Step 2: Agree on and Design Core Documents to set up an M&E System

Step 2: Agree on and design core documents to set up an M&E system

Objective of step: Ensure key M&E documents are in place to establish M&E system Timing: During the project design and proposal writing stage

Activities:

2.1 Select project indicators and agree on a process to assess progress against them 2.2 Create M&E Plan

2.3 Agree on resources for the M&E plan

2.2.1 Select project indicators and agree on a process to assess

progress against them

An M&E system is built around the project logframe, which summarises plans to address the

problem(s) analysed, objectives to address this/these, and intended results (activities, outputs, purpose and goal). As highlighted in Chapter 1 (see section 1.7 and Annex 23), logframe indicators are the means of verification to measure progress against these objectives.

At project planning stage, logframe indicators should be agreed on. Preliminary thinking about

the purpose of a project M&E system should happen at the same time as indicator selection,

so that indicators selected can meet the agreed on purposes (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness, impact). Good quality logframes and indicators are essential to being able to effectively monitor project progress. As such, agreement on indicators should be done through a combination of:

• Participatory methods engaging beneficiaries in their articulation of what desired change looks

like for them (see section 1.5);

• Utilising ACF’s core FSL indicators that should be part of the logframe (see Toolkit 3 and Box

2.4 below); and

• Selecting relevant indicators from ACF’s optional thematic indicators.

When determining indicators for an FSL project, these should include ACF’s core FSL indicators, as well as a selection of other relevant thematic indicators by programme area

(see Toolkit 3). The core indicators are mandatory, while the thematic indicators are intended to supplement these, depending on the thematic area of work for each project. Project staff can select which thematic indicators they want to use to supplement the core ones, depending on the project objectives, activities and context.

NOTE: The core indicators do not need to all be in the Logframe submitted to the donor, but should be reflected in the monitoring data collection tools to ensure consideration of the

respective indicators to measure the impact of FSL programmes on the supported population.

Core indicators – With an increasing recognition that malnutrition is caused by a combination

of FSL, health, water, sanitation and hygiene, and behavioural/care factors, the core indicators

chosen seek to highlight the links and impacts they have on malnutrition, and to encourage

a more holistic approach to programming while addressing the underlying causes of malnutrition. ACF’s core organizational aims are of preventing malnutrition, and where required treating it. As such, any FSL programmes implemented should link to these aims. The purpose of having core indicators is therefore:

• To ensure that all programmes work towards these common objectives;

• To serve as the standard indicators against which all programmes can report by collecting some cross-sectional comparative data;

• To encourage greater focus on the medium and longer-term change being brought about by programming, as opposed to focus solely on activities and outputs.

Box 2.4: ACF core indicators What are ACF’s core indicators?

ACF has selected six core indicators that give an overview of the factors affecting household FSL and ultimately malnutrition. The indicators and details about how to measure them are captured in Toolkit 3; guidance for each indicator and the necessary tool is provided in Annexes 26-33. The core indicators are mandatory across all FSL projects, and should be collected with the frequency indicated in Toolkit 3.

Triangulation of the core indicators results is necessary to improve and strengthen the understanding and influence of each indicator on household food security and malnutrition.

• Dietary Diversity on Household or Individual level measured by Household or Individual

Dietary Diversity Score, or Food Consumption Score (Annexes 26 -28)

• Severity of Household Food Insecurity measured by Household Food Insecurity Access

Scale (HFIAS) (Annex 29)

• Availability of Sufficient Food on Household level measured by Months of Adequate

Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) (Annex 30)

• Risk to malnutrition of children under 5 years of age in the household measured by Mid

Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) (Annex 31)

• Evolution of market prices as measured through Regular Market Price surveys (Annex 32) • Number of people benefiting from the implemented activity or project (Annex 33)

Thematic indicators – Besides the core indicators, a list of thematic FSL indicators (Toolkit 3) have

been created that focus more specifically on ways of measuring change in each thematic area. These are optional as they will depend on what specific thematic areas a project is covering and the local context, hence project staff can select the indicators most appropriate for their objectives, activities and context.

Selecting from a predetermined list of indicators facilitates standardisation and harmonisation across projects, while also allowing flexibility to adapt them to be context-specific. The thematic indicators are by no means complete but are intended to support and inspire the creation of appropriate and harmonised indicators for project and programme monitoring.

Box 2.5: ACF thematic indicators What are ACF’s thematic indicators?

As outlined in Toolkit 3, thematic indicators are suggested impact, outcome, output and process/ activity indicators. ACF Staff can select from the list of these indicators, which are most relevant to their work in their given context. The nine thematic areas covered in the indicators framework include:

1. Agriculture interventions, including horticulture, agriculture and agro forestry

2. Livestock and Fishery interventions, including pisciculture, cuniculture, apiculture, aquaculture 3. Food assistance, including general food distribution, food vouchers, food for work, etc. 4. Cash based interventions, including cash grants, vouchers, cash for work etc. 5. Education/Training/Capacity Building interventions

6. Disaster Risk Management (DRM) & Natural Resource Management 7. Hunger Safety Net and Social Protection Interventions

8. Income Generating Activities

9. Surveillance/Early Warning System Interventions For each indicator, agreement will need to be reached on:

• What variables need to be calculated to build up the indicator information (see Toolkit 3);

• What methods of data collection (or Means of Verification) should be used to measure progress;

• What the frequency of data collection should be for each data set;

• What additional information and considerations are needed to ensure appropriate use of the given indicators.

A thorough review of the availability of secondary data should be undertaken to see what may be of use to the project and where it reduces the need for primary data collection. A search should be conducted online and by asking local and international stakeholders and partners on the ground for all available information, and contacting experts with special knowledge of the context and population.

Once indicators and measurement methods have been defined, a more detailed M&E plan can be developed as key pieces of data and how they will be collected have already been identified.

Box 2.6: Data Selection Criteria

When considering what data to select as part of indicator data, it is important to weigh up this data against the following criteria:

1. Relevance: Only collect data that meets the project stakeholder information needs, to inform