Food Security and Nutrition Network
Select Language

Updated: Policy and Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting for Development Food Security Activities

resource thumbnail

USAID's Office of Food for Peace has released an updated version of the Policy and Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting for Development Food Security Activities.

Click here to view the updated document. 

List of Updates:

M&E Plan  

  • Additional flexibility on what may be included in an M&E Plan, specifically the addition of qualitative monitoring and qualitative studies to the monitoring system and LogFrame. 
  • Commitment by FFP to provide additional M&E technical assistance during the first year; and an outline of the M&E Plan review process. 
  • Additional guidance on what should be articulated in an activity TOC and LogFrame, and best practices on how these should be updated in FFP’s “refine and implement” activity life cycle.
  • Update to M&E Staffing and Capacity Development Strategy to codify what FFP has been advising partners for years in terms of engaging non-M&E staff in the process of identifying data and learning needs from the activity start and continuing engagement throughout the life cycle.
  • Additional specificity in annual M&E Plan submission: previously guidance was “with PREP or at the request of the AOR” and this has been changed to “two months prior to PREP submission” to ensure consistency and that M&E Plans will be cleared prior to PREP approvals.
  • Additional guidance included on how to determine endline targets for population-based indicators; this was at the request of partners.
  • Streamlining of Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) guidance to reflect what is currently included in the FFP Indicator Handbooks I and II.
  • Addition of guidance and illustrative template for Qualitative Inquiry Planning Sheets.

Evaluation Guidance

  • Additional flexibility added to benefit both FFP and partners. Specific changes include the addition of optional “interim quality review” either in addition to or in lieu of a midterm evaluation to help inform cost extension decision-making. Additionally, flexibility was added to the final evaluation whereby it is now referred to as the “interim/final evaluation” so if a cost extension is granted, the endline data collection will serve to inform the design/targets for an extension phase; otherwise, this serves as the final evaluation.
  • Clarification and streamlining of guidance on the baseline and interim/final evaluation designs and methodologies; addition of guidance on the option for conducting experimental and/or quasi-experimental designs.
  • Additional annex included to provide guidance to (1) IP’s; and (2) evaluation/research partners, on methodology and other considerations for the baseline evaluation.
  • Additional annex included to provide guidance to (1) IP’s; and (2) evaluation/research partners, on methodology and other considerations for the endline survey and interim/final evaluation.
  • Additional annex included to provide guidance to IP’s on how to develop a midterm evaluation SOW; this is in direct response to requests from the IP community for more guidance on midterm evaluations and qualitative research methods.

Data Disaggregation and Reporting

  • Additional clarification and examples provided for how to report on “percent” and “percentage point” in M&E Plans and in FFP reporting documents. No change to the policy, but a clearer articulation of best practice to ensure consistency across DFSA awards and within DFSA reporting materials.
  • Streamlining of the section on reporting requirements to DEC and DDL; references included to the updated websites and guidance.
  • Updated/streamlined section on data flow, MIS, and reporting; addition of annex on best practices for designing, setting up, and using an activity MIS. No additional requirements.