M&e Framework

STAR-GHANA MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)
FRAMEWORK
May, 2011
CONTENTS
1
A NEW CONTEXT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS..................................................1
THEORY OF CHANGE .............................................................................................................. 2
THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................................ 4
MEASURING PERFORMANCE............................................................................................. 12
PUTTING M&E INTO PRACTICE........................................................................................ 20
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................. 24
ANNEXES
8
ANNEX 1 - GLOSSARY OF TERMS...............................................................................27
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
1
agendas .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, DFIDs 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. STARGhana is not the subject of its own accord, but instead will constitute one of the modalities or
2
approaches to progressing its development partners civil society and governance objectives . STARGhana 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 partners 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 Programmes
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.
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
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 STARGhana 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.
THEORY OF CHANGE
STAR-Ghanas 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-Ghanas 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-Ghanas Theory of Change:
M&E Framework
Figure 1: The Government Business Cycle

Policies,
development plans,
legislation
Voice
Policy
advocacy
Planning processes,
prioritisation, policy
formulation
Responsiveness
& Accountability
Resource allocation,
budget setting
Budget
analysis
Scrutiny of budget /
resource allocation
the
Government
business
cycle
M&E / assessment
of service delivery
and social &
economic impacts
Release of funds
Service delivery
Utilisation of funds
/ spend
Budget
monitoring
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 governments 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.
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
Assess
Budget
Spend
Deliver
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.
M&E Framework
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 issuebased 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.
Common issue
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
4
M&E Framework
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 STARGhana 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 STARGhana 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-Ghanas ability to identify, facilitate and strengthen citizen empowerment,
5
M&E Framework
government accountability and governance processes using established V&A constructs, such as
3
DFIDs Capability, Accountability and Responsiveness (CAR) framework
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.
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 would likely be measured in terms of institutional [rules of the game] and behavioural
change.
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
4
follows :
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
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.
6
M&E Framework
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-Ghanas
work with CSOs. With this in mind, less weight should be given to this indicator as a measure of
STAR-Ghanas 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-Ghanas 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
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.
STARGhana
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,
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
GoG PAF
docs, media
reports, DA
FOAT
M&E Framework
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
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

Parliamentary oversight of the
process of budget analysis to
monitoring to policy reform /
implementation. Milestones to
be determined.
Select
Committee &
Hansard
reports
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,
Records of
select
committee
Annually
Appropriatio
ns Act,
QPRs
Annually
Grantees
Report,
newspapers
reports,
select
committee
report
M&E Framework
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
Impact
STAR-Ghana Logframe
Nov 2010
STAR-Ghana Logframe May

2011
To increase accountability
government, traditional
authorities and private
enterprises
To increase accountability
government, traditional
authorities and private
enterprises.
Indicators
Indicators:
Policies for Social Inclusion

and Equity
Gender equality
Social inclusion
Quality Public Sector

Management and Institutions
Quality Public Sector

Management and Institutions
Gender Equality
Outcome
Increased CSO and

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

Indicators
Indicators:
Extent of citizen participation

and political action
Extent of citizen participation

and political action
Excluded or vulnerable
groups engagement with
authorities on gender
equality and rights issues
CSO engagement with

authorities on behalf of
excluded and vulnerable
groups
Number of sector working

groups with significant
stakeholder input into
national target setting and
review
Number (and %) of cases

where grantees have
influenced government
processes
Quality of inputs on gender
and rights issues made by
MPs into Bills / polices
Output 1.
Capability of CSOs to enable
Capability of grant partners to
Suggested changes What

the change is, why the
change is needed, how we
arrived at the milestone and
target
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 STARGhana, 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.
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 sees the number of
cases that partners can
directly influence in
government processes.
Changed the language of the
10
M&E Framework
citizens, particularly women,

children, and excluded
groups, to claim rights
increased
enable citizens, particularly

women, children, and excluded
groups, to claim rights
increased.
Indicators:
Indicators:
CSO capability
Grant partners demonstrating

organization and technical
capability to fulfil their
mandates.
Number of CSO links

between national policy
debates or legislation to local
level advocacy and
monitoring.
Number CSOs supported
with capacity building
assistance
Output 2.
Civil society engagement in

policy formulation,
implementation, and
monitoring enhanced.
Rights claimed and realised by

grant partner constituents
particularly those of women,
children and vulnerable groups
at local and national levels.
Grant partner engagement in
policy formulation,
implementation, and
monitoring enhanced.
Indicators
Indicators
Public access to budget,

policy, and performance
information.
Public access (including

private sector) 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
Output 3.
Civil Society actions supported

by grant partners to demand
citizens rights at local and
national levels.
Quality of representations and

submissions made by grant
partners for changes to policy,
implementation, and legislation
(particularly in ensuring gender
equality and social inclusion)
Number of effective
monitoring initiatives
undertaken by supported
CSOs that advance gender
equality and the interests of
excluded groups (including
by disability and age)
Increased use of civil society
evidence in policy and
practice
Effective monitoring initiatives

undertaken by grant partners
that improve accountability and
responsiveness of
government, private sector and
traditional authorities
Increased use of civil society
evidence in policy and
practice.
Indicators:
Indicators:
Number of outputs by CSO

grant partners that generate
evidence on issues and
practices
Grant partners generate critical

evidence on policy 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
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
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).
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.
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
11
M&E Framework
Output 4.
Improved representative,
oversight, and lawmaking
functions of selected
Parliamentary committees
Improved Representative,
oversight and Legislative
Functions of selected
Indicators:
Indicators:
Lawmaking: Annual rate of

acceptance of assisted
Committee recommendations
by House
Legislative - Reduction of
turnaround time from when
bills are introduced in
Parliament to the enactment of
the laws
Oversight: Performance of
budget and oversight
responsibilities
Representation: Increased
citizen access to legislative
processes in selected
Committees
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
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.
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.
Representation - Number and

outcomes of Parliament
interactions with citizens at all
levels (national and subnational)
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,
5
Participatory, Interpreted, Cross-checked, Empowering and Diverse).
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 wont 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 basketapproach 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
See ITAD (2010) Governance Indicator Report

12
M&E Framework
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
Partners 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
Impact level Indicator 2
District
District Assembly
Assembly
Performance Scores
Performance
(2009)
Scores (2009)
Outcome Indicator 2
CSO
% of grantees working
engagement
on gender equality and
with authorities
issues of the vulnerable
on behalf of
and the excluded
excluded and
vulnerable
% of
groups
granteesdisaggregating
project outcome/impact
by gender and
vulnerable groups
Outcome Indicator 4
Mainstreaming
Number of inputs and
of gender and
statements made by
social inclusion
MPs on the floor of
in parliaments
Parliament and into
work at all levels proposed bills which
take account of GESI
issues.
Where to get
it
Who is
responsible
By which
date?
State of
Work
DA FOAT
Secretariat
M & E Team/
Gideon
May, 2011
100% done
Scores
available and
plotted into
LF
From grantees
report,
M & E Team /
Gideon
August, 2011
40% done
The grantee
baseline
survey is still
underway.
We are
analysing the
results
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
13
M&E Framework
Output 1
Number of
grantees
demonstrating
organizational
and technical
capability to fulfil
their mandates
Number of activity
plans submitted to
STAR-Ghana by select
committees which take
into account Gender
and Social Inclusion
issues
Scores from STARGhana capability index
derived from :
Civicus 2006
report
Index developed
by STARGhana,2011
World Bank
Country Policy and
Institutional
Assessment
(CPIA) IDA
Resource
Allocation Index
(IRAI)
Output Indicator 2.2

Representations
Number of
and submissions representations and
made by grant
submissions made by
partners for
grant partners at all
tiers of government,
changes to
policy,
implementation,
and legislation
(particularly in
ensuring gender
equality and
social inclusion).
M&E Team
July 2011
Yet to be
done. To be
completed by
July
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
th
by 20 May
policy briefs
and dialogues,
grantee
reports,
Newspapers,
Radio and TV
programmes,
Quick
/retrospective
surveys key
grantees (by
telephone)
M&
ETeam/PMT
May, 2011
30% Done.
We are
analyzing the
results from
the grantee
baseline
survey
M & E Team
May, 2011
25% Done.
We are
analyzing the
results from
the grantee
baseline
survey
GRAP reports.
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
14
M&E Framework
Output 4
Improving the
legislative role of
Parliament
Improving the
Oversight
responsibility
role of
Parliament
Reduction of
turnaround time from
when bills, particularly
those relating to propoor 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
Number and outcomes

of oversight activities of
select committees
(PAC, gender,
education, health,
poverty reduction,
mines and energy,
finance);
Review of
Select
Committees
reports,
Hansard, and
grantees
reports;
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
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
Areas of focus (e.g.

gender and social
inclusion);
Interviews with
resource
persons, key
informants
Linkages among
committees in exercise
of oversight (synergy,
complementarities)
Linkages with MDAs
and civil society;
Improving the
Representation
role of
Parliament
Post-oversight activities
(e.g. follow-ups, etc)
Number and types of
outreach programs (by
committee, i.e.
outreach programs
organised by specific
select committees, by
House such as
Speakers 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;
Review reports
of select
committees,
Hansard and
grantees
reports;
Interviews with
staff of
parliamentary
service, MPs
and Speakers
office;
Review of
media articles
and programs
on
parliamentary
outreach
programs.
Inclusiveness of
outreach/representation
15
M&E Framework
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-Ghanas 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 partners 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-Ghanas 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 STARGhana 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 partners 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 partners 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-Ghanas support) becomes problematic. The
key evaluability challenge is therefore how to attribute outcomes/ impact level changes to the STARGhana, rather than to other interventions or wider contextual changes. There are no easy solutions,
but STAR-Ghana will:
16
M&E Framework
4.4
Provide baseline data that includes an annual survey of CSOs (both grantees and nongrantees). This will at least provide some quantitative information about whether STARGhanas 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.
Gender and Social Inclusion
Gender and social inclusion (GESI) is a key consideration which cuts across all of STAR-Ghanas
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 sociogeographical distinction), or grant partners inclusion of disabled people. The logframe will need to be
cross-checked against STARs 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-Ghanas 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 STARGhanas 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-Ghanas 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-Ghanas 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-Ghanas 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
17
M&E Framework
systematically and robustly about what is happening because of STAR-Ghanas 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:
4.6
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;
Aggregating across the programme
A critical challenge for STAR-Ghanas 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
6
be critical at this level, 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.
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.
18
M&E Framework
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).
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.
19
M&E Framework
For example:
Outcome
Value chain
stage 1:
licensing and
contracting
processes
move towards
international
best practice
Indicator
Baseline
(2010)
Milestone
(2011)
Milestone
(2013)
Target
(2015)
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)
Transparency of
contracts
between
government and
upstream
companies
A few fiscal
terms
known
publicly
through ad
hoc
disclosures
Milestone
(2011)
Milestone
(2013)
Target
(2015)
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.
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;
20
M&E Framework
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
Participatory Monitoring
& Evaluation
Technical Directors
Development Partners
TAR-Ghana
Management
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 STARGhana activities.
Focusing on the Outputto-Outcome contribution,

and Impacts in the
Logframe. Evaluating &
assessing the impact of
STAR-Ghana activities.
Quarterly Progress
Reports
Partner Quarterly
Progress Reports and
DP Bi-Annual Reports
DFID Bi - Annual reports

(STAR-Ghana M&E
Manager, TD and Team
Leader (TL))
Annual OPR
STAR-Ghana Annual
Reports
Donor events, meetings,

roundtables, workshops
(TL, TD and STAR-Ghana

M&E Team)
(STAR-Ghana TL, TD and

where necessary Steering
Committee, Consortium
member)
(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
(STAR-Ghana M&E team)

Monitoring Visit Reports
(STAR-Ghana all staff
contribute, as visits may
vary)
STAR-Ghana M&E Team
STAR-Ghana Partner
Annual Review
STAR-Ghana Annual
Reviews
(Partners, stakeholders,
(STAR-Ghana Team and

Consortium Members)
Learn and Share Events

with partners
Partner Learning Events
(Partners, STAR-Ghana
(STAR-Ghana and
stakeholders)
(STAR-Ghana, DFID,
STAR-Ghana
Consortium)
Midterm Review Report

(STAR-Ghana, DFID,
STAR-Ghana
Consortium)
End of Programme
Evaluation
21
M&E Framework
Partners
and stakeholders)
M&E Documents
Stories of change
(M&E Team -Monitoring

field reports, Evaluative
Studies, Stories of
Change, Website,
Newsletters, media
clippings, etc)
Stories of change
(STAR-Ghana, DFID,
STAR-Ghana
Consortium)
Partner End of Project

Reports
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-Ghanas 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
2011
(YR1)
Monitoring
Evaluation
Reporting
Development of :
Internal Review
(OPR)
OPR Annual Report
STAR-Ghana Annual
Review
STAR-Ghana Financial VFM Report
Partner Annual
Review
Partner Quarterly Reports
M&E Framework and M&E Plan

Monitoring templates
Reporting templates
Results based template
Monitoring guidelines
STAR-Ghana Annual Report
STAR-Ghana Monitoring Field Report
Partner End of Project Reports
Indicator tracking tables
Partner Stories, Results, Case Studies
Final Logframe
STAR-Ghana DP Bi-annual Report
Baseline surveys
Capability Index
Activities:
22
M&E Framework
Monitoring
Evaluation
Reporting
Internal Review
(OPR)
OPR Annual Report
STAR-Ghana Annual
Review
Partner Annual
Review
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
STAR-Ghana DFID Bi-annual Report
Logframe Review, adjusting

milestones and targets
2013
(YR3)
Development of:
Case studies
Stories
Activities:
Internal Midterm
Review
Midterm Review Report
STAR-Ghana Annual
Review
Partner Annual
Review

2014
(YR4)
Development of:
Outcome and Result Case studies
Outcome and Result Stories
Activities:
Internal Annual
Review (OPR)
OPR Report
STAR-Ghana Annual
Review
Partner Annual
Review
STAR-Ghana Final Annual Report
STAR-Ghana Evaluation Studies

2015
Development of:
Internal Final
Final Evaluation Report

23
M&E Framework
(YR5)
Monitoring
Evaluation
Reporting
Outcome and Results Case studies
Evaluation
STAR-Ghana Final Annual Report
Outcome and Results Stories
Activities:
STAR-Ghana Final
Review
Partner Final Review
STAR-Ghana Evaluation Studies


STAR-Ghana End of Programme
Report (This could be combined with
Final Evaluation)
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
There are many well-established and innovative tools and techniques that are applicable to
measuring STAR-Ghanas 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
Outcome assessment (Outcome Mapping), MSC

stories, Contribution Analysis, research and
evaluative studies
Media attention
Lobby and
negotiation
Media tracking folder, media assessment, media

coverage
Behaviour, attitude and relationship

changes
Focus group discussions, diaries, logs, perception

surveys
Influence
Outcome assessment (Outcome Mapping), MSC

stories, Contribution Analysis, research studies
Media attention
Media tracking folder, media assessment, media

coverage
Focus group discussions, diaries, logs, perception
Behaviour, attitude and relationship

24
M&E Framework
Capacity Building
changes
surveys
Skills and knowledge uptake and

usage
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
Capability
Analysis and
evidence
Uptake and usage
Diaries, logs, website hits, user surveys
Outputs (Reports, videos)
Evaluate the evidence (reports, videos) based on

established criteria such as relevance, quality,
effectiveness, impact
Influence on agenda
6.1
Stories (MSC), Outcome assessment, focus group

discussion
Contribution Analysis
7
At Impact level Contribution Analysis 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
Programmes 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:
See Mayne, John. 1999. Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly.
Discussion paper, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
25
M&E Framework
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.
26
ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

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--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.
Capacitybuilding: 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 organisations 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.
27
ANNEX 3: OUTCOME MONITORING WORKSHEET

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.
28

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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking, 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 asneeded 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.
29
ANNEX 2: OUTCOME MAPPING

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
30

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:
Location:
Description of change:
Contributing influences and actors:
Unanticipated changes:
Evidence:
Learning and lessons:
Next steps:
Any other comments:
31
Annex 3: Outcome Monitoring Worksheets
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):
Location:
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:
Location:
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:
32
ANNEX 4: RESULTS STORIES AND MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

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 peoples capacity to demand and influence policy reform;
Change in peoples access to resources or information;
Change in peoples 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
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)
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
33
ANNEX 5: LOGFRAME
PROJECT NAME
IMPACT
To increase accountability and
responsiveness of government,
traditional authorities and private
enterprises
Strengthening Transparency Accountability and Responsiveness in Ghana (STAR-Ghana)

Impact Indicator 1
Baseline (2011)
Milestone 1 (2012)
Milestone 2 (2013)
Target (2015)
Policies for Social Inclusion
Planned
IRAI Score 4.0 (2008)
4.0
4.1
4.2
and Equity
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
Planned
IRAI Score 3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
and Institutions
(2008)
District
Assembly
Performance Scores XX
(2009)
TBC
TBC
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
Gender Equality and Social
Inclusion
Planned
Baseline (2011)
Gender Inequality Index
0.729 (2009)
Milestone 1 (2012)
.663
Milestone 2 (2013)
.635
Target (2015)
.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.
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.
34
Annex 5: Logframe
Social institutions include family law, social norms and traditional institutions including traditional
authorities.
-UNDP Human Development Index, the Gender Inequality Index (GII).
OUTCOME
Outcome Indicator 1
Increased
CSO
and
Extent
of
participation
9
political action
citizen
and
Baseline (2011)
Planned
Somewhat or very
interested in public
affairs
M=75%; F=61%
Milestone
(2012)
N/A
Joined others to
raise an issue at
least once in the
past year
M=65%; F=50%
Milestone
(2013)
M=75%;
F=64%
Target (2015)
Assumptions
M=78%; F=67%
(1) Technical
assistance and
performancebased
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
M=68%; F=56%
M=65%;
F=53%
(2011)
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
(2012)
Milestone
(2013)
Target (2015)
Focuses on the improvement, quality and to an extent the capability of citizen engagement and interaction in influencing government for policy reform and improvements.
35
Annex 5: Logframe
CSO engagement with

authorities on behalf of
excluded and vulnerable
10
groups
Planned
% of STAR-Ghana
grant
partners
working on gender
equality & rights
issues
To
be
determined
To
be
determined
To
determined
be
% of STAR-Ghana
grant
partners
working
on
thematic
issues
(oil/
gas,
education, etc)
Achieved
Source
Outcome Indicator 3
Number (and %) of
cases where grantees
have influenced
11
government processes
Planned
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 womens 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 years engagement.
Baseline (2011)
Milestone 1 Milestone 2 Target (2015)
(2012)
(2013)
0
25
50
100
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.
10
Focuses on the extent to which CSOs are representative of constituents 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.
36
Annex 5: Logframe
Achieved
Outcome Indicator 4
Increase of inputs on
gender
and
rights
issues made by MPs
into Bills / polices
Planned
(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.
Baseline (2011)
Milestone 1 Milestone 2 Target (2015)
(2012)
(2013)
To be determined
To
be To
be To
be
determined
determined
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.
37
Annex 5: Logframe
INPUTS ()
DFID ()
Govt ()
Other ()
Total ()
Milestone 1
(2012)
20%
improvement
index scores
Milestone 2
(2013)
30%
improvement
index scores
DFID SHARE (%)
5.5m
INPUTS (HR)
DFID (FTEs)
SDA 0.25; PO -1.0
OUTPUT 1
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
Baseline
(2011)
CSO
capability
index scores to
be determined.
in
in
Target
(2015)
50%
improvement
in
index
scores
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,
Assumption
CSOs
are
willing
to
collaborate
and
work
together
on
issues
identified
STAR-Ghana
is able to
38
Annex 5: Logframe

Civil Society actions supported
by grant partners to demand
citizens rights at local and
national levels
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.
Baseline
Milestone 1
Milestone 2
Target
(2011)
(2012)
(2013)
(2015)
Planned
Number of civil 20%
of
the 50% of baseline Evidence
society actions on baseline number number link their that policies
citizens
rights link national work national
level adopted by
(national and sub to local level policy advocacy local
national levels)
advocacy
and work to local government
monitoring
level advocacy bodies
and monitoring
consult and
invite CSOs
to
the
consultation
process on
issues
of
exclusion/
inclusion
Achieved
Source
IMPACT WEIGHTING (%)
20%
INPUTS ()
Rights claimed and realised by

grant
partner
constituents
particularly those of women,
children and vulnerable groups
at local and national levels
DFID ()
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.
Baseline
Milestone
1 Milestone 2
Target
(2011)
(2012)
(2013)
(2015)
Planned
Constituentsurvey 20%
30%
50%
improvement on improvement on improvement
assessment
assessment
on
scores
scores
assessment
scores
Achieved
Source
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
STARGhanas
Outcome
RISK RATING
STAR-Ghana Grant Partner - ConstituentSurvey survey which carries out an Low

assessment of constituents views on how government accountability and responsiveness
is addressing their needs and also on how constituents ability to claim rights has
improved.
Govt ()
Other ()
Total ()
DFID SHARE (%)
0
2.3 m
39
Annex 5: Logframe
INPUTS (HR)
DFID (FTEs)
OUTPUT 2
Grant partner engagement in

policy
formulation,
implementation,
and
monitoring enhanced
Public access (including private

sector) to budget, policy, and
performance information
Planned
Baseline
2011
OpenBudget
Index:54 (2010)
Public availability
of sector and
overall
MDBS
PAF
reports
against triggers
and targets: 1
(2009)
Milestone 1
2012
58 (2012)
Milestone 2
2013
60 (2013)
Target (date)
2015
65 (2015)
65
68
70
DA
FOAT
Transparency
sub-component
12
scores (2008)
62
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.
Baseline
Milestone
1 Milestone
2 Target (2015)
(2011)
(2012)
(2013)
Assumptio
n
STARGhana
is
able to
respond
proactively
to capacity
needs
or
gaps of its
grant
partners
The power
of
vested
interests
who
oppose
increased
voice and
accountabili
ty do not
increase
beyond the
capacity of
civil society
to respond
STARGhana
grant
partners
support and
take
up
gender
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
40
Annex 5: Logframe
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
50%
Effective monitoring initiatives

undertaken by grant partners
that improve accountability and
responsiveness of government,
private sector and traditional
authorities.
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.Subnational refers to activities at District and sub-District levels.
G-rap Practice report for baseline source
G-rap grantee narrative report
Baseline
Milestone 1
Milestone 2
Target (2015)
(2011)
(2012)
(2013)
Planned
Number
of 50%
of
all 50% of the total 70% of the total
initiatives to be monitoring
initiatives
initiatives
established
in initiatives
advance gender advance gender
Year 1
assessed having equality
and equality
and
effect on policy social inclusion
social inclusion
or practice
Achieved
Source
INPUTS ()
DFID ()
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.
Govt ()
Other ()
Total ()
DFID SHARE (%)
0
INPUTS (HR)
RISK
RATING
9.9m
DFID (FTEs)
41
Annex 5: Logframe
OUTPUT 3
Increased use of civil

society evidence in policy
and practice
Grant partners generate

critical evidence on policy
issues and practices
Planned
Baseline
(2011)
Outputs to
established
Year 1
be
in
Policy
issues
and
practices
per grant partner
established
Milestone 1
(2012)
Quality
of
evidence based
outputs provide
strategic
information on
policy
issues
and practices
Milestone 2
(2013)
Evidence based
outputs influence
and inform policy
issues
and
practices
Target (2015)
Assumption
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
Achieved
Source

Targeted communication by
grant partners give better
practical understanding of
governance issues at all
levels
Grant partner reports/interviews - Baseline to be established when Year 1 grant disbursements

completed. Analysis of grant partner reports plus verification interviews where required
Baseline
Milestone 1
Milestone 2
Target (2015)
(2011)
(2012)
(2013)
Planned
No
of Grant partner 50%
of 80% of constituents
issues/practices
communication
constituents of which grant partners
to be established supports citizen grant
partners communicate
and
in Year 1
and
feel
they represent believe that
government
understand
the governance issues
awareness and clearly what the are changing and their
knowledge
of governance
awareness
has
issues
in issues
are increased as a result of
specific policies through
grant grant
partner
they are trying partner
information
and
to influence
communications
communications
Achieved
Source
15%
Quality of practices and

issues promoted by grant
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
Baseline (2011)
Milestone
1 Milestone
2 Target (2015)
(2012)
(2013)
Planned
No
of Grant partner
Spread of grant 70% of STAR-Ghana
approaches in
issues/practices
partner
projects implemented
Any
membership
/ staff
changes
within grant
partner
organisations
does not
alter
commitment
to groups
role in
advocacy
activities
The scale of
STARGhana
projects are
sufficient to
contribute to
a
measurable
change in
governance
at Outcome
level
Non-project
influences do
not
undermine
42
Annex 5: Logframe
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
INPUTS ()
DFID ()
INPUTS (HR)
DFID (FTEs)
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.
Govt ()
Other ()
Total ()
DFID SHARE (%)
0
OUTPUT 4
Improve
Representative,
oversight
and
Legislative
Functions
of
selected
Legislative
Reduction of turnaround time
from when bills are introduced in
Parliament to the enactment of
the laws
Oversight
Evidence of parliamentary
RISK
RATING
2.7m
Baseline (2011)
Planned
5 years
Milestone
(2012)
4 years
Milestone
(2013)
4 years
Target
(2015)
2 years
Assumption
Achieved
Source
Parliamentary Records, Records of the table room, Hansard
Records of select committee
Baseline (2011)
Milestone
1 Milestone
2
(2012)
(2013)
13
Planned
Average of 1 Average of 1 Average of 2
field visit per field visit per field visit per
Target
(2015)
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
43
Annex 5: Logframe
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
committee
per
year
committee
per
per year per

committee
Achieved
Source
15%
Representation
Number
and
outcomesof
Parliament
interactions
with
citizens at all levels (national and
sub-national)
INPUTS ()
DFID ()
INPUTS (HR)
DFID (FTEs)
Select Committees, Hansard, and grantees reports

Appropriations Act, Records of committees, STAR grantees reports, committees work
around the government business cycle
Baseline (2011)
Milestone
1 Milestone
2 Target
(2012)
(2013)
(2015)
Planned
To
be To
be To
be To
be
determined
determined
determined
determined
Achieved
Source
RISK
RATING
Office of theClerk of Parliament

Grantees Report, newspapers reports, select committee report
Govt ()
Other ()
Total ()
0
DFID SHARE (%)
1.6
44
Annex 5: Logframe
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. Womens 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

45
Annex 5: Logframe
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-Ghanas
work with CSOs. With this in mind, less weight should be given to this indicator as a measure of
STAR-Ghanas 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-Ghanas 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
46
Annex 5: Logframe
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.
47
ANNEX 6: RESULTS BASED FRAMEWORK
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
June11
(define by gender impact
as appropriate)
Final Result17 Aug 11

(define results by gender impact as
appropriate)
Result 1:
Result 2:
Result 3:
48
ANNEX 7: QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT
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)
49
Annex 7: Quarterly Progress Report Format
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
18
back up the claims made, and copies of supporting material are annexed to this report
Baseline
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
19
indicator
Indicator 2:
Insert indicator (... same advice as above).
Indicator 3:
Insert indicator (... same advice as above).
Key activities
completed:
Actual to date
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-Ghanas
intervention whether directly, or through STAR-Ghanas 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)
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.
50
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 STARGhana 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?
51
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)
52
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:
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
Average Cost
Comment
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.
53
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
54

M&e Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M&e Framework

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M&e Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STAR-GHANA MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

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

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

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

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

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

ANNEX 1 - GLOSSARY OF TERMS...............................................................................27

ANNEX 2 OUTCOME MAPPING.............................................................................30

ANNEX 3 - OUTCOME MONITORING WORKSHEET..............................................31

ANNEX 4 - RESULTS STORIES & MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.......................33

ANNEX 6 RESULTS BASED FRAMEWORK...........................................................48

ANNEX 7 QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT......................................49

A NEW CONTEXT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS

Introducing the M&E Framework

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

Monitoring and Evaluation Priorities

Figure 1: The Government Business Cycle

Thus, our theory of change says that:

Our approach is strongly informed by a

Change will not only occur by working with

There is a private sector cycle that relates to

The cycle does not just involve Government.

THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

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

responsiveness of government, private sector and traditional authorities

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.

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

Figure 2: Good Governance

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

Grant partners demonstrating organization

Focuses specifically on capacity

and technical capability to fulfil their mandates

achieve results. Milestones

Civil Society actions supported by grant

Focus is on linking local level

Rights claimed and realised by grant partner

Focuses on the extent to which

Public access (including private sector) to

Quality of representations and submissions

Focus on the extent to which

Effective monitoring initiatives undertaken by

Measures the extent to which

Grant partners generate critical evidence on

Measures the extent of the

Milestones present process of

Focus is the extent to which

Quality of practices and issues promoted by

Measures the extent to which

Legislative - Reduction of turnaround time

Measures the extent of efficient

Oversight - Evidence of parliamentary

Measures the extent of quality

Representation - Number and outcomes of

Measures the extent to which