Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) 51 - 62 - RING

Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) ... 51 - 62

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 51

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(51) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.1: Number of target MMDAs that are eligible for direct funding from USAID

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to districts in Northern Ghana which are part of RING that have been classified by USAID as G2G or that have been determined by RING, based on a responsibility assessment, to be recommended eligible for such designation.

UNIT OF MEASURE: UNIT: Number (districts)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE:

The local governments’ limited capacity to respond to food insecurity is a major obstacle in addressing under nutrition and livelihoods. Lack of resources and personnel make it difficult for government officials to engage rural communities and implement poverty interventions that could minimize food insecurity in their coverage area.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: USAID/RING assessment of eligibility

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of MMDA work plans and budgets cross referenced with CAPS

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual / in line with MMDA planning process

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: USAID/RING

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 52

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(52) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.2 Mean percentage change in District FOAT Score among MMDAs not yet receiving direct funds from USAID

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to the FOAT score by districts in Northern Ghana which are part of RING but not receiving direct funds from USAID (known as “Subcontracted districts”). The mean change is calculated by taking the average of the periodic changes in FOAT score in each district. The percent change used is calculated by calculating what percentage the new score (year 2) is of the starting year (year 1). This taken by (Year 2 – Year 1) / (Year 1) For example if there are 2 districts

	Year 1	Year 2`	Percent Change
D1 FOAT	10	15	50%
D2 FOAT	7	12	71%
Mean Change			60.5%

UNIT OF MEASURE: Percentage based on change calculated based on the SUM of % changes among MMDAs divided by the total number of districts

Numerator = SUM of percent change calculations of each assessed MMDA

Denominator = Total number of assessed MMDAs

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE:

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Government of Ghana provided FOAT scores

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: FOAT assessment conducted by GOG and results provided to RING

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: According to FOAT schedule

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Government of Ghana

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 53

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(53) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.3: Percentage of direct-funded partner contribution toward the RING Annual Work Plan budget

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to the total Host Country Contribution (HCC) by direct-funded (G2G) district and regional partners toward RING funding over the life of the project. The contribution can be in cash or in-kind, and may include, but is not limited to, such items as:

Staff time/effort;
Venue use;
Office equipment;
Utilities;
Cash contributions.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Percentage (total amount of HCC divided by the RING Annual Ceiling Budget)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: This indicator demonstrates local government partners’ commitment to project goals and objectives. In partnering with USAID under the RING Project, the district or regional entity is accepting a certain measure of responsibility for implementation. This will not only lead to greater sustainability of the project objectives (particularly IR 3a), but will ensure that they meet their obligations, as outlined in the IL for the project, and demonstrates stronger buy-in by the local government partners.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: RING Annual Work Plans and Budgets + Host Country Contribution Tracking Sheet

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Work Plan and Project Management Level (those officers/departments implementing RING activities, and partner MMDAs/NRCC/NRHD)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of MMDA/NRCC Annual Work Plans & Budgets for projections + Host Country Contribution Tracking Sheet for confirmation of actuals

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING Governance Team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations: In-kind amounts based on estimated times/costs, not actuals. In any retroactive reports (FY14, FY15, FY16), this will be exacerbated, as data was not routinely collected until FY17, when the indicator was introduced. Systems for estimating costs of in-kind contributions are in draft format and will be piloted in FY17 Q1.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): N/A

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Newly-proposed in October 2016, replacing previous indicator: “Amount of Internally Generated Funds (IGF) allocated to community-based nutrition, WASH & livelihood activities in target MMDAs and the NRCC.”

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 10^th October 2016

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 54

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(54) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.4: Number of target MMDAs that institutionalize participatory planning and budgeting process for nutrition and livelihoods interventions

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to the number of MMDAs which require active community participation through mandated public forums at one or more stages of their planning and budgeting processes for nutrition and livelihoods interventions by communities within the district.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (MMDAs)

DISAGGREGATED BY: Location: MMDAs

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: The local governments’ limited capacity to respond to food insecurity is a major obstacle in addressing under nutrition and livelihoods. Lack of resources and personnel make it difficult for government officials to engage rural communities and implement poverty interventions that could minimize food insecurity in their coverage area.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: District Reports / Monitoring by RING staff

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of DA work plans and budgets cross referenced with CAPS

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual / in line with MMDAs planning process

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING staff based on document review

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 55

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition, livelihoods and WASH

(55) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.5: Number of target MMDAs that produce annual and medium-term development plans which demonstrate multi-sectoral collaboration across local agriculture, WASH, nutrition and health teams

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator relates to the number of target MMDAs whose annual and medium-term plans reflect multi-sectoral collaboration as demonstrated by confirmation of attendance of planning sessions attended by agriculture, WASH, nutrition, and health line ministries.

UNIT OF MEASURE: : Number (MMDAs)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE:

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: District annual work plans and budgets

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of MMDA work plans and budgets

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual / in line with MMDA planning process

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 56

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(56) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.6: Number of annual and medium-term plans by target MMDAs and the NRCC which prioritize good nutrition and include nutrition-related activities

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to the plans (annual and medium term) which include nutrition activities as a priority. A plan is deemed to have prioritized good nutrition by including nutrition related activities (such as the cultivation or marketing of nutritious crops, information on infant, child and maternal nutrition, etc.) the dissemination of information on better nutrition in annual plan.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (MMDAs)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDA budgets and work plans (non-RING)

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level, those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC)

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of MMDA work plans and budgets

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual / in line with MMDA planning process

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING staff based on review of budgets

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 57

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of target MMDAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(57) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.7: Number of MMDAs holding public forums and stakeholder meetings related to RING focal areas of livelihoods, nutrition, WASH, and good governance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator represents the number of events held by MMDAs and are accessible to members of the public at which information about RING focal areas are shared or discussed. This offers opportunities for citizens, community-based organizations and other stakeholders to provide input into the design, budgeting and implementation of RING activities and to be informed of RING outcomes. To be counted these events must be documented by the MMDAs through written minutes

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (MMDAs)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Agenda/Meeting Minutes of Public Meetings, district planning officers keep or know this information

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: MMDAs Reports / attendance at public forum by RING staff if possible

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: ongoing, reported quarterly

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDA planning staff report to RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 7-08-2016

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 58

IR 3a: Strengthened capacity of targeted DAs and the NRCC to respond to community priorities for improved nutrition and livelihoods

(58) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.1.8: Percentage of core RING implementing departments that use community feedback to inform planning processes for their RING Annual Work Plans and Budgets and/or District Annual Action Plans

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to the total number of core RING implementing departments that use community feedback to inform their planning processes. Those five core departments are defined as: District Agriculture Department, Ghana Health Services/Nutrition, Environmental Health and Sanitation, Planning & Budget, and Community Development/Social Welfare.

Community feedback can be gleaned from multiple engagement forums, including, but not limited to:

Community Action Plans (CAP);
Citizens Forums;
Networking Meetings;
Collaborative Annual Work Planning & Budget Meetings;
Assembly Meetings;
Community Consultations.

“Planning processes” should include incorporating into work plans specific interventions that have been requested during the above-mentioned forums, and targeting them to specific communities that have requested them (e.g. a Community A requests ‘off season’ income generating options during a Community Consultation, and in the next RING Annual Work Plan, they have been targeted for shea collection & market linkages to satisfy that need).

Each core department should be able to reference at least one (preferably more) planning decision in their RING Annual Work Plan and/or District Annual Action Plan that is targeted to a community that has specifically requested an intervention or support mechanism during an engagement forum.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Percentage

DISAGGREGATED BY: District; core RING implementing departments

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: Both the RING Project and the Government of Ghana have prioritized the incorporation of community feedback into development plans. The local government does not always respond to these community-identified priorities because they are hampered by insufficient funding to both hold the initial engagement forum to solicit feedback, and to actualize that feedback by implementing certain interventions requested by communities. Through RING, the funding to carry out numerous engagement forums to solicit feedback and to implement requested activities is available, eliminating the districts’ constraint for soliciting and responding to community feedback. Encouraging districts to tie community feedback to their development planning will support both GOG and Project objectives.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: CAPs, district reports from community engagement forums (mentioned above) + RING Annual Work Plan and Budget and/or District Annual Action Plan

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: District Level; Department Level (those affected by scope of USG activity/core implementing departments)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of RING Annual Work Plans and/or District Annual Action Plans in comparison to community engagement forums reports

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual/in line with RING and District annual work planning schedule (Q1 of each FY)

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING Governance Team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations: None.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional): LOP target = 4 of 5 core implementing departments. This means that 80% of departments will be incorporating community feedback into their development plans by the end of the project.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Newly-proposed in October 2016, replacing previous indicator: “Number of MMDAs making evidence-based decisions using monitoring visit data”

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 10 October 2016

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 59

IR 3b: Strengthened Capacity of Target Communities to Integrate Nutrition and Livelihood Priorities for Vulnerable Households into Community Action Plans, implement activities and monitor progress

(59) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.2.2: Percentage of target households participating in community support groups

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator reflects the percentage of households who have at least 1 member participating in some form of community support group. A community support group can include VSLAs, producer organizations, women’s groups, mother-to-mother support groups, etc. Percentages reported will reflect the proportion of households participating in a group among households receiving services in the program year. The Life of Program result will thus show the percentage of households among all benefitting households who had a member participating in a support group at any stage during RING.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Percentage

Numerator – number of households with at least 1 member participating in a group per definition

Denominator – Total Number of Households Benefitting in program year

DISAGGREGATED BY: Gendered Household type: Adult Female no

Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult

Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults (M&F), Child No Adults (CNA)

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDA Reports of group membership / RING monitoring and follow up visits

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (households)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: MMDAs level, MTMSG data collection form to collect data on those affected by the activity

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annually

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDA staff report to RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 60

IR3b: Strengthened capacity of target communities

(60) INDICATOR TITLE: HL.8.3-2: Number of action plans implemented for water security, integrated water resource management, and/or water source protection as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.3

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): These action plans are for water security, Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), and/or water source protection of the water resources availability and use in a country. Action Plans include the vision, goals, and objectives, and are developed through a process of stakeholder participation. Each action within a plan must include an implementation strategy with details on financing, timeline, implementation partners, monitoring, and reporting. Attention is specifically devoted to safeguarding sustainable access to adequate levels of acceptable water quality to support human and ecosystem populations in the face of climate variability and change at the basin or country level.

Definitions:

Water security refers to safeguarding sustainable access to adequate levels of acceptable water quality to support human and ecosystem populations while reducing risks from floods and droughts.

Integrated Water Resource Management is a process which promotes the management and coordinated development of water, land, and other related resources to sustain ecosystems while maximizing social and economic welfare.

Water source protection refers to measures taken to ensure the hygienic safety of water for human consumption and other designated uses.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number

DISAGGREGATED BY: Action Plan Type (water security, integrated water resource management, and/or water source protection)

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Information will be used by the State Department and USAID to monitor performance, decide budget allocations, and report to key stakeholders.

Bureau Owner(s): USAID, E3/W, waterteam@usaid.gov; State (OES/ECW) Kathryn Pharr, PharrK@state.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Water is frequently diverted for a range of uses without sufficient consideration for the impacts of that use and sustainable needs for the hydrological system at basin scale. As a result, basin level sustainability is often compromised and conflicts arise between uses and users in different parts of basins. To help mitigate this outcome, water resources sustainability assessments can foster a broader approach to integrated water resources management and water security that facilitates more optimal and harmonious outcomes.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: District annual work plans and budgets

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of MMDA work plans and budgets

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 61

IR3b: Strengthened capacity of target communities

(61) INDICATOR TITLE: HL. 9-5: A national multi-sectoral nutrition plan or policy is in place that includes responding to emergency nutrition needs (Yes=1, No=0) (HL. 9-6)

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.9 (Secondary: HL 9.1, 9.2, 9.3)

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): A national nutrition plan or policy is a written document that has been officially endorsed by the government of country. It is generally recognized and/or signed by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as other relevant Ministries and offices.

The plan or policy must have a multi-sectoral approach that includes at minimum health, nutrition, agriculture and water and sanitation (WASH) sector involvement. To be reported under this indicator the plan or policy must also include a section that sets out the government’s approach in response to emergency nutrition needs.

The plan or policy must at a minimum call for the following actions in case of an emergency:

1. Protection of optimal infant and young child feeding practices in emergencies (IYCF-E)

2. detection and management of acute malnutrition

3. undertaking of Vitamin A supplementation and measles vaccination (in case of low vaccination coverage or displacement)

4. access to safe water and sanitation facilities, and protection/improvement of hygiene practices

If there is a plan or policy in place but it does not address the four minimum emergency actions or does not include all of the four relevant sectors mentioned above, the Operating Unit should report “No” (No=0) for this indicator. However, the OU may explain the status of the policy in the indicator narrative section.

The OU should report “yes” (Yes=1) the first year the plan or policy is put in place and report “yes” each subsequent year over the life of the policy or plan. If the plan or policy expires and another qualified plan or policy is not put in place, the OU should report “no” (No=0) each year until a new plan or policy is enacted. OU technical experts, who review the rest of the nutrition PPR data quality, are expected to make determinations of applicability and validity with respect to national plans and policies

The intention of this indicator is only to capture official endorsement and existence of a policy. While ensuring and tracking effective implementation of the plan or policy is ideal, it is beyond the scope of a PPR indicator. OUs may develop custom indicators or write narrative descriptions that provide a more comprehensive story of their policy and advocacy efforts.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (0 or 1)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: This indicator measures the progress of USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025). It also supports reporting and measurement of achievements for the followings: Acting on the Call Annual Reports; Feed the Future Progress Reports; International Food Assistance Report; Feed the Future and Global Health annual Portfolio Reviews.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: Global Health/HIDN/NUT

POC: Kellie Stewart, 571-551-7439, kestewart@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-term Outcome or Impact ) RATIONALE: USAID’s Multi-sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025) recognizes the significance of malnutrition as a contributing factor to, and consequence of crises; and good nutrition as a mechanism to mitigate the scale and impact of a disaster. USAID’s Resilience Policy calls for an approach that seeks to “layer, integrate, and sequence humanitarian relief and development assistance.” Early intervention with critical nutrition services and disease control in humanitarian emergencies can avert excess mortality, decrease vulnerability to future shocks, and ensure a more timely return to development following a crisis. There is a growing recognition that more sustainable approaches to preparedness, including strengthening national systems (e.g., commodity logistics, early warning, and nutrition surveillance) as well as national contingency plans are necessary to ensure timely delivery of services during emergencies.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Ministry of Health-government of Ghana

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION:
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED:

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 62

IR 3c: Strengthened capacity of targeted MMDAs and the NRCC to monitor efforts for nutrition and livelihoods in their respective areas

(62) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.3.3.2: Number of coordination/review meetings between MMDAs and regional government bodies

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S): This indicator refers to number of meetings held jointly among district staff with NRCC to review progress and develop work plans. It can represent joint NRCC monitoring visits to the district, combined with individual regional departments (REHSU, NRHD, etc.). It also includes mid-year and annual review meetings, along with work planning meetings.

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number (meetings)

DISAGGREGATED BY: N/A

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE:

The local governments’ limited capacity to respond to food insecurity is a major obstacle in addressing under nutrition and livelihoods. They also lack integrated planning of interventions to tackle nutrition issues which are multi-dimensional. These meetings will ensure that agriculture, health and WASH activities are coordinated, review successes and challenges and plan for following year.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: District and NRCC/NRHD records

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION:

LEVEL OF COLLECTION: Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (MMDAs/NRCC/NRHD)
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Document Review / attendance by RING staff at coordination meetings

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: ongoing, reported quarterly

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: District/NRCC/NRHD

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: