Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Tentative Operational Annexes

Monitoring, Evaluation and
Learning
Tentative Operational Annexes
Ministry of Agriculture
Addis Ababa
1
Table of Contents
SECTION 1. ABOUT THIS MANUAL ...................................................................................... 3
1.1. Overview of the PSNP Operations Manuals ................................................................. 3
1.2. Main users of MEL Tentative Guideline....................................................................... 5
1.3. What is new in this version of the MEL System ............................................................ 5
Section 2: The PSNP5 MEL system ...................................................................................... 8
2.1. The MEL System...................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Result Reporting ................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Consideration of cross cutting themes in MEL ........................................................... 12
Section 3. .................................................................. PSNP log frame and result framework
........................................................................................................................................ 13
4.1. Coordination mechanism....................................................................................... 15
4.2. Roles and responsibilities for MEL............................................................................ 16
4.3. Other Monitoring and Management Tools ................................................................ 18
4.4. Detailed monitoring and reporting roles and responsibilities ....................................... 20
4.5. Adaptive management ........................................................................................... 27
Section 5: MEL implementation....................................................................................... 28
5.1. Reporting process and timeline .............................................................................. 28
5.2. Reporting schedule................................................................................................ 28
5.3. Assessments and Evaluations .................................................................................. 29
5.4. MIS and Mapped PW Database ............................................................................... 32
5.5. Feedback and adjustment mechanism of MEL ........................................................... 32
Appendix 1. Log frame and result framework ..................................................................... 33
2
SECTION 1. ABOUT THIS MANUAL
1.1. Overview of the PSNP Operations Manuals
The PSNP 5 operational procedures are described in a series of Operations Manuals and Operational
Annexes. Operations Manuals and Operational Annexes constitute a set of policies, rules and
procedures that implementers must follow. Audits and spot-checks are conducted with the goal to
ensure that these rules and procedures are properly complied with by implementers.
Operations Manuals
Vol 1: General PSNP Manual
This is an Introduction section introducing the PSNP’s background, context, goal, and outcomes. The
introduction section also presents the PSNP’s outputs and how they relate to the various components,
along with a discussion of programme principles, scale and scope, safeguards, and an overview of
what is new in this phase of the PSNP.
Vol 2: PW Operations Manual
The Public Works (PW) Operations Manual describes the policies and processes that rule the
programme for the public works component, in order to efficiently and effectively implement the
programme. The volume starts with a description and the document is sub-divided into three Sections:
• Programme Policies and Parameters

• Programme Entry and Exit
• Public Work Implementation and Attendance
Vol 3: TDS Operations Manual
The Temporary Direct Support (TDS) Operations Manual describes the policies and processes that rule
the programme for the TDS component, in order to efficiently and effectively implement the
• TDS Programme Policies and Parameters

• TDS Enrolment and Exit
• Verification of Co-responsibilities and Payment of TDS
Vol 4: PDS Operations Manual
The Permanent Direct Support (PDS) Operations Manual describes the policies and processes that rule
the programme for the PDS component, in order to efficiently and effectively implement the
• PDS Programme Polices and Parameters

• PDS Entry and Exit
• Case Management of PDS Clients
Vol 5: Livelihoods Operations Manual
The Livelihoods Operations Manual describes the policies and processes that rule the programme for
the livelihoods component, the volume is sub-divided into:
• Livelihoods Programme Polices and Parameters

• Livelihoods Programme Implementation
3
• Livelihoods Related Analysis
Vol 6: Shock Responsiveness Operations Manual
The Shock Responsiveness Operations Manual describes PSNP’s response to shock and the impacts of
disasters through the establishment of a comprehensive and integrated shock responsiveness system.
Operational Annexes
OA 1: Targeting, registry and enrolment
The Targeting, registry and enrolment Operational Annex describes processes that the targeting of
households to become PSNP beneficiaries. It complements the two following operations Manuals: The
Public Works operations Manual, and the Permanent Direct Support operations manual.
OA 2: Payment Procedures
The payments Operational Annex describe the payment processes for permanent direct support and
for public works beneficiaries.
OA 3: Annual Planning
The Annual Planning Operational Annex describes the various planning activities that needs to take
place prior to commencing programme implementation.
OA 4: Resource Management
The Resource Management Operational Annex describes management of PSNP resources and is
divided into the following five chapters:
• Financial management
• Food management
• Procurement
• Physical resource management
OA 5: Grievance Redress Management (GRM)
The Grievance Redress Mechanism annex describes the means by which programme clients and
community members can raise grievances with different aspects of programme implementation and
get these grievances resolved.
OA 6: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)
The Monitoring and Evaluation Operational Annex describes the monitoring and reporting processes
for the programme along with a number of monitoring and evaluation tools.
OA 7: Capacity Development (CD)
The CD OA provides the systematic approach to annual programming of CD support for PSNP. It covers
the critical procedures and standards which must be applicable for the whole programme and across
all implementing agencies.
OA 8: Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)
4
The ESMF OA describes the potential environmental and social issues arising from PW and the
livelihoods component and identifies mitigation actions on how to address these issues. In addition,
certain technical aspects may be covered by guidelines. Guidelines are documents aiming at providing
guidance on certain technical aspects of programme implementation and are not binding in the same
way as are OMs and OAs. Guidelines must not contradict procedures described in manuals and
annexes.
1.2. Main users of MEL Tentative Guideline
The MEL Tentative Guideline describes processes that will help to assess how the programme is
performing compared to its objectives. The main users of the MEL Tentative Guideline are government
agencies and Implementing partners at different levels. The following is an illustrative list of main
users of the MEL Tentative Guideline including federal institutions and their lower structures at
regional, zonal, woreda, and kebele levels:
• Ministry of Agriculture (Federal Food Security Coordination Directorate (FSCD), Natural

Resource Development Directorate, Job Creation Directorate, Small Scale Irrigation
Directorate and other relevant directorates and work units and staff working in PSNP
• Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA) and staff working in PSNP
• Ministry of Finance and staff working in PSNP
• Ministry of Health and staff working in PSNP
• PSNP Technical Committees at all levels
• Food Security Task Forces (FSTFs) at all levels
• Aligned NGOs, DPs and UN agencies supporting the program implementation
Specifically, PSNP line managers of each IA, output focal unit coordinators, and M&E experts, GSD
mainstreaming officers and CD coordinators have direct roles and responsibilities for effective
functionality of the MEL system.
1.3. What is new in this version of the MEL System
PSNP5 retains many elements of the PSNP4 M&E system, including the majority of the tools and
processes. The following key changes introduced to the MEL system in PSNP5 aim to enhance
informed decision making and improve its effectiveness and contribution to the achievement of PSNP
objectives. The changes are:
• The introduction of the MIS system to rationalize, harmonize and smooth transparency of
information and its availability and move towards an increasingly electronic system, including
presentation of readily-available information
• The more explicit recognition that learning is an important function of M&E and the key enabler
of adaptive management
• Performance Based Conditions (PBCs): In PSNP 5 the use of PBCs is a key requirement and
precondition for achieving project objectives of selected programme components including
timeliness of transfer, MIS, E payment, etc.
1.3.1. The MEL system and MIS

A significant improvement in the MEL arrangements for PSNP5 will be the introduction of the MIS,
which will include an updated and consolidated beneficiary household registry, and also be linked to
the PW Mapped Database. The MIS will improve data accessibility and management by centralizing
5
and further standardizing the data collected through regular program operational processes like
retargeting, payment, etc. In addition, as woreda connectivity rolls out across PSNP woredas, the MIS
will be able to consolidate more rapidly data coming from decentralized levels to federal level, to
provide a better overview on program implementation.
The PSNP5 shift to a performance-based monitoring and evidence generating system is rooted in the
MIS. MEL is essential for effective functioning of program governance. It allows accountability for
results and enables ongoing learning and adaptive program management that ensures continuous
program improvement. The interface between the MEL system and MIS is a stage-by-stage process
until the MIS is fully functional at all levels.
MIS and Learning are among the key changes that are being introduced in PSNP5. The program is
increasingly reliant on information technology for its information management and learning. It
provides managers with accurate and timely information to support adaptive management towards
efficient and effective program implementation and achievement of intended results.
The MIS will generate various kinds of in-built and ad-hoc reports at various levels in each of the
PSNP output areas for effective monitoring, programme improvement and well informed
decision making. It will also generate information and indicators for monitoring and evaluation
of the outputs.
A centralized MIS will also improve transparency of program performance and allow the federal level
to identify risks and bottlenecks in a timely manner, make more informed decisions, and make
appropriate improvements to the program design and processes. By linking the MIS to the PW
Mapped Database, the program can have more consolidated information on the types and amount of
PW being implemented across regions, in space and time and clients’ participation.
An operational MIS creates new opportunities for more readily-available electronic data reporting
systems that can provide well-presented and analyzed information. PSNP5 will invest in reporting
software which is able to combine and analyze data, and present it in both tabular and graphic form,
producing reports, dashboards, and maps. This will mark a major enhancement in program data
transparency and
1.3.2. The MEL system and PBCs
PSNP5 is introducing PBCs that link incentives with critical program performance areas. PBCs are
important preconditions to achieving critical programme results, which in turn lead to realization of
its development objective, and to incentivize particularly challenging reforms.
FSCD coordinates the implementation of the PBCs and disbursement against achievements of the
targets will be made having proved that the achievements of performances are assessed based on the
MEL tools and process in place.
Table 1. PBC plan

2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
PBC Results
(EFY 2013) (EFY 2014) (EFY 2015) (EFY 2016) (EFY 2017)
PBC 1. Percentage of GoE contribution to core PSNP financing
Target No less than No less than No less than
26% 30% 32%
Allocated amount US$8 M US$8 M US$8 M
PBC 2. Percentage of payments made to core beneficiary households according to the program’s standards for timeliness
Target 60% 65% 70% 80%
Allocated amount US$9 M US$13.5M US$13.5M US$18 M
PBC 3. Number of core beneficiary households receiving their benefits in electronic accounts
Target 1,200,000 1,500,000
6
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
PBC Results
(EFY 2013) (EFY 2014) (EFY 2015) (EFY 2016) (EFY 2017)
PBC 1. Percentage of GoE contribution to core PSNP financing
Allocated amount US$6 M US$9 M
PBC 4. Preparation and adoption of a Geographic Expansion and Caseload Allocation Plan
Target - - - - -
Allocated amount US$2.0 M
(Lump sum as long as
achieved by February
EFY13(
PBC 5.Number of new woredas in which PSNP systems have been established and are being used for core PSNP payments
Target 70
Allocated amount US$21 M
Disbursement modality: US$300,000 per new woreda as listed in expansion plan up to a

maximum of 70 woredas
PBC 6. Key shock-responsive systems established and operational
Target 6.1 GoE develops 6.2a Early warning 6.2b Early 6.2c Early 6.2d Early
and adopts dashboard published at Warning Warning Warning
scalability manual least twice in period Dashboard Dashboard Dashboard
September to February published by published by published by
EFY 2014 NDRMC three NDRMC three NDRMC three
6.3a FSCD prepares an times in times in times in
Annual Drought period March period March period March
Response Assistance EFY 2014 to EFY 2015 to EFY 2016 to
Plan and circulates it by February EFY February EFY February EFY
November 3, EFY 2014 2015 2016 2017
6.4.a FSCD prepares 6.3b FSCD 6.3c FSCD 6.3d FSCD
Quarterly Drought prepares an prepares an prepares an
Response Assistance Annual Annual Annual
Plan Updates on a Drought Drought Drought
quarterly basis in EFY Response Response Response
2014 Assistance Assistance Assistance
Plan and Plan and Plan and
circulates it circulates it circulates it
by November by November by November
3, EFY 2015 3, EFY 2016 3, EFY 2017
6.4.b FSCD 6.6.c FSCD
prepares prepares
Quarterly Quarterly
Drought Drought
Response Response
Assistance Assistance
Plan Updates Plan Updates
on a quarterly on a quarterly
basis in EFY basis in EFY
2015 2016
Allocated amount US$1.5 M US$2.0 M US$2.0 M US$2.0 M US$1.5 M
PBC 7. Number of woredas using MIS for key program functions and connected to the federal MIS server
Target 250 of the 340 of the woredas
woredas supported by the
supported by the program in EFY 2012
program in EFY are using MIS for key
2012 are using program functions
MIS for key
program
functions
Allocated amount US$12.4 M US$12.6 M
7
SECTION 2: THE PSNP5 MEL SYSTEM
2.1. The MEL System

The functionality and effectiveness of the MEL system of a flagship programme like PSNP is influenced
very much by its size of investment, scope of geographical coverage, implementation modalities used,
the nature of stakeholders involved, and the implementation approach evolved over time.
The main purpose of the PSNP MEL system is for implementers to assess how the programme is doing
against its objectives, whether it is working efficiently and effectively, and whether it is having impact
– and, by analyzing these factors, to learn how to do things better. MEL allows implementers at all
levels (woreda, regional, and federal) and across all agencies to understand whether or not plans are
working, by providing them with the evidence they need to:
• Improve PSNP management at all implementation levels
• Improve transparency and accountability to ensure that programme resources are being
used to meet the intended purposes
• Draw lessons from experience to improve the approach of one or more programme
components
• Demonstrate efficient and effective resources use
On paper (according to the PIM document), the PSNP has a variety of MEL tools designed to provide
information on the performance of each aspect of the programme. These tools range from monitoring
reports, which are supposed to provide regular information on day-to-day implementation at the local
level, to resource management audits, to regular reviews of the efficacy of PW planning and
implementation, to biannual assessments of direct programme impact on households. This OA
provides guidance on MEL activities expected to be carried out during the programme implementation
period.
To deliver on its objectives, PSNP5 MEL is seen as a holistic system rather than focusing on its
component parts. The PSNP5 MEL system has the following elements, as presented in Figure 1:
1. The PSNP5 log frame, which defines the expected PSNP5 achievements and provides the
basis for assessment of success
2. The PSNP5 results framework, which deepens the log frame to define in detail data needs
for proper program assessment and management at all levels, from activity and task level
right up to goal level
3. The routine monitoring system, which reports at activity and output level, and includes the
MIS
4. The periodic monitoring system, which conducts regular time-bound assessments on
progress that is not well-captured by the routine monitoring system, and which reports at
activity and output level
5. The evaluation system, which conducts specific assessments on a regular schedule aimed at
reporting at output and outcome level
6. The decision-making system, which links learning to management and enables adaptive
management
8
Figure 1. The MEL System
The PSNP5 MEL system is built upon a number of specific tools, each of which play a specific role
within the system, and all of which combine to achieve the objectives of the system. The various tools
for MEL in PSNP5 are described in Table 2.
Table 2. Specific tools comprising the MEL system

Tools Description of tool Frequency
1. Routine monitoring
Monitoring • Regular collection of information at the activity and Monthly from
reports output levels, providing quality and learning woreda to Regional
information and quantification of work done – and level; quarterly to
aligned with the MIS Federal level
Interim • Quarterly and annual financial reports provide Monthly at woreda
Financial information on budget expenditure according to level and from
Reports agreed line items woreda to region.
Quarterly at regional
level, from regional
to federal, and at
federal level.
Information • Information collection from a sample of woredas Every two weeks
center reports largely focused on timeliness of transfers, but also
includes price data.
• This will be phased out as the MIS comes on-stream.
Tracking of • Technical monitoring of the full suite of services from Monthly
client a household perspective
participation • Facilitated by the client card
9
2. Periodic monitoring
Spot Checks • Extent to which actual implementation of PSNP Every six months, in
complies with program guidelines time to inform the
• Program data verification JRIS
• Implementation progress on strategic program
decisions
Joint Review & • Assessment of implementation at kebele, woreda Every six months,
Implementation and regional levels timed to inform
Support (JRIS) • Progress towards achievement of outputs and government
outcomes planning cycles
• Examination of assumptions holding true and
remedial measures
• Progress towards achievement of annual plans
• Planning actions to enhance performance
Rapid • Assessment of implementation at kebele, woreda Every quarter
Responsive and regional to address and solve selected issues
Mechanism • Progress towards achievement of annual plans
• Planning actions to enhance performance
•
Mid-Term • Progress towards achievement of outcome and After 2.5 years of
Review PSNP5 design implementation of
new phase
Annual • Wage rate tracer study to set an appropriate wage • Annual
Assessments rate for the PSNP
• Joint PW Review (planning) to assess the adequacy • Annual
of PSNP PW plans
• Joint PW Review (technical) to review the quality • Annual
and sustainability of PSNP PW
• Risk Financing (RF) Review to determine the • As needed
effectiveness of the RF response, if triggered
• Grievance Redress Mechanism Review to assess the • Annual
functioning of the appeals and complaints system
• Independent Procurement Assessment to review
procurement practices at woreda level • Annual
• Livelihoods review Planning review to assess the • Annual

adequacy of livelihoods plans, technical review to
review the quality of livelihoods implementation • Annual
• Annual Independent Procurement Assessment to
review procurement processes at woreda level
Audits • The Financial Audit includes an audit of accounts; • Quarterly
systems audit; and review of transactions to clients rolling, annual
to ensure that funds were used for purposes
intended. • Annual
• The Commodity Audit review to ensure in-kind
resources are used for the purpose intended
Ad hoc studies • Ad hoc studies provide decision makers with • As needed
detailed information on specific areas of concern.
10
3. Evaluation
Evaluations • Social Assessment to confirm the effectiveness of • Once
program targeting and assess relevant social issues
• PW and Livelihoods Impact Assessment to determine
if the objective of the PSNP PW and Livelihoods • Every two years
were met • Every two years
• Biannual Impact Evaluation, a regionally
representative household survey, to assess
outcomes and impacts of all program outputs • As needed
• Risk Financing impact assessment to determine if
the objectives of Risk Financing were met
Together, these MEL tools will provide useful information to PSNP implementers, planners, decision-
makers, oversight bodies, clients, and funders. It will capture the information necessary to ensure that
feedback on program performance will enable stakeholders to adjust program implementation, or
even design, when required. Furthermore, the MEL elements provide evidence that enables the
programme accountability mechanisms to operate.
2.2. Result Reporting

The reporting on results is a key element of the MEL system. Table 3 summarizes which elements of
the MEL system will provide reporting against different levels of the PSNP5 log frame, and
responsibilities and accountabilities.
Table 3. Reporting on log frame levels

Element of log frame Process/data source Responsible Accountable
Goal GOE/MoA FSCD FSCD
Outcome Impact evaluations FSCD FSCD
Periodic assessments FSCD FSCD
JRIS FSCD FSCD
Outputs Routine monitoring DAs, Kebele, Regional FS
Woreda,
regions/zones and
federal
Periodic assessments FSCD FSCD
JRIS FSCD FSCD
Activities Routine monitoring DAs, Kebeles, Regional FS and
Woredas regions sector offices
and federal
Spot checks FSCD
FSCD
Specific studies FSCD FSCD
Assumptions Program risk management processes FSCD, CMCO FSCD
JRIS FSCD FSCD
11
2.3. Consideration of cross cutting themes in MEL
PSNP adopts a strategy of mainstreaming certain issues across outputs to avoid marginalization and
weak implementation. These issues fall into two categories:
• Issues necessary for output teams to be able to deliver expected results, including systems
development, capacity development, good governance, grievance mechanisms, performance
standards, communication, and information technology, and
• Cross-cutting issues which the program requires to be internalized in all implementation
efforts such as gender and social development, nutrition, and environmental protection.
While the responsibility for addressing these issues is given to output teams, and is also internalized
in TOR for elements of the governance structure, Output 6 provides oversight and management to the
MEL system to ensure effective mainstreaming of all issues across the program by carrying out the
following key activities:
• Monitor effectiveness of output teams at mainstreaming issues as required
• Identify challenges swiftly and ensure remedial actions are taken
12
SECTION 3. PSNP LOG FRAME AND RESULT FRAMEWORK
The PSNP’s logical framework (provided in the annex below) outlines the programme’s goal, outcome,
outputs, and activities and sets out the indicators designed to measure their achievement. In addition
to these indicators, a set of monitoring indicators tracks the regular implementation of programme
activities. Taken together, this log frame and set of monitoring indicators serve as the basis for
monitoring programme efficiency and effectiveness and provide regular information to implementers
and decision-makers on programme performance. Additional detail on monitoring indicators and
processes will be provided in an updated MEL OA.
The PSNP log frame is organised according to the following six outputs:
• Output 1. Timely and adequate transfers received by eligible core caseload of PSNP clients
• Output 2. Shock-responsive transfers received by eligible clients when needed
• Output 3. PW respond to community livelihood needs and contribute to disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation
• Output 4. Linkages to available social services facilitated for core PSNP clients with emphasis
on PDS and TDS
• Output 5. Tailored livelihood options accessed by eligible PSNP clients
• Output 6. PSNP management and capacity enhanced
Accordingly, PSNP monitoring and reporting will assess the progress of the programme towards these
outputs. Table 4 provides an overview of the PSNP’s outputs and highlights which programme
components contribute to them.
Table 4. PSNP5 Outputs and respective key activity areas

Output Key Activities
1: Timely and adequate transfers • Target clients for PSNP caseload
received by eligible core caseload of • Manage cash and food resources
PSNP clients • Develop capacity to deliver Output 1
• Address gender, nutrition and social development
issues related to Output 1
2: Shock-Responsive transfers • Strengthen the national government-led early warning
received by eligible clients when system to monitor and predict drought shocks
needed • Establish pre-agreed rules on how to scale up
responses
• Develop annual drought response plans
• Expand PSNP geographic footprint to cover additional
drought-prone woredas
• Put in place a single delivery system and make timely
shock-responsive payments in line with Drought
Response Plans
• Develop capacity to deliver Output 2
3: PW respond to community • Develop integrated, climate-smart, gender and
livelihoods needs and contribute to nutrition sensitive annual PW plans that contribute to
disaster risk reduction, climate livelihood productivity
change adaptation and mitigation • Implement PW plans
• Monitor the implementation and impact of PW
13
4: Linkages to available social • Establish institutional arrangements to implement the
services facilitated for core PSNP component
clients with emphasis on PDS and • Identify available services and clients’ needs
TDS • Roll out linkages to social services
• Monitor linkages to social services
5: Tailored livelihood options • Prepare and plan for livelihoods interventions
accessed by eligible PSNP clients • Implement livelihoods interventions
• Monitor and evaluate livelihoods interventions
6: PSNP management and capacity • Ensure effective financial management
enhanced • Ensure effective commodity management
• Ensure effective procurement that meets PSNP and DP
needs and standards
• Ensure effective physical resource management that
meets PSNP performance standards
• Ensure effective human resource management
• Ensure effective management information systems
• Ensure effective PSNP planning and reporting
• Ensure effective program monitoring, evaluation and
learning
• Ensure effective program governance
• Ensure PSNP capacity is adequate to implement the
program effectively
• Ensure effective strategic management of the PSNP
• Ensure effective mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues
14
Section 4: Coordination and responsibility for MEL
The main PSNP implementing agency continues to be the MoA, which, through the FSCD, is
responsible for the overall coordination and management of the programme, and the MEL system.
However, a number of departments, agencies and other line ministries will be responsible for
delivering specific project related services which relate to their mandate as summarized in the
program OM and OA.
Management of the MEL system is therefore the critical link between MEL and PSNP5 enhanced
performance: a well-managed system will deliver useful information that allows key decisions to be
made where needed.
4.1. Coordination mechanism
The PSNP5 design has a comprehensive organizational structure reflecting multiple implementation
actors and their associated roles and responsibilities in place for the effective functioning of PSNP5 in
general, and for regulating the planning, monitoring, and reporting of its activities in particular.
Regular programme planning, monitoring and reporting in the MoA is structured as a downstream
process whereby programme planning, monitoring and reporting guidelines and tools , and planning
support move down from each of the federal coordination units to their corresponding coordination
units at regional and woreda levels. As well, there is an upstream process whereby programme
planning, monitoring, and reporting starts at community level and moves upwards for successive
consolidation, reviews, and approvals from kebele to woreda, zone, region, and federal levels, in that
order.
In line with the development of the PSNP5 MEL system, the planning and reporting templates, as
generated at the federal level, need to be very comprehensive and detailed, and improve quantitative
reporting. To achieve this, all implementers will be required to have the same understanding in
responding to the log-frame targets for the respective activities. Along with the development of the
MIS, the FSCD will revise PSNP planning, monitoring, and reporting templates and communicate these
to regions and IAs.
Stakeholder Coordination
At federal level, key PSNP5 stakeholders participate in implementation of the programme through the
programme’s governance and coordination arrangements. These are the Coordination and
Management Committee (CMC) that reports to the Joint Strategic Oversight Committee (JSOC) and
the output based Technical Committees (TCs) that report to CMC, which also includes the Programme
Management and Capacity output. The TCs refer to the Transfers TC (for output 1 & 2), the PW TC,
Linkages TC, and the Livelihoods TC. The CMC will establish theme-based working groups, including
MEL, CD etc.
At regional and woreda levels, the programme governance and coordination structures such as the
Programme Steering Committee, the Food Security Task Force (FSTF) and the output-based TCs will
be strengthened to play their roles effectively.
The degree of stakeholders’ engagement in those TCs and TFs should be consistent and regular as per
the schedules stipulated in the PSNP5 design and in the Annual Planning OA. Regular and consistent
participation of stakeholders is critical in terms of ensuring the completeness of sectoral reporting and
subsequent decision-making. FSCD will update existing Committee ToR in line with the revised roles
and responsibilities of the different PSNP5 committees.
15
The MEL approach needs to ensure the active involvement of all sectors in the monitoring and
reporting activities of the programme. Partners are expected to participate in MEL activities of the
programme by (i) actively participating in the monitoring activities and joining the different level
coordination structures mentioned above, (ii) preparing their performance and monitoring reports as
per the standard templates, and submitting them on time for compilation and analysis by FSCD, (iii)
actively participating in joint field monitoring and missions, and (iv) participating in annual review and
planning consultation workshops. Partners should also plan their activities in a collaborative and
participatory manner.
The degree of complementarity among regular M&E and information centres at federal, regional and
woreda levels (FIC/RIC/WIC) and even Commodity Management Coordination Office (CMCOs) will be
strengthened though two way communications. The types of MEL support provided from federal level
to the regions are through the FIC, RRM, JRIS missions, TCs and TFs, other periodic monitoring
activities, and training by the IAs.
Federal PSNP implementers often request information from the regions, as well as directly from the
woredas. PSNP reporting templates will include all types of data that address the needs of different
stakeholders. In this regard the MIS will contribute in improving the quality and accuracy of the data.
When official reports do not meet the data requirements, the federal level will utilize direct
information gathering, as needed. The MEL system and tools in place are expected to ensure the
quality and accuracy of the data that is submitted through the relevant templates and reporting forms.
4.2. Roles and responsibilities for MEL

Overall responsibility for the effective functioning of the MEL system will be with FSCD, under plans
for delivery of PSNP5 Output 6. This leadership role will itself be overseen by the program governance
arrangements described in section 4.1.
The regular monitoring system, which includes kebele and woreda monthly and quarterly monitoring
reports, regional and federal quarterly reports, and interim financial reports, is aligned with the PSNP
institutional implementation responsibilities.
Table 5 lays out the roles and responsibilities for MEL tools, all of which fall under the overall lead of
FSCD under its mandates for Output 6.
Table 5. Roles and responsibilities for MEL tools
Types of reports Responsible Parties
Monitoring Woreda Level
Reports • DAs collect and compile activity information and client tracking
information at kebele level
• Health Extension Workers monitor client participation in soft
conditionalities and other nutrition Behaviour Change Communication
• WEWD or WOF monitors food transfer
• WOF monitors cash transfer
• WOLSA, monitors assistance provided to permanent direct support
clients
Regional Level
• The Natural Resources Desk compiles PW related information from
various line agencies (water, education, roads, health, etc.)
• The Food Security/Extension Process consolidates and analyses
monitoring reports on livelihoods activities from Cooperative Office,
Rural Job Creation, MSE and Labour and Social Affairs
16
• Regional food security office compile PSNP monitoring reports and send
to Federal FSCD
Federal Level
• The Natural Resources management directorate compiles PW related
information from various line agencies (water, education, roads, health,
etc.)
• FSCD through Livelihood coordination unit compiler livelihood reports
• Food Security analyses and consolidates reports
Interim Woreda level

Financial • WOF submits the interim financial report to the Woreda Food Security
Reports Desk and to BOF on a monthly basis.
• The Woreda Food Security Desk shares relevant line item information
with TC chairs for Livelihoods, PW and Transfers and Resource
Management.
Regional level
• BOF consolidates woreda reports and provides the regional interim
financial report to channel one programs coordination directorate of
the MOF, and Regional Food Security Coordination Directorate on a
quarterly basis.
• The Regional Food Security Coordination Directorate shares relevant
line item information with TC chairs for Systems Building, Livelihoods,
PW, and Transfers and Resource Management.
Federal level
• MOF consolidates reports from regions and submits the federal interim
financial report to the Donor Chair and FSCD.
• FSCD shares relevant line item information with the four TC chairs.
Information • Woreda Food Security Desk collects information on timeliness of
Center Reports transfers and consolidates existing information on market prices for key
commodities, then submits information to the Regional Information
Centre (RIC) on a weekly basis.
• The RIC, within the Food Security Coordination Directorate, collects
information from all PSNP woredas and submits it to the Federal
Information Centre (FIC) on a weekly basis.
• The FIC, within the FSCD, collects RIC data by weekly to provide rapid
real-time information at a federal level and to verify accuracy of RIC
reporting.
Agreed Actions FSCD with support of DCT documents agreed actions from the Joint Review and
Aid Memoire Implementation Support (JRIS) mission
Annual PW Reviews - NRMD takes the lead in coordination with SSID and Regional PWFU
Assessments to organize twice-yearly reviews (first on planning, second on sub-project
implementation). FSCD, donors and NGOs participate.
GRM Review - The FSCD commissions this independent review, which looks at
whether proper procedures are followed and records kept in the appeal system.
17
Livelihoods Review - The FSCD takes the lead in coordinating with PW, AED, RJOCD,
MOLSA, TVET, JCC and Cooperative Promotion in these twice-yearly reviews (first
on planning, second on implementation). FSCD, donors and NGOs participate.
Procurement Review: FSCD selects and appoints a procurement auditor,

acceptable to the World Bank, to carry out an annual independent procurement
audit of the project. The Government submits the report to World Bank annually
sixty days after the end of the fiscal year.
Audits MOF commissions the general audit and the roving audit to ensure the
completeness and veracity of financial information included in the above financial
report. The audit must be compliant with World Bank audit requirements.
Commodity Audit - FSCD commissions this audit, which must be compliant with
World Bank audit requirements.
Evaluations Bi-annual Impact and Process Evaluation - Conducted by CSA with technical
support and analysis by an internationally recognized institution, the household
survey assesses PSNP outcomes and impacts. It includes both quantitative and
qualitative information.
PW and LH Impact and Process Assessment - NRMD commissions this assessment

of the impact of PSNP PW in a sample of watershed. It looks at both discernible
and potential impacts of PW.
Social Assessment - FSCD is responsible for commissioning this assessment.
Risk Financing Impact Assessment - FSCD commissions this impact assessment.
Adhoc studies FSCD and other implementers commission studies as needed with inputs from
donors.
4.3. Other Monitoring and Management Tools

Aside from regular monitoring reports, the PSNP employs a variety of M&E tools to obtain a real-time
picture of programme performance, to respond to problems as they arise, and to provide incentives
for improved performance.
INFORMATION CENTRES
Regional Information Centres
Regional Information Centres generate quality and real time data on selected areas of programme
performance to guide decision-making processes at regional and federal levels, and to ensure the
quality and effectiveness of PSNP service delivery. RICs collect data on the following topics:
• Transfer disbursement and timeliness
• Cereal prices
Federal Information Centre

The FIC, within the FSCD, collects RIC data in a weekly bases, and provide rapid real-time information
at the federal level and to verify the accuracy of RIC reporting. Hence, the FIC provides quality control
and data auditing, while providing program-wide analysis on program performance.
18
In the event that a RIC does not provide the necessary data in a timeline manner, the FIC will be
responsible for collecting the missing data until the problem is resolved at the regional level.
RAPID RESPONSE MECHANISM

The Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) addresses critical implementation problems as they occur. This
mechanism detects problems that warrant immediate attention and responds rapidly to resolve the
problems, thus reducing any potentially serious risk. Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) are regularly
deployed to kebele, woreda, and regional levels to monitor implementation progress. They may be
sent out in response to identified problems related to transfers timeliness, PW implementation,
livelihoods implementation, and capacity issues, among others. This is done through focus group
discussions with implementers, beneficiaries, and non-beneficiaries and a review of records. Teams
also follow up to solve any problems and ensure that consistent follow-up is provided.
Rapid Response Teams can be sent out from the federal, regional and woreda level, and are comprised
of representatives of relevant line departments as well as interested donors (federal) and NGOs
(woreda).
JOINT REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPERVISION (JRIS) MISSIONS

Twice per year, Government and Development Partners undertake a two-week Joint Review and
Implementation Supervision Mission. For one week, federal delegations travel to the regions to meet
with regional stakeholders and review regional programme implementation and progress towards
achieving the programme outputs and outcomes. The second week takes place at federal level, with
the participation of both regional and federal level stakeholders, to review overall programme
progress, monitor the implementation of the MOU and agree on solutions to address constraints.
Development Partners participate in both parts of the JRIS mission. The outcome of the mission is an
Aide Memoire which documents the discussion and agreements reached between the stakeholders
both at regional and federal levels.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The PMS is currently being designed and a new version of this module of the manual will be released
once it is ready for implementation.
The purpose of the performance management system is to:

• Motivate improvements in performance against the key performance targets through the use
of incentives
• Provide continuous, tailored support and capacity development to implementers that are not
meeting the minimum standards
• Enable management at all levels to make decisions and allocate resources in a way that leads
to PSNP performance improvements.
The performance management system based conditions thus requires a continuous stream of quality
data that provides timely information on programme performance in all woredas. This information
will be provided through regular monitoring as well as the Information Centre data.
The PMS will be both institutional and individual, tracking minimum staffing and programme
performance standards for programme implementation at all levels. The PMS includes performance
benchmarking, regular dissemination of performance results, and incentives for improving
performance. The PMS will be informed by a study to determine:
19
• Which performance metrics should be included. These may include the timeliness and quality
of financial reports and the implementation of gender provisions. It will be critical to consider
carefully which metrics should be included to incentivise quality in addition to quantity.
• How to set performance targets (e.g. set incentives based on achieving targets rather than
competing to be the top performer)
• Programme incentives as well as individual incentives. E.g. incorporate programme-related
tasks into Behaviour and Social Change Communication so that individuals obtain recognition
for performing programme-related tasks well.
FSCD will provide overall leadership and management of the implementation of the PMS.
4.4. Detailed monitoring and reporting roles and responsibilities

The sections below describe the flow of information to programme implementers for their analysis
and use, the consolidation of information at each level (to ensure sharing of information, maximisation
of synergies, and an overall view of the programme at each level), and vertical reporting to higher
levels. In addition to each of these steps, line departments at each level will share consolidated reports
with lower levels to ensure that lower levels receive feedback and benefit from information sharing.
Kebele monitoring and reporting

DAs are responsible for the majority of kebele-level monitoring and reporting for the PSNP.
Targeting and appeals. Following the targeting and annual retargeting processes, KFSTFs provide lists
of PSNP clients to the Woreda Food Security Desk. A list of permanent direct support clients should
also be provided to WOLSA where available.
Output 1 - Transfers. Transfers are not monitored at the kebele level, but rather at the woreda level.
Output 2 - Shock responsive. Shock responsive transfers are not monitored at the kebele level, but
rather at the woreda level like that of regular transfer.
Output 3 - PW. DAs compile information on PW implementation – the number of sub-projects

underway and completed – and submit it to the Natural Resources Desk on a monthly basis. DAs also
provide PW attendance sheets to the Woreda Food Security Desk. Once the mapped PW database is
operational, data will be available on each individual PW sub-project. As a result, reporting formats
for DAs will be updated to report on progress of individual sub-projects and enable more detailed
analysis of progress.
Output 4 - Links to available social services. Health Extension Workers report on soft conditionality
participation to the DA on a quarterly basis. Reporting on soft conditionalities participation differs
from other components and sub-components of the programme because it is tied to the client level.
Therefore, Health Extension Workers need to keep track of (and therefore report on) not how many
ANC visits happened during a given month or quarter, nor how many nutrition Behaviour Change
Communication sessions were organised, but rather the number of pregnant and lactating women
participating in soft conditionalities, and the number of antenatal care visits and B ehaviour Change
Communication sessions in which each woman participated. HEWs submit tracking forms for clients
to the DA on a quarterly basis. Other PDS linkage to social service would be monitor and reported
through MoLSa and its line offices at all levels.
Output 5 – Livelihoods. Livelihoods monitoring must track the participation of each individual client
(tied to his or her household) in programme activities. DAs and/or community facilitators compile
20
information on each client’s participation in livelihoods activities via the Livelihoods Checklist Tracker
and submit it to the Woreda Extension/Food Security Process on a quarterly basis.
WOREDA MONITORING AND REPORTING

Output 1 & 2 – Transfers. The Woreda Food Security Desk provides attendance sheets to WOFED,
which are entered into PASS and used for disbursement of transfers. RPASS monitors which household
member (male or female) receives the transfer, to provide woreda-level implementers with
information on transfer receipt (and its correlation with PW participation). This enables implementers
to pilot approaches to ensure that women equally benefit from transfers. It also enables the
compilation of knowledge on intra-household dynamics regarding transfers and PWs.
Following transfer disbursement, the Early Warning Desk provides food transfer information and
WOFED provides cash transfer information to the Food Security Desk at woreda level on a monthly
basis.
Output 3 - PW. The Natural Resources desk compiles PW-related information from various line
agencies (water, education, roads, health, etc.) at the woreda level, including quantity and quality,
and analyses it. Once the mapped PW database is operational, this analysis can include data on each
individual PW sub-project. Reports are then submitted to the Regional PW Focal Unit on a monthly
basis. The PW report includes a checklist on implementation of gender provisions.
Once operational, the mapped PW database will use GIS to map the location of PW projects along
with other information (year of implementation, etc.), while the mapped watershed database will use
GIS and satellite imagery to identify and track the physical condition of the watersheds, including land
use, land cover, and woody biomass, and monitor changes over time. To support effective PW
planning, monitoring and impact, the MIS will have a spatial component (using GIS) composed of a
mapped PW database and a mapped watershed database, which will complement the PW M&E
system.
Output 4 - Links to social services. The Woreda Food Security Desk collects information on client soft
conditionality participation from DAs. This information is also copied to the Woreda Health Office,
which then communicates with Health Extension Workers if it appears that a certain number of
temporary direct support clients are not regularly participating in soft conditionalities. Through this
process, constraints to clients’ participation are identified so that they can be effectively addressed.
Participation in community Behaviour Change Communication as a public work is also reviewed.
WOLSA also contributes to this report to include information on case management of permanent
direct support clients and shares this information with BOLSA. Other PDS linkage to social service
would be monitor and reported through BoLSa and its line offices at all levels.
The Woreda Food Security Desk/Process then compiles this information and include it in reports to
the regional level on a quarterly basis.
Output 5 – Livelihoods. On a quarterly basis, the Woreda Extension/Food Security Process, through
the Livelihoods Implementation and Coordination Unit, compiles all livelihoods information available
at woreda level, which includes client participation in financial literacy training, savings activities, and
the completion of livelihood checklists for crop and livestock pathways. This enables woreda level
implementers to ensure that livelihoods clients are making progress in the completion of livelihoods
checklists, and that they are receiving the appropriate training. Livelihood pathway information
includes crop and livestock and off farm livelihood information and wage employment information if
the woreda is selected for the wage employment pathway.
21
The woreda food security/extension process compile all kebeles’ livelihood information and
consolidate the woreda line offices livelihood reports. The woreda livelihood TC review the report and
submit it to the Woreda Food Security Process for compilation into the overall reports. The report is
also submitted to the Regional Extension/food security core Process and simultaneously with regional
food security via zone for compilation with information from TVET, RJOC, cooperative agency and MSE
and review by the regional Livelihoods TC. The regional livelihood implementation and coordination
unit will submit the approved livelihood report to regional food security.
Consolidation and analysis. The Food Security Desk receives data on outputs 1-5 and consolidates it
into a report, which is reviewed by WFSTF. The WFSTF then analyses the information to identify
implementation challenges and recommend programme adjustments, if necessary. This process
strengthens synergy between programme components and enables a woreda-level view of the entire
programme. This consolidated report is then submitted to the zonal and/or regional level.
ZONAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

In many regions, zones play an important role in monitoring and reporting to ensure the timely and
accurate consolidation of woreda-level reports. Zonal offices compile woreda-level reports and
analyse information. Depending on the need, these zones may have M&E experts assigned to lead this
process.
REGIONAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

Outputs 1 and 2 - Transfers: Regional Food Security compiles transfer reports from Woreda Food
Security Desks. Timeliness of transfers is monitored through Regional Information Centres on a weekly
basis to identify bottlenecks in the disbursement of cash and food transfers. If bottlenecks are
identified, Regional Food Security works with Early Warning and Response and BOFED/WOFEDs to
resolve them as rapidly as possible.
Output 3 – PW. The Regional Natural Resource Management Directorate (NRMD) compiles woreda
reports and reviews them to identify any implementation challenges. NRMD then prepares a
consolidated regional report. The PW Focal Unit exchanges information and shares reports with SLMP
on a quarterly basis in order to improve coordination between the programmes. Cons olidated regional
reports on PW are reviewed by the regional PW TC and submitted to Regional Food Security and to
the Federal NRMD on a quarterly basis.
Output 4 - Links to available social services. Regional Food Security compiles woreda reports on links
to social services into a regional report. The Bureau of Health shares information received from
Woreda Health Offices on the implementation of soft conditionalities with Regional Food Security to
cross-check information and ensure that adequate support is being provided by the regional level, as
needed. BOLSA also contributes to this report to include information on case management of
permanent direct support clients.
The Bureau of Health and BOLSA also share information on links to social services with the Federal
Ministry of Health and MOLSA, respectively.
Output 5/Livelihoods: The Regional Extension/food security Directorate compiles reports from each
woreda and each livelihoods implementing agency (Cooperative Agency, REMSEDA/TVET BOLSA, and
the Livestock Development Core Process, rural job opportunity creation) at the regional level. The
Livelihoods TC reviews the compiled report to identify any implementation challenges and to ensure
that adequate support is being provided by the regional level for woreda-level implementation. The
Regional Livelihood implementation and coordination unit then submits a consolidated livelihoods
22
report, reviewed by the Regional Livelihoods TC, to Regional Food Security Core Process on a quarterly
basis.
Consolidation and analysis: Regional Food Security compiles reports from outputs 1, to 6 into an
overall PSNP regional report. This consolidation process allows the analysis of the information to
identify implementation challenges and recommend programme adjustments, if necessary. It also
strengthens synergy between programme components and enables a regional-level view of the entire
programme.
The consolidated PSNP regional report is submitted by the Regional Food Security Coordination
Directorate to the FSCD on a quarterly basis.
FEDERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

Outputs 1 and 2 - Transfers: The Food Security Coordination Directorate aggregates reports from the
regions into a federal level report. Additionally, in line with the Memorandum of Understanding,
USAID and WFP, and other development partners, submit to FSCD on a quarterly basis information on
food resources, specifically: opening balances, receipts, distribution, transfers to clients, and ending
balances. For WFP, this information will be provided on receipts and distribution to the main hubs
only. For in-kind resources channelled through NGOs, the NGOs will report on these resources to FSCD.
Output 3 – PW. FSCD analyses regional PW reports and compiles them into a federal level report,
verifying data with NRMD, which, through a separate process, consolidates regional PW reports to
allow for accurate cross-checking of information with FSCD. PW reports are reviewed by the PW TC.
Output 4 - Links to social services. FSCD compiles regional reports on links to social services. The
Federal Ministry of Health and MOLSA review this report and contribute any additional information.
Output 5 – Livelihoods. The Livelihood implementation and coordination unit within FSCD analyses
livelihoods reports from the region and aggregates them into a federal level report, verifying data with
the Extension, RJOC and other Directorates within the ministry and federal cooperative agency.
Through a separate process, the livelihood implementation and coordination unit consolidates
regional livelihoods reports to allow for accurate cross-checking of information with other
directorates. Livelihoods reports are reviewed by the Livelihoods TC.
Consolidation and analysis. On a quarterly basis, FSCD analyses data on outputs 1 to 5 and data on
Management and Capacity Development (Output 6), including financial management data from MOF
and food management data from the Food Management coordination office. The FSCD shall compile
this information into reports on a quarterly basis and provide these reports to the Donor Coordination
Team and the State Minister, and with other ministries implementing PSNP.
23
Figure.1: Consolidation, Analysis and Reporting Relationships for Outputs 1-5
C on so li dat ed
An alysi s Ou tp ut 1 R epo r n g Out pu t 3 R ep or ng Ou tp ut 5 Re po r n g
R ep or n g
Ou tp ut A nn u a l P SNP
F eder al l eve l 1d at a Rep ort
analy sis, F oo d Sec ur ity
shar ing o f
Fed er al C oo rd ina on
i nfo rma on , O u tpu t FI C N RM Dir ect or ate Ex ten sion Di rec to rate
3 data Di rec to rat e -
an d M ini str y of
pr ogr am me Agr ic ult ur e
adj ust ment s as M O LS A FM O H
need ed O ut pu t
5 d ata
Re gion a l
PS NP Rep ort
O ut put
Regio nal lev el 1 d ata
analy sis, Re gi on al F oo d Ou tp u t 1 Ou tput 3 Ou tp u t 5
shar ing o f S ecur it y Re port R ep ort Re port
R egi on i nfo rma on , Ou tp ut -
an d 3 dat a B ur eau of N RM C or e C oo p Pr o mo
R IC s FS BO F ED Ex tensi on Co re Pr oces s
pr ogr am me Agr ic ult ur e Pr ocess B ur eau
adj ust ment s as
need ed O ut pu t M SE
EW C or e
54data BO LS A B OH Li vest ock B O LS A
Pr oc ess Agenc y
Z on al O ffi c e
Zon e Z onal O ffi ce
Ou tp ut o f Agri cu ltu re
Wo re da-lev el Outp ut 3 of Agri cul tu re
analy sis, 1 d at a
Re p ort
shar ing o f Wor eda F o od
Output 5
i nfo rma on , S ecu ri ty Desk Wor eda NR M
Food Ca sh Re p ort
an d O u tpu t - D es k
W or eda 3 data Tra ns fe rs Tr ansfe rs
pr ogr am me Wo red a Wor eda Ext ensio n
WOL SA
adj ust ment s as Agric ul tur e F S / E WR De sk/Pr oc ess
need ed Offi ce WO F ED WH O
Desk MSE Co op
O ut pu t
5 d ata Agen cy O ffic e
P u b lic W orks Liv elih oo d s Repor t
Lin ks to Socia l
Re port
Se rvice s Repo rt WO L SA L iv esto ck
So cial
Ke bel e F DP HEW DA
Wor k er
24
MONITORING OF GENDER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
This phase of the programme extends women’s participation in temporary direct support from the 4 th
month of pregnancy or confirmation of pregnancy (whichever is earlier) through the first year postpartum,
and introduces a new gender provision: priority targeting of female household heads for livelihoods
transfers, and ensuring that women have access to livelihoods interventions. In addition, women’s 50%
workload for PW, already implemented but not spelled out in the last PIM, is included.
The Women and Youth Affairs Directorate is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the
implementation of PIM gender provisions, but their actual implementation is the responsibility of each
implementing agency.
Table 6. PSNP Gender and Social Development Provisions

Entity Entity
GSD Provision Responsible for Responsible for
Implementation Monitoring
Transition of pregnant women to temporary direct support after first ANC visit (or
in the absence of such a visit the fourth month of pregnancy)
DA
Continuation of women’s participation in temporary direct support through 1 year
postpartum
Targeting priority for female-headed households for programme inclusion
Targeting priority PLWHA
Targeting priority for women in polygamous households CFSTFs and
KFSTFs WFSTF
Targeting priority for divorced women (during programme implementation)
Targeting priority for disabled people
Targeting priority for female household heads for livelihoods transfer
Permanent direct support for elders WOLSA
Permanent direct support for physically disabled people
Joint client card entitlement for husband and wife KFSTFs
Labour support for eligible labour-scarce households PWFU
Careful consideration of the needs of men and women and other vulnerable groups
in annual PW planning DAs monitor
KFSTFs during PW
PW projects shall reduce women’s regular work burden
planning
Construction of childcare centres at PW sites
Lighter tasks for women
Protection for children under 18 years from participating in PW
PW team composition should be balanced with men and women; women-only
PW Foreman/
teams for certain projects
woman, DA,
Women’s participation in PSNP decision making structure
Natural
Women as team leaders in PW
Resources Desk
Women’s 50% workload for PW
WFSTF
Women’s late arrival and early departure for PW
Travel distance to PW - PW site should not be far from village
Accessibility of livelihoods interventions – livelihoods activities (financial literacy
training, technical training, and business skills/marketing training) should be at DA
times and in locations accessible to women whenever possible
Resource distribution distance – distribution site should be not more than 3 hours’ Early Warning
walking distance from village Desk
25
Simple gender analysis and reporting tools will be used at all levels, with specific emphasis at woreda and
kebele, namely:
• A simplified gender analysis monitoring-to-planning tool for PW, to be used by DA and Woreda
FSD/P.
• A checklist to monitor the implementation of PIM gender provisions to be used by the Woreda
Food Security Desk (with support by the Bureau of Women’s Affairs and gender focal points) during
PW reviews or monthly reviews
The impact assessment and other surveys will provide sex disaggregated data throughout for all client-level
indicators, and data disaggregated by household head for household-level indicators, as outlined in the PIM
logframe.
Monitoring and Reporting on Outputs 4 and 6

MONITORING AND REPORTING ON PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT AND CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT
MoLSA will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on output 4, PDS linkage and other PSNP related
social development activities carried out through its line offices at all levels. Other linkage activities being
carried out though PW and FSCD will be monitored and reported though FSCD. Programme management
and capacity enhancing monitoring and reporting is important and occurs at the federal, regional and
woreda levels. This section will be completed once the institutional infrastructure is cleared out at federal
level.
RESOURCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

The PSNP closely monitors the management of financial resources, food resources and physical assets in
the programme. Financial management reports are provided by WOFED, BOFED and MOF through interim
financial reports (IFRs). Food management reports are the responsibility of Food Management Focal Points
at regional level and the Food Management coordination office at federal level. Procurement and asset
management reports are managed by each implementing agency.
Figure 2: Financial and Food Management Reporting
26
4.5. Adaptive management
Adaptive management is the process by which monitoring data on progress to date is used to identify areas
where improvements to implementation can be made to enhance performance in line with program
objectives as defined in the PSNP logframe, leading to timely action being taken. Adaptive management
requires useful evidence to be considered by decision-making bodies at the right time. It also requires a
strategic approach based on clarity on what is expected to be achieved in terms of overall program
objectives. The MIS will greatly enhance and facilitate the use of adaptive management at all levels by
providing accurate, timely and appropriate information that will allow managers to learn and understand
the changes required to improve program performance.
Adaptive management is practiced at woreda, regional and federal levels, with the nature of decision-
making defined by institutional mandates within the program:
• At woreda level decisions will be made based on routine monitoring. These decisions will relate to
adjustments of woreda level implementation.
• At regional level decisions will be made based on routine monitoring, specific regional-level
events, and studies, and also based on information provided by federal studies and information
provided by federal level. These decisions will relate to adjustments of regional level
implementation.
• At federal level decisions will be based on all elements of the MEL system and on federal level
exchange of ideas. Federal level decisions relate to the whole program, and will be mediated
through the wider program planning and governance systems.
27
SECTION 5: MEL IMPLEMENTATION
5.1. Reporting process and timeline

5.1.1. Regular monitoring and reporting - level & output
The regular monitoring system, which includes kebele and woreda monthly and quarterly monitoring
reports, regional and federal quarterly reports, and interim financial reports, is aligned with PSNP
institutional implementation responsibilities. Hence primary responsibility for compiling information and
reporting is assigned to the following agencies:
• Transfers: Food Security (with input on food transfers from Early Warning and input on cash
transfers from WOFED)
• Case management of permanent direct support clients: Labour and Social Affairs (once capacity is
built)
• PW: Natural Resource Management
• Soft conditionalities: Health (via FSCD)
• Livelihoods: Food security (with input from extension, federal cooperative agency, RJOC, MSE/TVET
Agency, JCC and Labour and Social Affairs)
In addition, MOF is responsible for monitoring of financial management, while the Food Management
coordination unit is responsible for monitoring of food management.
FSCD is responsible for overall program coordination and supervision; monitoring capacity building
activities and transfer rates. Food Security line agencies are also responsible for data review and analysis
as well as consolidation of all streams of information to generate a complete understanding of programme
implementation. These consolidated reports are shared with all implementing bodies at each level.
Reporting for woredas supported by USAID-financed NGOs

Reporting in woredas supported by USAID-financed NGOs is the responsibility of NGOs but follows the lines of
reporting outlined above. In these woredas, NGOs coordinate with the woreda to prepare a monthly progress
report that is submitted to the region by the agreed deadline. This information is consolidated together with
reports from all other PSNP woredas and submitted to the federal level. For commodity reports, NGOs report
through the QWICR system, as described under Part 4, Chapter 13, and USAID submits a consolidated report to the
Food Management Unit for inclusion in the overall commodity flow status report.
Within this overall structure, M&E staff at federal, regional, and zonal levels in each of the responsible
agencies provide technical backstopping to lower-level staff along with regular feedback on the quality of
reports.
Regular monitoring takes two forms: monitoring of programme activities, which is particularly important
for the disbursement of transfers and the completion of PW, and tracking of client participation, which is
particularly important for the livelihoods component and links to social services (although these aspects
also have regular monitoring of programme activities). Tracking of client participation entails technical
monitoring of the full suite of services from a household perspective, and is facilitated by the Client Card.
5.2. Reporting schedule

Reporting follows the government fiscal year, which begins on July 8 (Hamle 1) and ends on July 7 (Sene
30). Annual plans for the PSNP will be completed by Sene 30 and used as the basis for quarterly
28
achievement reports of the following fiscal year. Table7 presents the dates for submission of quarterly
reports at different administrative levels.
Table 7. Quarterly Reporting Schedule

Woreda reports Regional reports Federal reports
Quarter Period Covered
submitted submitted submitted
Jul 8 – Oct 10 Oct 15 Oct 25 Nov 9
Q1
(Hamle 1 – Meskerem 30) (Tikimt 5) (Tikimt 15) (Tikimt 30)
Oct 11 – Jan 8 Jan 13 Jan 23 Feb 7
Q2
(Tikimt 1 – Tahisas 30) (Tir 5) (Tir 15) (Tir 30)
Jan 9 – Apr 8 Apr 13 Apr 23 May 8
Q3 (Tir 1 – Megabit 30) (Miazia 5) (Miazia 15) (Miazia 30)
Apr 9 – July 7 July 12 July 10 August 6
Q4
Miazia 1– Sene 30) (Hamle 5) (Hamle 15) (Hamle 230)
All monitoring reports include as a minimum the following four categories of information:
1. Physical measures of outputs provided by project activity
2. Monetary measures of expenditures on inputs by project activity
3. Number of clients reached by programme, broken down into category of household and/or
individual client. Households will be categorised into male-headed and female-headed, and
individual clients will be disaggregated by gender.
4. Problems encountered and corrective measures taken
5.3. Assessments and Evaluations

The PSNP has a series of assessments and evaluations to dig deeper into the outcomes and impact of the
programme on households as well as communities (e.g. through PW), and to ensure accountable resource
management.
In evaluations, high-level outcome indicators will be analysed to allow comparisons between PSNP clients,
a control group (or counterfactual) and those who have exited the programme (graduates). This will allow
an assessment of the impact of the programme on households participating in the programme, and the
contribution of the programme to achieving sustainable livelihood security. Furthermore, data will be
disaggregated to assess the differing impacts by gender of household head and gender of the household
member participating in livelihood enhancing activities (whether credit or livelihood transfer). These
assessments are summarised in Table 8.
29
Table 8. Summary of evaluation and assessment tools
Examples of
Types of reports Information provided Responsible Parties Frequency
indicators
Annual Joint PW and Livelihoods NRMD takes the lead in coordination with Regional PWFU to Annual • Proportion of PW
Assessments Reviews: organise these twice-yearly reviews (first on planning, second Plans integrated
• Planning review to assess the on sub-project implementation). FSCD, donors and NGOs with woreda
adequacy of PSNP PW plans participate. development
• Technical review to review the plans
quality and sustainability of • Proportion of PW
PSNP PW sub-projects
meeting
technical
standards
Grievance Redress Mechanism The FSCD commissions this independent review, which looks at Annual • Number and
Review to assess the functioning whether proper procedures are followed and records kept in the performance of
of the appeals and complaints appeal system. Appeals
system Committees
established
Livelihoods Review The Extension Directorate takes the lead in coordinating with Annual • Number of
• Planning review to assess the UJCFSA, MOLSA, TVET and Cooperative Promotion in these clients
adequacy of livelihoods plans twice-yearly reviews (first on planning, second on successfully
• Technical review to review the implementation). FSCD, donors and NGOs participate. linked to
quality of livelihoods employment
implementation
Annual Independent • FSCD selects and appoints a procurement auditor, acceptable to Annual • Volume of goods
Procurement Assessment to the World Bank, to carry out an annual independent procured
review procurement processes procurement audit of the project. The Government submits the
at woreda level report to World Bank annually sixty days after the end of the
fiscal year.
30
Examples of
Types of reports Information provided Responsible Parties Frequency
indicators
Audits The Financial Audit includes an MOFEC commissions the general audit and the roving audit to Six-monthly • Percent of
audit of accounts; systems audit; ensure the completeness and veracity of financial information (interim households
and review of transactions to included in the above financial report. The audit must be audit), receiving full
beneficiaries to ensure that compliant with World Bank audit requirements. rolling, payment
funds were used for purposes annual
intended.
The Commodity Audit review to FSCD commissions this audit, which must be compliant with Annual • Quality of food
ensure in-kind resources are World Bank audit requirements. stock records
used for the purpose intended
Evaluations Biannual Impact Evaluation, a Conducted by CSA with technical support and analysis by an Every two • Change in
regionally representative internationally recognised institution, the household survey years household food
household survey, to assess assesses outcomes and impacts of the PSNP. It includes both gap
outcomes and impacts of all quantitative and qualitative information.
program components
PW Impact Assessment to NRMD commissions this assessment of the impact of PSNP PW Every two • Benefit/cost ratio
determine if the objective of the in a sample of watershed. It looks at both discernible and years of PW sub-
PSNP PW were met potential impacts of PW. projects
Social Assessment to confirm The Social Development Task Force is responsible for Once • Qualitative
the effectiveness of program commissioning this assessment. review of
targeting and assess relevant targeting
social issues
Transitory Response Assessment FSCD commissions this impact assessment. As needed •
to determine if objectives were
met
Ad hoc studies Ad hoc studies provide decision FSCD and other implementers commission studies as needed As needed •
makers with detailed with inputs from donors
information on specific areas of
concern.
31
5.4. MIS and Mapped PW Database
The MIS is currently being designed and will comprise the National Household Registry mentioned in Part
2, Chapter 3 (Programme Entry and Exit) and the Mapped PW Database. A new version of this chapter of
the manual will be released once these elements have been designed and tested and are ready for
implementation.
5.5. Feedback and adjustment mechanism of MEL

There is a multitude of monitoring and reporting related technical support being provided by regions to
woredas and then woredas to kebeles and communities. These can be done either by the request of the
lower bodies or by the initiation of the higher bodies. The types of monitoring and reporting related
support that lower implementing bodies would get from higher administrative bodies include: human
resource support (recruiting TA); training on planning and reporting formats and PIM, training on
documentation of M&R on food management, PW, risk management, and on-the-job support. This
technical support needs to be intensified in the PSNP 5 programme by establishing an integrated formal
feedback communication mechanism and developing a format that can facilitate written feedback with a
directive for lower bodies to take immediate correction or adjustment of programme implementation.
32
Appendix 1. Log frame and result framework
Log frame
Level Expected Result Key Activities Indicators Assumptions
Goal Extreme poverty • Percentage of people living below the
reduced in PSNP poverty line in PSNP woredas
woredas • Total poverty-oriented expenditure of
PSNP households as a percentage of GDP
• Percentage of GoE contribution to core
PSNP financing
Outcome Enhanced • Number of new woredas in which PSNP Outcome to Goal
resilience to shocks systems have been established and are • Enhanced resilience to shocks enables
of extreme poor being used for core PSNP payments improvements in livelihood status for clients
and vulnerable • Average number of months that PSNP which are extremely poor
rural households in households report experiencing food • Improvements for extreme poor are sufficient to
PSNP woredas shortages in the past 12 months move above extreme poverty line
(disaggregated by male and female • People moving above extreme poverty line are
headed households) able to retain the gains and not fall back down
• Percentage of client households again
reporting use of harmful coping • Reductions in extreme poverty are sufficiently
strategies (disaggregated by male and long-term to be captured in poverty statistics
female headed households) • Other efforts to reduce extreme poverty
• Percentage Impact on clients’ per capita complement those of PSNP
monthly total consumption expenditure • Wider events in the economy and society do not
prevent reductions in extreme poverty
Output 1 Timely and Target clients for PSNP • Number of core rural PSNP program Output to Outcome
adequate transfers caseload clients (disaggregated by male (M) and • Eligible core caseload comprises the extreme
received by eligible Manage cash and food female (F)) poor and vulnerable
core caseload of resources • Percentage of payments made to core • Receipt of transfers enhances resilience to shocks
PSNP clients Develop capacity to deliver clients according to the program’s • Other non-transfer factors do not prevent
Output 1 performance standards for timeliness enhanced resilience to shocks
Address gender, nutrition and (disaggregated by PDS and TDS)
social development • Number of core client households Activity to Output
issues related to Output receiving their transfers in electronic • Targeting is effective and results accurately
1 accounts identify eligibility
• Percentage increase in average wage • Eligibility is clearly stated
rate relative to the annual food CPI • Gender is managed effectively in targeting
increase, for cash transfers clients process
• Constraints to timely cash transfers are overcome
33
• Issues with food management are successfully
resolved
• Cash and food for transfers are available when
needed
• Transfers are delivered to the intended recipients
• Transfers delivered to clients are readily accessed
• Transfer values reflect need
• Index-linked annual increments are implemented
• Capacity allows Output 1 to be implemented as
designed
• Gender, nutrition and social development issues
are effectively addressed by Output 1 team
Output 2 Shock-responsive Strengthen the national • Number of person months of assistance Output to Outcome
transfers received government-led early provided • Eligible clients are the extreme poor and
by eligible clients warning system to monitor • Preparation and adoption of a vulnerable
when needed and predict drought shocks geographic expansion and caseload • Transfers received are appropriate and adequate
Establish pre-agreed rules on allocation plan to enhance resilience to shocks
how to scale up responses • Key shock responsive systems • Other non-transfer factors do not prevent
Develop annual drought established and operational enhanced resilience to shocks
response plans
Expand geographic footprint Activity to Output
of PSNP to cover additional • Improvements to EWS are sufficient to be
drought-prone woredas effective as designed
Put in place a single delivery • Rules established are sufficient to enable an
system effective response
Make timely shock- • Drought response plans are developed in time
responsive payments in line and are of adequate quality
with Drought Response Plans • Drought response plans anticipate actual
Develop capacity to deliver challenges accurately
Output 2 • Reallocation of resources to drought-prone
Address gender, nutrition and woredas is effective
social development issues • Single delivery system is effective
related to Output 2
• Sufficient pre-financing for shock responsive
safety net against DRF plan is available
• Timing of transfers needed by extreme poor and
vulnerable is known
• Transfers are well-targeted and readily received
• Capacity allows Output 2 to be implemented as
designed
34
• Gender, nutrition, and social development issues
are effectively addressed by Output 2 team
Output 3 PW respond to Develop integrated, climate- • Total area of land (hectares) treated Output to Outcome
community smart, gender and nutrition through area enclosures, rangeland • Responding to livelihood needs contributes to
livelihood needs sensitive annual PW plans management, soil and water resilience to shocks
and contribute to that contribute to livelihood conservation, forage and forestry • Community members whose needs are
disaster risk productivity activities responded to are the extreme poor and
reduction, climate Implement public work plans • Percentage of PW planned following the vulnerable
change adaptation Address gender, nutrition and GoE’s national watershed/rangeland • Contribution of PW to DRR, CCA, and CC
and mitigation social development issues guideline (disaggregated by highlands mitigation enhances resilience to shocks
related to Output 3 (HL) and lowlands (LL))
Monitor the implementation • Percentage of PW projects constructed Activity to Output
and impact of PW according to the PSNP agreed technical • PW planners are clear on how to ensure PW
Develop capacity to deliver standards (disaggregated by highlands plans are integrated, climate smart, gender and
Output 3 (HL) and lowlands (LL)) nutrition sensitive
• Percentage of PW screened in • Planning processes result in plans of adequate
accordance with ESMF (disaggregated by quality, including on all criteria specified in
highlands (HL) and lowlands (LL)) Output statement
• Percentage of PW subprojects for which • Livelihoods needs of different groups are clearly
arrangements for operations and stated and influence PW plans in practice
maintenance are established • Voice of marginal groups influences PW planning
(disaggregated by highlands (HL) and sufficiently in practice
lowlands (LL)) • Plans are implemented with adequate technical
• Percentage of pregnant women support, attention to detail and care for specified
participating in PW transitioning to criteria
temporary direct support before or at 4 • PW teams choose, and are able, to address
months gender, nutrition, and social development as per
• Percentage of labour constrained female program design
headed households (FHHs) and 1000-day • PW monitoring includes all design aspects and
households supported by PWs labour criteria necessary to deliver specified Output
disaggregated by type of HHs • PW monitoring data informs action in practice
• PW plans capture all necessary content with
adequate quality
• Capacity development efforts result in adequate
levels of capacity to deliver the Output as
designed
• PW contribute meaningfully to livelihood
productivity of PSNP clients
35
• PW contribute meaningfully to disaster risk
reduction
• PW meaningfully enable climate change
adaptation and mitigation
• PW contribute meaningfully to disaster risk
reduction
Output 4 Linkages to Establish institutional • Percentage of TDS and PDS HHs who Output to Outcome
available social arrangements and guidelines have accessed social services available • Facilitation of linkages results in actual linkages in
services facilitated to implement the Output locally for TDS disaggregated by practice
for core PSNP Identify available services and Received 4 ANC for TDS and Social Service • Linked services exist and are available to PSNP
clients with clients’ needs for PDS clients
emphasis on PDS Roll out linkages to social • Linked services are appropriate and effective
and TDS services • Percentage of PDS households that have • Emphasis on PDS and TDS results in linkages for
Monitor linkages to social been visited at least once by a social extreme poor and vulnerable PSNP clients
services worker • Service linkages address constraints which reduce
Develop capacity to deliver • Number of Seqota declaration PSNP resilience
Output 4 woredas with a minimum of 8 child-care • Other factors do not prevent linked clients from
centers established enhancing resilience
• Number of children aged 1-5 years
enrolled in child-care centers Activity to Output
• Key actors commit to institutional arrangements
and guidelines
• Needs of different clients are disaggregated and
adequately identified
• Roll out of linkages is effective
• Monitoring informs implementation in practice
• Capacity reaches sufficient levels to implement
Output 4 as designed
• Emphasis of linkage efforts is focused on priority
groups in practice
• Required social services are available and
accessible for priority groups
• Service providers of linked services are
cooperative and respond to linkage efforts
Output 5 Tailored livelihood Prepare and plan for • Number of clients with a business plan Output to Outcome
options accessed livelihoods interventions financed through transfer/credit (total • Access to tailored livelihood options enables
(T), off-farm (OF), female (F)) livelihood enhancements
36
by eligible PSNP Implement livelihoods • Number of eligible clients who received • PSNP livelihood activities enhance resilience
clients interventions the livelihood grant (total (T), off-farm • Extreme poor and vulnerable rural households
Monitor and evaluate (OF), female (F), youth (Y)) benefit from PSNP livelihood activities
livelihoods interventions • Number of youth clients with business • Gains from livelihood activities are not affected
plans financed or enrolled in wage by shocks
employment pathway • Other factors do not constrain benefits from
livelihood activities
Activity to Output
• Institutional arrangements for Output 5 are clear
• Capacity to implement all elements of Output 5 is
sufficient
• Planners analyse livelihood needs, context and
potential adequately
• Planners understand which measures are
appropriate to enhance livelihoods of
disaggregated PSNP clients
• Voice of disaggregated livelihood clients affects
planning in practice
• Targeting process is effective
• Measures to enhance livelihoods are identified
for all eligible clients
• Sufficient budget is available to reach eligible
clients
• Support is available and accessible for eligible
clients
• Monitoring informs implementation in practice
Output 6 PSNP management Ensure effective financial • Number of woredas using MIS for key Output to Outcome
and capacity management program functions • Enhancements to program management and
enhanced Ensure effective commodity • Number of woredas with phase 2 of MIS capacity are sufficient to improve program
management rolled out (which reflects PSNP5 design implementation
Ensure effective procurement changes) • Program management and capacity are
that meets PSNP and • Number of client households that have important elements of program implementation
development partner needs been tested using a PMT for program • Program design is sufficient to enhance client
and standards exit resilience when implemented effectively
Ensure effective physical • Number of client households with
resource management that complete information in the registry Activity to Output
meets PSNP performance • Efforts to ensure effective management are
standards successful
37
Ensure effective human • Number of GRM reviews undertaken and • Actors involved in implementation of PSNP
resource management agreed recommendations included in the Outputs and core systems are cooperative and
Ensure effective management annual plans responsive
information systems • Number of payment recipients for whom • Wider government decisions do not prevent
Ensure effective PSNP a client cards has been issued effective management of core elements of PSNP
planning and reporting • Number of financial and commodity • PSNP systems are fully operational
Ensure effective program audit findings closed within 12 months of • PSNP standards and DP requirements are
monitoring, evaluation, and the audit report distribution consistent and reasonable
learning • Percentage of woredas that use • Capacity to deliver Output 6 effectively is
Ensure effective program approved procurement plan through sufficient
governance STEP • Access to senior government members of PSNP
Ensure PSNP capacity is • Percentage of the minimum staffing governance bodies is sufficient for their effective
adequate to implement the positions filled for the program at all function
program effectively levels (disaggregated by administrative • Governance arrangements of the program are
Ensure effective strategic level, output) adhered to at all levels
management of the PSNP • Percentage of woredas submitting • Commodity management tools are utilized across
Ensure effective monthly commodity flow and utilization all woredas
mainstreaming of cross- reports to regions and federal using the • PSNP remuneration is competitive with other
cutting issues CMPM templates flagship programs
• CD programs are designed and delivered
according to the agreed CD standards
• Kebele Appeals Committees (KACs) are functional
• PSNP-NGO collaborative guidance note is
followed
38
PSNP5 - Result Framework
# Indicator Baseline Targets Means of Verification
21 22 23 24 25 Frequency Data Source
Goal: Extreme poverty reduced in rural Ethiopia
1 Percentage of people living below
the poverty line in PSNP woredas
2 Total poverty-oriented
expenditure of PSNP households
as a percentage of GDP
3 Percentage of GoE contribution to 15 20 20 26 30 32 Annually Annual Reports/MoF
core PSNP financing
Outcome: Enhanced resilience to shocks of extreme poor and vulnerable rural households in PSNP woredas
1 Number of new woredas in which 0 70 70 Annually MIS, Quarterly and
PSNP systems have been Annual Progress
established and are being used Reports
for core PSNP payments
2 Average number of months that 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation
PSNP households report
experiencing food shortages in
the past 12 months
(disaggregated by male and
female headed households)
3 Percentage of client households 16 15 15 13 13 12 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation
reporting use of harmful coping
strategies (disaggregated by male
and female headed households)
4 Percentage Impact on clients’ per 5.6 7 7 9 9 10 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation
capita monthly total consumption
expenditure
5 Percentage of children 6-23 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.5 6 7 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation
months of age in PSNP HH who
receive a minimum acceptable
diet
6 Percentage of mothers in PSNP Early 77 79 83 85 86 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation

client HHs who practice proper Initiation:
IYCF disaggregated by Early 75
initiation of breast feeding and Introduction
of CF: 63.7
1
Introduction of semi- solid food at 65 67 69 71 72
6 months
Output 1: Timely and adequate transfers received by eligible core caseload of PSNP clients
1.1 Number of core rural PSNP M: 3.768m M: M: 3.768m M: 3.768m M: 3.768m M: 3.768m Annually Annual Report/MIS
program clients (disaggregated F: 4,132m 3.768m F: 4,132m F: 4,132m F: 4,132m F: 4,132m
by male (M) and female (F)) F: 4,132m
1.2 Percentage of payments made to T: 55 T: 55 T: 60 T: 65 T: 70 T: 80 Quarterly MIS
core clients according to the PDS: 55 PDS: 60 PDS: 65 PDS: 70 PDS: 80 PDS:
program’s performance standards TDS: 0 TDS: 55 TDS: 55 TDS: 60 TDS: 70 TDS:
for timeliness (disaggregated by
PDS and TDS)
1.3 Number of core client households 1.037m 1.1m 1.2m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m Annually MIS
receiving their transfers in
electronic accounts
1.4 Percentage increase in average 0 100 100 100 100 100 Annually Annual Report
wage rate relative to the annual
general CPI increase, for cash
transfers clients
1.5 Percentage of female who own 46 46 47 48 49 50 Annually MIS
and operate electronic accounts
(Percentage)
Output 2: Shock-responsive transfers received by eligible clients when needed
2.1 Number of person months of 5.7mil No target No target No target No target No target Annually MIS
assistance provided
2.2 Preparation and adoption of a No plan Plan Periodically Periodically Periodically Periodically
geographic expansion and prepared updated plan updated plan in updated plan updated
caseload allocation plan & in place place in place plan in
adopted place
2.3 Key shock responsive systems No Scalability Early Warning Early Warning Early Warning Early Quarterly Quarterly and annual
established and operational manual dashboard dashboard dashboard Warning reports
prepared published and published and published and dashboard
and Drought Drought Drought published
adopted. Response Plan Response Plan Response Plan and
prepared prepared prepared Drought
quarterly quarterly quarterly Response
Plan
2
prepared
quarterly
Output 3: PW respond to community livelihoods needs and contribute to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation
3.1 Total area of land (hectares) Annually Annual Plan
treated through area enclosures, 0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
rangeland management, soil and
water conservation, forage and
forestry activities
3.2 Percentage of PW planned T: 82 T: 85 T: 90 T:92 T: 95 T:95 Annually PW Reviews
following the GoE’s national
watershed/rangeland guideline HL: 92 HL: 90 HL: 90 HL: 92 HL: 95 HL: 95
(disaggregated by highlands (HL) LL: 62 LL: 80 LL: 90 LL: 92 LL: 95 LL: 95
and lowlands (LL))
3.3 Percentage of PW projects T: 86.2 T: 87 T: 90 T: 93 T: 95 T: 95 Annually PW Reviews
constructed according to the
PSNP agreed technical standards HL: 91 HL: 91 HL: 91 HL: 93 HL: 95 HL: 95
(disaggregated by highlands (HL) LL: 75 LL: 84 LL: 90 LL: 93 LL: 95 LL: 95
and lowlands (LL))
3.4 Percentage of PW screened in T: 76 T: 82 T: 86 T: 95 T:100 T: 100 Annually PW Reviews &/or
accordance with ESMF Annual plan
(disaggregated by highlands (HL) HL: 91 HL: 95 HL: 97 HL: 100 HL: 100 HL: 100
and lowlands (LL)) LL: 61 LL: 68 LL: 75 LL: 90 LL: 100 LL: 100
3.5 Percentage of PW subprojects for T: 64 T: 65 T: 66 T:75 T: 80 T:80 Annually PW Reviews &/or
which arrangements for Annual plan
operations and maintenance are HL: 72 HL: 75 HL: 75 HL: 75 HL: 80 HL: 80
established (disaggregated by LL: 46 LL: 50 LL: 60 LL: 75 LL: 80 LL: 80
highlands (HL) and lowlands (LL))
3.6 Percentage of pregnant women 35 35 40 50 60 75 Annually SD & nutrition
participating in PW transitioning review/PW review
to temporary direct support
before or at 4 months
3.7 Percentage of labour constrained FHHs: 50 60 70 80 90 95 Annually PW review
female headed households (FHHs)
and 1000 day households HHs with 10 20 35 50 60 Annually SD and nutrition
supported by PWs labour 1000 day: 0 review/PW review
disaggregated by type of HHs
Output 4: Linkages to available social services facilitated for core PSNP clients with emphasis on PDS and TDS
3
4.1 Percentage of TDS and PDS HHs TDS: 35 TDS: 37 TDS: 40 TDS: 45 TDS: 50 TDS: 55 Annually SD and nutrition review
who have accessed locally PDS: 42 PDS: 50 PDS: 55 PDS: 60 PDS: 70 PDS: 80
available social
services disaggregated by
Received 4 ANC by TDS
Received Social Services by PDS
4.2 Percentage of PDS households 11 15 25 35 50 70 Annually Annual report

that have been visited at least
once by a social worker
4.3 Number of Seqota declaration 0 6 12 18 24 30
PSNP woredas with a minimum of
8 child-care centers established
4.4 Number of children aged 1-5 0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500
years enrolled in child-care
centers
Output 5: Tailored livelihood options accessed by eligible PSNP clients
5.1 Number of clients with a business T: 0 T: 121,000 T: 253,000 T: 429,000 T: 550,000 Annually Annual report
plan financed through
transfer/credit (total (T), off-farm OF: 0 OF: 30,250 OF: 63,250 OF: 107,250 OF:
(OF), female (F)) F: 0 F: 60,500 F: 126,500 F: 214,500 137,500
F: 275,000
5.2 Number of eligible clients who T: 0 T: 36,740 T: 76,820 T: 130,260 T: 167,000 Annually Annual report
received the livelihood grant
(total (T), off-farm (OF), female OF: 0 OF: 18,370 OF: 38,410 OF: 65,130 OF: 83,500
(F), youth (Y)) F: 0 F: 18,370 F: 38,410 F: 65,130 F: 83,500
Y: 0 Y: 15,431 Y: 32,264 Y: 54,709 Y: 70,140
5.3 Number of youth clients with 0 50,820 106,260 180,180 231,000
business plans financed or
enrolled in wage employment
pathway
Output 6: PSNP management and capacity enhanced
6.1 Number of woredas using MIS for 0 250 340 340 455 455 Annually Annual Reports
key program functions
6.2 Number of woredas with phase 2 0 0 0 340 455 455 Annually Annual Reports
of MIS rolled out (which reflects
PSNP5 design changes)
4
6.3 Number of client households that 0 275,000 MIS
have been tested using a PMT for
program exit
6.4 Number of client households with 0 0 1,350,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 MIS
complete information in the
registry
6.5 Number of GRM reviews 0 0 1 1 1 1 Annually Annual review reports
undertaken and agreed
recommendations included in the
annual plans
6.6 Number of SD, Nutrition and 0 0 1 1 1 1 Annually Annual review reports
linkage to social services reviews
undertaken and agreed
recommendations included in the
annual plans
6.7 Percentage of payment recipients 0 0 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 Annually Bank reports/MIS
for whom a client cards has been
issued
6.8 % of woredas taking rectification 0 55 75 85 100 120 Annually Annual Reports
measures within six months after
comments are received on the
annual Independent Procurement
Audit (IPA) findings by DPs.
6.9 Percentage of woredas that use 0 5 45 75 100 200 Quarterly Quarterly and Annual
approved procurement plan Reports/
through STEP WB STEP System
6.10 Percentage of the minimum 75 75 85 90 90 90 Annually HR Database
staffing positions filled for the
program at all levels
[disaggregated by administrative
level, output]
6.11 Number of woredas submitting 92 92 121 140 150 150 Quarterly Quarterly and Annual
monthly commodity flow and Reports
utilization reports to regions and
federal using the CMPM
templates
5
1

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Tentative Operational Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Tentative Operational Annexes

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

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Tentative Operational Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monitoring, Evaluation and

Tentative Operational Annexes

Vol 1: General PSNP Manual

Vol 2: PW Operations Manual

• Programme Policies and Parameters

• TDS Programme Policies and Parameters

• PDS Programme Polices and Parameters

• Livelihoods Programme Polices and Parameters

OA 1: Targeting, registry and enrolment

OA 5: Grievance Redress Management (GRM)

OA 6: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)

OA 7: Capacity Development (CD)

OA 8: Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)

1.2. Main users of MEL Tentative Guideline

• Ministry of Agriculture (Federal Food Security Coordination Directorate (FSCD), Natural

1.3. What is new in this version of the MEL System

1.3.1. The MEL system and MIS

Table 1. PBC plan

Disbursement modality: US$300,000 per new woreda as listed in expansion plan up to a

2.1. The MEL System

Table 2. Specific tools comprising the MEL system

• Livelihoods review Planning review to assess the • Annual

2.2. Result Reporting

Table 3. Reporting on log frame levels

Assumptions Program risk management processes FSCD, CMCO FSCD

JRIS FSCD FSCD

• Identify challenges swiftly and ensure remedial actions are taken

Table 4. PSNP5 Outputs and respective key activity areas

4.2. Roles and responsibilities for MEL

Interim Woreda level

Procurement Review: FSCD selects and appoints a procurement auditor,

PW and LH Impact and Process Assessment - NRMD commissions this assessment

Social Assessment - FSCD is responsible for commissioning this assessment.

Risk Financing Impact Assessment - FSCD commissions this impact assessment.

4.3. Other Monitoring and Management Tools

Federal Information Centre

RAPID RESPONSE MECHANISM

JOINT REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPERVISION (JRIS) MISSIONS

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The purpose of the performance management system is to:

4.4. Detailed monitoring and reporting roles and responsibilities

Kebele monitoring and reporting

Output 3 - PW. DAs compile information on PW implementation – the number of sub-projects

WOREDA MONITORING AND REPORTING

ZONAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

REGIONAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

FEDERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING

Table 6. PSNP Gender and Social Development Provisions

Monitoring and Reporting on Outputs 4 and 6

RESOURCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

Figure 2: Financial and Food Management Reporting

5.1. Reporting process and timeline

Reporting for woredas supported by USAID-financed NGOs

5.2. Reporting schedule

Table 7. Quarterly Reporting Schedule

5.3. Assessments and Evaluations

5.5. Feedback and adjustment mechanism of MEL

6 Percentage of mothers in PSNP Early 77 79 83 85 86 Every 2 years Impact Evaluation

4.2 Percentage of PDS households 11 15 25 35 50 70 Annually Annual report