m&e Framework

STAR-GHANA MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

FRAMEWORK

May, 2011

CONTENTS

1 A NEW CONTEXT – PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS..................................................1

2 THEORY OF CHANGE .............................................................................................................. 2

3 THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 4

4 MEASURING PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................. 12

5 PUTTING M&E INTO PRACTICE........................................................................................ 20

6 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................. 24

ANNEXES 8 ANNEX 1 - GLOSSARY OF TERMS...............................................................................27 9 ANNEX 2 – OUTCOME MAPPING.............................................................................30 10 ANNEX 3 - OUTCOME MONITORING WORKSHEET..............................................31 11 ANNEX 4 - RESULTS STORIES & MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.......................33 12 ANNEX 5 – LOGFRAME..............................................................................................34 13 ANNEX 6 – RESULTS BASED FRAMEWORK...........................................................48 14 ANNEX 7 – QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT......................................49

M&E Framework

A NEW CONTEXT – PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness is meant to reshape development priorities and

agendas1.The single point of the Aid Effectiveness agenda is – Strengthened Development Results.

This has meant that the M&E function has to be accordingly realigned to meet these new priorities

and demands on Aid Effectiveness. Governments and Development Partners are systematically

developing results oriented performance matrixes and frameworks to evaluate sector wide strategies.

Therefore, making information and knowledge critical so performance and results can be measured

and inform the needed policy changes at national level.

As DFID increases its aid programme and rises to meet the global challenges of improving aid

effectiveness, DFID‟s engagement at the country level (DFID Ghana) is becoming more strategic.

Therefore the scope and nature of how governance programmes need to be monitored and

evaluated, and their performance, value for money and quality assured are also under increasing

scrutiny. Monitoring the performance of STAR-Ghana will need to relate to its contribution and place

in a performance and results oriented environment.

DFID has encouraged a realignment of how it monitors and evaluates its support, such that it lifts the

focus to a level which heavily influences results particularly at Outcome and Impact levels.DFID

activities such as STAR-Ghana therefore become a means to an end, not an end in itself. STAR-

Ghana is not the subject of its own accord, but instead will constitute one of the modalities or

approaches to progressing its development partners‟ civil society and governance objectives2. STAR-

Ghana is to add value and increase effectiveness by engaging civil society and facilitating a

meaningful set of strategic relationships and interactions (as mentioned above) between civil society

and government and others (private sector, media, traditional authorities) within and across

development partner‟s priority outcome areas.

STAR-Ghana will also reflect what is important to measure, analyse, present and how to

communicate that to a variety of needs and audiences. Evidence will matter.Headlines and short

narratives with numbers will be demanded and also with that the need to not only share the „what‟ but

the „how‟ (tell the story) of results to various stakeholders at several levels with different information

needs (e.g. UK and European tax payers, DFID, DANIDA and Ghanaian citizens). This will likely

assume a more critical role as aid continues to be under greater public and political scrutiny globally

and domestically in Ghana.

1.1 Introducing the M&E Framework

M&E is a key element of good programme practice and hence programme accountability.

The purpose of the M&E framework is to:

support and strengthen the STAR-Ghana team towards achieving the Programme’s

purpose;

support the accountability role of the STAR-Ghana team to meet the information needs of

its Development Partners on progress being made; and

support the learning and communication role of the STAR-Ghana team as citizen

governance programmes emerge, and interest grows globally in the strategic support towards

civil society and governance programmes.

1 The Paris Declaration has several commitments which revolve around: improving decision making for results; mutual

accountability for results; donor harmonisation; donor support is aligned with country strategies; and effective leadership in policy and strategy development 2 Besides governance and civil society support programmes, other modalities such as Budget Support to the Government of

Ghana in various sectors (e.g. Education, Health and Environment) are funded by Development Partners.

M&E Framework

2

The M&E activities under STAR-Ghana have two main objectives:

in terms of implementation, the M&E activities carried out by the STAR-Ghana M&E team

and partners will help to assess whether action plans are being realised. With reference to the

results chain, this aspect focuses on the inputs, activities and short term outputs. And,

in terms of results and development effectiveness, M&E activities carried out by the STAR-

Ghana M&E team and partners will assess the extent to which results are being achieved.

With reference to the results chain and the logical framework behind the Programme, this

aspect focuses on outcomes and long term impact. As part of this focus, the M&E activities

will ensure that reliable and timely information is used to enable learning to be incorporated

into decision making during the course of the Programme. It will also provide the basis of

accountability to the Development Partners and Ghanaians for the performance of the

programme.

1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Priorities

There are three M&E priorities which STAR-Ghana and its partners need to agree on and have

ownership around:

learning from experience; for STAR-Ghana and its partners to share and capture

challenges and good practices in governance processes.This is looking back on the concrete

actions and experiences of STAR-Ghana and its partners;

informing decisions; ensuring that insights, understanding and learning from experience is

used and informs STAR-Ghana and its partners to improve their own decision making and

identify concrete ways in which to plan differently for their work; and

be accountable and change; using lessons learned, STAR-Ghana and its partners

strategies, plans and responses now change by acting on learning and as a result work

becomes more effective.

In addition to these priorities above monitoring and evaluation findings feed into other processes and

strategies related to: communication, knowledge management, capacity development, innovation and

scaling up. More precise arrangements for achieving this integration of M&E findings will be

incorporated into the relevant strategies and operational guidelines for these related processes.

2 THEORY OF CHANGE

STAR-Ghana‟s Theory of Change is based on the understanding that although STAR-Ghana is seen

as a „civil society programme‟, it ultimately aims to influence the behaviour of government, to improve

the quality of supply-side governance in Ghana. The programme Impact objective is to: “Increase

accountability and responsiveness of government, traditional authorities and private enterprises”. The

Outcome which the programme aims to achieve in order to change the behaviour of government in

this way is increasing the influence civil society and parliament on the governance of public goods

and service delivery. Therefore, STAR-Ghana‟s starting point is to understand how government works

and what the entry points for civil society and parliament might be.

We have conceptualised how the legislative and executive arms of government work in the form of a

summary „government business cycle‟. This is adapted from work presenting governments‟ core

business through a budget cycle. In its simplest form, the cycle is a typical programming cycle: plan

do review. We have taken a more detailed vision for STAR-Ghana‟s Theory of Change:

M&E Framework

3

Figure 1: The Government Business Cycle

The three smaller (orange) boxes outside the cycle: policy advocacy, budget analysis, budget

monitoring, are typically where civil society and parliament do or may play a role in the cycle. Civil

society may also become involved in M&E of service delivery.

One of our assumptions in developing our approach to STAR-Ghana is that civil society does not

sufficiently place its work in the context of government‟s work. This is often manifest in a focus on one

part of the cycle, frequently policy advocacy, without necessarily tracing priority setting through to

improved service delivery. It can also lead to missed opportunities to improved effectiveness by not

partnering with other actors, including parliament and the private sector, working on others parts of

the cycle, and not developing complementary skills sets to enable organisations to work around the

full cycle.

Thus, our theory of change says that:

The Government Business Cycle represents how governance of public resources is meant to happen. Change can happen by working with a range of actors in this cycle.

Civil society has often focused on the policy advocacy segment of this cycle.

Our approach is strongly informed by a political economy understanding of governance

Political economy analysis (PEA) shows that incentives often mean the de jure model of the government business cycle is distorted.

Change can happen by understanding the de facto situation and working with it. We can also try to shift the cycle towards proper functioning.

Formal cycle M&E /

assessment of service dM&E / assessment of

service delivery and social &

economic impacts

elivery and social &

economic impacts

Actual cycle

Plan / policy

Budget

Spend

Deliver Assess

Policies, development plans,

legislation

Planning processes, prioritisation, policy

formulation

M&E / assessment of service delivery

and social & economic impacts

Service delivery

Resource allocation, budget setting

Scrutiny of budget / resource allocation

Release of funds

Utilisation of funds / spend

the Government

business cycle

Policy advocacy

Budget monitoring

Budget analysis

Voice Responsiveness & Accountability

M&E Framework

4

Change will not only occur by working with

the national level cycle. We need to work with District and community level cycles.

All three cycles are connected through processes (eg budget releases) and actors.

There is a private sector cycle that relates to

the government cycle, and can help support change, as well as be a focus of change itself

The cycle does not just involve Government. In addition, key actors are: civil society, traditional authorities, Parliament, media and private sector.Each may play different roles in the cycles. All may be change actors or the focus of change.

We believe change is most likely to occur when stakeholders work together towards shared outcomes, particularly when issue-based relationships and alliances form from across these groups of actors.

We believe our role is to support and guide, through creating spaces and facilitating processes that bring actors and issues together, by providing incentives, grants, information and engagement. But we will be open to all fresh ideas.

3 THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

STAR-Ghana Impact: To increase accountability and responsiveness of government, traditional authorities

and private enterprises. 1. Gender equality 2. Social inclusion 3. Quality Public Sector Management and Institutions

STAR-Ghana Outcome: Increased CSO and Parliamentary influence in governance of public goods and service delivery

1. Extent of citizen participation and political action 2. CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable groups 3. Number of cases where grantees have influenced government processes 4. Quality of inputs on gender and rights issues made by MPs into Bills / polices

STAR-Ghana Output 1: Capability of grant partners to enable citizens, particularly women, children, and

excluded groups, to claim rights increased 1. Grant partners demonstrating organization and technical capability to fulfil theirmandates 2. Civil Society actions supported by grant partners to demand citizens rights at local and national levels 3. Rights claimed and realised by grant partner constituents particularly those of women, children and

vulnerable groups at local and national levels

STAR-Ghana Output 2: Grant partner engagement in policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring enhanced

1. Public access (including private sector) to budget, policy, and performance information 2. Quality of representations and submissions made by grant partners for changes to policy,

implementation, and legislation (particularly in ensuring gender equality and social inclusion) 3. Effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by grant partners that improve accountability and

Common issue

M&E Framework

5

responsiveness of government, private sector and traditional authorities

STAR-Ghana Output 3: Increased use of civil society evidence in policy and practice

1. Grant partners generate critical evidence on policy issues and practices 2. Targeted communication by grant partners give better practical understanding of governance issues at

all levels 3. Quality of practices and issues promoted by grant partners that lead to changes in policies and practices

STAR-Ghana Output 4: Improve Representative, oversight and Legislative Functions of selected Parliamentary committees

1. Legislative - Reduction of turnaround time from when bills are introduced in Parliament to the enactment of the laws

2. Oversight - Evidence of parliamentary oversight in all stages of the government business cycle leading to increase effectiveness in the management of public goods and services

3. Representation - Number and outcomes of Parliament interactions with citizens at all levels (national and sub-national)

STAR-Ghana performance will be monitored and managed at three levels: Impact, Outcome and Output.

3.1 Impact

Firstly, and most strategically, performance will be measured at the level of how STAR-Ghana and its

focus on civil society engagement is – as an approach – adding value to, and improving the

effectiveness of accountability and responsiveness of actors within the wider development processes.

This is Impact level evaluation and will relate to the expected changes – typically to institutions,

organisations and citizens – identified in the theory of change analyses and in the priority outcome

areas (gender equality, social inclusion, public sector management) This will include:

Identifying and measuring change

Derived from the intervention logic of the strategies STAR-Ghana adopts;

Intended and unintended;

Positive and negative.

Testing the theory of change

And monitoring the validity of the assumptions.

Change is anticipated at a high (MDG-related) level, where neither Development Partners nor STAR-

Ghana will be the only influence or player. Many other factors and forces will also contribute

outcomes at this level. The focus of Level I monitoring is therefore likely to be on the analysis of

contribution rather than seeking attribution of outcomes to specific STAR-Ghana activities.

There are three Impact indicators: Gender Equity; Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity; and Public

Sector Management and Institutions. The STAR-Ghana team will be responsible for establishing the

baseline, data collection and impact tracking information to support Impact Level evaluation.However,

independent evaluative studies will likely be by both STAR-Ghana and DFID commissioned to inform

STAR-Ghana high level success and the final STAR-Ghana Evaluation itself.

3.2 Outcomes

Secondly, performance will be measured at the level of how relevant, effective and efficient STAR-

Ghana is as a broker of civil society and Parliamentary influence in governance of public goods

and service delivery. This will be about improving and supporting the quality of processes of

Parliament and civil society engagement in governance, and the response of government and others

to that. At Level II it is expected that intangible changes in power dynamics, behavioural shifts and

citizen empowerment will be key changes in the process as well as responsiveness towards delivery

of public goods.

Evaluation criteria will be used such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability

to assess STAR-Ghana‟s ability to identify, facilitate and strengthen citizen empowerment,

M&E Framework

6

government accountability and governance processes – using established V&A constructs, such as

DFID‟s Capability, Accountability and Responsiveness (CAR) framework3

The CAR framework focuses on three elements:

Capability is the extent to which leaders and governments are able to get things done, and to

perform functions such as providing stability, regulation, trade/growth, effectiveness and

security.

It would likely be measured in terms of institutional [„rules of the game‟] and behavioural

change.

Accountability describes the ability of citizens, civil society and the private sector to

scrutinise public institutions and governments and hold them to account to ensure

transparency, free media, rule of law and elections.

It might be measured in terms of participation, the quality of networks, the quality of

analysis and oversight, the quality of the engagement of the media, and (as per the

constitution) citizens‟ involvement in local and national policy- and decision-making.

Responsiveness refers to the extent to which public policies and institutions respond to the

needs of citizens and uphold their rights, including human rights and liberties, access to basic

public services, pro-poor policy, equality, regulation and corruption.

It might be measured in terms of public perception, transparency, the degree of space for

civil society to generate and transmit its ideas and priorities, access to information, etc.

Figure 2: Good Governance

Potential (but not necessarily exhaustive) indicators for Level II performance monitoring are as

follows4:

Outcome Indicator 1: Extent of citizen participation and political action

This indicator is a general measure of citizen engagement in public affairs, as captured by the Afro-

barometer surveys. It is included because it provides an overall indication of the direction of change

across Ghana as a whole, and because the data is readily available (i.e. at no additional cost to the

3 DFID Working Paper 34, „Measuring Change and Results in Voice and Accountability Work‟, Jeremy Holland et al,

DFID/Social Development Direct, December 2009. 4 Additional purpose level indicators (inc. baseline, milestones and targets) will be developed for the key sector focus areas

supported (in particular through the Thematic Project Window).These are expected to include, for example, oil/gas and education.These purpose level OVIs will be supported by specific additional output level indicators around the areas of sector focus.

M&E Framework

7

programme). The milestones are fairly arbitrary, and are more about capturing an “improving

situation”, rather than a few percentage points providing any real meaning. Indeed, the extent of

citizen participation is unlikely to improve across the whole country just as a result of STAR-Ghana‟s

work with CSOs. With this in mind, less weight should be given to this indicator as a measure of

STAR-Ghana‟s overall performance (i.e. limited attribution).

The indicator does not capture the quality and capability of the engagement, and it is therefore

important to view this indicator together with the whole basket of indicators that tell the overall

narrative. Ideally, this outcome indicator will be complemented with more fact-based indicators around

the number of times citizens engage in key government processes (at all levels).

Outcome Indicator 2: CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable

groups

This indicator is a measure of the extent to which CSOs are engaging with government authorities on

behalf of their constituents – with a focus on the poor, excluded and vulnerable. The data will be

collected through a survey instrument, conducted by phone/ email with a sample of CSOs (grantees

and non-grantees). The Logframe milestones will present the „headline‟ figures, with further

disaggregation available around specific issues (such as gender and rights issues, by CSO type,

thematic areas, etc).

Outcome Indicator 3: Number of cases where grantees have influenced government processes

This indicator measures a change that can be more closely attributed to the work of STAR-Ghana, as

it focuses on grantees rather than CSOs (indicator 2) and citizens (indicator 1). The data will be

collected as part of the grant-making cycle, whereby grantees report and score their “results” (i.e. in

terms of the extent to which CSO engagement has influenced authorities, as part of the government

business cycle). The ratings will provide an assessment of the “extent of influence”, along the

spectrum from participation through to tangible change. In addition, narrative reporting will provide the

justification of the score (with links to documented evidence). The headline figures are to be

presented in the Logframe, with further analysis and disaggregation available by CSO type, thematic

area, stage of the government cycle, tier of government, etc.

The database of grantees, linked to their reports of performance, will also provide a basis for „spot

checking‟ results and identifying key areas for more in-depth case study research. These studies will

be used to both verify the key results, and provide more nuanced information of the changes.

Outcome Indicator 4: Number of inputs on gender and rights issues made by MPs into Bills /

polices

This indicator captures the extent to which Parliament is engaged in the issues and concerns of the

vulnerable and excluded. It is envisaged that STAR-Ghana‟s support will improve the oversight, and

lawmaking functions of selected Parliamentary committees, with a particular emphasis on ensuring

that the poor, excluded and vulnerable are justly represented in debates on Bills and policies. The

data will be collected from a desk review of Parliamentary committee reports, using a typology of

different gender and rights issues (disability, marginalized) against which the reviewer will record the

number of times the issue is cited followed by reference to the report. This will provide an evidence

trail that can be further scrutinized through case studies and in-depth research of important changes.

3.3 Outputs

Thirdly, performance will be measured at the level of delivery of Outputs 1 – 4.

The table below provides a summary focus of Output indicators, measures for monitoring and tracking

change.

Table 1: Outputs measurements

Output 1 - Capability Explanation How Frequency

Grant partners demonstrating organization Focuses specifically on capacity

of partners to deliver and

Capability

Index, QPR

Annually

M&E Framework

8

and technical capability to fulfil their mandates achieve results. Milestones

present increase of capability

scores.

reviews,

Results

Based

Framework

Civil Society actions supported by grant

partners to demand citizens rights at local and

national levels

Focus is on linking local level

evidence based advocacy to

policy influencing. Milestones

present increase percentages in

local evidence in policy

advocacy.

STAR-

Ghana

survey, QPR

Annually

Rights claimed and realised by grant partner

constituents particularly those of women,

children and vulnerable groups at local and

national levels

Focuses on the extent to which

awareness has moved to

actually tangible change in

rights. Gender and Social

Inclusion (GSI) is key

consideration here. Milestones

present increase in scores.

Constituent

Survey

Annually

Output 2 – Engagement Explanation How Frequency

Public access (including private sector) to

budget, policy, and performance information

Focuses on change in

transparency of information and

public access to relevant

information for GoG. Milestones

are increased scores of Open

Budget Index.

OBI,

GoG PAF

docs, media

reports, DA

FOAT

Annually

Quality of representations and submissions

made by grant partners for changes to policy,

implementation, and legislation (particularly in

ensuring gender equality and social inclusion)

Focus on the extent to which

grant partners adequately

submit and engage for policy

changes. Emphasis is on the

how and the content of the

submissions to be influencing

changes in gender equity and

social inclusion. Milestones will

present an improvement in

quality of representation /

submissions and uptake of

policies as a final target.

QPR,

Parliament

records

Annually

Effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by

grant partners that improve accountability and

responsiveness of government, private sector

and traditional authorities

Measures the extent to which

partners engagement exercises

track / monitor accountability

and responsiveness of key

stakeholders with an emphasis

on changes in gender equity and

social inclusion

(GESI).Milestones present

increase in percentage changes

on GESI.

QPRs Annually

Output 3 - Evidence Explanation How Frequency

Grant partners generate critical evidence on

policy issues and practices

Measures the extent of the

quality of evidence and the

relevant, usefulness to push and

influence policy change.

Policy

Reports,

QPRs

Annually

M&E Framework

9

Milestones present process of

evidence based advocacy

improving the outcome of

partner project results.

Targeted communication by grant partners

give better practical understanding of

governance issues at all levels

Focus is the extent to which

partners communicate and

support beneficiary

understanding of the issues

which partners are representing

on their behalf. Milestones

present the evidence trail and

process of change around

communication on governance

issues specific to their

constituents.

QPRs Annually

Quality of practices and issues promoted by

grant partners that lead to changes in policies

and practices


grant partners are successfully

achieving results in policy

changes. Milestones relate to

the process from grant partner

policy approach uptake and

spread to increased government

responsiveness.

QPRs,

Analysis of

policy

changes

Annually

Legislative - Reduction of turnaround time

from when bills are introduced in Parliament to

the enactment of the laws

Measures the extent of efficient

and responsiveness of

Parliament to enact laws which

grant partners are influencing

changes around. Milestone

scores present a decrease in

time for Bills to be enacted.

Parliamentar

y Records,

Records of

the table

room,

Hansard

Records of

select

committee

Annually

Oversight - Evidence of parliamentary

oversight in all stages of the government

business cycle leading to increase

effectiveness in the management of public

goods and services

Measures the extent of quality

and responsiveness of

Parliamentary oversight of the

process of budget analysis to

monitoring to policy reform /

implementation. Milestones to

be determined.

Select

Committee &

Hansard

reports

Appropriatio

ns Act,

QPRs

Annually

Representation - Number and outcomes of

Parliament interactions with citizens at all

levels (national and sub-national)


Parliament is engaged with

citizens and constituents,

particularly the excluded.

Milestones to be determined.

Office of the

Clerk of

Parliament

reports,

Grantees

Report,

newspapers

reports,

select

committee

report

Annually

M&E Framework

10

3.4 Logframe Changes

To date, the STAR-Ghana Logframe has been reviewed by all members of the inception team, along

with STAR-Ghana team and Development Partners. A workshop with key stakeholders reviewed the

level of ambition from Outcome to Impact, the overall logic and agreed that overall there was not a

major overhaul of changes to be made. The emphasis was to change indicators and that the Outputs

were correct along with the level of ambition of the Outcome. The following table below presents the

suggested changes made thus far and explanation as to why.

Table 2. Summary of Logframe Change

STAR-Ghana Logframe Nov 2010

STAR-Ghana Logframe May 2011

Suggested changes What the change is, why the change is needed, how we arrived at the milestone and target

Impact To increase accountability and responsiveness of government, traditional authorities and private enterprises Indicators

Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity Quality Public Sector Management and Institutions Gender Equality

To increase accountability and responsiveness of government, traditional authorities and private enterprises. Indicators:

Gender equality Social inclusion Quality Public Sector Management and Institutions

Indicators broadly stayed the same as these were agreed to be a reasonable suite of indicators which are in line with STAR-Ghana priorities. Also as the team recognises that most DFID programmes rely on secondary data this level is not a change directly attributable (and accountable) to STAR-Ghana, and programme M&E effort needs to be more focused at the output/ outcome levels. However, RAVI, SAVI, GRAP and SPARC indicators were reviewed and overall like STAR-Ghana they are broad brush stroke indicators, or reflecting MDGs.

Outcome Increased CSO and Parliamentary influence in governance of public goods and service delivery Indicators

Extent of citizen participation and political action Excluded or vulnerable groups‟ engagement with authorities on gender equality and rights issues Number of sector working groups with significant stakeholder input into national target setting and review

Increased CSO and Parliamentary influence in governance of public goods and service delivery Indicators:

Extent of citizen participation and political action CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable groups Number (and %) of cases where grantees have influenced government processes Quality of inputs on gender and rights issues made by MPs into Bills / polices

No change to Outcome statement. Agree that this statement is correct and encompasses both demand and supply side interaction. The term „influence‟ is agreed to capture the right level of ambition and appropriate for advocacy strategies and action on both sides for change. There were some revisions to indicators as agreed. Additional one which focused on Parliament as it is in the Outcome statement, and an emphasising gender and social inclusion was important at this level. That sector working groups and MDBS focus were not really relevant as much as a Parliemant focus indicator, which see‟s the number of cases that partners can directly influence in government processes.

Output 1. Capability of CSOs to enable Capability of grant partners to Changed the language of the

M&E Framework

11

citizens, particularly women, children, and excluded groups, to claim rights increased Indicators:

CSO capability Number of CSO links between national policy debates or legislation to local level advocacy and monitoring. Number CSOs supported with capacity building assistance

enable citizens, particularly women, children, and excluded groups, to claim rights increased. Indicators:

Grant partners demonstrating organization and technical capability to fulfil their mandates. Civil Society actions supported by grant partners to demand citizen‟s rights at local and national levels. Rights claimed and realised by grant partner constituents particularly those of women, children and vulnerable groups at local and national levels.

Output to represent who STAR-Ghana is actually funding „grant partners‟ – „CSOs‟ was felt to be too broad of a term. Otherwise the main focus of Output 1 changes was on indicators. The original Indicator 1 was considered to be too broad, and changed to have a more specific results focus. .A basket of indicator approach was taken where a mix of grant partner capability, citizen capability through the support of grant partners will result in greater demand and rights realised (focus on gender equality and social inclusion).

Output 2. Civil society engagement in policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring enhanced. Indicators

Public access to budget, policy, and performance information. Number of representations made by CSOs for changes to policy, implementation, and legislation that advance gender equality and benefit excluded group Number of effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by supported CSOs that advance gender equality and the interests of excluded groups (including by disability and age)

Grant partner engagement in policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring enhanced. Indicators

Public access (including private sector) to budget, policy, and performance information Quality of representations and submissions made by grant partners for changes to policy, implementation, and legislation (particularly in ensuring gender equality and social inclusion) Effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by grant partners that improve accountability and responsiveness of government, private sector and traditional authorities

Generally no change to Output as agreed with DPs the Outputs are to be untouched and focus on indicators. The only change was from civil society to grant partners as this is the focus of STAR-Ghana support. Indicator changes were generally around wanting to go beyond just having a number of representations or effective monitoring initiatives and instead focus on the quality of work, and effectiveness of monitoring initiatives as there is likely to be greater ownership, results and sustainability in the long term if the focus is on the how and not the number.

Output 3. Increased use of civil society evidence in policy and practice Indicators:

Number of outputs by CSO grant partners that generate evidence on issues and practices Number of issues and practices communicated in accessible manner Number of practices and issues promoted by CSO grant partners that are adopted by other development actors

Increased use of civil society evidence in policy and practice. Indicators:

Grant partners generate critical evidence on policy issues and practices Targeted communication by grant partners give better practical understanding of governance issues at all levels Quality of practices and issues promoted by grant partners that lead to changes in policies and practices

No change to Output as agreed with DPs the Output was relevant with the focus on evidence. Changes were more needed around the indicators instead. Indicator changes reflect a basket of indicators which is not looking at the number of issues communicated alone (this will be part of the grant partner monitoring however) but that the communication addresses the fundamental issue around practical understanding of issues with grant partner beneficiaries. The quality aspect emphasises the need for

M&E Framework

12

partners to focus not just on turning out „evidence‟ (policy papers / briefs) but more around the process of change and interaction in influencing policy changes with decision makers.

Output 4. Improved representative, oversight, and lawmaking functions of selected Parliamentary committees

Indicators:

Lawmaking: Annual rate of acceptance of assisted Committee recommendations by House Oversight: Performance of budget and oversight responsibilities Representation: Increased citizen access to legislative processes in selected Committees

Improved Representative, oversight and Legislative Functions of selected Parliamentary committees

Indicators:

Legislative - Reduction of turnaround time from when bills are introduced in Parliament to the enactment of the laws Oversight - Evidence of parliamentary oversight in all stages of the government business cycle leading to increase effectiveness in the management of public goods and services Representation - Number and outcomes of Parliament interactions with citizens at all levels (national and sub-national)

No change to Output as agreed the Output was the right objective it was more the indicators that needed a stronger focus on civil society – Parliament interaction. The changes to the indicators are to represent a stronger basket of indicators which will directly meet the Output. Emphasis here is on process (e.g. less turnaround time for Bills), quality (more involvement in government business cycle) and output of the process (more interaction and engagement with key constituents.

4 MEASURING PERFORMANCE

4.1 Baskets of Indicators

Over the decades, many different criteria have been developed to help improve the quality of key

performance indicators. Since the 1980s, the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,

Relevant and Time-bound) has been in common usage, and is still widely used to this day. There are

also other approaches around, such as QQT (Quantity, Quality and Time), and SPICED (Subjective,

Participatory, Interpreted, Cross-checked, Empowering and Diverse).5

These approaches tend to treat the indicator in isolation, and this can result in an overemphasis on

the individual rather than the collective, totality of the measure. Indeed, ensuring that all indicators

conform to say the SMART criteria won‟t necessarily mean that together the set of indicators will

provide the best measure of an objective. In some circumstances, it is possible for a set of SMART

indicators to be so disparate that they do not even provide the smartest way to measure an objective.

For STAR-Ghana, we are adopting an approach that considers the baskets of indicators. A basket-

approach is about selecting a suite of indicators that together best assess the objective. After all, an

indicator is only a partial measure – an indication of a change - and so the focus should be on

balancing the set of indicators to provide greater confidence. Each individual indicator may provide a

different perspective, or help to triangulate different data sources (both qualitative and quantitative)

that demonstrate increased influence. For example, it is quite common for gender to be addressed

only by adding “disaggregation” to all the indicators. In contrast, a basket approach emphasizes the

totality of the indicator set. It may be for instance that only two out of five indicators attempt to

measure gender, but that they do so in a better way; by capturing changes in power relations in

5 See ITAD (2010) Governance Indicator Report

M&E Framework

13

society, specifically those that drive the often uneven distribution of power between men and women.

Baskets can also be used to address different organisational objectives, such as a Development

Partner‟s need to communicate to the public in an understandable manner, provide information to

headquarters to meet reporting requirements, and have locally relevant indicators that measure

change in a particular context.

Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected along the way, and partners will be encouraged to

monitor numbers against their performance framework. Performance at outcome level will often be

assessed through grant partner monitoring using the results based framework, participatory

stakeholder analysis of progress and indicator tracking itself. For STAR-Ghana, these grant partner

results will be tracked largely through the Quarterly Progress Report format and tracking indicators

and milestone progress through data collected from these reports (as outlined in Output section

above).

Monitoring and evaluation techniques should aim to collect and present key information only, fit for the

purpose of guiding civil society and governance dialogue and future programming. It should aim to

capture both intended and unintended impacts, both positive and negative. STAR-Ghana will also be

expected to be a leader and pioneer in the field of measuring change and results in voice and

accountability, and will itself commission studies and applied research within the context of the work

and partnerships it is supporting.

4.2 Baseline

STAR-Ghana to date has started all baseline activities, with approximately 30% of the baseline data

collected, with final dates of all baseline data completed and stored between May to July 2011. The

baseline collection plans are outline in the table below, highlighting what is left to complete and

currently ongoing involving the collection of information on existing documentation, reports and

surveys, along with new developed capability indexes and programme surveys.

Table 3. Baseline Plan

Issues What information to collect

Where to get it

Who is responsible

By which date?

State of Work

Impact level Indicator 2

District Assembly Performance Scores (2009)

District Assembly Performance Scores (2009)

DA FOAT Secretariat

M & E Team/ Gideon

May, 2011 100% done Scores available and plotted into LF

Outcome Indicator 2

CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable groups

% of grantees working on gender equality and issues of the vulnerable and the excluded % of granteesdisaggregating project outcome/impact by gender and vulnerable groups

From grantees report,

M & E Team / Gideon

August, 2011 40% done The grantee baseline survey is still underway. We are analysing the results

Outcome Indicator 4

Mainstreaming of gender and social inclusion in parliament‟s work at all levels

Number of inputs and statements made by MPs on the floor of Parliament and into proposed bills which take account of GESI issues.

To be derived from Hansards and reports from select committees (E.g.Gender) (Hansards can be bought at Parliament House, Accra)

M & E Team/ Gideon

May, 2011 15% done To be completed by end of June

M&E Framework

14

Output 1

Number of activity plans submitted to STAR-Ghana by select committees which take into account Gender and Social Inclusion issues

M&E Team July 2011 Yet to be done. To be completed by July

Number of grantees demonstrating organizational and technical capability to fulfil their mandates

Scores from STAR-Ghana capability index derived from :

Civicus 2006

report

Index developed

by STAR-

Ghana,2011

World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI)

The reports are available at STAR-Ghana

M & E Team/ Gideon

All data available, but scores are being examined. Some performance indicators from the FOAT 2010 are still not available.

90% done. We have the indices, and still validating figures with the baseline survey. We will be done by 20

th May

Output Indicator 2.2

Representations and submissions made by grant partners for changes to policy, implementation, and legislation (particularly in ensuring gender equality and social inclusion).

Number of representations and submissions made by grant partners at all tiers of government,

policy briefs and dialogues, grantee reports, Newspapers, Radio and TV programmes, Quick /retrospective surveys key grantees (by telephone) GRAP reports.

M & ETeam/PMT

May, 2011 30% Done. We are analyzing the results from the grantee baseline survey

Output 3

Increased use of civil society evidence in policy and practice

Number of research outputs by grant partners that generate critical evidence on policy issues and practices

Number of parliamentary committees that confirm use of civil society evidence in their work.

Policy briefs, and grantee reports and research documents, policy dialogues, Newspaper (e.g. Public Agenda, newspaper features), Radio and TV programmes, Interviews with Select committees, Hansard, grantees‟ reports, GRAP reports

M & E Team May, 2011 25% Done. We are analyzing the results from the grantee baseline survey

M&E Framework

15

Output 4

Improving the legislative role of Parliament

Reduction of turnaround time from when bills, particularly those relating to pro-poor development such as gender equality and social inclusion, are introduced in Parliament to the enactment of the laws as at 2011

Select Committees reports, Hansards, grantees reports.

M & E team /Gideon

May, 2011 15% done. We have made all arrangements for relevant Hansards and making appointments to have meetings with select committee chairs. We will be able to complete this in June

Improving the Oversight responsibility role of Parliament

Number and outcomes of oversight activities of select committees (PAC, gender, education, health, poverty reduction, mines and energy, finance); Areas of focus (e.g. gender and social inclusion); Linkages among committees in exercise of oversight (synergy, complementarities) Linkages with MDAs and civil society; Post-oversight activities (e.g. follow-ups, etc)

Review of Select Committees reports, Hansard, and grantees reports; Interviews with resource persons, key informants

M & E team /Gideon with support from local consultant.

May, 2011 15% done. We have made all arrangements for relevant Hansards and making appointments to have meetings with select committee chairs. We will be able to complete this in June

Improving the Representation role of Parliament

Number and types of outreach programs (by committee, i.e. outreach programs organised by specific select committees, by House such as Speaker‟s Breakfast Forums, etc) Assessments of linkages between recommendations from outreach programs and debates in parliament and work of committees; Extent to which outcomes from outreach programs feed into work of committees and House; Inclusiveness of outreach/representation

Review reports of select committees, Hansard and grantees‟ reports; Interviews with staff of parliamentary service, MPs and Speaker‟s office; Review of media articles and programs on parliamentary outreach programs.

M & E Team with assistance from local consultant.

May, 2011 15% done. We have made all arrangements for relevant Hansards and making appointments to have meetings with select committee chairs and some MPs. We will be able to complete this in June

M&E Framework

16

programs (gender, disability, etc.)

4.3 Evaluability

An evaluability assessment establishes whether a programme can be meaningfully evaluated. The

building blocks for undertaking a (theory based) evaluation of the programme are in place, including:

a consistent logical progression, a suite of governance indicators, and available baseline data (see

Theory of Change, Logical Framework).The critical part of STAR-Ghana‟s evaluability is reasonably

expected to focus on the pathway from Outcome to Output, and three key considerations are outlined

below.

Firstly, the quality of the Outcomes. The key word in the Outcome statement is influence. Measuring

how partner influence strategies have changed, been successful, what were the outcomes of

influence (including the various forms and mediums used) will be measured during the course of the

grant partner„s work. Often however, the results of influencing activities only become apparent after

the event – i.e., when a clear policy change or decision has occurred. This presents a significant

challenge for the monitoring and evaluation of STAR-Ghana; that it is much harder to collate evidence

ex ante, and usually much easier to trace backwards once the policy change has occurred. The risk is

that the Progress Reports by grantees may not be able to fully anticipate or capture the extent of the

influence (which itself may be the consequence of several activities, or may occur sometime later).To

address this:

STAR-Ghana will support a number of tracer and evaluation studies that will trace backwards from areas of significant outcome-level changes, and identify the contributory factors and the importance (or otherwise) of STAR-Ghana‟s support.

STAR-Ghana will work with the DPs to agree the TOR for the Mid-term Review and help to identify potential areas requiring further enquiry – and in doing so, build up the evidence base for the end of programme evaluation.

Secondly, the quality of Outputs is critical for the evaluability of STAR-Ghana. The four Outputs of

capability, engagement, evidence and Parliament present a suite of interventions that work together

to contribute to outcome-level change. STAR-Ghana has a number of challenges at this level in terms

of evaluability: firstly, the Outputs cannot be measured in isolation, as the different Outputs of STAR-

Ghana should be mutually supportive (e.g. capacity building of CSOs should support improvements in

the performance of grantees); and, secondly, although individual grant partners may achieve their

individual outputs, this may not necessarily stack up to „more than the sum of each part‟. To address

these challenges:

STAR-Ghana will use the thematic windows as a focus for specific monitoring around cumulative results (those that are the consequence of several mutually supporting grantee outputs). This will provide an evidence base for subsequent evaluation(s).

The QPRs will also provide a solid basis for the evidence trail, combining indicators drawn from the partner‟s Results Frameworks with a narrative that is structured around evaluative questions. In this way, the aim is to avoid long narratives but still permit qualitative evidence that can be insightful because it is written from the partner‟s perspective.

Thirdly, the quality of evidence / baseline data along with the availability of evidence and sources

of information is important for subsequent evaluations. STAR-Ghana is not however designed to

provide the evidence base for an impact evaluation – or at least one that uses an experimental

approach to evaluation (i.e. treatment groups cannot be given support randomly, and in isolation to

non-treatment groups). This is particularly so because STAR-Ghana is about developing coalitions

and interactions with and between CSOs, government, and other players at all levels, and so the

counterfactual (what would have occurred without STAR-Ghana‟s support) becomes problematic. The

key evaluability challenge is therefore how to attribute outcomes/ impact level changes to the STAR-

Ghana, rather than to other interventions or wider contextual changes. There are no easy solutions,

but STAR-Ghana will:

M&E Framework

17

Provide baseline data that includes an annual survey of CSOs (both grantees and non-grantees). This will at least provide some quantitative information about whether STAR-Ghana‟s support makes more (or less) of a difference to grantees (even though it will not be fully attributable).

Make use of the thematic windows and QPRs to capture evidence against quantitative indicators that can be used to test whether the theory of change holds true. By measuring various parts of the results chain in this way, it will at least be possible for independent evaluators to draw reasonable judgments about the contribution of the programme to the outcome/ impact levels.

4.4 Gender and Social Inclusion

Gender and social inclusion (GESI) is a key consideration which cuts across all of STAR-Ghana‟s

work.STAR-Ghana M&E is aligned to its Gender Equity Social Inclusion Strategy and Action Plan and

partners work will be monitored on a regular basis with this strategy in mind.The gender equity social

inclusion strategy for STAR-Ghana concerns both the programme level (STAR-Ghana) as well as

operational level (partnership projects).

The current draft of the STAR-Ghana logframe includes GESI-friendly targets and indicators. Further

detailed work will be required to refine the detail of the logframe as the programme progresses (e.g.

what are we actually measuring when we say „vulnerable groups‟?). Gender and social inclusion

indicators will also need to be distinguished from one another. The PMT is in the process of

strengthening the GESI elements of the logframe, and will likely require additional GESI TA to finalise

the log frame in June. In particular, the social inclusion dimensions of our indicators/ targets will need

some further work, e.g. possible inclusion of STAR activity in „deprived districts‟ (or another socio-

geographical distinction), or grant partners‟ inclusion of disabled people. The logframe will need to be

cross-checked against STAR‟s GESI „results statements‟ in the GESI strategy, to ensure we have the

data from grant partners and other sources to be able to report against our own commitments – GESI

and otherwise.

As part of the monitoring process, STAR-Ghana‟s grant partners are all asked to report against their

own GESI targets (which range from modest to ambitious). These reports in turn feed in to STAR-

Ghana‟s own M&E system. We will learn from the first rounds of grants whether our grant partners‟

M&E systems are able to capture the GESI information STAR-Ghana needs, and in a form that we

can use it. We need also to ensure that the GESI data we require is inherently useful to our partners

and it is gathered through a process which is not too onerous for what are often weak M&E systems.

After the first year, it is likely that adjustments to STAR-Ghana‟s M&E system will need to be made,

based on experience gained in the first calls. This learning may also have fine-tuning implications for

the STAR-Ghana logframe.

STAR-Ghana‟s own GESI strategy will be monitored annually, by an independent GESI auditor. The

auditor will be tasked to assess the extent to which STAR-Ghana has integrated GESI in our own

operations, and in our relationships with grant partners. The auditor will judge STAR-Ghana against

its own „GESI results statements‟, and will recommend how STAR-Ghana can improve its

performance on gender equality and social inclusion. The Auditor will submit his/her report directly to

the Steering Committee.

In terms of knowledge management, GESI will be integrated into STAR-Ghana‟s knowledge

management work. Details will follow in the GESI work plan to be developed in June 2011. We will

periodically reflect on what has and has not worked with regard to GESI - in STAR-Ghana, and with

our grant partners.

4.5 Value for Money

The STAR-Ghana programme recognises important Value for Money relationships between its costs,

its inputs, its outputs and outcomes – and the need to achieve the right balance between economy,

efficiency and effectiveness. As already described STAR-Ghana will place a heavy emphasis on

showing results and its value (effectiveness) in delivering a programme which has impact.

Importantly, for the Value for Money agenda STAR-Ghana will need to bring together information

M&E Framework

18

systematically and robustly about what is happening because of STAR-Ghana‟s efforts, its partners

efforts and why.

Beyond the importance of M&E to demonstrate results and outcomes, M&E considerations around

Value for Money more broadly will specifically monitor:

STAR-Ghana costs to maximise economy and efficiency – using weighting and rating criteria

and analysis (i.e. through competitive tenders for procurement and careful management of

overhead costs);

STAR-Ghana inputs to maximise economy and efficiency – using rating and weighting criteria

analysis (i.e. efficient use of vehicles, organising back to back technical inputs to cut down on

travel costs, and economising on both travel and venues for meetings and workshops, per

diems necessary for partners expenses etc);

activities / projects and highlight which are most cost effective and yet deliver similar

outcomes to those which cost more (comparative analysis);

sustainability as this places Value for Money for effectiveness at the heart of the programme.

(As the Programme budget is flexible and not tied necessarily to pre-planned inputs therefore

allowing for careful strategic and contextual selection of the right inputs at the right time);

ownership of the process of citizen – government interaction around accountability and

responsiveness. STAR-Ghana is seeking to empower Civil Society Organisations, traditional

authorities, Parliament, media and private sector for influencing government that will continue

to operate when STAR-Ghana has come to an end. To this end, STAR-Ghana seeks to

ensure that priorities and work programmes are defined and led by partners; and

how funding to partners is provided in diminishing amounts as partners are encouraged from

the outset to draw on their own financial contributions and seek sources of funding elsewhere

or to collaborate together on issues for greater impact and sustainability;

4.6 Aggregating across the programme

A critical challenge for STAR-Ghana‟s M&E system is how to aggregate up many different (smaller)

results that have been achieved by individual grant partners, to an overall measurement of change for

the programme as a whole. The STAR-Ghana M&E team will play an important role in helping

partners develop their objectives, activities, strategies and an M&E strategy on how to regularly

monitor their progress against those objectives. The alignment of all partner objectives (See Annex 7

– Results Based Framework) towards the STAR-Ghana logframe is critical if STAR-Ghana is to

ensure a cumulative impact across partner projects. These changes are to be recorded quarterly to

STAR-Ghana (See Annex 8 – Quarterly Progress Report Template / Guidance). Indicator tracking will

be critical at this level,6 and monitoring work of partners to ensure alignment with indicators will be

necessary, along with relevant evidence to back up progress and information in QPRs. Suggested

indicators will be developed with partners to help them follow a more consistent approach to

monitoring – while in the core thematic areas, some standard indicators will be used.

6 We did explore options of having grant partners‟ self-rate their performance, such as by using a rating scale (e.g. satisfactory

to unsatisfactory) or using traffic lights. This option was dropped in favour of getting grant partners to develop and use more specific results-based indicators as presented in their Results Framework. Such indicators will provide more objective, specific measures, rather than rating scales where self-assessment may become inflated.

M&E Framework

19

.

In summary, there are several ways in which STAR-Ghana will ensure that the M&E system does

more than collected only a number of disparate stories of change.

Firstly, the logframe Outcome indicator 3 (Number of cases where grantees have influenced

government processes) will be based on the QPRs. The STAR-Ghana M&E team will validate

and rate/ score the performance of the grantees. In this way it will be possible to state that,

say “X% of grantees influenced government processes”. Underlying this headline indicator will

be a cascade of detailed evidence that is contained in the QPR.

Secondly, Outcome indicator 2 (CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and

vulnerable groups) will draw on a sample survey of grantees and non-grantees. This will

provide a different way to look at the aggregation of results across the grant partners and

CSOs more widely.

And finally, as the themes develop, a series of outcome indicators will be established. An

example from oil and gas shows how this will be done: Here, outcome indicators can be

established by: (i) Formulating international best practices in each of the value chain areas;

(ii) establishing a baseline according to 2010 practices; (iii) Identify indicators and targets that

can be used to track progress from the baseline towards the best practice.

Quarterly Progress Reporting - Getting it Right

STAR has learned from previous V&A initiatives that reporting on change can be a challenge to many CSOs and that reporting has to be relevant to the CSO but also give STAR a common basis to aggregate results.STAR needs to support partners to undertake their own monitoring, learning and evaluation (and do it in an innovative manner, and in a way that makes sense to their own learning and decision-making). As well as, ensure that partners report in such a way that STAR can make sense of the „bigger picture‟ and the larger results. To support consistency in this, the STAR Quarterly Progress Report (see Annex 8 for template) has a specific structure which will encourage:

CSOs to provide information that is less descriptive and more evidence-based;

Allows narrative responses to capture the complexities of policy change/ influence;

Uses suggested or standard indicators to provide quantification of different types/ levels of influence. A structured grantee report will firstly enable them to report against indicators in their Results Framework. These can then be validated by the STAR-Ghana M&E team to produce some headline indicators (e.g. “Number of cases where grantees have influenced government processes”). Such aggregate indicators can also incorporate ratings of different degrees of influence (along a scale) or different stages in the policy cycle (e.g. “Number of cases where grantees have had a significant influence on the budget”).

Furthermore, by linking the reporting data to the grant-making or assessment database, then these headline indicators can be further disaggregated and analysed by type, size of CSO, amount of support (E.g. Number of cases where grantees have influenced government processes in oil and gas).This would enable others to interrogate the data to identify specific cases of policy influence (the qualitative information).

M&E Framework

20

For example:

Outcome Indicator Baseline

(2010)

Milestone

(2011)

Milestone

(2013)

Target

(2015)

Value chain

stage 1:

licensing and

contracting

processes

move towards

international

best practice

Transparency,

openness and

competitiveness

of licensing

processes

Licenses

awarded at

the

discretion

of the

Minister

Law or

regulation

indicates

that

competitive

licenses is

preference,

alternatives

have to be

defended

Ghana

awards a

license

competitively

Competitive

licensing

enshrined in

law and

executed

Source

Observation of oil sector practices, possibly by a third

party. Best practice articulated in "The Natural Resource

Charter" (www.naturalresourcecharter.org)

Indicator Baseline

(2010)

Milestone

(2011)

Milestone

(2013)

Target

(2015)

Transparency of

contracts

between

government and

upstream

companies

A few fiscal

terms

known

publicly

through ad

hoc

disclosures

Full contract

transparency

required by

law

Sources

Tracked through observation of oil sector practices. Best

practice articulated in "The Natural Resource Charter" and

endorsed by the World Bank.

5 PUTTING M&E INTO PRACTICE

5.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Performance monitoring and evaluation will be a continuous and fulltime process throughout the life of

the STAR-Ghana programme: its innovative approach, profile, and exploratory/learning nature (both

for its own progress and more widely) warrant and require such an investment. STAR-Ghana has a

full M&E team in place: an M&E Manager, Research and M&E Officer and a part-time M&E

Communications officer. In addition, periodic short-term technical support and input will be undertaken

by the STAR-Ghana technical M&E Advisors. Under this teams support and guidance STAR-Ghana

will:

develop and populate quarterly and 6 monthly progress reports;

M&E Framework

21

establish data collection, applied research and monitoring methodologies and protocols (at

Programme and Activity levels);

continuously monitor programme outputs, and contribution to intermediate and final

outcomes;

undertake relevant analysis and reporting of monitoring data;

produce timely, fit-for-purpose, digests of key outcomes and impacts (for multiple

stakeholders, including but not limited to its Development Partners);

monitor and analyse contextual risks and assumptions that impact, or may impact, on

progressing STAR-Ghana objectives; and

validate self-reporting by partners, through spot checks and follow-up phone calls, interviews

and visits.

contribute to lesson-learning and adaptation within STAR-Ghana and among its stakeholders,

across the Programme, and across DFID more widely.

Table 2 below highlights the various roles and responsibilities in line with the logframe levels of

Activities, Outputs, Outcome and Impact.

Table 4: Roles and Responsibilities

Partners and

stakeholders

STAR-Ghana M&E Team STAR-Ghana M&E Team

Technical Directors

Development Partners

TAR-Ghana

Management

Participatory Monitoring

& Evaluation

Process Monitoring Progress Monitoring Project Review

Continuous action

learning cycle process of

self assessment and

monitoring the process of

change that STAR-Ghana

partners are

influencing(individual

outputs and contribution

to outcomes/ results)

Focusing on aggregation

of Outputs in the

logframe. Monitoring the

process of change with

STAR-Ghana partners,

transformational changes,

and strategic influence of

activities.

Focusing on the

aggregate Outcome-level

in the logframe.

Monitoring the impact and

outcomes of STAR-

Ghana activities.

Focusing on the Output-

to-Outcome contribution,

and Impacts in the

Logframe. Evaluating &

assessing the impact of

STAR-Ghana activities.

Quarterly Progress

Reports

(partners, validated by

STAR-Ghana M&E team)

Quarterly Monitoring

Activities

(partners, stakeholders,

STAR-Ghana M&E team -

Through quarterly partner

meetings, participatory

reviews assessing

progress of activities

against partner objectives

and STAR-Ghana Output

indicators)

Annual Review with

Partner Quarterly

Progress Reports and

DP Bi-Annual Reports

(STAR-Ghana M&E team)

Monitoring Visit Reports

(STAR-Ghana – all staff

contribute, as visits may

vary)

STAR-Ghana Partner

Annual Review

(Partners, stakeholders,


Learn and Share Events

with partners

(Partners, STAR-Ghana

DFID Bi - Annual reports

(STAR-Ghana M&E

Manager, TD and Team

Leader (TL))

STAR-Ghana Annual

Reports

(TL, TD and STAR-Ghana

M&E Team)

STAR-Ghana Annual

Reviews

(STAR-Ghana Team and

Consortium Members)

Partner Learning Events

(STAR-Ghana and

stakeholders)

Annual OPR

(STAR-Ghana, DFID,

STAR-Ghana

Consortium)

Donor events, meetings,

roundtables, workshops

(STAR-Ghana TL, TD and

where necessary Steering

Committee, Consortium

member)

Midterm Review Report

(STAR-Ghana, DFID,

STAR-Ghana

Consortium)

End of Programme

Evaluation

M&E Framework

22

Partners



Stories of change



Partner End of Project

Reports



and stakeholders)

Stories of change



M&E Documents

(M&E Team -Monitoring

field reports, Evaluative

Studies, Stories of

Change, Website,

Newsletters, media

clippings, etc)

(STAR-Ghana, DFID,

STAR-Ghana

Consortium)

5.2 The M&E Plan

The following table sets out the plan for monitoring, evaluation and reporting. planning. Important

reviews and external inputs to monitoring performance and quality will include:

A short „technical orientation review‟ mid-way through the Inception Phase to ensure a

common understanding of objectives and priorities;

A review of the proposed STAR-Ghana strategy and its 5 year Work-plan to be produced by

the end of the Inception Phase;

Independent Internal Reviews into the main Implementation Phase, and thereafter every 12

months;

A substantive Independent Midterm Progress Review at year 3 into the main Implementation

Phase;

A final evaluation to be determined.

STAR-Ghana‟s Implementation Phase Work Plan (May 2011 to April 2012)sets out the detailed

activities, tasks and results against a week-by-week calendar. This serves the same purpose as the

Activity Log, by presenting what activities will be done, by which workstream and when. The

implementation of the workplan will be monitored by the Deputy Programme Manager, and progress

reported in the quarterly progress reports to the Development Partners (DPs). If there are significant

changes to the Work Plan, or progress deviates from the original plan, these will be raised and

discussed with the DPs.

Table 5: STAR-Ghana Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Monitoring Evaluation Reporting

2011

(YR1)

Development of :

M&E Framework and M&E Plan

Monitoring templates

Reporting templates

Results based template

Monitoring guidelines

Indicator tracking tables

Final Logframe

Baseline surveys

Capability Index

Activities:

Internal Review

(OPR)

STAR-Ghana Annual

Review

Partner Annual

Review

OPR Annual Report

STAR-Ghana Annual Report

STAR-Ghana Financial VFM Report

STAR-Ghana Monitoring Field Report

Partner Quarterly Reports

Partner End of Project Reports

Partner Stories, Results, Case Studies

STAR-Ghana DP Bi-annual Report

M&E Framework

23


Monitoring visits to partners

Indicator tracking update

Baseline and populating of LF

Capability Index scoring

Monitoring assumptions


2012

(YR2)

Development of:


Case studies

Stories

Activities:

Review of M&E Framework and Plan



Logframe Review, adjusting

milestones and targets



Internal Review

(OPR)

STAR-Ghana Annual

Review

Partner Annual

Review

OPR Annual Report







STAR-Ghana DFID Bi-annual Report

2013

(YR3)

Development of:


Case studies

Stories

Activities:








Internal Midterm

Review

STAR-Ghana Annual

Review

Partner Annual

Review

Midterm Review Report








2014

(YR4)

Development of:


Outcome and Result Case studies

Outcome and Result Stories

Activities:








Internal Annual

Review (OPR)

STAR-Ghana Annual

Review

Partner Annual

Review

OPR Report

STAR-Ghana Final Annual Report





STAR-Ghana Evaluation Studies



2015 Development of: Internal Final Final Evaluation Report

M&E Framework

24


(YR5) Outcome and Results Case studies

Outcome and Results Stories

Activities:







Evaluation

STAR-Ghana Final

Review

Partner Final Review

STAR-Ghana Final Annual Report





STAR-Ghana Evaluation Studies


STAR-Ghana End of Programme

Report (This could be combined with

Final Evaluation)

6 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

There are many well-established and innovative tools and techniques that are applicable to

measuring STAR-Ghana‟s performance – appreciative enquiry and „most significant change‟, citation

indexing for policy reforms, stakeholder recall about key processes of participation, perception scores

and „customer satisfaction‟ rankings, etc. While the Quarterly Progress and Annual reports will

capture and track key results, the actual tools used by partners to populate the indicators/ data

requirements will vary accordingly. In this way the suite of tools used by partners will be specific to the

partners and the each issue-based advocacy project or coalition, and will be developed in partnership

with STAR-Ghana. Each partner will need to select appropriate tools on the basis of what they are

doing, what the stakeholders want to get out of it, who the stakeholders are, etc. The aim is not to

impose unnecessary monitoring, tools or reporting but to encourage innovation on how partners

capture and assess information while also aligning it to STAR-Ghana purposes of showing results.

Below are some examples of tools which will be considered useful and already build on partner

experience in the field of monitoring governance changes. STAR-Ghana will over the course of the

programme develop specific guidelines based on partners monitoring needs. These will also be

followed up with regular monitoring and mentoring visits.

Table 6. Tools for M&E of Voice and Accountability

Approach What to Measure How and tools

Advocacy and

campaigning

Influence

Media attention

Behaviour, attitude and relationship

changes

Outcome assessment (Outcome Mapping), MSC

stories, Contribution Analysis, research and

evaluative studies

Media tracking folder, media assessment, media

coverage

Focus group discussions, diaries, logs, perception

surveys

Lobby and

negotiation

Influence

Media attention

Behaviour, attitude and relationship

Outcome assessment (Outcome Mapping), MSC

stories, Contribution Analysis, research studies

Media tracking folder, media assessment, media

coverage

Focus group discussions, diaries, logs, perception

M&E Framework

25

changes surveys

Capacity Building Skills and knowledge uptake and

usage

Capability

Needs assessment (before and after) and scoring,

user discussions and surveys, evidence of skills in

practice, MSC story, outcome assessments

Capability index scoring, user survey, discussions

with partners, evidence of change, MSC stories,

monitoring diary or logs

Analysis and

evidence

Uptake and usage

Outputs (Reports, videos)

Influence on agenda

Diaries, logs, website hits, user surveys

Evaluate the evidence (reports, videos) based on

established criteria such as relevance, quality,

effectiveness, impact

Stories (MSC), Outcome assessment, focus group

discussion

6.1 Contribution Analysis

At Impact level Contribution Analysis7 is likely to be relevant. Contribution Analysis seeks not to find

proof of attributable causation (which is unlikely) but to ask whether "a reasonable person, knowing

what has occurred in the program and that the intended outcomes actually occurred, agrees that the

program contributed to those outcomes". Contribution Analysis:

develops and analyses the theory of change and identifies other players and factors

influencing it;

assesses the existing evidence or results, through multiple lines;

assesses alternative explanations for change, identifying the most likely and discounting the

least likely;

assembles a „performance story‟ relating to the context, the results, lessons learned,

alternative explanations and the quality of information;

seeks additional information where there are gaps or to remove doubt; and

continually revises and strengthens the argument for (or against) contribution.

Moving from attribution to contribution brings with it also the need to address stakeholder

expectations about the role and branding of aid, and this needs to be managed as part of the

Programme‟s work on „telling the performance story‟ for non-technical and political audiences.

6.2 Outcome Mapping

Outcome mapping is likely to be relevant at Outcome and Output Level. Recognising the limitations of

the logical framework approach towards promoting learning, outcome mapping provides an alternative

model to the logical framework approach. It seeks to provide greater participatory planning,

monitoring and evaluation with an emphasis on reflection and learning. Outcomes are defined as

changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities or actions of the people, groups and organisations

with whom a programme works directly. It emphasises the „boundary partners‟, those individuals,

groups or organisations with whom the project interacts directly and with whom the project can

anticipate opportunities for influence. It is through the strengthened actions or changed behaviours of

the boundary partners that the project seeks to contribute to its larger purpose. Outcome Mapping:

7 See Mayne, John. 1999. Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly.

Discussion paper, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

M&E Framework

26

provides a useful framework for understanding degrees of influence in the change process;

helps identify who strategic partners are (boundary partners);

helps identify milestones and „progress markers‟ for each of the outcome challenges that the

project is helping to bring about. Progress markers provide a graduated set of statements

describing a progression (from easier to more difficult) of changed behaviours in each

boundary partner. As such they provide a useful instrument to monitor any behaviour changes

in the boundary partners;

assesses stakeholders and how they are accountable for demonstrating that they are

progressing towards impact, and how they could improve their effectiveness without being

accountable for the impact or ultimate goal of the project itself; and

provides learning and feedback on performance which concentrates on improving rather than

on proving, on understanding rather than on reporting, and on creating knowledge rather than

on taking credit.

6.3 Stories of Change – Real Life Scenarios

For STAR-Ghana the Most Significant Change (MSC) will be one tool that partners can use, to

capture change and show results in a story format. It is a method which gives a human face to

evaluation through the use of a story approach to understand important and significant change from

the perspectives of the stakeholder.MSC is about engaging people in an analysis of change

(participatory and inclusive), to identify unexpected changes, and to focus on outcomes rather than

outputs.

The purpose of MSC is twofold i) to collect data about the impact of the partners work ii) to promote

organisational learning within STAR-Ghana. Deciding on what areas of change (domains of change)

partners want to monitor and capture will be in consultation with the STAR-Ghana M&E team. There

will be a focused approach to the process to ensure that the story of change does highlight the key

information needed to understand the process (how) and the end result (what). Not only providing a

story but evidence around a real life scenario. Considering questions such as the following:

What partners were trying to achieve (intended change)?

What was the Outcome (result / change)?

What they did and how they did it (tools / approaches / strategies)?

Why they did it in the way they did (challenges, lesson learning and context)?

What was learned and other points to consider?

The final outputs for STAR-Ghana would be several good practice and significant change stories that

could be highlighted on the STAR-Ghana website, newsletters, emails etc.

ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

27

Accountability: obligation of government, public services or funding donors to demonstrate to

citizens that contracted work has been conducted in compliance with agreed rules and standards or to

report fairly and accurately on performance results vis-à-vis mandated roles and/or plans. This may

require a careful, even legally defensible, demonstration that the work is consistent with the contract

terms. Projects commonly focus on upward accountability to the funding agency, while downward

accountability involves making accounts and plans transparent to the primary stakeholders. Ensuring

accountability is one part of the function of monitoring and evaluation (learning and management are

the other two).

Activity: actions taken or work performed in a project to produce specific outputs by using inputs,

such as funds, technical assistance and other types of resources.

Annual review: See review

Assessment: a process (which may or may not be systematic) of gathering information, analysing it,

than making a judgement on the basis of the information.

Attribution: the causal link of one thing to another; e.g. the extent to which observed (or expected to

be observed) changes can be linked to a specific intervention in view of the effects of other

interventions or confounding factors.

Baseline information: usually consisting of facts and figures collected at the initial stages of a project

that provides a basis for measuring progress in achieving project objectives and outputs.

Baseline survey/study: an analysis describing the situation in a project area – including data on

individual primary stakeholders – prior to a development intervention. Progress (results and

accomplishments) can be assessed and comparisons made against it. It also serves as an important

reference for the completion evaluation.

Beneficiaries: the individuals, groups or organisations who, in their own view and whether targeted

or not, benefit directly or indirectly from the development intervention. In this Guide, they are referred

to as the primary stakeholders of a project.

Capacity–building: the processes through which capacity is created. This is an increasingly key

crosscutting issue in poverty alleviation projects.

Critical reflection: questioning and analysing experiences, observations, theories, beliefs and/or

assumptions.

Downward accountability: the process by which development organisations are accountable to their

partners, the poor and marginalised groups. It entails greater participation and transparency in

organisations‟ work.

Effect: intended or unintended change resulting directly or indirectly from a development intervention.

Evaluation: a systematic (and as objective as possible) examination of a planned, ongoing or

completed project. It aims to answer specific management questions and to judge the overall value of

an endeavour and supply lessons learned to improve future actions, planning and decision-making.

Evaluations commonly seek to determine the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and the

relevance of the project or organisation‟s objectives. An evaluation should provide information that is

credible and useful, offering concrete lessons learned to help partners and funding agencies make

decisions.

Goal: the higher-order programme or sector objective to which a development intervention, such as a

project, is intended to contribute. Thus it is a statement of intent.

Impact: the changes in the lives of rural people, as perceived by them and their partners at the time

of evaluation, plus sustainability-enhancing change in their environment to which the project has

contributed. Changes can be positive or negative, intended or unintended. In the log-frame

terminology these "perceived changes in the lives of the people" may correspond either to the

purpose level or to the goal level of a project intervention.

Impact assessment: the process of assessing the impact of a programme in an intervention area.

ANNEX 3: OUTCOME MONITORING WORKSHEET

28

Indicator: quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable basis for

assessing achievement, change or performance. A unit of information measured over time that can

help show changes in a specific condition. A given goal or objective can have multiple indicators.

Input: the financial, human and material resources necessary to produce the intended outputs of a

project.

Lessons learned: knowledge generated by reflecting on experience that has the potential to improve

future actions. A lesson learned summarises knowledge at a point in time, while learning is an

ongoing process.

Logical framework approach (LFA): an analytical, presentational and management tool that

involves problem analysis, stakeholder analysis, developing a hierarchy of objectives and selecting a

preferred implementation strategy. It helps to identify strategic elements (inputs, outputs, purpose,

and goal) and their causal relationships, as well as the external assumptions (risks) that may

influence success and failure. It thus facilitates planning, execution and evaluation of a project.

Logical framework matrix: also known as "log-frame" or "log-frame matrix". A table, usually

consisting of four rows and four columns, that summarises what the project intends to do and how

(necessary inputs, outputs, purpose, objectives), what the key assumptions are, and how outputs and

outcomes will be monitored and evaluated.

Means of verification: the expected source(s) of information (this is the reference now made in DFID

log-frame format) that can help answer the performance question or indicators. This is found in the

„source of information‟ column of the standard log-frame.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E): the combination of monitoring and evaluation which together

provide the knowledge required for: a) effective project management and b) reporting and

accountability responsibilities.

M&E framework: an overview of the M&E system developed during the design phase of a project

and included in the project appraisal report.

M&E matrix: a table describing the performance questions, information gathering requirements

(including indicators), reflection and review events with stakeholders, and resources and activities

required to implement a functional M&E system. This matrix lists how data will be collected, when, by

whom and where.

M&E (learning) plan: an overall framework of performance and learning questions, information

gathering requirements (including indicators), reflection and review events with stakeholders, and

resources and activities required to implement a functional M&E system.

M&E (learning) system: the set of planning, information gathering and synthesis, and reflection and

reporting processes, along with the necessary supporting conditions and capacities required for the

M&E outputs to make a valuable contribution to project decision-making and learning.

Objective: a specific statement detailing the desired accomplishments or outcomes of a project at

different levels (short to long term). A good objective meets the criteria of being impact oriented,

measurable, time limited, specific and practical. Objectives can be arranged in a hierarchy of two or

more levels.

Objectively verifiable indicators: a group of criteria (not necessarily measurable)used to verify the

degree of accomplishment (foreseen or actual) of the purpose, the objective, and the inputs and

outputs of a project. They can be quantitative, and therefore both verifiable and measurable, or

qualitative, and therefore only verifiable.

Outcome: the results achieved at the level of "purpose" in the objective hierarchy.

Outputs: the tangible (easily measurable, practical), immediate and intended results to be produced

through sound management of the agreed inputs. Examples of outputs include goods, services or

infrastructure produced by a project and meant to help realise its purpose. These may also include

changes, resulting from the intervention, that are needed to achieve the outcomes at the purpose

level.


29

Output indicators: indicators at the output level of the objective hierarchy, usually the quantity and

quality of outputs and the timing of their delivery.

Participation: one or more processes in which an individual (or group) takes part in specific decision-

making and action, and over which s/he may exercise specific controls. It is often used to refer

specifically to processes in which primary stakeholders take an active part in planning and decision-

making, implementation, learning and evaluation. This often has the intention of sharing control over

the resources generated and responsibility for their future use.

Primary stakeholders: the main intended beneficiaries of a project.

Qualitative: something that is not summarised in numerical form, such as minutes from community

meetings and general notes from observations. Qualitative data normally describe people's

knowledge, attitudes or behaviours.

Quantitative: something measured or measurable by, or concerned with, quantity and expressed in

numbers or quantities.

Review: an assessment of the performance of a project or programme, periodically or on an as-

needed basis. A review is more extensive than monitoring, but less so than evaluation.

Source of information: the expected data (surveys, assessments, media clippings, reports) or

information that can help answer the performance question or indicators. This was previously referred

to as means of verification in the standard log-frame.

Stakeholder: an agency, organisation, group or individual who has a direct or indirect interest in the

project/programme, or who affects or is affected positively or negatively by the implementation and

outcome of it. Often the term used for the main intended beneficiaries of a project.

Stakeholder participation: active involvement by stakeholders in the design, management and

monitoring of the project. Full participation means all representatives of key stakeholder groups at the

project site become involved in mutually agreed, appropriate ways.

Sustainability: the likelihood that the positive effects of a project (such as assets, skills, facilities or

improved services) will persist for an extended period after the external assistance ends.

Triangulation: use of a variety of sources, methods or field team members to cross check and

validate data and information to limit biases.

Work plan: a detailed document stating which activities are going to be carried out in a given time

period, how the activities will be carried out and how the activities relate to the common objectives

and vision. The work plan is designed according to the logical framework and contains a description in

each cell of the work plan table of each activity and output, its verifiable indicators, the means of

verification and its assumptions.

ANNEX 2: OUTCOME MAPPING

30

The table below is an example of a format which partners could develop early on and then following

this table prepare 6-monthly progress reports, which collate quantitative and qualitative evidence in

relation to the progress markers for each boundary partner identified.

Boundary Partner – Policy Maker

Outcome challenge:

The STAR-Ghana Project intends to see policy makers …

Expect to see

Policy makers are attending strategic meetings that they are invited too

Policy makers are sharing information with us to inform our advocacy reports

Like to see

Inviting us to roundtable discussions

Our policy briefs and analysis are taken on board and informing their decisions

Love to see

Policy makers are including community members in decision making

Government are implementing activities with our organisation to improve services to target beneficiaries

The Diagram below illustrates the three key areas of Outcome Mapping; i) Intentional Design ii)

Outcome and Performance Monitoring and iii) Evaluation Plan.

Figure 3: Diagram from IDRC


31

Monitoring Strategy

Date: Name:

Location: Names of Contributors to Monitoring:

Strategy to be monitored:

Description of activities:

Change(s) as a result of the strategy?

Next Steps:

Learning:

Date of next monitoring:

Monitoring Change and Influence

Date: Name:


Description of change:

Contributing influences and actors:

Unanticipated changes:

Evidence:

Learning and lessons:

Next steps:

Any other comments:

Annex 3: Outcome Monitoring Worksheets

32

Performance Review

(This can be used along side the Results Based Framework as the milestones and targets may shift

based on the Review)

Date: Name(s):


Project Objectives:

1.

2.

3.

What is going well in our work? (Progress towards Objectives)

Why?

What is not going well in our work?

Why?

What do we need to do differently / change?

What should we keep doing?

Other reflections?

Monitoring Gender and Social Inclusion

Date: Name:


Influence the project is having on marginalised / excluded citizens empowerment:

Gender and social inclusion changes:

Contributing factors:

Source of Evidence:

Challenges in integrating gender and social inclusion:

Strategies / activities in place to integrate a gender and social inclusion approach into your work more:

Learning and Lessons:

Next steps:

ANNEX 4: RESULTS STORIES AND MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

33

Four Stages to MSC:

Selecting domains (areas of

change)

Collecting stories (writing &

capturing stories)

Selecting of stories (if there are

several, choose only a few for

headlines, archive others).

Feedback & Verification (ensure

the story is complete, information

is accurate)

The purpose of MSC is twofold i) to collect data about the impact of the partners work ii) to promote

organisational learning within STAR-Ghana. Deciding on what areas of change (domains of change)

partners want to monitor and capture should be in consultation with the STAR-Ghana M&E team.

Examples may include:

Changes in lives of marginalised and often excluded members of Ghanaian society;

Change in people‟s capacity to demand and influence policy reform;

Change in people‟s access to resources or information;

Change in people‟s inclusion and decision making power in policy dialogue;

Change in gender equity;

Change in the collaboration of civil society organisations with each other around strategic

issues;

Change in government responsiveness and

accountability.

The stories should have at least:

Who documented the story (name, position

location, date)

Description (who, what, where, when, how)

story form, describing the sequence of

events

Explanation (why is it significant)

Bringing out the meaning of the story

Story of Change Template

Title:

Name:

Date:

Location:

Description (500 words max) – emphasis on describing the key process and the result / outcome / change from

the process

ANNEX 5: LOGFRAME

34

8 Annual index and ranking based on property rights and rule based governance, quality of budgetary and financial management, efficiency of revenue mobilisation, quality of public administration

and transparency, accountability and corruption. Baseline will be 2009 results, when available.

PROJECT NAME Strengthening Transparency Accountability and Responsiveness in Ghana (STAR-Ghana)

IMPACT Impact Indicator 1 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012) Milestone 2 (2013) Target (2015)

To increase accountability and responsiveness of government, traditional authorities and private enterprises

Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity

Planned IRAI Score 4.0 (2008)

4.0 4.1 4.2

Achieved

Source

World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI): Annual index and ranking based on gender equality, equity of public resource use, building human resources, social protection and labour and policies and institutions for environmental sustainability. Rating levels are 1-6 with 6 the highest. Baseline here is 2008 data. The programme will use 2009 results once available.

Impact Indicator 2 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012) Milestone 2 (2013) Target (2015)

Public Sector Management and Institutions

Planned IRAI Score 3.9 (2008) District Assembly Performance Scores XX (2009)

3.9 TBC

4.0 TBC

4.0 TBC

Achieved

Source

-8. 2008, 2009 World Bank Country Evaluation -Ministry of Local Government Functional Organisational Assessment (FOAT) for District Assemblies (DAs): composite scores comparing Districts with/without programme-funded CSO interventions. Baseline to be 2009 results if available at inception.

Impact Indicator 3 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012) Milestone 2 (2013) Target (2015)

Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Planned Gender Inequality Index 0.729 (2009)

.663 .635

.515

Achieved

Source

-OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI): Annual index score and ranking composed of 5 sub-categories each of which measures a different dimension of social institutions related to gender equality: family code, civil liberties, physical integrity, son preference and ownership rights.

Annex 5: Logframe

35

OUTCOME Outcome Indicator 1 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1

(2012) Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015) Assumptions

Increased CSO and Parliamentary influence in governance of public goods and service delivery

Extent of citizen participation and political action

9

Planned Somewhat or very interested in public affairs M=75%; F=61% Joined others to raise an issue at least once in the past year M=65%; F=50%

N/A M=75%; F=64% M=65%; F=53% (2011)

M=78%; F=67% M=68%; F=56%

(1) Technical assistance and performance-based DDF allocation result in increased transparency, and are sufficient to enable supply side response to citizen demands

(2) GoG makes staffing and finance available for Local Government Service and Service Secretariat, Regional Coordinating Councils, and

Achieved

Source

Afrobarometer - for baseline currently 2008 data (Round 4). Surveys are

conducted once every 2/3 years. If Round 5 is in 2010, results can become baseline; if in 2011 they will show up as 2013 milestone. Results disaggregated by age are not yet available but will form part of the baseline.

Outcome Indicator 2 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

9 Focuses on the improvement, quality and to an extent the capability of citizen engagement and interaction in influencing government for policy reform and improvements.

Social institutions include family law, social norms and traditional institutions including traditional authorities. -UNDP Human Development Index, the Gender Inequality Index (GII).

Annex 5: Logframe

36

CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable groups

10

Planned % of STAR-Ghana grant partners working on gender equality & rights issues % of STAR-Ghana grant partners working on thematic issues (oil/ gas, education, etc)

To be determined

To be determined

To be determined

MMDAs.

(3) National policy forums allow civil society and Parliamentary input

(4) No major security threats/relative stability

(5) Oil revenues do not significantly weaken accountability institutions

(6)Levels of political influence on media content reduced or remain the same as 2009.

(7)Election related patronage and corruption do not significantly undermine CSO influence beyond current levels.

Achieved

Source

Annual Programme Survey – Baseline collated when Year 1 grant

disbursements completed. Annual programme survey of grant partners to vulnerable groups worked with and the issues addressed. Emphasis on gender equality and women‟s empowerment and the major exclusion factors (age, disability, location).Grouping of types, then sample assessing quality, quantity and outcomes of engagements plus follow-up of sample of previous year‟s engagement.


Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Number (and %) of cases where grantees have influenced government processes

11

Planned 0

25 50 100

10

Focuses on the extent to which CSOs are representative of constituent‟s views and concerns when engaging and interacting with government on policy changes and improvements.This is very much about citizenship in particular the more excluded and vulnerable and how CSOs represent excluded groups issues to government. 11

Focuses on STAR grantees and the results of their interaction and engagement with government and authorities, looking at the range of influence from participation to practical tangible results of their actions.

Annex 5: Logframe

37

Achieved (8) Development Partners keep to their funding commitments.

Source

Grantee Monitoring & Reporting – Data will be collected as part of the

system of grant-making, whereby grantees will report on their actions and results. The report structure will require grantees to rate their performance against a pre-determined criteria, as well as to provide supporting evidence in the form of a narrative justification. The database of these reports will provide the basis for further analysis (by sector, type, etc) and for the identification of case studies and in-depth research to verify results.


Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Increase of inputs on gender and rights issues made by MPs into Bills / polices

Planned To be determined To be determined

To be determined

To be determined

Achieved

Source

Parliamentary Records – Data will be compiled from a sample of

Parliamentary committee reports. This data will be analyzed for the number of times that gender and rights issues are raised on behalf of the excluded and vulnerable.

Annex 5: Logframe

38

INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) Other (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)

5.5m

INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs)

SDA – 0.25; PO -1.0

OUTPUT 1 Output Indicator 1.1 Baseline

(2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Assumption

Capability of grant partners to enable citizens, particularly women, children, and excluded groups, to claim rights increased

Grant partners demonstrating organization and technical capability to fulfil their mandates

Planned CSO capability index scores to be determined.

20% improvement in index scores



CSOs are willing to collaborate and work together on issues identified STAR-Ghana is able to

Achieved

Source

CSO Capability Index - Baseline collated when Year 1 grant disbursements completed.

(O&A tools, VFM)Index to be based on annual benchmarking of a stratified sample of grant partners based on organisational type.Index measures changes in specific variables such as: advocacy strategy, strategic thinking, network building, corporate governance,

Annex 5: Logframe

39

internal and external capabilities and financial viability with a particular focus on changes bearing on the ability of women, children and other excluded groups to claim rights.Based on the intervention of grant partners there are demonstrable results / evidence in excluded groups claiming rights.

respond proactively to capacity needs or gaps of its grant partners CSOs are working with citizens especially the disadvantaged and vulnerable That the „coalition‟ based approach is the most effective in achieving STAR-Ghana‟s Outcome

Output Indicator 1.2 Baseline (2011)

Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Civil Society actions supported by grant partners to demand citizens rights at local and national levels

Planned Number of civil society actions on citizens rights (national and sub national levels)

20% of the baseline number link national work to local level advocacy and monitoring

50% of baseline number link their national level policy advocacy work to local level advocacy and monitoring

Evidence that policies adopted by local government bodies consult and invite CSOs to the consultation process on issues of exclusion/ inclusion

Achieved

Source

Programme Survey - Baseline collated when Year 1 grant disbursements completed.

Survey of types of links partners expect to develop; grouping of linkage types then sampling in subsequent years to assess year on year changes in quantity, quality, and outcomes.

IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 1.3 Baseline (2011)

Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

20%

Rights claimed and realised by grant partner constituents particularly those of women, children and vulnerable groups at local and national levels

Planned Constituentsurvey 20% improvement on assessment scores

30% improvement on assessment scores

50% improvement on assessment scores

Achieved

Source RISK RATING

STAR-Ghana Grant Partner - ConstituentSurvey – survey which carries out an

assessment of constituents views on how government accountability and responsiveness is addressing their needs and also on how constituent‟s ability to claim rights has improved.

Low


0 2.3 m

Annex 5: Logframe

40



2011 Milestone 1 2012

Milestone 2 2013

Target (date) 2015

Assumption

Grant partner engagement in policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring enhanced

Public access (including private sector) to budget, policy, and performance information

Planned OpenBudget Index:54 (2010)

Public availability of sector and overall MDBS PAF reports against triggers and targets: 1 (2009)

DA FOAT Transparency sub-component scores (2008)

12

62

58 (2012) 2 65

60 (2013) 4 68

65 (2015) 6 70

STAR-Ghana is able to respond proactively to capacity needs or gaps of its grant partners The power of vested interests who oppose increased voice and accountability do not increase beyond the capacity of civil society to respond STAR-Ghana grant partners support and take up gender

Achieved

Source

Baseline measures 3 parameters of the indicator:budget, policy and performance.

Open Budget Index:Targets based on assumptions that mid-year and audit reports become

regularly publically available.

GoG Websites/Media coverage: Public availability of central MDBS and sector specific

Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) is defined as up-to-date information posted on GoG websites in a timely manner and actively promoted and advertised to the public.At present, only health is publically available.

DA FOAT: performance scores on transparency, openness, and accountability comparing

Districts with/without programme funded CSO interventions. Baseline to be 2009 results if available at inception.


Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

12

We will use the sample of 5 districts (Ahanta West, Ejisu Juaben Jirapa , Bongo, Ayawaso and Tain, Twifo Heman) representing the agro-ecological zones and sectors of STARS programme areas. The baseline being the average scoring of the selected districts

Annex 5: Logframe

41

Quality of representations and submissions made by grant partners for changes to policy, implementation, and legislation (particularly in ensuring gender equality and social inclusion).

Planned The Quality of existing representations and submissions made by grant partners are low and do not have adequate capacity to effectively carry out this function. (TBD)

Grant partners demonstrate improved practice in advocating for gender equality and social inclusion at policy level

Grant partner interaction with government on gender and social inclusion policy issues has increased

Evidence of policy changes to support gender equality and social inclusion due to the quality of interaction with government and vulnerable excluded groups

equality and social inclusion in policy changes they are advocating for

Achieved

Source

Analysis of grant reports + Annual review of Parliamentary records - Baseline collated

during Inception for Parliamentary submissions and when Year 1 grant disbursements completed for sub-national level work.Analysis of grant reports verified by programme commissioned annual review of minutes and Parliament committee and House records.Sub-national refers to activities at District and sub-District levels. G-rap Practice report for baseline source G-rap grantee narrative report

IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 2.3 Baseline (2011)

Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

50%

Effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by grant partners that improve accountability and responsiveness of government, private sector and traditional authorities.

Planned Number of initiatives to be established in Year 1

50% of all monitoring initiatives assessed having effect on policy or practice

50% of the total initiatives advance gender equality and social inclusion

70% of the total initiatives advance gender equality and social inclusion

Achieved

Source RISK RATING

Programme records/grant partner reports/interviews - Baseline to be established when

Year 1 grant disbursements completed. Analysis of grant partner reports verified by interviews with range of stakeholders.


0 9.9m


Annex 5: Logframe

42


(2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015) Assumption

Increased use of civil society evidence in policy and practice

Grant partners generate critical evidence on policy issues and practices

Planned Outputs to be established in Year 1 Policy issues and practices per grant partner established

Quality of evidence based outputs provide strategic information on policy issues and practices

Evidence based outputs influence and inform policy issues and practices

80% of grant partners have successfully facilitated evidence based advocacy, and this has contributed to grant partner achievements

Accurate baseline and subsequent information provided by partners Any membership / staff changes within grant partner organisations does not alter commitment to groups‟ role in advocacy activities The scale of STAR-Ghana projects are sufficient to contribute to a measurable change in governance at Outcome level Non-project influences do not undermine

Achieved

Source

Grant partner reports/interviews - Baseline to be established when Year 1 grant disbursements

completed. Analysis of grant partner reports plus verification interviews where required


Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Targeted communication by grant partners give better practical understanding of governance issues at all levels

Planned No of issues/practices to be established in Year 1

Grant partner communication supports citizen and government awareness and knowledge of issues in specific policies they are trying to influence

50% of constituents of grant partners feel they understand clearly what the governance issues are through grant partner communications

80% of constituents which grant partners communicate and represent believe that the governance issues are changing and their awareness has increased as a result of grant partner information and communications

Achieved

Source

Grant partner reports and communication products/interviews - Baseline to be established

when Year 1 grant disbursements completed. Analysis of grant partner reports and communication products plus verification interviews with sample of recipients of the communication. Quality and reliability of evidence to be incorporated in the analysis

IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 3.3 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

15% Quality of practices and issues promoted by grant

Planned No of issues/practices

Grant partner approaches in

Spread of grant partner

70% of STAR-Ghana projects implemented

Annex 5: Logframe

43

partners that lead to changes in policies and practices

to be established in Year 1 - to be determined

policy advocacy and interaction with government have better understanding gained through research, evidence and non confrontation styles in policy dialogue

methodologies and approaches in policy interaction with government is replicated by other civil society groups, and government as a result of grant partner efforts

from 2011 – 2015 having successfully achieved responses from government

grant partner support for and involvement in policy monitoring at local level for evidence based policy advocacy

Achieved

Source RISK RATING

Analysis of policy changes - Baseline to be established at end of Year 1. Recipients of

communication (identified by grant partners) analysed for uptake and changes in policy.End of Programme Review to assess broader degree of uptake and responsiveness of government.


0 2.7m


OUTPUT 4 Output Indicator 4.1 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1

(2012) Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Assumption

Improve Representative, oversight and Legislative Functions of selected Parliamentary committees

Legislative

Reduction of turnaround time from when bills are introduced in Parliament to the enactment of the laws

Planned 5 years 4 years 4 years 2 years

Achieved

Source

Parliamentary Records, Records of the table room, Hansard Records of select committee

Output Indicator 4.2 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

Oversight

Evidence of parliamentary

Planned 13

Average of 1 field visit per



Average of 2 field visit

13

Current Parliamentary oversight activities focus on post service delivery assessment and not clearly linked to other oversight activities around the government business cycle. One visit per our selected committees per session linked to statements and questions on the floor

Annex 5: Logframe

44

oversight in all stages of the government business cycle leading to increase effectiveness in the management of public goods and services

year/session per committee

year per committee

year per committee

per year per committee

Achieved

Source

Select Committees, Hansard, and grantees reports Appropriations Act, Records of committees, STAR grantees reports, committees work around the government business cycle

IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 4.3 Baseline (2011) Milestone 1 (2012)

Milestone 2 (2013)

Target (2015)

15%

Representation

Number and outcomesof Parliament interactions with citizens at all levels (national and sub-national)

Planned To be determined

To be determined

To be determined

To be determined

Achieved

Source RISK RATING

Office of theClerk of Parliament Grantees Report, newspapers reports, select committee report


0 1.6


Annex 5: Logframe

45

TERMINOLOGY Explanations:

Impact Level

Indicator 1 - Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity

Indicator one emphasizes the importance of policies which tackle systematic, institutional and informal

processes of social exclusion.Disadvantaged groups who are subject to discrimination do not often

reap similar social, political and economic benefits like those who are more advantaged in

society.STAR-Ghana promotes participation and inclusion of all citizens and that entitlements are

shared in order to have outcomes which are fair and just. STAR-Ghana aims to contribute to social

inclusion and equity by working with CSOs who are advocating for Government policies to promote

social inclusion, ensuring that socially excluded groups benefit from public expenditure, improved

economic opportunities and access to services.

Indicator 2 - Public Sector Management and Institutions

Improving all aspects of governance is vital to reducing poverty and promoting sustainable

development for the benefit of poor women, men and children. The public sector is at the heart of this

challenge. The quality of public-sector management and administration is crucial to achieving the

Millennium Development Goals, as public-sector entities are, in most countries, responsible for

delivering services, such as health and education, for laying down a regulatory framework that fosters

private-sector development, for ensuring and upholding the rule of law, as well as for promoting

gender equality. The challenges faced by the public sector in developing countries are significant.

Poor service delivery is a visible sign of this, as is corruption. Capacity must be developed, not

necessarily to expand the public sector, but to help nurture an effective and accountable public sector

capable of contributing to the reduction of poverty.

Processes of change, aimed at improving governance and reducing poverty, take time and have to be

built from within Ghana. The public sector is obviously at the core of these processes. However, on its

own, the public sector cannot deliver results. Civil-society groups and other non-state actors, such as

the private sector and the media, are critical in holding the public sector accountable and in

advocating needs and priorities.

Indicator 3 - Gender Equality

The empowerment of women and the promotion of gender equality is one of the eight internationally

agreed development goals designed to achieve poverty reduction. Gender equality is a cross-cutting

development issue and an important development objective itself. Women are often excluded from

decision-making, from the household up to the highest levels of government. Women‟s equal

participation in governance is therefore an important end in itself, a recognition of their right to speak,

be heard and influence change. More broadly, it is a means to social transformation. STAR-Ghana

and the governance processes it is working with through supporting CSOs will contribute to such

transformation and contributing to increased rights for women, delivery on gender equality, and

women voices being heard and their needs met.

Millennium Development Goal 3 Goal

Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women.

Target

Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and to all levels of

education no later than 2015.

Indicators

Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education

Ratio of literate females to males of 15-24 year olds

Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector

Annex 5: Logframe

46

Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament

Outcome Indicator 1: Extent of citizen participation and political action

This indicator is a general measure of citizen engagement in public affairs, as captured by the

Afrobarometer surveys. It is included because it provides an overall indication of the direction of

change across Ghana as a whole, and because the data is readily available (i.e. at no additional cost

to the programme). The milestones are fairly arbitrary, and are more about capturing an “improving

situation”, rather than a few percentage points providing any real meaning. Indeed, the extent of

citizen participation is unlikely to improve across the whole country just as a result of STAR-Ghana‟s

work with CSOs. With this in mind, less weight should be given to this indicator as a measure of

STAR-Ghana‟s overall performance (i.e. limited attribution).

The indicator does not capture the quality and capability of the engagement, and it is therefore

important to view this indicator together with the whole basket of indicators that tell the overall

narrative. Ideally, this outcome indicator will be complemented with more fact-based indicators around

the number of times citizens engage in key government processes (at all levels).

Outcome Indicator 2: CSO engagement with authorities on behalf of excluded and vulnerable

groups

This indicator is a measure of the extent to which CSOs are engaging with government authorities on

behalf of their constituents – with a focus on the poor, excluded and vulnerable. The data will be

collected through a survey instrument, conducted by phone/ email with a sample of CSOs (grantees

and non-grantees). The Logframe milestones will present the „headline‟ figures, with further

disaggregation available around specific issues (such as gender and rights issues, by CSO type,

thematic areas, etc).

Outcome Indicator 3: Number of cases where grantees have influenced government processes

This indicator measures a change that can be more closely attributed to the work of STAR-Ghana, as

it focuses on grantees rather than CSOs (indicator 2) and citizens (indicator 1). The data would be

collected as part of the grant-making cycle, whereby grantees report and score their “results” (i.e. in

terms of the extent to which CSO engagement has influenced authorities, as part of the government

business cycle). The ratings will provide an assessment of the “extent of influence”, along the

spectrum from participation through to tangible change. In addition, narrative reporting will provide the

justification of the score (with links to documented evidence). The headline figures are to be

presented in the Logframe, with further analysis and disaggregation available by CSO type, thematic

area, stage of the government cycle, tier of government, etc.

The database of grantees, linked to their reports of performance, will also provide a basis for „spot

checking‟ results and identifying key areas for more in-depth case study research. These studies will

be used to both verify the key results, and provide more nuanced information of the changes.

Outcome Indicator 4: Number of inputs on gender and rights issues made by MPs into Bills /

polices

This indicator captures the extent to which Parliament is engaged in the issues and concerns of the

vulnerable and excluded. It is envisaged that STAR-Ghana‟s support will improve the oversight, and

lawmaking functions of selected Parliamentary committees, with a particular emphasis on ensuring

that the poor, excluded and vulnerable are justly represented in debates on Bills and policies. The

data will be collected from a desk review of Parliamentary committee reports, using a typology of

different gender and rights issues (disability, marginalized) against which the reviewer will record the

number of times the issue is cited followed by reference to the report. This will provide an evidence

trail that can be further scrutinized through case studies and in-depth research of important changes.

Some Definitions:

Civil Society: “The totality of the voluntary, civic and social organizations that form the basis of a

functioning society, as distinct from structures of the state and commercial institutions of the market”.

Civil society is a broader term and there are different theoretical concepts about how it is defined, as

distinct from CSOs

Annex 5: Logframe

47

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs): “Any organized groups that work in the arena between the

household, the private sector and the state to negotiate matters of public concern14”.This includes

associations, media, trade unions, networks, coalitions, membership-based organizations,

cooperatives, faith-based organizations (FBOs), recreational groups, think tanks, non-government

organizations (NGOs), and community-based organizations (CBOs)15

Grantees: These are CSOs that have received grants from STAR-Ghana. In the Logframe, there is

an important distinction made between CSOs and grantees – with the latter used to denote CSOs that

have received direct support, and therefore organizations for which STAR-Ghana can claim more

direct attribution.

Policy: “The purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors, which goes beyond

documents or legislation to include agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, policy

implementation and policy evaluation activities16.Policies are not restricted to government courses of

action, but could include those of international organizations, bilateral agencies or NGOs

14

Pollard, A. and Court, J. (2005), “How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review”, Working Paper 249, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK. 15

See also page B2-2 of “The General and Technical Proposals for the Ghana Accountability and Responsiveness Initiative (GHARI)”, Coffey International Development, IDL Group, ITAD and Participatory Development Associates. 16

Page 2 of Pollard and Court (2005), op cit.

ANNEX 6: RESULTS BASED FRAMEWORK

48

Strengthening Transparency, Accountability and

Responsiveness in Ghana (STAR-Ghana) Organisation name For official use

RESULTS FRAME WORK

Objective Baseline

Result Area

(define results by gender

impact as appropriate)

Milestone 1

Dec ‘10

(define by gender

impact as appropriate)

Milestone 2

Mar ‘11

(define by gender

impact as

appropriate)

Milestone 3

June‘11

(define by gender impact

as appropriate)

Final Result17 Aug ‘11

(define results by gender impact as

appropriate)

Result 1:

Result 2:

Result 3:

ANNEX 7: QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT

49

Name of Organisation

Sector/ Theme

Project Name

Reporting Period From:

To:

Contract Ref. No.

Coalition members and Lead

Organisation

Address and Contact Tel. No.

Report Reviewed & Approved by

(Name, date & Signature)

Annex 7: Quarterly Progress Report Format

50

18

Example: If the grantee is claiming that, “there has been XXX progress with local officials in Tamale”, then evidence should be footnoted or annexed to the report. This might include media clippings, a workshop report, email trails, publicly available minutes from official meetings, quotes from speeches, etc. 19

Example: If the objective was to, “To influence the inclusion of pro-poor sustainable development issues in the draft XXX Bill”, then an indicator of success might be: “Number of pro-poor recommendations taken up in the revised Bill”. Or, if the objective was, “To influence the review of the tax regime for imported renewable energy products in order to enhance access to modern energy services by the poor”, then the indicators of success might be: “Functional tax regime working group established”, and more ambitiously, “Tax waiver for renewable energy products adopted by Parliament”.

REPORT SUMMARY (2 PAGES MAX)

No more than 3 paragraphs maximum. This is for an external audience - primarily Development

Partners in Ghana and may be published on their websites. It should be about an achievement and not

a process

Section A:Objective Progress Summary

Objective 1: Insert objective statement - drawn from the Results Framework.

Progress against Objective

Insert Text. (... 1-2 paragraphs). This should provide the supporting evidence to the “red, amber, green”

summary of status and trends. Make sure that the text refers to the objective statement, and progress to

date. It should not be a summary of activities done. It is very important that „evidence‟ is cited here to

back up the claims made, and copies of supporting material are annexed to this report18

Baseline Actual to date

Indicator 1: Insert indicator that will be used to measure the

successful achievement of the objective. This should be

drawn from the Final Result column of the Results

Framework, and presented as a specific, measurable

indicator19

Indicator 2: Insert indicator (... same advice as above).

Indicator 3: Insert indicator (... same advice as above).

Key activities

completed:

Insert Text (... summary, no detail)

Process Report: How the key results were achieved

Insert Text (... narrative summary, maximum 100 words per result/milestone, explain link to STAR-Ghana‟s intervention – whether directly, or through STAR-Ghana‟s contribution, or indirectly attributable to STAR-Ghana – and footnote any evidence of the link)

Key Opportunities Emerging, Actions & Responsibilities

Insert Text (...narrative summary, maximum 100 words per opportunity, and be sure to include any suggested

actions to be taken to take advantage of them in the next quarter, and who should be responsible for any such

action. If no key opportunities have emerged this quarter, please leave this box empty)


51

Key Challenges Emerging, Actions & Responsibilities:

Insert Text (... narrative summary, maximum 100 words per risk, and be sure to include any actions taken to

mitigate against the risk and who should be responsible for any further action in the next quarter. If no key

challenges have emerged this quarter, please leave this box empty)

Repeat this template if you have several objectives

Section B: Lessons Learnt on political engagement this quarter

Briefly discuss the extent to which DA or central government expenditure in your area of work in this project

have become more transparent

Lessons Learnt/ Case Studies: on working with partners (citizens, media, Parliament, private sector,

Govt, Traditional Authorities etc)

Insert Text (... narrative summary, maximum 100 words per lesson/study, on your approach with STAR-

Ghana with engaging partners, partnership development, mentoring partners, etc)

Has your work in any way contributed to changes in government processes, private sector operations, or decisions of traditional authorities in your area of work? Briefly explain

What issues, practices and critical evidences from your work would you say have contributed to

changes in policy at all levels of government? State the policy changes and your contribution

Local

National

Section C: Crosscutting Issues

Which policies on gender equality and social inclusion have you worked on within this quarter?


52

Gender & Social Inclusion

Insert Text (... 1 paragraph maximum – summary, no detail, highlight any broad progress and concerns, not

specific to any Objective but general across your work. This should cover the extent to which your activities

have contributed to disadvantaged groups – women, children, and vulnerable people – and enabled them to

claim their rights to access quality basic services, have a voice in decision-making and implementation, etc.)

Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning

Insert Text (... same advice as for cross-cutting issue above)

Knowledge Management & Communications

Insert Text (... same advice as for cross-cutting issue above)


53

Section D: Value for Money

How have you addressed VFM principles (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) in your project

implementation? [Note: This is not just about costs, but how you optimise the use of resources to achieve the

maximum results]

Insert Text (... 1 paragraph maximum – summary, no detail).

Unit costs:

Average Cost Comment

Insert unit costs for at least three

of the following costs:

per workshop (per day)

per workshop

participant

per trainer/ facilitator

per km (vehicle use)

allowance per person

(for meeting

attendance)

daily per diems

accommodation per

night

Insert average cost for this project only

(i.e. not the average cost for your

organisation). Footnote calculations &

source of data with supporting evidence

in the annex.

Insert Text with any

comments needed to explain

the figures.

Section E: Expenditure Progress

Insert Text explaining expenditure to date. Is it „on-track‟ or „off-track‟ compared to planned expenditure

and the objectives that need to be achieved? Highlight any challenges for the next quarter, and explain

how you will address these (... 1 paragraph maximum – summary, no detail).

Total grant budget [A] Spend this quarter Cumulative spend to date [B] % spend (B/A)

Section F:

Has the achievement of your objectives been limited/ constrained by any competency challenges?

Please give details of these challenges.


54

Section G: Plans for Next Quarter

Any feedback/recommendations to PMT

Next Quarter Key Areas of Activity:

Insert Text (... bullet points only: these will be used to assess progress in the next quarter)

Insert Activity & Date (... bullet points only, no detail)

Insert Activity & Date

Insert Activity & Date

Date post:	10-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	opio-arnold
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times