civil society: mutual accountability project (cs:map

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: [email protected]

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.

mailto:[email protected]

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


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.


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:


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 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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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 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;


• 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.



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


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.


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



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


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


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



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



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


0 (2017) 90%

IND 4.1.2 Local Organizational Capacity 2.2 (2017) 3.5



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


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


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.


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.


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?


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


5. ANNEXES


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

%


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


(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


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


Indicator

Code


(Output, Outcom

e,

Impact, Context)

Data Disaggregation

Data Source/

Collection Method

Reporting Frequency


Annual)

Geospatial

reporting level

(National


Baseline (&

Year)

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

LOP


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


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


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


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,


Indicator Type: Impact


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


(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.


Data Source: DO1 Survey


construction:

DO1 Survey data analysis

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



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 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:

NA


THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: August 2017



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


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.


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



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 10


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 1.1.2 Number of public policies introduced, adopted, repealed,

changed or implemented consistent with citizen input


Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:

No Yes X If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): 2017 If yes,


Indicator Type: Outcome


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.



Method of data Review reports; CS:MAP database


collection and

construction:

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 5


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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


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


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.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 5



(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


Data Source: Grantees’ periodic reports


construction:

Review reports

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual


Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)

Target Value 16


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 1.2.2 Percentage change in public understanding of the role of

CSOs and media

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)


Rationale or

Management Utility,


Integration

Approach (optional)


Data Source: Public Perception Survey


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

Level of public understanding – 42.4% (2017)

Target Value 55.1%


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 1.2.3 Percentage change in public confidence in the role of CSOs

and media

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)


Rationale or

Management Utility,

Integration

Approach (optional)



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);


Endline (2021)

Individual (s)

responsible at USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

Level of public confidence – 37.2% (2017)

Target Value 48.4%


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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-







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)


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



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)

Target Value 32


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


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


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)

Target Value 500


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 1.3.2 Percentage change in GON stakeholder satisfaction with

CSO and media self-regulation

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)


Data Source: Public perception survey, DO1 survey

Method of data

collection and

construction:

Surveys results review

Reporting

Frequency:

Baseline (2017);


Endline Survey (2021)

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

Level of GON stakeholder satisfaction – 34.4%

Target Value 41.3%


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)



Method of data

collection and

construction:

Review reports

Reporting

Frequency:

Quarterly

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 6


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:















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)


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.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 22


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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


Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:

No X Yes If yes, for which Fiscal Year(s): __ If

yes, link to foreign assistance framework: ___













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.


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



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 300


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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,





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








Consultation by policy makers is defined as systematic approach of policy

makers to the CSOs for specific contribution to the policy making process.


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.



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


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 178


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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

Phone/Fax

Email

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)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe TBD


(optional)

Target Value 14


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe 0


(optional) (2016)

Target Value 135


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 2.1.6 Average Advocacy Readiness Index (ARI) Score of “Policy

Advocacy, Government Engagement and Oversight” grantees

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:


link to foreign assistance framework: NA



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


Phone/Fax

Email

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


Rationale or

Management Utility,

Integration

Approach (optional)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0.87

(2017)

Target Value 3.0

Rational for Targets NA


(optional)


Changes to

Indicator:

NA



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:





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)



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



NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

TBD

Target Value 4


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)



Method of data

collection and

construction:



Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:



Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 34


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 2.2.3 Number of joint actions undertaken by CSO – media

coalitions on cross-sectoral policy priorities

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)



Method of data

collection and

construction:



Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


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 Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 510


(optional)

NA



Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; research papers

Method of data

collection and

construction:

Evidence of research papers, review reports;


Reporting

Frequency:

Bi-Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe (optional)

0 (2016)

Target Value 168


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 2.3.2 Number of CSOs/Media using gender and caste, ethnicity

disaggregated evidence for policy advocacy

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)



Method of data

collection and

construction:

Review reports;

Records

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:



Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 14


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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


Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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


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.



Method of data

collection and

construction:

Review reports; records;

CS:MAP database

Reporting

Frequency:

Quarterly

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 21


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA


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:





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.


Data Source: GGB Survey Reports

Method of data

collection and

construction:

Conduct GGB Survey

Reporting Baseline;


Frequency: Mid-term; and

Endline Survey

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

TBD

Target Value 20% increase in baseline value


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 14



(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


Data Source: EA quarterly report; MeroReport portal (recorded # in CS:MAP database

management system


construction:

Review reports & database


Reporting

Frequency:

Quarterly

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 4


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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.



Method of data

collection and

construction:

Review reports

Reporting

Frequency:

Bi-Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 4


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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


Integration

Approach (optional)

increase uptake of social accountability mechanisms among target

populations, in order to provide means for holding government

accountable.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

15.6% in CS:MAP districts

Target Value 19.5% in CS:MAP districts


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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


Rationale or

Management Utility,

Integration

Approach (optional)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

49.6% (2017)

Target Value 64.5%


(optional)


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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


This indicator, therefore looks to track the number of CSOs under

CS:MAP using ICT to monitor and report on public resource use and


Unit of Measure: Number (of CSOs)

Disaggregated by: Type of CSOs

Rationale or

Management Utility,

Integration

Approach (optional)


Data Source: Grantee reports

Method of data

collection and

construction:

Review reports

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)

Target Value 14


(optional)


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:


yes, link to foreign assistance framework: NA



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


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.


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


Reporting

Frequency:

Annual

Individual (s)

responsible at

USAID:

AOR

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



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 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.


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA

Other Notes

(optional)

NA



Indicator: 4.1.2 Local Organizational Capacity Assessment Score

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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


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


Rationale or

Management Utility,

Integration

Approach (optional)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

2.2 (2017)

Target Value 3.5



(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA

Other Notes

(optional)

NA



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:





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)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:



Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)

Target Value 27


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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









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).


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.


Data Source: Grantee quarterly reports; OCA/OPI

Method of data

collection and construction:

Review reports; OCA/OPI

Reporting

Frequency:

Annual (cumulative)

Individual (s) AOR


responsible at

USAID:

DATA QUALITY ISSUES


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 14


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:





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)


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0 (2017)


Target Value 90%


(optional)

NA


Changes to Indicator:

NA




Indicator: 4.3.2 Number of cases that advance local solutions

Performance Plan

and Report

Indicator:





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)


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


NA




Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

0

(2016)

Target Value 60


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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:



Indicator Type: Outcome (Custom)


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.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:



Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

5 (2017)

Target Value 14


(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA




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


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


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.


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


NA



Known Data

Limitations:


Baseline Timeframe

(optional)

35.9% (2017)

Target Value 45%



(optional)

NA


Changes to

Indicator:

NA



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_______________________________________


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.


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.

civil society: mutual accountability project (cs:map

Documents