MAP are directed towards achieving its envisioned goal and
objectives. Therefore, clear understanding of the program strategies and process through which
the results will be achieved is essential across all level of the CS:MAP team members including
the representatives from ISOs and CSOs. To establish a common understanding of the key
concepts of M&E process in CS:MAP; and to enhance/build the expertise on participatory M&E
system, in-house training cum orientation sessions; and review reflection events will be
conducted periodically.
More on it, orientation sessions will be conducted as per the requirement for data collection,
entry and reporting at database management system. The reporting arrangements will be made
following applicable USAID system after receiving technical orientation as required.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 17
4.8 Learning and adapting
4.8.1 Overall approach and learning questions
To remain responsive and adaptive to the complex and evolving context in Nepal, CS:MAP will
conduct formative, continuous cycle of action and reflection that ensures stakeholder
engagement, data utilization, and continuous project improvement. To do so, the CS:MAP staff
and partners will conduct quarterly rolling assessments of the impact of national and district
level dynamics (including those related to politics, periodic elections, policy issues among
others) on the project, and the project’s impact on these dynamics, including reflection
meetings each quarter with key project personnel, select grantees and local partners, and the
USAID AOR. Apart from routine monitoring and evaluation activities, learning and sharing will
be facilitated by CS:MAP staff in the following ways:
- Quarterly review of periodic reports from grantees that contain a learning section in
their reporting template and encourages answers to the learning questions (see below)
- Annual review / reflection or learning workshops with key project personnel, selected
grantees and partners - Documentation and sharing of learning, knowledge, best practices and research findings
emanating from grantees on the MeroReport platform
- Bi-annual peer learning sessions between cross-sectoral coalitions and the Intermediary
Service Organizations
- Weaving learning and knowledge generated through project activity implementation and
research into radio program episode messages for broader dissemination.
The learning generated through the rolling assessments will be utilized to adjust CS:MAP
activities as needed with AOR approval.
To facilitate learning, generate knowledge, and make design adjustments as needed, CS:MAP will
ask the following questions, which are tied to project Theory of Change and Objectives,:
1. How do CSOs engage with the government such that there is an improvement in
mutual trust, confidence and understanding of each other’s roles?
o What are the best ways in which CSOs engage with government in order to
build trust and improve relationships so that both CSOs and government can
better fulfill their mandates?
o What are the common groups where CSOs and government can come
together to better deliver services to the public?
o To what extent does effective engagement change or influence the
perceptions of CSOs and government in how well it fulfills its role?
2. How and to what extent can CSOs collaborate with the media to enhance trust and
improve the relationship between CSOs and media? Similarly, how can CSOs
collaborate with the private sector to improve relationships and service delivery of
both CSOs and the private sector?
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 18
3. How do CSOs cultivate and institutionalize good governance within their
organization?
o How and to what extent are CSOs able to improve their public image by
internalizing good governance at the organizational level?
4.8.2 Plan for special reviews, evaluations and studies
Public perception surveys will be conducted along with a baseline study at the beginning; with a
mid-term survey in year three and with the endline survey in year five. It will:1) gauge public
perceptions of civil society’s and media’s role; 2) assess confidence in transparency,
effectiveness, and governance; 3) measure the extent to which women and minority groups feel
that civil society represents them; and 4) examine perceptions of media, building on a
foundation of existing research, including the findings from Equal Access (EA)’s broadcast
audience survey of 2014. EA’s network of community researchers will help collect data. Based
on the findings, CS:MAP, with FHI 360’s specialized Behavior Change Communications
department and a Nepali communications partner, will craft an outreach campaign to reach out
to the public with messaging on the role of civil society.
During the project tenure, external mid-term and final evaluations of CS:MAP will be conducted
by USAID/Nepal to review relevance, impact, effectiveness and sustainability of the project
outcomes. CS:MAP M&E unit will facilitate this process.
4.9 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning budget
SN Key MEL Tasks Tentative Budget (USD)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
1 Salary & Benefits 34,731 34,731 34,731 34,731 34,731 173,655
2 Database management system
establishment; follow-ups
15,000 5,000 2,000 1,000 448 23,448
3 Perception Survey – through sub-contracting a research
firm)
15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000
4 Monitoring and Evaluation
visits for DQA
500 4,000 7,000 4,000 1,000 16,500
Total 65,231 43,731 58,731 39,731 51,179 258,603
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 19
5. ANNEXES
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 20
5.1 Annex 1: Summary of Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT)
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
Goal: To foster a more legitimate, accountable, and resilient Nepali civil society that is capable of advancing the public interest.
G1 CSO Sustainability Index
Score Impact NA
CSOSI
Survey
Annual Nation
al/
district
4.2
(2015
)
USAI
D
4 3.
7
3
.
5
3 3
G2
Percent of respondents
who report that services
received satisfactorily
respond to their need
Impact
Age, sex,
caste/ethnicit
y, geographic
location
(District),
Type of
Service
DO1
Survey
Baseline;
Mid-term;
and
Endline
Nation
al/
district
13%
in
USAI
D
distri
cts
(2015
)
1
5
.
6
%
1
6
.
9
%
1
6.
9
%
Objective 1: Strengthened enabling environment for civil society and media
IR 1.1: Improved legal and policy framework, based on international standards, that leads to better operating environment and
strengthened capacity for civil society.
IND
1.1.1
Number of USG-assisted
civil society organizations
that participate in
legislative proceedings
and/or engage in advocacy
with national legislature
and its committees
Output
By sector
(DG, DRR,
health,
environment,
etc.)
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 3 9 9 1
0
1
0
IND
1.1.2
Number of public policies
introduced, adopted,
repealed, changed or
implemented consistent
with citizen input
Outco
me
Policy,
sector
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 2 4 5 5 5
IND Numbers of outco Policy, Grantee Annual Nation 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 21
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
1.1.3 Policies/Regulations/Admi
nistrative Procedures in
each of the following
stages of development as
a result of USG assistance
in each case: Stage 1:
Analysis; Stage 2:
Stakeholder
consultation/public
debate; Stage 3: Drafting
or revision; Stage 4:
Approval (legislative or
regulatory); and Stage 5:
Full and effective
implementation.
me sector, and
stage
quarterly
reports,
public
records
(cumulativ
e)
al/
district
(2016
)
IR 1.2: Improved public understanding and confidence in the role of CSOs and media.
IND
1.2.1
Number of CSOs-driven
initiatives that resolved
public interest issues
aimed at improving public
perception
Outc
ome
Sector,
geography
Grante
e
reports
Annual
Natio
nal/su
b-
nation
al
0 0 0 4 6 6 0 1
6
IND
1.2.2
Percentage change in
public understanding of
the role of CSOs and
media
Outco
me NA
Survey,
key
informan
t
intervie
ws, focus
groups
Baseline,
Mid-term,
and
Endline
Survey
Nation
al/
district
Level
of
Public
Unde
rstan
ding –
42.4%
(2017
)
N
A
N
A
4
6.
6
%
5
5.
1
%
5
5.
1
%
IND
1.2.3
Percentage change in
public confidence in the
role of CSOs and media
Outco
me NA
Survey,
key
informan
Baseline,
Mid-term,
and
Nation
al/
district
Level
of
Public
N
A
N
A
4
0.
4
8.
4
4
8.
4
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 22
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
t
intervie
ws, focus
groups
Endline
Survey
Confi
dence
–
37.2%
(2017
)
9
%
% %
IND
1.2.4
Number of CSOs-driven
initiatives that deal with
public interest issues
aimed at improving public
perception
Output Sector,
geography
Grantee
reports
Annual Nation
al/Sub-
nationa
l
0
(2016
)
0 2 1
0
1
0
1
0
0 3
2
IR 1.3: Improved self-regulation of the sector and internal governance of CSOs and media
IND
1.3.1
Number of CSOs and
media organizations
participating in a self-
regulatory initiative
Outco
me
Type (CSO,
CBO, media
organization)
; sector
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Quarterly
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2017
)
0 1
5
1
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
IND
1.3.2
Percentage change in
GON stakeholder
satisfaction with CSO and
media self-regulation
Outco
me N/A
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Baseline,
Mid-term,
and
Endline
Survey
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
Level
of
GON
stake
holde
r
satisfa
ction
–
34.4%
(2017
)
3
7.
8
%
4
1.
3
%
4
1.
3
%
IND
1.3.3
Number of USG-assisted
media-sector CSOs
and/or institutions that
serve to strengthen the
independent media or
Output NA
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Quarterly
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 6 6 6 6 6
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 23
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
journalists
Objective 2: Improved civil society and media capacity for effective policy advocacy and government engagement
IR 2.1: Strengthened CSO initiatives to coordinate with the GON and to implement constructive advocacy strategies.
IND
2.1.1
Number of CSOs
receiving USG assistance
engaged in advocacy
interventions
Output
Type (CSO,
CBO, media
organization)
; sector
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
IND
2.1.2
Number of instances of
contact between USG-
supported CSOs and
government officials (e.g.
phone calls, emails,
personal visits) with the
intention to (1) advocate
on policies; (2) request
information with which to
hold government officials
accountable
Outco
me
Type of
organization
(CSO, CBO,
media
organization)
; sector; type
of contact;
purpose/inte
ntion of
contact
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 6
0
8
0
1
4
0
2
0
3
0
0
IND
2.1.3
Number of civil society
organizations that report
being routinely consulted
by policymakers on
policies relevant to their
constituencies
Outco
me
Type of
organization
(CSO, CBO,
media
organization)
; sector; type
of
consultation;
purpose of
consultation
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 6 1
1
0
1
4
4
1
7
8
0 1
7
8
IND
2.1.4
Number of “Policy
Advocacy, Government
Engagement and
Oversight” grantees that
demonstrate increased
Outco
me
Type (of
CSOs; and
oversight
mechanism)
Advocac
y
Readines
s Index
Score
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2017
)
0 2 1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 24
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
Advocacy Readiness Index
Score
IND
2.1.5
Number of public forums
resulting from USG
assistance in which
national legislators and
members of the public
interact
Output
Gender;
Caste/ethnici
ty, National,
District,
VDCs/Munici
palities
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Quarterly Nation
al/
district/
local
level
0
(2016
)
0 1
0
8
0
1
0
5
1
0
5
3
0
0
IND
2.1.6
Average Advocacy
Readiness Index (ARI)
Score of “Policy
Advocacy, Government
Engagement and
Oversight” grantees
Output NA
ARI
assessme
nt score
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Sub-
nationa
l
0.87
(2017
)
1
.
5
2.
0
3
.
0
3.
0
IR 2.2: Improved coalition-building between local and national CSOs, and between CSOs and the media; joint actions undertaken on
selected policy priorities across sectors
IND
2.2.1
Number of USG-assisted
coalitions between
national and local CSOs
working together for
common issues and policy
priorities
Output
USAID
priority
sectors;
Geographic
locations
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Bi-Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district/
local
level
0
(2016
)
0 2 4 4 4 4 4
IND
2.2.2
Number of newly
established Shreejanshil
Shakhas (innovation hubs)
that allow CSOs and
media to coordinate their
respective work and act
jointly
Output Geographic
locations
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual Nation
al/
district/
local
level
(gaunpa
lika &
nagarpa
lika)
0
(2016
)
0 5
2
9
0 0 0 3
4
IND
2.2.3
Number of joint actions
undertaken by CSO –
Outco
me
Type (of
joint actions;
Grantee
quarterly
Annual Nation
al/distri
0
(2016
0 2
0
1
7
1
7
1
5
5
1
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 25
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
media coalitions on cross-
sectoral policy priorities
and sectors) reports cts/loca
l level
) 0 0 0 0
IR 2.3: Improved CSO and media capacity to conduct participatory and evidence-based research on issues, policy and enforcement in
order to benefit marginalized groups
IND
2.3.1
Number of participatory
and evidence-based
research conducted by
USG-assisted CSOs and
media on pro-marginalized
people related public
policies and services
Outco
me
Issue; type of
organization;
marginalized
group
affected
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Bi-Annual Nation
al/
district/
local
level
0
(2016
)
0 2 5
4
5
6
5
6
0 1
6
8
IND
2.3.2
Number of CSOs/Media
using gender and caste,
ethnicity disaggregated
evidence for policy
advocacy
Outco
me
Type of
organization;
policy
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district/
local
level
0
(2016
)
0 4 7 1
4
1
4
1
4
Objective 3: More coordinated and effective civil society and media oversight of public resource use and service delivery
IR 3.1: Improved capacity of local CSOs, media and community-based organizations to monitor and report on cross-sectoral public service
delivery, based on common standards applicable to each sector
IND
3.1.1
Number of USAID-
supported CSOs and
community management
entities engaged in public
expenditure tracking
Outco
me
Type of
organization
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Quarterly
(cumulativ
e(
District
/ local
level
(gaunpa
lika &
nagarpa
lika)
0
(2016
)
0 5 1
4
2
1
2
1
0 2
1
IND
3.1.2
Percentage of
respondents satisfied with
government service
delivery at gaunpalikas
level through the use of
the GGB
Outco
me
Age, sex,
ethnicity/cast
e
GGB
reports;
DO1
Survey
Baseline,
Mid-term;
and
Endline
Survey
(cumulativ
e)
District
/
gaunpal
ikas
TBD 0 0 7
%
in
cr
ea
se
2
0
%
in
c
r
e
2
0
%
in
cr
ea
se
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 26
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
a
s
e
IND
3.1.3
Number of USG-funded
organizations representing
marginalized
constituencies trying to
affect government policy
or conducting government
oversight
Outco
me
Type of
organization;
sector;
marginalized
group
represented
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
District 0
(2016
)
0 4 1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
IND
3.1.4
Number of issue-specific
groups formed that utilize
the MeroReport web-
portal as a platform for
cross-sectoral oversight
and sharing of results of
such oversight (e.g. GGB
results)
Outco
me
Sector (e.g.
education,
health,
agriculture
etc.);
National/Dist
rict
EA
quarterly
report;
MeroRep
ort portal
(recorde
d # in
CS:MAP
database
)
Quarterly
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
District
0
(2016
)
0 2 4 4 4 4 4
IR 3.2 Improved bottom up coordination between community, district, and national formal and informal CSOs engaged in public service
oversight
IND
3.2.1
Number of USG-assisted
coalitions between
national and local CSOs
engaged in effective public
service oversight)
Output
Type of
organization;
sector
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Nation
al/
district
0
(2016
)
0 2 4 4 4 4
IR 3.3: Improved citizen awareness and use of available GON social accountability mechanisms
IND
3.3.1
Percent of respondents
having used social
accountability mechanisms
in past 12 months
Outco
me
Age, sex,
caste/ethnicit
y
DO1
Survey
Baseline;
Mid-term;
and
Endline
Survey
District 15.6%
in
CS:M
AP
distri
1
7.
2
%
1
9.
5
%
1
9.
5
%
in
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 27
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
(cumulativ
e)
cts
(2017
)
C
S:
M
A
P
di
st
ri
ct
s
IR 3.4: Improved citizen engagement in media and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) tools to strengthen public
participation and oversight
IND
3.4.1
Percent of citizens,
including women, youth
and minorities, using ICT
for oversight
Outco
me
Age, sex,
caste/ethnicit
y; type of
accountabilit
y mechanism
Survey
reports
Baseline,
Mid-term
and
Endline
Survey
District
/CS:MA
P
interve
ntion
area
49.6%
(2017
)
0
5
9.
5
%
6
4.
5
%
6
4.
5
%
IND
3.4.2
Number of USG-assisted
CSOs using ICT for
monitoring and oversight
of public service delivery
and public resource use
Outco
me CSOs type
Grantee
reports
Annual
(Cumulati
ve)
Nation
al/Sub-
nationa
l
0
(2017
)
0 0 4 1
0
1
4
1
4
1
4
Objective 4: Strengthened organizational capacity and sustainability of CSOs working in USAID priority sectors
IR 4.1: Improved institutional governance of selected CSOs and media organizations
IND
4.1.1
Percent of local
organizations with
improved capacity and/or
performance scores
Outco
me
Type of
organization;
sector
OCA
results
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
District 0
(2017
)
0 1
0
%
5
0
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
IND
4.1.2
Local Organizational
Capacity Assessment
Score
Output NA OCA
result
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
Sub-
nationa
l
2.2
(2017
)
2
.
5
3.
0
3
.
5
3.
5
IND Number of CSOs and Outco Type (CSO, Grantee Quarterly Nation 0 0 8 2 2 2 2
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 28
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
4.1.3 media organizations apply
improved self-regulatory
and institutional
governance standards
(developed under IND
1.3.1)
me CBO, media
organization)
; sector
quarterly
reports
(cumulativ
e)
al/
district
(2017
)
0 7 7 7
IR 4.2: Improved capacity of select CSOs and media organizations to mobilize social and financial resources for sustainability
IND
4.2.1
Number of CSO receiving
USG support reporting
new funding sources
Outco
me
Type of
organization;
sector;
source of
funding
Grantee
quarterly
reports
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
District 0
(2016
)
0 5 1
0
1
4
1
4
1
4
IR 4.3: Improved capacity of CSOs and media organizations to advance local solutions on priority development issues across sectors and to
promote peer-learning opportunities
IND
4.3.1
Percent of USG assisted
CSOs/Media conducting
peer learning practices
that advance local
solutions
Output
Type of
organization;
sector;
Grantee
quarterly
reports;
OCA/O
PI results
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
District
/ VDC
0
(2017
)
0 1
0
%
6
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
IND
4.3.2
Number of cases that
advance local solutions
Outco
me
Number (of
solutions)
Grantee
quarterly
reports;
OCA/O
PI
Annual Nation
al/Distr
ict
0
(2016
)
0 5 1
0
2
5
2
0
6
0
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Component – Some Additional Indicators
GESI
1
Number of organizations
that develop and practice
strong GESI policies and
standards
Outco
me
Type of
organizations
Grantee
Quarterl
y
reports;
OCA
results
Annual
(cumulativ
e)
NA 5
(2017
)
0 0 1
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
GESI
2
Percent of leadership
positions in USG-
Outco
me
Sex,
Caste/ethnici
Grantee
Quarterl
Annual
(cumulativ
NA 35.9%
(2017
4
0
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 29
Indicator
Code
Indicator Indicator Type
(Output, Outcom
e,
Impact, Context)
Data Disaggregation
Data Source/
Collection Method
Reporting Frequency
(Quarterly, Semi -annual,
Annual)
Geospatial
reporting level
(National
, District, VDC, Ward)
Baseline (&
Year)
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
LOP
T A T A T A T A T A T A T A
supported community
management entities that
are filled by women or
member of a vulnerable
group
(Conte
xt)
ty y
reports;
OCA
results
e) ) % % % % %
T= Target, A= Actual, LOP = Life of Project
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 30
5.2 Annex 2: MEL Tasks Calendar
S.N. Key MEL Tasks Frequen
cy/
Times
Responsible
person
Tasks Calendar
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Apr-
Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr-
Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
1. M&E Plan
Development
1 M&E
Manager
2. Baseline & perception
survey
1 M&E
Manager/
Media
Director
3. Database
Management System
establishment
1 M&E
Manager
4. Orientation sessions
on database
management system
and M&E data
requirements
7 events (Internal + at grantees
level)
M&E
Manager
5. Quarterly database
updates
18 M&E
Manager
6. Quarterly Progress
Reporting
15 M&E
Manager
7. Quarterly Review
Reflection Meetings
4 times
in each
FY by
each
grantee
CS:MAP
grantees
8. Annual progress
reports
5
9. Annual review and
reflection workshop
4 M&E
Manager &
CS:MAP
team
10. OCA of CSOs and
media grantees
4 CS:MAP
team
11. GGB piloting at
selected VDCs
1 CS:MAP
team
CS:MAP M&E Plan July, 2016 Page 31
S.N. Key MEL Tasks Frequen
cy/
Times
Responsible
person
Tasks Calendar
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Apr-
Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr-
Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan-
Mar
Apr
-Jun
Jul-
Sep
Oct-
Dec
Jan-
Mar
12. GGB monitoring and
reporting
4 CS:MAP
team
13. ARI assessment of
CSOs and media
grantees
5 M&E
Manager;
D/COP
14. Learning
assessment/studies
NA M&E
Manager &
CS:MAP
team
15. Joint Monitoring
Visits
4 CS:MAP
team
16 Mid-term &
perception survey
1 M&E
Manager/
Media
Director
16. Endline & perception
survey
1 M&E
Manager/
Media
Director
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 32
5.3 Annex 3: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
This annex provides reference sheets for entire performance indicators opted for CS:MAP.
These performance indicators are segregated at Goal level indicators and Results Indicators
under each Objective; and also presented as GESI Indicators. For an ease, Goal level indicators
are coded as G1, G2 indicators; GESI Indicators are presented as GESI 1 and GESI 2 indicators
while Results indicators are coded as 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, …., ……, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, …, …. etc. for
various Intermediate Results (like IR 1.1, IR 1.2, IR 2.1, IR 3.1, IR 3.2 etc.) under Objective 1,
Objective 2 and so on.
Goal: To foster a more legitimate, accountable, and resilient Nepali civil society
that is capable of advancing the public interest.
Indicator: G1 CSO Sustainability Index Score (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP
Context Indicator 1.3-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Impact
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index (CSOSI) has been used
since 1997 to assess the sustainability of the CSO sector. By using standard
indicators and collecting data each year, the CSOSI enables users to track
developments and identify trends in the CSO sector over time while
allowing for cross-country and cross-region comparison. It is used by CSO
advocates, development partners, and academics to assess international
and regional trends in the civil society sector and to identify common
obstacles impeding the sector's sustainability, such as the legal
environment, organizational capacity, and financial viability.
The Index measures the sustainability of each country's CSO sector based
on the CSOSI's seven dimensions: legal environment, organizational
capacity, financial viability, advocacy, service provision, infrastructure, and
public image. The CSOSI's local implementing partners in each country lead
the process of organizing and convening a diverse and representative panel
of CSO experts. Country panels discuss the seven dimensions for the year
being assessed, and reach consensus on the scores corresponding to each
dimension. With the information provided by the expert panel along with
desk research, the CSO implementing partner then develops a narrative
report.
Unit of Measure: Score (1-high to 7-low)
Disaggregated by: NA
Rationale or
Management Utility,
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 33
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: CSOSI Survey
Method of data collection and
construction:
CSOSI Survey data analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline (existing USAID/Nepal baseline)
Mid-term;
Endline survey.
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
4.2 (2015) USAID/Nepal
Target Value 3
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 2016
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 34
Indicator: G2 Percent of respondents who report that services received
satisfactorily respond to their need (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP
1.4.2-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Impact
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the degree to which respondents were satisfied
with specific government services (Health Care, Agriculture extension services, Education, Protection from crime and violence, Resolution of
disputes you have with other citizens or the authorities, Information on
safe migration, or VDC/CDO services).
Responses should be aggregated into an “overall satisfaction” score. For
each respondent, the responses are summed (3 for very satisfied to 0 for
not at all satisfied) and divided by 7 (the total number of services included
in the series of satisfaction questions) to get a scaled score from 0 to 3.
Individuals with a score of 2 or above are counted toward this indicator.
The DO1 Survey that includes the following question about satisfaction
with services received from government:
Now we would like to ask you about your satisfaction with some of the
eservices you receive from government. Would you say you are Very
Satisfied (3), somewhat satisfied (2), somewhat dissatisfied (1) or very
unsatisfied (0)?
SOCSRVHLTH Health care for you are your family
SOCSRVAG Agriculture extension services
SOCSRVEDU Education of your children
SOCSRVSEC Protection from crime and violence
SOCSRVJUST Resolution of disputes you have with other citizens or the
authorities
SOCSRVTRAFF information on safe migration
SOCSRVCDO VDC/CDO
For each respondent, the responses are summed (3 for very satisfied to 0
for not at all satisfied) and divided by 7 (the total number of services
included in the series of satisfaction questions) to get a scaled score from 0
to 3. Individuals with a score of 2 or above are counted toward this
indicator.
Numerator: Number of respondents scoring 2 or above
Denominator: Total number of respondents
Unit of Measure: Percent (% of respondents)
Disaggregated by: Age, sex, caste/ethnicity, geographic location (District), Type of Service
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 35
(Health Care , Agriculture extension services, Education, Protection from
crime and violence, Resolution of disputes you have with other citizens or
the authorities, Information on safe migration, or VDC/CDO services)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
This indicator measures effectiveness of services, which suggests an
improvement specifically targeted by USG funded activities.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: DO1 Survey
Method of data collection and
construction:
DO1 Survey data analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
There are some limitations to validity since the quality of citizen input is
very subjective, and recall of services received over past 12 months may be
biased.
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
Baseline value will be considered as of the USAID DO1 survey results -
13% in USAID Districts (2015)
Target Value 16.9%
Rational for Targets (optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 36
Objective 1: Strengthened enabling environment for civil society and media
IR 1.1: Improved legal and policy framework, based on international standards, that
leads to better operating environment and strengthened capacity for civil society.
Indicator: 1.1.1 Number of USG-assisted civil society organizations that
participate in legislative proceedings and/or engage in advocacy
with national legislature and its committees (USAID/Nepal DO1
PMP 1.3.3-3)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2016 If
yes, link to foreign assistance framework: 2.2.1-7
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): To be counted measures CSOs’ active participation in, or engagement with
the legislature; for example, attend and contribute to committee meetings,
send policy briefs, send comments on proposed legislation, provide
research, convene meetings including legislators and other stakeholders to
encourage dialogue and discussion, etc.
Measures both civil society advocacy efforts with legislatures and legislative
outreach and openness to civil society engagement.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSO)
Disaggregated by: Sector (DG, DRR, Health, Environment etc.)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
This measure captures more than one democracy and governance
outcome. It implies CSOs have or will have the capacity to substantively
participate in democratic policymaking and that legislators are open to
public participation and actively engage in it. Taken together, civil society participation in democratic policymaking improves the transparency and
accountability of the legislative process. It is used to demonstrate
improvements in legislative openness and transparency and increased CSO
engagement with, or participation in, legislative processes; indicative of the
need for or effectiveness of USG assistance.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports, CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 37
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 10
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 2016
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 38
Indicator: 1.1.2 Number of public policies introduced, adopted, repealed,
changed or implemented consistent with citizen input
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.4.1-1)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Precise Definition(s): The indicator measures the number of policies /
regulations / administrative procedures in the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment whose sub-elements are
specific policy sectors.
Public policies include any law, regulation, policy or similar directive that is
formally adopted by either the legislative branch or a unit of the executive
branch at any level.
Introduced refers to draft legislation formally being presented and
accepted for consideration by a legislative body.
Adopted refers to new policies not previously existing.
Repealed refers to existing or draft policies that are removed or prevented
from establishment.
Changed refers to an existing policy that has been substantively changed.
Implemented means that the policy has been operationalized.
Citizen input means that the public, citizens and/or civil society
organizations have proposed language used in, provided comments
incorporated into, or monitored the implementation of the policy.
Unit of Measure: Number (of policies)
Disaggregated by: Type of Policy; Sector; and Stage (1: introduced 2: adopted 3: repealed 4:
changed and 5: implemented)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
Democratic governance concerns are integral to improving policy reform
and implementation across a wide range of development sectors. More
effective policy change across development sectors requires government
policy makers (in both the executive and legislative branches) to consider
and incorporate citizen input into the policy development process Insofar
as a favorable business environment is essential for inclusive economic
growth, this indicator serves as a useful measure of the extent to which
the policy environment effectively encourages growth.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data Review reports; CS:MAP database
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 39
collection and
construction:
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 5
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 40
Indicator: 1.1.3 Numbers of Policies/Regulations/Administrative Procedures
in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG
assistance in each case: Stage 1: Analysis; Stage 2: Stakeholder
consultation/public debate; Stage 3: Drafting or revision; Stage 4:
Approval (legislative or regulatory); and Stage 5: Full and
effective implementation. (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.4.1-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework: 4.5.1-24
Indicator Type: Output/Custom
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Number of policies in different sector such as: Election, Political Parties,
Legislative, trafficking, health, nutrition, labor, education and/or agriculture
that move through at least one of the five stages.
Policies can include laws, legal frameworks, regulations, administrative
procedures, or institutional arrangements. Stages are defined as the
following:
Stage 1. Underwent analysis (review of existing policy and/or proposal of
new policy).
Stage 2. Underwent public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders
on the proposed new or revised policy. This could also include proposed
repeal of an existing policy.
Stage 3. Were newly drafted or revised.
Stage 4. Received official approval (legislation/decree) of the new, revised,
or repealed policy by the relevant authority (legislative or executive body).
Stage 5. Were fully and effectively implemented by the relevant authority
(this includes USG support to implementing the effective repeal of a
policy).
Note that the indicator has been revised to acknowledge that these
processes are not always linear: Newly drafted laws can be defeated by a
legislative body and require redrafting or new analysis; approved
regulations can prove difficult to implement and may need to be revised.
Because of this non-linear approach, double-counting is no longer a
concern and is in fact appropriate: Operating units should indicate if
multiple processes/steps were completed in a given year, as this more
accurately represents work under a given activity.
The disaggregate “Total policies passing through one or more
processes/steps of policy change” will count the total number of policies
that completed any process/step, regardless of the number of
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 41
processes/steps each policy completed during the reporting year.
Full and effective implementation must meet the following criteria: (1) The
policy must be in force in all intended geographic regions/locations and at
all intended administrative levels with all intended regulations/rules in place
(“full”); (2) Any ongoing activities or tasks required by the policy (e.g.,
various kinds of inspection, enforcement, collection of
documents/information/fees) are being executed with minimal disruptions
(“effective”). For example, a new business registration procedure that has
been rolled out to just four of six intended provinces would not meet
these criteria (not full), nor would a new customs law that is on the books
but is not being regularly
enforced at the border (not effective).
Unit of Measure: Number (of policies, laws, regulations)
Disaggregated by: Type of Policy, Sector; and Stage -- 1: Analyzed 2: Drafted and presented
for public/stakeholder consultation 3: Presented for legislation/decree 4:
Passed/approved 5: Passed for which implementation has begun
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
The indicator measures the number of policies / regulations /
administrative procedures in the various stages of progress towards an
enhanced enabling environment whose sub-elements are specific policy
sectors. Insofar as a favorable business environment is essential for
inclusive economic growth, this indicator serves as a useful measure of the
extent to which the policy environment effectively encourages growth and
protects rights of individuals.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; public records
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; CS:MAP database; review of process documents and
records.
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 5
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 42
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 43
IR 1.2: Improved public understanding and confidence in the role of CSOs and
media
Indicator: 1.2.1 Number of CSOs-driven initiatives that resolved public
interest issues aimed at improving public perception
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits
to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which
participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
CSOs-driven initiatives are joint and voluntary actions, campaigns or series
of activities that are envisioned or planned by multiple civil society
organizations supported by CSMAP to deal with challenges or issues faced
by people at different level.
Public interest issues are the agenda of general public which the
communities want to resolve or promote. Addressing these issues should
have positive impact in multiple communities.
This indicator aims to count the number of public interest issues resolved
due to the CSOs-driven initiatives.
Unit of Measure: Number of initiatives
Disaggregated by: Sectors, national/sub-national
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantees’ periodic reports
Method of data collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 44
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 16
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 45
Indicator: 1.2.2 Percentage change in public understanding of the role of
CSOs and media
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to the extent of change in citizens' knowledge and
understanding of the role of CSOs and media. It is linked to indicator 1.2.2
“percentage change in public confidence in the role of CSOs and media” in
presupposing that change in public confidence of the role of CSOs and
media can only happen when there is an understanding of that role.
Role of CSOs and media: The importance of a vibrant civil society often
lies in their autonomous role as a third sector capable of counterbalancing
the dynamics between the private interests of the business sector and the
public realm of the State. Institutions such as the Federation of Nepali
Journalists, trade unions and umbrella organizations representing the media
sector have a role in ensuring that they work closely with the State in
ensuring that policy reform supports media development and their
functioning as a public good. So, CSOs and media play the role of the
watchdog in ensuring independence as well as healthy engagement between
the private and public sectors.
Respondents are asked about their involvement in community groups and
CSOs, such as trade unions, professional associations, religious or cultural
groups, women or youth groups, sports clubs, political parties,
parent/teacher/education groups, farmers’ organizations, Female village
Community Health Volunteers, Sector Committees (health, anti-
trafficking), Forest User’s Groups or Traditional Institutions and the media.
For those who have knowledge of local groups, regardless of whether or
not they participate in groups, they are asked whether they have the
knowledge of what these organizations aim to do or do. Responses should
include anything that roughly translates to advocacy, lobbying, community
mobilization, awareness raising, education, service provision, and
functioning as a resource center, such that they advance the public
interest.
Numerator: # of respondents having understanding of the role of CSOs
and media;
Denominator: # of total respondents
Unit of Measure: Percentage (% of respondents)
Disaggregated by: NA
Rationale or
Management Utility,
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 46
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Public Perception Survey
Method of data collection and
construction:
Survey, key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussion (FGD) to be conducted through Public Perception Survey.
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline (2017);
Mid-term (2019); and
Endline (2021)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
Level of public understanding – 42.4% (2017)
Target Value 55.1%
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 47
Indicator: 1.2.3 Percentage change in public confidence in the role of CSOs
and media
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to the extent of change in citizens' confidence in the
role of CSOs and media. It is correlated to indicator 1.2.1 “percentage
change in public understanding of the role of the CSOs and media” as only a change in understanding of role can lead to a change in public confidence.
While understanding can be paralleled to knowledge, confidence has
strong links to culture and habits and can be difficult to change.
Role of CSOs and media: The importance of a vibrant civil society often
lies in their autonomous role as a third sector capable of counterbalancing
the dynamics between the private interests of the business sector and the
public realm of the State. Institutions such as the Federation of Nepali
Journalists, trade unions and umbrella organizations representing the media
sector have a role in ensuring that they work closely with the State in
ensuring that policy reform supports media development and their
functioning as a public good. So, CSOs and media play the role of the
watchdog in ensuring independence as well as healthy engagement between
the private and public sectors aimed at public interest.
Respondents are asked about their involvement in community groups and
CSOs, such as trade unions, professional associations, religious or cultural
groups, women or youth groups, sports clubs, political parties,
parent/teacher/education groups, farmers’ organizations, Female village
Community Health Volunteers, Sector Committees (health, anti-
trafficking), Forest User’s Groups or Traditional Institutions and the media.
For those who have knowledge of local groups, regardless of whether or
not they participate in groups, they are asked what they think of such
organizations, in terms of their transparency, effectiveness and governance
and the extent to which they feel that such organizations represent their
interests.
Numerator: # of respondents having confidence in the role of CSOs and
media;
Denominator: # of total respondents
Unit of Measure: Percentage (% of respondents)
Disaggregated by: NA
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 48
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Perception Survey
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Survey, key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussion (FGD) to be
conducted through Public Perception Survey.
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline (2017);
Mid-term (2017); and
Endline (2021)
Individual (s)
responsible at USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
Level of public confidence – 37.2% (2017)
Target Value 48.4%
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 49
Indicator: 1.2.4 Number of CSOs-driven initiatives that deal with public
interest issues aimed at improving public perception
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that
are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits
to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
CSOs-driven initiatives are joint and voluntary actions, campaigns or series
of activities that are envisioned or planned by multiple civil society
organizations supported by CSMAP to deal with challenges or issues faced
by people at different level.
Public interest issues are the agenda of general public which the
communities want to resolve or promote. Addressing these issues should
have positive impact in multiple communities.
Unit of Measure: Number of initiatives
Disaggregated by: Sectors, national/sub-national
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantees’ periodic reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 50
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 32
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 51
IR 1.3: Improved self-regulation of the sector and internal governance of CSOs and
media
Indicator: 1.3.1 Number of CSOs and media organizations participating in a
self-regulatory initiative
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Self-regulatory initiatives are measures undertaken by CSOs and media organizations to improve internal governance, taking into account
international best practices and remaining compliant with national legal
frameworks.
This indicator aims to count the number of CSOs and media organizations
that participate in initiatives aimed at the development and adoption of
self-regulatory mechanisms for strengthening institutional governance. The
count includes organizations directly supported as project grantees or
organizations that are not direct grantees but coordinate and participate
with the CSO and Media Coalitions in either developing and adopting a
self-regulatory mechanism by themselves, or adopting a mechanism
developed by the Coalition. 'Participation' indicates active adoption and
implementation of credible self-regulatory measures.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs and media)
Disaggregated by: Geographical location (national or district level); Type – sectoral priority
(health, education, governance etc.) in the case of CSOs and print,
electronic (radio, online, television etc.) in the case of media
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee Quarterly reports; CS:MAP assessment reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 52
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 500
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 53
Indicator: 1.3.2 Percentage change in GON stakeholder satisfaction with
CSO and media self-regulation
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to the change in GON stakeholders' (from national to
local level) level of satisfaction with self-regulatory measures taken by CSO
and media organizations to improve general understanding of and confidence in their work. This includes internal policies and rules that they
adopt aimed at improving transparency, accountability, internal and
external communication, constituency building, procedures for registering
and handling complaints, and the promotion of ethical behavior.
GON stakeholders refers to government agencies at different levels and
the officials that serve within GON.
Change in level of satisfaction should be measured as a percentage increase
(or decrease) from a baseline value.
Numerator: # of respondents (GON stakeholders) having satisfaction with
CSO and media self-regulation
Denominator: total number of respondents (GON stakeholders)
Unit of Measure: Percent (% of change in satisfaction)
Disaggregated by: National, district, local level GON agency or official; sector – agriculture,
information and communication, health, education etc.
Rationale or Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Public perception survey, DO1 survey
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Surveys results review
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline (2017);
Mid-term (2019); and
Endline Survey (2021)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 54
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
Level of GON stakeholder satisfaction – 34.4%
Target Value 41.3%
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 55
Indicator: 1.3.3 Number of USG-assisted media-sector CSOs and/or
institutions that serve to strengthen the independent media or
journalists
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to organizations that have the capacity or whose
capacity can be built to serve as intermediary service organizations capable of strengthening the independent media or journalists. For CS:MAP
purpose, it should include the Media Coalition and Intermediary Service
Organizations (ISOs) selected from the media sector e.g. Martin Chautari,
Center for Investigative Journalism, or Nepal Press Institute that have a history
of conducting media and journalism related training and capacity building
activities.
Independent media refers to non-state media. Strengthening can be
understood to include initiatives that aim to improve the independence of
the media and journalists from political, commercial or other partisan
interests, such that they are able to report accurately, objectively and in a
balanced manner. Strengthening should also enable access of citizens
(especially marginalized populations that generally do not have access to
the media) to media outlets or the journalists that serve there. In
summary, the media and journalists can be considered strengthened if they
exhibit a fairly high degree of independence in their work and if they
provide ways by which they are accessible and listen to and act upon local
citizens' voices and opinions.
Unit of Measure: Number (of Organizations)
Disaggregated by: Type, location (National/district)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 56
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 6
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 2016
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 57
Objective 2: Improved civil society and media capacity for effective policy advocacy
and government engagement
IR 2.1: Strengthened CSO initiatives to coordinate with the GON and to
implement constructive advocacy strategies.
Indicator: 2.1.1 Number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) receiving
USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions (USAID
Standard Ind. 2.4.1-9; USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-1)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If
yes, link to foreign assistance framework: 2.4.1-9
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that
are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits
to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which
participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
CSOs in USG programs that initiate or participate in advocacy
interventions are counted toward this indicator. Advocacy should be
understood as a means for individuals, constituencies, or organizations to
shape public agendas, change public policies, and influence other processes
that impact their lives. Advocacy does not involve one march, meeting or
poster, but a series of strategic, interconnected, integrated activities
designed to achieve a goal. It may include a wide range of activities, such as,
lobbying, public interest litigation, letter writing campaigns, civil
disobedience, etc. Advocacy interventions tend to:
• Be strategic (a deliberate, planned action, not random);
• Involve a set of actions that are sustained in order to build and direct
pressure;
• Be designed to persuade;
• Be targeted;
• Involve alliance building.
Successful advocacy efforts result in change. Operating Units should specify
the type of advocacy interventions in their PMP data reference sheet and use the PPR indicator narrative to describe the impact, scale/scope of the
advocacy interventions.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs)
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 58
Disaggregated by: District; National; Type (CSO, CBO, media organization); Sector
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
The CSOs will pick up pertinent issues of the marginalized group for the
advocacy purpose. This will enable them to put forward their voices,
alternatives and take part in the development process. Through the
advocacy process, the marginalized group will be benefitted by either
changes of public policies or practices.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; documents, records
Method of data
collection and construction:
Review reports; records, CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 22
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 59
Indicator: 2.1.2 Number of instances of contact between USG-supported
CSOs and government officials (e.g. phone calls, emails, personal
visits) with the intention to (1) advocate on policies; (2) request
information with which to hold government officials accountable
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.3-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): __ If
yes, link to foreign assistance framework: ___
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that
are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits
to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which
participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
Holding government accountable is defined as process and approach that
promotes the obligation of power-holders to account for or take
responsibility for their actions. “Power-holders” refers to those who hold
political, financial or other forms of power and include officials in
government, private corporations, international financial institutions and
civil society organizations.
Unit of Measure: Number
Disaggregated by: Type of organizations (CSO, CBO, media organization); Sector; Type (of
contact); Purpose/intension of contact
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
CS: MAP will promote deliberate and systematic engagement between the
CSOs and the government officials to leverage each other’s strengths for
delivering quality services to the people in an accountable way.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; records/evidences
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review records, reports; CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 60
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 300
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 61
Indicator: 2.1.3 Number of civil society organizations that report being
routinely consulted by policymakers on policies relevant to their
constituencies (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.3-1)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that
are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which
participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
Consultation by policy makers is defined as systematic approach of policy
makers to the CSOs for specific contribution to the policy making process.
Unit of Measure: Number
Disaggregated by: Type of organization (CSO, CBO, media organization); sector; type of
consultation; purpose of consultation
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
During the CDCS implementation, DO 1 will be working to strengthen the
capacity of CSOs to advocate effectively for Nepal’s people. CSOs will
present themselves as resource organizations on certain policy agenda,
representative of the voices of vulnerable group, and promoter of local
solution on certain policy matter. There will be several policy issues under
different sectoral programs being implemented by DO Teams. CSOs
working under these mechanisms will create synergy and innovation to
offer policy makers to recognize them for appropriate consultations.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; CS:MAP database analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual (cumulative)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 62
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 178
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 63
Indicator: 2.1.4 Number of “Policy Advocacy, Government Engagement
and Oversight” grantees that demonstrate increased Advocacy
Readiness Index Score
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The Advocacy Readiness Index (ARI) is a tool that FHI 360 uses to gauge
competency of Civil Society Organizations to carry out advocacy activities. It uses a scale from 0 to 5 as presented below. This indicator aims to count
the number of CS:MAP “Policy Advocacy, Government Engagement and
Oversight” grantees who register an increase in the number of points they
score on the ARI, demonstrating an increase in their capacity/ competency
to carry out advocacy activities.
Advocacy Readiness Index Scoring Table:
Each of the sections question is scored in an ascending order, where 1 = No
Capacity/very limited/ Never, and 5= Notable achievement/ very strong/ always.
(See scores table below). A baseline is established for each organization in the
first year. Each year thereafter scoring is done for each organization to determine
progress over the course of the year.
Score Description
0 No Capacity/Never
1 Very limited capacity/ Very rarely
2 Not strong/ modest capacity/ sometimes
3 Somewhat strong/made some reasonable progress/reasonable
capacity
4 Moderate strong/efficient capacity/usually
5 Notable achievement/ very strong/ always
ADVOCACY ASSESSMENT TOOL (AAT)
Name of NGO:
Date of Assessment:
Assessment Conducted by:
ORGANIZATION PROFILE
Name of the
Organization
Type of Organization
Contact Person
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 64
Position
Phone/Fax
Website
Other social sites
Vision and mission of
the organization
Approx. annual budget
primary work of your
organization?
(Service delivery,
Advocacy, Community
capacity building,
research, etc.)
What area/s do you
work in?
At what level do you
engage in advocacy?
(Local, national, regional,
etc.)
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs and media organizations)
Disaggregated by: Geographical location (national or district level); Type – sectoral priority
(health, education, governance etc.) in the case of CSOs and print,
electronic (radio, online, television etc.) in the case of media
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; Advocacy Readiness Index Score
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review of reports & Advocacy Readiness Index Score
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual (cumulative)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe TBD
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 65
(optional)
Target Value 14
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 66
Indicator: 2.1.5 Number of Public Forums resulting from USG Assistance in
which national legislators and members of the public interact
(USAID Standard Ind. 2.2.1-6; USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.2.2-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If
yes, link to foreign assistance framework: 2.2.1-6
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Public forums are defined as public hearings and town hall meetings. In the
case of CS:MAP, -Shreejanshil Shakhas, or innovation hubs will be designed for all 34 CS:MAP target districts. Each Shreejanshil Shakha will be equipped
with computers, telephone, Internet connection, a conference hall, and a
resource room. These Shreejanshil Shakha will host trainings and events,
including Sajha Sabhas and PPWGs (termed as public forums). The joint
activities of CSOs and media representatives at the Shakhas will facilitate a
natural connection and a growing understanding by media that CSOs are a
strong source of material for public interest reporting, and by CSOs that
investigative journalism can strengthen the evidence base for advocacy.
Unit of Measure: Number (of events)
Disaggregated by: Gender; Caste/ethnicity; National, District, local level
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
Extensive interaction between legislators and members of the public is an
important component of effective representation, which is a key function
of democratic legislatures. When extensive interaction between legislators
and the public results in more effective representation, government
decision-making may be considered more transparent and accountable.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; event reports/attendance sheets
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; and records
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe 0
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 67
(optional) (2016)
Target Value 135
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 68
Indicator: 2.1.6 Average Advocacy Readiness Index (ARI) Score of “Policy
Advocacy, Government Engagement and Oversight” grantees
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework: NA
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The Advocacy Readiness Index (ARI) is a tool that FHI 360 uses to gauge
competency of Civil Society Organizations to carry out advocacy activities.
It uses a scale from 0 to 5 as presented below. This indicator aims to count the number of CS:MAP “Policy Advocacy, Government Engagement and
Oversight” grantees who register an increase in the number of points they
score on the ARI, demonstrating an increase in their capacity/ competency
to carry out advocacy activities.
Advocacy Readiness Index Scoring Table:
Each of the sections question is scored in an ascending order, where 1 = No
Capacity/very limited/ Never, and 5= Notable achievement/ very strong/ always.
(See scores table below). A baseline is established for each organization in the
first year. Each year thereafter scoring is done for each organization to determine
progress over the course of the year.
Score Description
0 No Capacity/Never
1 Very limited capacity/ Very rarely
2 Not strong/ modest capacity/ sometimes
3 Somewhat strong/made some reasonable progress/reasonable
capacity
4 Moderate strong/efficient capacity/usually
5 Notable achievement/ very strong/ always
ADVOCACY ASSESSMENT TOOL (AAT)
Name of NGO:
Date of Assessment:
Assessment Conducted by:
ORGANIZATION PROFILE
Name of the
Organization
Type of Organization
Contact Person
Position
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 69
Phone/Fax
Website
Other social sites
Vision and mission of
the organization
Approx. annual budget
primary work of your
organization?
(Service delivery,
Advocacy, Community
capacity building,
research, etc.)
What area/s do you
work in?
At what level do you
engage in advocacy?
(Local, national, regional,
etc.)
Unit of Measure: Average Score
Disaggregated by: NA
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: ARI Score Sheet
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review ARI Score Sheet
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0.87
(2017)
Target Value 3.0
Rational for Targets NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 70
(optional)
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
IR 2.2: Improved coalition-building between local and national CSOs, and between
CSOs and the media that leads to joint actions undertaken on selected policy
priorities across sectors
Indicator: 2.2.1 Number of USG-assisted coalitions between national and
local CSOs working together for common issues and policy
priorities
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to formal and informal coalitions that come together
as a result of CS:MAP interventions. They may be a coalition of national
and local CSOs, a coalition of national and local media organizations, a
coalition of CSOs and media organizations at either the national or local
level, a coalition consisting of organizations working in a similar sector or
with a common advocacy goal, e.g. a coalition of organizations working in
livestock development or a coalition working for disaster reduction etc. In
CS:MAP, coalitions will be based on USAID priority sectors (like: DRR,
Health, Education, Agriculture etc.)
Unit of Measure: Number (of coalitions)
Disaggregated by: USAID priority sectors; Geographic locations (National/district)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; and records;
CS:MAP database analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Bi-annual (cumulative)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 71
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
TBD
Target Value 4
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 72
Indicator: 2.2.2 Number of newly established Shreejanshil Shakhas
(innovation hubs) that allow CSOs and media to coordinate their
respective work and act jointly
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Shreejanshil Shakhas, or innovation centers are the coordination forums
that are designed to be formed in all 34 CS:MAP target districts. Each Shreejanshil Shakha will be equipped with computers, telephone, Internet
connection, a conference hall, and a resource room; they will host trainings
and events, including Sajha Sabhas and PPWGs. The joint activities of CSOs
and media representatives at the Shakhas will facilitate a natural connection
and a growing understanding by media that CSOs are a strong source of
material for public interest reporting, and by CSOs that investigative
journalism can strengthen the evidence base for advocacy. To promote
sustainability, we will identify local organizations, universities, and
community centers willing to host Shreejanshil Shakhas in exchange for in-
kind support, such as ICT equipment. The Shakhas will be able to generate
income through fees for event hosting.
Unit of Measure: Number (of Shreejanshil Shakhas or innovation hubs)
Disaggregated by: National, district
Rationale or
Management Utility, Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; and records;
CS:MAP database analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 73
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 34
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 74
Indicator: 2.2.3 Number of joint actions undertaken by CSO – media
coalitions on cross-sectoral policy priorities
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator aims to measure the number of joint advocacy-related
actions undertaken by local-national coalitions and CSO-media coalitions
on cross-sectoral policies. Cross-sectoral policies refer to those policies that cut across both CSO and media sectors, but also across sectoral areas
of intervention e.g. health, education, governance, disaster risk reduction
etc. Actions can be described as advocacy related activities jointly
undertaken by coalitions that are aimed at addressing policy issues.
Unit of Measure: Number (of joint cross-sectoral advocacy related actions)
Disaggregated by: Type of action; geographical location; sectoral focus
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; and records;
CS:MAP database analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 510
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 75
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 2016
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 76
IR 2.3: Improved CSO and media capacity to conduct participatory and evidence-
based research on issues, policy and enforcement in order to benefit marginalized
groups.
Indicator: 2.3.1 Number of participatory and evidence-based research
conducted by USG-assisted CSOs and media on pro-marginalized
people related public policies and services
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Participatory research refers to research activities (from design,
implementation and analysis) that involve the participation of those who
are the subjects of such research, and actions taken based on evidence
gathered (again with the participation of the beneficiary). As such, it is an
ongoing process that identifies agenda for action and assesses the
consequences of such action.
Here, the research is to be designed, implemented and analyzed by CSO
and media involving the active participation of marginalized groups with the
aim of identifying their advocacy issues or the status of public policies and
services meant for them (marginalized groups).
Minorities refers to people representing minority communities including
gender, caste, ethnic, and religious based minorities.
Unit of Measure: Number (of participatory and evidence-based research)
Disaggregated by: Issue; Type (of organization); marginalized groups affected
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; research papers
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Evidence of research papers, review reports;
CS:MAP database analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Bi-Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 77
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe (optional)
0 (2016)
Target Value 168
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 78
Indicator: 2.3.2 Number of CSOs/Media using gender and caste, ethnicity
disaggregated evidence for policy advocacy
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to the number of CSOs and media organizations that
disaggregate data emerging from the research they conduct or the
monitoring activities they undertake on the basis of gender, caste and
ethnicity for the purpose of pro-minority policy advocacy.
Minorities refer to people representing minority communities including
caste-based, ethnic, and religious minorities. "Minority" has been defined
relying on statistical criterion such as numerical size of different
populations in terms of caste/ethnicity, language and religion and on
achievement of specific caste/ethnic group in specific fields such as political
decision-making position and economic prosperity; in one aspect, while it
has also been defined using a criterion of "domination" and
"discrimination." Both concepts of "minority" and "dominant group" are
indeed based on exploitative and unequal power relation manifested in the
forms of domination and discrimination by one group over other(s).
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs/media)
Disaggregated by: Type (of organization); policy; sector
Rationale or
Management Utility, Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports;
Records
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 79
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 14
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 80
Objective 3: More coordinated and effective civil society and media oversight of
public resource use and service delivery
IR 3.1: Improved capacity of local CSOs, media and community-based
organizations to monitor and report on cross-sectoral public service delivery, based
on common standards applicable to each sector
Indicator: 3.1.1 Number of USAID-supported CSOs and community
management entities engaged in public expenditure tracking
(USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.2.2-3)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Civil society organizations (CSOs) are defined as any organizations,
whether formal or informal, that are not part of the apparatus of
government, that do not distribute profits to their directors or operators,
that are self-governing, and in which participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-serving organizations are included.
Embraced within this definition, therefore, are private, not-for-profit health
providers, schools, advocacy groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty
groups, development agencies, professional associations, community-based
organizations, unions, religious bodies, recreation organizations, cultural
institutions, and many more. (USAID CSO Sustainability Index)
Community management entities are defined as: group of people
associated with particular purpose for the public interest, such as school
management committees, health services management committee, forest
users group, self-help groups, users’ groups, working groups, forums,
mechanisms to carry out actions as per the mandate.
USAID-support is defined as inputs in terms of training, grants or other
support designed to improve the capacity of CSOs and community
managed entities to carry out public expenditure tracking effectively.
Public expenditure is defined as: on-budget spending on capital
expenditures and relevant recurrent costs—i.e. salaries, non-salaries, and
recurrent subsidies to relevant utilities by targeted GON institutions,
including VDCs and municipalities.
Public expenditure tracking is defined as a systematic process of collecting
and analyzing public financial information to know the source of funds and
its dispensation in their working constituencies.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs and community management entities)
Disaggregated by: Sector (e.g. Governance, Health, Agriculture, NRM etc.); Type of
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 81
CSOs/community managed entities (National/District level)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
The CSOs and community managed entities will have concerns about the
local development and allocation of budgets for public goods. They will
identify relevant offices (like VDCs, Municipalities, education office, health
office, agriculture office, livestock office, irrigation office, among many
others as they have direct relevance to services). They will systematically
carry out budget and expenditure tracking and go for further engagement
and advocacy based on the findings of the tracking. This will enhance the
monitoring function by CSOs and community managed entities that will
contribute to strengthen accountability of targeted institutions. The
expenditure tracking will also allow analysis of priorities set out by the
targeted public institutions, budget allocations, and the way expenditure
has been made to best achieve the results expected by those institutions.
The indicator captures the number of CSOs engaged in the expenditure
tracking activities. It is critical not to focus only on the number of CSOs
engaged, but also take into account the quality aspects of their engagement
and changes brought about by the tracking actions so that there is
improvement in the public expenditure, including reduction in corruption
and effective utilization of public resources.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; records;
CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 21
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 82
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 83
Indicator: 3.1.2 Percentage of respondents satisfied with government
service delivery at gaunpalikas level through the use of the Good
Governance Barometer (GGB)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Government services are those that are provided to the public by the
government (health, education, agriculture extension services and local administrative services). The institutions the public are asked to evaluate
are the following:
Health Post
Sub-Health Post
Public Primary School
Public Secondary School
VDC /Municipality
Local Development Office
Based on the Good Governance Barometer i.e- Effectiveness, Rule of
Law, Accountability, Equity, and Participation respondents are
asked to assess their level of satisfaction with the services provided by
these institutions, on a scale from very satisfied to not at all satisfied (or
the relevant GGB scale). Overall satisfaction is calculated, per person,
as the summation of scores (3 for very satisfied to 0 for not at all satisfied)
for each institution per person; divided the total by 6 (the total number of
institutions included in the series of satisfaction questions) to get a scaled
score from 0 to 3. Those individuals who score 2 or above in their overall
score are considered “satisfied” with government institutions overall.
(Respondent Questionnaire will be focused on Effectiveness, Rule of Law,
Accountability, Equity, and Participation in services delivery that the Institution is
providing.)
Unit of Measure: Percent (% of respondents)
Disaggregated by: Age, sex, caste/ethnicity, type of service
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
The indicator demonstrates satisfaction with services, which would
indicate a certain level of institutional performance. Changes in satisfaction
will be used to determine whether or not institutions are meeting the
needs of the public, and in what capacities. Data will be used to help target
activities for improved performance.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: GGB Survey Reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Conduct GGB Survey
Reporting Baseline;
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 84
Frequency: Mid-term; and
Endline Survey
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
TBD
Target Value 20% increase in baseline value
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 2016
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 85
Indicator: 3.1.3 Number of USG-funded organizations representing
marginalized constituencies trying to affect government policy or
conducting government oversight (USAID Standard Ind. 2.4.1-
11)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator aims to capture the number of USG-funded organizations that have been formed by those belonging to marginalized groups or those
that have been formed with the sole purpose of advocating for the rights
and welfare of marginalized constituencies and conducting oversight of the
status and delivery of services meant for marginalized constituencies.
Marginalized constituencies include groups that are marginalized on the
basis of gender, caste, ethnic, and religious affiliation; as well as groups that
constitute people with disabilities.
Unit of Measure: Number (of organizations)
Disaggregated by: Type of organization; sector; marginalized group represented
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; CS:MAP central database system
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports & database
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 14
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 86
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 87
Indicator: 3.1.4 Number of issue-specific groups formed that utilize the
MeroReport web-portal as a platform for cross-sectoral oversight
and sharing of results of such oversight (e.g. GGB results)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): MeroReport is a web-portal that serves two purposes – to promote
awareness among citizens and journalists of social accountability mechanisms such as RTI, citizen charters, public hearings, and social audits
as a means for generating demand for information from the National
Information Commission and others; and as a platform to link community,
district, and national CSOs and media engaged in cross-sectoral oversight.
The platform will allow users to share GGB results and updates from the
annual SMS My Lawmaker campaign, communicate online through videos
and messages, and create issue-specific working groups for broad
mobilization.
Issue-specific groups refer to groups that comprise of members who either
work in, have a stake in or have an interest in a specific development
priority e.g. Democracy & Governance, Disaster Risk Reduction, Health,
Education, Agriculture and Food Security, Environment and Global Climate
Change or Minority Rights and Inclusion.
Cross-sectoral oversight refers to monitoring and oversight of the work
and achievements of one sector by another e.g. monitoring and oversight
of GON's uses of resources or delivery of services by the Civil Society or
media sectors, and vice versa.
This indicator therefore aims to track the number of issue-specific groups
that are actively engaged in cross-sectoral oversight on the MeroReport
platform.
Unit of Measure: Number of issue-specific group
Disaggregated by: Sector (e.g. education, health, agriculture etc.); National/District
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: EA quarterly report; MeroReport portal (recorded # in CS:MAP database
management system
Method of data collection and
construction:
Review reports & database
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 88
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 4
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 89
IR 3.2 Improved bottom up coordination between community, district, and
national formal and informal CSOs engaged in public service oversight
Indicator: 3.2.1 Number of USG-assisted coalitions between national and
local CSOs engaged in effective public service oversight
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator refers to formal and informal coalitions that come together as a result of CS:MAP interventions. They may be a coalition of national
and local CSOs, a coalition of national and local media organizations, a
coalition of CSOs and media organizations at either the national or local
level, a coalition consisting of organizations working in a similar sector or
with a common advocacy goal, e.g. a coalition of organizations working in
livestock development or a coalition working for disaster reduction etc. In
CS:MAP, coalitions will be based on USAID priority sectors (like: DRR,
Health, Education, Agriculture etc.)
Oversight and monitoring activities include any activities that are directed
at local level Government officials to ensure they do their job.
Public service oversight will be considered effective when coalitions
undertake at least 2 acts of oversight in each quarter and there is evidence
of follow-up actions with the intention to ensure that local level
Government officials do their job.
Unit of Measure: Number of coalitions engaged in effective public service oversight
Disaggregated by: Type (of coalitions and public service oversight)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
This indicator demonstrates the extent to which coalitions are actively
engaged in holding local government accountable for their jobs.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Bi-Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 90
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 4
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 91
IR 3.3: Improved citizen use of available GON social accountability mechanisms
Indicator: 3.3.1 Percent of respondents having used social accountability
mechanisms in past 12 months (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.2-3)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework: NA
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Social accountability mechanisms include the following: social audits, public
hearings, citizen scorecards, CIAA grievance reports, right to information,
and Hello Sarkar. Any individual who reports having used at least one of
the social accountability mechanisms listed above in the year (12 months)
prior to the survey will count as having used the mechanism.
The DO1 survey includes a question about social accountability
mechanisms. The following question will be used to measure use of such
mechanisms:
Some groups in the country are experimenting with new ways to oversee
what the government does, including the delivery of services. For each of
the following please tell me whether or not you have ever heard of, or
used the method?
1 Social Audits
2 Public hearings
3 Community Score Cards
4 CIAA Grievance Reports
5 Right to information
6 Hello Sarkar
7 Budget Analysis
8 Public Expenditure Tracking (PET)
Responses:
1. Have heard of before
2. Have ever used
3. Have used in past 12 months 4. Never heard/don’t know
Numerator: Number of respondents having used at least one of the 6
social mechanisms in past 12 months (3)
Denominator: Total number of respondents
Unit of Measure: Percent (%of respondents)
Disaggregated by: Age, sex, caste/ethnicity, geographic location (District)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
This indicator demonstrates the extent to which people are using social
accountability mechanisms; this tracks the ability of USAID activities to
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 92
Integration
Approach (optional)
increase uptake of social accountability mechanisms among target
populations, in order to provide means for holding government
accountable.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: CS:MAP Survey
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Survey data analysis
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline (2017);
Mid-term (2019); and Endline Survey (2021)
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
15.6% in CS:MAP districts
Target Value 19.5% in CS:MAP districts
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 93
IR 3.4: Improved citizen engagement in media and Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) tools to strengthen public participation and
oversight
Indicator: 3.4.1 Percent of citizens, including women, youth and minorities,
using ICT for oversight
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Minorities refer to people representing minority communities including
caste-based, ethnic, and religious minorities. "Minority" has been defined
relying on statistical criterion such as numerical size of different
populations in terms of caste/ethnicity, language and religion and on
achievement of specific caste/ethnic group in specific fields such as political
decision-making position and economic prosperity; in one aspect, while it has also been defined using a criterion of "domination" and
"discrimination."
Both concepts of "minority" and "dominant group" are indeed based on
exploitative and unequal power relation manifested in the forms of
domination and discrimination by one group over other(s).
In this indicator, youth is disaggregated by age groups: 15-19, 20-24, 25-29.
ICT refers to information and communication technologies that includes
mobile phones (SMS), Interactive Voice Responses (IVRs), online portals
(MeroReport) and other forms of social media (including Facebook, Twitter,
WhatsApp etc.).
More on it, the SMS My Lawmaker campaign is a campaign that will be
promoted through radio programming and MeroReport to generate text
messages (SMS) from citizens who have a message for their Lawmaker
(elected or nominated member of Parliament from their constituency or
district) on specific priority areas e.g. anti-corruption or minority inclusion.
The summary message is then presented (on a quarterly basis) to the
respective Parliamentarian as a petition, advocacy or lobbying tool or for
immediate action, as appropriate.
Oversight refers to monitoring and reporting of public resource use and
public service delivery.
This indicator, therefore looks to track the number of citizens who use
ICT to monitor and report on public resource use and public service
delivery.
Unit of Measure: Number (of citizen/people)
Disaggregated by: Age, sex, caste/ethnicity; type of accountability mechanism
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 94
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: EA quarterly report – SMS/IVR log, MeroReport registration (recorded at
CS:MAP database management system); and periodic survey
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Baseline, Mid-term and Endline Survey
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
49.6% (2017)
Target Value 64.5%
Rational for Targets
(optional)
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 95
Indicator: 3.4.2 Number of USG-assisted CSOs using ICT for monitoring
and oversight of public service delivery and public resource use
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): ICT refers to information and communication technologies that includes
mobile phones (SMS), Interactive Voice Responses (IVRs), online portals
(MeroReport) and other forms of social media (including Facebook, Twitter,
WhatsApp etc.).
More on it, the SMS My Lawmaker campaign is a campaign that will be
promoted through radio programming and MeroReport to generate text
messages (SMS) from citizens who have a message for their Lawmaker
(elected or nominated member of Parliament from their constituency or
district) on specific priority areas e.g. anti-corruption or minority inclusion.
The summary message is then presented (on a quarterly basis) to the
respective Parliamentarian as a petition, advocacy or lobbying tool or for
immediate action, as appropriate.
Oversight refers to monitoring and reporting of public resource use and
public service delivery.
This indicator, therefore looks to track the number of CSOs under
CS:MAP using ICT to monitor and report on public resource use and
public service delivery.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs)
Disaggregated by: Type of CSOs
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 96
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 14
Rational for Targets
(optional)
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 97
Objective 4: Strengthened organizational capacity and sustainability of CSOs
working in USAID priority sectors
IR 4.1: Improved institutional governance of selected CSOs and media
organizations.
Indicator: 4.1.1 Percent of local organizations with improved capacity
and/or performance scores (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-2)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If
yes, link to foreign assistance framework: NA
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise
Definition(s):
The CS:MAP OCA tool and approach have been adapted and tailored
specifically for use in the Nepali context. The tool’s structure and content
draw from an OCA tool developed by John Snow Inc. under The New
Partners Initiative Technical Assistance (NuPITA) project as well as aspects
of the Institutional Development Framework previously adapted by FHI 360
in its Capable Partners Program (CAP). The purpose of the tool is to
provide an objective, standards-based method to identify areas of strength
and weakness and benchmark performance in a consistent manner. The
OCA tool provides organizations with a set of criteria against which to
assess their organizational capacity and to identify key areas that need
strengthening. The CS:MAP OCA combines data collection, analysis,
decision making, and planning into a single process.
The OCA tool assesses organizational capacity across seven domains—
Governance, Administration, Human Resource Management, Financial
Management, Organizational Management, Program Management, and
External Relations—with each domain having a number of sub-sections.
Taken together, the domains and subsections represent the core
organizational performance functions.
Utilizing a consensus-based process of open dialogue, each subsection
within a domain is rated by the organization at one of four stages along an
organizational development continuum as illustrated below.
1 2 3 4
Start
Up
Development Expansion/Consolidation Sustainable
Not
previously
addressed;
Only now
beginning
to work
Some efforts
underway;
Starting to get
organized;
Getting better
Good performance; An area of
strength with need for some
additional growth
A core
strength;
Positioned to
show
leadership or
support other
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 98
on this
area
organizations
in this area
The CS:MAP OCA not only assesses the present status of an organization,
but offers a participatory process that improves communication and team
work in setting organizational goals by engaging board members and staff. It
is an interactive, participatory process for improving organizational
governance, management and performance.
A key output of the CS:MAP OCA is a concrete Institutional Improvement
Plan (IIP) that serves as a roadmap for organizational change. The plan
articulates objectives for change as well as the activities, resources, persons
and timeline necessary to achieve them. The OCA can be performed on an
annual basis to gauge the effectiveness of the previous action plan, monitor
progress, and/or identify new priorities for strengthening.
To demonstrate improved capacity, implementing partners should record
score data for each organization as part of the monitoring and evaluation
plan, so changes in scores for each organization can be monitored over
time. In addition, each implementing partner must include in their
monitoring and evaluation plan: the assessment tool used, a description of
the method employed for its implementation, and the data source identified
as the basis for the rating of each factor.
Both direct and indirect (local partners, or subs, to implementing partners)
awardees should be included.
Numerator: # of local organizations reporting an increased capacity and/or
performance score based on follow up OCA in the reporting year
Denominator: # of local organizations that completed a follow up OCA in the reporting year
Unit of Measure: Percent (of local organizations using OCA in the reporting year)
Disaggregated by: Type of organization; sector
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
This indicator measures progress in actual local capacity development and
will be used by management to report on progress towards achieving Local
Solutions’ capacity development objectives.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: OCA results
[The assessment score sheet collected will be documented in the
performance management files for each organization being assessed
preferably on an annual basis]
Method of data
collection and
construction:
OCA results reports review
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 99
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
capacity and performance, the variety of collection methods and possible
tools present certain data quality issues. There is an issue of reliability. For
each implementing partner, reliability will depend upon rigorous
implementation of a documented methodology for assessment. It has been
determined that flexibility to ensure that the assessment tool corresponds as directly as possible to the particular needs and context of each operating
unit is more important than reliability.
Records will be kept by the Mission for each organization assessed and will
be aggregated only for reporting purposes. Data is also subject to
interpretation bias and there is a possibility that the assessment is
intentionally manipulated for political or personal reasons. Therefore, each
Implementing Partner with their AOR/COR must document how they
determine what level of capacity and/or performance has been attained
across each of the factors assessed and include data sources that can be
verified.
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 90% of the organization reporting an increased capacity and/or
performance score based on follow up OCA in the reporting year.
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes
(optional)
NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 100
Indicator: 4.1.2 Local Organizational Capacity Assessment Score
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework: NA
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise
Definition(s):
The CS:MAP OCA tool and approach have been adapted and tailored
specifically for use in the Nepali context. The tool’s structure and content
draw from an OCA tool developed by John Snow Inc. under The New
Partners Initiative Technical Assistance (NuPITA) project as well as aspects of the Institutional Development Framework previously adapted by FHI 360
in its Capable Partners Program (CAP). The purpose of the tool is to
provide an objective, standards-based method to identify areas of strength
and weakness and benchmark performance in a consistent manner. The
OCA tool provides organizations with a set of criteria against which to
assess their organizational capacity and to identify key areas that need
strengthening. The CS:MAP OCA combines data collection, analysis,
decision making, and planning into a single process.
The OCA tool assesses organizational capacity across seven domains—
Governance, Administration, Human Resource Management, Financial
Management, Organizational Management, Program Management, and
External Relations—with each domain having a number of sub-sections.
Taken together, the domains and subsections represent the core
organizational performance functions.
Utilizing a consensus-based process of open dialogue, each subsection
within a domain is rated by the organization at one of four stages along an
organizational development continuum as illustrated below.
1 2 3 4
Start
Up
Development Expansion/Consolidation Sustainable
Not
previously addressed;
Only now
beginning
to work
on this
area
Some efforts
underway; Starting to get
organized;
Getting better
Good performance; An area of
strength with need for some
additional growth
A core
strength; Positioned to
show
leadership or
support other
organizations
in this area
The CS:MAP OCA not only assesses the present status of an organization,
but offers a participatory process that improves communication and team
work in setting organizational goals by engaging board members and staff. It
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 101
is an interactive, participatory process for improving organizational
governance, management and performance.
A key output of the CS:MAP OCA is a concrete Institutional Improvement
Plan (IIP) that serves as a roadmap for organizational change. The plan
articulates objectives for change as well as the activities, resources, persons
and timeline necessary to achieve them. The OCA can be performed on an
annual basis to gauge the effectiveness of the previous action plan, monitor
progress, and/or identify new priorities for strengthening.
To demonstrate improved capacity, implementing partners should record
score data for each organization as part of the monitoring and evaluation
plan, so changes in scores for each organization can be monitored over
time. In addition, each implementing partner must include in their
monitoring and evaluation plan: the assessment tool used, a description of
the method employed for its implementation, and the data source identified
as the basis for the rating of each factor.
Unit of Measure: Average OCA Score
Disaggregated by: NA
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: OCA results
Method of data
collection and
construction:
OCA results reports review
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
2.2 (2017)
Target Value 3.5
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 102
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes
(optional)
NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 103
Indicator: 4.1.3 Number of CSOs and media organizations participating in a
self-regulatory initiative – (Refer to IND 1.3.1 – repeated)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Self-regulatory initiatives are measures undertaken by CSOs and media
organizations to improve internal governance, taking into account
international best practices and remaining compliant with national legal
frameworks.
This indicator aims to count the number of CSOs and media organizations
under CS:MAP that participate in initiatives aimed at the development and
adoption of self-regulatory mechanisms for strengthening institutional
governance. The count includes organizations directly supported as project
grantees or organizations that are not direct grantees but coordinate and
participate with the CSO and Media Coalitions in either developing and
adopting a self-regulatory mechanism by themselves, or adopting a
mechanism developed by the Coalition. 'Participation' indicates active
adoption and implementation of credible self-regulatory measures.
Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs and media)
Disaggregated by: Type of CSOs
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee Quarterly reports; CS:MAP assessment reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; CS:MAP database
Reporting
Frequency:
Quarterly
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 104
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
Target Value 27
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 105
IR 4.2: Improved capacity of select CSOs and media organizations to mobilize
social and financial resources for sustainability
Indicator: 4.2.1 Number of CSO receiving USG support reporting new
funding sources (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP 1.3.1-4)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that are not part of the apparatus of government, that do not distribute profits
to their directors or operators, that are self-governing, and in which
participation is a matter of free choice. Both member-serving and public-
serving organizations are included. Embraced within this definition,
therefore, are private, not-for-profit health providers, schools, advocacy
groups, social service agencies, anti-poverty groups, development agencies,
professional associations, community-based organizations, unions, religious
bodies, recreation organizations, cultural institutions, and many more.
(USAID CSO Sustainability Index).
USG Assistance is defined as funding and/or technical assistance provided
to the CSOs directly by USAID/Nepal or through the implementing
partners.
New funding sources are those that have not been previously accessed by
the CSO at any time during its operation. Funding must be received by the
CSO in the reporting year (awarded through contract, grant or other
mechanism; deposited into bank if charitable donation or membership
dues), which is according to USG Fiscal calendar (October 1 – September
30).
Unit of Measure: Number
Disaggregated by: Type of organization; sector; source of funding, District/VDC
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
New funding sources is an indication of improved capacity to identify and
access new resources to sustain programming. It is encouraged by
organizational capacity assessment tools promoted by USAID, and
therefore serves as a good measure for improved financial capacity and
progress toward more sustainable and diverse funding sources.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA/OPI
Method of data
collection and construction:
Review reports; OCA/OPI
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual (cumulative)
Individual (s) AOR
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 106
responsible at
USAID:
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 14
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 107
IR 4.3: Improved capacity of CSOs and media organizations to advance local
solutions on priority development issues across sectors and to promote peer-
learning opportunities
Indicator: 4.3.1 Percent of USG assisted CSOs/Media conducting peer
learning practices
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Output
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Peer learning practices refer to mechanisms by which local CSO and media
organizations share or disseminate best practices, knowledge, lessons
learnt, challenges and / or strategies that work. These could be through
meetings, email, web-based or exchange visits, to take a few examples.
So, this indicator refers to the percentage of CS:MAP grantees that
conduct some form of peer learning exercises that promote local
strategies and solutions.
Unit of Measure: Percent (% of CSOs/Media)
Disaggregated by: Type of organization; sector; geographic location
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0 (2017)
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 108
Target Value 90%
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 109
Indicator: 4.3.2 Number of cases that advance local solutions
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Peer learning practices refer to mechanisms by which local CSO and media
organizations share or disseminate best practices, knowledge, lessons
learnt, challenges and / or strategies that work or do not work. These
could be through meetings, email, web-based or exchange visits, to take a
few examples.
Advancing local solutions refers to the promotion of local strategies that
have been proven as successful in addressing a local problem. CS:MAP will
require selected CSO and media organizations to include a section within
their quarterly reports that will provide information on the use of local
strategies that have been proven as successful in overcoming local
challenges. Local solutions may include strategies used in food security and
agriculture, disaster risk reduction, governance and human rights etc.
A case will be counted as an event, practice or activity that is undertaken
by CS:MAP grantees that are aimed at sharing, learning and managing
knowledge derived from project implementation where local solutions
have been successfully adapted and adopted.
Unit of Measure: Number [of cases (solutions)]
Disaggregated by: Type (of event; and sector)
Rationale or Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA reports
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; OCA reports
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 110
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
0
(2016)
Target Value 60
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 111
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Component – Some Additional
Indicators
Indicator: GESI 1 Number of organizations that develop and practice GESI
policies and standards
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): If yes,
link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Outcome (Custom)
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): CS:MAP will facilitate to develop and practice strong GESI policies and
standards for its CSO and media grantees.
CS:MAP will administer a gender equality and social inclusion audit to each
CSO and media organization grantee as part of their OCA. The OCA will
assess GESI in terms of an organization’s political will, technical capacity,
and organizational culture. The outcome of the assessment will be the
adoption or expansion of GESI standards, such as trained program and HR
staff, an increase in the number of women and members of marginalized
groups in senior decision-making positions, and a written commitment to
GESI in programming and reporting.
Unit of Measure: Number (of organizations)
Disaggregated by: Type (of organizations)
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
Although the new Constitution has taken unprecedented steps in the name
of GESI, exclusion remains the basis of concern for many groups, with
recent riots in marginalized areas showcasing the severity of the issue.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA results
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports and OCA results
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 112
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
5 (2017)
Target Value 14
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 113
Indicator: GESI 2 Percent of leadership positions in USG-supported
community management entities that are filled by women or
member of a vulnerable group (USAID/Nepal DO1 PMP Context
Indicator 1.3.2-1)
Performance Plan
and Report
Indicator:
No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2018_
If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:
Indicator Type: Context
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Community management entities are defined as: group of people associated with particular purpose for the public interest, such as school
management committees, health services management committee, forest
users group, farmer groups/cooperatives, market planning committees,
trade and business associations, water user groups, self-help groups,
working groups, forums, or mechanisms to carry out actions as per the
mandate.
Marginalized or vulnerable communities are those who have traditionally
been excluded from power and access to resources, and may include
indigenous peoples, tribal peoples, other minorities, LGBT populations,
women and girls, youth, individuals with disabilities, or other similar
groups. For Feed the Future (FTF), vulnerable households are defined as
those that meet one or more of the following criteria: 1) Living on less
than $1.25 per person per day; 2) Disadvantaged caste groups and ethnic
and religious minorities (Dalits, Janajatis, and Muslims); 3) Affected by
natural disasters (e.g. flood, landslide, drought, or earthquake) during the
project intervention period.
Leadership position: To be counted in this indicator, women or members
of a vulnerable group should be responsible for sharing information and
representing the entity s/he is associated with in public forums; to help
define the issues, problems, and solutions that the entity works on; and to
influence decisions and outcomes associated with the entity or its
initiatives. Leadership positions may be voluntarily obtained, appointed or
elected.
Examples:
• Persons serving as executive or head administrators of community
management entities (in title)
• Persons representing the entity in official consultations with the GON and others
Total number of leadership positions available on community managed
entities should include titled positions (chair person, vice-chair, president,
vice president, secretary, treasurer or the like). On non-formal
committees, count available leadership positions as at least one per
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 114
committee.
To calculate percent, use the following calculation:
Numerator: Number of women/vulnerable people holding leadership
positions
Denominator: Total number of available leadership positions
To disaggregate by sex, use the total number of women and vulnerable
group members, and the % of those who are female, and the percent who
are male.
Unit of Measure: Percent (of leadership positions)
Disaggregated by: Sex; caste/ethnicity
Rationale or
Management Utility,
Integration
Approach (optional)
The leadership of women and members of vulnerable groups in community
management entities is posited as an important mechanism for increasing
the gender and social sensitivity of these entities’ policies and operations,
and for improving the overall strength and sustainability of such entities by
ensuring focus on a broader set of issues relevant to service delivery and
other functions. Furthermore, in a country like Nepal where previous
marginalization of women and vulnerable groups means that they are not
ordinarily represented in leadership positions, the increased representation
of members of these sectors of the population can have an impact on
social stereotyping, assumptions and roles. For young women and youth
from vulnerable communities, observing more women and vulnerable
peoples in leadership roles can have an empowering effect as well.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA results
Method of data
collection and
construction:
Review reports; and OCA results/records
Reporting
Frequency:
Annual
Individual (s)
responsible at
USAID:
AOR
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:
NA
Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):
Number and frequency of DQA will be determined later in consultation with AOR.
Known Data
Limitations:
BASELINE AND TARGETS
Baseline Timeframe
(optional)
35.9% (2017)
Target Value 45%
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 115
Rational for Targets
(optional)
NA
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to
Indicator:
NA
Other Notes (optional) NA
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017
CS:MAP M&E Plan July, 2016 Page 116
5.4 Annex 5: Data Quality Assessment Checklists
The checklist below is intended to assist in assessing each of the five aspects of data quality and
provide a convenient manner in which to document CS:MAP’s DQA findings
Activity Name:
Implementing Organization:
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]
Period for Which the Data Are Being Reported:
Is This Indicator a Standard or Custom Indicator? ____ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator
____ Custom (created by the Activity; not
standard)
Data Quality Assessment methodology:
[Describe here or attach to this checklist the methods and procedures for assessing the quality of the indicator
data. E.g. Reviewing data collection procedures and documentation, interviewing those responsible for data
analysis, checking a sample of the data for errors, etc.]
Date(s) of Assessment:
Assessment Team Members:
Activity Implementation Partner Verification of DQA
Team Leader Officer approval
X_______________________________________
CS:MAP M&E Plan August 2017 Page 117
YES NO COMMENTS
VALIDITY – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result.
1 Does the information collected measure what it
is supposed to measure? (E.g. A valid measure of
overall nutrition is healthy variation in diet; Age
is not a valid measure of overall health.)
2 Do results collected fall within a plausible range?
3 Is there reasonable assurance that the data
collection methods being used do not produce
systematically biased data (e.g. consistently
over- or under-counting)?
4 Are sound research methods being used to
collect the data?
RELIABILITY – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods
over time.
1 When the same data collection method is used
to measure/observe the same thing multiple
times, is the same result produced each time?
(E.g. A ruler used over and over always
indicates the same length for an inch.)
2 Are data collection and analysis methods
documented in writing and being used to ensure
the same procedures are followed each time?
TIMELINESS – Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and should be timely
enough to influence management decision making.
1 Are data available frequently enough to inform
program management decisions?
2 Are the data reported the most current
practically available?
3 Are the data reported as soon as possible after
collection?
PRECISION – Data have a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision making; e.g. the
margin of error is less than the anticipated change.
1 Is the margin of error less than the expected
change being measured? (E.g. If a change of only
2% is expected and the margin of error in a
survey used to collect the data is +/- 5%, then
the tool is not precise enough to detect the
change.)
2 Has the margin of error been reported along
with the data? (Only applicable to results
obtained through statistical samples.)
3 Is the data collection method/tool being used to
collect the data fine-tuned or exact enough to
register the expected change? (E.g. A yardstick
may not be a precise enough tool to measure a
change of a few millimeters.)
INTEGRITY – Data collected should have safeguards to minimize the risk of transcription error or data
manipulation.
CS:MAP MEL Plan August 2017 Page 118
1 Are procedures or safeguards in place to
minimize data transcription errors?
3 Is there independence in key data collection,
management, and assessment procedures?
3 Are mechanisms in place to prevent
unauthorized changes to the data?
SUMMARY
Based on the assessment relative to the five standards, what is the overall conclusion regarding the
quality of the data?
Significance of limitations (if any):
Actions needed to address limitations prior to the next DQA (given level of USG control over data):
IF NO DATA ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE
INDICATOR
COMMENTS
If no recent relevant data are available for this
indicator, why not?
What concrete actions are now being taken to
collect and report these data as soon as possible?
When will data be reported?
Recommendations for Conducting Data Quality Assessments 1. Data Quality (DQ) assessor should make sure that they understand the precise definition of the indicator by
checking the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet. Please address any issues of ambiguity before the DQA
is conducted.
2. DQ assessor should have a copy of the methodology for data collection in hand before assessing the
indicator. This information should be in the M&E Plan’s Performance Indicator Reference Sheets for each
indicator. Each indicator should have a written description of how the data being assessed are supposed to
be collected.
3. Each implementing partner should have a copy of the method of data collection in their files and
documented evidence that they are collecting the data according to the methodology.
4. DQ assessor should record the names and titles of all individuals involved in the assessment.
5. Data verification by the partners should be an ongoing process. Whenever required, partners should be able
to provided USAID with documents (process/person conducting the verification/field visit dates/persons
met/activities visited, etc.) which demonstrates that they have verified the data that was reported.
6. The DQ assessor should be able to review the necessary database/ filing system against the methodology for
data collection laid out in the M&E Plan. Any data quality concerns should be documented.
7. The DQ should include a summary of significant limitations found. A plan of action, including timelines and
responsibilities, for addressing the limitations should be made.