Changes in and Goals of USAID
M&E Reporting Requirements
February 6, 2007
Jackie Doremus, CARPE M&E Consultant
Outline of Presentation





Success of M&E to date – Broadly and
the Operational Plan case study
Overall goals of CARPE M&E – why
do we want this information?
Brief overview of current M&E system
Proposed CARPE M&E Calendar
Feedback from Partners’ Phase IIA
final reports
Outline of Presentation

Proposed updates to CARPE M&E
system






SO level indicator
Updated matrix
MOVs
Narrative structure for LS consortia
GIS data
Feedback and distribution of tools
Success of CARPE M&E
System: Broadly


M&E system developed to satisfy all
CARPE USAID reporting requirements,
finalized Feb 2005
Effectively communicated results to
Congress, helping ensure a fourth year of
funding
Success of CARPE M&E
System: A case study

December 2006 saw major changes in
USAID’s reporting structure




New, comprehensive reporting tool, the
Operational Plan, required for each Operating
Unit
Entered into a web-based system, FACTS:
Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking
System
Data requirements much greater than previous
USAID reports
Very little ‘warning’ or collaboration with the field
on the content of the report
Success of CARPE M&E
System: A case study



CARPE team was only SO in
USAID/DRC to not return to partners
for repeated information requests to
satisfy FACTS*
Operational Plan design mimicked
CARPE database design
Information entered into FACTS was
auditable and robust due to MOVs and
matrices
FACTS stats from Matrix

FACTS required activity budgeting



Average % of the total LS budget spent
on “Training/Capacity Building” is 14%
CARPE funds led to at least 2,163
people receiving training with FY06
funds
FY06 LS funds were used to improve
management on 32.6 M ha
Goals of CARPE M&E

FUNDING



Regular conduit of communication between
partners and CTO


Determine project warrants funding
Use all available resources to communicate results and
ensure funding
Better to have structured and well-anticipated report
submission than ad hoc requests and changing
requirements
Must efficiently use time and resources of partners
during reporting submission and of CARPE team
during processing of reports


Matrix requires an initial investment from partners to learn
format, then an annual large investment when consortia
create the workplan
Landscape leaders will need to help new subpartners
Goals of CARPE M&E
USG Grant
Management
Conservation
Knowledge
CARPE
M&E
Communication
with
Stakeholders
PerformanceBased
Agreements
Overview of CARPE M&E

Semi-Annual Reporting Cycle:



1. A workplan matrix and narrative
2. A Semi-Annual Report matrix and
narrative
3. An Annual Report matrix and narrative


MOVs
A one-time GIS data submission
Overview of CARPE M&E
Review Criteria

1. Partners submit
a workplan matrix
and proposed
budget


Analyzed by
CARPE using
rubric (ex )
FY06 Workplans
were submitted in
CARPE IIB RFA
proposals
Approval
Substantive Content of Work Plan
Distribution of tasks is appropriate given the current stage of the LUP process
Yes
Distribution of tasks between macro zones is balanced (50+% outside PA’s)
Yes
Tasks are included that constitute a reason- able stakeholder engagement strategy
Yes
Tasks include people-centered alternative livelihoods options to conservation
threats
Yes
Data collection is appropriate to support current stage of the LUP process
Yes
Training contributes to sustainable local institutional conservation capacity
Yes
Coherence of Work Plan
Tasks are coherently linked to PMP.
Yes
Work plan tasks are adequate for achieving specific BM’s.
Yes
Activity categories are appropriate.
Yes
Task responsibilities are clearly defined.
Yes
Tasks are reasonable to achieve in given timeframe.
Yes
Nature of tasks is clearly defined
Yes
Task quarterly progress schedule (in %) is identified and reasonable
Yes
Performance Monitoring
IR’s and macro zones are appropriately identified
Yes
BM’s are consistent with the PMP
Yes
MOV’s are acceptable, verifiable and document achievement of the BM’s
Yes
Budget
Budget is segmented by macro zone, activity cat., USAID-cost share, partner
Yes
Overview of CARPE M&E


Workplan data is entered into a MS Access
database
The database links Landscape financial and
performance data




Financial: Activity budgeting by zone type, partner,
and country, semi-annual expenditure rate
Performance: Each zone’s name, benchmark, size,
country location, and type
Allows CARPE rough comparisons between
landscapes and a way to quickly scale up the
regional program
Eventually data will be represented spatially
using zone and landscape polygons
Overview of CARPE M&E
Planned ha under improved management
by zone type
Millions
15
10
hectares
5
PA
CBNRM
ERZ
0
FY06
FY07
fiscal year of funding
FY08
Overview of CARPE M&E

2. Partners submit Semi-Annual Report
(SAR) matrix and narrative

SAR is a tool for partners to communicate to the
CARPE Operating Unit on progress toward
benchmarks and any proposed changes



Level of Effort:



Adaptive management—flexible
Required in Cooperative Agreements
No major changes made to matrix submitted as
workplan unless changes in benchmarks
Percentage accomplished on right-side is updated
CARPE uses SAR performance (financial
and programmatic) to influence budgeting of
LS funds
Overview of CARPE M&E

3. Partners submit an Annual Report matrix,
narrative, and MOVs

Matrices: Final results are updated into database for
reporting to Washington



FACTS, Global Climate Change, 118/119, Performance
Report, etc
Narratives: Success stories and reporting is created
from accomplishments listed here
MOVs: catalogued, cross-checked, and evaluated




Important as a check to show that results were achieved
Required by USAID data quality assessment
Esp important due to limitation of field visits
Some published on CARPE website
Proposed CARPE Reporting Calendar
FY07 Workplan and
FY06 SAR submitted
August 1, 2007
CARPE analysis,
workplan approval, and
final budget
September 1, 2007
Try to continue approximately this cycle for length of
agreements to help planning, though flexibility is necessary
FY06 Final Report
and MOVs submitted
Dec 1, 2007
Site visits
Feb-Aug 2008
CARPE
analyzes data
for submission
to Washington
Dec-Jan
Updating of M&E System


All proposed updates are small and have been
balanced with need for stability in reporting
Changes will:


Better measure CARPE results as the program
matures
Ensure CARPE receives complete information from
bundled consortia




Segments reporting was automatically disaggregated by
country
Respond to Partners’ feedback in Final Reports
Improve data quality
Help CARPE reporting burden with reduction in team
size
Summary of Partners’ Feedback


Thank you! Feedback was very helpful
Across the board notes:




Most partners find the matrix an important and useful
tool




Some have incorporated it into their own LS monitoring plans
Useful for team building and will be important for guiding new
consortia and managing sub-grants
Smaller segments and segments with many donors found it
burdensome
Request for French translation of reporting tools


Request limitation in future changes to format – has stabilized
since Feb 2005 workshop
Matrix is resource and time intensive
Request CARPE distribute a clear reporting calendar to help
partners’ plan meeting logistics and time management
Matrix available in French, guidance currently is not
Recommendation for more site visits by CTO
Proposed Updates to M&E System:
SO level indicator

SO Level indicator from PMP:






“Population status for selected biodiversity
“indicator” species such as: wide-ranging
“landscape” species and/or ecological keystone
species (e.g. elephants, large predators) and/or
globally threatened species (such as, mountain
gorillas, bonobos, etc.)”
Program maturity
Unit of measurement described in PMP: No. of
individuals of indicator species
Timing: Biennial/triennial
Compatible with SOFR Indicators
Will be separated and not linked to tasks
Updated Matrix

People trained summarized on separate page

Reported by “training event”





On-going tasks link to MOVs and LUP progress should
be described as best as possible
Percentages now given semi-annually on workplanning
(right) side
Changes from Workplan or SAR marked in RED font
and explained in narrative


Disaggregated by gender
No. of days trained
no “comparison percentages” (since changes highlighted in
red)
Zone names


Add zone ID (assigned by CARPE, see future handout)
Add country where zone is found in parentheses, below name
Updated Matrix

Break down budgets by country whenever
possible, even within the same NGO



Example: WWF in TNS Cameroon and CAR
Linked to Transformational Diplomacy
reporting requirements
Annual Reports and Workplans will be
posted on the CARPE website (without
financial data)

Feedback form
Updates: Means of Verification
(MOVs)



Hyperlinking has helped control the MOVs,
however some were missing or mis-linked
for FY05
If MOVs are missing without explanation,
CARPE will report the benchmark as not
achieved in Washington reporting
MOVs are sifted through by CARPE team
and appropriate material will be published
on the CARPE website
Narrative Updates

Narrative format will continue in the
same format as before, with increased
page limits to accommodate LS
consortia


Suggestions welcome in feedback form
Annual Report will include “success
stories” with photos, like the Final
Reports of Phase IIA
GIS Data


CARPE partners are active in LUP in
more than 150 zones
Shapefile data received for Phase IIA
zones


Quality was uneven, few partners sent in
metadata, required great time and resources
from UMD/NASA team to clean data
Destination for shapefiles


CARPE website
CARPE management tool
GIS next steps


Landscapes will give CARPE the
names and contact information for
their GIS experts so that they can be
contacted directly
The polygons for the remaining zones
for Phase IIB will be sent in to CARPE
by a date agreed at this workshop

Suggestion: one month from now?
Feedback and distribution of tools

A form has been created and feedback on
all of these issues is welcome and
appreciated

Feedback will be compiled and a consensus
distributed by end of workshop. Most
importantly:


Reporting Calendar
GIS point of contact and polygon due date
Feedback and distribution of tools


The updated tools (Workplan, SAR, and AR
matrices and narratives), zone ids, summary
of changes, and this presentation will be
available on the CARPE website and can be
transferred electronically by flashdisk at this
workshop after feedback is compiled and
incorporated
The summary of the decisions made here
on CARPE M&E will also be distributed in
paper after the feedback has been compiled