Results      Define      Plan      Choose      Write      Award      Admin      Monitoring     Core Values     Sources     FAQ     Glossary     USAID ADS Updated 07/02/03

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: Performance management is the systematic process of monitoring the results of activities; collecting and analyzing performance information to track progress toward planning results; using performance information to inform program decision-making and resource allocation; and communicating results achieved, or not attained, to advance organizational learning and tell the Agency's story. Performance management during implementation means obtaining systematic feedback on the robustness of the causality chain and increasing its "strength" over time, by making decisions and taking actions on the activities we control that reflect the feedback obtained. Assessing and learning for performance management is a highly proactive, forward looking process. Simply taking an occasional performance "snap-shot" to produce an annual report is not adequate in the environments where USAID typically works.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: A tool used by an Operating Unit and SO Team to plan and manage the process of assessing and reporting progress towards achieving a Strategic Objective. It contains full documentation on the indicators to be used, baseline performance levels and targets to be achieved over the life of the SO, the source and quality of data available, and responsibilities for collection and analysis of data.

EVALUATION: A relatively structured, analytical effort undertaken selectively to answer specific management questions regarding USAID funded assistance programs or activities. In contrast to performance monitoring, which provides ongoing structured information, evaluation is occasional. Evaluation focuses on why results are or are not being achieved, on unintended consequences, or on issues of interpretation, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, or sustainability. It addresses the validity of the causal hypotheses that underlie Strategic Objectives and that are embedded in results frameworks. Evaluative activities may use different methodologies or take many different forms, e.g., ranging from highly participatory review workshops, to highly focused assessments relying on technical experts.

Steps in monitoring and evaluating performance:

Step 1: Begin with a plan for monitoring and evaluating performance and for reporting and using performance information. Step 2: Gather and analyze performance information. Step 3: Unpack the Annual Report concepts. Step 4: Maintain flexibility in ensuring accountability for performance.

Step 1: Begin with a plan for monitoring and evaluating performance and for reporting and using performance information.

• Review Planning Programs: Monitoring and Evaluating Performance and Reporting, Using, and Sharing Performance Information

• Analyze performance data for individual indicators or groups of related indicators.
• Desegregate data as pertinent to the indicators (by gender, race, age, location, etc.).
• Compare actual performance data with baseline, past performance over the period of time deemed relevant, planned or targeted performance, or other relevant benchmarks.
• Analyze relationships among performance indicators.
• Evaluate why certain performance targets are being met and why some are not being met.

Elements of a good Annual Report:

• Focuses on results and accomplishments
• Assesses performance over the past year, using established indicators, baselines and targets;
• Is based on data of sufficiently high quality (verified by assessment) to support the appropriate level of management decisions;
• States explicitly whether and how much progress or results surpassed, met, or fell short of expectations, and why;
• Specifies actions to overcome problems and accelerate performance, where necessary;
• Explains the influence of comparative performance by objectives on the resource request;
• Addresses gender issues in the analysis of program performance
• Integrates all funding sources, including food aid and where appropriate, links relief and development;
• Identifies the need to adjust resource allocations, indicators, or targets, where necessary.

Failure to reach specific performance targets, or to achieve particular results, may be due to a wide variety of reasons. Ascertainment of the facts, as well as thorough and objective analysis based on these facts, is required. Determination of what types of actions are appropriate in an individual case must be based on a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the situation.

Some of the reasons that stated targets are not met or agreed results are not achieved are within the responsibility and control of USAID or a Development Partner. Others are not. For example, changes in political, social, economic, or other circumstances may occur. These events may render previous assumptions invalid, or performance as originally intended impossible or impracticable.

The challenge for USAID and its Development Partners--as partners--is to work together, in an open and transparent way, to figure out the reasons why. This is a collaborative undertaking, not a "blame game" or a search for someone to "punish." In some instances, USAID may wish to seek additional information or secure an independent evaluation for use in its deliberative process.

In appropriate cases, where the failure to achieve agreed targets or results is determined to be substantial and the causes are within the reasonable responsibility and control of the Development Partner, the Activity Manager or SO Team should discuss the matter with the cognizant USAID Agreement Officer. The Agreement Officer, in consultation as necessary with legal counsel, may consider a number of actions. These alternatives form a spectrum of responses that can be tailored to fairness and the interests of the foreign assistance program in each case.

Among the available responses are:

1. Cooperative efforts: USAID may choose to work with the recipient to find cooperative and mutually beneficial ways to address the root causes of the problem. For example, it may request that the work plan--and, if necessary, the assistance instrument itself--be modified to adjust the program, budget, or funding period. This adjustment may add resources or funds for more personnel where the previous funding or staffing level is deemed to have been inadequate, or cut back a program that is not working well.

2. Limiting future funding or extensions: USAID may choose not to add funds to the assistance award in the future, or to decline or limit any requested extensions.

3. Noncompliance remedies: USAID may determine that the Recipient is in noncompliance with its responsibilities under the pertinent grant or cooperative agreement, and may invoke any of the five "enforcement" measures described in 22 CFR 226.62(a).

4. Suspension or termination: USAID may choose to suspend or terminate an award for cause in certain circumstances. See 22 CFR 226.61(a)

The potential scope of these remedial actions is quite broad, and they can and should be flexibly applied. Like the analogous recourses available under procurement contracts, however, they have serious consequences, and should only be considered when appropriate.

Effective administration of a USAID assistance instrument is not something that occurs only at the end of an award or funding period. Rather, USAID monitoring and evaluation, like that of a Development Partner, is an ongoing effort. Periodic reports, when rigorously prepared and submitted and reviewed in a timely manner, can--together with other normal contacts between USAID and the Recipient--identify emerging obstacles and problems while performance is still occurring. This will permit the Recipient to initiate prudent adjustments to the program, subject to USAID approvals in the situations specified in USAID's Regulation 26 (22CFR226) and subject to other USAID action (for example, processing an amendment) when necessary.

Examples of Monitoring and Evaluating Performance:

CDIE's Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips (PDF 27KB)

Performance Management Toolkit (PDF 1,305KB), Worksheet 5

CDIE's Conducting a Participatory Evaluation (PDF 28KB)

The Nature Conservancy's (TNC): TNC's Performance Monitoring Plan (PDF 48KB) - Protection of selected LAC parks and reserves important to conserve the Hemisphere's biological diversity.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC): TNC's Performance Monitoring Table (PDF 47KB) for the Strategic Objective (Protection of selected LAC parks and reserves important to conserve the Hemisphere's biological diversity).

National Council of Negro Women (NCNW): NCNW/Egypt manages an Umbrella Management Institute (UMI), PVO Development Project in Egypt. Through UMI, NCNW has provided training, technical and financial assistance to its intermediate customers - across the whole spectrum of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Egypt. NCNW has emphasized the formation of strategic partnerships between US PVOs and Egyptian CSOs and the promotion of citizen participation in planning, implementing, monitoring, and reporting on results of development initiatives. View NCNW's 1997 Annual Results Review (Word 90KB)

USAID's Bureau for Europe and the New Independent States, Office of Democracy and Social Reform has developed an NGO Sustainability Index The Index gauges the strength of the NGO sector in the transition societies of East Central Europe and the New Independent States. USAID/South Africa, in partnership with the Human Sciences Research Council and U.S. and South African PVOs, has developed a guide for the assessment of organizational capacity (PDF 200KB). The main purpose of the guide is to provide NGOs with a framework for the systematic evaluation of their organizational processes, structures, systems and skills. It is designed to help them to identify and understand their strengths and weaknesses and to enable them to develop strategies to improve their organizations' capacity.

USAID's Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, PACT, and Educational Development Center have developed Discussion-Based Organizational Self- Assessment which is a tool, a process, and a service.

The Inter-American Foundation (IAF): Based on the tenets of participation, empowerment, and sustainability, IAF developed the Foundation's Grassroots Development Framework which considers an integrated view of results at the individual level, the organizational level, and the societal level.

The African Development Foundation (ADF): Building upon ADF's participatory evaluation model of the past ten years, ADF has integrated its project monitoring, participatory evaluation, and program performance assessment to enhance program impact and to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Sustainable Seattle: The Sustainable Seattle Network developed a consensus definition of sustainability--long-term health and vitality -- cultural, economic, environmental and social. Through consensual decision-making and a shared leadership process, and the participation of diverse from the public and private sector, indicators were identified that seemed most useful in providing a snapshot of community sustainability.

Oregon Benchmarks: The Oregon Benchmarks help decision-makers analyze trends and problems, and identify priorities for the period ahead. The benchmarks are used at the statewide level to assess progress toward broad strategic objectives. Leaders in Oregon have used the benchmarks to reset priorities and adapt and modify programs as they learn what works.

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): "The Geographic Programs Road Map" is a guide for Project Managers who are engaged in the formulation of concept papers; results and risks in the approval process; appraisal, design and approval; implementation, monitoring, and control; and project design and analysis.

Results-Oriented Cultures (PDF 368KB): Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries' Performance Management Initiatives. GAO-02-862, August 2