Download Presentation File on RBM - CAIDP

2015
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION DAYS
MAY 12TH – 14TH 2015
DFATD RBM
WHY COLLECT DATA ON
OUTCOMES?
Information Session
14 May 2015
DFATD - RBM Centre of Excellence
The content and descriptions contained in this document have been
developed by Result-Based Management Centre of Excellence
(RBMCE) of the International Assistance Envelope Management
Bureau, Strategic Policy Branch, DFATD and is the property of the
Government of Canada. This document may not be edited or
modified without prior authorization from RBMCE.
2
Objectives
 Provide a refresher and updated on DFATD RBM postamalgamation. Assumptions, you:
 already have solid knowledge of RBM
 are familiar with former CIDA RBM Policy & RBM How to Guide
 Provide an overview of RBM links between Project,
Country-Program and Corporate Level (key concepts
and approach)
 Look at the synergy between results-based monitoring
and development evaluation
2
3
RBM for International Development Programming
 Although the underlying Results-based Management (RBM)
principles and concepts are the same between Trade, Foreign
Affairs and Development, there is a difference in approach
 Former CIDA developed an RBM methodology that reflects the
context of their development and humanitarian work, including
international commitments (OECD DAC, Aid Effectiveness,
MDGs, etc.)
 The former CIDA RBM Policy still applies
3
4
DFATD RBM and Core Concepts
 The core concepts that underpin RBM:
 Results orientation: designing and managing projects during implementation in such a
way as to ensure a continuous focus on the achievement of outcomes
 Causality: making cause-and-effect links between expected outputs and outcomes that
reflect a sound theory of change
 Continuous adjustment: applying results-based monitoring and evaluation by collecting
data on outcome indicators to measure progress, comparing expected outcomes with actual
outcomes, and adjusting operations throughout project implementation in order to maximize
the achievement of results
 Participatory approach: involving key stakeholders, including intermediaries and
beneficiaries
 Integration of cross-cutting themes: taking into consideration the cross-cutting themes of
gender equality, environmental sustainability and governance in all aspects of results-based
project planning, design and implementation.
 These concepts set the foundation for DFATD’s approach to RBM
of its international development programming.
4
5
What is Results-Based Management?
 RBM is an iterative modern management approach that requires managers
to look beyond activities and outputs and to focus on results (outcomes).
 RBM is meant to be FLEXIBLE
 Its aim - to help us manage better for results throughout the project life cycle:
from initiation (analysis, project planning and design), to implementation
(results-based monitoring, adjustments and reporting), to closure (final
evaluations and reports and integrating lessons learned into future
programming).
 In other words,
 RBM is not a set of tools or instructions. It is a way of thinking about our
projects or programs that helps us manage more effectively.
 By managing better, we can maximize the achievement of development
results, (i.e., the positive changes we set out to achieve or contribute to
with our programs or projects.)
5
6
Why RBM?
 Over the past few decades - pressure on governments around the world for
greater transparency and accountability to taxpayers for the use of public
resources.
 As noted by TBS (2000), “[h]istorically, governments focused their attention
on resource inputs (what they spend), activities (what they do) and outputs
(what they produce).”
 While information about inputs, activities and outputs is important, it did not
tell them whether they were making progress toward addressing the issues
they had identified.
 Losing sight of the results their projects or programs were aiming to achieve
limited the effectiveness of their programming.
 A new management approach was needed that raised the standards of
performance and defined success in terms of actual results achieved.
 RBM (also known as MfR or MfDR) was introduced to meet this need.
6
7
But Why RBM and not another Approach?
 The focus on activities at the expense of results is what
management scholar P. Drucker, in 1954, referred to as the
“activity trap”.
 Instead, RBM requires that you look beyond activities and outputs
to focus on actual results (outcomes): the changes created by
your programming or to which it contributed.
 By establishing clearly defined expected outcomes, assessing
risk, collecting output and outcome data to assess progress on
the expected outcomes on a regular basis during implementation,
and making timely adjustments, practitioners can manage their
projects and programs better in order to maximize the
achievement of development results.
 Simple illustration – education example
7
8
At the Heart of RBM is Results-based MONITORING
 Results-based monitoring: The continuous process of collecting and analyzing
information on key indicators and comparing actual results with expected
results in order to measure how well a project, program or policy is being
implemented. […] It is a continuous process of measuring progress toward explicit
short, intermediate-, and long-term results by tracking evidence of movement
toward the achievement of specific, predetermined targets by the use of
indicators. Results-based monitoring can provide feedback on progress (or the
lack thereof) to staff and decision makers, who can use the information to
improve performance. Source: Linda Morra Imas and Ray C. Rist, The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting
Effective Development Evaluations (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank), p. 108.
 Performance Monitoring: The ongoing, systematic process of collecting,
analyzing and using performance information to assess and report on an
organization's progress in meeting expected results and, if necessary, make
adjustments to ensure these results are achieved
Source: TBS Lexicon, Retrieved from (add link)
8
9
Traditional vs. RB-Monitoring
 M&E have always been fundamental aspects of good project and program
management. But before RBM, projects and programs used traditional M&E.
 Traditional M&E focuses on the monitoring and evaluation of inputs, activities, and
outputs (that is, on project or program implementation).
 Results-based M&E combines the traditional approach of monitoring implementation with
the assessment of outcomes […].
 It is this linking of progress on implementation with progress in achieving the
desired […] results of government policies and programs that makes resultsbased M&E useful as a public management tool.
 Implementing this type of M&E system allows the organization to modify
and make adjustments to both the theory of change and the implementation
processes in order to more directly support the achievement of desired […]
outcomes
Source: Linda Morra Imas and Ray C. Rist, The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations (Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank), p. 108-109.
9
10
Without outcome data, you cannot manage for results
 The information collected on the progress on outcomes allows you to
make evidence-based decisions (our education example).
 Without evidence of this progress, decisions tend to be based on
budgets or other inputs, activities and outputs.
 If you don’t keep an eye on your progress on outcomes, you will
never know whether you need to make adjustments to achieve them.
 When outcome based evidence is not used as a basis for decision making
this can undermine the achievement of expected outcomes.
 This is why results-based monitoring is such a vital component of the RBM
approach
10
10
11
Results-Based Monitoring enables Management
 Measuring outcomes, and not only outputs, via monitoring, is crucial
during the implementation stage.
 Collecting data on selected indicators on a regular basis during the
implementation empowers managers and stakeholders with “real time”
information on progress on the achievement of outcomes.
 This helps identify strengths, weaknesses, and problems as they occur,
and enables project managers to take timely corrective action during the
project’s life cycle.
 This in turn increases the chance of achieving the expected
outcomes.
11
11
12
To Conclude
 This continuous cycle of measurement and adjustment is what makes
RBM an iterative management methodology, as opposed to a reporting
and data collection one for its own sake.
 After all, we first have to achieve the changes we set out to achieve
before we can collect data and report on them.
 This focus on measuring progress on outcome during implementation
was one of the fundamental changes introduced by RBM.
 Traditional approaches to management identified objectives or
outcomes during planning, once implementation began monitoring
focused on inputs, activities and outputs.
 With the advent of RBM the focus should remained on outcomes, not
only during planning, but also during implementation.
 Data collected through RB monitoring, is essential for RB management
12
13
RBM is a management
methodology that
… focuses on knowing
where you want to be,
… knowing where you
are as you go, and
… adjusting what you
are doing accordingly to
ensure you reach your
destination.
13
14
Monitoring roles and responsibilities (R&R)
 Shared between Implementer, DFATD and Independent
consultant or monitor (if applicable)
 Implementer:
 Has primary responsibility for collecting and analysing data on all the
indicators of the PMF, according to the frequency and data collection
method indicated.
 Monitors continually during implementation to:
 Help them manage for results (make adjustments)
 Report on progress on expected results
 Mainly uses the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) and risk
register.
 Supported by the monitoring system described in the PIP
 Also monitors project activities, stakeholders and development context.
14
15
R&Rs: DFATD & Independent Consultant
DFATD
 Reviews project reports to assess progress against expected results.
 Ensures the implementer:
 is implementing the PMF and
 using both the output and outcome indicator data to management
for results
 HQ or post staff may undertake site visits to validate reporting ensure
local ownership.
 Participates in project governance bodies.
 May hire a monitor (independent consultant)
Independent Consultant
 Useful for complex projects requiring the engagement of many actors.
 Useful in very technical projects that officers find difficult to assess.
 Two models: 1. Reports only to DFATD and 2. Reports to DFATD and
the implementer:
15
16
The link with evaluation
 Monitoring is descriptive and continuous. It assesses
whether change is happening, not why or why not.
 Evaluation is explanatory and punctual. It explains, for
example, why targets and outcomes are, or are not, being
achieved.
 Both require the same kind of critical thinking and analysis.
 A strong and well-applied monitoring system
facilitates evaluation.
 Monitoring and evaluation should be planned together in order to
complement each other.
 The cost of evaluation can be reduced substantially if monitoring
information at outcomes is available
16
17
Theory of Change – fundamental part RBM
Every program is based on a “theory of change” – a set of assumptions, risks
and external factors that describes how and why the project is intended to work.
This theory connects the project’s activities with its expected ultimate
outcome.
In RBM the “Theory of Change” is the evidence-based story of cause-and-effect relationships
and associated assumptions within a project.
It is inherent in the project design and is often based on research, evaluations, best practices
and lessons learned.
Developing a theory of change combines a deep reflective process and analysis
with the systematic mapping of the logical sequence of changes in a project
from inputs to outcomes.
It explains the expected outcomes, who will experience them, how they will be
achieved, what assumptions are being made, and what external factors and
risks may influence the achievement of those outcomes, all in reference to the
project’s complex and evolving context.
17
18
A Results Chain
•
A results chain is a depiction of the causal or logical relationships
between inputs, activities, outputs, and the outcomes of a given policy,
program, or investment (project). (DFATD RBM Policy)
•
The results chain addresses development practitioners’ need for a
concept that allows them to break complex change down into
manageable "building blocks" or steps related to each other by cause
and effect, making change easier to engage with during both analysis
and implementation.
•
A results chain provides the conceptual framework for articulating that
logical sequence of changes.
•
Each organization will have its own results chain, which will depict and
define the number and type of “building blocks” or levels it uses.
•
These same steps also become the points at which practitioners will
measure whether or not the expected change is actually occurring
throughout project implementation.
18
DFATD Development Results Chain
19
19
20
The Logic Model and Output-Activity Matrix
 In sum, when development practitioners approach a specific problem, their respective
results chain will provide a structure to their project design; telling them what types of
building blocks they should be identifying as they work on their theory of change.
 Because change, particularly development change, is complex and multi-faceted, a full
theory of change (and thus, logic model) rests on several complementary pathways
combining to support one ultimate outcome. This is where the Logic Model comes in.
 At DFATD, the theory of change for a specific project is visually displayed in a set of
tools - the logic model (LM), which shows the output and outcomes levels (NEW),
and the outputs and activities matrix (NEW) which shows activities - and the ToC is
fully explained in an accompanying narrative.
 DFATD’s logic model and the outputs and activity matrix (OAM) templates align to
DFATD’s results-chain levels and display the logical sequence of key steps needed to
bring about the changes the design team wish to achieve.
20
21
The Logic Model (LM)
An LM is a visual depiction of how we
expect the project to work; the
causal/logical connection between outputs
and the outcomes to which they will
contribute
The LM, its supporting narrative (and the
outputs and activities matrix [OAM]) capture
the “theory of change” for a project
The LM should not go over one page
A LM is not static; it is an iterative tool. As
the program changes, the LM should be
revised to reflect the changes, but remain
within the project scope.
The LM combines a number
of complementary approaches
to a development issue into a
pyramid under one ultimate
outcome; different “routes” or
“pathways” leading to the
same destination.
Each “route” addresses a
different aspect of the
problematic.
21
22
A Logic Model Diagram & Flexibility
22
22
23
Activities-Output Matrix (OAM)
Outputs and Activities Matrix
Immediate Outcome 1110
Output 1111
Activity 1111.1
Activity 1111.2
Activity 1111.3
Activity 1111.4
Output 1112
Activity 1112.1
Activity 1112.2
Immediate Outcome 1120
Output 1121
Activity 1121.1
Activity 1121.2
Activity 1121.3
Output 1122
Activity 1122.1
Activity 1122.2
23
24
Performance Measurement Framework (PMF)
 In order to monitor and evaluate your project, it is important to
establish a structured plan for the collection and analysis of
performance information during project design.
 Used to systematically plan the collection of relevant data to assess
and demonstrate progress made in achieving expected results
 Ensures performance information is collected on a regular basis
 Allows for ongoing, evidence-based decision making
 Developed and monitored in consultation with partners, other donors,
local stakeholders and sometimes beneficiaries
 The PMF is not a paper exercise
24
25
What is Reporting on Outcomes
 Expected results are clearly defined at the start of any
intervention & form the focal point for any ongoing
management decisions
 Implementation must continue to focus on
achievement of expected results and taking corrective
action as needed
 Reporting focuses on the comparison of the actual
outcomes being achieved against expected
outcomes established in the beginning of the project.
How?
 Assess what is being achieved (actual outcomes) based on
performance data (qualitative and quantitative) using indicators
identified during planning & collected during monitoring and
evaluation
Expected
Results
Corrective
Actions
Inputs,
Activities,
Outputs
Actual
Results
 Not only how many schools were built, but also on the
children’s improved knowledge
 Not only how many wells have been drilled, but also on
citizens’ increased usage of safe drinking water
 Use data as evidence of progress
25
26
Why Report?
Implementing Organizations:
• Reports inform DFATD of the progress
of the project
• Reports demonstrate both what
outcomes are being achieved &
accountability to the DFATD contract or
contribution agreement requirements
• Reports are an important management
tool for the implementing agency used
to:
 Communicate about project
results/outcomes among other project
stakeholders ; and
 Use performance information to make
adjustments to project, through
consultation and approval of the
Project Steering Committee (PSC) and
DFATD.
26
27
RBM is applied at every level
 DFATD manages for development results at
 micro level (project)
 meso level (program, bureau or branch)
 macro level (corporate)
 The underlying RBM concepts and principles
are the same.
 However, the tools and methodologies are
adapted to each level.
27
28
Results achieved mainly via projects, so
project data is very important
 Corporate tools set the programming direction, but…Actual development results
are only achieved through projects (or other work) in partner countries.
 DFATD collects data on these results mainly through project reports or project
evaluations.
 No actual results data is produced at the meso or macro levels.
 Meso- and macro-level results data are simply roll-ups of micro data, i.e, project
indicator data.
 This is why connecting the levels is so crucial (need a project-to-corporate link)
 We are currently strengthening our approach for this. Building an architecture that
will link development results from micro to meso to macro, for both reporting
and management at the different levels.
 Something that will help DFATD “aggregate” project-level results at a meso level
(program, bureau or branch) and then aggregate those meso-level results at the
corporate level better.
28
29
Horizontal Nesting Model
Results:
 In 2009 former CIDA introduced a nesting model to structure the relationship between
corporate, program and project level development results chains.
 In this model, the outcomes (ultimate, intermediate and immediate) are horizontally
aligned across the corporate, program and project level.
 The types of expected changes at each level of the result chain remain the same, but
their degree of specificity (what) and granularity (level of detail/who and where)
increase as you move from corporate (broad) to project (specific).
Indicators:
 A similar horizontal relationship exists between indicators at the corporate, program
and project levels. However, with the exception of consolidated indicators, an
indicator identified at corporate and program level could be the same as the one used
at project level.
29
30
Nesting vs. Cascading: Snapshot
 The nesting model creates a parallel or horizontal
relationship between macro, meso and micro level results
chains. In other words, outcomes of the same type line up in
parallel across levels, not cascading.
macro
UO
macro meso micro
meso
UO
UO
UO
INTO
UO
micro
INTO INTO INTO not IMO INTO
UO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO INTO
IMO
Parallel
Cascading
Macro = corporate level; Meso = program, bureau, branch etc.; Micro = project Level
UO = Ultimate Outcome; INTO = Intermediate Outcomes; IMO = Immediate Outcomes
------- the red line represents the outcomes we expect to be achieved by the end of projects or programs
30
31
Cascading Result Example
macro
(Corporate)
Ultimate Outcome:
Increased well-being and
empowerment of children and youth
meso
(Elbonia Program)
Intermediate Outcome:
Improved health services for
women, men, and boys and girls in
target countries
Ultimate Outcome:
Improved health for women, men
and boys and girls in Elbonia
Immediate Outcome:
Improved capacity of health service
providers.
Intermediate Outcome:
Improved management and delivery
of health services by Elbonian MoH
to men, women, boys and girls.
Ultimate Outcome:
Improved health for young mothers
in selected rural communities of
Region X
Immediate Outcome:
Increased capacity in health system
management for Elbonian MoH.
Intermediate Outcome: Improved
delivery of pre-, peri- and post-natal
services to young mothers in Region
X
Legend: Red line = The outcomes we expect to
achieve by the end of project and program.
However, progress on the ultimate outcomes should
be monitored (when ever possible) during the life of
a project or program,
micro
(Health Project in Elbonia)
31
32
Horizontal Nesting Results Example
macro
meso
micro
(DFATD)
(Elbonia Program)
(Health Project in Elbonia)
Ultimate Outcome:
Increased well-being and
empowerment of children and youth
Ultimate Outcome:
Improved health for women, men
and boys and girls in Elbonia
Ultimate Outcome:
Improved health for young mothers
in selected rural communities of
Region X
Intermediate Outcome:
Improved health services for
women, men, and boys and girls in
target countries
Intermediate Outcome:
Improved management and delivery
of health services by Elbonian MoH
to men, women, boys and girls
Intermediate Outcome: Improved
delivery of pre-, peri- and post-natal
services to young mothers in Region
X
Immediate Outcome:
Improved capacity of health service
providers
Immediate Outcome:
Increased capacity in health system
management for Elbonian MoH
Immediate Outcome: Increased
knowledge and skills in pre-, periand post natal care services among
Midwives in Region X
32
33
Nesting within the results architecture
Immediate
Outcomes
Intermediate
Outcomes
Ultimate
Outcomes
Planning Flow
macro
meso
micro
Corporate Results
Country Program Results Chain
One Projects' Results Chain
Increased well-being and
empowerment of children
and youth
Improved health services for
mothers, newborns and
children under 5
Broader statements at
corporate Level
Improved health of women, men and
children in Elbonia
Improved health of young mothers in selected
rural communities of Region X of Elbonia
Improved management and delivery
of national health services by
Elbonian MoH to Elbonian men,
women, boys and girls
Improved delivery of pre-, peri- and post-natal
services to young mothers in Region X.
Increased capacity in health system
management for Elbonian MoH.
Increased knowledge and skills in pre-, periand post natal care services among Midwives
in selected communities of Region X.
More granular statements of
the macro ones and always at
same level
More granular statements of the
meso ones and always at same level
Reporting Flow
33
34
Indicators by Level of Result Chain
 Indicators can be “classified” according to what they measures in the
result chain:
 Output indicators: Measure the products and services stemming from
project activities and delivered by the implementer to the intermediaries or
beneficiaries.
 Immediate Outcome Indicators: Measure the changes in skill, knowledge,
abilities, or awareness of the intermediaries or beneficiaries as a
consequence of the outputs.
 Intermediate Outcome Indicators: Measure the changes in behaviour,
practice or performance of intermediaries or beneficiaries as a consequence
of the immediate outcomes.
 Ultimate Outcomes Indicators: Measure the sustainable changes in the
lives of beneficiaries as a consequence of the intermediate outcomes.
34
35
Nesting Advantages: Data Rollup and Reporting
 The nesting model helps with the “roll
up” of outcome (and output) indicators
from project to corporate level. Why?
 Each outcome level captures a
different kind of change in a result
chain and thus uses indicators that
measure that specific change.
macro meso
UO
UO
INTO INTO
IMO
IMO
micro
UO
INTO
IMO
 When rolling up data it is easier to
compare and aggregate “apples” with
“apples” than “apples” with “carrots”.
35
Diagram illustrating different requirement for indicators & their
data at different levels (Simplified)
Increasing
Reduction
& Simplification of
Indicators & their
Data
Indicators & their Data for Corporate Needs
(Reporting to Public & Parliament) & for Multi
donor work
Ghana
Indicators & their Data for the
Program Manager and Specialists
Ghana Project Portfolio
Indicators & their Data for
Project Managers in DFATD
& in Executing Agencies &
Specialists
Total Quantity of Indicators and their Data
Represents indicators and their data
Master Slide EDRMS No. 6065211 Adapted from diagram found in: http://www.qp.org.nz/monitoring/monitor-tools.php
Pyramid of Indicators: Intermediate Outcome Indicator
Example
macro
Meso = bridge between
macro and micro
meso
micro
UO
INTO
IMO
micro
consolidated indicator
(only meso and macro)
macro meso
UO
UO
INTO INTO
IMO
IMO
Fewer
indicators
required
37
indicator
Source: Master Slide EDRMS No. 6065211 Adapted from diagram
found in: http://www.qp.org.nz/monitoring/monitor-tools.php
37
38
What are Consolidated Indicators?
 Consolidated indicators are created by DFATD from project level indicators that
are clustered together with other related indicators (a family of indicators) to form
one indicator that will allow aggregation (summarise) related data at the program,
branch or corporate level.
Example No. 1
 project 1: #/total of nurses (F/M) passing certification exams
 project 2: #/total of doctors (F/M) granted membership in college of physicians
 project 3: #/total of employees (F/M) in rural health clinics who passed training
courses on health information systems
Consolidated program-level indicator:
 #/total of qualified health professionals (F/M) in Elbonia
38
39
The program-level PMF
What does the program PMF measure?
 The performance of the DFATD program in the country
 Outcomes (in country / region) to which your program contributes
 The PMF is the backbone of program’s monitoring framework or system? It facilitates data
collection to allow analyst to measure and assess performance of the program’s projects in the
country
The program PMF does not measure
 The total sum of portfolio of projects
 The performance of the country or region
 Outcomes in the country or region to which we are not making a contribution
39
40
Selecting indicators for program PMF

Most indicators & data will be drawn from project-level monitoring and reports. Program Analysts (PA) conduct project
portfolio analysis and strategically select indicators from portfolio suitable for program level (ongoing)

If needed, program analysts identify other indicators not tracked by projects that help them manage & tell performance
story

Criteria for selection, for example, are any of the project indicators:

Indicators from a country national development plan

Relevant Program Alignment Architecture/Corporate Performance Measurement Framework outcome indicators

Key performance indicators (KPIs) or “family members” for consolidated KPIs, if relevant.

Indicators tracked by multiple projects in the portfolio (that reflect depth of program projects)

Indicators that could be grouped into a “family of indicators” & made into a DFATD consolidated indicators

Every indicator selected must measure some aspect of program outcomes (has to be direct relationship)

If any of the above indicators appear in the projects, they should be included in the PMF
 When using indicators tracked by systems in host country, ensure that:
a)
indicators measure outcomes to which DFATD programming contributes (PBAs, SWAPs, multi-donor
projects, etc) and
b)
indicators are valid measure of outcome in program LM
40
41
To Conclude
 For DFATD to report at program level, we need actual data from the
projects
 This means that every time DFATD partners report on their projects
outcomes they should:
 provide actual data for each indicator in PMF according to frequency
specified
 for each outcome (and output), provide evidence-based narrative
describing progress made on or toward achieving outcome (and
output) using data collected on indicators in the PMF
 explain any variance
Performance data, collected through performance monitoring,
is essential for both reporting and for results-based
management at project & program level
41
THANK YOU – ANY QUESTIONS?
LM Example
ULTIMATE
OUTCOME
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOMES
IMMEDIATE
OUTCOMES
OUTPUTS
1000 Improved health of women, men, girls and boys living in community X
1100 Increased proper usage of safe drinking water by
women, men, girls and boys in community X.
1200 Improved management of water, waste and
sanitation infrastructure in community X
1110 Increased equitable
access to safe drinking
water for women, men,
girls and boys living in
community X
1120 Increased knowledge and
awareness of the importance
and proper usage of safe
drinking water among women,
men, girls and boys in
community X
1210 Increased
ability of women in
community X to
maintain wells
1220 Increased knowledge and
skills in waste management and
sanitation among male and female
local community development
committee members
1111 Wells built in
community X, in
consultation with local
stakeholders, especially
women as primary water
managers in the
community
1121 Awareness material,
including material appropriate
for a non-literate audience,
developed in consultation with
male and female community
members
1211 Training
provided to women
in community X on
maintenance of wells
1221 TA in waste management
and sanitation provided to local
community development
committees members, both
women and men.
1212 xxxxxxxxx
1222 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1112 Existing wells
rehabilitated in community
X
1122 Awareness campaigns
conducted on the importance
and proper usage of safe
drinking water for women,
men, girls and boys in
community X
44
Elements of a PMF
Title
Country/Region/
Institution
Result
Statements
from Logic
Model
Indicators
Baseline
Target
No.
Team Leader
Budget
Duration
Data
Sources
Collection
Methods
Frequency
Responsibility
Ultimate
Outcome
Intermediate
Outcomes
Immediate
Outcomes
Outputs
44
45
Data Collection Methods
Source: Ray Rist, 10 Steps to an RB M&E System World Bank, 2004, page 85
45