(2020) Pwogram Ranfòsman Sektè Jistis Ayiti: Plan Suivi, Evalyasyon, ak Aprantisaj

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. HAITI JUSTIC HAITI JUSTICE SECTOR STRENGTHENING PROGRAM MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLAN DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. HAITI JUSTICE SECTOR STRENGTHENING PROGRAM (JSSP) MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLAN FEBRUARY 7, 2021 - FEBRUARY 6, 2022 Contract No. AID-OAA-I-I3-00032, Task Order No. AID-521-TO-16-00005 Date of Original AMEP: October 31, 2016 Date of Last Revision: August 14, 2020 Project Name: Justice Sector Strengthening Program Project Address: 11G, Route Montagne Noire, Haiti CONTENTS I. Project Description II. Project Logic III. Monitoring System Description A. MEL Staff Structure B. MEL Approach C. Data Collection and Analysis D. Data Management E. Reporting F. Baseline Data Collection Plan IV. Data Quality Assessment Plan and Procedures V. Evaluation VI. Learning Plan Annex I: Performance Indicator Tracking Table Annex II: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) Annex III: Learning Plan August 14, 2020 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. 5 ACRONYMS CMIS Case Management Information System COP Chief of Party COR Contract Officer’s Representative CSPJ Conseil Superieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire – High Judicial Council DCOP Deputy Chief of Party DQA Data Quality Assessment GOH Government of Haiti JIU Judicial Inspection Unit JSSP Justice Sector Strengthening Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet s PITT Performance Indicator Tracking Table PMU Project management unit TOCOR Task Order Contracting Officer´s Representative USG United States government 6 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION USAID’s Justice Sector Strengthening Program’s (JSSP) goal is to support the Government of Haiti (GOH) and civil society in expanding access to quality justice for Haitian citizens. The project supports the professionalization, independence, and efficiency of the Haitian justice sector, advancing core justice system strengthening while building the foundations of judicial reform, fostering political support, and addressing relevant justice issues in the short to medium term. To accomplish this, JSSP has four overarching objectives: (1) improving the legal, policy, and regulatory framework, (2) strengthening the judiciary as an independent, credible, and effective authority, (3) improving access to justice and protection of rights, and (4) strengthening civil society constituencies for reform. II. PROJECT LOGIC JSSP is contributing to the achievement of the “Post-Earthquake USG Haiti Strategy Toward Renewal and Economic Opportunity,” under Pillar D, Governance and Rule of Law. Pillar D’s specific objectives include Intermediate Result 2, Rule of Law and Human Rights strengthened, with its sub-intermediate results 2.1 “Improve access to and delivery of justice services,” as well as 2.2 “Improve security and strengthen the protection of human rights.” The project contributes to the second objective of the 2015 U.S. government’s (USG) Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review by promoting the rule of law, enhancing access to justice, and defending human rights and the inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable groups. It also contributes to the 2016-2019 USG Integrated Country Strategy for Haiti by supporting the draft objective “Efforts to comprehensively modernize the justice system, the civil service, and local governance are increased, so that public institutions can better perform their legally mandated functions and promote civil freedoms and internationally recognized human rights.” The project’s development hypothesis is that if the enabling environment for justice is modernized and improved, justice sector institutions are strengthened, pathways to justice services for protection of human rights are expanded, and civil society groups can mobilize constituencies for reform, then Haitian citizens will be more able to access quality justice services. The project’s theory of change is that by engaging project counterparts in planning and having them identify the resources and commitments they will bring to the effort and providing phased assistance in stages based on counterpart demonstration of participation, project resources will be maximized, and interventions sustained. The project is targeting the following jurisdictions: Port-au-Prince, Croix-des-Bouquets, Saint- Marc, Cap-Haitien, and Fort-Liberte. The CMIS is a nationwide activity that JSSP expanded in FY2019 and FY2020 to 6 other jurisdictions: Grande-Riviere-du-Nord, Hinche, Mirebalais, Gonaives, Petit-Goave and Jacmel. In Y5, JSSP will expand the CMIS into two additional jurisdictions most probably in Aquin and L es Cayes, final decision will be taken by the national Committee on CMIS. The project’s logic is demonstrated through its results framework, Exhibit 1 below. The project goal is directly linked with the USG’s foreign assistance objective of governing 7 justly and democratically. The results framework demonstrates the logical, causal relationships between the different levels of anticipated results. 11 III. MONITORING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Effective monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) requires that project results and indicators be set early and tracked and analyzed consistently to determine whether goals are being met and, if not, to provide sufficient information to understand why and correct the course of action. The purpose of this MEL plan is therefore not to simply collect data, but to also accurately assess the impact of JSSP and its goal. The JSSP team will continue to use data collected to determine whether the project is meeting its performance requirements, inform decision-making, and improve management and implementation. The MEL plan describes JSSP´s methodology for monitoring and evaluation and will be used to plan and manage the collection of performance data and measure the success of the project in expanding Haitian citizens’ access to quality justice services. The performance indicator tracking table (PITT) includes performance indicators, targets, data sources and collection methods, frequency of data collection, and disaggregation. The MEL plan results will be used to regularly update and collaborate with relevant stakeholders, including USAID, to analyze change and learn from our data and adapt future activities to ensure achievement of results. On August 7, 2020, USAID granted a twelve-month cost extension to JSSP, extending the new project end date to February 6, 2022. Conside ring this extension, JSSP added Tar gets for the Extension Year (February 2021 to Februa ry 2022) in Annex 1 and 2. LOP Target s were also modified accordingly. 12 A. MEL Staff Structure Deputy Chief of Party. Our Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP), Mr. Jacques Miguel Sanon, has the responsibility for the implementation of the MEL plan. He will continue to supervise our project MEL team, review and approve all reports that include data and findings, as well as leads the staff in interpreting data for activity management and learning. Monitoring, evaluation, and learning team. Our project M&E Advisor, Ms. Christelle Safi, will continue to have primary responsibility for overseeing the identification, collection, and analysis of data, tools, and methods. She will lead the technical staff, grantees, and implementing partners in developing the necessary tools and systems and provide training for quality data collection. She will have primary responsibility for the quality of data entered into the JSSP’s data management system, such as checking documentation and data records and performing a data quality assessment (DQA) annually in coordination with home-office staff. Working closely with JSSP technical staff and the DCOP, she will review the MEL plan annually and make necessary changes to the existing indicators and targets with USAID approval. Technical staff members. Data collection is a team effort and will continue to be built into the responsibilities of technical staff. Technical team members – including Port-au-Prince team members and field coordinators – will continue to be responsible for front-line data collection within their respective roles and activities. Project partners. Our project partners, including subcontractors and grantees, will assist in collecting data within their spheres of intervention, such as conducting pre- and post-training testing from training sessions. Home office support. Chemonics’ home office MEL department will support the JSSP MEL staff with assistance as needed, included providing templates, tools, regular training via webinars for all Chemonics MEL specialists, and updates on emerging methods and tools. B. MEL Approach Collaboration: Performance management is most effective when it involves the entire program team and relevant stakeholders. Technical staff will continue to be involved in the finalization of indicators, data collection, analysis, and learning. It is also important to obtain stakeholders’ buy-in into the anticipated program results and critical indicators, and include them as partners in collecting, analyzing, disseminating, and employing information about program results. Capacity Building: M&E is a key management skill for JSSP’s partners. By being involved in M&E, technical team members can transfer M&E skills to our government counterparts and grantees. JSSP will continue to provide technical assistance to grantees and counterparts to strengthen their M&E capabilities by helping them follow up on JSSP M&E requirements, and by strengthening their data collection capacities to measure their efforts, analyze data, and learn from the process. 13 C. Data Collection and Analysis Indicators. Our indicators include 23 at the objective and Intermediate result’s level that measure activity interventions, including 4 U.S. State Department Foreign Assistance Framework (F) indicators, and 1 at the project objective level that measures the higher results of those actions. This two-tiered approach ensures that both activity process and activity design are measured to assess the validity of the activity’s development hypothesis and our compliance with the design in implementation of the design. We have included USAID/Haiti required indicators from the Mission’s performance monitoring plan, F indicators, and our own custom indicators that reflect our interventions and their results. We are using a mix of both quantitative and qualitative indicators; we know that quantitative data can tell us what has changed, but qualitative data is needed to help us understand why changes have occurred and thus better tailor our interventions. Disaggregation of data: All person-level indicators are disaggregated by sex. Other disaggregation includes geographic location, job position, type of infraction, outcome of assistance etc. as appropriate to specific indicators. The disaggregated data provides us with detailed information that allows us to examine the effectiveness of activity interventions and better tailor our plans to ensure equity in activity outcomes across sex, locale and ethnic divides. Baselines and Targets. Baselines are established using these methodologies: structured interviews, surveys, open databases, court registries, grantee’s records, JSSP supported entities’ records, national and regional focus groups. Targets are finalized in collaboration with USAID upon completion of baseline data collection and approval of annual work plan. We will work with USAID to agree on aggressive but realistic annual and life-of-activity targets for all indicators; proposed targets are in Annex I, the PITT. We will continue to review the targets annually to determine if they are realistic, and if not, propose adjustments to them during our annual MEL plan review at work plannin g in consultation with USAID. Baseline data collection is described in further detail in section F. below. Data sources and collection methods. To the extent possible, we will collaborate to use data from reliable, trusted secondary sources such as other donors, counterparts, and proven GOH data to maximize cost efficiencies. Where possible, we will collaborate with other USAID projects to pool resources for data collection to maximize cost effectiveness. In many instances, however, the activity will collect its own primary data. We plan to use a variety of collection methods such as surveys; interviews and focus groups; and document review of government records; activity records and documents (such as training sign-in sheets, reports, and subcontractor/grantee records). If there is a particularly successful or unsuccessful intervention, we can do an in-depth case study to learn more about the circumstances and outcomes. The MEL advisor will oversee the design and wording of all survey, focus group, and interview questions, and will pretest and adjust all data collection tools before t heir use. 14 D. Data Management Chemonics used DevResults software for data storage and management, which is designed to accommodate users with low bandwidth and poor connections to the internet. Its web-based interface can be accessed from any internet-enabled device (tablet, mobile phone, desktop). Where internet access is unavailable or inconsistent, data can be captured via formatted Excel spreadsheets and other offline tools and later uploaded. Features include data visualizations, results dashboards, and document and photo storage capabilities. Differing levels of access to data and results can be provided to dif ferent users. E. Reporting JSSP will provide USAID with data updates in quarterly and annual reports. These reports will present a table of indicator values and a narrative on notable progress toward each expected result. Annual and quarterly reports will illustrate progress toward targets, challenges, strategies for overcoming challenges, and key successes. Quantitative data will be supplemented with narratives to help the reader understand the numbers’ context. Success stories and other communication materials will blend data with personalized stories to personify and illustrate the program’s activities, outcomes, and overall impact. The final report will contain an analysis of project results, a discussion of best practices and lessons learned, and presentation of success stories as reported over the life of the project. Project data will be used not only for reporting but also to inform project information, education, communication and outreach, such as publications and media campaigns. JSSP will share data regularly on annual basis (in accordance with U.S. government fiscal intervals) or, depending on the data type, on an ad hoc basis. Data analytic results and conclusions will be included in periodic reports to USAID. Depending on the nature of data, it will be shared in standard formats (e.g., reports, maps, tables, graphs, and narrative). ADS 579 Compliance JSSP anticipates the development of datasets that contribute both to baselines and to ongoing indicators. Within 30 days of reporting data, the raw data sets will be presented to USAID in a nonproprietary format and stripped of personally identifiable information in accordance with USAID's ADS 579. F. Baseline Data Collection In FY2017 JSSP completed key program baseline data collection such as the number of days for case processing, the number of GBV, TIP or other vulnerable group cases adjudicated in target jurisdictions, the number of disputes resolved in remote jurisdictions, the percentage of citizens who report greater trust in justice sector institutions and the average CSO scores in the advocacy index. Methodol ogy to collect the baseline is described in detail in the PIRS. IV. DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT (DQA) PLAN AND PROCEDURES 15 Since USAID requires a DQA once every three years, the home office project management unit (PMU) director conducted in FY2018, the first internal data quality control assessments to ensure that data collected are reliable, precise, and valid. In FY2020 Ms. Safi will continue to conduct the DQA on indicators where she does not have front-line data collection responsibility, and the home office will assist with the DQA for indicators where Ms. Safi has been the person collecting the data. The home office assistance will come from the Chemonics Home Office MEL Department and/or the PMU director. In consultation with the technical team and the DCOP, the home office will review the validity, reliability, precision, timeliness, and integrity of JSSP data, identify any data limitations, unexpected trends, outliers, look for errors such as double-counting, and recommend solutions. Ms. Safi, the DCOP, and the technical team will continue revisiting this MEL plan annually to review its appropriateness and adapt indicators and targets as needed. The MEL plan is a living document and necessary modifications can be made at any time. All changes will be well documented and recorded in JSSP MEL files. V. EVALUATION Internal Performance Evaluations: Because of the rapidly changing environment in Haiti and the uncertainty of code reform passage, fraught with uncontrolled and uncontrollable variables, it may be difficult to draw a linear connection between project activities and results. For example, as justice sector institutions begin to learn their roles under the new codes, service delivery may initially be less efficient or effective as entities figure out how to modify or create practices to implement these codes. With support from home office Ms. Safi will lead the technical team in use of low-cost, effective, and scientifically validated methods to provide supplemen tal data for JSSP. Cooperation with USAID external evaluators. JSSP will continue to coordinate closely with any third-party external evaluators engaged by USAID. JSSP will help them arrange site visits as appropriate and participate in synchronization meetings. JSSP’s internal data management system will facilitate easy data sharing, cost data, and performance monitoring information sharing with external evaluation groups. VI. LEARNING PLAN At work planning, the JSSP team created its own individual learning plan to ensure that data is used for adaptive management. The Learning Plan is described in further detail in Annex III below The Performance Indicator Tracking Table presented below identifies the USAID F Indicators and custom project indicators, units of measure, percentage formula, disaggregation, data sources, baselines, Actual figures achieved in previous years, Targets from FY2017 to February 2022 and Life of Project (LOP); and Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) for each of the project’s F and custom indicators. 16 Annex I: Performance Indicator Tracking Table Ind icato r ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target Project Objective: Access to quality justice for Haitian citizens improved A. 1 Percent of justice system users who report that they have increased access to quality justice as a result of USG support outco me % Numerat or: Number of users who report increase d access to quality justice Denomin ator: Number of citizens who had service delivery provided with USG support Location and sex Justice system users Survey Annua l N/A N/A N/A 40% 68% 50% 52.3% 55% 55% 55% 55% Objective 1: Legal, policy, and regulatory framework improved 1 Number of new penal code that outpu t Code Code Legislat ive records Docum ent review Quart erly 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 17 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target is adopted (Contract) IR 1.1: Through multi-stakeholder advocacy, new and improved criminal and human rights laws and policies passed 2 Number of USG- supported public sessions held regarding changes to the country’s legal framewor k (Contract) outpu t Public session Location Project records Docum ent review Quart erly 0 3 13 2 4 2 2 1 0 3 11 3 Number of civil society advocacy initiatives conducte d to support the code reform process (Contract) outpu t Initiative Location and type of initiative Project records Docum ent review Quart erly 0 3 29 2 3 1 12 1 0 2 9 IR 1.2: Implementation of new and existing criminal codes improved in target jurisdictions DNumber outpuIndividu Sex Sign-in DocumAnnua0 200 290 300 491(385300 629(47300 100 250 1,450 18 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target R. 1. 3- 1 of judicial personnel trained with USG assistance t al sheets ent review l (238M, 52F) M, 106F) 9M, 150F) 4 Percent of higher education entities that have integrate d trainings on the revised criminal code into their formal core curriculu m in a sustainabl e manner (Contract) outco me % Numerat or: Number of higher educatio n entities that have integrate d trainings on the revised criminal code into their formal core curriculu m in a sustainab le manner Denomin ator: Total number of higher Location and entity Entity leaders hip Review of curricu lum and Intervi ew Annua l 0 N/A N/A 10% N/A 30% N/A 75% 75% 30% 75% 19 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target educatio n entities Objective 2: The independence, credibility, and effective authority of the judiciary strengthened 5 Percent decrease in case processin g time as a result of USG assistance outco me % Numerat or: Baseline value minus Year actual Denomin ator: Year actual Location Court records Docum ent review Annua l PAP : 265days CDB: 291days SM: 63 days CH: 298days FL: 12days 2% from basel ine PAP : - 161%CDB : -88%SM:- 222%CH:1 9%FL: - 31% 5% from baseline PAP : - 74%CDB : -46%SM:- 75%CH:1 3%FL : - 95% 10%from baseline PAP: N/ACD B: - 72%SM : N/A CH: - 44% FL: - 96% 10%from baseline 10% from baseline 10% from baseline 10% from basel ine IR 2.1: Court case administration improved D R. 1. 5- 1 Number of USG- assisted courts with improved case managem ent systems outco me Court Location Project records Site visit and intervi ew Annua l 0 2 4 6(cumula tive) 5 8(cumula tive) 8 11(cumul ative) 11(cumul ative) 13(cumul ative) 13 6 Number of coordinati on mechanis ms at the communit outpu t Coordin ation mechani sm Type of mechani sm Project staff and commu nity person nel Docum ent review Quart erly 0 4 7 5 8 5 7 5 2 2 23 20 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target y level to help improve working relationsh ips, informati on sharing, and case administr ation between judges, prosecuto rs, lawyers, and police (Contract) IR 2.2: Human resources effectively developed and managed 7 Number of judicial and court personnel trained to perform their duties effectivel y and efficiently (Contract) outpu t Individu a l Sex Trainin g records and sign-in sheets Docum ent review Quart erly 0 150 270 (189M, 81W) 150 501(387 M, 114F) 150 672(49 4M, 178F) 250 50 250 1,000 21 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target 8 Percent of USG trainees who report that the training has improved their job skills outco me % Numerat or: Number of USG trainees who say that training improve d their job skills Denomin ator: Number of responde nts by jurisdicti on Location and sex USG trainee s Survey Annua l 0 60% Port-au- Prince : 100%Saint -Marc : 97%Cap- Haitien 86%Fort- Liberté 93% 60% 96%(Port- au-Prince ;6M, 2F) 60% 92%63 (56M, 7F) 75% 75% 75% 75% 9 Number of performa nce monitorin g and oversight of court personnel that are performe d according outpu t Inspecti on Location JIU records Docum ent review Annua l 6 8 9 6 11 5 1 3 2 2 26 22 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target to the law / internatio nal standards (Contract) IR 2.3: Accountability and oversight strengthened 10 Number of judges fully vetted by the CSPJ in accordanc e with procedur es outpu t Judge Location and sex CSPJ records Docum ent review Annua l 0 55 40 100 42 100 39 50 30 30 365 11 Number of oversight missions conducte d by the CPSJ JIU (Contract) outpu t Inspecti on Location and type of oversigh t CSPJ JIU records Docum ent review Annua l 5 4 13 6 9 6 1 4 2 2 24 12 Number of judicial sanctions reported by the CSPJ outpu t Sanction Infractio n and sanction type CSPJ records Docum ent review Annua l 12 10 6 8 8 9 5 9 2 5 43 Objective 3: Access to justice and protection of rights improved 23 Ind icator ID Indicator (Source) Indicato r Type Unit of measure Percentage formula Disaggr egation Data Source Data Collection Method Frequen cy Baseli ne Targe t FY2017 (Oct 2016 -Sept 2017) Actual FY201 7 Target FY201 8 (Oct 2017-Sept 2018) Act ualFY2018 Target FY2019 (Oct 2018 -Sept 2019) Actual FY2019 Target FY2020 (Oct 2019-Sept 2020) Target FY2021 (Oct 2020 -Feb 2021 ) Target for Extension Year (Feb 2021 -Feb 2022) LOP Target D R. 6. 3- 1 Number of individual s from low income or marginaliz ed communit ies who received legal aid or victim’s assistance with USG support outpu t Individu a l Location and sex Court, Grante e and project support ed entities records Docum ent review Annua l 0 1,200 1,204 (796M, 408F) 1,500 5,180(3,2 69M, 1,911F) 750 2,498 (1,802 M, 696F) 650 0 500 4,100 IR 3.1: Informal and formal legal services to key vulnerable populations increased 13 Percentag e change in the number of GBV, TIP, or other vulnerabl e group cases adjudicat ed in the target jurisdictio ns outco me % Numerat or: Year Actual minus Previous year Denomin ator: Previous year Type of vulnerab ility and location Court records Docum ent review Semi- Annua l PAP : 6 cases CDB: 0 FL: 3 CH: 3 SM : 1 +10% PAP : +116% CDB :N/A FL: -100% CH: -67% SM: +300% +15% PAP : +231% CDB : +600% FL: +833% CH: +625% SM: +240% +20% PAP: N/A CDB: 11case s/ -21% FL: 13 cases/ -53.5% CH: 26 cases/ -10.3% SM: N/A +30% +30% +30% +30% [... middle sections omitted for long document ...] 75 Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): USAID requires DQA at least once every three years 76 Known Data Limitations: CSOs could be reluctant in having their advocacy efforts/activities evaluated every year Actions to address Data Limitations: The project will share with supported CSOs the advocacy index tool that will was designed by the project to suit the Haitian context CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to indicator: Target for Extension Year (February 2021 to February 2022) was added and LOP target was modified accordingly. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUE Year Target Actual Note 2017 +40% N/A In FY2017, JSSP conducted the evaluation of CSOs using the Advocacy index developed by the Project. Results serve as Baseline against which we will measure improvement in the next Fiscal year. 2018 +50% 84% RENEDH 3.2 AFASDA 4.6 RENDH 2.9 RFJS 4.5 RECIDP 3.6 CPD 3.4 Fondation Serovie 4.6 JILAP 2.8 GREAS 4 ACJU 3.1 CHCV 3.1 FEFBA 4.5 CASODI 4.9 Following an evaluation based on the Advocac y Index, 11 out of 13 supported CSOs (corresponding to 84% ) showed improved scores in the index from FY17 to FY18. 2019 +50% 79% RENEDH 4.2; AFASDA 4.9; RENDH 3.8; RFJS 4.9; RECIDP 5.5; CPD 4.42; Fondation Serovie 4.5; JILAP 2.9; GREAS 3.8; ACJU 3.4; CHCV 1.9 ; FEFBA 4.5 ; CASODI 5.1 ; OFC 3.8 Following an evaluation based on the Advocacy Index conducted in QR4, 1 1 out of 14 supported CSOs (corresponding to 79 %) showed improved scores in the index from FY18 to FY19. 2020 +50% 2021 +50% 2022 +50% LOP +50% Other Notes (optional): N/A THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 08/14/2020 Annex III: Learning Plan Learning Event Participants Responsible Party When it occurs Resources needed Knowledge Capture Knowledge Share Notes Weekly report All technical staff and senior leadership contribute COP and communication advisor Weekly inputs are due to communicatio n advisor on Thursday COB Weekly report Report on drive USAID, PMU, Technical team Feeds into quarterly report Component- based assessments Senior leadership (COP/DCOP/Senior Program advisor) and Objective staff Objective Lead Quarterly Data; external resources for upcoming prep Quarterly report USAID, PMU Feeds into quarterly review Quarterly reviews All technical staff and senior leadership contribute Senior leadership At close of quarter Data Quarterly report and PMP table USAID, PMU Discuss previous project lessons learned as an initial topic Status of progress of MOU with partners Senior leadership and Objective staff/lead Senior leadership Depends on MOU Data MOU on drive Counterparts, USAID, HO, Technical team Staff retreat All staff Senior leadership Annual Venue, food, facilitator Annual report; provides a basis for work plan USAID, HO; annual report is available to public October 30, 2019 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. 75 for upcoming year Periodic evaluations Technical staff, grantees, counterparts External consultant At end of project years 2 and 3 LOE for external consultant; tools Evaluation report USAID, HO, Technical team, counterparts Perhaps parts with counterparts To ensure project learning, JSSP staff participated in a session to identify potential learning opport unities. Staff will benefit from dedicated time to review and discuss the data that is being collected and apply it to upcoming activities, correcting design and implementation steps as needed. Staff will also benefit from the opportunity to consider upcoming activities and what they need to learn to best support anticipated tasks. This matrix identifies the types of learning events that staff discussed. Chronologically, the events are as follows: 1. Senior technical staff contribute by componen t to the weekly report, which is compiled by the communication advisor and the COP and sent to USAID, the home office (HO), and all technical staff. Weekly inputs are due to the COP and communication advisor by Thursday COB. The final weekly report is sent out on Monday. 2. Component based assessments: In the last week of each quarter, Senior leadership (COP/DCOP/Senior Program advisor) and Objective staff meet to review, interpret, and discuss the data from that quarter, answer the questions below. Their assessment of the component feeds into the quarterly review. During the component assessment, staff identify topics they would like to learn more about to help them better support project activities and develop a plan to acquire that knowledge, including events, resources, and experts who could be of assistance. 3. Quarterly reviews are held the first week following the close of the quarterly. Senior staff contribute in presenting their findings in the quarterly review, allowing for efficient analysis of data and discussion about project processes and results. The Quarterly report and related PMP table will be sent to USAID, and PMU. 4. Status of progress of MOUs are held with partners to track the progress of MOU activities. Senior leadership and Objective staff/lead participate in the exercise. 5. Staff retreats would be held annually, reviewing the data from the previous year and generating lessons learned on process and outcomes, in preparation for work planning of the upcoming year, and annual report of the current year. 6. The project will be evaluated by an independent group midway through the contract and at the end of year 3. Conducting an internal evaluation at the end of years 2 and 3 prepare the project for the upcoming evaluations, allowing time to ensure files are in order, data is gathered and available, and as well as help staff think about structure and direction of activities to best achieve results in the project’s remaining time. 76 Sample questions Looking back: 8. What result was intended? (output and outcome) 9. How long did it take? (what were the steps involved) 10. How much did it cost? (expenditures, staff time, counterpart time) 11. What was accomplished? (how does this fit within our scope of work) 12. What was the client’s reaction? Counterpart’s reaction? Home office reaction? 13. What unintended consequences were created? 14. What is the most significant change that was generated during the past quarter/year? Looking forward: 6. What are our upcoming intended results and their activities? 7. What do we need to know about them? 8. What resources do we need to be effective with our activities? 9. What experts/outside events can we take advantage of to learn? 10. What measures can we take to ensure that our activities are sustainable? Other question format:  Who will achieve a given change or accomplish a given task?  What will change or be accomplished through that effort?  When will the change or accomplishment occur?  How much change will occur, or what will the level of accomplishment be?  How do we know that the change or the accomplishment has occurred?